• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Court Martial discussion (merged)

If my long term memory serves me, I believe it was Former Commandant of the Marine Corps Chesty Puller that was quoted saying:
"You ain't a Marine till you've been to the Brig and caught the Clap"

I'm sure he wasn't thinking in that specific order of events....

Most lifers had a stack of "Page Elevens" that would replace the offending one in your PRB when changing duty stations....  ::)

I guess I'm only half, I tend to pick my dates better....
 
I was too drunk to catch the clap.  We seemed to have a lot of crab infestations in Pet.  Of course, by the time this came to life, buddy was in the field, and the Medics wanted to treat everone in his call sign.  Kinda funny when the CO's driver started to scratch...

Tom
 
;D or the CO himself  haha

I was in Korea for some winter fun and games along the DMZ back in 1979, hummm you know they still shoot at us... ops another story, well the young ladies of well the oldest profession, aka Bush Bunnies, well being rather full of energy and more then willing to work hard for thier money... some times took to thier work to the extreme....

One young PFC in my section was well I'd say trying to wear it out....  as the rumor of the dreaded "black clap" and other unpleaentness floating around, this young Marine was concerned about some rather painful feelings comeing from his lower half.  We sent him off to see the Corpsman, well I was in the BAS shooting the turds with HM3 Doc Joker our Corpsman, warming up in the tent, being some 40 below outside... well in comes PFC Pomes walking slowly and painfully....  "Step into my Office and drop trou PFC" Doc Joker advised

being behind a screen he had no clue anyone else was there....  he discribed his perdickerment to the Corpsman and Doc Joker said with the most concrened medical voice:
"Holly S#$% Pomes, you know what you got!, my god you may ever be allowed to leave Korea..."  Pomes to say the least was speachless, stunned at the idea of a life time of pain and discomfort.... 

Doc walks back to where I was and whispered in my ear with a boyish smile....  "watch this..."  out comes some rubbing acohol and some cotton ballls....  pouring a liberal amount of acohol into a lil stainless steel bowl, Doc walks back in and begins to tell Pomes the evils of his ways and the fact that this may be the end of life as he knows it...

Doc finishes with "I'll  fix an IV and some Penicillan, first wash it off and I'll be right back..."  Pomes, well not being the brightest bulb in the pack, did just that...

Just as Doc walked back to join me, Pomes began his task....  Out comes a blood curdling screm I'm sure was heard in North Korea....

By now Doc is laughing his ass off and steps back to see Pomes and informes him all he had was some friction burns.... and to try a little lube or foreplay next time... 

Doc Joker didn't just get that nickname for nothing.... cruel but effective.... and well from our prespective enteraining as well....

;D


 
Quietly announced same day as new CDS....

Department of National Defence Introduces Amendments to The National Defence Act
CF news release NR-08.037,  6 Jun 08
News release - backgrounder

OTTAWA - The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency today introduced legislation in the House of Commons to amend the National Defence Act (NDA) following the recent decision of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC) in R. v. Trépanier.

“This Bill will more closely align procedures for the selection of mode of trial by court martial and court martial decision-making with the approach in the civilian criminal justice system, while preserving the attributes essential to satisfy the unique needs of the military justice system,” said Minister MacKay.  “It will ensure that the court martial process continues to function in a manner in which Canadians can have trust and confidence.”

On April 24, 2008, the CMAC struck down the provisions of the NDA authorizing the Director of Military Prosecutions to select the type of court martial that will try an accused and requiring the Court Martial Administrator to convene the selected type of court martial.  The Court ruled that they violated the accused person’s constitutional right to full answer and defence.  The decision has removed the authority to convene courts martial, an essential step in bringing a matter to trial.

The legislation introduced today will result in the selection of the mode of trial being governed by operation of law.  The number of types of court martial will be reduced from four to two, and the accused will have the ability to choose the type of trial in circumstances similar to those set out in the Criminal Code.

“The changes will bring the needed clarity, certainty and stability to the military justice system,” said Brigadier-General Kenneth Watkin, Q.C., Judge Advocate General.

-30-
 
I won't post the individual's details here, but there's an upcoming CM, and the general message announcing the CM states this:

A. NDA SECTION 129 - ALTERNATIVE TO THE SECOND CHARGE - AN OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 129 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT, THAT IS TO
SAY, CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 26.02 OF THE QUEENS REGULATIONS AND ORDERS,
FAILED TO INFORM HIS COMMANDING OFFICER THAT HIS COMMON-LAW PARTNER
HAD OBTAINED EMPLOYMENT IN HALIFAX NOVA SCOTIA

B. NDA SECTION 129 - ALTERNATIVE TO THE FIRST CHARGE - IN THAT HE
FAILED OT INFORM HIS COMMANDING OFFICER THAT HIS COMMON-LAW SPOUSE
OBTAINED EMPLOYMENT

C. NDA SECTION 125 - WILFULLY MADE A FALSE STATEMENT IN A DOCUMENT
SIGNED BY HIM THAT WAS REQUIRED FOR AN OFFICAL PURPOSE

The charge sheet actually reads:

Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 129(2)(b) NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129(1) NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Charge 3: S. 125(a) NDA, wilfully made a false statement in a document signed by him that was required for an official purpose.

I've racked my brain trying to think of an occasion where I would be obligated to inform my CO that my spouse had obtained employment, but I'm not coming up with anything.  Anyone else think of a reason?
 
Could entitlements for Parental Leave be a possibility?

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/205-eng.asp

205.461(10) (Limitation) PATA is not payable to a member under paragraph (7) if the two-week waiting period is served by:

  1. a person in receipt of maternity benefits; or
  2. another person who is also in receipt of parental benefits in relation to the same child.
 
Could be several things
-Claiming IR or LTA benefits if member claims spouse resided elsewhere.
-Claiming Parental benefits

Obviously has to do with some sort of fraud

 
Court Martials are a matter of public record.  I suspect you are referring to R v MCpl Smith

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/smith2.pdf


The QR&O referred to in the first charge reads:

26.02 – DOMESTIC EVENTS AFFECTING PENSION, ANNUITY, PAY, ALLOWANCES, BENEFITS OR EXPENSES

(1) An officer or non-commissioned member shall notify their commanding officer in writing of changes in their family status and of the occurrence of other domestic events that might affect the member’s pension, annuity, pay, allowances, benefits or expenses and the commanding officer shall report to National Defence Headquarters any circumstances that might bring the member’s eligibility into doubt. (1 September 2001)

(2) Where documentary evidence of the event is available, the original document, a photocopy or a notarized copy shall be submitted to the commanding officer.

(C) (1 September 2001)

 
Michael O'Leary said:
Could entitlements for Parental Leave be a possibility?

Hmmm...yes, that could definitely be it, although the circumstances would be interesting to hear.  I suppose the charges would fit if he claimed his wife had already served the waiting period when in fact she had not.

Oh to be purple said:
-Claiming IR or LTA benefits if member claims spouse resided elsewhere.

Can't be that, as that would be related to spouse's residence and not employment status, right?

As for the QR&O, I'm still drawing a blank when it comes to a reason when I would be obligated to notify the CO in writing that my spouse had found employment.  I've never once informed my CO in writing or otherwise that my wife either found a job or got laid off/quit - although as long as I'm having my taxes deducted at source as single, it doesn't really affect my pension, annuity, pay, allowances, benefits or expenses.  Or does it?

I'm looking forward to seeing the transcript of the decision on this one!
 
I'm thinking that person charged is living/employed in one place, stated that their common law spouse was living with them on a stat dec and now turns out that they are not...straight fraud by the sounds of it.  Anyother thoughts?

MM
 
Occam said:
...

Can't be that, as that would be related to spouse's residence and not employment status, right?
...

You'll see by the link to the Court Martials and Appeals site that his CM is taking place in Halifax. From the original post we get the notice that he failed to inform his CoC that his spouse had obtained employment in Halifax.

If he was claiming IR saying she was living elsewhere, how come she can travel to work in the same town as he works in but he can't? If her employment is full-time, then why the requirement for seperate residences? Or, is she even travelling from the location of their principal residence ... or staying with him in his IR accommodations (ie they are now residing in the same residence even though it may not be the principal residence) ...

Either of the above would also fall within the scope of the quoted ref requiring notification to the CoC as they impact eligibility/entitlement to benefits.

 
The only benefit which is derived from a spouse's employment would be Imposed Restriction, which is now Temporary Relocation/Separation Allowance (TR/SA for shorthand).  The CBI indicates that a member is entitled for a number of reasons, with approval from their respective CM.  One of the foremost reasons: Due to spousal employment in the previous geographical location.

So, easily enough said, sounds like the guy started TR/SA citing his spouse's employment in the former posting location, and when she did finally get employment in Halifax, the member continued to claim the TR/SA.  Dangerous game to be honest.  Guess he lost.

It's one of those benefits that DCBA keeps their eye on, ALL the time.
 
A bump adding the very latest legislation introduced in the House of Commons:
The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, introduced two bills in the House of Commons today which propose significant amendments to the National Defence Act. The legislation reflects recommendations made by a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC).

(....)

The proposed Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act responds to a June 2011 CMAC decision which found that the current provisions of the National Defence Act (NDA) and Queen’s Regulation and Orders for the Canadian Forces do not sufficiently satisfy the constitutional requirements of judicial independence. The proposed legislation is also consistent with recommendations made in 2003 by the late Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice, following his independent review of the NDA.

The proposed Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act reflects a series of recommendations made by former Chief Justice Lamer, as well as those made in May 2009 by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

(....)

The amendments proposed in the two bills will:
  • Further enhance the independence of military judges;
  • Expressly provide in legislation the purposes, principles and objectives of sentencing in the military justice system;
  • Expand the pool of Canadian Forces members eligible to serve on a court martial panel;
  • Provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders, as well as the ability to submit victim impact statements at courts martial;
  • Improve the efficiency of the grievance and military police complaints processes; and
  • Establish the position of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal in legislation and specify the Provost Marshal’s responsibilities.

More in Backgrounders

 
Military judges decided that it wasn't plausible for themselves to return to service as military lawyers, and cooked up the "Oh no!  I have no security of tenure" claim.

Spurious logic to secure themselves large paycheques and the resultant large pensions.
 
Bzzliteyr said:
Confirmed.  I was busted down to Cpl last year from Sgt.  It hurt.  But they couldn't hold me down for long!!

;)

Good job.

I see that the March CM results of my P2 from theatre are now posted up too. Never let anyone tell you to:  "Elect the CM; they'll never Court Martial you on 129s". Absolutely false.
 
ArmyVern said:
I see that the March CM results of my P2 from theatre are now posted up too. Never let anyone tell you to:  "Elect the CM; they'll never Court Martial you on 129s". Absolutely false.

And the powers of punishment are far greater with a CM. Much better to own up to screwing up at a SM, unless you're not guilty of course.
 
PuckChaser said:
And the powers of punishment are far greater with a CM. Much better to own up to screwing up at a SM, unless you're not guilty of course.

Ha, and I completely think the opposite.  I was busted down to Cpl on a summary trial.  Had I opted for the Court Martial (ooh, cringe in fear of those words, NOT) then the powers of punishment would have been far greater (life in prison) BUT the fact that it is a completely JUST process (neutral as in they use the facts and no prior chatting in the mess the night before the trial) would have resulted in a far lesser punishment.

In a CM, the judge is neutral and only looks at fact, the lawyers are neutral and look out for the best interests of their clients and the lawyers don't only fight for the sentencing decision, they debate and decide the punishment as well, using precedences, career history, etc.

Unless the charge is silly and you were caught completely red handed, opt for the CM.  (but even then, the lawyers do their jobs and can find technicalities, obscure laws and other examples to help you win).

Just my 2 cents.
 
Bzzliteyr said:
Ha, and I completely think the opposite.  I was busted down to Cpl on a summary trial.  Had I opted for the Court Martial (ooh, cringe in fear of those words, NOT) then the powers of punishment would have been far greater (life in prison) BUT the fact that it is a completely JUST process (neutral as in they use the facts and no prior chatting in the mess the night before the trial) would have resulted in a far lesser punishment.

In a CM, the judge is neutral and only looks at fact, the lawyers are neutral and look out for the best interests of their clients and the lawyers don't only fight for the sentencing decision, they debate and decide the punishment as well, using precedences, career history, etc.

Unless the charge is silly and you were caught completely red handed, opt for the CM.  (but even then, the lawyers do their jobs and can find technicalities, obscure laws and other examples to help you win).

Just my 2 cents.

Also, the rules of evidence are significantly different in a ST and CM; something admissable at ST may not be at a CM. 
 
Crantor said:
Ah barracks room lawyering...

Not barracks room lawyering at all.. fact.  I was slated for a CM last year when the charges were dropped due to a technicality my lawyer found.  My regiment fixed it and relaid the charges a weeka later.  I was invited into a an office and chatted with.  I subsequently chose ST for the next round of fun and got hit, hard.  Demotion to Cpl from Sgt is not only a financial hit but a HUGE psycholigcal one as well. 

After my lawyer from the CM heard about the decision, I was encouraged to put in a "request for review of decision and sentence" in regards to the ST.  My lawyer suggested that had the case gone to CM, the sentence would have been much less than that and if we looked at precedence it may have come out at around $1000ish dollars.  Instead, The review was found in my favour, I was returned my rank on parade and given a $2500 fine with reprimand.

No barrack room lawyering here.
 
Back
Top