Lawyer Donna Hall appears before court

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Prominent Maori lawyer Donna Hall has denied a conflict of interest over a central North Island land deal in which she allegedly acted for three of the trusts involved in the sale.

The Law Society's standards committee alleges Ms Hall acted for the vendor, purchaser and lender during the 2007 deal, without the consent of each party to represent the others.

The committee opened its case against Ms Hall before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal in Wellington today.

The tribunal is able to impose much harsher sanctions than the committee can, including being struck off the roll, suspension, or fines of up to $30,000.

The hearing follows a complaint from a shareholder of the Tauhara Middle 15 Trust, which in 2007 bought the Tauhara North block near Taupo from Landcorp for $5 million jointly with another trust.

The complainant alleged a conflict because Ms Hall acted for both Tauhara and the Hikuwai Hapu Lands Trust, which facilitated the transaction.

She also acted for Tauhara Middle 4A2A Trust, which provided an unsecured loan to Tauhara Middle 15 to help fund its $1m contribution to the deal.

Law Society standards committee lawyer Gary Turkington told the tribunal today that Ms Hall failed to advise each party of the areas of conflict or potential conflict, and to advise the purchaser and lender that each should take independent advice.

Ms Hall was in a conflicted position during the on-selling of the land because she was also acting for the purchasing trust, he said.

In authorising the sale, the Maori Land Court gave its approval for the execution of a mortgage, but signalled it was not approving the purchase until five questions had been answered.

Mr Turkington said Ms Hall by-passed the questions and had put Hikuwai's trustees first.

Ms Hall's lawyer, Helen Cull, said there was no conflict because her client was not acting on the land deal itself.

Rather, she was acting on behalf of the Tauhara Middle 15 in its Maori Land Court proceedings, and to help remove a trustee who was opposed to the bank loan to secure the deal.

Ms Cull said the trust had approached Ms Hall to act on its behalf in the land deal, but she declined and instructed a barrister to act for the trust.

It was the barrister's duty to inform the trustees of a potential conflict, and any conflict arose from the trusts sharing trustees, she said.

Three people involved in the deal were trustees on all three trusts, while a further three were trustees on the two Tauhara trusts.

Ms Cull said there was evidence the trusts had shared mutual interests in purchasing the land, which had significant development potential for Maori, and the trusts shared beneficiaries.

"It is only a professional conflict if there are two distinctive interests that are conflicting and we don't accept that,'' she said.

Tribunal member Susan Hughes QC questioned whether the trustees were aware that Ms Hall stood to lose $300,000 in legal fees from the Hikuwai trust if the deal did not got through.

Ms Cull said she would need to take instructions from her client on that matter, and would get back to the tribunal tomorrow.

The hearing is expected to last three days.

- APNZ

By Hana Garrett-Walker and Matthew Backhouse | Email Hana

View the original article here

Supreme Court extends effective lawyer right to plea deals

IP is over the quota
IP is over the quota
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the constitutional right to effective legal assistance in cases of plea bargain deals that are rejected or lapsed due to bad lawyer advice.

Splitting by a 5-4 vote, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the court's four liberals in two cases, the majority held that the right to effective counsel applied to informal plea bargain negotiations that take place between criminal defendants and prosecutors.

In the second ruling, the majority held a defendant must show "a reasonable probability" the plea offer would have been accepted by the judge when a lawyer's bad advice caused the defendant to reject the plea bargain and then stand trial.

The pair of rulings in cases from Missouri and Michigan could allow convicted criminals to seek to reopen their cases after they passed up favorable plea bargains because of ineffective assistance of their lawyers.

In both cases, the criminals said they had been denied their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because of mistakes by their attorneys during plea negotiations. The majority agreed.

The rulings could have broad impact as about 95 percent of all criminal cases nationwide are resolved through a plea agreement, not a trial.

Kennedy in one of the opinions said that a defense counsel as a general rule has a duty to communicate to the client formal prosecution offers of a plea deal on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused.

To show harm when a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected because of a lawyer's bad performance, Kennedy said defendants must show they probably would have accepted the more favorable plea offer if they had received effective legal advice and that the plea deal would have been accepted in court.

When a defendant shows ineffective assistance has caused the rejection of a plea leading to more severe sentence at trial, the remedy must "neutralize the taint" of a constitutional violation," he said in the other opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

COULD SOW CONFUSION

Scalia, who took the rare step of reading parts of his dissent from the bench, said there was no doubt that the defendants in the cases were convicted and sentenced under fair, constitutionally valid procedures.

"Until today, no one has though that there is a constitutional right to a plea bargain," he said. "Today's opinion opens a whole new field of constitutionalized criminal procedure: the field of plea-bargaining law. The court announces this new field in opinions that almost seem designed to sow confusion."

"In today's cases, the court's zeal to bring perfection to everything requires the reversal of perfectly valid, eminently just, convictions. It is not wise; it is not right," Scalia concluded.

In the Michigan case, Anthony Cooper passed up a plea deal that would have sent him to prison for four to seven years for shooting a woman four times.

His lawyer told him he would not be convicted of assault with intent to murder because he shot the woman below the waist and missed a shot to her head.

Cooper went to trial, was convicted of assault with intent to murder and on other charges, and received a sentence of up to 30 years in prison.

In the other case from Missouri, Galin Frye was charged with driving without a license in 2007. A prosecutor offered two alternative plea agreements.

In one, the prosecutor said Frye could plead guilty in exchange for a 90-day sentence. But Frye's lawyer at the time failed to tell him about the offers.

After the offers expired and after Frye was arrested again for driving with a revoked license, he pleaded guilty and received a sentence of three years in prison.

The Supreme Court's majority opinions sided with Frye and Cooper and sent the cases back to lower courts for further proceedings.

The Obama administration had supported the argument by prosecutors in the two cases that the constitutional right to counsel only ensured a fair trial, and that defendants do not have a right to a plea bargain, including one that results in a lighter sentence.

The Supreme Court cases are Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209, and Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444.

(Reporting by James Vicini; Editing by Anthony Boadle)

View the original article here

Stolen Valor Act at Supreme Court: Is lying about being a hero a right?

IP is over the quota
IP is over the quota
When Xavier Alvarez stood up and introduced himself at a local water district meeting in July 2007, he had no idea he was about to commit a federal crime.

“I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” he told the other board members in Pomona, Calif. “I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

In most social situations, such statements might elicit interested nods, admiring smiles, and perhaps heart-felt thanks for his brave service to the nation.

But it turns out Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the US military, had never been wounded, and – most important – was never awarded the Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

After his false claim was exposed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed up. Alvarez was soon indicted for allegedly violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law that makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the First Amendment, arguing that Americans have a free-speech right to make false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal prosecution from a government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but a US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez’s case arrives at the US Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to decide whether the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech or an acceptable effort by the government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addressed the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of categories of speech that are unworthy of full First Amendment protection. They include obscenity, libel and defamation, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of those areas the underlying speech causes a concrete injury.

Critics of the Stolen Valor Act say it requires no underlying injury. Any false statement claiming receipt of a medal may be punished. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements is not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech to expose the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the court to uphold the restriction as a valid regulation of a discrete kind of false speech that lacks significant constitutional value.

Alvarez counters that the court has never before declared that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says the government’s position marks a radical departure from free speech principles that could lead to sanctions against those who exaggerate, use hyperbole, or engage in satire.

“For good or bad, right or wrong, everyone lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of whoppers,” wrote Alvarez’s lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Jonathan Libby, in his brief to the court.

“Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio, and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal punishment,” Mr. Libby said.

The US Solicitor General’s Office disagrees, arguing that the Stolen Valor Act is aimed at achieving an important government objective and that it is narrowly focused to achieve that objective.

“The government employs military honors to convey a message to the public that the recipient has been endorsed by the government as part of a select group,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief to the court. “The aggregate effect of false claims undermines that purpose … by diluting the medals’ message of prestige and honor.”

The law seeks to punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of having been awarded a medal, Mr. Verrilli said. A person is unlikely to make such a claim out of confusion or by mistake, he said.

“Content-based restrictions on false factual statements are consistent with the First Amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and provide adequate ‘breathing space’ for fully protected speech,” Verrilli’s brief said.

Alvarez’s lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits his client is a liar. But he says Alvarez was pilloried in his community as an “idiot” and a “jerk” after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and that if his client loses his case, the government may soon be investigating the veracity of a broader range of facetious statements.

“Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag,” Libby said in his brief.

What’s the harm, Libby asked in his brief. There is no evidence that anyone relied on Alvarez’s false claims about hockey or military heroics.

“The government’s interest in protecting the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling,” Libby said. “False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal winners.”

“The government seeks to create a new test – completely unmoored from this court’s precedents,” Libby said.

“Falsehoods are valuable for innumerable reasons: in refining truth, in expressing personal autonomy, and in greasing the wheels of social interaction,” Libby said. “More than that, there is a realm of harmless prattle and puffery generally considered beyond government control.”

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

In Stolen Valor Act Case, Supreme Court Debates When Lies Can Be Crimes

IP is over the quota
IP is over the quota

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning appeared divided over whether to strike down a federal law that makes it a crime for a person to lie about receiving military honors.

In 2007, Xavier Alvarez, an elected member of a Los Angeles-area water board, introduced himself at a public meeting as a retired Marine. "Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor," he added for the record. Both statements were lies -- and the latter he would find out, when the FBI came looking for him, had recently been made a federal crime.

The Stolen Valor Act, passed by Congress in 2006, states that "whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both." Alvarez would become the first person convicted under the act.

He appealed his conviction on the ground that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment protections for free speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2010 agreed, reversing the lower court and striking down the act. Since the Supreme Court consented to hear United States v. Alvarez this past fall, another appeals court has upheld the act, creating a split among the circuits.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, told the justices on Wednesday that the 9th Circuit's fears of a society where any knowing falsehood could be criminalized were unfounded. The Stolen Valor Act prohibits only a "carefully limited and narrowly drawn category of calculated factual falsehoods" regarding military honors, Verrilli said at the start of his presentation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor then wondered about a hypothetical Vietnam War protester who holds up a sign that reads, "I won a Purple Heart -- for killing babies." If the protester knew his statement to be false, Sotomayor asked, "Is that person, if he's not a veteran having received the medal, is he liable under this act?"

If a reasonable observer would see the sign as "political theater," Verrilli answered, then "it's not within the scope of the statute, and it wouldn't be subject to liability."

But, Verrilli continued, "this Court has said in numerous contexts, numerous contexts, that the calculated factual falsehood has no First Amendment value for its own sake."

"It has said it often, but always in context where it is well understood that speech can injure," responded Justice Anthony Kennedy, pointing to defamation and fraud actions. "I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity," he went on. "Falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true."

But Alvarez's lies and others implicated under the Stolen Valor Act do cause injury, Justice Antonin Scalia said. "[T]here's harm to those courageous men and women who receive the decorations," said Scalia. "Their service is demeaned when everybody says, 'I served in the armed forces.'"

Sotomayor disagreed. "[Y]ou can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one," she said. "They don't think less of the medal. We're reacting to the fact that we're offended by the thought that someone's claiming an honor they didn't receive."

"So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm?" she asked. "And I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

Throughout Verrilli's presentation, Scalia seemed to be the lone unambiguous supporter of the Stolen Valor Act, going so far as to declare flatly, "I believe that there is no First Amendment value in falsehood." The justice's clear intent to uphold the act comes in some contrast to his votes in recent years to strike down, on First Amendment grounds, a federal ban on dogfighting videos, a California ban on the sale of violent video games and a jury verdict against funeral picketers. Scalia's son Matthew served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

But whatever lead Alvarez had at the end of the solicitor general's argument disappeared when his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, took to the lectern. Chief Justice John Roberts, who had earlier pushed Verrilli on whether Congress could criminalize lying about obtaining a high school diploma, jumped all over Libby, a deputy federal public defender in California.

"What is the First Amendment value in a lie, pure lie?" asked Roberts.

The question, which came less than a minute into Libby's argument, seemed to knock him off balance. "Just a pure lie? There can be a number of values," he answered. "There is the value of personal autonomy."

"The value of what?" said Roberts.

"Personal autonomy," Libby repeated.

"What does that mean?" pressed the chief.

"Well, that we get to, we get to exaggerate and create ... ," Libby tried to answer.

"No, not exaggerate, lie," Roberts corrected him.

Libby offered up Samuel Clemens' use of the pen name Mark Twain as one such "persona" that is really just a lie about one's personal story and identity.

"Well, but that was for literary purposes," retorted Roberts.

Justice Samuel Alito was similarly incredulous, asking, "Do you really think that there is First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself because that person would like to create a particular persona?"

"Yes, Your Honor, so long as it doesn't cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function," Libby said.

Some minutes later, Kennedy, who had seemed very much on Libby's side in the first half of the argument, appeared to fall off the bandwagon. "[I]t's a matter of common sense that it seems to me that [lying about receiving a military honor] demeans the medal," he said.

But it was Justice Elena Kagan who may have delivered the knockout blow to Libby, even if most of her questions leaned toward his case. "What truthful speech will this statute chill?" she asked.

"Your Honor, it's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech," Libby said. "We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not."

"So, boy, I mean, that's a big concession, Mr. Libby," Kagan replied.

On rebuttal, the solicitor general made the most of that concession, but not before Kagan gave him a hard time, too. She asked if the government can criminalize deliberate falsehoods about extramarital affairs if the law is drawn narrowly and specifically enough. "The government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family, the stability of the family, so we're going to prevent everybody from telling lies about their extramarital affairs," she hypothesized.

"That's a hard case," Verrilli admitted, before facing an additional flurry of questions from Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer suggesting their belief that upholding the Stolen Valor Act would lead to laws that chilled speech clearly protected by the First Amendment.

To dispel that concern, Verrilli said, they need look no further than Libby's admission just moments earlier. The defendant's own lawyer, the solicitor general said, "conceded that this statute chills nothing."

Also on HuffPost:

Get Alerts Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

View the original article here

Supreme Court expands defendant's rights in plea deals - Los Angeles Times

IP is over the quota
IP is over the quota
Defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to a competent lawyer's advice when deciding whether to accept a plea bargain, the Supreme Court ruled, providing a significant expansion of rights that could have a broad impact on the justice system.

"Ours for the most part is a system of pleas, not a system of trials," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said for the majority in a pair of 5-4 decisions. Noting that about 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions result from guilty pleas, Kennedy wrote that "in today's criminal justice system, the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for the defendant."

The ruling drew a sharply worded dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who took the unusual step of expressing his disagreement in the courtroom. He angrily called the court's rulings a "judicially invented right to effective plea bargaining."

The decisions were "a vast departure from our past cases" and would lead to endless litigation, he warned.

"Until today, no one has thought that there is a constitutional right to a plea bargain," Scalia added.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined in dissent.

Until now, the vast majority of the high court's decisions on the constitutional rights of criminal defendants had involved trials. Since plea deals are part of the daily routine in courthouses across the nation, expanding the Constitution's reach into that arena could affect a large number of cases. But legal experts, like the justices themselves, differed on the precise impact.

"These are big and important decisions," said Orin Kerr, a criminal law expert at George Washington University. "Plea negotiations have been mostly unregulated, and as a result, they have been informal. That will have to change, at least at the margins."

Others said the justices did not want to second-guess routine plea deals, only those in which a lawyer's blunder or clearly bad advice had caused his client serious damage.

Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher said the high court's decision was significant because it put the "imprimatur of the Supreme Court" on the rule that defendants have a right to competent legal advice during negotiations over a plea deal. That position "is basically consistent with the predominant view in the lower courts over the past several years," he said, but had not previously been declared a nationwide rule by the highest court.

Since the 1980s, the court has said defendants have a right to "effective assistance of counsel," and this guidance is crucial to protecting the right to a fair trial.

On Wednesday, Kennedy joined with the court's four liberals — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — and made clear for the first time that a defendant's right to a competent lawyer extends to decisions to accept or reject a plea offer from prosecutors.

Both cases involved men who were sent to prison for lengthy terms — one for assault and the other for drunk driving — who could have had much lighter sentences but for their lawyers' mistakes.

No one suggested the attorneys must offer brilliant advice. Similarly, they cannot be faulted if their predictions about how a trial will go are proved wrong. But the lawyers must meet a standard of basic competence, the court said.

At minimum, Kennedy said, the lawyer has a duty to tell his client of any formal offers from a prosecutor that would result in a favorable deal.

In the drunk driving case, from Missouri, the lawyer had failed to tell his client that prosecutors had given him a written offer to recommend a 90-day sentence if the defendant pleaded guilty. The offer expired without the defendant, Galin Frye, being aware of it. Frye pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison.

"The court now holds that, as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea deal on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused," Kennedy said in Missouri vs. Frye.

Whenever there is a "reasonable probability" that bad advice resulted in a longer prison term, the defendant is entitled to a new hearing or a lesser sentence, he added.

In the second case, from Michigan, Anthony Cooper was charged with attempted murder and was willing to admit his guilt. But, relying on advice from his lawyer, he turned down an offer from a prosecutor to plead guilty in exchange for a recommended sentence of between five and seven years in prison. His lawyer had told him he could not be convicted of intent to murder because he had fired a gun at a woman's legs, not above her waist — an assertion that was flatly wrong, as a matter of law and common sense.

Cooper went to trial, the jury convicted him on all counts, and he was sentenced to between 15 and 30 years in prison. In Lafler vs. Cooper, the court agreed that the defendant had been denied his right to a competent attorney and sent the case back to a Michigan judge to decide on a new sentence.

The Obama administration and lawyers for 32 states had essentially agreed with Scalia's view. They took the position that if a defendant chooses to plead guilty or is convicted in a fair trial, he has no right to object about earlier bad advice from a lawyer.

Lawyers for the Constitution Project lauded the decisions for recognizing the reality of America's criminal justice system. Since plea deals have largely replaced jury trials, "we are pleased the court has recognized that the right to counsel during plea negotiations is just as important as at trial," said Virginia Sloan, the group's president.

david.savage@latimes.com

View the original article here

In Stolen Valor Act Case, Supreme Court Debates When Lies Can Be Crimes

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning appeared divided over whether to strike down a federal law that makes it a crime for a person to lie about receiving military honors.

In 2007, Xavier Alvarez, an elected member of a Los Angeles-area water board, introduced himself at a public meeting as a retired Marine. "Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor," he added for the record. Both statements were lies -- and the latter he would find out, when the FBI came looking for him, had recently been made a federal crime.

The Stolen Valor Act, passed by Congress in 2006, states that "whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both." Alvarez would become the first person convicted under the act.

He appealed his conviction on the ground that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment protections for free speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2010 agreed, reversing the lower court and striking down the act. Since the Supreme Court consented to hear United States v. Alvarez this past fall, another appeals court has upheld the act, creating a split among the circuits.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, told the justices on Wednesday that the 9th Circuit's fears of a society where any knowing falsehood could be criminalized were unfounded. The Stolen Valor Act prohibits only a "carefully limited and narrowly drawn category of calculated factual falsehoods" regarding military honors, Verrilli said at the start of his presentation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor then wondered about a hypothetical Vietnam War protester who holds up a sign that reads, "I won a Purple Heart -- for killing babies." If the protester knew his statement to be false, Sotomayor asked, "Is that person, if he's not a veteran having received the medal, is he liable under this act?"

If a reasonable observer would see the sign as "political theater," Verrilli answered, then "it's not within the scope of the statute, and it wouldn't be subject to liability."

But, Verrilli continued, "this Court has said in numerous contexts, numerous contexts, that the calculated factual falsehood has no First Amendment value for its own sake."

"It has said it often, but always in context where it is well understood that speech can injure," responded Justice Anthony Kennedy, pointing to defamation and fraud actions. "I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity," he went on. "Falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true."

But Alvarez's lies and others implicated under the Stolen Valor Act do cause injury, Justice Antonin Scalia said. "[T]here's harm to those courageous men and women who receive the decorations," said Scalia. "Their service is demeaned when everybody says, 'I served in the armed forces.'"

Sotomayor disagreed. "[Y]ou can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one," she said. "They don't think less of the medal. We're reacting to the fact that we're offended by the thought that someone's claiming an honor they didn't receive."

"So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm?" she asked. "And I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

Throughout Verrilli's presentation, Scalia seemed to be the lone unambiguous supporter of the Stolen Valor Act, going so far as to declare flatly, "I believe that there is no First Amendment value in falsehood." The justice's clear intent to uphold the act comes in some contrast to his votes in recent years to strike down, on First Amendment grounds, a federal ban on dogfighting videos, a California ban on the sale of violent video games and a jury verdict against funeral picketers. Scalia's son Matthew served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

But whatever lead Alvarez had at the end of the solicitor general's argument disappeared when his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, took to the lectern. Chief Justice John Roberts, who had earlier pushed Verrilli on whether Congress could criminalize lying about obtaining a high school diploma, jumped all over Libby, a deputy federal public defender in California.

"What is the First Amendment value in a lie, pure lie?" asked Roberts.

The question, which came less than a minute into Libby's argument, seemed to knock him off balance. "Just a pure lie? There can be a number of values," he answered. "There is the value of personal autonomy."

"The value of what?" said Roberts.

"Personal autonomy," Libby repeated.

"What does that mean?" pressed the chief.

"Well, that we get to, we get to exaggerate and create ... ," Libby tried to answer.

"No, not exaggerate, lie," Roberts corrected him.

Libby offered up Samuel Clemens' use of the pen name Mark Twain as one such "persona" that is really just a lie about one's personal story and identity.

"Well, but that was for literary purposes," retorted Roberts.

Justice Samuel Alito was similarly incredulous, asking, "Do you really think that there is First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself because that person would like to create a particular persona?"

"Yes, Your Honor, so long as it doesn't cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function," Libby said.

Some minutes later, Kennedy, who had seemed very much on Libby's side in the first half of the argument, appeared to fall off the bandwagon. "[I]t's a matter of common sense that it seems to me that [lying about receiving a military honor] demeans the medal," he said.

But it was Justice Elena Kagan who may have delivered the knockout blow to Libby, even if most of her questions leaned toward his case. "What truthful speech will this statute chill?" she asked.

"Your Honor, it's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech," Libby said. "We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not."

"So, boy, I mean, that's a big concession, Mr. Libby," Kagan replied.

On rebuttal, the solicitor general made the most of that concession, but not before Kagan gave him a hard time, too. She asked if the government can criminalize deliberate falsehoods about extramarital affairs if the law is drawn narrowly and specifically enough. "The government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family, the stability of the family, so we're going to prevent everybody from telling lies about their extramarital affairs," she hypothesized.

"That's a hard case," Verrilli admitted, before facing an additional flurry of questions from Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer suggesting their belief that upholding the Stolen Valor Act would lead to laws that chilled speech clearly protected by the First Amendment.

To dispel that concern, Verrilli said, they need look no further than Libby's admission just moments earlier. The defendant's own lawyer, the solicitor general said, "conceded that this statute chills nothing."

Also on HuffPost:

Get Alerts Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

View the original article here

Stolen Valor Act at Supreme Court: Is lying about being a hero a right?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
When Xavier Alvarez stood up and introduced himself at a local water district meeting in July 2007, he had no idea he was about to commit a federal crime.

“I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” he told the other board members in Pomona, Calif. “I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

In most social situations, such statements might elicit interested nods, admiring smiles, and perhaps heart-felt thanks for his brave service to the nation.

But it turns out Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the US military, had never been wounded, and – most important – was never awarded the Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

After his false claim was exposed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed up. Alvarez was soon indicted for allegedly violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law that makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the First Amendment, arguing that Americans have a free-speech right to make false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal prosecution from a government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but a US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez’s case arrives at the US Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to decide whether the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech or an acceptable effort by the government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addressed the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of categories of speech that are unworthy of full First Amendment protection. They include obscenity, libel and defamation, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of those areas the underlying speech causes a concrete injury.

Critics of the Stolen Valor Act say it requires no underlying injury. Any false statement claiming receipt of a medal may be punished. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements is not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech to expose the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the court to uphold the restriction as a valid regulation of a discrete kind of false speech that lacks significant constitutional value.

Alvarez counters that the court has never before declared that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says the government’s position marks a radical departure from free speech principles that could lead to sanctions against those who exaggerate, use hyperbole, or engage in satire.

“For good or bad, right or wrong, everyone lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of whoppers,” wrote Alvarez’s lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Jonathan Libby, in his brief to the court.

“Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio, and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal punishment,” Mr. Libby said.

The US Solicitor General’s Office disagrees, arguing that the Stolen Valor Act is aimed at achieving an important government objective and that it is narrowly focused to achieve that objective.

“The government employs military honors to convey a message to the public that the recipient has been endorsed by the government as part of a select group,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief to the court. “The aggregate effect of false claims undermines that purpose … by diluting the medals’ message of prestige and honor.”

The law seeks to punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of having been awarded a medal, Mr. Verrilli said. A person is unlikely to make such a claim out of confusion or by mistake, he said.

“Content-based restrictions on false factual statements are consistent with the First Amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and provide adequate ‘breathing space’ for fully protected speech,” Verrilli’s brief said.

Alvarez’s lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits his client is a liar. But he says Alvarez was pilloried in his community as an “idiot” and a “jerk” after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and that if his client loses his case, the government may soon be investigating the veracity of a broader range of facetious statements.

“Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag,” Libby said in his brief.

What’s the harm, Libby asked in his brief. There is no evidence that anyone relied on Alvarez’s false claims about hockey or military heroics.

“The government’s interest in protecting the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling,” Libby said. “False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal winners.”

“The government seeks to create a new test – completely unmoored from this court’s precedents,” Libby said.

“Falsehoods are valuable for innumerable reasons: in refining truth, in expressing personal autonomy, and in greasing the wheels of social interaction,” Libby said. “More than that, there is a realm of harmless prattle and puffery generally considered beyond government control.”

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Kevin Costner's lawyers tell SD high court actor did not breach contract with ... - Washington Post

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Kevin Costner’s lawyers tell SD high court actor did not breach contract with sculpture artist - The Washington Post Print SubscriptionConversationsToday's PaperGoing Out GuideJobsCarsReal EstateRentalsClassifiedsShoppingHomePoliticsCampaign 2012CongressCourts &LawThe Fed PageHealth CarePollingWhite HouseBlogs & ColumnsIssues: EnergyTop Blogs

Election 2012 | Felicia SonmezThe Fix | Chris CillizzaFederal Eye | Ed O’KeefeFact Checker | Glenn KesslerOpinionsAll OpinionsPostPartisanLeft-LeaningRight-LeaningTolesCartoonsTelnaesAnimationsLocalColumnist IndexLocalDC: Politics| NewsMD: Politics| CommunitiesVA: Politics| CommunitiesCrimeEducationOn Faith/LocalObituariesTraffic & CommutingWeatherBlogs & ColumnsThe Root DCTop Blogs

Post NowThe BuzzCapital Weather GangDr. GridlockSportsRedskins/NFLCapitals/NHLWizards/NBANationals/MLBDC United/SoccerCollegesAllMetSportsOther SportsBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

The Insider| Mike JonesCapitals Insider| Katie CarreraWizards Insider | Michael LeeNationals Journal| Adam KilgoreNationalCorrectionsEnergy & EnvironmentHealth & ScienceHigher EducationNational SecurityOn FaithOn LeadershipInnovationsOn GivingBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

Ideas@InnovationsPost LeadershipUnder GodCheckpoint WashingtonWorldAfricaTheAmericasAsia &PacificEuropeMiddle EastNational SecurityWar ZonesSpecial ReportsCheckpoint WashingtonBusinessEconomyIndustriesLocal BusinessMarketsPolicy&RegulationTechnologyWorldBusinessBlogs & ColumnsInnovationsOn Small BusinessTop Blogs

Wonkblog | Ezra KleinPost Tech | Cecilia KangFaster ForwardWhere We LiveInvestigationsLifestyleAdviceCarolyn HaxFoodHome & GardenStyleTravelWeddingsWellnessMagazineKidsPostTop Blogs

The Style BlogAll We Can EatReliable Source | Roxanne Roberts & Amy ArgetsingerOn Parenting | Janice D’ArcyEntertainmentBooksCelebritiesComicsGoing Out GuideHoroscopesMoviesMuseumsPuzzlesTheater & DanceTVTop Blogs

TV Column | Lisa de MoraesCelebritology | Jen ChaneyComic Riffs | Michael CavnaClassical Beat | Anne MidgetteMultimediaInnovationsPhotosVideosThe Washington PostThe Washington PostCorrectionsEnergy & EnvironmentHealth & ScienceHigher EducationNational SecurityOn FaithOn LeadershipInnovationsOn GivingBlogs & ColumnsIn the NewsJFK assassination Tim Tebow Illinois primary Peyton Manning Trayvon Martin rally ???initialComments:true! pubdate:03/19/2012 09:31 EDT! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:4/2/12 9:31 EDT! currentDate:3/19/12 8:0 EDT! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!What would you do with $98 billion?

William and Kate’s royal adventures

Eagle’s trip from tracks to repository

Your best cherry blossom photos

Kevin Costner’s lawyers tell SD high court actor did not breach contract with sculpture artist

(PRNewsFoto/Touchstone Pictures, File/Associated Press) - FILE - In this 2003 file photo provided by Touchstone Pictures via RPNewsFoto, actor Kevin Costner stands with bronze sculptures of bison and American Indians at his Tatanka attraction near Deadwood, S.D. The South Dakota Supreme Court on Monday, March 19, 2012, will hear an appeal of ruling that found Costner did not breach a contract with an artist whom he commissioned to produce the sculptures. The sculptures were commissioned for a resort he planned in South Dakota’s Black Hills. That resort was never built but he instead placed the sculpture at his Tatanka attraction near Deadwood.

Text SizePrintE-mailReprints By Associated Press, AP

VERMILLION, S.D. — A lawyer for Kevin Costner told the South Dakota Supreme Court on Monday that the actor did not breach a contract with an artist when he placed commissioned sculptures of bison and American Indians at a different site than originally was agreed upon.

The Hollywood superstar, who filmed much of his Academy Award-winning movie “Dances with Wolves” in South Dakota, paid Peggy Detmers $300,000 to make 17 bronze sculptures for a resort called The Dunbar he planned in the state’s Black Hills. The resort never was built and the sculptures are instead at his Tatanka attraction near Deadwood.

Loading...

Comments

Weigh InCorrections?

Personal Post

Detmers said she spent more than six years creating the artwork and gave Costner a price break because she anticipated selling smaller sculptures at the resort.

Detmers claims that because The Dunbar was not built and the sculptures were not “agreeably displayed elsewhere,” as the contract stipulates, that the sculptures should be sold and she should be entitled to 50 percent of the proceeds.

But a circuit judge ruled last July that Detmers indicated her approval of the Tatanka location by participating in the site’s development and several events related to its opening. The Tatanka site houses the sculptures, a museum and a visitor center.

Kyle Wiese, one of two lawyers representing Costner at Monday’s hearing, noted Detmers took part in the construction and mock up process and ground breaking ceremony at Tatanka in June 2003.

“All of this conduct — taking part in the dedication ceremony and giving a speech — indicated she was agreeable to put these sculptures at this location for the long term,” Wiese said. He added that Costner said he would not have put nearly $6 million of his own money into building the Tatanka site if Detmers had not been agreeable to the location.

The Tatanka site is located on 85 acres of land next to 915 acres of land where Costner had envisioned building The Dunbar.

Detmers’ lawyer, Andrew Damgaard, concedes Detmers agreed to the placement in 2003 at Tatanka. But he said she was under the impression The Dunbar still would be built.

“It’s very clear from the record that people were telling her the resort was intended to be built, that it was intended to be built on that property,” he said.

Costner did not attend Monday’s hearing. The Supreme Court will issue a written decision at a later date.

________

Follow Kristi Eaton on Twitter at http://twitter.com/kristieaton .

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

EmailTumblrRedditStumbleuponDiggDeliciousDiscussion Policy | FAQ | About DiscussionsLoading...

Comments

Add your comment
Read about the changes to comment thread appearance, moderation. ?Read what others are sayingAbout Badges SuperFan Badge

SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.

More about badges | Request a badge

Culture Connoisseur Badge

Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.

More about badges | Request a badge

Fact Checker Badge

Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker.

More about badges | Request a badge

Washingtologist Badge

Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Writer Badge

This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.

Post Forum Badge

Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Weather Watcher Badge

Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.

More about badges | Request a badge

World Watcher Badge

World Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Recommended

Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.

You must be logged in to report a comment.

Sign in here

You must be logged in to recommend a comment.

Sign in here

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers.

All comments are posted in the All Comments tab.

More about badgesGet a badge

To pause and restart automatic updates, click "Live" or "Paused". If paused, you'll be notified of the number of additional comments that have come in.

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers. + SHARE THIS DEBATE The Post Most: NationMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours

Most PopularNYPD heightens security at Jewish sites after school attack in France kills rabbi, 3 childrenBalloon pilot dies in Ga. storm, but passengers parachute to safety; 'You need to get out now'Rick Santorum's journey to devout Catholicism, view of religion in governance'21 Jump Street' rounds up solid crowds with $36.3 million debut weekendWhat Apple's stock move tells us about the company's leadership switchTop Videos911 tapes released in Fla. shooting (0:42)Girl dies after being forced to run for hours (1:08)Two Fla. teens bitten by sharks (1:26)Accomplice in NYC madam case pleads not guilty (1:40)59 SecondsTop GalleriesWinners of the Nature's Best Photography competitionHow to be a bad bossThousands of stink bugs invade Md. man's homeTim Tebow and his faithMarking St. Patrick's Day Live Discussions

Read now

‘Walking Dead’ season finale

Live Q&A transcript

Jen Chaney discussed the ups and downs (and deaths) of the season finale.

Earlier Today11:00 AMAsk Boswell about the Washington Nationals, spring training, the Capitals, the Redskins and all Washington sports12:00 PMDr. Gridlock12:00 PMTalk about Travel: The Europe issue1:00 PMAdvice from Slate's 'Dear Prudence'1:00 PMJen Chaney discusses 'The Walking Dead' season finaleWeekly schedule, past shows

Connect with the Post

Facebook: Become a fan of the Washington Post

Facebook: Become a fan of the Washington Post

Twitter: Follow us on Twitter

RSS: Subscribe to our RSS feeds

Alerts: Sign up for news alerts

Mobile: Washington Post on the go

App Store: View our iPhone applications

Today's Paper

Full PaperMetroStyleSports

Updated newspaper stories

National Newsletters

Sign-up for e-mail newsletters and alerts and get the news you need delivered directly to your inbox.

?Economy & Business News AlertsBehind the Government ShowdownNational News AlertsThe MostToday's Headlines & ColumnistsSee all Washington Post Newsletters

Featured Reads

Post TechDeciphering the ones and zeros of tech policy with Cecilia Kang.

On Small BusinessExamine entrepreneurship and the people, policies and businesses that make it go.

D.C. Sports BogThe sports writer offers D.C.-focused commentary and features.

See more featured items

WP Social Reader Hide this

Friends' Activity Most Popular in national Most Popular in national

Most Popular Right Now

Your Friends’ Most Recent Activity

View More Activity

Powered byFeatured Advertiser Links for L U N G C A N C E R V I C T I M S>>HIP REPLACEMENT -- did you get one after '03?>>Help Barack stand up for working Americans. Join our campaign now.>>The only candidate fighting for the middle class: Pres. Obama. Join us.>>Sign up for email updates from President Obama's 2012 campaign.>>Sign up for official email updates from Barack Obama's campaign.>>Looking to buy a home? Visit TWP Real Estate section for the latest open houses.>>Make Your Vanguard Investing More Profitable - Free Research Report Reveals Best & Worst Funds>>Top national Stories People Also ReadMost Popular VideosNYPD heightens security at Jewish sites after school attack in France kills rabbi, 3 childrenAssociated Press?

Balloon pilot dies in Ga. storm, but passengers parachute to safety; ‘You need to get out now’Associated Press?

Rick Santorum has embraced Spanish priest behind devout Catholic group Opus DeiStephanie Mccrummen; Jerry Markon?

‘21 Jump Street’ rounds up solid crowds with $36.3 million debut weekendAssociated Press?

What Apple’s stock move tells us about the company’s leadership switchJena Mcgregor?

Synthetic pot is not safe, according to study on teen useJennifer Larue Huget?

Mitt Romney mirrors his Mormon churchNeal Chandler?

As climate changes, Louisiana seeks to lift a highwayJuliet Eilperin?

First-ever hybrid shark discovered off AustraliaJuliet Eilperin?

Mormon in the Holy LandDaniela Deane?

Mass. mom charged with slashing 2 kids’ throats, setting apartment on fire with lighter fluidAssociated Press?

The flip side of flatteryJena Mcgregor?

Komen, Catholic church have long had complicated relationshipDavid Morgan; — Reuters?

How to completely, utterly destroy an employee’s work lifeTeresa Amabile; Steven Kramer?

Desert tortoise an obstacle to Mojave solar developmentJulie Cart?

‘The Hunger Games’ and movie moralitySusan Brooks Thistlethwaite?

Health-care law activists to reach for broad political targets at Supreme Court hearingsN.c. Aizenman?

More than a ‘Mormon moment’Michael Otterson?

Stink bugs migrating to the Deep SouthDarryl Fears?

Gingrich: Obama ‘crushes’ Christianity; appeases radical IslamGeorgetown/ On Faith?

Ways you can get us

Mobile Apps Newsletter & alerts RSS Post Store Facebook Washington Post Live Twitter The Washington Post

Work for us Community Relations PostPoints Corrections/Suggestions Archive Contact the Ombudsman Report a problem Web site

Make us your homepage Digital Guidelines Ask The Post Newspaper

Subscribe Home delivery service e-Replica Advertise

In the newspaper On the web site Mobile Events The Washington Post Company

Post Company web sites Partners Slate Express Night Out Captial Business El Tiempo Latino The Root Foreign Policy Trove Post Tickets Capitol Deal Service Alley Post Master Class WP Live Student Advisor College Reviews ? 1996- The Washington Post Terms of Service Privacy Policy Reprints and Permissions RSS Terms of Service Help Contact Us Ad Choices Section:/national

View the original article here

The stolen Valor Act, the Supreme Court: the hero of the right to the top?

When Xavier Alvarez rose to and use of the local water district meeting in July 2007, he was he was committed to a federal crime in the idea.

"I am a retired Marine for the last 25 years," he told the other members of the Government of Pomona, Calif., "I retired in 2001. In 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The number of times that the same guy was haavoittaneet. I am still around. "

To achieve the greatest possible social circumstances such statements may be removed from the nods, admiring smiles and perhaps the heart-felt thanks to his brave service of the nation.

But Mr. Alvarez is never acted in the United States army had ever been was wounded and the most important-had been granted to ever Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about US-Constitution? Quiz.

When FALSE, the application had to be exposed in the course of the investigation the Bureau showed. The charges of allegedly stolen Valor Alvarez soon breach the Act of 2005, which makes it easier for the federal crime require the false witness has been awarded the military medal.

His lawyer was the first part of the amendment, arguing that the Americans have the right to free speech as a serious indictment of false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal syytteeseenasettamista the Government's truth-team.

The federal judge to accept the award, but the US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez in the case, if the justices arrive at curiae has been asked to decide whether the stolen Valor Act of the Constitutional Court, subject to the approval of the regulation of free speech or the fishing effort of the Government to punish the alleged liar.

The High court never directly to the information about the military awards and has worked on the top it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court is in the recognized throughout the first part of the amendment, the President of the categories themselves unworthy of protection. In the obscenity, libel, and defamation, incitement to imminent and fraud. On the basis of the concrete in the field, the Chairman of the cause of the injury.

Critics, the stolen Valor Act say it requires on the basis of the injury. The date of receipt of the request, the winner of the false statement offense. These critics Suggest such false statements, the best compensation does not constitute criminal punishment, but More speech, in particular, the truthful speech of the lie for the software.

The Obama administration has taken the Court to keep a kind of FALSE as Discrete speech that significant constitutional value is not a valid option.

Alvarez, counters that the Court has never before been such false statements are themselves unworthy of the protection of the Constitution. His lawyer says the Government's position with regard to the means of free speech principles, which may result in sanctions against those who exaggerate the, use the Hype, or to carry out the satire was a radical departure.

"Good or bad, right or wrong, all of the power. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told whoppers, "wrote Walter Alvarez, Deputy Federal Public Defender, lawyer, Jonathan Libby in his brief to the Court of justice.

"The Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio and cocktail party always believed the Government's reach is the puffery in the realm, and to communicate without fear of punishment in criminal law," Mr. Libby said.

Disagree with the United States Solicitor General from Office, arguing that the stolen Valor Act is targeted to the important government objective and that it is strictly necessary in order to achieve this objective.

"In the service of the Government of the military honors to pass to the message, select the recipient of the group as part of the Government," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief to the Court of justice. "The total effect of invalidating this … by diluting the medals of the prestige and honor of the message."

The law aims to punish only those who make the committed deliberately false claim to be awarded the Medal, Mr. Verrilli said. The person is not likely to require the use of confusion or mistake, he said.

"False statements of fact is based on the contents of the first part of the amendment, provided that they support the strong interest and provide adequate space for the ' remain ' fully protected speech," Verrilli said: short.

Alvarez's lawyer, Mr. Libby granted in a transparent manner, he was a liar. But she says Alvarez was pilloried for his community, "idiot" and "jerk" after his false statements would be.

Libby says the Americans lie social situations, and that if he loses the case, the Government may soon to examine the broader facetious accounts.

"Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have had professional hockey Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he said that he is married to Mexican starlet of the public caused by the appearance of the paparazzi swoon. He lied when he claimed that the engineer. "He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American Ambassador, during the Iran hostage crisis, and when he said that he has shot, grab the American flag goes back to," Libby said in his brief.

What is the damage, Libby invited her in. There is no evidence that anyone rely on Alvarez's the hockey or heroics.

"The Government's interest in protecting the reputation of the military medals, a legitimate, but not mandatory," Libby said. "False reputation is as a medal winners".

"The Government is seeking to create a new test to that Court precedents, from completely unmoored" Libby said.

"The Falsehoods is a valuable, for a myriad of reasons: indicate the fundamental aspect of truth, and of social interaction in the wheel finishing" Libby said. "More than there are harmless and, in General, considered to be beyond the control of the Government of the puffery prattle."

How much do you know about US-Constitution? Quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates on CSMonitor.com will be delivered to the Inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

In Stolen Valor Act Case, Supreme Court Debates When Lies Can Be Crimes

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning appeared divided over whether to strike down a federal law that makes it a crime for a person to lie about receiving military honors.

In 2007, Xavier Alvarez, an elected member of a Los Angeles-area water board, introduced himself at a public meeting as a retired Marine. "Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor," he added for the record. Both statements were lies -- and the latter he would find out, when the FBI came looking for him, had recently been made a federal crime.

The Stolen Valor Act, passed by Congress in 2006, states that "whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both." Alvarez would become the first person convicted under the act.

He appealed his conviction on the ground that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment protections for free speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2010 agreed, reversing the lower court and striking down the act. Since the Supreme Court consented to hear United States v. Alvarez this past fall, another appeals court has upheld the act, creating a split among the circuits.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, told the justices on Wednesday that the 9th Circuit's fears of a society where any knowing falsehood could be criminalized were unfounded. The Stolen Valor Act prohibits only a "carefully limited and narrowly drawn category of calculated factual falsehoods" regarding military honors, Verrilli said at the start of his presentation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor then wondered about a hypothetical Vietnam War protester who holds up a sign that reads, "I won a Purple Heart -- for killing babies." If the protester knew his statement to be false, Sotomayor asked, "Is that person, if he's not a veteran having received the medal, is he liable under this act?"

If a reasonable observer would see the sign as "political theater," Verrilli answered, then "it's not within the scope of the statute, and it wouldn't be subject to liability."

But, Verrilli continued, "this Court has said in numerous contexts, numerous contexts, that the calculated factual falsehood has no First Amendment value for its own sake."

"It has said it often, but always in context where it is well understood that speech can injure," responded Justice Anthony Kennedy, pointing to defamation and fraud actions. "I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity," he went on. "Falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true."

But Alvarez's lies and others implicated under the Stolen Valor Act do cause injury, Justice Antonin Scalia said. "[T]here's harm to those courageous men and women who receive the decorations," said Scalia. "Their service is demeaned when everybody says, 'I served in the armed forces.'"

Sotomayor disagreed. "[Y]ou can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one," she said. "They don't think less of the medal. We're reacting to the fact that we're offended by the thought that someone's claiming an honor they didn't receive."

"So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm?" she asked. "And I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

Throughout Verrilli's presentation, Scalia seemed to be the lone unambiguous supporter of the Stolen Valor Act, going so far as to declare flatly, "I believe that there is no First Amendment value in falsehood." The justice's clear intent to uphold the act comes in some contrast to his votes in recent years to strike down, on First Amendment grounds, a federal ban on dogfighting videos, a California ban on the sale of violent video games and a jury verdict against funeral picketers. Scalia's son Matthew served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

But whatever lead Alvarez had at the end of the solicitor general's argument disappeared when his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, took to the lectern. Chief Justice John Roberts, who had earlier pushed Verrilli on whether Congress could criminalize lying about obtaining a high school diploma, jumped all over Libby, a deputy federal public defender in California.

"What is the First Amendment value in a lie, pure lie?" asked Roberts.

The question, which came less than a minute into Libby's argument, seemed to knock him off balance. "Just a pure lie? There can be a number of values," he answered. "There is the value of personal autonomy."

"The value of what?" said Roberts.

"Personal autonomy," Libby repeated.

"What does that mean?" pressed the chief.

"Well, that we get to, we get to exaggerate and create ... ," Libby tried to answer.

"No, not exaggerate, lie," Roberts corrected him.

Libby offered up Samuel Clemens' use of the pen name Mark Twain as one such "persona" that is really just a lie about one's personal story and identity.

"Well, but that was for literary purposes," retorted Roberts.

Justice Samuel Alito was similarly incredulous, asking, "Do you really think that there is First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself because that person would like to create a particular persona?"

"Yes, Your Honor, so long as it doesn't cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function," Libby said.

Some minutes later, Kennedy, who had seemed very much on Libby's side in the first half of the argument, appeared to fall off the bandwagon. "[I]t's a matter of common sense that it seems to me that [lying about receiving a military honor] demeans the medal," he said.

But it was Justice Elena Kagan who may have delivered the knockout blow to Libby, even if most of her questions leaned toward his case. "What truthful speech will this statute chill?" she asked.

"Your Honor, it's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech," Libby said. "We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not."

"So, boy, I mean, that's a big concession, Mr. Libby," Kagan replied.

On rebuttal, the solicitor general made the most of that concession, but not before Kagan gave him a hard time, too. She asked if the government can criminalize deliberate falsehoods about extramarital affairs if the law is drawn narrowly and specifically enough. "The government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family, the stability of the family, so we're going to prevent everybody from telling lies about their extramarital affairs," she hypothesized.

"That's a hard case," Verrilli admitted, before facing an additional flurry of questions from Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer suggesting their belief that upholding the Stolen Valor Act would lead to laws that chilled speech clearly protected by the First Amendment.

To dispel that concern, Verrilli said, they need look no further than Libby's admission just moments earlier. The defendant's own lawyer, the solicitor general said, "conceded that this statute chills nothing."

Also on HuffPost:

Get Alerts Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

View the original article here

Stolen Valor Act at Supreme Court: Is lying about being a hero a right?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
When Xavier Alvarez stood up and introduced himself at a local water district meeting in July 2007, he had no idea he was about to commit a federal crime.

“I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” he told the other board members in Pomona, Calif. “I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

In most social situations, such statements might elicit interested nods, admiring smiles, and perhaps heart-felt thanks for his brave service to the nation.

But it turns out Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the US military, had never been wounded, and – most important – was never awarded the Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

After his false claim was exposed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed up. Alvarez was soon indicted for allegedly violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law that makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the First Amendment, arguing that Americans have a free-speech right to make false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal prosecution from a government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but a US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez’s case arrives at the US Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to decide whether the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech or an acceptable effort by the government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addressed the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of categories of speech that are unworthy of full First Amendment protection. They include obscenity, libel and defamation, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of those areas the underlying speech causes a concrete injury.

Critics of the Stolen Valor Act say it requires no underlying injury. Any false statement claiming receipt of a medal may be punished. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements is not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech to expose the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the court to uphold the restriction as a valid regulation of a discrete kind of false speech that lacks significant constitutional value.

Alvarez counters that the court has never before declared that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says the government’s position marks a radical departure from free speech principles that could lead to sanctions against those who exaggerate, use hyperbole, or engage in satire.

“For good or bad, right or wrong, everyone lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of whoppers,” wrote Alvarez’s lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Jonathan Libby, in his brief to the court.

“Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio, and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal punishment,” Mr. Libby said.

The US Solicitor General’s Office disagrees, arguing that the Stolen Valor Act is aimed at achieving an important government objective and that it is narrowly focused to achieve that objective.

“The government employs military honors to convey a message to the public that the recipient has been endorsed by the government as part of a select group,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief to the court. “The aggregate effect of false claims undermines that purpose … by diluting the medals’ message of prestige and honor.”

The law seeks to punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of having been awarded a medal, Mr. Verrilli said. A person is unlikely to make such a claim out of confusion or by mistake, he said.

“Content-based restrictions on false factual statements are consistent with the First Amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and provide adequate ‘breathing space’ for fully protected speech,” Verrilli’s brief said.

Alvarez’s lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits his client is a liar. But he says Alvarez was pilloried in his community as an “idiot” and a “jerk” after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and that if his client loses his case, the government may soon be investigating the veracity of a broader range of facetious statements.

“Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag,” Libby said in his brief.

What’s the harm, Libby asked in his brief. There is no evidence that anyone relied on Alvarez’s false claims about hockey or military heroics.

“The government’s interest in protecting the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling,” Libby said. “False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal winners.”

“The government seeks to create a new test – completely unmoored from this court’s precedents,” Libby said.

“Falsehoods are valuable for innumerable reasons: in refining truth, in expressing personal autonomy, and in greasing the wheels of social interaction,” Libby said. “More than that, there is a realm of harmless prattle and puffery generally considered beyond government control.”

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here