CAF Member Arrested and Charged Relating to Foreign Interference

[OldSolduer]

We don't know what or if he has actually done anything yet. The accusation seems to be alarming, but I would like to see the details of what he is accused of doing.

FWIW I agree with you on this one - but there are traitors out there.

 

[MilEME09]

FWIW I agree with you on this one - but there are traitors out there.

Indeed, and we shall see in court who he was accused of communicating with.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I just wrapped up a UDI on Friday, nothing a serious as this, but you most defiantly have to tell the accused what they are accused of.

It seems like an odd mistake to make for an organization well versed in policy, technicalities, and speaking with people. Especially speaking with a high ranking NCM who knows all the tricks and games.

 

[OldSolduer]

Interesting quote from Mr. Fowler:

"He was quite literally told by his chain of command: 'You know what you did,'" said Fowler, who added the response was: "No, actually you have to spell it out. That's your obligation. And that's what we're dealing with here."

I just wrapped up a UDI on Friday, nothing a serious as this, but you most defiantly have to tell the accused what they are accused of.

IIRC that goes for every police force in Canada.

This is strange.

 

[ModlrMike]

Maybe I'm missing something here. He hired a lawyer to deal with the RM? Wouldn't the only place a lawyer could appear in this instance be if a RoG subsequent to the RM wound up going to the Federal Court?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Maybe I'm missing something here. He hired a lawyer to deal with the RM? Wouldn't the only place a lawyer could appear in this instance be if a RoG subsequent to the RM wound up going to the Federal Court?

Lawyer coaches them on what to say and what not to say along the lines of I don't understand what you're saying to me right now, where do I sign? // sorry my medication is giving me brain fog // This is all a surprise to me I was never given a warning or opportunity to correct my deficiency.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It seems like an odd mistake to make for an organization well versed in policy, technicalities, and speaking with people. Especially speaking with a high ranking NCM who knows all the tricks and games.

Agree re: they typically tell ya how you stepped in your dick, but remember that this is what defence counsel is saying right now. Doubt if it’s the ENTIRE story, and as someone smarter than me has said in the past, media statements aren’t given under oath.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Maybe I'm missing something here. He hired a lawyer to deal with the RM? Wouldn't the only place a lawyer could appear in this instance be if a RoG subsequent to the RM wound up going to the Federal Court?

I suspect the MWO was cautioned and he elected not make a statement and got a lawyer.

Mr. Fowler being well versed in CAF admin and discipline measures is now counseling him through it all.

 

[Jarnhamar]

media statements aren’t given under oath.

That's it right there. I'd imagine a defence lawyer can suggest practically anything they wish in the media.

 

[The Bread Guy]

That's it right there. I'd imagine a defence lawyer can suggest practically anything they wish in the media.

Especially the bit in yellow - although, to be fair, the same could be said of the Crown/prosecution, too (although their hands are a touch more tied for different reasons).

 

[dapaterson]

I suspect the MWO was cautioned and he elected not make a statement and got a lawyer.

Mr. Fowler being well versed in CAF admin and discipline measures is now counseling him through it all.

It may create problems; the accused now has counsel advising him on matters pertaining to the admin actions taken against him, and another lawyer representing him for the CSD matters.

Creating additional friction are the inevitable issues surrounding national security disclosure. While I assume his military counsel for the CSD matters has or can relatively easily get the necessary TS SCI clearances (or be swapped out for military counsel who can), his admin law counsel may not be able to do so as easily.

The Nat Sec legal space is challenging at best; as with Mr Ortis, the legal system will be challenged in these proceedings.

 

[ModlrMike]

I suspect the MWO was cautioned and he elected not make a statement and got a lawyer.

Mr. Fowler being well versed in CAF admin and discipline measures is now counseling him through it all.

I'm not sure that's the issue. The article states that he retained Mr Fowler to deal with the RW. I think part of the confusion is the use of the term "reprimand" to mean the RW. As we know, a reprimand is a formal punishment delivered at trial, where an RW is an administrative measure.

Master Warrant Officer Matthew Robar was the subject of a disciplinary investigation by his unit within the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command starting in October 2024. The probe resulted in a reprimand — what the military calls a remedial measure and a recorded warning — delivered last spring, according to internal documents.

The reprimand cited alleged actions Robar took from May 11 to 20 and Sept. 9 to 21, 2024, but provided no detail.

"He got no disclosure with this," Rory Fowler, a retired lieutenant-colonel and military lawyer, who was hired by Robar over the reprimand. On the charges under the National Defence Act he's being represented by a military defence counsel.

I'm betting that the RW was sufficiently detailed, especially if it had been run past DMCA. Having dealt with that office a number of times, I am reasonably reassured that they're not given to imprecision.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It may create problems; the accused now has counsel advising him on matters pertaining to the admin actions taken against him, and another lawyer representing him for the CSD matters.

Creating additional friction are the inevitable issues surrounding national security disclosure. While I assume his military counsel for the CSD matters has or can relatively easily get the necessary TS SCI clearances (or be swapped out for military counsel who can), his admin law counsel may not be able to do so as easily.

The Nat Sec legal space is challenging at best; as with Mr Ortis, the legal system will be challenged in these proceedings.

Drifting a little bit, but I agree on all points.

I still think it's bizarre that I conduct disciplinary investigations and lay charges. I'm comfortable doing it, I've done a lot, but I can definitely see the UDI process being challenged.