Lying is now a Constitutional Right

[Oldgringo]

I see where some MLB pitcher was indicted today for lying to congress (talk about the kettle callin' the pot black) concerning the pitcher's using steroids or something. What is it that I remember about the current Treasury Secretary or somebody forgetting to pay his taxes? Oh yeah, what is the meaning of "is"? That was a great one!

Yes, lying is legal and it is an art form for many. For others, lying doesn't work out so well. It depends a lot on who you are and who you know.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Your entire argument is purely emotional, not legal, and emotion has no place in penal statutes or in court. As for the elements of fraud, numbers 7, 8 and 9 are missing. Reliance by the defrauded person must be detrimental to that person in a monetary sense.

Chas.

Is it not fraud to impersonate a military person? Must that fraud only be defined as wearing a military uniform you have not earned the right to wear?

No, it is not. "Fraud" is a legally defined term and the elements of fraud do not exist in this context.

OK, let's discuss the elements of fraud. A person has to knowingly make a material representation that is false, that inures to him or her a benefit and cannot be known to be false by his or her audience, right?
The elements of fraud

To sustain a finding of common law fraud, the trial court in most cases must make findings of fact as to each of the nine elements of fraud. Howell v. Kraft, 10 Wash. App. 266, 517 P.2d 203 (1973). Those elements generally are: (1) a representation of an existing fact, (2) its materiality, (3) its falsity, (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth, (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person to whom it is made, (6) ignorance of its falsity on the part of the person to whom it is made, (7) the latter's reliance on the truth of the representation, (8) his right to rely upon it, and (9) his consequent damage. See Turner v. Enders, 15 Wash .App. 875, 878, 552 P.2d 694 (1976).

It seems to me quite obvious that representing yourself as having served or having earned medals that you did not earn meets elements 1-8 without question. The only element about which there is any doubt is the consequent damage. It seems to me that, unless you narrowly define damage in monetary terms, there is no question that the individual to whom the false statement is made is damaged, because they rely on that representation to make decisions about the other person's trustworthiness, reliability and many other character traits. In the case at hand, the individual represented himself as a Medal Of Honor recipient, fraudulently creating an aura about himself that would damage not only the other city council members but the entire community.

By claiming he is a recipient of the Medal Of Honor, an individual places himself in a special category of citizen that all others will look up to and trust without question. That trust is given merely through the statement that he received the medal. This is a person that, without any regard for his personal safety or survival, will perform extraordinary heroic measures to ensure that I have the best possible outcome. The impostor immediately gains a position of authority and trust to which he is not entitled and from which he can influence others to make decisions (monetary and otherwise) that will impact them personally and impact the community in which they live.

Is it not theft to steal the honor and dignity of those who have served and died?

No, it is not legally theft. It is most certainly disrespectful, but not unlawful.

I'll give you that one.

Do those who have earned our nation's highest awards not lose something when an impostor claims to have earned those same honors and appropriates that same dignity?

Not in my mind. I respect those who legitimately wear the Medal of Honor and detest those to falsely claim to have been awarded our nation's highest military honor.

No offense meant, Charles, but your mind is irrelevant. The question is, are veterans and medal recipients damaged by the false claims of impostors.

Lying about military service and/or about military medals is not the same as lying about your grandmother or your job or your education, in my opinion. It enters into the criminal realm because it defrauds those who have served and cheapens the meaning of the medals they have earned. It is used to elevate the offender in the eyes of others, to place them in a position of special privilege which they have not earned.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a distinction, but I disagree that it can constitutionally rise to the level of a criminal act.

And clearly I disagree with you as well.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, Charles. There is a very real harm inflicted upon military personnel and veterans when someone who has not earned the right to wear medals or claim meritorious service does so. The purpose of criminal laws is to punish those who deceive or defraud others for personal gain. If this law does not address that, what law does? We have libel laws because not all speech is protected. Why should this speech be protected?

That's precisely the constitutional problem with this absurd law; it criminalizes conduct that does not "deceive or defraud others for personal gain."

I contend that there is damage, both to the hearers and to class of veterans and medal recipients whose earned place in society are cheapened by the speaker's actions.

I am not defending this guy's actions; I think they were despicable. Let's be honest, the only reason this law is getting any support is because it deals with the military. Many posters have said precisely that. This is a very dangerous and slippery slope to tread. If this is allowed to pass constitutional muster, what is to stop the government from passing a law that makes it a criminal offense to falsely claim to have served 1) in Congress or the Senate; 2) with the Peace Corps; 3) on city counsel; 4) the Keep Friendswood Beautiful Committee, or any number of governmental bodies or boards?

Everyone needs to take a step back from the emotional argument and look at this objectively. Do we really want the government to have the authority to prohibit any lie it chooses? I do not.

Chas.

Clearly no one wants that, at least among the posters on this board. But I disagree with you that harming veterans and medal recipients does not rise to a level sufficient to justify such a law. Nor do I agree that it is a slippery slope to allow such a law to stand. We make similar distinctions, for example (as has been mentioned in this thread), for impersonating law enforcement officers or other government personnel. We all understand that impersonating your grandma is not criminal. Nor would anyone advocate passing a law that said impersonating any other person is a criminal act. I think the same distinction holds for military service. It is a special category of citizenship that justifies laws that protect its status.

I say these things not because I am a veteran. As I've stated on this forum, I do not think that I did anything special by serving. Nor do I think that I should be honored in any way. I felt it was my duty to serve as a grateful citizen of this nation.

However, other veterans, who have paid a heavy price for their service deserve to be treated differently under the law, particularly those who have earned medals for their bravery. My cousin Donald didn't give his life in Vietnam so that his service could be slandered and misrepresented by impostors who seek to gain favor, special status in society or even monetary gain by representing themselves to be members of that elite group who bought our freedom with their blood.

[bnc]

I support all Constitutional rights with equal fervor.

This is why the Military is and should be revered.

[b322da]

Everyone needs to take a step back from the emotional argument and look at this objectively. Do we really want the government to have the authority to prohibit any lie it chooses? I do not. Chas.

Thank you, Chas. Hang in there.

I am ashamed to have to admit that from time-to-time I have wondered where you were when some particularly irresponsible statement popped up on what I often viewed as "your" forum, but when push comes to shove, there you are. Now I realize that when you step in, as you have here, you elevate the issue to where it belongs.

Thanks again,