Richard and the FBI

Source A / OM musings by Andy Murray, aka Murnut

Moderator: murnut

Re: Richard and the FBI

Postby murnut » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:34 pm

Today is my last day at the beach with my sons.

I'll just say welcome and I I'm flattered so many have joined us.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am


Re: Richard and the FBI

Postby brt » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:48 pm

murnut wrote:Poor Jake...still Clueless


One more comment to those who would choose to continue to disgrace Richard Theilmann with Patriotic Fervor and condemnation of Stolen Valor. . .

Never forget.....

Richard Theilmann saw his brother killed in an <accident>, one day after recovering >$100 Million Dollars in drugs. While flying a Helicopter, of which he was an experienced flight instructor.

We will never know if that was a case of 'Stolen Valor' of the worst kind.

Nor can we know the depth of Richard Theilmann's sorrow.



I will be taking a break now.
Best to all
Jake



Good bye Jake

You were wrong again

What.
By the way Robert was the Squadron Commander! more that just a flight instructor
brt
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:28 pm

Re: Richard and the FBI

Postby AussieMike » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:35 pm

brt wrote:What.
By the way Robert was the Squadron Commander! more that just a flight instructor


Yeah jake doesnt have a clue, its very common for him to post stuff thats just plain wrong.
Most of what he posts is only real in his head, a common affliction at OMF

**Mod Edit: Fixed Nested Quotes**
AussieMike
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Richard and the FBI

Postby AussieMike » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:35 pm

Yesterday at 10:28pm, agent99 wrote:
Very odd that the FBI apparently is still allowing RT to go around wearing his Navy uniform whenever he wants and wherever he chooses.

So where is the cut off point between wearing a military officer's uniform as a costume to when it becomes qualified as Stolen Valor?

All I've been hearing now for the past couple of months is that because that forum has found that RT was not ever in the military, because he was posing as a Navy Lieutenant Colonel he was guilty of Stolen Valor.

But now we are finding that this is not true at all!


Hazuka reponds

Where have you found information that it is not true ? On the contrary, everything point toward he IS guilty of stolen valor.

Where have you got the : "Very odd that the FBI apparently is still allowing RT to go around wearing his Navy uniform whenever he wants and wherever he chooses. "

We don't have any news whatsoever about RT since quite some time and nothing has been said about him still wearing his uniform now.


This is typical of how 99 will take words and twist them into lies.

The quote was from Barbera Theilmann, who was told by Bill Schmidt of the naval order the FBI told him

However the FBI told him to use discretion where he wears the uniform.


Note how 99 twists this into

FBI apparently is still allowing RT to go around wearing his Navy uniform whenever he wants and wherever he chooses. "


99's spin here is nothing short of a lie, yet another lie from her.
The FBI DID NOT SAY he could wear his Navy uniform whenever he wants and wherever he chooses.

The facts are while there are some very strict guidelines for ex military, and the wearing of uniforms at functions like military weddings and funerals, they dont apply to civilians.Richard Theilmann is not ex military, those regulations do not apply to him, he is and has always been a civilian
As i understand it If an ex military person wants to wear his uniform to a military wedding for example, he/she must wear the full uniform, not simply the jacket over jeans and sneakers, they must be neat and tidy and must not bring disrepute on it, ie get intoxicated or behave in an unseemly manner.
The only caveat for civilians i can find is they must not wear one in order to impersonate a military person.
You can hire and wear one to a costume party, because in that context its a costume and everyone knows it. you can wear one to deliver a strip -o -gram again, the audience is left in no doubt the person is a stripper not a military person, An actor can wear one in the movies as in a few good men, again the audience is not conned, they know its a movie and they are seeing an actor.
Historical societys who do re-enactments, such as civil war re-enactments are also allowed to wear uniforms, again the audience is in no doubt these are costumes, not uniforms. And it is for this very reason the letter of the law is as it is.
The FBI advised him to be careful that he did not wear his uniforms in such a way as to impersonate an officer.
By the letter of the law a civilian can own and wear one, provided its in the proper context, that of a costume, not a uniform.
The manner in which he has previously worn the uniform he owns Is a crime, thats not in dispute.And for reasons already outlined its possible they may not prosecute, since he did not use it to gain veterans benefits and other monetary gain. The FBI's advice was in relation to his future use of it.And he has been told never to wear the medals again.
Stolen Valor relates to medals and decorations, and is a seperate issue to the uniform, indeed the FBI warned him he may not wear the medals under any circumstances, he was never awarded them and wearing them is a crime.

There is no contradiction between what the FBI told him in regards to the uniform, and the facts of the case as presented for Stolen valor.
By the letter of the law its not an offence for a civilian to wear a uniform, provided its not done for the purposes of knowingly impersonating a military officer, thus the FBI caution to use discretion as far as the uniform is concerned.
Stolen Valor relates directly to the medals he wore, and hes been told never to do that again, that he has indeed comitted the offence of stolen valor.

Agent99 has yet again twisted an innocuous set of facts into lies in order to support the premise he was the real deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have looked into this matter, and what ive posted is to the best of my knowledge the true nature of the situation.
If anyone can correct me, please do so. Im not a US citizen, nor am i US military. US law is not my speciality however i have sought advice from people who should know, and to the best of my knowledge this is what we are dealing with in this instance
AussieMike
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Richard and the FBI

Postby murnut » Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:36 am

by special request

Image

link to image

http://tinypic.com/r/34o5yds/3
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Richard and the FBI

Postby ryguy » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:33 am

Oh that's funny - contacting the widow is poor form, but apparently insulting her and trying to belittle her testimony on a public forum is perfectly okay.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Previous

Google

Return to Murnut's Sauce

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron