Thread: Person who exposed fradulent CMOH winner fired - BS

Exposer in Stolen Valor case fired - Washington Times

Less attention has been paid to the fate of the woman who helped expose Mr. Alvarez and who brought him to the attention of the FBI. Ms. Campbell, the event planner serving Mr. Alvarez snacks on June 27, 2007, was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who served her country for 10 years.
But after exposing Mr. Alvarez’s medal claim as a hoax — later reporting to the FBI what she viewed as a crime in progress — Ms. Campbell said she wasn’t thanked by her employer. Instead, she said, she was fired.

Pretty shitty imo

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

1. Her time in the military should have no bearing on this story or her firing. It doesn't matter if she spent 10 years being a Marine or 10 years working at Baskin Robbins.

Agreed. It's immaterial.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

2. If lying on a resume isn't a punishable offense then claiming to have received a military award shouldn't be either. Sure it's low rent but it doesn't harm society.

In principle you might very well be correct. However, in this case, there is a law against such things and so therefore it, by definition, is against the law. Additionally, is it legal to impersonate a police officer? Plain clothes? Street clothes? Or is that illegal too? I believe that is illegal. Very likely for the exact same reasons that impersonating a medal winner or member of the military is; it provides a false impression which can be abused to cause any number of harms, whether it is one of trust, financial damages through extortion or threat of false imprisonment (in the case of police), illicit gains based on assumption of the award/rank in question (in this case I think), etc. I'd hardly claim that this is a victimless crime all the time.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

3. If she was wrongly fired then she should sue for wrongful termination. The problem is that labor laws in the US are too lax towards these types of things.

I'll agree with the second point, and clarify the first. From the article, it sounds as if she wants no part of it and to just "let it go." Take that as you will. It might be true, or not. It might be the whole story, or a fraction. But her protest or lack thereof isn't really at issue, imo.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

4. This story is ridiculously light on details of her dismissal and what she has done so far about it. They needed to put less focus on the save the heroes angle and more on the exact details of her firing and what's happened with that uptil now.

I think the details are light because she might not be interested in "making hay" about this if the article is to be believed regarding timeline and her previous dismissals of requests for comment.

Trigger, did you read the article? Al isn't acting like he has inside info. The article states: "She has politely declined the offers from a parade of lawyers inquiring whether she would like to file a lawsuit against her former employer. She told them she was not interested. While she still wants her name cleared, she said, she doesn’t want to spend any more time thinking about Mr. Alvarez."

She declined to do anything about a wrongful termination case.

He also claimed to be a Sergeant Major (USMC) and a Silver Star recipient, not just a CMOH winner. And there is a degree of trust extended to military officers or high ranking Non-Coms (as he claimed to be) in much of the business and political word. That is pretty well unarguable. From preferential appearance in the hiring process to delegation of authority. Plenty of area for harm/damage to occur. Which is, in essence, what I alluded to in the comment you quote but don't appear to have absorbed. So no, not funny. The potential is there, which is why a whole host of things are legislated against - prevent potential damages or abuses. You know, things like driving under the influence among others.

Did you miss this bit from the article where it outlined her desire to "stay out of it"?

She has politely declined the offers from a parade of lawyers inquiring whether she would like to file a lawsuit against her former employer. She told them she was not interested. While she still wants her name cleared, she said, she doesn’t want to spend any more time thinking about Mr. Alvarez.Indeed, when she was invited by federal prosecutors to attend Mr. Alvarez’s criminal sentencing, Ms. Campbell declined. Nor did she have any desire to attend the Supreme Court hearing last month.

How else should one read the intentions of the actions above? If she was offered multiple attempts to attend/participate/litigate and chose not to, it is not a stretch to say she was not interested (wants no part of it). That you're "lol-ing" this early shows a decided weakness in your point(s). But carry on I guess \o/.

I realize that in today's overly litigious society, the absence of a suit looks questionable as it is out of the norm. But that might, just might, say more about the "norm" than it does the person in the article.

And I'll state the same thing to you again about her intentions. It's not supposition or guessing. A simplification perhaps, but if she declined getting involved more than once, it's pretty obvious she didn't want to get involved.

--

Additionally, Stolen Valor (the statute) was overturned and the appeal was denied by the 9th Circuit. Whether the US AG decides to attempt to take it further or not is not really the issue of this post. Lying, per several court case interpretations, most recently this one, is covered under the 1st Amendment, as smoken point out, regardless of the impressions left by the lie itself. My gripe (and I'll admit it's a minor one as it appears to be fairly minor to her) is that she called someone to the carpet over false statements while those false statements were against the law. They were acted upon by the FBI. At some point after that, she was let go and the only thing we know about it is that she feels it was based on her actions regarding Alvarez. With nothing else to go on I reserve the right to think that's pretty shitty (as I have). You can disagree, but absence anything meaningful other than "har har this will be funny".....you got nothing.