# Charges Laid for Corruption of a Database



## Nfld Sapper (12 Aug 2008)

News Release
Charges Laid for Corruption of a Database
NR 08.051 - August 12, 2008

OTTAWA – The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) has charged two military members today with several offences in relation to the alleged corruption of a database while they were posted in Ottawa, Ontario. 

Petty Officer Second Class Sylvia Reid, now a member of Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship Regina, and Petty Officer Second Class Janet Sinclair, a member of the Maritime Forces Pacific Headquarters in Esquimalt, British Columbia, were each charged with one count of Sabotage, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 52 of the Criminal Code, one count of Conspiracy, contrary to Section 128 of the National Defence Act, one count of Mischief in Relation to Data, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 430(5) of the Criminal Code and one count of Wilful Property Damage, contrary to Section 116(a) of the National Defence Act. 

Members of the CFNIS conducted the investigation with assistance from Military Police at Canadian Forces Support Unit Ottawa, the site where the incidents allegedly occurred. Based on all evidence collected including computer forensic analysis, PO2 Reid and PO2 Sinclair allegedly corrupted a Government database in July 2007. 

The CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, DND employees and CF personnel serving in Canada and abroad. 

-30-

Media Contact: 
Captain Paule Poulin 
Public Affairs Officer 
Canadian Forces Provost Marshal 
613-949-1022


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Aug 2008)

Well, that certainly is interesting.  I wonder if that's the reason that some units in Ottawa do not have a Common Drive..... ???


----------



## 40below (12 Aug 2008)

Sabotage? There's a charge you don't see laid very often.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Aug 2008)

If it ever comes out it will be interesting to see what kind of damage they did allegedly.


----------



## GAP (12 Aug 2008)

> one count of Mischief in Relation to Data, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 430(5) of the Criminal Code



Hmmmmmm....wanna bet it wasn't spy type stuff so much as practical joke/getting even stuff?

Shudda known better.... :


----------



## dangerboy (12 Aug 2008)

I have seen our Coy database get all screwed up by people that think they know how to use Excell, input stuff and ended up making a mess of everything.


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

ayup, a fine line between incompetence and intentional sabotage ... at least the burden of proof for incompetence is much simpler to prove.

Am surprised that they are both still in the service if it was proven that they both colluded in an act of malicious damage to CF data.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Am surprised that they are both still in the service if it was proven that they both colluded in an act of malicious damage to CF data.



Had to keep them in long enough to charge them.  >   It will be interesting to see the punishment.  Dishonorable discharge, I would hope.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Aug 2008)

Well they haven't been convicted of anything yet.


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

That's not 100% true.
You can still be brought to trial in the CF - even if you quit the forces, in an effort to avoid prosecution.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Aug 2008)

Lets wait until they do the hatless dance before we draw any conclusions or speculation.


----------



## Haggis (12 Aug 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Hmmmmmm....wanna bet it wasn't spy type stuff so much as practical joke/getting even stuff?



From what I see in my job, most probably not "spy stuff".   Once a unit/member becomes aware of a potential malicious transaction, the machine kicks into gear and the forensic audits start.  This is so easy to track down.... it just takes time.

Watch for the court martial transcript on the JAG site in a few months.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Aug 2008)

Definitely a first one for me to see.  They must have some pretty solid evidence.  I investigated a malicious act on DND IS once, came up with the "Professor Plum, in the Study, with the Lead Pipe" evidence and nothing ever became of it.  I was told later the ULA advised against formal disciplinary action and this involved 800+ MBs of 'living' data being intentionally deleted from a drive.


----------



## hoist-monkey (12 Aug 2008)

I sailed with Janet on HMCS Winnipeg a few years back, kind of freaked me out to see this on CBC news online.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the two of them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Aug 2008)

CBC is out to lunch as usual calling them Officers.... :


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

Well......You know........Petty.....Officers...... What else can I say?  No doubt someone, who has no idea that Canada has an Armed Forces, thought it was a small "p" and didn't want to make a slanderous statement of "petty officers facing charges".


----------



## Haggis (12 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Definitely a first one for me to see.  They must have some pretty solid evidence.  I investigated a malicious act on DND IS once, came up with the "Professor Plum, in the Study, with the Lead Pipe" evidence and nothing ever became of it.  I was told later the ULA advised against formal disciplinary action and this involved 800+ MBs of 'living' data being intentionally deleted from a drive.



If charges were laid then I would guess the case is pretty solid.  And the ISSOs I know in the NCR are really good.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Aug 2008)

Oh I have no doubt their case was/is solid but so was OJ's.   Either way I believe service members are still entitled to innocent till proven guilty is all.


----------



## Haggis (12 Aug 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Either way I believe service members are still entitled to innocent till proven guilty is all.



Since when?  CF law is called the "Code of Service *Discipline*".  Nowhere is the word "justice" used.

OK... I'm kidding.  Really!  LWQ, I agree with you.


(Edited because *Greymatters* made me self-conscious about my spelling.)


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

Haggis,
I'm dissapointed   where's that old "march the guilty ba$tard in" enthusiasm


----------



## Haggis (12 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Haggis,
> I'm dissapointed   where's that old "march the guilty ba$tard in" enthusiasm



I had it removed at my last "over 40" medical.  Sorry, old friend.  Been at NDHQ too long it seems.


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

Heh... been contaminated by the "notwithstanding" clause I see


----------



## Greymatters (13 Aug 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> "Code of Service *Discpiline*"



The one word you emphasized, and its misspelt...    ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> CBC is out to lunch as usual calling them Officers.... :


Well, technically, they _are _officers.  Petty officers.  Then there are non-commissioned officers, warrant officers and even commissioned officers.  Of course, I realise that when someone says "officer", they mean either (a) a police officer or (b) a commissioned officer.


----------



## Haggis (13 Aug 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> The one word you emphasized, and its misspelt...    ;D



Beer makes me type words that are mis-spelled.  When I'm drinking, I lack the *discipline* to use spell check.

(Right back at ya!)  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Aug 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> The one word you emphasized, and its misspelt...    ;D


Since we're on to grammar now, I think you meant to say "it's" vice "its"   >


----------



## bridges (13 Aug 2008)

According to CBC's website, "officials are currently trying to find them jobs that won't involve sensitive information and computers."   Good luck, nowadays.   It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.


----------



## Wookilar (13 Aug 2008)

I know that they are PO's, but I'm sure there is a ship/boat/tub in need of painting somewhere....

Not much sensitive data involved in that  ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Aug 2008)

They could also be put on kitchen duty...... ;D


----------



## Haggis (13 Aug 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> They could also be put on kitchen duty...... ;D



And then they could "hack" something else!  :rofl:


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> News Release
> Charges Laid for Corruption of a Database
> NR 08.051 - August 12, 2008
> 
> ...



For those interested, selections from the relevant legislation follows below:

Section 52 of the Criminal Code:


> Sabotage
> 52. (1) Every one who does a prohibited act for a purpose prejudicial to
> (a) the safety, security or defence of Canada, or
> (b) the safety or security of the naval, army or air forces of any state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada,
> ...



Section 128 of the National Defence Act


> Conspiracy
> 128. Every person who conspires with any other person, whether or not that other person is subject to the Code of Service Discipline, to commit an offence under the Code of Service Discipline is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to less punishment.



Section 430(5) of the Criminal Code


> 430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
> (a) destroys or damages property;
> (b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
> (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
> ...



Section 116 of the National Defence Act


> 116. Every person who
> (a) wilfully destroys or damages, loses by neglect, improperly sells or wastefully expends any public property, non-public property or property of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith,
> (b) wilfully destroys, damages or improperly sells any property belonging to another person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline, or
> (c) sells, pawns or otherwise disposes of any cross, medal, insignia or other decoration granted by or with the approval of Her Majesty,
> is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.


----------



## V_I_Lenin (14 Aug 2008)

How to make friends and influence people at NDHQ. A cursory search of the principal names reveals:

http://tinyurl.com/5kzt3r

Link is to cached Google page, since the original Travelblog posting disappeared sometime last night...

Also:

http://www.siegelproductions.ca/ottawarocks/skills.htm

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Aug 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Dishonorable discharge, I would hope.



Dismissal, maybe even Dismissal with Disgrace, but the only way to get a Dishonourable Discharge is from the US forces.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Aug 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Dismissal, maybe even Dismissal with Disgrace, but the only way to get a Dishonourable Discharge is from the US forces.



Oops!  :-[  That's what I meant.


----------



## Wookilar (14 Aug 2008)

NCI Op? This is not some techno-phobe here.....this is going to be interesting  ??? 

Probably never find out what data it was....

Wook


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Aug 2008)

Its really nice some people are getting such enjoyment over this....I think some people need to realize that these two individuals while alleged to have done something wrong have friends and family like we all do and who are worried for them. I just hope karma does not come back and bite some of you on the @ss, because it always does.

:


----------



## dapaterson (14 Aug 2008)

"Innocent until proven guilty" has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Aug 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Innocent until proven guilty" has a nice ring to it.



Agreed I am seeing too much of us eating our own and enjoying it.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Its really nice some people are getting such enjoyment over this....I think some people need to realize that these two individuals while alleged to have done something wrong have friends and family like we all do and who are worried for them. I just hope karma does not come back and bite some of you on the @ss, because it always does.
> 
> :



Ex, I won't comment on the case but I can say that I worked with Janet, on my rotation in NDHQ before this one and I replaced her when this all started and she went on Mata leave, and her other half went to parts unknown because of the charges that have now finally been laid.

Although I was not involved in any of it I can tell you that I walked into what was a poisoned work environment and in my personal opinion it sprang directly from having essentially a wife and wife pair working in the same job in the same office and one of them being the senior person in charge.  

I have no idea why DND allowed that arrangement.

This little piece already posted here... 





> How to make friends and influence people at NDHQ. A cursory search of the principal names reveals:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/5kzt3r


 is a minor example of the contempt that these two showed for all those who worked as IMN's in NDCC with them.

In short, I was there, I too await the verdict, but I'm not cutting any slack.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Aug 2008)

Hey if they did what they have supposedly/alleged to have done then I have no issue with them being punished. My issue is with some of the members here getting such enjoyment out of it.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Aug 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Although I was not involved in any of it I can tell you that I walked into what was a poisoned work environment and in my personal opinion it sprang directly from having essentially a wife and wife pair working in the same job in the same office and one of them being the senior person in charge.
> 
> I have no idea why DND allowed that arrangement.



Zip:

Interesting addition to the available information.  If that is the case, there are regulations that govern personal relationships, and may permit such arrangements where necessary - and it would appear that their next higher level of command failed to monitor and ensure things were working well.

So I guess my question becomes: where was the next level of supervision in this?  And why isn't someone from those supervisors also preparing to stand hatless?


----------



## Wookilar (14 Aug 2008)

Answer: Because those same said supervisors were probably scared to death of the crap-storm they would unleash on their heads if they were to split up a wife-wife pairing, especially in Ottawa. 

Edmonton/Pet (insert your favorite base/unit), possible, maybe even probable that they would be treated like other service couples as I have seen in the past (and current here in Gagetown, just had one cross my desk properly handled with the proper references even).

But in Ottawa? I wish I was surprised, but I am not.






ps. thanx for the smilie link Moe.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 Aug 2008)

I have to agree with Draggon on this one,   I would say that half or more of the mbrs here have done the hatless dance at least once, and probably extras more than once, I know I am speaking for myself at the very least.  These 2 senior NCO's have been charged, not convicted, regardless of the need for a seperate military justice system the basic principles remain, such as innocent until proven guilty.  Because everyone who gets charged is guilty right.


----------



## Strike (14 Aug 2008)

Commenting on a different angle...

Having read the short entry in the travel blog and Zip's comment on the work environment there my view on this whole situation has broadened somewhat.  Anyone who's ever worked in a toxic environment (and been the brunt of it) knows that it's almost impossible to do things right no matter how hard you work.  Someone will always find fault.  Not saying that their alledged actions were warranted, but there may be some other serious factors at play that are being overlooked because of this incident.

My experience though is that an investigation will help to bring problems like that out in the open so that they are not repeated in the future...especially if the defence lawyer has any abilities whatsoever.

As for the two ladies being accused, I have no other comments on their alledged activities.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Aug 2008)

IDNUMBER      200808140004 
PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen 
DATE:         2008.08.14 
EDITION:      Final 
SECTION:      News 
PAGE:         A1 / FRONT 
BYLINE:       David ******** 
SOURCE:       The Ottawa Citizen 
WORD COUNT:     585 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sailors accused of sabotage could face 10 years in jail, dismissal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two sailors could face up to 10 years in jail and dismissal from the Canadian Forces if they are found guilty of sabotage in a case involving a classified computer database at Ottawa's National Defence headquarters. 

The rare charges were laid Tuesday by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service in relation to what Defence Department officials allege is the corruption of the database. 

If the charges do proceed to a court martial, it is likely that such a hearing won't start until early in the new year. 

A court martial is usually held at the location where the alleged incident took place, in this case Ottawa. 

Petty Officer Second Class Sylvia Reid, now based in Victoria, B.C., and Petty Officer Second Class Janet Sinclair, a member of the Maritime Forces Pacific headquarters in Victoria, were each charged with one count of sabotage, one count of conspiracy, one count of mischief in relation to data and one count of willful property damage. 

The two, who recently arrived in Victoria, are still on duty, but will be moved to less sensitive jobs in the Canadian Forces, according to military officials. 

But the decision to allow the women to continue working has some questioning the severity of the incident. 

"That raises the question about how serious can this be if you leave them still working," said NDP defence critic Dawn Black. "Sabotage is a very serious charge, but it doesn't appear to fit with the fact they haven't been suspended, even suspended with pay." 

The alleged incident took place in July 2007, according to National Investigation Service spokeswoman Capt. Paule Poulin. 

The military is declining to release any more details about the circumstances of the case or the motives surrounding the alleged incident. 

Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair is a sonar operator, while Petty Officer Second Class Reid is a naval combat information systems operator. 

The charges against the sailors have set into motion a series of legal procedures. It will now be up to the commanding officers of each sailor to decide whether to refer the case to the director of military prosecutions, an organization similar to a civilian Crown Attorney's office. 

"A commanding officer could review the file and decide the charge should not be proceeded with," explained Maj. Marylene Trudel, who works for the director of military prosecutions. 

However, if the National Investigation Service does not agree with a commanding officer's findings, its investigators can still refer the charges further up the chain of command and ask that they be sent to military prosecutors. 

Maj. Trudel, who emphasized she was not discussing any specific incident, noted that when a case is received by military prosecutors it is reviewed using the criteria of whether there is a reasonable chance of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to proceed with charges. 

"Once we go through that criteria and we decide to lay charges, then we select the charges," she said. "It could be the same charges that were laid initially. It can be some of the charges. It can be new charges or we can decide not to lay any charges." 

Ms. Black said the information released by the military is incomplete and could lead some people to believe there are serious security concerns when maybe that is not the case. 

"I think the Department of National Defence and the minister should give Canadians some assurances about this case," she said. "Two Canadian Forces members charged with sabotage; that raises many questions and yet neither the government nor the department have given us any understanding of what this means." 

An official with Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office said the minister has no comment on the case. 

Military officials declined to discuss what effect, if any, the alleged corruption of the database had on government operations. They would also not provide details on what computer system was involved, other than to say it was a government network.


----------



## Greymatters (14 Aug 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Beer makes me type words that are mis-spelled.  When I'm drinking, I lack the *discipline* to use spell check.
> 
> (Right back at ya!)  ;D



mis·spell (ms-spl)
tr.v. *mis·spelled or mis·spelt * (-splt), mis·spell·ing, mis·spells 
To spell incorrectly.

Haha!  Although, it is from an American dictionary, so I am guilty of foreign word use...


Back on track:  This sentence does interest me.
"That raises the question about how serious can this be if you leave them still working," said NDP defence critic Dawn Black. "Sabotage is a very serious charge, but it doesn't appear to fit with the fact they haven't been suspended, even suspended with pay." 

Not the part about 'suspended without pay', that only shows the NDP defence critic needs to 'git some learnin' on defence (geez, what does he think we are, a union?), but as to why they are still being employed.  Sabotage implies a deliberate and malicious act of destruction/damage, and if there is enough evidence to charge a person for this then there is enough evidence to support having them in a jail cell awaiting trial.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Aug 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> mis·spell (ms-spl)
> tr.v. *mis·spelled or mis·spelt * (-splt), mis·spell·ing, mis·spells
> To spell incorrectly.
> 
> ...



Greymatters, this has been going on for more than a year already.  I'd think Dawn Black would have been the first one screaming bloody blue murder if either of these women had been suspended for an "alleged" infraction.  Innocent till proven guilty.


----------



## Greymatters (14 Aug 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Greymatters, this has been going on for more than a year already.  I'd think Dawn Black would have been the first one screaming bloody blue murder if either of these women had been suspended for an "alleged" infraction.  Innocent till proven guilty.




The point is that there is still a disconnect between the charge and the current activities of person(s) charged.  Sabotage is supposed to be a serious charge and is supposed to be applied to willful acts of damage/destruction accompanied by intent to do so - is this person actually dangerous or is some officer/MP stretching the interpretation of definitions a bit and 'over-charging' on what should be a less serious matter? (Its not like it would be the first time that happened)  

I find this to be an unusual case and worth discussing.  If all you want to point out is that they are 'innocent until proven guilty', then why even discuss it?  Let's lock up this thread and not talk about it anymore until after the trial...


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Aug 2008)

Being a little more in the know I can't discuss it.


----------



## Greymatters (14 Aug 2008)

Fair deal - thats enough of a hint...


----------



## sgt bob (17 Sep 2008)

These two should not even be Privates let alone be allowed to keep the rank of PO 2. I am sure there are lots of tears and they are telling everybody that they didn't do it or it was a mistake. If they keep them in the forces then send them to Afghanistan with out weapons and let them command an out post for two.
PO Reid has always been a screw up but for some reason she seems to get away with it time and time again.  I am sure the words discrimination will come up because they are gay; this would not be the first time she has used this excuse. 
Before you get all upset I am not against gays I believe in equality for everybody.
From what I know of Reid her family is military with every member either serving or has served at one time for the past 4 generations. She has put her own family to shame. 
We have members putting there lives at risk all over the world why should these two be allowed to sit at home and collect the monthly pay cheque.
Can some body please tell me why ????????????????????????????????????
 :crybaby:


----------



## RickDevlieger (17 Sep 2008)

sgt bob,

I'm not sure if you are trolling or not. But the phrase: "Inocent until proven guilty" applies. It is one of the cornerstones of our society and the right of every citizen of Canada, including those who defend it. Someone has to prove these allegations "beyond reasonable doubt" before any sanctions can be taken against these two. Suppose we were to take the actions you suggest and the verdict is "Not Guilty", how would you make things right again? Perhaps you would be one of the first to accuse the Military of acting hastily and commiting grevious harm to those same two individuals you currently want to hang from the yardarm.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Sep 2008)

sgt bob.....you can consider that post your freebie.

Bruce
army.ca staff


----------



## sgt bob (17 Sep 2008)

Chief Tech

If the accused had been charged within a month of committing the crime then yes I would think the Military was acting hastily. But a year long investigation somebody has done there homework. Can you tell me the last time any member of the Canadian Forces was charged with Sabotage? I don't mean found agility just charged.
I would be very surprised if they will found guilty on all charges but if they do managed to talk there way out of trouble (again) then somebody on the investigation side should be held accountable for wasting military time and money.
The moral in the military is low at the moment and we see day in and day out people not pulling there weight (or pulling to much in some cases) we have them in every unit. It is time the military starts going after these people. If these PO 2S are found guilty then the full weight of the law should be brought down on them, As I said before this is not Reid's first screw up if she had been dealt with correctly in the first time around then we would not be in the situation we are in at the moment. 
I have seen members charged with far less then these two but they still ended up wearing white coveralls and doing every crap job on the base or unit. 
Why do you think these two have not had such pleasure handed to them??


----------



## Greymatters (17 Sep 2008)

sgt bob said:
			
		

> I would be very surprised if they will found guilty on all charges but if they do managed to talk there way out of trouble (again) then somebody on the investigation side should be held accountable for wasting military time and money.



First point - I think thats a bit of a harsh reprisal for investigation staff - some investigatiosn take years with no results for the effort, not from lack of trying but from lack of solid evidence that can be used in court, which is not the investigators fault.

Second point - Some investigations are conducted not because of a specific crime being reported, but because a commander or politician wants to pursue an issue of little or no importance.  The investigators have no option except to follow through on an investigation, even when they know the likelihood of finding and charging offenders is low.


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 Sep 2008)

sgt bob said:
			
		

> Chief Tech
> 
> If the accused had been charged within a month of committing the crime then yes I would think the Military was acting hastily. But a year long investigation somebody has done there homework. Can you tell me the last time any member of the Canadian Forces was charged with Sabotage? I don't mean found agility just charged.
> I would be very surprised if they will found guilty on all charges but if they do managed to talk there way out of trouble (again) then somebody on the investigation side should be held accountable for wasting military time and money.
> ...



Sgt Bob.

I am currently working in the place where these two PO2's were, I arrived as this thing blew up and was interviewed by the NIS.  My  suggestion is that you hang up the axe you are grinding and let they system do it's job.

If those of us affected by this incident can let it proceed then surely you can.

By the way, Ried's former mistakes do not make her guilty of this one, the fact that they are lesbians does not mean they are or have been treated differently.

You said it yourself 





> *If* these PO 2S are found guilty *then the full weight of the law should be brought down on them*


.


----------



## Weinie (18 Sep 2008)

> Not the part about 'suspended without pay', that only shows the NDP defence critic needs to 'git some learnin' on defence (geez, what does *he* think we are, a union?),


  

     Small clarification - Dawn Black is a she.


----------



## sgt bob (18 Sep 2008)

Greymatters
Point taken. 
My apologies I did not mean to accuse the Investigating team of not doing there job or have them take the fall if no charges are laid in the end. I agree that not all investigations are done under the best intentions. My full support goes to those that are involved in this or any other investigation and sorry if I caused any insult.
We see these types of investigation year and year out and in the end we do not hear the final verdict. If the PO’s luck out and do get off then we should be told why and how. This would exonerate any blame being put unfairly onto the investigating team. I understand if the outcome affects National Security then we would not be informed.
All we can do is hope that no loop holes will be found for these two to get through.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Sep 2008)

> By the way, Ried's former mistakes do not make her guilty of this one, the fact that they are lesbians does not mean they are or have been treated differently.


Nor should they be brought up in a public forum with no proof. Allegations without proof can get one in legal trouble.


----------



## gun runner (18 Sep 2008)

This will be an interesting case to watch, I think. I do not remember anyone in the forces being charged with sabotage. Ubique


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2008)

The latest - sabotage & conspiracy charges dropped.  MSM links below CF statement text....

*Military Members to Face General Court Martial in Database Corruption Case*
Canadian Forces news release NR 08.077, 30 Oct 08
News release link

Petty Officer Second Class (PO2) Silvya Reid and PO2 Janet Sinclair will face a General Court Martial in relation to the alleged corruption of a Government database in July 2007.

PO2 Reid and PO2 Sinclair were charged by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service on August 5, 2008, with one count each of Conspiracy, Sabotage, Mischief in Relation to Data and Wilfully Damaging Property Relating to Her Majesty’s Forces while working in Ottawa, Ontario. The charges of Conspiracy and Sabotage were not brought forward, or “preferred,” to the Court Martial stage by the Canadian Forces Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP) following the post-charge screening process; however, a charge of Negligently Performing a Military Duty was added.

The date of the trial will be determined shortly and will most likely take place in early 2009.

The final charges facing PO2 Reid and PO2 Sinclair are:

    * Mischief in Relation to Data - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 430(5) of the Criminal Code;
    * Wilfully Damaging Property Relating to Her Majesty’s Forces - contrary to Section 116(a) of the National Defence Act; and
    * Negligently Performing a Military Duty - contrary to Section 124 of the National Defence Act.

All potential Court Martial cases undergo a post-charge screening process. Prosecutors consider two main questions at this point when deciding whether or not to prefer charges:

    * Is the evidence sufficient to justify the continuation of charges as laid or the preferral of other charges?
    * If the evidence is sufficient, does the public interest require a prosecution to be pursued?

PO2 Reid and PO2 Sinclair are currently with the Maritime Forces Pacific Headquarters in Esquimalt, British Columbia. They have chosen to be tried by a General Court Martial, which is composed of a Military Judge and a panel of five members. Each accused is represented by a defence counsel designated by the Director of Defence Counsel Service.

The DMP is a separate and independent authority for military prosecutions who exercises prosecutorial discretion within the military justice system, free of influences, and based on legal principles and criteria.

-30-

More from Canadian Press and the _Ottawa Citizen_.


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2008)

Well... with those 3 charges, I would imagine that an end to their careers is not far away.
Wonder what they could get....
1(b)Service misconduct where convicted by service tribunals of a number of offences indicating a course of misbehaviour that warrants release;
2(a) Unsatisfactory conduct where convicted by service tribunals of a number of offences indicating a course of misbehaviour which warrants release under this category, but does not warrant release under Item 1(b)
5(f) Unsuitable for Further Service.  Applies to the release of a member who, either wholly or chiefly because of factors within his control, develops personal weakness or behaviour or has domestic or other personal problems that seriously impair his usefulness to or impose an excessive administrative burden on the CF.

Time will tell - either of the 1st two should be used.... the latter one being the one probably used.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Oct 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nor should they be brought up in a public forum with no proof. Allegations without proof can get one in legal trouble.


How true.
We tried to dismiss a couple of ne'er do wells from our jail a few years ago. They were implicated in shenanigans, but the union stuck up for them anyways. We pretty much had them dead to rights, but our great union didn't agree. And we had solid evidence.


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2008)

Union members will expect / demand that their union stands up for them.... regardless of if they are in the right or in the wrong.... nothing personal - "that's just what we do" - Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité... and all that crap

If you have someone dead to right, then management needs to stand it's ground and do the dirty deed - cause it has to be done... cause that's just what we do!... never pass a wrong!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Oct 2008)

I agree, if management does its job/investigation properly than there is nothing the Union can do.

Unfortunately we see people who should be gone get off again and again and again....


----------



## LuvsMud (31 Oct 2008)

"alleged corruption of a Government database"... Just out of curiosity, what exactly are they accused of doing? And why? Have the details been released?


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Oct 2008)

LuvdMud

You beat me to it. What is the suspected motive and just what info was allegedly altered? Was it personal, operational, financial or what?


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2008)

Luvsmud... have you read the full thread ???
It's in there


----------



## LuvsMud (3 Nov 2008)

Geo I have read the thread again but the motives and what files were allegedly corrupted still aren't clear. A poster claims to have worked with them and made reference to past mistakes and a poisoned work environment.  Possibly because they were in a relationship and one held a senior position but since frat charges weren't brought forward that doesn't seem to be the issue. Unless of course the Gov just doesn't want to go there. The links won't open so I'm probably missing something. Sorry I still don't get it but it would certainly be easy to jump to conclusions. Oh well best of luck to everyone involved and I hope it all gets sorted out one way or the other.


----------



## geo (3 Nov 2008)

> Two sailors could face up to 10 years in jail and dismissal from the Canadian Forces if they are found guilty of sabotage in a case involving a classified computer database at Ottawa's National Defence headquarters.



I can say that I never had to work with the two Navy types - so whatever relationship they may have with anyone else is none of my concern...but, from what is on the courts martial agenda and what is above - the charges stem from a one year investigation into a ruined database.... these two sailors will have their day in court - hope their explanations are good ones.


----------



## Reccesoldier (5 Nov 2008)

LuvsMud said:
			
		

> Geo I have read the thread again but the motives and what files were allegedly corrupted still aren't clear. A poster claims to have worked with them and made reference to past mistakes and a poisoned work environment.  Possibly because they were in a relationship and one held a senior position but since frat charges weren't brought forward that doesn't seem to be the issue. Unless of course the Gov just doesn't want to go there. The links won't open so I'm probably missing something. Sorry I still don't get it but it would certainly be easy to jump to conclusions. Oh well best of luck to everyone involved and I hope it all gets sorted out one way or the other.



LuvsMud, the comment about past mistakes was raised by me and others because someone tried to insinuate guilt by way of the members histories. 

The work environment was something I walked into upon my return to that place.  It was my personal interpretation and based on first hand knowledge.  

The fraternization issue still amazes me, but that is an issue separate from the charges, as it should be.  though I wonder if it will ever be addressed.

As for the database, it is part of a highly classified system.  You will never know what system or what parts of that system's database were corrupted.  It's a little thing called the need to know, and you and 99.999% of the people in this forum obviously don't.


----------



## LuvsMud (5 Nov 2008)

Thanks for clearing things up Zip.


----------



## AlphaQup (5 Nov 2008)

Disturbing to hear about this. I remember first reading it and thinking they might be demoted or moved into positions which don't hold sensitive information.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2008)

Alpha.... they have already been moved.... to the west coast
Rank & disposition of charges are still pending


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Feb 2009)

Media Advisory
Court Martial Proceedings to Begin for Database Corruption Case
February 2, 2009

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - Jan. 30, 2009) - General Court Martial proceedings will begin on Monday, February 2, at 9:30 a.m. at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Esquimalt, Building 30-N, 2nd floor, for Petty Officer Second Class (PO2) Silvya Reid and PO2 Janet Sinclair in relation to the alleged corruption of a Government database. 

The charges facing PO2 Reid and PO2 Sinclair are:

Mischief in Relation to Data - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 430(5) of the Criminal Code; 
Wilfully Damaging Property Relating to Her Majesty's Forces - contrary to Section 116(a) of the National Defence Act; and 
Negligently Performing a Military Duty - contrary to Section 124 of the National Defence Act. 
PO2 Reid and PO2 Sinclair are currently employed with the Maritime Forces Pacific, based out of Esquimalt, British Columbia. They have chosen to be tried by a General Court Martial, which is composed of a Military Judge and a panel of five members. Each accused is represented by a defence counsel. 

As the matter is now proceeding in accordance with the Code of Service Discipline, it would be inappropriate to comment further about the circumstances surrounding this case at this time.

Information:

Media interested in attending the court martial are asked to contact CFB Esquimalt Public Affairs at 250-363-4006 by 2:00 p.m., Friday, January 30.

The Presiding Judge for this public hearing will be Colonel Mario Dutil with the Prosecution represented by Major Jason Samson. The accused are represented by Lieutenant-Commander (LCdr) Pascal Levesque for PO2 Reid, and Mr. Martin Reesink for PO2 Sinclair. 

The senior panel member is Col P. Keddy, and the remaining panel members are; LCdr L.J. Tempstra, Lt(N) B.A.M. Quemerais, MWO B.S. Bekus, and WO W.S. Mullins.

The hearing is open to the media and the public, however electronic recording devices and photographic equipment are not allowed within the court room. 

News Release 08/12/08 - Charges Laid for Corruption of a Database
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2725 

News Release 10/30/08 - Military Members to Face General Court Martial in Database Corruption Case http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2799


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Feb 2009)

It will be interesting to see the specifics of the case.


----------



## dangerboy (5 Feb 2009)

Sailors plead guilty to damaging DND computers


By Dave ******** , The Ottawa CitizenFebruary 4, 2009



VICTORIA, B. C. — Two sailors pleaded guilty Wednesday to willfully damaging military property at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa after a 2007 incident that temporarily hindered the ability of officers to search for secret missile launch and space data.

The two were originally charged with sabotage last year in relation to a July 2007 incident with a classified defence headquarters computer system. The sabotage charge, a rarity for the Canadian Forces legal system, was dropped in October.

Petty Officer Second Class Janet Sinclair and her spouse, Petty Officer Second Class Silvya Reid, both worked at the National Defence Headquarters command centre at the time of the incident and both had a top secret clearance and access to classified databases. One was a NORAD system while the other was a separate system called Titan.

The two were charged after a year-long military police investigation and are now serving at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, B.C. in the Maritime Forces Pacific headquarters.

The sailors said little during the court martial and their guilty plea will limit the number of witnesses to be called in the proceedings.

In entering their guilty plea, their lawyers asked that the wording on the charge indicate the two had willfully damaged a “database icon.”

According to information provided to the court, Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair had voluntarily created a computer program that allowed officers better access to data by improving how they could search for the information.

But on July 16, 2007, a database icon on the command centre’s computer system was damaged and an assessment report later determined that the program created by Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair had been rendered inaccessible. That, in turn, limited the search for what was termed historical data on missile launches and other space-related information.

No motive was provided Wednesday during the court martial.

But prosecutor Maj. Jason Samson told the court that Petty Officer Second Class Reid wanted to see if anyone at the command centre could fix the damaged system. He explained that the computer program in question had been created on Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair’s initiative and Petty Officer Second Class Reid “didn’t want to leave it” with the unit.

Petty Officer Second Class Reid “wanted to teach them a lesson to do their job,” Maj. Samson read in a statement to the court.

The court martial judge, Col. Mario Dutil, heard details about an electronic chat between the two sailors that Maj. Samson said had revealed “an intent to crash the database.”

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.

In a turnover note to her co-workers Petty Officer Second Class Reid informed them that she had a problem with the database and couldn’t fix it.

It took four hours of work and cost $536 to fix the system. Military officers have not disclosed details about the specific nature of the database or its security value to the Canadian Forces.

Both Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair and Reid had top secret clearance and according to Maj. Samson held extremely sensitive positions with access to highly classified information. There were no details about the type of classified work that the two performed.

Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair is a sonar operator, while Petty Officer Second Class Reid is a naval combat information systems operator.

Part of the court martial was spent hearing the pay and pension implications if the sailors were released from the military or reduced to a lower rank.

The two were originally charged in August 2008, each with one count of sabotage, one count of conspiracy, one count of mischief in relation to data, and one count of willful property damage.

In October the military decided not to move forward on the charges of sabotage and conspiracy after a post-charge screening process by the Canadian Forces director of military prosecutions was done. The charge of negligently performing a military duty was added at that time.

The prosecution agreed Wednesday to drop the charges of mischief in relation to data and negligently performing a military duty.

 News Article


----------



## Wookilar (5 Feb 2009)

Wow there's some leadership for you. I would expect more from two experienced members, especially given their ranks and positions of trust that they hold.

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?

Also, to me, there is a big difference between "willfully damaging military property" and intentional corruption of a secure database. I see willful destruction and I think smp vehicles seriously driven like they were stolen or LOSV's taken off cliffs to do jumps. I'm just wondering on the legal status of databases and secure systems in Canada.

Wook


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Feb 2009)

In the military system, even though they plead guilty, the particulars of the offence have to be entered into the record. Witnesses have to be heard, documents entered into evidence, and the judge has to rule. All of which ensures a fair and transparent trial.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2009)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Wow there's some leadership for you. I would expect more from two experienced members, especially given their ranks and positions of trust that they hold.
> 
> 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?
> 
> ...



So they pleaded guilty.  Has the Court made judgement and 'Sentenced' them yet?  No.  Therefore the Courts Martial will still proceed.  It has unfinished business.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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.


----------



## Wookilar (5 Feb 2009)

Excellent, thank you all for the clarifications.

Wook


----------



## kincanucks (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

...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 (5 Feb 2009)

Interesting idea... If they had arranged the database corruption as a formal exercise, they might have been commended for their foresight.


----------



## CountDC (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

Well, one of them had to be on top.  C'mon now, you were all thinking it...  >


----------



## GAP (5 Feb 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Well, one of them had to be on top.  C'mon now, you were all thinking it...  >



 :rofl:


----------



## Occam (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

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 (5 Feb 2009)

_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?"









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


----------



## Reccesoldier (6 Feb 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> 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.



Occam, Sinclair was the senior IMN on the watch, a position conferred by both her time in the position and the leadership in NDCC.  She'd been working there for a couple of years when her partner was posted in.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Feb 2009)

Shouldn't the go to club Ed prior to dismissal?


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Feb 2009)

As far as I know there was no intent to "cause work" the intent was to discredit two other people who held that job.  From what I saw I believe this was a personally motivated vendetta.

These two thought their shit didn't stink and they wanted to rub some other people's noses in it.

I don't care if they go to Edmonton first, but they definitely should be booted,and good riddance.


----------



## old medic (7 Feb 2009)

> " Petty Officer Sinclair also partly blamed hormonal changes from her pregnancy for her state of mind. "



So, her "partial" argument was pregnancy will affect female members security reliability, or at least hers.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Feb 2009)

old medic said:
			
		

> So, her "partial" argument was pregnancy will affect female members security reliability, or at least hers.



And a BIG step backwards for postpartum women everywhere.  Give me a freakin' break.  :


----------



## qwert (7 Feb 2009)

So I am reading one story "Three Canadian women flying over Afghan skies"  praising women for their efforts, at least one does not want to be "singled out as a female".   Then I read this story about all the effort these 2 are putting into undoing the work of other women to ensure gender is not an issue.  Pregnancy hormones ~ Gimme a break!!!

If you want to show initiative and find an easier way to do the job, ~ "According to information provided to the court, Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair had voluntarily created a computer program that allowed officers better access to data by improving how they could search for the information."  then good for you, however you should not be doing it for the glory! 

I think Monday I'll go to work, really mess something up, then blame the wife's hormones???

Just my 2 cents.  >


----------



## George Wallace (7 Feb 2009)

People do realize that computer programs that they develop while employed at a major corporation, say Microsoft or Intel or whatever, are the proprietorial rights of the corporation.  Why would this be any different?  They did not develop this program on their own dime, at home in their basement, market it and sell it to DND; they developed it while in the employ of the CF, and implemented it at DND on a CF system.  They have no proprietorial rights to their program; DND does.  I am sure those are basically the points that any Corporate Lawyer would come up with.


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Feb 2009)

> " Petty Officer Sinclair also partly blamed hormonal changes from her pregnancy for her state of mind. "



Next card to be slipped from the deck will be the discrimination card based on the couples "alternative lifestyle" no doubt. :


----------



## dapaterson (7 Feb 2009)

If you look at the photos from Esquimalt it appears that one of them is pregnant now as well - no doubt an element that will be factored into any punishment - "But I'm pregnant so I can't go to jail." "But my wife is pregnant so I can't go to jail".


----------



## George Wallace (7 Feb 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you look at the photos from Esquimalt it appears that one of them is pregnant now as well - no doubt an element that will be factored into any punishment - "But I'm pregnant so I can't go to jail." "But my wife is pregnant so I can't go to jail".



Interesting point.  Either it is a 'dated' photo from last year, or we can consider it a conspiracy to evade a severe punishment.  It was last August that the story 'Broke', so eight months minimum, and wasn't she already nursing at the time?  This would be a calculated move, if she is.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2009)

I think the tinfoil's on a bit tight


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Feb 2009)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I think the tinfoil's on a bit tight



You should make a bigger one for yourself next time.....

dileas

tess


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2009)

Whatever you say staff


----------



## Occam (7 Feb 2009)

For whatever it's worth, I'm with you, LWQ.  George, do you have something other than a gut feeling to base your presumption on?

I don't think the court martial judge is going to care one way or the other.  There are lots and lots of court martial transcripts on the DIN concerning members with much more dire personal situations, and they were still punished fairly.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2009)

I find it hard to believe (although not out of the realm of impossible) that a lesbian couple would get pregnant on the sole grounds of avoiding jail time given the fact that under normial circumstances it is very hard to through the system both on the adoption side as well as the medical side.  That said I suppose they could have asked a friend.


----------



## Occam (7 Feb 2009)

My reasoning is somewhat more simple:  If it were a tactic that actually worked, we'd actually see it employed both on civvie street and in courts martial.  The fact that we don't hear about it means it probably isn't a consideration in sentencing.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Feb 2009)

LWQ,

What's the matter, no one show up to the old chess club meeting tonight, so yer taking your anger on the "Staff"?

I suggest you and Occam read Geoge's post closely.  No where did he insinuate that this couple got pregnant to avoid jail time.

However, if either of you bothered to read this thread, you will see that one of them was nursing a child when the bust at their home happened.  Further to that, the one that was nursing cliamed hormonal changes were the cause of her criminal activity.  Hence why George stated that maybe the photo was dated.  Get it, picture of her pregnant, but the bust happened while she was nursing.

Please, can the two of you stop your Saturday night crusade.

BTW, LWQ, I say this as a poster, not "Staff".

Remember, if you can fit your finger underneath the headband, your tinfoil hat is okay....


dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (7 Feb 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Remember, if you can fit your finger underneath the headband, your tinfoil hat is okay....
> dileas
> tess



Whew......oh good......


----------



## Occam (7 Feb 2009)

Actually, that's exactly what George suggested.

George suggested it could be a dated photo "from last year", which was 2008.  The crime was committed in July 2007, the bust was in August 2007, but didn't make the news until they were actually charged in August 2008.  If the photo was from August 2008 (and it's highly unlikely that it'd be earlier than that, unless the press got tipped and took the photos long before the story even broke), that would mean for her to claim hormonal changes were a contributing factor to committing the offence, she would have to have been pregnant for 15 months.

I think it's more likely that she's pregnant again, as in right now.

Where did this "crusade" bit come from?


----------



## aesop081 (7 Feb 2009)

FFS....everyone go drink more beer and give it up.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Feb 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> FFS....everyone go drink more beer and give it up.



Finally words fo reason!

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Feb 2009)

And this one is locked while every contemplates the value of their contribution while sipping a cold drink.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Feb 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> My reasoning is somewhat more simple:  If it were a tactic that actually worked, we'd actually see it employed both on civvie street and in courts martial.  The fact that we don't hear about it means it probably isn't a consideration in sentencing.



I truly apologize for posting over a lock, however I could not let that heap of dung go by.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!.........and yes, it is a severe consideration. Hence the reason that IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME! [oh, did I already mention that?]


----------



## Occam (9 Feb 2009)

This is going to be one very interesting transcript to read.  I'm scratching my head here...

Any bets on administrative action?

Article link

*Court-martialed sailors get minimum sentence*


By David ********   February 9, 2009 7:01 PM
  

VICTORIA — A court martial judge ordered today that two sailors in a precedent-setting legal case linked to secret military computer systems and the security of information be reduced in rank and fined.

In announcing his decision, judge Col. Mario Dutil said the sentence was the minimum the court could impose.

Petty Officer (Second Class) Janet Sinclair and her spouse, Petty Officer (Second Class) Silvya Reid, worked at the National Defence Headquarters command centre in Ottawa at the time of the incident in July 2007 and both had a top-secret clearance and access to classified databases.

The two were originally charged with a number of offences including sabotage but that and other charges were later dropped.

The two pleaded guilty last week to damaging military property, in this case a computer desktop icon. Their actions "impeded access to a 'classified' database," the court heard.

Petty Officer Sinclair was reduced in rank to leading seaman, given a severe reprimand, and fined $3,000. Petty Officer Reid was reduced in rank to leading seaman and fined $3,000.


----------



## geo (9 Feb 2009)

Well... that'll be a great deterrent to those who might be inclined to pranks & intentional damaging of DND property.... I hope they start with Col Dutil's PC


----------



## garb811 (9 Feb 2009)

I'm perplexed by the statement that this was the minimum the Court could impose as Service Offences only specify a "<maximum punishment> or to less punishment."  There are no "minimum sentences", unless the reporter dropped something like "in the circumstances" etc.

Although I would have preferred to see time in the digger, this is a sentence that keeps on giving, to the tune of about $7200 each year for each of them when you consider the reduced rates of pay they will now receive, even better than going to jail if the reduction in rank wasn't also imposed.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Feb 2009)

Available information states that each was found guilty of a single charge; no evidence was lead on the other two charges and thus both were found not guilty of those charges.

According to the scale of punishments (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/doc/chapter-chapitre-104.pdf) a reduction in rank is just below detention in severity.

This is far from the minimum sentence.


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Feb 2009)

And what about their security clearances?


----------



## Occam (9 Feb 2009)

Well, it took a lot of looking around, but I think I found out why they're talking about a minimum sentence.

From one of the posts above, it mentions it was a General Court Martial - and section 166.1 of the NDA states that the punishment for a General Court Martial "may only pass a sentence that includes a punishment of imprisonment or a fine".

Am I in the ballpark?


----------



## garb811 (9 Feb 2009)

No, that section deals with non-service members, so, for example, if a General Court Martial tried a dependent who had been posted overseas, they could only impose a penalty of a fine or imprisionment.  Kind of hard to reduce a civilian in rank etc.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Feb 2009)

Maybe he meant hypothetically "the minimum"....not legally.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2009)

Zip said:
			
		

> And what about their security clearances?



A "Change of Circumstances" will have to be done up.  That could severely restrict their employment in Trade.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Feb 2009)

And do we lift the security clearances of every female in the CF, in DND, and all across government, who...... _~shudder~_ ....gets pregnant?

After all, the poor little muffin did say it was because of hormone changes; not her fault.

 :


As for "being shunned by their peers," maybe that should have been an indicator to the judge how _the military_ feels about their actions. Whatever happened to 'trial by ones peers' rather than some lawyer who's operational experience is limited to passing the bar exam.  

"Justice; seen to be done," my buttocks


----------



## dapaterson (10 Feb 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "Justice; seen to be done," my buttocks



I think when they walk around the dockyard with two hooks vice three with a leaf justice will be seen to be done.

My concern is that there was no forfeiture of seniority imposed.  Therefore, they will both be LS, maximum IPC, with the quals and time-in-rank to be eligible for promotion.  I recall one WO, busted down to Sgt for his implication in the negligent death of a soldier, who was promoted back to WO the next year.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Feb 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think when they walk around the dockyard with two hooks vice three with a leaf justice will be seen to be done.


Having spent time in the tailor shop, twice, following standing hatless before the CO.....I disagree.

They were really, _really_ sorry -- and since neither of us got to vote on these two -- I guess further discussion is fruitless.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Feb 2009)

For those interested in this court-martial, the transcript of the sentencing has been released and posted to the internet at:

http://www.cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2009/doc/2009cm1004-eng.pdf


----------



## V_I_Lenin (14 Jul 2010)

Seems like an appropriate time to resurrect this thread. The results of the Leading Seaman's appeal was posted yesterday:

http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-524_e.pdf

Their Court Martial appeal was dismissed. A quote of note; "In fact, LS Reid and LS
Sinclair are fortunate to still have a place in the Canadian Forces."

From working in NDCC in Ottawa, to herding PAT's in Esquimalt. A lesson to be learned there, surely...


----------



## Wookilar (14 Jul 2010)

"A reduction in rank is an important tool in the sentencing kit of the military judge. It signifies more effectively than any fine or reprimand that can be imposed the military’s loss of trust in the offending member. That loss of trust is expressed in this case through demotion to a position in which the offenders have lost their supervisory capacity."

Here, here!

I think it's unfortunate that the original charge of sabotage could not be supported in court. It certainly fits the dictionary meaning.
I like:
"Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion."

Seems to fit to me.

Wook


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jul 2010)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> I think it's unfortunate that the original charge of sabotage could not be supported in court. It certainly fits the dictionary meaning.
> I like:
> "Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion."
> 
> ...



In order to prove sabotage, intent must be proven. It may be that the prosecution could not prove that intent.


----------



## Wookilar (14 Jul 2010)

That's exaxctly it, their behaviour and motivations were childish not seditious.


----------

