Will the Real Xavier Alvarez Please Stand Up?
A Daily Bulletin article yesterday by Will Bigham brought us the news that Xavier "Rambo" Alvarez was dealt a setback yesterday in federal District Court. You may recall that Alvarez has gone around for years claiming that he won the Congressional Medal of Honor. We have covered this saga many times: first here, and most recently here.
The District Court Judge, R. Gary Klausner, threw out the motion to dismiss filed by Xavier's public defender, Briana Fuller. She argued that his speech was political speech and was protected by the First Amendment. The judge wasn't buying it.
You've got to admire the majesty, certitude, and finality of the legal language concluding the decision:
See here for the Bulletin's copy of the entire decision.
The statement at issue by Alvarez, the first one he was cited for (there is now another) was, “I’m a retired Marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”
Apparently so. Meg, over at M-M-M-My Pomona, yesterday reported a "Xavier Sighting" at Los Jarritos II in Pomona.
*Our title comes from a phrase in the decision of the Court, "These cases are all inapposite..." We had to look it up too. It means the attorney cited cases that don't apply.
A Daily Bulletin article yesterday by Will Bigham brought us the news that Xavier "Rambo" Alvarez was dealt a setback yesterday in federal District Court. You may recall that Alvarez has gone around for years claiming that he won the Congressional Medal of Honor. We have covered this saga many times: first here, and most recently here.
The District Court Judge, R. Gary Klausner, threw out the motion to dismiss filed by Xavier's public defender, Briana Fuller. She argued that his speech was political speech and was protected by the First Amendment. The judge wasn't buying it.
You've got to admire the majesty, certitude, and finality of the legal language concluding the decision:
As Defendant’s statement does not merit the protection of the First Amendment, the statute under which Defendant is being prosecuted, 18 U.S.C. § 704, cannot be deemed unconstitutional as applied in this case. Furthermore, a legislative act is facially unconstitutional only when no set of circumstances exist under which the act would be valid. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). In finding that the application of 18 U.S.C. § 704 is not unconstitutional as applied here, this Court therefore concludes that the Act is not unconstitutional on its face.
In light of the forgoing, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
See here for the Bulletin's copy of the entire decision.
The statement at issue by Alvarez, the first one he was cited for (there is now another) was, “I’m a retired Marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”
Apparently so. Meg, over at M-M-M-My Pomona, yesterday reported a "Xavier Sighting" at Los Jarritos II in Pomona.
*Our title comes from a phrase in the decision of the Court, "These cases are all inapposite..." We had to look it up too. It means the attorney cited cases that don't apply.
Posts
