Appeals court: Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional
Legal News Center
A three-year-old federal law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, an appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday.
The decision involves the case of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif., a water district board member who said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration.
Alvarez was indicted in 2007. He pleaded guilty on condition that he be allowed to appeal on First Amendment grounds. He was sentenced under the Stolen Valor Act to more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital and fined $5,000.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there's no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there's no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.
The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection.
The act revised and toughened a law that forbids anyone to wear a military medal that wasn't earned. The measure sailed through Congress in late 2006, receiving unanimous approval in the Senate.
Related listings
-
LA judge frees thief who got 25 yrs on 3rd strike
Legal News Center 08/17/2010A judge on Monday ordered the release of a man who spent 13 years behind bars for trying to steal food from a church, his third offense under California's three-strikes law.Tears streamed down Gregory Taylor's face when Judge Peter Espinoza amended h...
-
Retrial possible in dad's NY samurai sword slaying
Legal News Center 08/13/2010An appeals court has ordered a new trial for a New York man convicted of using a samurai sword to kill his stepfather while he slept on a living room couch.Zachary Gibian was convicted in 2006 of nearly beheading retired police officer Scott Nager in...
-
Judge testifies he felt threatened by NJ blogger
Legal News Center 08/12/2010A federal appeals court judge from Illinois testified Wednesday that he felt threatened by a New Jersey blogger's inflammatory Internet tirades over a ruling supporting gun control.The rant against a three-judge panel in Chicago "was a threat of viol...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.