BURN THE FLAG, BUT DON'T WEAR THE MEDALS

BURN THE FLAG, IF YOU WILL – BUT DON’T WEAR THE MEDALS

[An Election Year Drama, with Hints of Political Meddling, Plays out in Federal Court Here.]

By Michael Horne

On June 27th, 2006, the United States Senate failed to rise to the bait and turned down a proposed amendment prohibiting the burning of the United States flag. With the flag furor extinguished (for now) another hot-button political issue with national implications is simmering right here in Wisconsin, attracting very little attention.

It is the case of The United States of America v. William James Richardson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where U. S. Attorney Steven M. Biskupic has decided to charge that the defendant “did knowingly wear a decoration and medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, a service medal and badge awarded to the members of such forces, and the ribbon, button and rosette of such badges, decorations, and medals, without authorization under regulations made pursuant to law.

“All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 704.”

The penalty for this misdemeanor offense is a maximum $5,000 fine or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.

Biskupic filed the charges on January 19^th, 2006, after an FBI investigation determined that Richardson had worn unauthorized decorations including the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, the Silver Star and the Distinguished Service Cross.

The venue? No, it was not Afghanistan or Iraq, or the halls of the Pentagon.

Richardson allegedly committed his offense "on or about the 4^th of July, 2002" as a member of the Fond du Lac American Legion Firing Squad.

He was allegedly photographed at that event, and fellow legion member John Streeter, a World War II vet, took the picture to the FBI, which used it as evidence against Richardson

Streeter’s suspicions were raised when he heard that Richardson, 60, was not accepted into the VFW post in town. If Richardson couldn’t make it into the VFW with all of that salad bar hanging on his chest, Streeter reckoned, then something must be wrong.

So, what started as a Legion Hall feud has become a federal case -- a very convenient case to rally veterans.

On April 6th, 2006, Richardson informed the court that he would enter a plea, after negotiations with authorities. He had until May 12th, 2006 to notify the court if a plea agreement had been signed. On May 19th, 2006, he entered a "Notice of Intent to Enter A Guilty Plea."

On June 16th, 2006, the Government asked permission to allow individuals to speak at the sentencing hearing. Three days later, the court allowed "members of the American Legion Post of Fond du Lac to speak at the sentencing," thereby turning it into a media circus. "If the defendant objects, he may file an objection which will be addressed in court," Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein ruled.

The next day Richardson's attorney, Calvin R. Malone of the Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., informed the court that Richardson would change his plea. On June 21st, 2006, Malone informed the court that there was a dispute about the July 4th, 2006 photograph. The government agreed to "stipulate that [the] photo was taken in May, 2002 rather than July, 2002. The information will need to be amended." The trial is set for August 3rd, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

I asked Assistant U. S. Attorney William Lipscomb why Biskupic decided to charge Richardson for this offense.

He said “perhaps you should see what veterans’ groups have to say about this issue.”

I responded that I was aware of what veterans’ groups have to say about flag burning, too, and I couldn’t see why this relatively trivial offense is being prosecuted in Federal Court in Milwaukee.

(By the way, there is a branch of the United States Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin located in Green Bay, which is much closer to the scene of the crime. Why wasn’t the case prosecuted there? Curious.)

My conclusion is that Biskupic, who can always be relied upon for his keen political instincts and willingness to do the bidding of his superiors, is advancing this case since it will make excellent election year fodder – just as would a flag burning amendment.

But why stop with Richardson? Why not take a page from narcotics prosecutors and go to the source? Maybe Biskupic should go after Richardson’s dealers, and put them out of business, too. Let’s shut down the foundries that cast these trinkets, and the looms that spin out yards of ribbon. There are dozens of places to buy these decorations, buttons and rosettes, both real and counterfeit, the latter of which constitutes yet another crime. A friend of mine in the business says the only real no-no in the sale of military decorations is the Congressional Medal of Honor, which has its own provisions in the U. S. Code.

The stuff is as plentiful as costume jewelry, and often as cheaply made. The authentic stuff often finds its way into the hands of the dealers from the government itself in the form of military surplus!

It is understandable for some people who feel the need to dress in uniform to do so as snappily as they think they ought. Although repugnant, if my neighbor decides to bedeck himself in a military uniform glittering with unearned medals, his little pantomime does me no harm, and I don’t think the U. S. Attorney should let the Attorney General force him into prosecuting the guy for something that happened four years ago, and attracted no attention then.

Richardson was not attempting to represent himself as an active duty soldier when he appeared at the 4^th of July parade in his resplendently augmented uniform. He was part of a display, much like a Civil War re-enactment, and you never hear of those guys getting busted for wearing their musketry medals and cavalry badges.

There is a difference between pretending to be a soldier and being a pretend soldier like Richardson and the re-enactors.

This is nothing more than election year pandering by the same crew that continues to probe the depths of that disreputable art.