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

Charges Laid for Corruption of a Database

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
Procedurally, the plea of guilty must be accepted by the court, and, if not plead to all charges, the prosecutor must decide whether to call evidence on the remaining charges.

Given that the judge received submissions on pay and pension implications, it suggests that he has accepted the guilty pleas and the court is now in the sentencing phase.  This also implies that the prosecution lead no evidence on any charges where there was not a guilty plea, and therefore they would have been found not guilty of those.

All in all, sounds like they decided to plead guilty in the hopes of a reduced sentence.  No idea whether or not there was a joint submission on sentence.
 

40below

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Wookilar said:
Question I have for the legal beagles here: They have plead guilty to willfully damaging military property, but the courts martial is still proceeding? Does the court have the authority to not except that plea and continue with a trial?

They pleaded guilty, but the charges and circumstances leading up to them, as well as any mitigating factors, have to be read into the court recordbefore they will be sentenced. A plea doesn't end a court martial, just takes it to end game. Witnesses don't have to be heard from or go through cross and re-exam, but the circumstances have to be established and agreed to by prosecutors and defence in what's known as an agreed statement of facts before sentence can be handed down. That's where this is going.
 

kincanucks

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Okay so guilty is the plea and the sentence will be?

My guess:

Reduction in rank, which means LS for both.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,992
Points
1,060
...and they can deal with their 'pay and pension implications'.  Do they honestly think that 'future hardship' should be taken into consideration during sentencing?  Maybe they should have thought of that before they did the deed, aka "teach them a lesson".

::)
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
872
Points
960
Interesting idea... If they had arranged the database corruption as a formal exercise, they might have been commended for their foresight.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
28
Points
580
There is also a little know point that is missing in the report.  As the charges already reached the "judge" the prosecution does not get to drop them.  The prosecution can agree with the defence request that the charge be dropped but the "judge" has the final say - he/she can reject the request and proceed with the charges.  Don't see it happening but it is another reason they have to continue with the process. Same as the guilty plea - the judge could refuse the plea if he/she felt there was something odd happening - e.g. mbr was entering plea under threat.

IMO reduction in rank is the least they should get.  Funny how they weren't too concerned about the finances when they committed the offence.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
While the judege can reject a pela of guilt or innocence, once the crown declines to lead evidence he can do nothing but find someone not guilty of those charges.  It's fairly common, in both civilian and military justice, to have an accused plead guilty to one charge, and then have the prosecution lead no evidence for the other charges.  The judge cannot order the prosecution to lead evidence; otherwise, there would be a perceived lack of impartiality of the judge.

A judge can only rule based o nthe evidence before him; if there isn't any, then the person is found not guilty.
 

M Feetham

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
Somthing else to consider here is that with a plea of guilty, there is a very real possibility of losing their security clearances, that would render them effectively unemloyable in their respective trades. Interesting to see what happens at that point. COT, VOT, release? Any one have any ideas?
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,751
Points
1,060
At this point, even with a reduction in rank and no security clearance, would you as a supervisor trust them? I certainly would not. A member of the CF should not have the attitude of "I'm smarter than everyone, so I'll do my work and delete everything when I leave just to prove it". IMHO they both should be released for bad conduct (can't remember what the release item is).
 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
Eye In The Sky said:
...and they can deal with their 'pay and pension implications'.  Do they honestly think that 'future hardship' should be taken into consideration during sentencing?  Maybe they should have thought of that before they did the deed, aka "teach them a lesson".

::)

When you have some time to kill, take a peek through the numerous transcripts of Courts Martial that are available on the JAG site on the DIN.  You'd be amazed at just how often "future hardship" (aka family obligations, amongst other reasons) plays a part in the sentencing phase.  A fine is meant to have deterrent and punishment effects - but a fine that is overly harsh serves only to punish the family.
 

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I hope they are both released.  To hell with the implications to them, the implications to the CF of what they did are far greater than most people here know.

The CF has no responsibility to care about their future, these two have broken their oath, they have violated the trust the CF placed in them, they have shredded the code of service discipline and ignored the CF's ethics.

I'd also like to hear someone talk about the other elephant in the room.  What on earth were married personnel doing in the exact same chain of command with one in a direct leadership role over the other?
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,468
Points
1,060
Well, one of them had to be on top.  C'mon now, you were all thinking it...  >:D
 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
Zip said:
I'd also like to hear someone talk about the other elephant in the room.  What on earth were married personnel doing in the exact same chain of command with one in a direct leadership role over the other?

Where did you see anything to suggest one was in a leadership role over the other?  I don't think that's the case here.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
Occam said:
Where did you see anything to suggest one was in a leadership role over the other?  I don't think that's the case here.

Ummm!  Perhaps go back to page 1 and read the full topic, and your question will be answered.
 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
Okay, I'll rephrase slightly.  I'm not privy to the roles they carried out at NDCC, but given that they were (and are) the same rank in different MOCs, is Zip certain that one was in a supervisory role over the other?
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
Occam said:
Okay, I'll rephrase slightly.  I'm not privy to the roles they carried out at NDCC, but given that they were (and are) the same rank in different MOCs, is Zip certain that one was in a supervisory role over the other?

I am sure that Zip will come back with an affirmative answer.  I have known him for quite some time, and I am sure with his TI and rank, he can judge who in his workplace is in the posn of authority, be it by rank, seniority or appointment. 
 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
It'll be interesting to find out.  Spouses serving in the same unit isn't a big deal; one serving in a position of authority over another is a huge deal.  If it happened, it's probably a safe bet it won't ever be allowed to happen again.
 

the 48th regulator

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair, in a message from home, explained to Petty Officer Second Class Reid at headquarters how to disable the system. Petty Officer Second Class Reid noted that she was going to backup the information on to a CD and “then corrupt.”

At that point, Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair responded: “Don’t forget to crash the database.”

Petty Officer Second Class Reid wrote back: “I will now.”

The electronic chat messages were later discovered by investigators.


However, it was also noted that investigators at first were stumped when the electronic evidence was discovered.

It was not until they went out side of the builiding where the case began to unravel for the two perpetrators. The investigators found Petty Officer Second Class Reid spray painting "I did, already!!" on the back windshiled of her car.  It was when they approached her that they realized more than one was involved as she was respondong to the message painted on the front  windshield, by Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair, that stated "Did you Crash it yet?"


73kfnnr.jpg



In our next episode, watch How Reid and Sinclair decide to go behind enemy lines, and try to defeat the Taliban single handedly!!!

You won't want to miss the shenannigans!

dileas

tess




 
Top