PurpleheartOklahoma (scroll down)

Stolen Valor Act upheld on appeal
Posted: 01/27/2012 08:58:58 PM MSTBy John Ingold
The Denver Post

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals this morning upheld the Stolen Valor Act, which makes lying about having received military awards a federal crime.

Attorneys for Rick Strandlof, who claimed to be a decorated combat veteran, had argued that the act was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. A federal district court judge agreed, dismissing the

charges against Strandlof.

In an opinion (PDF) issued this morning, two of the three judges on a 10th Circuit panel upheld the act, saying lies are not worthy of constitutional protection. A third judge dissented, saying he believes

the act violates free speech.

In the majority opinion, judges Timothy Tymkovich and Bobby Baldock wrote that Stolen Valor criminalizes only statements that are knowingly false and that are objectively verifiable. The judges argue that

the Supreme Court has said false statements don't get constitutional protection, "except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech."

"There is no danger that anyone would suppress their speech to avoid prosecution under the Stolen Valor Act," the judges conclude.

"Although military affairs are undoubtedly matters of public importance, lying about receiving military medals does nothing to contribute to any conceivable public debate. The Stolen Valor Act simply does

not punish political speech, factually correct statements, artistic expressions, or opinions of any sort."

In his dissent, Judge Jerome Holmes said the majority improperly expands the Stolen Valor Act to require not just knowingly lying but also intending to deceive. Using that logic, the majority is able to

conclude improperly in Holmes' opinion that the Stolen Valor Act does not criminalize satire, hyperbole or other kinds of artistic statements.

"The majority's novel addition to the statute does some heavy lifting," Holmes observes.

But even taking that into account, Holmes said the majority misconstrues Supreme Court precedent, which he argues shows that the only lies that are criminal are ones that cause demonstrable harm.

"[W]ithout exception, the false statements at issue in the Court's cases have been those that involve an actual distinct harm or a significant risk of it, the prevention of which is a constitutionally cognizable

governmental interest," Holmes writes.

Strandlof was charged in 2009 with violating the Stolen Valor Act, after he posed as a Marine Corps veteran and Purple Heart recipient named Rick Duncan while running a veteran-advocacy organization

he created. He was the first person in Colorado to be charged under the act, which was introduced in Congress by then-U.S. Rep. John Salazar and passed in 2006.

Actual veterans who were suspicious of his story led to Strandlof's arrest.

In 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the charges against Strandlof, saying that lies need to have victims in order to be criminal. He rejected the argument that lies about military

medals harm the veterans who rightfully earned them.

Today's decision by the 10th Circuit means the charges against Strandlof are re-instated and his case goes back to the trial court, where his prosecution can continue.

The 10th Circuit is the second federal appellate court one step below the U.S. Supreme Court in authority to consider the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act. The 9th Circuit previously ruled the

act unconstitutional in a separate case. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to take that case, and the nation's highest court is expected to hear arguments on the issue next month.

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com

Read more: Stolen Valor Act upheld on appeal - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19839419#ixzz1kmFSTTwe
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://ww

Veteran's claims of awards and service do not withstand scrutiny

Cemetery to change headstone after review of records does not match materials provided by family
David L. Stump's headstone will be replaced with one that officials (David Pierini, Chicago Tribune)December 28, 2011|By Steve Mills, Chicago Tribune reporterWhen David Stump died last year, the south suburban man left his family a sheaf of yellowing documents and a troubling question: Did the U.S. Army veteran earn the Bronze Star and the three Purple Hearts the records suggested, or were the military documents falsified?

The question of Stump's legacy was more than an idle curiosity.

Officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery south of Joliet have decided to replace the simple granite headstone at Stump's grave site. The officials say military records do not support claims in the records the family provided when Stump died.

A new headstone will be ordered, Marty Fury, the cemetery's director, said last week.

"We want all of our headstones to be an accurate reflection of a veteran's service," Fury said.

It is not the first time families have had to reconcile sometimes heroic military claims, which may be supported by documents that appear to be official, with other records that suggest more pedestrian military service or no service at all.

"It leaves a mess for everybody else, for everybody else that's left," said Chuck Schantag, a veteran who, with his wife, Mary, operates the P.O.W. Network, a nonprofit that since 1989 has exposed some 4,000 men who have falsely claimed they were prisoners of war, were members of elite units or had earned prestigious medals.

A 2006 law, the Stolen Valor Act, made it a federal crime to falsely claim orally or in writing that one has earned a medal for valor. But instances of trumped-up military service are not always illegal. The claims from Stump's family made to prove his eligibility for a headstone that lists the medals and written in a newspaper obituary break no law. What's more, there is no indication his family knew those claims apparently were incorrect. In fact, they appeared shocked by the discovery, going so far as to suggest Stump's exploits might have been performed on secret missions and that records documenting the claims remain classified.

Cemetery officials gave the family about four months to provide documents supporting the Bronze Star and Purple Hearts. The family showed a Tribune reporter yellowing documents, but they never provided clear evidence to satisfy officials at the federal cemetery.

"I find all this awful hard to believe," said Stump's widow, Geri. "Where would he get these records from?"

Many cases are brought to the public's attention by veterans and veterans groups, private watchdogs of sorts, who examine obituaries and other public statements for signs of exaggerated claims. A 2008 Tribune investigation highlighted the problem of veterans and those who never served making false claims for military medals. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act on First Amendment grounds next year.

Stump's case came to light after a Vietnam veteran from Roselle read Stump's obituary and grew suspicious. The obituary said Stump was a paratrooper and Ranger who had made some 50 jumps behind enemy lines, had been awarded three Purple Hearts for being wounded and even received a Bronze Star.

"I served in Vietnam and so did my brother, and 58,000 guys died there," said Bocik, a retired construction worker. "I want the headstone changed because he did not serve the way he says."

Official military records show that Stump, an Oak Forest resident, was in the Army in the 1950s and early 1960s but never served in Vietnam. The records also do not support claims he was awarded a Bronze Star or that he received three Purple Hearts. He was honorably discharged and is eligible to be buried in a military cemetery, said Fury, but he did not earn the accolades on the headstone that marks his grave. Fury expects a replacement to be erected in the next two months or so.

Geri Stump and her family said they submitted to the cemetery the documents her husband had left, and could not understand how their copies could be wrong. David Stump, they said, rarely talked about his years in the military. When he did, they said, he never boasted about it.

Paging through her husband's records in the kitchen of her home, Geri Stump saw a document called a "promotion recommendation and board report." Dated 1974, the yellowing paper says that Stump was one of three survivors of the "Bien Hoe Massacre" and the first American to receive the Cross of Gallantry Medal.

It's my party and I'll lie if I want to
By BRIAN BECKLEY
Bonney Lake-Sumner Courier-Herald Reporter
December 13, 2011

The story dealt with a Sumner man named Steven Bennest, who was convicted by a federal court for making false claims about military medals and decorations - including a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star - in an attempt to receive additional military compensation from the government.

Bennest served in the military, but he was never awarded either medal.

The judge called Bennest's actions "shameful and hurtful to other soldiers" and sentenced him to 24months of probation and community service.

The prosecution was part of a "Operation Stolen Valor," designed to crack down on those claiming honors they did not receive.

The story is to be used as part of a brief in the case United States v Alvarez, a challenge to the Stolen Valor Act, enacted by Congress in 2006. The case deals with a California man elected to a position on a water board in 2007. During the campaign, Javier Alvarez stood up and announced that he was a retired marine who won the Congressional Medal of Honor.

The problem is that Alvarez was never awarded the medal of honor, nor was he ever even in the military.

Alvarez was charged and convicted of violating the Stolen Valor Act for "falsely representing verbally that he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor when, in truth and as he knew, he had not." He is the first person charged and convicted under the law.

Alvarez pled guilty and received a sentence of a $5,000 fine, three years of probation and 416 hours of community service, but reserved his right to appeal on grounds that the Stolen Valor Act violated his First Amendment rights to free speech.

The appeal made its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overruled his conviction in a 2-1 split decision and found that though Alvarez undeniably lied about his service, the law did in fact violate his rights.

Apparently, Alvarez is something of a known liar in his town and in the past has claimed to not only be in the military, but to also have played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, worked as a police officer and was secretly married to a Mexican starlet.

"In short his self-introduction was nothing but a bizarre series of lies," reads the opinion from the Ninth Circuit, which notes that the district court observed that Alvarez "lives in a world, a make-believe world where he just makes up stories all the time."

Basically, Mr. Alvarez is a real-world version of Jon Lovitz's old pathological liar character from Saturday Night Live ("Yeah, that's the ticket").

We're not sure if our story about the Bennest case will be used in his defense or in defense of the act, but the case itself raises some very interesting questions.

The Ninth Circuit ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional because lying is protected speech and has been considered such in precedent after precedent. Certain potentially dangerous lies - such as yelling fire in a theater - are not protected speech, but in general, you absolutely have a right to fib in the United States, even about a military past, apparently.

"If the act is constitutional then there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one's height, weight, age or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one's mother that one does smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving," reads the majority opinion.

It's an interesting philosophical argument though: should Congress be able to criminalize lying about one's military service and/or receiving awards.

The idea behind the law is that people lying about awards demeans those who get them and demoralizes the troops. The Ninth Circuit, rightfully, stated that is ridiculous, adding that the troops do not undertake risky mission in hopes of winning an award.

The majority, one of whom was appointed by President George H.W. Bush and one appointed by President George W. Bush (the dissent was written by a judge appointed by President George W. Bush), ruled that while "we have no doubt society would be better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous, and offensive untruths," the government has not shown any reason to infringe on the First Amendment.

Basically, it's the "you don't have to like it, but that's what freedom looks like" argument.

I tend to agree.

But I do think there should be some sort of other provision for lies told in a campaign setting. It seems to me that for the electoral process to work, we have to be able to choose between two candidates and if one is lying, we cannot make an informed and/or proper decision.

Would Alvarez still have won if people didn't think he was a Medal of Honor winner? No one can know. But it seems to me that if I voted for him and found out he was lying about his background, I would feel my vote has been stolen.

In Washington, for example, we have laws against candidate mailings containing false or misleading statements. In fact, during last year's highly contentious 31st district State Senate race between former Sumner councilman Matt Richardson and Sen. Pam Roach, Roach won a case she brought against Richardson for false statements about sanctions levied against Roach by the Republican Caucus.

The judge dismissed Richardson's arguments as to why the statements should be allowed and said that a person seeking elected office has a "higher duty" than an ordinary citizen to make sure statements in the voter pamphlet are accurate before ordering them changed.

Which is totally a law I can get behind. Shoot, there's times I'd like to be able to charge some of our regular letter-writers with lying about things or so terribly distorting (and editing) the truth to make it seem as if a person is actually taking the opposite stand he was making (ask me sometime about Henry Morganthau).

Mitt Romney recently released an ad like this, editing a quote from President Obama to make it look like he is saying that if he keeps talking about the economy he is going to lose, even though the actual statement made by then candidate Obama was a quote from his opponent's campaign manager.

Kind of changes the whole message, doesn't it?

The ad received a "pants on fire" label from Politifact, a non-partisan fact-checking service.

To be fair, the president's campaign has also been smacked down in recent weeks for similar distortions he has made about Romney.

Frankly, I think both should be fined.

I mean, I am all for being able to lie but doing so in a campaign is very different.

But the Stolen Valor Act doesn't deal with campaigns; simply stating that you have a medal is now illegal so it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court - one of the most conservative we've had in decades - rules on the Alvarez case.

First, the decision came from the Ninth Circuit, which the most hated circuit in the federal system by conservatives. Second, it deals with protecting and elevating military service, another favorite issue of the right (and rightfully so; serving our country is one of the most noble pursuits an American can take and I am thankful everyday for the volunteers who keep my cowardly self off the front line).

But the opinion is a conservative opinion - one of government overreach - so it really could go either way.

The case is scheduled to get to the Supreme Court next spring. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Unless I'm lying, of course. Which at least for now is still legal.

Yeah, that's the ticket

Contact Bonney Lake-Sumner Courier-Herald Reporter Brian Beckley at bbeckley@courierherald.com or 360-825-2555 ext. 5058.

Fake Purple Heart is another Stolen Valor case
12/16/2011 6:44 PM
By: Brett Davidsen | WHEC.com

An Ontario County man accused of falsely claiming he was awarded a Purple Heart medal was formally charged in federal court Friday.

Marc Restucci, 53 of Manchester, could face up to five years in prison if convicted.

Congress passed a law in 2006 called the "Stolen Valor Act" which makes it a crime to lie about receiving a military medal or decoration.

Restucci is now accused of that crime and with submitting fraudulent documents to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authorities say he submitted false military forms to the VA in an effort to increase his disability benefits. On the forms, he listed among his decorations, the Purple Heart medal, which is given to those injured or killed in combat.

Court papers suggest Restucci claimed he was shot multiple times while serving during the conflict in Grenada in 1983.

Authorities say he even submitted a phony Purple Heart award certificate. Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gestring said, Those documents were reviewed by the Veterans Affairs folks in the benefits department and they had a concern about it. They referred it to the criminal investigations who then followed up and it was determined that those documents were, in fact, fraudulent."

Restucci, a former licensed nurse at the VA hospital in Canandaigua, did serve in the Army from 1976 to 1979 and served in the Army National Guard through 1998. But upon questioning, investigators say he admitted he never saw combat and his hand injury was really the result of a training exercise.

There is some controversy surrounding the Stolen Valor Act which Restucci is charged with violation.

The constitutionality of the law is now in question. In essence -- is it a crime to tell a lie? Despite being passed with overwhelming support in Congress, the law was challenged in California and struck down by an appeals court there on free speech grounds. It was upheld in a decision in Virginia.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case with arguments scheduled for early next year.

For more Rochester, N.Y. news go to our website www.whec.com.

The Stolen Valor Act being challenged
December 15, 2011 2:25 PM Posted by Kent Scheidegger
Last week, we filed on behalf of the Legion of Valor of the United States and the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation an amicus brief in the Stolen Valor Act case before the Supreme Court, United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210. There are six other amicus briefs on our side as well, all available at the ABA's case page.

Our brief begins with an argument that the Act should be understood as prohibiting only intentional lies about military medals. That position is in keeping with our view on the importance of a mens rea element in criminal statutes, and it also strengthens the statute against constitutional attack.

In the second part, we discuss the harm done by the fakers. This part is relatively short to avoid excessive overlap with other briefs in the case. We also include a short discussion of viewpoint neutrality, distinguishing R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

In Part III, we take head-on the argument that the "crush video" case, United States v. Stevens, subjects all speech to strict scrutiny, even bald-faced lies, unless it can be shoehorned into one of the specific historical categories listed in that decision. This may turn out to be the crux of the case.

The last part is addressed to Chief Judge Kozinski's colorful opinion about how horrible it would be if the government banned every sort of personal, trivial lie. Of course it would, but the problem there is not one of excessive intrusion on speech but of excessive intrusion into private matters, whether they be speech or conduct. If some sort of government interest requirement is necessary for a statute banning an outright lie, okay. It doesn't matter for this case what the threshold is, because this statute would pass any test that might be used. The panel majority in this case conceded that the statute serves a compelling government interest, the highest standard, and another panel of the Ninth Circuit so held in a later case upholding another subdivision of the same statute.

Categories:Cases,First Amendment,U.S. Supreme Court

OUR CORNER: It's my party and I'll lie if I want to
By BRIAN BECKLEY
Bonney Lake-Sumner Courier-Herald Reporter
December 13, 2011 Updated 6:05 PM

inShare.00commentsEmail StoryPrint StoryEmail AuthorLetter/EditorLast week we got a phone call from a law firm in Washington D.C. asking us for a copy of a story written by Dannie Oliveaux back in March 2009 for use in a brief to be submitted before the Supreme Court.

The story dealt with a Sumner man named Steven Bennest, who was convicted by a federal court for making false claims about military medals and decorations - including a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star - in an attempt to receive additional military compensation from the government.

Bennest served in the military, but he was never awarded either medal.

The judge called Bennest's actions "shameful and hurtful to other soldiers" and sentenced him to 24months of probation and community service.

The prosecution was part of a "Operation Stolen Valor," designed to crack down on those claiming honors they did not receive.

The story is to be used as part of a brief in the case United States v Alvarez, a challenge to the Stolen Valor Act, enacted by Congress in 2006. The case deals with a California man elected to a position on a water board in 2007. During the campaign, Javier Alvarez stood up and announced that he was a retired marine who won the Congressional Medal of Honor.

The problem is that Alvarez was never awarded the medal of honor, nor was he ever even in the military.

Alvarez was charged and convicted of violating the Stolen Valor Act for "falsely representing verbally that he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor when, in truth and as he knew, he had not." He is the first person charged and convicted under the law.

Alvarez pled guilty and received a sentence of a $5,000 fine, three years of probation and 416 hours of community service, but reserved his right to appeal on grounds that the Stolen Valor Act violated his First Amendment rights to free speech.

The appeal made its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overruled his conviction in a 2-1 split decision and found that though Alvarez undeniably lied about his service, the law did in fact violate his rights.

Apparently, Alvarez is something of a known liar in his town and in the past has claimed to not only be in the military, but to also have played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, worked as a police officer and was secretly married to a Mexican starlet.

"In short his self-introduction was nothing but a bizarre series of lies," reads the opinion from the Ninth Circuit, which notes that the district court observed that Alvarez "lives in a world, a make-believe world where he just makes up stories all the time."

Basically, Mr. Alvarez is a real-world version of Jon Lovitz's old pathological liar character from Saturday Night Live ("Yeah, that's the ticket").

We're not sure if our story about the Bennest case will be used in his defense or in defense of the act, but the case itself raises some very interesting questions.

The Ninth Circuit ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional because lying is protected speech and has been considered such in precedent after precedent. Certain potentially dangerous lies - such as yelling fire in a theater - are not protected speech, but in general, you absolutely have a right to fib in the United States, even about a military past, apparently.

"If the act is constitutional then there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one's height, weight, age or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one's mother that one does smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving," reads the majority opinion.

It's an interesting philosophical argument though: should Congress be able to criminalize lying about one's military service and/or receiving awards.

The idea behind the law is that people lying about awards demeans those who get them and demoralizes the troops. The Ninth Circuit, rightfully, stated that is ridiculous, adding that the troops do not undertake risky mission in hopes of winning an award.

The majority, one of whom was appointed by President George H.W. Bush and one appointed by President George W. Bush (the dissent was written by a judge appointed by President George W. Bush), ruled that while "we have no doubt society would be better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous, and offensive untruths," the government has not shown any reason to infringe on the First Amendment.

Basically, it's the "you don't have to like it, but that's what freedom looks like" argument.

I tend to agree.

But I do think there should be some sort of other provision for lies told in a campaign setting. It seems to me that for the electoral process to work, we have to be able to choose between two candidates and if one is lying, we cannot make an informed and/or proper decision.

Would Alvarez still have won if people didn't think he was a Medal of Honor winner? No one can know. But it seems to me that if I voted for him and found out he was lying about his background, I would feel my vote has been stolen.

In Washington, for example, we have laws against candidate mailings containing false or misleading statements. In fact, during last year's highly contentious 31st district State Senate race between former Sumner councilman Matt Richardson and Sen. Pam Roach, Roach won a case she brought against Richardson for false statements about sanctions levied against Roach by the Republican Caucus.

The judge dismissed Richardson's arguments as to why the statements should be allowed and said that a person seeking elected office has a "higher duty" than an ordinary citizen to make sure statements in the voter pamphlet are accurate before ordering them changed.

Which is totally a law I can get behind. Shoot, there's times I'd like to be able to charge some of our regular letter-writers with lying about things or so terribly distorting (and editing) the truth to make it seem as if a person is actually taking the opposite stand he was making (ask me sometime about Henry Morganthau).

Mitt Romney recently released an ad like this, editing a quote from President Obama to make it look like he is saying that if he keeps talking about the economy he is going to lose, even though the actual statement made by then candidate Obama was a quote from his opponent's campaign manager.

Kind of changes the whole message, doesn't it?

The ad received a "pants on fire" label from Politifact, a non-partisan fact-checking service.

To be fair, the president's campaign has also been smacked down in recent weeks for similar distortions he has made about Romney.

Frankly, I think both should be fined.

I mean, I am all for being able to lie but doing so in a campaign is very different.

But the Stolen Valor Act doesn't deal with campaigns; simply stating that you have a medal is now illegal so it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court - one of the most conservative we've had in decades - rules on the Alvarez case.

First, the decision came from the Ninth Circuit, which the most hated circuit in the federal system by conservatives. Second, it deals with protecting and elevating military service, another favorite issue of the right (and rightfully so; serving our country is one of the most noble pursuits an American can take and I am thankful everyday for the volunteers who keep my cowardly self off the front line).

But the opinion is a conservative opinion - one of government overreach - so it really could go either way.

The case is scheduled to get to the Supreme Court next spring. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Unless I'm lying, of course. Which at least for now is still legal.

Yeah, that's the ticket

Contact Bonney Lake-Sumner Courier-Herald Reporter Brian Beckley at bbeckley@courierherald.com or 360-825-2555 ext. 5058.

High Court to Decide Legality of Lying About Military Service
By David Kravets
Reprinted from wired.com
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide the constitutionality of a 2006 law making it a criminal offense to lie about being decorated for military service.
The Stolen Valor Act makes it unlawful to falsely represent, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item. The measure imposes penalties of up to a year in prison.
The case before the justices surrounds a federal appeals court decision declaring the law unconstitutional last year.
In overturning the law, the San Franciscobased 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled if that it were to uphold the law then there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about ones height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to ones mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway.
That case, which the Justice Department asked the high court to review, concerns defendant Xavier Alvarez. In 2007, he claimed falsely that as a Marine, he had won the Medal of Honor. He made that public statement during a local Los Angeles suburban water board meeting, in which he had just won a seat on its board of directors.
The government said Alvarez should be prosecuted because the speech fits into the narrowly limited classes of speech, such as defamation, that is historically unprotected by the First Amendment. In its petition, the government told the justices that the court of appeals held facially unconstitutional an act of Congress that plays a vital role in safeguarding the integrity and efficacy of the governments military honors system.
Congress, when adopting the law, said fraudulent claims about military honors damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals.
Alvarez was the first person ever charged and convicted under the act though dozens more have been charged. Alvarez pleaded guilty, was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 416 hours of community service. He appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit.
The Supreme Court justices did not immediately indicate when they would hear the case and did not comment.

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 enhances penalties for making false claims in regard to personal medals awarded for combat action and valor, such as the Purple Heart, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Silver Star, or Congressional Medal of Honor. This law allows law enforcement officials to prosecute individuals who falsely claim to be recipients of these awards, and perpetrators may receive a sentence of up to 1 year/$100,000 fine as a result.

Man Charged With Being Fake Army Ranger, Larceny
http://www.military.com/news/article/man-charged-with-being-fake-army-ranger-larceny.html?ESRC=army-a.nl
A Greenwich man picked to speak at a Memorial Day event in town about his four tours of duty in Afghanistan turned out to be a fraud, police said.
Jesus M. Garcia, 20, wore a military uniform in public. He claimed he had been wounded while in the Middle East. And he asked friends, family and the public for money to help pay for medical services and other costs.
But Garcia was never actually in the U.S. Army as he had claimed, police said.
Garcia didn't get a chance to speak at the Memorial Day event, and now, he finds himself in a lot of legal trouble.
On Thursday, Greenwich police arrested Garcia, on a warrant for larceny charges and for impersonating a member of the military, according to police spokesman Lt. Kraig Gray.
After an investigation by Greenwich police, military officials confirmed that Garcia had never been in the Army, Gray said in a news release.
Despite the fact he never served, Garcia, who also lists a residence in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., portrayed himself as a former Army Ranger who had been wounded in combat.
Garcia's deceit started to unravel when he met with Greenwich Police Captain James Heavey on May 27, before Garcia was set to speak at the Memorial Day ceremony.
Heavey said that during conversations with Garcia it became apparent that he was a fraud, police said.
An officer began an investigation and Garcia provided a false name and date of birth to him. Garcia was arrested that day and charged with interfering with an officer.
As the investigation into Garcia continued, police said they learned that there were two financial victims of his fraud. They also learned of other incidents where Garcia had publicly posed in uniform as a Soldier, including on his Facebook page.
Police said they discovered that Garcia split his time living between his two homes and was able to explain his extended absences from his Greenwich residence while he was in Hopewell Junction as military-related and vice versa.
Garcia, who lives in an apartment on Armstrong Court while in Greenwich, was charged with felony fifth-degree larceny, sixth-degree larceny, four counts of fraudulent use of military insignia and false representation of an armed forces uniform.
Garcia was released after posting $2,500 bond and is set to appear in Superior Court in Stamford on June 24.

Retired Marine Admits to Medals Charge
6June2011 Buffalo News

A Marine Corps veteran who led the push for construction of a veterans memorial in Niagara Falls recently accepted a plea agreement for illegally wearing medals he had not earned, including one awarded to those who served in combat in the Vietnam War.
David A. Fabrizio, 66, is believed to be the first person in Western New York to be prosecuted under the U.S. Stolen Valor Act, signed into law in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush, law enforcement officials said Friday.
During a gathering of "Niagara Youth Marine Cadets" on Oct 3, 2009, the Niagara Falls resident wore several military decorations that he never earned, according to court papers filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Those decorations included a medal showing that he had served in Vietnam, which he never actually had done, prosecutor Michael DiGiacomo said in court papers.
Fabrizio also illegally wore decorations indicating he was a Vietnam War veteran, had earned the Presidential Unit of Citation and the Combat Action Ribbon, and was a certified scuba diver and an airborne gunner.
Fabrizio is chairman of the Niagara Falls Memorial Commission, a group that has worked for years to raise money for a $1.7 million veterans memorial soon to be built in Hyde Park.
A spokesman for Fabrizio said he did serve 33 years with the Marine Corps, but never overseas or in combat.
"My name and reputation will survive through this minor, yet dark personal event," Fabrizio said in a statement e-mailed Friday to The Buffalo News. He added that the incident will not deter him from his efforts to see that veterans are honored.

Man sentenced to prison under Stolen Valor Act

By CARRI GEER THEVENOT
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL 7DEC2010

Before receiving a one-year prison sentence Wednesday, David M. Perelman said he deserved whatever punishment the judge chose to impose.
"I take full responsibility for everything I've done," Perelman said. "I brought not only dishonor to the military but to my own family."

The Las Vegas man said he was "deeply sorry" for his actions, which included fraudulently obtaining a Purple Heart and about $180,000 in disability benefits.
U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson sentenced the defendant and gave him until Feb. 4 to surrender to prison.
Perelman, 57, was a Veterans Affairs employee when a federal grand jury indicted him in October 2009. He pleaded guilty in August to theft of government funds, a felony, and unlawful wearing of a service medal, a misdemeanor.
The case against Perelman is the first known prosecution in Nevada under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which outlawed false claims of military honor.
Critics say the act violates free speech rights, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared the law unconstitutional in a separate case. But Dawson ruled that the circumstances in Perelman's case differed from those in the 9th Circuit case.
The judge did, however, allow Perelman to retain his right to appeal the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act. Assistant Federal Public Defender Rene Valladares said he plans to pursue the appeal.
In court on Wednesday, Valladares argued that Perelman deserved a sentence of probation.
The lawyer said Perelman is the son of a career serviceman who died in 2000. He described Perelman's father as a strict disciplinarian who subjected his son to physical and psychological abuse.
"His father always thought that he was basically a wimp," Valladares said. "His father always thought that he was basically a coward."
Nevertheless, the lawyer argued, Perelman grew up to be a decent individual. Perelman and his wife, Ann, have been married 35 years and have two adult children. Valladares said Ann Perelman supports her husband but could not bear to sit through the sentencing hearing. Instead, she waited at the lawyer's office for news of her husband's fate.
"I have spent the majority of my life with this man and though I know he has his faults, as we all do, he is not a bad person, he is just a man with problems," Ann Perelman wrote in a letter to the judge.
She and Valladares both expressed concern about the effect prison time would have on the defendant's health. Perelman suffers from several medical problems, including diabetes.
Dawson noted that Perelman had expressed his willingness to accept whatever punishment the judge deemed appropriate.
"In so doing, he will have demonstrated that he is not a coward, or a wimp, that he is willing to accept the consequences of his actions," the judge said.
According to the defendant's sentencing memorandum, Perelman enlisted in the Air Force at the age of 18.
"After being sent to Vietnam, the realities of war and the responsibilities of service were too much for him, and he was administratively discharged from the military only nine months after enlisting," Valladares wrote.
The lawyer argued that Perelman is already experiencing the consequences of his criminal behavior.
"He embarrassed his family, lost his job and has been shunned by most of his friends as a result of his deceit," Valladares wrote.
Perelman feels "especially remorseful," according to the document, for the uncomfortable position in which he has placed his wife, who works for the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Nevada Chapter.
According to court records, Perelman claimed he had been wounded in Vietnam. In fact he accidentally shot himself in the right thigh in 1991.
Based on fraudulent documents submitted by Perelman, the Air Force awarded him various medals, including a Purple Heart, in 1994. The following year, Perelman applied for Veterans Administration disability benefits.
Retired Army Col. Bill Olds, a Vietnam War veteran and two-time Purple Heart recipient, attended Perelman's sentencing with two other Purple Heart recipients.
"I wanted to be there in person to support the prosecutor and the judge," Olds said.
Olds, a Las Vegas resident who works as a private contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, recalled meeting Perelman once. He said the man deserves prison time.
"For the other Purple Heart recipients out there who read this, it's going to show them that the law and our country supports what they did and that imposters are punished," Olds said.
He also said he feels sorry for Perelman's family, which has had to endure months of negative publicity, "but in the end, the court and the justice system did what was right."
Valladares estimated that Perelman will serve about 10 months of his sentence after receiving credit for good behavior.
Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@review journal.com or 702-384-8710.

Stolen Valor Act Decisions to be Contested

Last week, in two separate actions, federal prosecutors announced they would appeal court rulings, which have overturned the Stolen Valor Act.

Last Thursday federal officials filed an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

On Friday, officials in Colorado said they would appeal a second ruling by a federal judge in Denver that the Stolen Valor Act violates free speech.

As approved by Congress, the Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime, punishable by up to a year in jail, to falsely claim to have received a military medal.

In the California case, Xavier Alvarez was indicted in 2007 after saying at a public forum that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration. Alvarez apparently never served in the military. He plead guilty on condition that he be allowed to appeal on First Amendment grounds. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 in his favor in August.

In the Colorado case, Rick Glen Strandlof was arrested in 2009 after claiming he was a former Marine who was wounded in Iraq and had received the Purple Heart and Silver Star. The Marine Corps said it had no record that Strandlof ever served. A Denver federal judge threw out the charge against Strandlof in July. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Denver, said prosecutors will file an appeal with the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in early November.

NAUS Note: We applaud the decision by federal authorities to appeal these cases. It is deplorable that some feel the need to claim awards they are not entitled to. Too many young men and women continue to return from combat with debilitating wounds and conditions and they are the ones that need to be recognized - - Not a bunch of wannabes.

DENVER -- A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a war hero is unconstitutional because it violates free speech, a federal judge ruled Friday as he dismissed a case against a Colorado man who claimed he received two military medals.

Rick Glen Strandlof claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star, but the military had no record he ever served. He was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal.

U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the case and said the law is unconstitutional, ruling the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.

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.

Strandlof's lawyer, Bob Pepin, said he hadn't spoken to Strandlof since the ruling was issued. Pepin said he would advise Strandlof not to comment publicly because the case might be appealed.

"Obviously, we think this is the right decision, or we wouldn't have been making the objections to the statute to begin with," he said. Pepin said Strandlof has been living in a halfway house in Denver while his case is in the courts.

The law has also been challenged in California and in a case now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Denver attorney Christopher P. Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the Stolen Valor Act is fatally flawed because it doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie.

"The government position was that any speech that's false is not protected by the First Amendment. That proposition is very dangerous," Beall said.

"It puts the government in a much more powerful position to prosecute people for speaking out on things they believe to be true but turn out not to be true," he said.

Beall said the ACLU was not defending the actions Strandlof is accused of, but took issue with the principle behind the law.

Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., who sponsored the Stolen Valor Act in the House, predicted the decision will be overturned on appeal.

"This is an issue of fraud plain and simple," Salazar said in a written release. "The individuals who violate this law are those who knowingly portray themselves as pillars of the community for personal and monetary gain."

Pam Sterner, who as a college student wrote a policy analysis that became the basis of Salazar's bill, said the issue isn't free speech but misrepresentation. Sterner, a former Coloradan who now lives in Virginia, said authentic medal winners' credibility suffers when impostors are exposed because the public becomes suspicious of even true stories of heroism.

April 16th: O-8 Imposter Sentenced: Daniel Vincent Weber was sentenced yesterday to three years probation, ordered to pay a $500 fine, and perform 240 hours of community service after pleading guilty earlier this year to a misdemeanor charge of making false claims about military decorations. Weber achieved the rank of staff sergeant while serving in the Marine Corps from 1958 to 1967, but he admitted to presenting himself as a retired Marine major general, to include wearing a full dress uniform with medals to a VFW Post celebration in Ramona, Calif., last year.

STOLEN VALOR

Area man did not receive Medal of Honor

By JOSH FAHLSING

Tribune Community Editor

CASEVILLE What began as a simple Memorial Day speaking engagement at Port Elizabeth Marina and Yacht Club turned into the unraveling of a longtime deception for one Caseville man who misrepresented himself as a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient.

A photograph of William Kovick, 76, of Caseville, appeared on the front page of the Huron Daily Tribune May 31. In the photograph, taken by Tribune freelance writer and photographer Kate Finneren, Kovick is pictured wearing what appears to be a Congressional Medal of Honor. According to information provided the day of Kovick's appearance, Kovick was a Medal of Honor recipient and a "highly decorated Chief Warrant Officer."

Shortly after the photograph appeared in the newspaper, questions arose regarding the authenticity of Kovicks medal when the Tribune was contacted by Colorado resident Doug Sterner. Sterner told the newspaper Kovick was not a Medal of Honor recipient. Tribune searches of several online databases of Medal of Honor recipients did not turn up Kovicks name. Soon the Tribune was able to confirm through the FBI, Congressional Medal of Honor Society and homeofheroes.com, a website devoted to the Congressional Medal of Honor operated by the military veteran Sterner, that Kovick was not a Medal of Honor recipient.

Sterner contacted Special Agent Thomas Cottone Jr. of the FBIs Newark, N.J. Division in West Patterson, N.J., and Cottone contacted FBI Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Walter H. Reynolds at the FBIs Bay City office. Reynolds assigned the case to Special Agent Steve Flattery, who immediately began an investigation.

It is against the law to wear, sell or manufacture valor awards without permission. Penalties include up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine for individuals and $200,000 for corporations for wearing, selling or manufacturing the Medal of Honor illegally.

The penalties for the Medal of Honor (imposters) are crystal clear, Cottone said. The intent of the federal law, and what the FBI is trying to do here, is to maintain the integrity of all the military awards and medals because people in our military particularly our veterans pay such a high price. Some pay with their lives. The very least the FBI can do for those people is to protect those medals.

"They are not jewelry, every one of them means something. When we get an aggravated case, where someone is taking credit for something they didnt do, theyre literally stealing the act from someone who did.

By this time, the Tribune already had begun its own inquiry, which turned up information concerning prior instances from 1996 and 2000 when Kovick had been investigated for medal fraud. Flattery confirmed Kovick was investigated in 1996, but no proof of his possession of the medal existed, and he told agents he did not have one. The query was dropped, but almost was renewed in 2000 when information arose again that Kovick possessed a medal. At that time, Flattery said, Kovicks wife had just passed away, and Kovick himself was in poor health. With no evidence of his possession of the medal, the FBI did not proceed further.

The photograph that appeared on the front page of the Tribune would ensure that this investigation would be different. Flattery took the photograph and other results of his investigation to the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Detroit. Prosecutors there chose not to issue an arrest warrant for Kovick, but Flattery was cleared to confront Kovick and recover the medal.

A telephone call seeking comment from the U.S. Attorney's office Thursday was not returned.

Thursday, Flattery and Caseville Police Chief Jamie Learman knocked on Kovicks door and asked to see the Medal of Honor.

I spoke with the gentleman and confronted him about the issue. I showed him the photograph, and explained it was illegal to wear a Medal of Honor you did not earn, Flattery said. I asked for the contraband items, and he gave them to me. I could tell he was reluctant at first. Denial is usually the first reaction, and he was embarrassed. The main thing is, we got it, and hes not going to do it anymore.

Reynolds said Kovicks age could have played a role in the decision not to arrest him.

There are a variety of factors that determine whether they go to jail on the day of contact, Reynolds said. One factor in this one is were dealing with an elderly man. That factor played into the decision not to arrest him. Our priority was to get the medal. We knew he was not a Medal of Honor recipient, and in (Thursdays) contact the Medal was recovered without incident.

Now that the FBI is in possession of the medal, a final report will be sent to the U.S. Attorneys office for a final decision on whether or not to charge Kovick with a crime.

The decision is solely theirs, Reynolds said.

Kovick told the Tribune Friday he actually served in the United States Navy from October 1944 to February 1946, and from 1950 to 1953. He said the only medals he earned during that time were an Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal from World War II, and a United Nations Korean Medal from the Korean War.

Those two medals were awarded to any serviceman active in those theaters between certain dates.

Kovick would not confirm information obtained by the Tribune that he also possessed a bogus Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He appeared to be wearing each of these medals in the Memorial Day picture, but said the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal and the United Nations Korean Medal were the only medals he actually earned. Reynolds has confirmed agents did indeed seize "several other unearned medals he wasn't entitled to" while at Kovick's residence.

Both Kovick and Flattery said the FBI Thursday mainly was interested in the bogus Medal of Honor. Kovick said he wore the unearned medal because his late wife was especially proud of what she thought was her husbands long and distinguished military service.

Wed been married so many years, and she was always proud of me, so I embellished my military career to be more than it was, Kovick said.

Kovick said he has been living a lie for quite a while.

Im really sorry for misrepresenting myself, and I apologize to all survivors and veterans I may have hurt, Kovick said Friday. I apologize to my family and all the veterans in the state of Michigan, and I ask most humbly that they forgive me.

Sterner said the first Medal of Honor Awards were presented to six men in 1863. Since then, only 3,461 have been awarded. It is the highest possible award a soldier can earn, given only for valor above and beyond the call of duty.

So high is its significance, General George Patton, who never received one, said, Id sell my immortal soul for that medal, Sterner said. President Harry Truman, a combat veteran of World War I, presented Medals of Honor to heroes of two wars, WWII and Korea. He usually remarked, as he hung the Medal of Honor around a soldiers neck, I would rather have this medal than be president.

There currently are only 122 living Medal of Honor recipients. Cottone said most of the medals, in fact, are awarded posthumously.

There hasnt been a Medal of Honor awarded to a living recipient since Vietnam, Cottone said. To be awarded that medal and to live to tell about it is a rare event. The requirements are so difficult. The act itself has to be above and beyond the call of duty. (It has to be an act) that if the person didnt do the act, they couldnt be criticized for not doing it. It has to be witnessed by two people, thoroughly documented and well-investigated.

Josh Fahlsing (989)269-6461 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlightingend_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlightingend_of_the_skype_highlighting (989)269-6461 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlightingend_of_the_skype_highlighting jfahlsing@hearstnp.com

Tracking down medal fraud

By JOSH FAHLSING

Tribune Community Editor

BAD AXE Special Agent Tom Cottone Jr. has seen his share of egregious acts during his time with the FBI.

Assigned to a violent crimes task force out of the FBI's Newark, N.J. Division in West Patterson, N.J., Cottone has worked bank robberies, kidnappings and terrorism-related investigations among his many cases.

A decade ago, a simple phone call turned Cottone onto an epidemic of medal fraud that now takes its place among the most despicable acts Cottone investigates.

"It started 10 years ago when a case was referred to me about medals being sold at a gun show a mile from my office," Cottone said. "I went to the gun show and an individual sold me two Medals of Honor. Federal law says no one can wear, manufacture or sell the Medal of Honor without authorization."

So Cottone was on the case, but it wasn't until he called the Congressional Medal of Honor Society in South Carolina that he began to realize the scope of such medal abuse.

"I had to verify the medals were real, so I called the Medal of Honor Society," Cottone said. "I told them I had these two medals, and that's when they just about yelled through the phone, 'It's about time!'"

Through the society, Cottone found out bogus military medals were being sold all over the country. He was put into contact with retired Marine Col. Mitchell Paige, himself a Medal of Honor recipient, who already was at work tracking down imposters.

"They said there's guys out there wearing the Medal of Honor who never earned it, and Col. Paige had been going after these guys for 40 years," Cottone recalled. "I called Paige, and from the first phone call we became best friends and partners thereafter."

Cottone was able to find out the medals he had purchased were real, and he and Paige continued to track down imposters and seize medals. Cottone was disturbed, though, that so many medals were out there. He began to wonder where they were coming from, and finally contacted the Pentagon in an effort to find out. Cottone was disturbed to find out the medals were not produced by the U.S. Mint, as he had assumed, but instead were considered low-bid government items manufactured by a company called HLI Lordship Industries out of Long Island.

"They'd been doing it since the 60s," Cottone said. "I went there and asked them to show me how they made them. It turns out they were illegally manufacturing and selling them around the country hundreds and hundreds of them."

The statute of limitations only allowed the company to be held responsible for the 300 medals it admitted to manufacturing in the three years prior to Cottone's visit to the factory. In 1996, the company entered a corporate guilty plea in U.S. District Court, admitting to the manufacture and sale of 300 medals. The company sold the medals for $75 each, and besides facing the maximum fine allowed under federal sentencing guidelines, agreed to pay the government back the $22,500 it made selling the fake medals. Also, the company was prohibited from any government contract for a period of 15 years.

The conviction wouldn't put an end to medal fraud, though, as the medals on the streets continued to change hands through gun shows, military trade shows and even the Internet auction site eBay.

"These Medal of Honor imposters are still out there," Cottone said. "Every medal I have recovered has come from that company. Because of what that company did, there are more potential imposters out there than recipients."

There currently are just 122 living Medal of Honor recipients in the United States, less than half of the number of illegal medals HLI Lordship Industries admitted to manufacturing, and far less than the actual number of fake medals produced by the company.

"It would be many, many more times the 300, whatever that is," Cottone said.

Cottone said he probably has recovered from 30 to 40 medals so far, but he doesn't keep an exact count.

The number of fake medals out there increases the significance of the investigations undertaken by agents like Cottone, and, locally Special Agent Steve Flattery.

"I would venture to say the great majority of people in this country today know somebody in the military, or have a relative in their family who at some point in time was in the military," Cottone said. "The very least the FBI can do for these people is to protect those medals. They are not jewelry meant to be worn to impress people."

And his work has not gone unnoticed. In 2002 Cottone was made an honorary Marine by the Marine Corps Commandant in a formal ceremony in Quantico, Va. It is the highest honor the Marines can bestow upon a non-military person.

In a bizarre twist of events, Cottone actually would exemplify the work he was being honored for at the ceremony. Another man, Navy Captain Roger D. Edwards, also was present that day to receive the same honor as Cottone. As Cottone was introduced to Edwards he noticed the remarkable number of medals Edwards was wearing.

"He had ribbon bars from shoulder to belt," Cottone said. "He had Silver Stars, multiple Purple Hearts, Bronze Stars and numerous, numerous combat awards."

After the ceremony, a curious Cottone pulled Edwards' personnel file and discovered Edwards wore 21 unearned medals to the ceremony.

"He faked them all. He had no Purple Heart, nothing," Cottone said. "He was court-martialed last summer and sentenced to the brig as a Navy captain. It's extremely rare for somebody at that rank to receive a court martial, and at the end receive an orange jumpsuit with numbers."

As sickening as it was to Cottone to bust an imposter at the award ceremony, it wouldn't compare to an incident that took place a few months later. Cottone, attending the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq, noticed a Marine captain in full dress uniform sitting with the parents of the soldier who was killed. When the funeral procession moved outside of the church, the Marine Corps Hymn began playing.

"Any Marine who knows anything immediately snaps to attention (when the hymn is played)," Cottone said. "This guy was standing there like he was waiting for a bus."

Cottone identified himself and asked the man if he would be willing to talk about his military service. The man told Cottone he had earned the Navy Cross during one of his four tours in Vietnam.

"This is the thing with imposters as opposed to the real guys," Cottone said, "many of the real guys don't want to talk about it. These imposters will talk to anybody who will listen to them."

Cottone asked the man if he ever actually served in the military at all, and the man stammered before shaking his head to indicate he hadn't.

Another imposter busted.

"These are some of the people that do these things," Cottone said. "This has been going on probably since medals were first a part of the military. I'm sure every country that has a military has military imposters."

But Cottone and agents like him now have stepped up to ensure imposters don't sully the memory and steal the valor of the men and women who have earned their awards through dedicated service.

"If anybody can just start buying medals and pinning them on, the real ones wouldn't mean a thing. I'm very proud to be able to do this," Cottone said. "That's the significance and the sensitivity of this whole investigation, and we'll continue to do it. Obviously we can't investigate, arrest and prosecute everybody, but you don't want to be the one who his caught and prosecuted."

Josh Fahlsing (989)269-6461 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting (989)269-6461 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting(989)269-6461end_of_the_skype_highlighting jfahlsing@hearstnp.com