Stanton a Liar?

Shelby Stanton's chief work, Order of Battle, is often quoted on this forum for good reason as it's the definitive source for unit information during WWII. However, I'm not sure that everyone here is aware that Stanton has actually made some despicable false claims during his career, such as falsifying his combat record and stealing classified documents. Shelby Stanton lied about his service in Vietnam, claiming to have undertaken several fictional missions as a Ranger. He also stole military sources from the government to include in his books, smuggling them in his briefcase to his files at home. These include highly classified pictures of dead American helicopter crew as well as After-Action Reports for Special Operations units. I recently learned of this while reading BG Burkett's Stolen Valor, and it surprised me that such a highly-respected historian has committed these heinous acts.

 

Not aware of this. I'll make sure I never spend a penny on anything written by him.

 

Source please ? Or is this just a rock thrown in the lake?

 

Here you go Skipper. To obtain these records requires a FOIA request, but here are the names.

Unrewarded Contract MDA903-92-C-0122, Defense Supply Service, Office of the Chief Attorney, Pentagon. This details Stanton's attempt to sell original documents concerning MIA cases back to the government.

US Army Criminal Investigation Command Report of Investigation on Shelby L. Stanton, Number 92-CID201-10014-7F1.

Several articles in The Washington Times were written concerning Stanton's theft and lies about his Army service, all in 1992 by Susan Katz Keating.

These are the sources cited by Burkett, among others.

 

I was skeptical at first also Slip, so before I posted my reply I looked into it. Stanton's fraud is actually quoted in this Supreme Court case:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/11-210_petitioneramcuamericanlegion.authcheckdam.pdf

I take Stolen Valor as a big deal. As should everyone else. I happened across this tidbit in the same breif:

Why should this concern everyone? Well the integrity of the Nations highest and second highest awards for Valor have been compromised. Even worse, these imposters false claims have made their way into the oral history project where they will be used as primary sources by future historians.

 

Seems like a couple of years ago there was a young guy who got lambasted for calling Stanton a fraud.

 

USMCPrice, I completely agree. For men who have not earned these medals or decorations to claim them as their own is sickening, and completely disrespectful to those who fought and died to protect them. The website www.thisainthell.us is a great resource for stories of stolen valor, and its writers are exclusively combat veterans.

 

I knew what you were looking for, that's why I made sure to give you something reputable. A historian lives and dies (allegorically) by his reputation. Their veracity must be above reproach.

 

Are you that young man?????

 

I have known for a while about Stanton. His misconduct does not invalidate his historical work, though.

 

Maybe....I think I even ended up in the cooler over it at one point, I'll look for the thread

 

It doesn't make you question his veracity?

Well what about this?

 

I do agree a historian lives by his reputation, and suppressing or falsifying evidence is a capital sin. On the surface the claim he falsified his war record looks credible, and would be easy to independently verify but the brief only quotes a book, not the primary sources. I'm not an expert on US law, but I believe a brief from amicus curiae is not an independently verified finding.

I wonder how Stanton could "destroy hundreds of documents", records from that era released to researchers are likely to be microfilmed copies not originals. Accusations of "misrepresenting the facts", when a lot of information is still classified, makes me think "facts" are actually somebody's preferred interpretation of events, there is a lot of "facts" about Vietnam that turned out to be propaganda. Overall the paragraph about Stanton in that document sounds more like character assassination than good research.




.

 

That because you claimed to be "young"

 

@Cadillac

Shelby L. Stanton is a licensed attorney for the state of Texas. He is also an honorably retired captain of U.S. Army Special Forces. Stanton is an acclaimed and noted author of vital historical references and has never been charged, put on trial, been the subject of a grand jury or convicted of any of the crimes or fraud you accuse him falsely of.

You cite sources and investigations which are supposedly available through the Freedom of Information Act, but do not submit them here for impartial examination. How do we know what they contain, otherwise? If these official investigations had uncovered evidence of the crimes you claim, then the government would be obligated to bring charges against Stanton.

1. According to your source, Stanton has stolen hundreds of documents.
Name one such document.

2. According to your source, Stanton has plagiarized hundreds of documents.
Name one instance of plagiarism with comparative quotes and page numbers, as well as the other author involved, for our verification.

3. According to your source, Stanton has fabricated hundreds of documents.
Name one such document.

4.. According to your source, Stanton has destroyed hundreds of documents.
Name one such document.

5. According to your source, Stanton has misrepresented the facts of the Vietnam war. Please be specific and give exact instances with proof of misrepresentation.

With regard to Captain Stanton's service record, please obtain a notarized copy from the official agency having it and post it in this forum for our benefit, along with an explanation how he falsified it. Otherwise, I appeal to the administrator of this site to delete this diatribe against Shelby L. Stanton because it constitutes a character assassination against an honorable author.

 

I'm not Cadillac, but I did provide the source that I felt gave creedence to the allegations.
I'll stipulate that Mr. Stanton is an attorney in the state of Texas, I have no reason to doubt it. I am also capable of making reasoned deductions. Some questions for you;
-If Mr. Stanton is an attorney, a fact I do not doubt, why has he not brought a Libel suit against Mr. Burkett for claiming in "Stolen Valor" that his military record is a fraud?
-The source I quoted was a brief for a case argued before the US Supreme Court. I am sure you are aware that for a case to reach the Supreme Court, it has been adjudicated, at least several times in lower courts. Would it not seem reasonable that any statements of fact had previously been adjudged as to their validity?
-The attorneys in this case were arguing for the implementation of criminal penalties in relation to acts covered by the "Stolen Valor" act. Would not it seem reasonable that if there were false statements or allegations contained within the brief that they would expose them and use them to prove that the act should be declared unlawful?
-In Mr. Stanton's case in particular, would it not be easy for the opposing council to prove he had been wrongly accused of falsifying his military record and therefore argue that the act be struck down lest legitimate military veterans, and the awards they have actually earned, be labeled frauds and thus unjustly subjected to derision and humiliation, and in Mr. Stanton's case the loss of reputation causing him real economic loss?

Just some food for thought.

 

No, it would not seem reasonable.

The Brief you have linked to is a Amicus curiae, basically "friend of the court", this one being the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and would not have previously been adjudged as to it's validity by prior courts.

I don't know if the Briefs are open to arguments by the lawyers for the Petitioner or Respondent. Each side is allowed to present their Brief and are allowed time for the opposition to file a counter-brief. But, I don't think the Briefs are argued over on a point-by-point basis.

 

AFAIK, the Burkett book brings nothing new to the table, and is a simple regurgitation of earlier work done by, the previously mentioned, Susan Katz Keating for the Washington Times. Also, AFAIK, Burkett never interviewed Stanton for his side/story.

As to why Stanton never sued Burkett for libel...He tried this with the Washington Times, and it went round and around, but ultimately went nowhere. More than likely costing Stanton a good sum in legal fees, as libel is often quite hard to prove. I don't think he'd willingly go down that route again, unless he is fairly certain that he will win.

AS you can see, the Keating - Stanton feud continues to the present day.
http://www.susankatzkeating.com/2011/02/milspotters-challenge-what-is-up-with.html