# Bikers son snubbed by Military



## The_Falcon (26 Nov 2007)

Someone posted this on another forum, thought I would post it here.

http://www.thestar.com/article/279853



> TheStar.com - GTA - Biker's son snubbed by military
> 
> Would-be soldier, 23, with clean resumé seemingly torpedoed by father's crime sheet
> 
> ...


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Nov 2007)

Not to nitpick...

"experience in the Queen's York Rangers' co-op program for high school students"

This "experience" describes primary reserve service, and a release at some time??  ???


----------



## JBoyd (26 Nov 2007)

I personally feel that one should not be punished for one's predecessors misdealings.


----------



## teltech (26 Nov 2007)

Quite literally "The sins of the father..."


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> I personally feel that one should not be punished for one's predecessors misdealings.



How one personally feels is irrelevant.  The fact is father is an admitted criminal in a criminal organization, who given the oppotunity would extract whatever info they could from this person in order to benefit themselves (ie get their hands on weapons and the like).  They (his father and fathers friends) may not be overt in getting info out the guy, but any potential slip from this person, or momentary lapse in judgement, on how and where weapons are stored,  and the times locations and direction of any movement of weapons could have disastrous consequences.

If he had taken steps to distance himself from his dad (or visa versa), like move to the other side of the country, cut off all contact and disavow any knowledge of his existance, then "possibly", I could see him not being a liability.  As it appears, he seems to be quite close to dear ole dad and is in regular contact with him.


----------



## McG (26 Nov 2007)

Contrary to the article's title, it does not sound like the military rejected him because of who his father is.  It sounds like the military could not accept him because he did not pass the enhanced reliability screening.  That's not the military, that is CSIS.

The only reason to throw blame at the military would be if we want the CF to accept people who fail enhanced reliability.  If he should have passed the screening, then that is another government department which dropped the ball.   ... but not having seen the information collected, are any of us really in a position to make that call?


oh, and the ombudsman does not have much clout outside DND & the CF.


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Nov 2007)

I bet if one were to "look him up" on the net, one might see Mr. Lenti (the son) and his supposed quest to write the wrongs of our government/military... its easy to see.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Nov 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Contrary to the article's title, it does not sound like the military rejected him because of who his father is.  It sounds like the military could not accept him because he did not pass the enhanced reliability screening.  That's not the military, that is CSIS.
> 
> The only reason to throw blame at the military would be if we want the CF to accept people who fail enhanced reliability.  If he should have passed the screening, then that is another government department which dropped the ball.   ... but not having seen the information collected, are any of us really in a position to make that call?
> 
> ...



I believe he would have already passed the ER screening since the article states he was in the reserve co-op program.  My guess is (the article isn't clear), is that he was going reg force, and required a higher level of clearance.


----------



## forcerecon85 (26 Nov 2007)

Personally I don't think he should be punished for his father's history, but I agree with Hatchet Man. If he was allowed in the forces, even by accident he could slip up and reveal information to his father and from father to friends. He wouldn't mean to, but I think its for the greater good of the forces, but thats just my civie $.02


----------



## Franko (26 Nov 2007)

His MP can't do anything, neither can the ombudsman. It's CSIS.

They must have a good reason to not give the "thumbs up" on him.

People have to start realizing that they are applying for a job. It's no change from any other.

You can't just go in and demand a job from anyone on civie street....and you can't from the government either.

The kid has to get over it and move on.

My 0.02 Tolars worth.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Nov 2007)

I don't think he is any more likely to jump the fence than some random guy approached off the street.

He could "let something slip by accident"? 
Come on, whats he goign to let slip? Something that drunk privates and corporals don't already let slip at the bar when drunk.

hell anytime someone mentioned camp mirage it used to be like you were discussing the location of the ark. All you gotta do is google it.

How many of us have relitives that have had criminal records or done something stupid? Even when you apply fromt he OPP they are more interested in your activitives not your families, unless you are specifically involved or associated with illict activities that your family has been dinged for.


----------



## ixium (26 Nov 2007)

Theres a difference between criminal records and being part of many different biker gangs.

Would you let known Canadian terrorists' kids join? Highly doubt it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I don't think he is any more likely to jump the fence than some random guy approached off the street.



So you know more than CSIS does now?............................


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Nov 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So you know more than CSIS does now?............................



Gee I don't know Bruce, you ever feel like YOU have a better idea of whats going on than your boss 

I know where you're coming from believe me. I especially understand your stance on the matter given your LE backround. I just don't see it as that much of a security risk.

"Would you let known Canadian terrorists' kids join? Highly doubt "
Nope I probably wouldn't because while it's probably hippocritical, personally I believe the son of a biker has considerable different motivation towards joining the military than the son of a known terrorist.


----------



## slowmode (26 Nov 2007)

My personal opinion is one should not be judge because of their family, to a certain extent. But I believe theres a bigger reason why he didn't get accepted than this, theres always the part we dont know


----------



## Kevin Pascal (26 Nov 2007)

I believe that it's quite likely that Hatchet Man hit the nail on the head. The family relationship with an admitted criminal and that persons known affiliation with various criminal elements of our society would, I hope, result in the failure of an enhanced reliability check. While it is sad that a person who hasn't personally committed a crime can be affected by the actions of the people around them.. I am happy that such safeguards are in place and that they work as well as they do.


----------



## Reccesoldier (26 Nov 2007)

Um, why do you folks think that they ask who your mommy, daddy, big bro and little sis are on those pesky security clearance sheets anyway...

They don't just check you out they check your family out.  Now certainly if your dad was busted for buying a gram of hash when he was 23, that won't raise an eyebrow.  But if Dad was importing pounds of hash for a notorious Biker Gang then yeah, it's going to cost you.

People do not have a god given right to join the CF.  They serve at the pleasure of the government or not as the government sees fit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> People do not have a god given right to join the CF.  They serve at the pleasure of the government or not as the government sees fit.



...and that is the problem. Everyone seems to forget that *they* applied to the CF, not......


----------



## X Royal (26 Nov 2007)

It was not completely unheard of in the early/mid 70's(most likely before than also) of giving someone a choice of 5 years in jail *or* 5 years in the military. I personally know of one case who was a biker.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Nov 2007)

X Royal said:
			
		

> It was not completely unheard of in the early/mid 70's(most likely before than also) of giving someone a choice of 5 years in jail *or* 5 years in the military. I personally know of one case who was a biker.



Yeah and things change and stricter regulations are put in place.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Nov 2007)

X Royal said:
			
		

> It was not completely unheard of in the early/mid 70's(most likely before than also) of giving someone a choice of 5 years in jail *or* 5 years in the military. I personally know of one case who was a biker.



Are we in the 70s now ?


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> "Would you let known Canadian terrorists' kids join? Highly doubt "
> Nope I probably wouldn't because while it's probably hippocritical, personally I believe the son of a biker has considerable different motivation towards joining the military than the son of a known terrorist.



Yeah real big difference in motivation  :  One wants to get weapons and the like to kill each other and increase their illegal business, the other just wants to kill us period.  In that respect, why not let the biker's kid join.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Nov 2007)

Now you're talking.
Lets just not make the kid responsible for transporting weapons right? 

Has there actually been many cases in the past of bikers attempting to use connections within the military to commit crime??


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Now you're talking.
> Lets just not make the kid responsible for transporting weapons right?
> 
> Has there actually been many cases in the past of bikers attempting to use connections within the military to commit crime??



Yes, nothing specific comes to mind right now, but I remember watching on the news when a biker club was raided out in Quebec, a few years ago, among the items siezed were CF weapons and pyro (smoke grenades and some arty sims).  Also my current CSM mentioned a few things at the start of the training year wrt to posting info on the net and how OMG's have attempted to use that info.


----------



## rustysoap (26 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Now you're talking.
> Lets just not make the kid responsible for transporting weapons right?
> 
> Has there actually been many cases in the past of bikers attempting to use connections within the military to commit crime??



Probably a little over the top, but in American Gangster (based on true story) Frank Lucas used his cousin stationed in vietname to import heroiin by smuggling them in the caskets of dead soldiers travelling on US military aircrafts. 
	
	



```
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lucas_%28drug_lord%29
```
 Not quite a biker gang, but still organized crime. 

I fully agree though, that the kid shouldn't pay for his father's crimes, it's not always "like father, like son"


----------



## Osotogari (26 Nov 2007)

I have jacked up kids for showing up for PT in support wear.  Last year I even turfed a potential recruit from our armory for the same reason.  All we need is for some moron at the Toronto Star to convince himself that the CF is rife with OMG associates and we'll be right back to where we were in 1995.  I'm glad CSIS showed a flash of competence on this one.




> Has there actually been many cases in the past of bikers attempting to use connections within the military to commit crime??



I believe something to that effect went down in southern Ontario in the 80s.  A large undercover operation stopped it.  Also, if we find a troop testing positive for coke, meth, or steroids, who do you think distributed it?

For a while I hung out at a popular blues bar in Edmonton in the days before the local OMGs around here patched over to HA.  I wasn't shy about being in the military, and I found that over time I found that these guys were warming up to me.  I was never sure whether or not they wanted access to equipment or weapons or if it was some sort of recruiting process or if they just found me fascinating to talk to.  If nothing else they were very manipulative and once I found out what these people were really about and especially once I read Yves Lavigne's book I stopped associating with them.  

I would guess that a simple search revealed this young man's pedigree and that was enough for some alarm bells.  Since OMGs are into all the usual organized crime stuff like drugs and guns, they would be interested in other things like NVGs and other flashy kit that they can use against their rivals and to run counter-surveillance on police.


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Nov 2007)

This thread sticks out in my mind:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18335/post-93139.html

I've also heard stories of the 'one peice at a time' method to stealing weapons...  :


----------



## GUNS (26 Nov 2007)

CSIS have to provide the answerer's if this gets to the Human Rights Commission, not the CF.

This guy may not mirror his father's past exploits, but the food in his stomach, cloths on his back and the roof over his head was from his father's illegal actions.  I guess he is "Guilty by association".


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Nov 2007)

How is this a human rights issue? One has the right to apply... not the right to be accepted.


----------



## slowmode (26 Nov 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> CSIS have to provide the answerer's if this gets to the Human Rights Commission, not the CF.
> 
> This guy may not mirror his father's past exploits, but the food in his stomach, cloths on his back and the roof over his head was from his father's illegal actions.  I guess he is "Guilty by association".


   THis isent really a Human Rights Issue I believe, There is no where saying the CF has to accept anyone. Or CSIS in that matter.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Nov 2007)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How is this a human rights issue? One has the right to apply... not the right to be accepted.


 From Treasury Board of Canada Secretariart Personnel Security Standard
6. Review and redress

6.1 General
Departments should establish an internal screening review process to review all relevant information and negative recommendations before reliability status or a security clearance is denied or revoked.

Individuals must be informed in writing of their rights of access to review or redress mechanisms where a decision to deny or revoke reliability status or a security clearance has been reached. The authorized officer denying reliability status should consult the security office regarding the redress mechanisms available in each case in order to fully inform the individual concerned.

6.2 Reliability status
Employees who wish to challenge a negative decision based on the results of a reliability check may do so through current grievance procedures in accordance with Sections 91 and 92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Departments, other than the Canadian Forces component of the Department of National Defence, must ensure that reliability check grievances proceed directly to the final level of the grievance procedure.

*Individuals from outside the Public Service, such as applicants and contractors, may complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission*, the Public Service Commission's Investigations Directorate or the Federal Court, Trial Division, according to the specifics of each case.

6.3 Security clearance
*The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act establishes the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) as the formal review body in cases concerning denial of a security clearance. Pursuant to Section 42 of the CSIS Act, this right of review is available to outside candidates, employees and those contracting directly with the government who are denied a security clearance by a deputy head.*

Deputy Heads who disagree with a security clearance recommendation made by SIRC must consult with the Privy Council Office (PCO) in reviewing the issue. Deputy Heads must also inform the Chairperson of SIRC of their final decision in writing. Consultation with PCO must take place prior to any action to release, demote or dismiss an individual, notwithstanding the fact that the authority to deny a security clearance remains with the Deputy Head. This requirement is intended to ensure the thorough review of the initial reasons for denying, revoking or suspending a security clearance in those cases where the SIRC recommends granting or reinstating the clearance.

*Any individual denied a security clearance may also file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission*. If a minister advises the Commission that the basis of the denial relates to the security of Canada, the Commission may either dismiss the complaint or refer the matter to SIRC for investigation before proceeding. As well, individuals may appeal to the Federal Court following the denial of a security clearance.


----------



## Kevin Pascal (26 Nov 2007)

Complaining to the Human Rights commission is certainly anyones right if they feel that their rights have been violated. I have to agree with many others in the thread that have already said that this persons rights were not violated. If he was rejected because of his race, marital status or sexual orientation he would have a case. He simply has not met the standard of reliability that is required to join. The CF has exercised their right not to accept any applicant who has failed to pass the required reliability check.


----------



## rustysoap (26 Nov 2007)

Kevin Pascal said:
			
		

> Complaining to the Human Rights commission is certainly anyones right if they feel that their rights have been violated. I have to agree with many others in the thread that have already said that this persons rights were not violated. If he was rejected because of his race, marital status or sexual orientation he would have a case. He simply has not met the standard of reliability that is required to join. The CF has exercised their right not to accept any applicant who has failed to pass the required reliability check.



That's very true, being denied because of who you family is, is not a human rights issue. In fact, I'd say it's borderline with the other end of the spectrum, being accepted because of who your family is. It's not violating anything, it's just unfortunate circumstances. Granted this guy had no choice as to what his father did or the environment he was born into. In cases like these, I think putting the person's character under a microscope would be better rather than just flat-out denying because of lineage. But then again, that might be a side of the story, as someone mentioned earlier, that we're not told. Maybe they did do a hardcore character reference check and still wasn't good enough. one may never know


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Nov 2007)

This also from the Personnel Security Standard may be the basis for the denial of his reliability/security clearance.



> Individuals are denied a security clearance if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the following conditions apply:
> 
>  As it relates to loyalty, the individual is engaged, or may engage, in activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada within the meaning of the CSIS Act.
> 
>  Reliability as it relates to loyalty, because of personal beliefs, features of character, *association with persons or groups considered a security threat, or family or other close ties to persons living in oppressive or hostile countries, the individual may act or may be induced to act in a way that constitutes a "threat to the security of Canada"; or they may disclose, may be induced to disclose, or may cause to be disclosed in an unauthorized way, classified information. *


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Nov 2007)

We are only hearing the one side of the story. 

I am sure there is a bonified reason he was refused. For that reason, I am happy to have such organisations vette any applicant throughally, regardless of who they are, or who their Dads are.

Make sense? No PC or touchy-feeliness please!!! (gag)

My 2 cents.

Wes


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2007)

Funny,


We had a brother from the regiment, who's father was a senior member of Satan's Choice.

Very few of us knew, and he was completely opposite of the typical "Family member of a Biker".

To this day, no one would know, and he has been in for close to 20 years, been to the Stan "multiple" times, and never so much as got his nose runny in the military.

meh, I can see where CSIS is coming from, but is there more to the story??

dileas

tess


----------



## exspy (26 Nov 2007)

Gentlemen,

If I may explain the role of CSIS (aka the Service) in the CF security clearance system so that persons will stop saying that 'CSIS' denied this applicant a security clearance.  Again, there is no opsec or persec issues involved in my explanation.

About a dozen years ago the CF stopped doing their own clearances and contracted with the Service to have them undertake this responsibility.  The Service was already responsible for providing clearances to the Public Service.  Along with a background investigation the Service also coordinates the responses required from other agencies.  As an example, if the applicant lived in another country for a number of years the Service would request and receive the response from the allied service involved and incorporate it into the applicant's clearance.  Likewise it requests the required criminal clearance from the RCMP for inclusion.

After completion the report, without any recommendations from the Service whatsoever, is passed to the Deputy Minister for the federal department involved.  It is the responsibility of every Deputy Minister to either grant or deny security clearances within his department.  The Service provides the information only.  So if, as in this case, a security clearance is denied then that was the decision of the DM and not the Service.  The DM is not under any obligation to approve or deny an applicant based solely on the Service's information.  Other factors may provide mitigation.

For this reason the applicant's only avenue of appeal is to the Deputy Minister of the DND.  The applicant may appeal to SIRC (why not, everybody else does) but the Service didn't deny him anything.

Hope this clarifies the process.

Dan.


----------



## ixium (26 Nov 2007)

Was the guys father in a prison for killing someone, the 48th regulator?

What do the hell's angels call it? 1%'ers? Only 1% of biker gang members actually have a criminal record?


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Nov 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Funny,
> 
> 
> We had a brother from the regiment, who's father was a senior member of Satan's Choice.
> ...



Probably, it is the Toronto Star afterall,  and they have their bent when it comes to things involving the military (anyone else notice the irrelevant quips about the quebec lawers, or the jab about the current mission in Astan right at the end).  Perhaps its like I stated and this character didn't distance himself enough from his father and his fathers associates, or he may have done some things, innocuous things they may have been on their behalf, and that was all it took to be denied.  WRT to who you are referring too (and now my mind is racing to try and figure out who you are talking about), perhaps he (has) distanced himself enough from his father/family that there are no immediate concerns.  

In either case this story is a little too slanted in favour of this person, to make me suspect, that there is more to it (the denial), than just family ties.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Nov 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Was the guys father in a prison for killing someone, the 48th regulator?
> 
> What do the hell's angels call it? 1%'ers? Only 1% of biker gang members actually have a criminal record?



He is not in prison, he is jail awaiting trail on charges of murder.


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2007)

All right.

Moderator Warning:

And now this thread seems to have devolved into pure speculation about whether or not the refused applicant was involved personally with biker gangs and criminal activity etc. Bordering on slander.

Not on.

Let CSIS explain their reasoning and let the HR Tribunal figure it out -- that's their job.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Nov 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Was the guys father in a prison for killing someone, the 48th regulator?
> 
> What do the hell's angels call it? 1%'ers? Only 1% of biker gang members actually have a criminal record?



It means 1% human.

When did CSIS start getting called 'the service'?


----------



## HDE (27 Nov 2007)

FWIW

   I believe the "1% er" thing came about many years ago when the it was claimed that 99% of motorcyclists are perfectly upstanding citizens.  The ones who aren't grabbed the "1%"  tag and wore it proudly ever since.  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Nov 2007)

HDE said:
			
		

> FWIW
> 
> I believe the "1% er" thing came about many years ago when the it was claimed that 99% of motorcyclists are perfectly upstanding citizens.  The ones who aren't grabbed the "1%"  tag and wore it proudly ever since.  >



Bingo.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Nov 2007)

The signal characteristic of organized criminals and gangs is that they are organized.  They do PR; they do their own reverse covert operations.  Ponder the implications of the latter.


----------



## Neill McKay (27 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> When did CSIS start getting called 'the service'?



Several decades after the armed forces?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> It means 1% human.
> 
> When did CSIS start getting called 'the service'?



Sounds like a name they gave themselves, hoping it would catch on. Makes 'em sound all hincky and clandestine  ;D


----------



## Greymatters (27 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> When did CSIS start getting called 'the service'?



'The Force' was already taken by the RCMP.  A lot of big agencies do the same thing, refer to themselves by some sort of elite 'nom de guerre'.  I've heard both military police and military intelligence members refer to their own services as 'the Branch'. 

Overall its supposed to be a form of influence/status.  Why refer to your real organizational name when you can refer to it in a way that makes it appear mysterious and interesting?

i.e. ...
"I'm with the Service"
"I'm with the Force"
"I'm from the Branch, I'm here to help"
etc. ...


----------



## Chilly (28 Nov 2007)

Those of us in the Int Branch may refer to ourselves as "A" Branch because that is what we are - a branch. Just like the EME Branch, LOG Branch etc..... 

We aren't a battalion, regiment, or corps (like we used to be).

However, I have never heard anyone in the Int world refer to it as "the Branch" unless it is in reference to something the branch is doing eg. "the branch is having it's mess dinner at ....... this year, are you going? Or the Branch executive has done this.

Not trying to start anything, just clear things up a bit.

Chilly

Edited to remove smiley face.


----------



## Greymatters (28 Nov 2007)

Chilly said:
			
		

> Those of us in the Int Branch may refer to ourselves as "A" Branch because that is what we are - a branch. Just like the EME Branch, LOG Branch etc.....



Those of us who used to be in the Int Branch distinctly remember our seniors (and a few younger emulators) doing this.  Perhaps it is a practice that has finally died out?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Those of us who used to be in the Int Branch distinctly remember our seniors (and a few younger emulators) doing this. * Perhaps it is a practice that has finally died out?*



Let's hope it has.....or does, for all of them. It sounds like people are compensating for 'something'.


----------



## Thompson_JM (28 Nov 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> 'The Force' was already taken by the RCMP.  A lot of big agencies do the same thing, refer to themselves by some sort of elite 'nom de guerre'.  I've heard both military police and military intelligence members refer to their own services as 'the Branch'.
> 
> Overall its supposed to be a form of influence/status.  Why refer to your real organizational name when you can refer to it in a way that makes it appear mysterious and interesting?
> 
> ...



Bonus points if you hook up your phone to use the CTU ringtone from 24........  Boop Boop, beeeeedooooop
  ;D
http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/ringtone/CTU24.wav


----------

