Why I care about Stolen Valor

29 thoughts on “Why I care about Stolen Valor”

1. So, Murphy would rather spend all of his time writing about real soldiers? I guess that starts after he writes about not writing about phony ones. And Murphy here seems not to appreciate that writing about real soldiers or phony ones are not mutually exclusive exercises. TAH is a perfect example of doing both and doing both well. I never heard of Murphy before this morning. I will have forgotten about him by this afternoon, whoever he is.

   1. His site that he writes on is not surprisingly on SOCOM units. I can understand his view about wanting to talk about real soldiers over frauds in the same way that a Commander would prefer to promote a quality soldier then have to deal with as shitbag one’s UCMJ and chapter paperwork. Some of his other articles are interesting as well, we have covered one by him before. The Commander has to and can do both, just prefers one other the other.

      1. All of that is well and good but why write about what he is not writing about? It strikes me as a swipe at those blogs and reporters who do focus, regularly or now and then, on valor thieves. I could be quite wrong in my perspective. It has been known to happen!

2. Jesus, birdbrain’s really on a tear. I think I’ll wait to see something in writing from my respective branch before I stop visiting TAH. But I’m not holding my breath, “never happen” happens to be a long time.

3. Well, for almost two years, Paul K. Wickre has promised to have me sent to Jessup prison, sue me in civil court, have me assaulted by himself and/or people working on his behalf, and to have me killed. As of this morning, none of those threats have come to fruition. So, with that being the case, I place Bernath’s threats to anyone’s career in the same catagory. And, since I know that Bernath is reading this, please stop asking to be my FaceBook friend. Until Facebook comes up with a Facebook stalker category, I will respectfully decline your request.

   #BringElaineRicciHome

   1. Why on Earth would that moron think that you or anyone else on here would want to be ‘friends’ with him? I mean, why would he even waste his time doing that?

      Just nuts, I guess.

4. The sad thing about alot of these losers is they want attention. Anybody with a brain outed as a fake would have remorse and slink away. But most of these low self esteem losers thrive on any attention good or bad. That is why these losers pretend to be someone. When you post pics and crap of them they thrive on it. Look at Bernath. That bald limp dick has not been laid in 30 years.

5. The pictures I really like of Buttnasty is him in Nam. Notice that there are no walking sticks in any of the pictures. And yet he has to use them or remain seated in Court. Joe

6. Maybe if he wasn’t huffing all of his aviation fuel, Bernath would have had enough to complete his flight. So, Daniel, how is that lawsuit against the aircraft manufacturer coming along? And as to (see what I just did there?) flying across the country to rescue a dog, I think that Rover has a better chance of survival in a kill shelter than getting into an aircraft with you.

   #BringElaineRicciHome

   1. Hack, you should be asking him about his supposed “complaint” against Randy Rosenblatt, the lawyer that he originally teamed with in the second Yelp lawsuit. I wonder if Mr. Rosenblatt – who is a successful and respected lawyer in Ventura County – has taken any action against Bernath.

      Maybe someone needs to arrange a meeting between Mr. Rosenblatt and Judge Hyatt?

   2. Apparently, according to one of the sport pilot sites, it got pitched with prejudice (yet another one).

      So much for that “never lost a case” claim that I saw somewhere else, Danny.

      1. Did Bernath write “I never lost a case”, or “I never lost a case, over”? Because if he did not end with “over”, that means that he was not finished transmitting, over. The entire message was “I have never lost a case of scotch, over”, over.

         #BringElaineRicciHome

         #DanielBernathIsNotAnHonoraryCPO

         1. Looks like the NON CPO, Non Lawyer Daniel A. Bernath has been booted from the fb comments lol

            #BringElaineRicciHome

            #FindPaulPsulWickreMailboxDoor

            ((Over))

            1. So that’s what happened to Danny Boy. I thought he had blocked me from FB about an hour ago. Poor guy. Think I’ll send him some flowers. Heck, it’s almost Valentine’s Day, anyway! 😀

               1. Yep, it took me a while, but I figured out the FB comments and booted Bernath and his poodle, Dallas. They can comment, but they’re the only people who will see the comments.

7. YoooooHoooo Unfortunate Shaped Phallic Hedge, Fake, Never Was, Not Now, Nor Ever Will be, a CPO, Non-Legally Practicing Lawyer Daniel A. Bernath and Fartblossom Dallas Wittgenfeld~

   I’m still here!!!

   😈 Well Bumblebrain Bernath…I told you where to find me you Santorum Stained Molting Muscrat!

   It seems your PI’s investigative skillz rank right up there with your mad flying skillz. Too bad, so sad for you. How’s that Transdimensional Swamp Donkey of a wife doing? Still clinging by your side like a helpless whelp? The both of you, along with your Sky Clown and Bigoted Viking Wannabe should just pack it up. I hear you can get a heavy discount on a Disney cruise ship if you dress up as a Pop-Tart for the Kellogs’ European promotional tour. Of course Psul is apt to beat you to the best costume as I hear that Spandex was on sale. You may have to sue him for the right to the better costume.

   I’m sure your colon has shrunk a couple of feet after the emergency interwebsphincterectomy your getting these last few days, but a little voice has told me lots of great things are still to come…guess you will just have to wait to find out..better stock up on the candy corn…

   You two are certainly not the cleverest guys in a togas after all, are you?

   Its great to see you are still so intrigued with my “Tramp Stamp”, as you’ve referred to it a few times now. You certainly have a thing for people’s derrieres. Pray tell what is this fascination of yours with this particular part of one’s anatomy? Does it make your glittery gargoyle gonads all a quiver?

   Let me first disabuse you of you misconception of my tattoo. My husband’s Wings that are on my BACK are not now, nor where they ever a “Tramp Stamp”. Not to mention its not even in the location you think it is.

   Now that we’ve cleared that up, you perverted smegmatic, slimey pieces of excrement, keep this in mind, any person sufficiently intellectually advanced enough to not smear themselves in their own feces knows just exactly who and what you are, an excrement-stained authority of NOTHING.

   You were never and never WILL be a CPO Honourable or otherwise. You are NEVER going to be a practicing lawyer in Oregon or Florida, and soon (one can hope)not even California. As for you Dallas, you are NOT now nor were you ever SF or LRRP. You were attached to those units. Being attached does not make you one, PERIOD.

   Your phony claims of PTS and suicidal tendencies are nothing but FICTION. Just like your CPO (Hon)and LRRP/SF claims You are a LIARS and a THIEVES and deserve every rotten thing that comes your way.
   You no more have PTS, suicidal tendencies, or a claim to CPO/LRRP/SF anymore than my recently excrement-splattered shoes.

   You both are nothing but tortured turnip turds bobbing to the surface like floaters requiring a second flush, maybe even a jiggle of the handle a little bit to banish you to the deepest septic tanks in Oregon and Florida.

   So with all that being said, I leave you with one last thing.

   Go get some profession help for that fecally-confounded condition that you suffer from, you illiterate swamp donkeys.

   OVER! ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

8. Some info for the FB commentators above on the NON CPO, Loser NON-Lawyer, Expert Plane Crasher Daniel A. Bernath, Sparkle Pony Extraordinaire…

   ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

   Public Record:

   Filed: July 24, 1998

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
   In the Matter of the Application of
   DANIEL ALAN BERNATH,

   For Admission to the Oregon State Bar.

   (SC S44863)
   On review of the recommendation of the Oregon State Board of Bar Examiners.

   Submitted on the record and briefs April 24, 1998.

   Daniel A. Bernath filed petitioner’s briefs pro se.

   Jeffrey D. Sapiro, Oregon State Bar, Lake Oswego, filed the brief on behalf of the Oregon State Board of Bar Examiners.

   Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Durham, Kulongoski, and Leeson, Justices.

   PER CURIAM

   Admission denied.

   PER CURIAM

   The issue in this case is whether Daniel A. Bernath (applicant) has proved by clear and convincing evidence that he “is a person of good moral character and fit to practice law” in this state. ORS 9.220(2)(a).(1) After de novo review of the record developed before the Board of Bar Examiners (Board), ORS 9.536(3) and 9.539, Rules for Admission of Attorneys (RFA) 9.60(5), and Bar Rule of Procedure (BR) 10.6, we conclude that applicant has not proved that he possesses the requisite good moral character and fitness to practice law in this state. Accordingly, we deny applicant admission to the practice of law in the State of Oregon.

   Applicant was admitted to the practice of law in California in 1984 and practiced in that state until 1994, at which time he moved to Oregon. In October 1994, applicant applied for admission to the Oregon State Bar. Applicant took and passed the February 1995 Oregon State Bar examination. However, following a character and fitness review proceeding, a three-member panel of the Board recommended that applicant be denied admission to the practice of law in Oregon. Thereafter, the full Board unanimously made the same recommendation to this court, forwarding that recommendation to the court on December 24, 1997. Applicant timely filed a petition for review of the Board’s recommendation. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 9.539 and BR 10.2.

   Applicant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has the requisite good moral character to be admitted to the practice of law in Oregon. RFA 9.45(6); In re Rowell, 305 Or 584, 588, 754 P2d 905 (1988). That means that applicant must show that it is “highly probable” that he has good moral character. In re Monaco, 317 Or 366, 370 n 4, 856 P2d 311 (1993). Any significant doubts about applicant’s character are resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying him admission. In re Jaffee, 319 Or 172, 177, 874 P2d 1299 (1994); In re Easton, 298 Or 365, 367-68, 692 P2d 592 (1984).

   In its recommendation to this court, the Board identified the following findings of the three-member panel that the full Board believed demonstrated applicant’s lack of good moral character and fitness to practice law in Oregon:

   “(A) He disobeyed a court order to pay child support.

   “(B) He was suspended for over a year in the State of California for failure to pay child support.

   “(C) He failed to inform the Board that he was suspended from the practice of law in the State of California and he lied to the Board about his suspension in California, stating that he was not suspended when he was in fact suspended.

   “(D) He loaned money to a client, Tamara Varner (‘Varner’), and collected on the loan from settlement proceeds from Varner’s lawsuit without Varner’s knowledge or agreement.

   “(E) He signed Varner’s name to a release without Varner’s knowledge and without advising the opposing party or counsel for the opposing party that he was signing the release on behalf of Varner. On that same release he signed as a witness, attesting to the authenticity of Varner’s signature.

   “(F) He lied by omission to the Board when he told it that he did not notarize the Varner settlement document.

   “(G) He endorsed Varner’s name to the settlement check without Varner’s knowledge and without advising the bank that he was doing so.

   “(H) He retained all of the proceeds of the settlement without Varner’s knowledge or agreement.

   “(I) He failed to respond to a notice from the Committee on Arbitration of the Los Angeles County Bar Association that Varner was disputing his fee and that there would be an arbitration of the dispute. He also failed to appear at the hearing.

   “(J) He failed to advise the Board of the fee dispute or the award in favor of Varner and against him in the amount of $10,000.

   “(K) He wrote a letter to Varner after entry of the award against him wherein he misrepresented the law and threatened to sue her if she did not agree to settle with him for $500.

   “(L) He destroyed all of his files for all of the cases he handled in California.

   “(M) A judgment was entered in California against him in the amount of $34,000 for malicious prosecution.

   “(N) He lied by omission to the Board when in his application for admission he stated that the judgment for malicious prosecution was reversed, but did not state that it was reversed by stipulation of the parties rather than on the merits.

   “(O) He failed to inform the Board about a lawsuit to which he was a party and which settled in applicant’s favor for the amount of approximately $41,000.00.

   “(P) On May 16, 1997, he issued subpoenas on which he holds himself out to be an attorney practicing in Oregon.

   “(Q) Applicant failed to inform the Board about a lawsuit in which applicant was a plaintiff in an attorney fee dispute.

   “(R) Applicant failed to inform the Board that a motion for sanctions was made against him for appearing at a deposition while carrying a concealed weapon and that a sanction was assessed against him in the amount of $750.”

   We need not address each of those specific allegations. As we explain below, we find that applicant failed to disclose to the Board his suspension by the California State Bar, and he made false representations to the Board regarding the Varner settlement agreement. Each of these acts, standing alone, would be a sufficient ground for denying his application to practice law in Oregon. Any further discussion of the remaining allegations against applicant would not benefit bench or bar.

   We first discuss applicant’s failure to disclose his suspension by the California State Bar. The status of an applicant’s bar membership in another jurisdiction is material information required by the Board in making an evaluation of that applicant’s character and fitness to practice law in Oregon. That information, along with a certificate of good standing, is required in the original application for admission to practice law. RFA 4.15(3).

   Applicant was an active member of the California State Bar when he filed his application to practice law in Oregon. At some point after making his application, applicant voluntarily transferred to inactive status in California. On July 31, 1995, after that voluntary transfer to inactive status, applicant was suspended by the California State Bar for failing to pay child support. Applicant failed to disclose his suspension to the Board; the Board discovered it during its investigation of applicant’s character and fitness. Applicant repeatedly denied that his California Bar status had changed until the Board produced documents demonstrating that the California State Bar had suspended him for failure to obey a court order to pay child support.

   It is essential that every applicant to practice law in Oregon fully disclose to the Board all information relevant to the applicant’s character and fitness. Failure to disclose relevant information fully and candidly is a ground for the Board to recommend denial of admission. RFA 6.05(3). It also forms a basis for this court to deny admission. In re Parker, 314 Or 143, 154-55, 838 P2d 54 (1992). Applicant was on notice of his obligation to disclose relevant information to the Board, both through the Rules for Admission of Attorneys and through the application itself, on which applicant acknowledged, by signature and under oath, his duty to disclose. Applicant’s disclosure fell short of the degree of disclosure that he acknowledged to be required of him. Because it raises significant doubts about his good moral character, applicant’s failure to disclose his suspension by the California State Bar constitutes a sufficient ground for denial of his application to practice law in Oregon. In re Monaco, 317 Or at 369-71; In re Parker, 314 Or at 154-55.

   We turn to applicant’s representation of Tamara Varner. Applicant represented Varner in a variety of legal matters while he was an active member of the California State Bar. The last matter in which he represented her was a personal injury auto accident case in which Varner was the plaintiff.

   The attorney-client relationship between applicant and Varner was governed by a written fee agreement. Applicant destroyed the Varner fee agreement before he moved to Oregon. During the Board’s character and fitness investigation, applicant produced a blank, computer-generated agreement that he claimed was identical to the agreement that Varner signed. That blank agreement included a power of attorney provision. Varner disputes applicant’s assertion that the agreement that she signed contained a power of attorney provision. Varner further asserts that, if the agreement that she signed did include a power of attorney provision, applicant explained neither the meaning nor the effect of that provision to her.

   The defendant’s insurance carrier in Varner’s auto accident case agreed to a settlement in the amount of $10,000. A release agreement was part of that settlement. The terms of that release agreement required Varner to acknowledge that she had “completely read” and “fully understood” it. By its terms, the release agreement also expressly stated that the release was essential and material to the settlement and that the settlement would not have been entered into by the defendant’s insurance carrier without the release. Claiming that he acted on the authority of the power of attorney provision that he asserts was in the Varner fee agreement, applicant acknowledged that he signed Varner’s name on the release agreement. Applicant also endorsed Varner’s name on the settlement check. Applicant made no disclosure or indication, either on the release documents or orally, that he was signing the release on Varner’s behalf. In addition, applicant signed his own name on the release attesting that he witnessed Varner sign that document.(2)

   By signing the release agreement and the settlement check, applicant falsely represented to the defendant, the defendant’s counsel, the defendant’s insurance carrier, and the bank that negotiated the settlement check that Varner personally approved the settlement, endorsed the check, and released the defendant from all claims. Applicant’s willingness to make such false representations demonstrates a lack of good moral character. See, e.g., In re Magar, 312 Or 139, 141, 817 P2d 289 (1991) (lawyer’s unauthorized endorsement of client’s name on draft made out to client constituted behavior involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation); see also In re Boothe, 303 Or 643, 651-52, 740 P2d 785 (1987) (lawyer’s endorsement of client’s name, without authorization, on a check on which lawyer and client were joint payees, constituted conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation); In re Sassor, 299 Or 570, 576, 704 P2d 506 (1985) (lawyer’s endorsement, without authorization, of payee’s signature on a state property tax refund check and deposit of those funds in lawyer’s trust account constituted conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation). Applicant’s testimony before the Board provided no convincing explanations for his misrepresentations in the course of the Varner litigation, and does nothing to resolve our significant doubts regarding applicant’s moral character. Those doubts constitute sufficient grounds for denial of his application to practice law in Oregon. In re Monaco, 317 Or at 369-71; In re Parker, 314 Or at 154-55. See also In re Cheek, 246 Or 433, 425 P2d 763 (1967) (applicant who signed name of company president to two checks and lied about damages to a company automobile denied admission).

   In a bar admission proceeding, this court’s primary responsibility is to the public. Our charge is to assure that those who are admitted to the bar possess the ethical responsibility and the maturity of character necessary to enable them to withstand the many pressures and temptations that will confront them in the practice of law. The record contains overwhelming evidence that applicant does not possess that requisite good moral character and fitness to be a practicing attorney in Oregon. Applicant’s brief to this court does little to resolve the doubts raised by the Board about his character. We conclude that applicant has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a person of good moral character and fit to practice law in Oregon.

   Admission denied.

   ——————————————————————————–

   1. ORS 9.220 provides in part:

   “An applicant for admission as attorney must apply to the Supreme Court and show that the applicant:

   “* * * * *

   “(2)(a) Is a person of good moral character and fit to practice law.”

   Return to previous location.

   ——————————————————————————–

   2. The record also reveals that applicant repeatedly attempted to mislead the Board regarding the Varner settlement release agreement. He failed to produce the release agreement, despite repeated inquiries about it by the Board and his knowledge that the Board deemed the agreement to be critical to the evaluation of his character and fitness. At one point, he denied that there was a release agreement. He later suggested that he already had provided the release agreement to the Board when, in fact, he had not done so. He stated unequivocally that he had not notarized the release, without disclosing that he had attested to witnessing Varner’s signature on the release, an act functionally equivalent to notarization.

   1. Not only that, but with Radio Shack filing for bankruptcy, the last organization willing to accept Bernath, the Radio Shack Battery Club, is going the way of FirsTech Solutions, over. That just leaves The Dutch Rudder Club, over.

      #BringElaineRicciHome

      #DanielBernathIsNotAnHonoraryCPO

9. Danny, you’d better get that $20,000 back from that licensed private investigator. Hack and I drink beers together, and I can guar-en-tee that he’s not in Philadelphia.

   Or maybe he is and I live in Princeton, NJ and we get together at Bitter Bob’s in New Hope (but we like to call it Bitter Paul’s for obvious reasons).

   Only the shadow knows, and he’s not a PI.

   I’d suggest that you hop in your daughter’s plane and fly out to Psul’s house. Then to two of you can start in Maine and drive one of his crappy Jags down to Florida (and maybe stop off to see your daughter, if she’ll let you in the door) and see how many of us that you can find. Hell, you can even bail Witless out of jail just for old time’s sake while you’re down there. You’ll never find us. The bitch of it is, you’ve made such a public ass out of yourself in order to get into as many newspaper articles as possible, that we all know where you live, and Psul’s address is accessible by looking at his multiple arrest records on line. When you keep your moth shut and your ears open, you learn a lot without people knowing who you are, but it’s too late for the DRC. All of you have a pretty well established, and negative, public history.

   1. So, Daniel Bernath and Paul K. Wickre continue to find Hack Stone. Hack Stone is like Visa; he is everywhere you want him to be. Or maybe Hack Stone is like Santa Claus; deep down inside, there is a little bit of Hack Stone in everyone. This futile pursuit could be the inspiration for a low budget holiday movie, “Hack Stone Conquers The Dutch Rudder Gang”.

10. Just caught this one – “The military members who used to come here are now ALL GONE.”

    That is fking hilarious. Danny, Tom Walsh, to whom you were responding, identified himself as a JAG officer, hence a military member. Honesty, man, you’re so stupid that I’m surprised that you know how to breathe. A good portion of us here are military members. A good portion of those who aren’t currently military members work for the federal government and post here from government computers.

    Have you wife talk to someone and up your meds. You’re delusional.

    1. “A good portion of those who aren’t currently military members work for the federal government and post here from government computers.”

       Busted! Retired US Navy, now a civvie Fed working for the Department of the Navy. I visit here from my government computer every day during my lunch break. There is no restriction on this site, Danny- boi; it exists only in the vast emptiness of your mind. Seek professional help, ’cause you need it.

11. First off, I just want to thank you for taking the time to write that report. It begs the question, how did this man, if he even is a man, ever become an attorney to begin with? I wonder, does Bernath still hold a concealed carry permit/license?

    1. My comment was in reply to Toasty Coasty’s comment posted at 11:38am. Sorry for the mixup.

12. @Friend S. Wilkins

    I didn’t actually write up that report…Its from the Oregon Bar Association which is public record. Also, I believe Jonn or MCPO posted it before on one of the other Bernath Threads. I should have also noted that at one point he was disbarred in California for being a Deadbeat Father…..Now if only we could get the CA. Bar to bar him permanently 😈

    Not sure about the CCW, but should be easy enough to find out…Little birds and spiders have been and still are very busy…as has been said before regarding this buck tooth swamp donkey…patience my dear…patience 👿

    1. I understand, but it was still a great read. Thanks again.

13. The CA bar will take action.

    The package is conmplete.

    There will be only one decision.

14. FRANK VISCONI WRITES THE FOLLOWING TO ME AND MY RESPONSE FOLLOWS BELOW:

    From: Frank Visconi
    To: sam.killeffer@hotmail.com
    Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 7:25:28 PM

    Sam: I’m not getting all gushy on you now but today I happened to run across a boot Marine. We
    chatted and when we parted, he shouted out the phrase: “Once a Marine, Always as Marine”. Remember
    that. WE, you and me and all the other Marines took that attitude when we became Marines. What it
    means to me and should to you and all the others is that we carry that code with us wherever we go
    for the rest of our lives. We are supposed to live and act like Marines every day. Well, right now
    neither you NOR I are living up to that tradition…that code. I’m no less guilty than you. I’ve
    tried to project the image of a Marine everywhere I’ve gone from the day I enlisted and I know you
    have too. These past MONTHS we have BOTH dishonored that code. I for one am done. I AM a Marine
    and I will be one until I die and even after that and I am not going to continue on with this crap
    of cutting each other off at the knees every day. It’s old and it’s not who I am and I hope not who
    you are.

    NOW, down to the “Valor” issue. I know you don’t and never will believe anything I say about that
    issue. But that is MY fight with the Naval Records Department, not yours. If THEY want to find me
    guilty of some kind of stolen valor or of disgracing the Corps or whatever it is, then THAT IS UP
    TO THEM! It is not up to you or me or any of the guys on TAH or TWS or anywhere else. Fighting
    back and forth with you will get me no where nor will it get you anywhere. IF, and I mean IF, I am
    guilty of any wrongdoing, the Naval Records Department and the Marine Corps will find it out. If
    that be the case, then THEY will act appropriately. But each of us calling each other names and
    threatening each other is not going to help me, you , or them one bit. You have already found me
    guilty simply because the COURT dismissed my claims. Certainly they did not help me, but the job
    of the Court is to take the facts that are written in the briefs or stated in the courtroom, which
    I never reached that phase (except for when I dismissed the case against you and I had my reasons
    for doing that and you can think whatever you want) AND from that information NOT determine that
    the government is telling the truth or that I am lying, but to determine if the plaintiff (me) had
    enough evidence to prove overwhelmingly that the government is/was wrong. They said, in their
    decision that I did not have enough evidence or proof for them (the court) to say right out that
    the government is right and I am a liar. We both know that doesn’t even make

    sense. That is NOT the job of the court. I lost my battles but the War is still ongoing because I
    know I am right and somewhere out there, there is someone or something that will one day arise out
    of nowhere and put an end to all of this, meaning (hopefully) that someone saw or wrote something
    down that will prove I am right and the government failed to do their job.

    I am not saying the government as a whole does not do their job but even you can look at the
    military magazines, the newspapers or any news outlet and almost weekly one will find someone
    receiving an award they earned fifty years ago. So, what I am saying is the court decision are and
    were based on the facts presented to them by both parties. I gave them documents and the government
    said that 1) they did not have copies of those documents, and 2) that my documents do not conform
    to the policy embraced by the Naval Department. If you recall, only ONE time, three years AFTER
    they saw my original documents, they claimed they were not authentic and they provided me with four
    reasons. BUT, if you recall, I refuted and disproved every single one of their reasons for
    doubting their authenticity. But apparently not enough for the court.

    So as I write this, I would hope that you stop and think, think in the back of your mind, WHY HAS
    THE NAVAL DEPARTMENT (legal, records, or whatever department) or the Marine Corps NOT COME AFTER ME
    or NOT charged me with anything. WHY??? Because they are NOT 100% certain because they know that
    throughout history, policy is not ALWAYS followed to the letter of the word and mistakes are made.
    Again, we see it frequently when so and so receives a PH fifty years later. NOW, I say the PH
    because the whole issue on the PH is that its validity is based on medical records and not
    something someone wrote that individual up for. If medical records were properly maintained, then
    why did it take 50 years to find out that a veteran had been wounded 50 years ago. It’s a simple
    question and it deserves at least some pondering.

    I MAY NEVER receive the awards we are fighting over. Even though you and your friends say and
    believe I want them because I want to show everyone I am a hero, you are WRONG…dead wrong! MY
    RECORDS do not reflect what I did while I was in Vietnam and I want them to be accurate and reflect
    the truth and EVERYTHING that I did, bad or good and so would every other veterans. (SEE BELOW IN
    RED) I am not a hero nor do I

    want to be. I merely did what I was told to do and that is all.

    THERE ARE FEW THINGS THAT SERVICE MEMBERS COVET MORE THAN SIMPLE RECOGNITION FOR HONORABLE SERVICE
    TO THEIR COUNTRY. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN “WE” HAVE ENDURED THE RISKS AND SACRIFICES
    ASSOCIATED WITH SERVICE IN A WAR ZONE.

    The above is a note I had prepared for a personal audience with the appeals court if they had
    granted one: Your records follow you wherever you go for the rest of your life. Refusing to let
    this slide is not construed nor should it be construed as wanting to build up my war history so I
    can look better, It’s a pure matter of what is right and what is wrong and everyone has a
    fiduciary responsibility to whomever it is they work for TO DO THEIR JOB AND TO DO IT RIGHT! The
    Naval Records Department or a clerk or even my CO….someone did not do their job and it is not
    just simply in my case. It happens every single day right NOW and it has for many, many years.
    Some may say, who gives a shit. Well, I am not that kind of person. When people worked for me and
    they did something worthwhile that deserved recognition, I made sure they got it and I made sure it
    was in their file because one never knows when an employee will decided to go somewhere else. I
    simply want and DESERVE the same courtesy. I have looked at records of others who served during
    the same time as me and records of those that served later. They contained a whole mish-mash of
    documentation. Some had entries in their records for every single move that individual made. And
    then there are others that say nothing more than he was there and he came home. Those in between
    ranged from
    ridiculously “vociferous” (remember that name) and just plain overboard, to downright leaving a
    question as to whether the individual was even there.
    The SYSTEM does not always work the way it is supposed to and POLICY and PROCEDURES will NEVER nor
    could they EVER be written to cover EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THAT CAN AND WILL ARISE. A good leader
    makes his men abide by the written policy but a truly good, excellent leader, considers ALL of the
    circumstances and also whether there is any precedence. Then he makes a decision based on his own
    beliefs combined with what could have and what should have occurred. It is not just simple black
    and white.

    I am going to stop here and the likelihood is that you will giggle and smirk at all of this and
    tell your buddies on TAH that I am some kind of idiot and/or

    asshole and still a valor thief. Well, for one, I cannot be a valor thief because I do not wear or
    display any valor ribbons or medals or any other ribbons or medals that I have not confirmed as
    earned and that includes the CAR and the PUC. The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) that you
    display on your blog is not on my ribbon rack and never was because I never had or even had a use
    for a ribbon rack until I joined the MCL. That award was the original award given for the Vietnam
    War and was the Vietnam War Medal up until April or May of 1965. That medal was put on my record
    and then a line was drawn through it because in May of 1965, the government issued the VSM as the
    recognition for serving in Vietnam.
    The only time that ribbon was ever display was on another website which I cannot remember the name
    of but it was long before I even joined TWS and did not know any better and then when I posted my
    rack on TWS and was “politely” informed that I did not rate that ribbon. It was immediately taken
    down and is not on my DD-214 even though it was and then crossed out. In fact, some say that those
    that arrived in Nam prior to May 1965 should rate both ribbons because they were there prior to the
    authorization of the VSM and therefore participated in the Vietnam CONFLICT which is what it was
    called then, and then served in the Vietnam WAR which if was later declared as. That, however,
    means nothing to me. I don’t want it, I don’t need it. All I want you and the others to know is
    that the only reason it was ever on my rack was because until I joined TWS, I knew very little
    about awards, DD-214’s, Naval Records, and all that other crap. I was corrected and I corrected the
    error.

    I do not recall EVER posting the BSM and PH on my TWS profile because I know for a fact I would not
    have because it was in 2006 that my battle with the BCNR began and it was then that I learned that
    they were not on my DD-214 and thus I was not eligible to wear or display them. I did not join TWS
    until 2008 and if you recall, our “relationship” began with you attempting to help me get to the
    bottom of some things. I then left TWS because I did not want to be part of a large ongoing
    argument that others on TWS did not want to listen to every single day. Prater DID NOT ask me to
    leave. I told him I was leaving and he told me I did not have to but I again told him that it was
    best for everyone that I left and ended the stream on TWS. He wrote me back (e-mail) and told me
    that I could come back on TWS any time I wanted to and that is the truth no matter what you
    believe.
    ======================================================
    Frankie how do you explain the photos of you on blowfish-bomber.com in a Marine Corps Uniform with a “ribbon rack” that includes the Combat Action Ribbon. You also have a “Pistol Marksmanship” insignia that you did not rate according to your DD214 and your 2 DD215’s.
    ======================================================
    Now we continue with Visconi’s email ………

    I AM a Staff Sergeant and you know it but you are too stubborn to admit it.

    It is on my discharge, one a certified promotion warrant and several other places and it is also
    confirmed in a letter from HQ USMC written to me after I TOLD them that I felt it was their
    responsibility to inform you of the truth.
    The Major sent the letter confirming my rank to me and told me he could not send it to you because
    of “privacy” issues. I sent the letter to Lilyea to post and he refused to do it.

    Thus, as far as I am concerned, ONE and only ONE problem exists…whether I earned and rate the BSM
    and the PH?? NOTHING ELSE. I have proven I earned the CAR and I have proven I rate the PUC, if for
    no other reason, my two day participation in Starlite attached to 3/3.
    Your TAH friends that laugh and take delight in stating things about being a door gunner are just
    plain bullshit. I never maintained a door gunner MOS and I was never a permanent door gunner. I
    only took over the M-60 when it was necessary in a time that was VERY, VERY confusing to everyone
    on board that chopper. I was also never part of any air squadron so I don’t rate nor want the Air
    Medal. I didn’t even know what it was until I moved here near 101st Airborne and saw the Air Medal
    license plates.

    Nearly 100% of what you and your buddies on TAH say and believe above me are UNTRUE. I was a damn
    good Marine and I still live by the Marine Corps Code. I am a Marine ALWAYS and I try to conduct
    myself in that manner although I will admit that over the past four to five years I have conducted
    myself in a way that I am not proud of. You have to recall that I was in law enforcement for a
    long, long time and when someone tried to bully me, they finally did something that was against the
    law and I arrested them for it. I did not take any shit from anyone while I wore that uniform and
    I never took and shit from anyone during any part of my life. Your beliefs about me and your poison
    remarks and letters to the editor of my hometown newspaper brought out the former police officer in
    me and it also brought out the Italian in me, the VENDETTA part. That is the way I was brought up
    from the time my dad passed away when I was just shy of 9 years old and brought up from then on by
    my oldest brother who put me to work in a shoe repair shop at the age of 12 every day after school
    and all day Saturday. I grew up tough and determined to make something of myself and I believe I
    achieved that goal.

    The BSM and PH issue is between me and the United States Government and no one else. If I prove I
    earned them and I get them, FINE! If not, I will

    survive because I always have been a survivor but I will NOT….EVER let go of my integrity and my
    honor no matter what you or your TAH buddies say or do or what final decision the government makes
    and believe me, just because the court cases are over, THIS ISSUE IS NOT! I don’t want the Medals.
    All I want is for them to be on my record if I rightly earned them.
    Several other things I did and took part in are not on there and why I don’t know. So, doing what I
    know I did, I feel they should be on my records too whether I ever wear them or not. It’s now a
    matter of principle and my honor and integrity is at stake. I’ve spent too many years keeping both
    of them in tact and I am not about to let all I did, not just in the Corps, but throughout my
    entire life, end up with me and my name being smeared for NO REASON!

    Now you can take all of this and do what you want with it. But I am telling you, I am done with all
    this bullshit. It is not who I am and you can believe that or not. You however, if you are a real
    man and an honorable MARINE and a MARINE for life and you truly believe that everything you do and
    say for the remainder of your life reflects back on the Corps, then you will man up and take down
    all that bullshit about me that you have posted all over the place and allow me my right to prove
    my innocence, not before the court because I have learned that they are buffoons and do not
    consider their part in the system of justice as a duty but consider it as a career, a job that
    earns them a whole lot of money, but for myself and for God and Country. Frank V.
    ——————————————————
    MY RESPONSE

    FRANK: “Once a Marine Always a Marine” applies to all who served honorably in the Corps. That being said there have been and will continue to be some Marines that void their honorable service by actions after their service. For instance, Charles Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Sixta, and now you … Frank Joseph Visconi. Your honorable service has been negated by your dishonorable actions of fabricating documents, claiming awards that you never received, adorning your dress blue uniform with those unearned awards, and serving on a funeral detail for deceased Marines.

    NOW, your fight with Naval Records is over and you have been shown to be a disgrace to yourself and the Corps. The United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied your claims and stated in their decision –

    “And, significantly, the citations that Visconi provided for the Bronze Star and Purple Heart,
    purportedly issued to him in 1969, do more to undermine his claim than to support it. When
    Visconi made his initial request in 2006, he stated that he had never received the awards and did
    not know whether recommendations were ever made or granted. Id. at 287-88. It was only after
    this request was denied that Visconi claimed to have actually received the awards and to have the
    citations that accompanied them. Id. at 371. At no point has Visconi acknowledged this
    discrepancy or explained his failure to include the citations in his initial request.”

    Not withstanding the fact that you lied to the court as the court stated above, the citations you furnished the courts which you say were awarded to you in May of 1969 were composed in a font, specifically – ITC Edwardian Script Regular Alternate, a font that did not exist until 1994 and therefore could not be on a document supposedly awarded to you in 1969. And recently you “Produced” two new and different Award Certificates that certainly appear “more authentic” but are obviously fakes.

    You were never promoted to SSgt.

    You have not proven that you earned the Combat Action Ribbon nor have you proven that you rate the Presidential Unit Commendation.

    You were at one time a good Marine Frankie, but when you began to “rock the lie” of your unearned and un-awarded medals and ribbons you violated the Marine Corps Code.

    The BSM and 2 PH issue perhaps was between you and the government until you brought it out into the public domain. You posted your embellished ribbon rack both on TWS and Military.com along with your tales of combat daring do.

    The issue is over and you just fail to admit it to yourself. BCNR’s decision is final and the 6th Circuit Court confirmed that decision.

    Your name is smeared by your own actions. You have cost myself, Mary Schantag, and the US goverment plenty in defending against your meritless claims and when it came down to the “nut cutting” you either withdrew or failed to appear in court.

    Your honor and integrity are crap Frances; in your opinion everybody is incorrect… the courts, BCNR, US Marine Corps, Mary Schantag, and myself. You cannot prove your innocence because you are not innocent.

    Frank you are a classic example of a Floo Floo bird. Perhaps you are not familiar with this bird but you should be. A floo floo bird is a rather large bird that flies in a circular pattern with an ever decreasing radius until it eventually flies up its own ass!

    It is obvious that you are a butt hurt valor thief but you only have one person to thank for that ….. FRANK JOSEPH VISCONI!

    over

15. Sorry about the formatting in my previous post. I cut and
    pasted it from email.

Comments are closed.