Supreme Court sets date for Stolen Valor arguments

 
« Previous story
Next story »
 
Supreme Court sets date for Stolen Valor arguments

 This came out about a week ago, and I realized last night I never actually covered it, but the date will be February 22.  Already made my travel arrangements and got my media credentials from the Supreme Court, although I think I may get there early and sit in the public seating, which isn’t hidden behind a curtain that blocks your view of the Justices.  If anyone is in the DC area and wants to come with, you can meet me at like 4 am on the Supreme Court steps.  I’ll even bring the coffee.

 

Nonetheless, United States v. Alvarez will finally decide whether lying about receipt of military medals you haven’t actually earned is a Constitutional right.  ScotusBlog laid out the case in plain English:

In [Alvarez], the Court will consider the constitutionality of the statute that wins the award for best name of the month:  the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about having received military honors.  The respondent in this case, Xavier Alvarez, was elected to the board of his local water district in southern California.  He was charged with violating the Act after he falsely told the audience at a meeting that he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.  To defend himself, Alvarez sought to have the charges dismissed on the ground that the Act was unconstitutional because it violated his right to free speech.  When the district court rejected that argument, Alvarez pleaded guilty but reserved the right to challenge the constitutionality of the Act on appeal.  Alvarez found a friendlier audience in the Ninth Circuit, which reversed his conviction.  After the full court of appeals declined to re-hear the case, the United States sought Supreme Court review.

In its petition for certiorari, the government began by emphasizing that the Act plays an important role in protecting the integrity of the military honors system:  if people can lie about receiving awards without any penalty, it will cheapen the value of the awards for the soldiers who actually did earn them.  Moreover, the government argued, the Act is constitutional:  it is exactly the kind of false factual statement that, under the Supreme Court’s precedents, should receive only limited First Amendment protection. 

You can read all the filings in this case at ScotusBlog, but I wanted to point out various points from Friend of the Court briefs submitted by The American Legion and others who support the law.

 Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA (who writes the Volokh Conspiracy blog dealing with legal issues) submitted a brief that provides the quick answer to how the court could uphold the act:

 

Consistent with this Court’s repeated observation that “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340 (1974), various state and federal laws restrict a wide range of knowingly false statements, and not just the familiar categories of defamation, fraudulent solicitation of money, and perjury. Most of these laws are broadly accepted as constitutional, and we expect that this Court will believe that the laws should indeed be upheld.

The best way to do so would be for this Court to (1) treat knowing falsehoods as a categorical exception to First Amendment protection, while (2) recognizing some limitations to this rule (for instance, with regard to statements about the government, science, and history) in order to avoid an undue chilling effect on true factual statements, statements of opinion, or other constitutionally valuable expression. Recognizing such a general First Amendment exception for knowing falsehoods will avoid a prolife-ration of First Amendment exceptions, and of cases upholding content-based speech restrictions under strict scrutiny—developments that would threaten the coherence of free speech doctrine and dangerously dilute the protection currently provided to valuable speech by the strict scrutiny test.

 

The American Legion’s amicus looked more at the historical context of laws like the Stolen Valor Act that sought to protect the integrity of the medals:

None other than George Washington warned: “Should any who are not entitled to the honors, have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished.” General Orders of George Washington Issued at Newburgh on the Hudson 1782-1783.

 

Washington’s injunction has been enshrined in law and custom for centuries. Beginning in the nineteenth century, Congress enacted a series of statutes setting forth detailed criteria for military decorations, prohibiting the fraudulent wearing of decorations, and limiting their sale. The Stolen Valor Act is only the most recent congressional effort to preserve the integrity of military decorations by combating fraudulent claims to them. This deep and rich history counsels against clothing false claims of military honors with constitutional protection.

 

Regulating these lies poses no threat to constitutional values—such as freedom of the press, political speech, religious speech, or the advocacy of ideas. Rather, the Stolen Valor Act targets a specific untruth that is easy to identify and that disserves the interests of all Americans. False claims to valor have warped historical accounts of America’s military endeavors, diluted the honor due to true military heroes, and caused untold pain to service members, veterans, and their families. The Stolen Valor Act is a necessary tool to preserve vital military honors and ensure that America’s true heroes receive the quiet recognition to which they are entitled.

 

Now, I have literally read everything on Stolen Valor.  Every case that is active, every legal brief, every moron on the net claiming he is special forces while showing pictures of him with a paintgun etc….  The one thing I hadn’t seen until recently was a case that the VFW used in their brief, which I thought was excellent, and am grateful they brought it up:

 

At its core, this case is about theft, not lying in general. It is undisputed that the First Amendment does not protect people who falsely claim to have received military awards in order to fraudulently receive tangible or pecuniary benefits such as tax breaks, increased government benefits, or veterans’ preferences or set-asides.

 

This Court likewise should conclude that the First Amendment does not protect those who wrongly appropriate for themselves the intangible, nonpecuniary advantages and “acclaim,” Pet App. 23a, that flow from the goodwill associated with military awards they have not earned...

 

[T]he First Amendment unambiguously permits the Government to prevent third parties from wrongfully attempting to claim for themselves, or potentially benefit in any way from, the goodwill associated with military awards, because the Government created them, endowed them with meaning, and has issued them selectively over the course of centuries in accordance with exacting requirements, and the members of the Armed Forces have consecrated such awards through their courage, dedication, and sacrifice. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S.Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 533 (1987). Section B demonstrates that the Government’s interest in preventing third parties from wrongfully appropriating the goodwill associated with military awards is distinct from its asserted interest in preserving their value or meaning, which this Court has questioned in other contexts.

 

I like this argument mostly because it is the same one I have been making, although I was unaware of the Olympic Comm. case.  (I don’t actually have legal research tools like Westlaw since I graduated.)  I’ve argued repeatedly, including in emails with Professor Volokh that there is an actual concrete harm that comes to those of us who did earn these medals.  Although not the most prestigious award out there, my Combat Infantryman’s Badge is very important to me, in fact, when I got married last year the groom’s cake was a CIB.  And it’s also one that apparently every phony hero has earned.  Even the lower level guys that are smart enough to not claim an award you can find online (like the MOH or Silver Star) they always go with my blue badge of manliness.  None of the guys I come across with phony heroics ever claims to have been a dentist suddenly caught in a firefight.  They’re all SEALS, Rangers, SF or Infantry.  And every time one of these jackwagons puts the CIB on, it devalues mine accordingly. 

So what is the likely result?  Most court watchers (myself included) seem to think that this case will go against us, likely 6-3 or 7-2.  On the other hand, 100% of ESPN analysts were certain that the Steelers would pulverize Tebow, and he managed to pull off his 3:16 miracle.  (Against the Patriots I think it was Lamentations 3:16 – “He has broken my teeth with gravel; He has made me cower in the dust.”)  Anyway, that is why they actually play the game, and the reason I won’t give up hope until after the opinion comes out.  The court could go a number of ways:

 

1)    They could decide that easily verifiable lies dealing with an interest like military medals are not to be afforded constitutional protection.

2)    They could decide that some lies are covered, but in this case the Gov’t has a compelling interest in preserving military medals, under the Constitutional authority to raise armies and to set their rules.

3)    They could decide that the law should have an imputed fraud element.  (i.e. You can lie about being an MOH recipient in a bar or something, but if you try to acquire something tangible or intangible than that would be violative.)

4)    Lastly, they could go the way folks seem to think they will and say that the Stolen Valor Amendment has an overbreadth problem, and suggest that Congress rewrite the statute with the fraud element actually in place.  Technically they wouldn’t actually suggest that, but it would be clear.  If this last happens, luckily there is already a bill in the works.

 

Either way, it’s why they go through the efforts, because no one knows for sure.  But on February 22nd we’ll have a better idea of how they might go based on what questions they ask.

 

 

Posted in the burner | 87 comments
 
« Previous story
Next story »

 

* To comment without a Facebook account, please scroll to the bottom.

Comments

I think the supreme court has overstepped its authority to even listen to this case. Free speach is good but when one uses it for unlawful represnetation then the free speach is illegal. The SC is acting like so many other lower courts in having a say in things that are not their responsibility.

So, this person thinks that the Supreme Court should not hear the appeal, that it has overstepped its authority? Read the article again, and think about what was said. If the Supreme Court does not hear the case, then the reversal of the conviction by the Circuit Court of Appeals will stand. The person who falsely claimed military honors will walk away Scott free.

The idea that the Supreme Court has no authority to hear appeals from criminal cases involving federal crimes is plain nonsense, and it is contrary to the fundamental concept of a nation of laws rather than a nation controlled by a mighty few or the passions of the mob. Defending a nation of laws applied equally to all is what we served in the military to defend.

I absolutely agree with David.mthat is why we served. And I think it is time that we recognize that this person tarnished the acts of Col Howard and other MOH heroes.

In any position application (Gov't, State, Local) to fraudulant state a degree, a position or recognition for military service with Metals without proof, is FRAUD with the intent to sway the people to hire you. This individual should be removed from office, any position if voted on should be stripped because of ETHICS Violation. No excuse!

Arthur, if the 9th Circuit continues to overstep their LOCAL Authority to release earlier cases on their LIBERAL interpretation of LAW. Then the Supreme Court needs to stop this and recommend to the commander in chief to sign a Executive Law to disband this 9th Circuit Court for the best interest of the United States of America and not for the ICLU who run the 9th Circuit Court. This would leave the Supreme Court open to focus on American issues.

This isnt just some military honor he lied about, it was the Congressional Medal of Honor and 3 Orders of the Purple Heart. The fact that Alvarez was lucky enough to be in the 9th circuit court of appeals to get the Stolen Valor act overturned shows that he has no respect for those of us who fought with the men who were awarded these honors.
For those that would say that its just a medal, I would disagree and so would anybody else I know. If you think its overstepping the bounds of the law think of this issue, Are you allowed to impersonate a police officer? How about a Registered Nurse? Or how about a Neurosurgeon? All of those things are illegal and so is this. There is no difference. Too many people claim to have done things they have not on the credibility of us veterans. They have never sat in the cold thousands of miles away from home while imagining that they may not make back to that home to ever see their parents, friends or family again. They never had that imminent fear of death hanging over their head but they choose to make that claim and what your saying is that form them to do that is OK? That has to be the biggest line of B.S. since my recruiter told me I was going to live in a dorm and have 8 hour work days.

I hope we win this one. For people to wear what we earned and bled for diminishes their value.

>>>>3) They could decide that the law should have an imputed fraud element. (i.e. You can lie about being an MOH recipient in a bar or something, but if you try to acquire something tangible or intangible than that would be violative.)<<<

Reference the above quote, valor accompanies honor. If one accepts that valor does accompany or supports honor; then an intangible is stolen the instant a false claim is uttered.

Those who pretend to be what they are not live in special kind of hell.. They are always fearful of others finding out who and what they really are. Should this behavior be illegal? Yes. Should the punishment be severe, yes again. This is common sense, but the courts, as usual, don't invoke common sense in their decisions.

Those who pretend to be what they are not live in special kind of hell.. They are always fearful of others finding out who and what they really are. Should this behavior be illegal? Yes. Should the punishment be severe, yes again. This is common sense, but the courts, as usual, don't invoke common sense in their decisions.

Sorry to say the courts are suppose to go by the law and not common sense. I truly believe that this Alvarez should lose, but since I do not know the law or how it is written, I will not say. Of course judges are people and they many times judge on their own beliefs.

I served 24 Years to my country and saw plenty of combat as a Forward Observer and later as a Recovery Mechanic. I did not receive a Blue Badge (CIB) even though I was boots on the ground with the Mighty Infantry. That is a Honor bestowed to the men who are Infantry. I stood side by side with many of them as they were awarded and hold no Ill will to any one of my fellow comrades. Let me see a loser that claims and wears what is not awarded to them. I have in the past made soldiers and civilians remove there unearned awards. I have plenty of medals and am proud to wear them. Don't let them deminish there worth.
Duty and Honor...

For those that fought for it Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know!!!!

Mr. Rick King I could not agree with you more! Its bothers me that people will do that and try to say it with pride but really should have shame that they are lying like they are and some people try to protect them calling it a right of theirs..... And the sad part is there are Army Navy surplus stores that sell all uniform items for all branches so there is really no way of stopping them from getting those items and keeping on doing what they are doing. I will tell you this they better hope that they don't run into me with that craziness going on they will wish they had not!!

An individual who claims to have received an valorous medal depreciates to value of all military medals, including those issued for merit, or competency, or special service.

Those of us veterans organizations have a duty to route out this fraud and pursue prosecution of those who claim unearned awards.

We don't "earn" awards of valor, they are awarded for actions above and beyond that which is expected. The awardee has made unselfish sacrifices for his/her team, and mission putting themselves at a higher risk than other. This is done not expecting awards or medals.

When someone usurps this valor it demeans the entire system of awards.

I don't expect much from the Supreme Court, they have been making bad decisions for years. They should decide that some lies are covered, but in this case the Gov’t has a compelling interest in preserving military medals, under the Constitutional authority to raise armies and to set their rules.

What if someone wishes to lie and say they are a Supreme Court Member???Is that okay also then??

If the Supreme Court does did not accept this case then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which overturned the stolen valor act would stand.

Won't be long until our heros have to carry their DD214 with them.

I just wonder how many of these wannabees are drawing VA Service Connected Disabilities based on
far fetched tales associated with the Medal they wear...45 years ago, nobody wanted to be us....Today,
everybody wants to be us.............SOG Veteran 68-71

This is what's wrong with the legal system in the country. It's wrong when a case make it to the supreme court that involves a "False Hero Liar" It's bad enough claiming that they earned military medals, let alone the CMH!!

Maybe Alvarez should be made to serve in unit similar to ones he clims to have served in and given a chance to prove he deserves a medal, but, with his lack of integrity he would put the honest heros in harms way. He does desreve a place to stay for a long time, behind bars

A lie is a lie. Are the courts saying that it's ok to lie? They must be listening to the politicans!!!

Right on John!
Yes, Yes and Obviously.

Want-a- be's that lie about their service record should be punished severely with jail time. People that lie about being in the service should be punished more severly.

I was brought up with the saying 'lying is worse than being a thief' If you want to be a hero go see your local recuiter.

This has to be a joke. You can actually lie about your history? Why not claim you a lawyer or better yet a judge. I'm sure there would be an immediate stop put to that. These eletist jurors think there is nothing sacrosanct except their own piddly little lawyer lives. I'm sure it takes tons of courage to stand up to another lawyer (judge) and speak. Putting ones life on the line is just collateral damage. I think it's time to limit the power these pompous morons possess. Valor is more than staying up late studying, I suppose it is a difficult thing for these coddled minions to comprehend and it's a long shot for anything to be done since the legislatures are mostly lawyers, but one can hope.

i ONLY KNOW WHAT i HAVE READ IN THE ABOVE COMMENTS BUT i CANNOT SUPPORT ANY ONE WHO LIES IN AN EFFORT TO GAIN SOMETHING THAT HE ISN'T ENTITLED TO THERE IS LOTS OF THIS GOING ON THAT i DON'T LIKE.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

I served in the infantry and was wounded in Vietnam. These wannabe imposters who dodged or otherwise got out of the draft are no better than Jane Fonda and her lies.

thank you.

I ask, "what is the difference between telling someone you are a police office or telling someone you are a decorated veteran"? You are not allowed to represent yourself as a police officer in 50 states but you can lie about Medals of Valor you never received? I wonder if the 9th Circuit Court was comprised of any veterans. A self respecting veteran would never do something like that. It's called "Duty, Honor, Country." That's what real vet's are made of. Asking the Supreme Court what they think is nonsense.

I can't condone a lie.Enough said I've moved on.

We had a guy in my small town wearing two purple hearts. I knew his family so I knew he was a phony. I asked to see is DD214. He said "can't get a copy." I then told him it was an insult to those who earned them. I also told him If I saw him wear them again I would kick his ass all over town. He don't wear them anymore. It was as easy as that.

I'm old school. We all knew whe4n one of these braggarts would try and pull off wearing / claiming to be a hero. Most of the time they ended up getting the crap beat out of them and left in an alley somewhere! Any phony hardware was removed! End of problem!

When I was a teen I found a Bronze Star my dad was awarded for risking his life as an army officer in China.
when I asked him about it he shrugged it off and told me the real heroes are the people who work, raise their families and help out in the community. real hero types aren't sitting in some bar telling the world about it. Every time a law is passed it makes life a little scarier for citizens and gives the gov. more power over us. Don't waste a law on a "jackwagon like Xavier Alverez. I am a Viet Nam vet. Who cares?

This man lied to get elected, others have done so to raise money for supposed veterans causes.  There was a phony marine in full uniform who was faking that he worked for Toys for Tots.  I think most of us would think that such activities would warrant some sort of punishment, no?  

I SERVED WITH A COMBAT UNIT IN SO. VIETNAM. AND MY MOS. WAS NOT 11B. HOWEVER THERE IS AN EQUAL HONOR BADGE FOR TROOPS WHO SERVE AND FOUGHT WITH A COMBAT UNIT. ITS THE COMBAT OPS BADGE (COB) AND ITS EQUAL TO A (CIB) SO FOR ALL YOU WANT A BS THAT ARE NOT 11BS DO NOT LOWER THE MERIT OF THEIR EARNED CIB. SO IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT 11BS AND CLAIM TO HAVE A CIB AND YOU WERE IN COMBAT. DO THE RIGHT THING. WITH A LITTLE WORK YOU CAN HAVE YOUR DD 214 UP DATED AND YOU CAN HONOR THE 11B BY GETTING YOUR OWN COB.

AS FAR AS IT GOES. THIS PIECE OF DIRT WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE A CMH IN ORDER TO GET A JOB. WELL I CANT THINK OF ANY WORD LOW ENOUGH TO CALL HIM. AIRBORNE ALL THE WAY

I spnet the best years of My life In the Army, Most of it in Combat Arms (Field Artillery) I never got to server in Combat and would never claim that I did (My unit did not get selected for deployment even though I wanted to go). I find it hard for me to even accept the concept of claiming an award I did'nt earn. It goes against every fiber of my being and my honor. Obviously this jerk has no honor

JERRY EVERY SOLDER WANTS NOTHING MORE THAN GO TO WAR THAT IS WHY YOU BECOME A SOLDER. JERRT B. I WANTED TO GO TO WAR. THAT IS TILL I FOUND MYSELF IN ONE.FEB. TO MID MARCH 1968 WHERE YOU WOKE UP IN THE MORNING YOU STARTED FIGHTING AGAIN. YOU WATCHED YOUR FRIENDS DIE ORE GET WOUNDED. AND WONDERED WHEN IT HAD YOUR NAME ON IT. THAT WAS THE TET OFFENSIVE. AT THAT TIME NO ONE I NEW WERE GLAD THEY WERE IN A WAR. I FOUGHT WITH E TRP. 17TH CAV. 173RD AIRBORNE 67/68. NOW I AM 63 YRS. OLD AND THE WAR HAS STAYED WITH ME MY HOLE LIFE. YOU CAM NEVER FORGET THE WAR. OR ALL THE THINGS YOU D ID JUST TO SURVIVE WHILE YOU WERE IN IT. SO I HAVE TO SAY TO YOU MY FRIEND. YOU DID NOT WANT TO GO TO WAR..

This piece of human feces does NOT DESERVE a a hearing!

I concur with the sentiments expressed by both Bill Roy and W.J. Gross. We don't need, nor want, government to do for us things we an easily do for ourselfs. Liars are easily dealt with on a one at a time, face-to-face basis (hopefully nonviolent - they're usually not worth it) and we don't need more government regulation - we need less. If you think someone's lying about military awards, call 'em out on it. Point out the flaws in their tale and ask them to backup their claims.

This supreme court has shown it's path is to destroy individual rights and influence, i.e. the taking of personal property for private profit and unlimited political donations for corporate fat cats, so don't expect them to protect the honor of American Servicemen.

I do not like the idea this individual lied about his service, and if he received any benefit from this lie I think he should be punished for recieving a benefit he did not earn.

With that said, I don't want the government to regulate the fact that he lied, or did not lie. The fact he has the right to lie in how he represents himself and should live with the individual consequences of his lie. The fact everyone who meets him now, knows the kind of character he has, the fact he would even stoop to this level, the fact his word is worth nothing, but I would not, and do not want, the govenment stepping in to try and regulate morality. In this case his right to speak falsely if he so chooses.

How many of us have been in a bar and seen Ms. Right Now... that hot girl that you want to go home with and lied through your teeth to get her home.....? Should that person have a law enacted that regulates their morality or right to do so? How many of us have said we would meet our moms at 5:00pm and actually showed up at 6:00pm...? This is a lie, should the government regulate the fact we spoke this lie? The act of his lie is not an issue to me, if all he got out of it was an overinflated ego. If he received any benefits, such as a job on veterans status, medical and/or disability etc.. then he should be punished for those actions.... within the guidelines of the law...and to me THAT should be a harsh penelty. The fact he is a tard for claiming he is a hero when his is not only affect my pride at being a veteran, does not affect the fact I did serve.

I will admit it is hard to put a value on the blow all veterans who did serve got when this individual lied, each of us will take this differently. Some will not care, some will get so upset they would want to kick him into next week.....and everything in between... so I can't tell another how they shold feel about this... to me his lie is like a fart in the wind... stinks when it first comes out but does not bother me much more than that.... but if the surpreme court does come back and say lying about service is a federal crime.... then lord help us in a few years when they decide that to lie to Ms. Right Now (or Mister Right now) is a federal crime... because we are truely in trouble.

I am actually glad the case is going to the surpreme court for hearing as THAT is what my 25 years of service and my sons sacrifice when he was killed in action in 2009 earned. The right to have fair laws enacted and held to them. If I lived in a country that this kind of person could be shut up for lying without any type of protection (such as the surpreme court) THAT would scare me. I say the fact he is a tard for lying about his service should NOT be the question in front of the surpreme court, but really what should be the question is how steep should the penelties be for receiving benefits for that lie, not the lie itself.

A nation without laws and protections from the government is an ugly concept and the fact this one takes the time to review this law and not just say "nope it is against the law because I said so" still gives me hope...

I would like to thank you for your service to our nation. But the point of this should not be a case of lying but the dishoner that such statements have on the service of your son an on the service of veterans who give their upmost in the service to our nation. Your son is a hero and such false statements is a dishoner to him and others. The courts should not view this as a lie but as a dishonor to the ones who rightfully earned the title of hero.

OK, I've read all of the arguments and in my opinion the Supreme Court will say this guy is protected under the first amendment. Yes, it is wrong to lie about having military awards you don't have. Yes, it is wrong to lie to get elected (I'll leave that alone right there given it's an election year). And yes, the number of >Insert Special Ops Unit Name Here< wannabe's is appalling (I'm still trying to figure out where the cooks are...nobody lies about being a cook...). But with that said, I think you should be able to say whatever. Car dealers lie, car mechanics lie, televangelists lie, politicians lie, software contractors lie, waste managers lie, etc and they all do it for the money. So this guy lied about having the Medal of Honor...that means he lied about his resume. And what does every person get when they lie about their resume? FIRED! Done...we don't need the Supreme Court for that.

Now the actual wearing of unearned military awards...if it's good enough for punishment under the UCMJ it's good enough for stricter punishment in the civilian world. I add the stricter because if you're getting punished under the UCMJ you at least have the potential opportunity to be given the award, if you're a civilian you have no opportunity.

Jeff- Just curious to flesh out the argument here, but I'm curious if you think fraud is also a similiar argument.  Say for instance someone is selling a solid silver bowl set.  You get it home, put water in it, and it dissolves, as it was made of sugar.  Now, do you think you should have a cause of action for fraud?  Using the argument I think you have laid out, you could avail yourself of any number of ways to get even by letting everyone in town know, right?

Or, conversely, suppose you are in need of medical work, and you go to a doctor, and find out subsequently that the "Doctor" was not registered, and attended a 1 day witch doctor class at the holiday inn.  Recourse?  Or simply contact the better business bureau.

I'm essentially trying to see where you draw the line on such things.  Presumably you don't think that folks should be able to lie about being a law enforcement officer.  Where should the line be drawn?

 

Did I say anything about a law enforcement officer?

I contacted my Post and State Adjutant about a member that falsified his record and was using that false record in order to run for Post Commander. What was I told? Each Post is responsible for the verification of their own members, and that they set the policies. So, I was told to just be quiet. And I did. I have not returned to the Post since the member was elected Commander.

Patrick. there are some legal reasons on why posts are in charge, but if you would like to send the info to me, I can GUARANTEE I will follow up on it.

Give me a way to get ahold of you. I have emails from CyberSeals.org that I can forward...

Pages

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Have a tip for us? A link that should appear here? Contact us.
News from the World of Military and Veterans Issues. Iraq and A-Stan in parenthesis reflects that the author is currently deployed to that theater.