- Reaction score
- 1,107
- Points
- 1,160
What was his PER score on Ethics and Values? Conduct On/Off Duty?
May be he is "Leading Change".
May be he is "Leading Change".
BGen Ménard relieved of Afganistan Comd & other fall-outs
- Thread starter Sig_Des
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 9,808
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
The process for Administrative Release is quite lengthy and I doubt a frat charge is enough for DMCA (or whatever they are called) to action.
Two courts martial in 6 months for an O7 might do it though!
- Reaction score
- 3,838
- Points
- 1,160
Rifleman62 said:
Senior Officers get different assessment points, and oh wow do they ever make for 15 joke punchlines. You can see them all in the CFPAS Helpfile... best one I found was "Stamina/Stress Resistance". Allegedly there is only one person that can attest to his "stamina". >
- Reaction score
- 1,107
- Points
- 1,160
Depends if you subscribe to the born with, developed, or circumstances led to the deviancy syndrome. Or the 23% syndrome. You pick.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have no experience with the National Defence Act-
but it looks like Section 130 (with regards to Obstruction of Justice 139(2) CC) is used to make an offence when the offence happened outside of Canada.
The key part of the 139(2) is the "willful" attempt to subvert the course of justice. And without knowing the details I fail to see how he could be charged with this offence. The first part of 139 is dealing with sureties and judicial proceedings- section 2 expands the scope so as to not limit the sections application, simply refusing to answer a police officers questions about who was involved would not result in this charge. Or at least it shouldnt. A person isnt compelled to give a statement about themseleves or anyone else.
Now if he outright lied- sent emails to people to create a story, or attempted to create a story which he then relayed as the truth than maybe. At least my limited understanding would point to this- its a charge I have seen once on paper and was promptly tossed. It along with 129 of the CC are ermm...difficult to prove.
They require Mens Rea- it has been held that for Section 139(2) to result in a conviction it is required that the crown prove knowledge of the "falsity" of the statement,. I dont know how you would prove that his recollection hadn't failed him.
Again- Im not overly familiar with the section but I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where I would apply it unless an elaborate story had been concocted to cover someones tracks. If forced to speculate- and being that this is speculation worth nothing. It may just be a "dog pile" charge and in my experience courts hate those. Pointed, laser like, application of the code is always more appropriate and desirable. Some lawyers disagree believing it gives more to bargin with- but the ones I respect most are of a like mind. You only charge a person with whats appropriate- not everything that can be laid so that you can bargain. Just cause you can swear the information doesn't mean you should.
Curious thing this NDA! Thanks for the read gentlemen!
but it looks like Section 130 (with regards to Obstruction of Justice 139(2) CC) is used to make an offence when the offence happened outside of Canada.
The key part of the 139(2) is the "willful" attempt to subvert the course of justice. And without knowing the details I fail to see how he could be charged with this offence. The first part of 139 is dealing with sureties and judicial proceedings- section 2 expands the scope so as to not limit the sections application, simply refusing to answer a police officers questions about who was involved would not result in this charge. Or at least it shouldnt. A person isnt compelled to give a statement about themseleves or anyone else.
Now if he outright lied- sent emails to people to create a story, or attempted to create a story which he then relayed as the truth than maybe. At least my limited understanding would point to this- its a charge I have seen once on paper and was promptly tossed. It along with 129 of the CC are ermm...difficult to prove.
They require Mens Rea- it has been held that for Section 139(2) to result in a conviction it is required that the crown prove knowledge of the "falsity" of the statement,. I dont know how you would prove that his recollection hadn't failed him.
Again- Im not overly familiar with the section but I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where I would apply it unless an elaborate story had been concocted to cover someones tracks. If forced to speculate- and being that this is speculation worth nothing. It may just be a "dog pile" charge and in my experience courts hate those. Pointed, laser like, application of the code is always more appropriate and desirable. Some lawyers disagree believing it gives more to bargin with- but the ones I respect most are of a like mind. You only charge a person with whats appropriate- not everything that can be laid so that you can bargain. Just cause you can swear the information doesn't mean you should.
Curious thing this NDA! Thanks for the read gentlemen!
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,403
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
So all that training, all that money spent on courses, paying the individual, benifits and such thrown out because of an inappropiate consensual fling?
When do we see the General in charge of our messed up procurment process and crap we buy sent packing?
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
Container said:
No one here is privvy to exactly why that charge was laid. It is pure speculation when one links it with "I can't remember" commentary by the General.
One could also speculate that certain General may have tried to exert his rank as an influence in the investigation or their "findings" thus warranting an 'obstruction' charge and it would be nothing but pure speculation as well.
All I know is, those that did the investigation found reasonable grounds for the charges they recommended ... it'll all come out in the Court Martial: wash & rinse cycle ~ of that I'm quite I'm sure.
Until then - everything is only speculation.
- Reaction score
- 24,334
- Points
- 1,090
Apollo Diomedes said:
Would that be CLS, who signs off on Army requirements?
Yes it is container....."a curious thing the NDA". I have always been under the impression that they
normally threw the book at you with everything they could find.
"No exceptions".
"Tell it to the Judge" type of thing.
Basically speaking, when someone told me that I was going "on charge", there was no doubt in my
mind that I would be escorted out as being "charged".
They always seem to have a cover charge ;D
normally threw the book at you with everything they could find.
"No exceptions".
"Tell it to the Judge" type of thing.
Basically speaking, when someone told me that I was going "on charge", there was no doubt in my
mind that I would be escorted out as being "charged".
They always seem to have a cover charge ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Interesting- Thanks ArmyVern,
I hadn't even considered the use of rank to influence. I could definately see applications when using your rank.
Silly civi cops!
57Chevy- you may have enough legal experience to start offering advice yourself! ;D
I hadn't even considered the use of rank to influence. I could definately see applications when using your rank.
Silly civi cops!
57Chevy- you may have enough legal experience to start offering advice yourself! ;D
According to CTV News Robert Fife video report on 12 July stated that the Obstruction charge resulted from the BGen telling the MCpl not to say anything about their relationship to the MPs when he left KAF for his Court Martial trial.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
If we accept that report as accurate than the charge can be made out. R.V.WHALEN is similar and kind've applies-as he is attempting to convince someone not to report their informmation on the NDA offence to the police. And since the act under investigation is covered by (IMO) Section 118 of the Criminal Code as being a "Judicial Proceeding" he'd be eligible for the charge......
as a cops interpretation anyways. This has given me good reading on a boring nightshift!
as a cops interpretation anyways. This has given me good reading on a boring nightshift!
- Reaction score
- 3,034
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
Perhaps someone should remind LCol Sweet the difference between administrative actions and discipline.
Putz.
And he's trying to cloud issues here. If BGen Ménard really wanted to show leadership, and if he really did the things of which he is accused, then perhaps he should advise his lawyer to STFU.
Putz.
And he's trying to cloud issues here. If BGen Ménard really wanted to show leadership, and if he really did the things of which he is accused, then perhaps he should advise his lawyer to STFU.
Similar threads
