State v. Fields
In the case of State v. Fields, Fields has been convicted of violating the law of the Stolen Valor Act, signed in 2006. He has lied of his military service and receiving the award of Purple Heart medal. Which is awarded to those that either died or wounded during their service to our Great Nation. He wore it as he spoke in the public safety meeting, so that he may receive authority over the public safety meeting. After he was found guilty in his first case, he sought out appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional and violated his rights. Thus the court was in favor of Fields and revoke his first hearing making him not guilty. The government then looked for an appeal …show more content…
He has lied and dishonor those that truly served in the military. Thus his argument of the Stolen Valor Act violating his right is unconstitutional. For his lies are unconstitutional.
Field is being charged of breaking the law of Stolen Valor Act. Which says that any who has claimed to have serve in the military, but did not would be convicted of 6 years in prison. He spoke at a public safety meeting of his service.
In the first can he was found guilty for violating the Stolen Valor Act. Which he did. He told others of his time in the military and how he received a medal for it. Thus giving him authority to speak in the meeting. He told a lie so that he would have authority of the meeting concerning the public.
In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, he argued that his rights were violated by the Stolen Valor Act. They favored him, due to it not allowing him to spread his lies of his service. He spoke lies to others. Which did not harm others but misinformed them. They may have family who is serving in the military. They may have lost someone in the military. If he was to lie and spread them. Then what of our troops who received the
In the case of State v. Fields, Fields has been convicted of violating the law of the Stolen Valor Act, signed in 2006. He has lied of his military service and receiving the award of Purple Heart medal. Which is awarded to those that either died or wounded during their service to our Great Nation. He wore it as he spoke in the public safety meeting, so that he may receive authority over the public safety meeting. After he was found guilty in his first case, he sought out appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional and violated his rights. Thus the court was in favor of Fields and revoke his first hearing making him not guilty. The government then looked for an appeal …show more content…
He has lied and dishonor those that truly served in the military. Thus his argument of the Stolen Valor Act violating his right is unconstitutional. For his lies are unconstitutional.
Field is being charged of breaking the law of Stolen Valor Act. Which says that any who has claimed to have serve in the military, but did not would be convicted of 6 years in prison. He spoke at a public safety meeting of his service.
In the first can he was found guilty for violating the Stolen Valor Act. Which he did. He told others of his time in the military and how he received a medal for it. Thus giving him authority to speak in the meeting. He told a lie so that he would have authority of the meeting concerning the public.
In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, he argued that his rights were violated by the Stolen Valor Act. They favored him, due to it not allowing him to spread his lies of his service. He spoke lies to others. Which did not harm others but misinformed them. They may have family who is serving in the military. They may have lost someone in the military. If he was to lie and spread them. Then what of our troops who received the