Complaints/ Investigation

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Perhaps the lesson to be taken is...

...if a person is afraid to repeat something said about someone without a lawyer present, maybe avoid being the unit's gossipy ***** and not saying it the first time? 

Just sayin' 

I was saying more along the lines of: Something went down, WO Smith asks Pte Bloggins what the hell is going on here. Pte Bloggins answers the WO, possibly implicating himself in something illegal.

Later the CSM directs another WO to conduct interviews for possible charges. If called to a formal interview Pte Bloggins is best advised to answer no questions, and not even repeat what he told WO Smith before. Nothing Pte Bloggins can say at that point is going to put him in a more advantagous legal position.

 

[JesseWZ]

I was saying more along the lines of: Something went down, WO Smith asks Pte Bloggins what the hell is going on here. Pte Bloggins answers the WO, possibly implicating himself in something illegal.

Later the CSM directs another WO to conduct interviews for possible charges. If called to a formal interview Pte Bloggins is best advised to answer no questions, and not even repeat what he told WO Smith before. Nothing Pte Bloggins can say at that point is going to put him in a more advantagous legal position.

This thread is rapidly de-volving in to Barrack Room Lawyer heresay. It's probably best, if Pte Bloggins, when faced with that situation, get offered his Rights to Counsel and then contacts his lawyer. I'd rather receive legal advise about my specific situation from an actual lawyer, then listen to someone's barrack room advise online.

There are situations where not cooperating with an investigation can lead to more trouble than it's worth.

 

[FJAG]

This thread is rapidly de-volving in to Barrack Room Lawyer hearsay. It's probably best, if Pte Bloggins, when faced with that situation, get offered his Rights to Counsel and then contacts his lawyer. I'd rather receive legal advise about my specific situation from an actual lawyer, then listen to someone's barrack room advise online.

There are situations where not cooperating with an investigation can lead to more trouble than it's worth.

:goodpost:

Truer words were never spoken. Legal issues are complex; crowd-sourcing an answer might help narrow down the issues and lead the OP to look in the right direction but may also lead to disaster if not accompanied by appropriate professional advice (not necessarily a lawyer but an individual who is a subject expert and authorized to provide the advice)

By the way - FTFY although maybe you meant 'heresy' - that might fit too  ;D

:cheers:

 

[JesseWZ]

:goodpost:
By the way - FTFY although maybe you meant 'heresy' - that might fit too  ;D

:cheers:

Damn lawyers...  >

 

[Mediman14]

Thanks to all for your input.
  Here's the story. A complaint was launched (I suspect it was revenge for a punishment for not obeying commands), it went up to the CoC. The CO sat on it for several days, then decided to let someone outside the unit investigate (as rumours in this unit is horrible!). The member was removed from the workplace without any explaination why. pretty much sat in Limbo for 4 months. The CSM approached , his response was " I don't know anything". The CO was appproached 3 times and said the same answer as the CSM.
      The interview came 4 months after sitting in limbo, not knowing anything at all. And ofcourse alot, if not all was taken out of context with some twisted ideas of the truth. Should this be played out before taking any action?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thanks to all for your input.
  Here's the story. A complaint was launched (I suspect it was revenge for a punishment for not obeying commands), it went up to the CoC. The CO sat on it for several days, then decided to let someone outside the unit investigate (as rumours in this unit is horrible!). The member was removed from the workplace without any explaination why. pretty much sat in Limbo for 4 months. The CSM approached , his response was " I don't know anything". The CO was appproached 3 times and said the same answer as the CSM.
      The interview came 4 months after sitting in limbo, not knowing anything at all. And ofcourse alot, if not all was taken out of context with some twisted ideas of the truth. Should this be played out before taking any action?

I'm going to suggest you call the Duty JAG and get it from the horses mouth. At the very least, speak to your Unit or Base SME. What you're seeking is a legal opinion, not a best guess scenario from anonymous posters on the internet who don't even know what the complaint is, who's involved and who don't have a clear picture of both sides of the scenario.

You're just asking for trouble by following any advice from any anonymous source.

 

[George Wallace]

Thanks to all for your input.
  Here's the story. A complaint was launched (I suspect it was revenge for a punishment for not obeying commands), it went up to the CoC. The CO sat on it for several days, then decided to let someone outside the unit investigate (as rumours in this unit is horrible!). The member was removed from the workplace without any explaination why. pretty much sat in Limbo for 4 months. The CSM approached , his response was " I don't know anything". The CO was appproached 3 times and said the same answer as the CSM.
      The interview came 4 months after sitting in limbo, not knowing anything at all. And ofcourse alot, if not all was taken out of context with some twisted ideas of the truth. Should this be played out before taking any action?

???

I can't make much sense of what you posted, but will give it a try.

Again, both the Complainant and the Respondent have full rights to know what has been said about them, and by whom.  Anyone else would not be privy to all disclosures, so it would be likely that the CSM and CO knew nothing, and wouldn't until the investigation came to some form of conclusions/resolution/termination.  It is a rather drastic measure, but one that can be exercised, to remove a member from the workplace during an investigation.  That may indicate a very poisoned work environment, as indicated by the innuendo that you indicate is being spread around.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm not even sure that you should be discussing this on the forum at all, based on what you posted.  I also don't think you should post any more details openly.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Which is as good advice as one can get methinks.
Locked