Wearing Purple Heart in Fraud Is a Criminal Act

[douglas9]

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A man who accidentally shot himself in the thigh in the 1990s, and then said his injury was a Vietnam War wound to get the Purple Heart and $180,000 in disability benefits, does not have a valid constitutional challenge to the Stolen Valor Act, the 9th Circuit ruled.

David Perelman pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud in Nevada when the government learned that his thigh wound was self-inflicted and not the result of a shrapnel injury allegedly sustained decades earlier in Vietnam during Perelman's brief tour as a cargo specialist. Prosecutors said Perelman wore the prestigious medal to a national convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart in Las Vegas.

Perelman appealed his conviction on the basis that that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutionally vague.

But a three-judge panel disagreed Monday as the law "makes clear that a person who has not received authorization may not wear a medal."


http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/28/40114.htm

[Auggie]

1. That should be a no-brainer

[douglas9]

2. Should be but

Act ruled unconstitutional

On July 16, 2010, a federal judge in Denver ruled the Stolen Valor Act is “facially unconstitutional” because it violates free speech and dismissed the criminal case against Strandlof who lied about being an Iraq war veteran.<19> Strandlof, 32, was charged with five misdemeanors related to violating the Act — specifically, making false claims about receiving military decorations.

U.S. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn issued his decision rejecting the prosecution’s argument that lying about having military medals dilutes their meaning and significance. “This wholly unsubstantiated assertion is, frankly, shocking and, indeed, unintentionally insulting to the profound sacrifices of military personnel the Stolen Valor Act purports to honor,” Blackburn wrote. "To suggest that the battlefield heroism of our servicemen and women is motivated in any way, let alone in a compelling way, by considerations of whether a medal may be awarded simply defies my comprehension."<20> Attorney Chris Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the ACLU of Colorado, said the decision is remarkable. “The First Amendment protects speech we don't like," he said. "We don't need the First Amendment for speech people like. The government cannot criminalize a statement simply because it is false, no matter how important the statement is.” Beall points out Strandlof wasn't charged with stealing money meant for the veterans group, adding that laws are already in place for those crimes. “That’s plain-old, regular-vanilla everyday fraud, and we do prosecute that every day,” he said. “Congress does not need a special statute to prevent people from using false claims of valor in order to prevent fraud.”<20> John Wagner, executive director of the Warrior Legacy Foundation, a veterans group that lobbied for Strandlof’s prosecution, said he will push for an appeal. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Denver said prosecutors are reviewing the decision and haven’t decided whether to appeal. The spokesman said that decision would be made by the U.S. Justice Department in Washington and prosecutors in Denver.<21>

snip>

On Thursday, August 18, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law. <28>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. There is a difference between making a false claim, and making a

false claim with the intent to defraud the government.

Saying you have a medal which you didn't earn is reprehensible, but still is free speech.

Saying you have a medal which you didn't earn in order collect $180,000 of undeserved benefits is fraud.