QuoteColumbia man jailed for wearing military uniforms, medals
Civilian violated 'Stolen Valor Act;' mental treatment ordered
A 39-year-old Columbia man has been sentenced to 10 days in jail for violating the "Stolen Valor Act," by purchasing and wearing military uniforms and medals to which he was not entitled, prosecutors said.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. DiGirolamo sentenced Chad Chan Dieu Wednesday to 10 days in prison, one year probation with mental health treatment and 100 hours of community service to be served within six months.
Dieu was prosecuted under the "Stolen Valor Act," which makes it a federal offense to knowingly purchase or wear military medals, badges, or decorations without authority, prosecutors said.
Dieu pretended to volunteer to help wounded soldiers at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, prosecutors said. Instead, from July 15 through Aug. 3, Dieu accessed the base exchange at the center, posing as a member of the Navy, and purchased medals and insignia at the Navy Exchange Uniform Shop.
A service member in the shop reported Dieu to base police as being suspicious, because the ribbons he was wearing appeared incongruous, according to prosecutors. At the time, it was reported that Dieu was wearing a Navy SEAL badge, Defense Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf cluster, Navy Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Purple Heart, and other ribbons, prosecutors said.
On July 23, an officer approached Dieu, who was wearing a Navy uniform, and escorted him to the police station to verify his identity. Dieu told base police he was a Navy SEAL and Dieu was released, but further investigation revealed that Dieu was not a Navy SEAL and has never been a member of the military, prosecutors said.
Dieu was arrested on Aug. 3, as he left the Uniform Shop after an investigator saw him pick up previously ordered medals and purchase two Silver Star ribbons, two Unit Combat Action ribbons, a Navy Good Conduct ribbon, and three stars. A subsequent search of Dieu's car recovered other decorations and medals, according to prosecutors.
Naturally it was grumbler who busted him, for using the word "Congressional" with "Medal of Honor".
Good to see prosecutors focusing their resources on real criminals.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2010, 05:30:13 AM
Good to see prosecutors focusing their resources on real criminals.
Says the expert on the Stolen Socks Act.
Was it Sir Hockey?
'Stolen Valor Act' is a lousy name IMHO, but wearing decorations and medals you did nothing to win is low indeed...
So you have to purchase your ribbons? That's one way of cutting the deficit.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2010, 06:45:37 AM
So you have to purchase your ribbons? That's one way of cutting the deficit.
If you don't get a medal, just a ribbon, you have to buy the ribbon. One ribbon comes free with the medal, but you have to buy the second one (pretty much everybody has a separate set of full-dress ribbons as well as the regular dress ribbons) and, of course, replacements for lost or soiled ribbons.
:o Cal can't go to prison! He's way too pretty.
We have a similar law:
Quote419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2010, 05:30:13 AM
Good to see prosecutors focusing their resources on real criminals.
This -is- a real crime. Bravery in battle means something, and when you claim a veteran's accomplishments for yourself, you are stealing from him as surely as if you were a common thief, without even the defense that you needed to steal to feed your family, or what have you.
Mocking this as the prosecution of a victimless crime I think is a telling sign of how decadent and soft Europe has become.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 09, 2010, 01:20:54 PM
This -is- a real crime. Bravery in battle means something, and when you claim a veteran's accomplishments for yourself, you are stealing him as surely as if you were a common thief, without even the defense that you needed to steal to feed your family, or what have you.
I agree.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2010, 05:27:49 AM
Naturally it was grumbler who busted him, for using the word "Congressional" with "Medal of Honor".
I'd love to see the look on the clerk's face when some moron like this (or like half of Languish, probably) walks into the Uniform Shop and orders a "Congressional Medal of Honor." :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 11:34:40 AM
We have a similar law:
Quote419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
I infringe that law part a) on a, mostly, weekly basis.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2010, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 11:34:40 AM
We have a similar law:
Quote419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
I infringe that law part a) on a, mostly, weekly basis.
What, do you dress up like a sailor to cruise gay bars or something?
My guess was "paratrooper and Somali prisoner" with his girlfriend.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2010, 01:32:39 PM
I infringe that law part a) on a, mostly, weekly basis.
What you do with other consenting adults in the privacy of your own bedroom doesn't count.
;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2010, 02:56:11 PM
My guess was "paratrooper and Somali prisoner" with his girlfriend.
Your ideas intrigue me. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 11:34:40 AM
We have a similar law:
Quote419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wow, this law is pretty broad, especially considering the bolded part and the apparent lack of a requirement that this is done with an intent of misleading other people. This appears to cover reenactment, stage performances and film acting, as well as fancy dress parties. Not to mention, the law does not seem to be limited to the Canadian military, nor to uniforms and medals of any military still existing and in use".
So I guess someone dressing up in a Napoleonic era French uniform replica to a Halloween party or sporting his great-grandfather Iron Cross is guilty of an offense. :D
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2010, 06:03:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 11:34:40 AM
We have a similar law:
Quote419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wow, this law is pretty broad, especially considering the bolded part and the apparent lack of a requirement that this is done with an intent of misleading other people. This appears to cover reenactment, stage performances and film acting, as well as fancy dress parties. Not to mention, the law does not seem to be limited to the Canadian military, nor to uniforms and medals of any military still existing and in use".
So I guess someone dressing up in a Napoleonic era French uniform replica to a Halloween party or sporting his great-grandfather Iron Cross is guilty of an offense. :D
The Canadians are too busy prosecuting pot-smokers to worry about that.
Quote from: sbr on April 09, 2010, 06:11:00 PM
The Canadians are too busy prosecuting pot-smokers to worry about that.
I *wish* we were busy prosecuting pot smokers. <_<
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2010, 06:03:32 PM
Wow, this law is pretty broad, especially considering the bolded part and the apparent lack of a requirement that this is done with an intent of misleading other people. This appears to cover reenactment, stage performances and film acting, as well as fancy dress parties. Not to mention, the law does not seem to be limited to the Canadian military, nor to uniforms and medals of any military still existing and in use".
So I guess someone dressing up in a Napoleonic era French uniform replica to a Halloween party or sporting his great-grandfather Iron Cross is guilty of an offense. :D
I would think that nobody could possibly be "mistaken" by someone wearing the unfirom of a Napoleonic replica uniform. That being said I can't see any reason why it should be limited to the Canadian Forces uniforms - we certainly get soldiers from any number of countries visiting in Canada in uniform.
And it's a summary conviction offence, which is our lowest standard for criminal matters, so as a result it puts the onus on the accused, rather than the prosecution, to justify it.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 06:16:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 09, 2010, 06:11:00 PM
The Canadians are too busy prosecuting pot-smokers to worry about that.
I *wish* we were busy prosecuting pot smokers. <_<
you make me sick. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2010, 06:37:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 06:16:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 09, 2010, 06:11:00 PM
The Canadians are too busy prosecuting pot-smokers to worry about that.
I *wish* we were busy prosecuting pot smokers. <_<
you make me sick. :P
Good. :P
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 06:18:41 PM
I would think that nobody could possibly be "mistaken" by someone wearing the unfirom of a Napoleonic replica uniform. That being said I can't see any reason why it should be limited to the Canadian Forces uniforms - we certainly get soldiers from any number of countries visiting in Canada in uniform.
And it's a summary conviction offence, which is our lowest standard for criminal matters, so as a result it puts the onus on the accused, rather than the prosecution, to justify it.
Since the whole purpose of re-enactment uniforms is that they be "so similar to the uniform of" the original uniforms as to be "likely to be mistaken therefor," I cannot imagine that this law would actually stand up to judicial scrutiny. Particularly as the law
(1) does not require any intent to brealk the law, and
(2) places the onus on the defendant to prove that he didn't intend the uniform to resemble that of, say, Wolfe's troops at the Plains of Abraham
I would imagine that the law has simply never been subjkect to judicial scrutiny.
For the American law-talkers: is it possible, given the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" concept, to even have laws that require the defendant to prove innocence or else be found guilty? I guess I am not surprised that Canada has such laws, given that what Horace Rumpole (i.e. John Mortimer, a barrister himself) called the "golden thread of justice" of the common law does not apply there, but I am curious as to whether this is also possible in the US. I have always been under the assumption that it is not, but am willing to be enlightened.
Quote(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
Before we all continue frothing about "re-enactors" getting arrested, I would like to point out that this is in the present tense.* As no army in the world wears Napoleonic uniforms these days, the re-enactors do not have a problem. I doubt you'd get into trouble with uniforms from a vast chunk of the twentieth century either, the way this is worded.
However, I am also somewhat disturbed that the defendant needs to prove innocence rather than the prosecution guilt. Is this from the Franco-Canadian tradition of jurisprudence?
*The "Canadian Forces", for example, did not exist under this name until relatively late last century. Before that they had the standard separate army, navy and airforce.
What are you talking about? What "present tense"? Do you mean the word "wears"? :huh: :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 06:42:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 06:18:41 PM
I would think that nobody could possibly be "mistaken" by someone wearing the unfirom of a Napoleonic replica uniform. That being said I can't see any reason why it should be limited to the Canadian Forces uniforms - we certainly get soldiers from any number of countries visiting in Canada in uniform.
And it's a summary conviction offence, which is our lowest standard for criminal matters, so as a result it puts the onus on the accused, rather than the prosecution, to justify it.
Since the whole purpose of re-enactment uniforms is that they be "so similar to the uniform of" the original uniforms as to be "likely to be mistaken therefor," I cannot imagine that this law would actually stand up to judicial scrutiny. Particularly as the law
(1) does not require any intent to brealk the law, and
(2) places the onus on the defendant to prove that he didn't intend the uniform to resemble that of, say, Wolfe's troops at the Plains of Abraham
I would imagine that the law has simply never been subjkect to judicial scrutiny.
For the American law-talkers: is it possible, given the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" concept, to even have laws that require the defendant to prove innocence or else be found guilty? I guess I am not surprised that Canada has such laws, given that what Horace Rumpole (i.e. John Mortimer, a barrister himself) called the "golden thread of justice" of the common law does not apply there, but I am curious as to whether this is also possible in the US. I have always been under the assumption that it is not, but am willing to be enlightened.
First a disclaimer - I've never, ever seen this section charged. I didn't even know it existed until a week ago, where a cop in a "the strangest charge you ever laid" discussion mentioned laying a charge under 419(c) where some kid had a fake military ID trying to use it to buy alcohol while underage. So this is obscure.
I'm pretty certain that the language wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor" deals with situations where you are attempting to pass yourself off as a military member. Since the Napoleonic armed forces no longer exist, it is almost impossible (arguably) that anyone could ever mistake the wearer for being a member of the military.
There could be an interesting argument if one wore a, say, Vietnam-era US Army uniform. But not blatantly historic uniforms.
It is not a part of the common law in any country (including I believe the USA) to prove any "intent to brealk(sic) the law". It goes back to everyone is presumed to know the law. What is required is intent to do the thing alleged.
And I never said that the presumption of innocence is reversed. :huh: What the law does is once wearing the uniform is proven, the onus shifts to the wearer to prove that they wore it with "lawful authority". And it's just a matter of common sense. If someone is walking down the street in the uniform of the Canadian Forces, it would be almost impossible for the police to prove or disprove whether that person was actually a meber of the Canadian Forces, but it would be trivially easy for the subject to prove that they were. As such there are a number of such cases in law where the onus shifts regarding information that is in the possession of the accused.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2010, 06:54:54 PM
What are you talking about? What "present tense"? Do you mean the word "wears"? :huh: :lol:
As no army wears Napoleonic uniforms (and, in fact, the Napoleonic Empire does not exist) a reenactor wearing it cannot be mistaken for a uniform used by any Canadian Forces unit or any other army, navy or airforce. The law is clearly written in a way that means existing armed forces. I do not understand where this business of reenactors being charged has arisen from.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 09, 2010, 06:52:21 PM
Before we all continue frothing about "re-enactors" getting arrested, I would like to point out that this is in the present tense.*
If you are frothing about this, I suggest you stop. That cannot be healthy. :(
QuoteAs no army in the world wears Napoleonic uniforms these days, the re-enactors do not have a problem. I doubt you'd get into trouble with uniforms from a vast chunk of the twentieth century either, the way this is worded.
The way it is worded, it seems you certainly could. In practice, I reckon you could not, as there are presumably laws against impersonating a service member. I am thinking this particular law has never been invoked, so never subjected to scrutiny. Maybe our esteemed Canadian Crown Counsel can correct my misapprehension, if that is what it is.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 09, 2010, 06:52:21 PM
However, I am also somewhat disturbed that the defendant needs to prove innocence rather than the prosecution guilt. Is this from the Franco-Canadian tradition of jurisprudence?
See my response to grumbler. The defendant doesn't need to prove their innocence. But, once the Crown has proven the person was wearing the uniform, the defendant must prove they wore it with lawful authority.
Quote from: grumbler link=topic=4275.msg215669#msg215669
The way it is worded, it seems you certainly could. In practice, I reckon you could not, as there are presumably laws against impersonating a service member. I am thinking this particular law has never been invoked, so never subjected to scrutiny. Maybe our esteemed Canadian Crown Counsel can correct my misapprehension, if that is what it is.
I don't know about never invoked, but it is certainly very obscure.
I am unaware of any law that prohibits impersonating a CF member, other than the section quoted. There are generic laws against fraud, personation, etc. that could presumably apply.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 09, 2010, 07:00:07 PM
As no army wears Napoleonic uniforms (and, in fact, the Napoleonic Empire does not exist) a reenactor wearing it cannot be mistaken for a uniform used by any Canadian Forces unit or any other army, navy or airforce. The law is clearly written in a way that means existing armed forces. I do not understand where this business of reenactors being charged has arisen from.
The Napoleonic Armies of all countries would be one of the "other... arm[ies]..." mentioned in the law. There is nothing there I can see about time limits or current militaries.
Again, I am willing to be enlightened on whether a military under this law refers only to a currently-existing military, and it just isn't in the fragment of the statutes presented by Beeb.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 06:59:56 PM
I'm pretty certain that the language wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor" deals with situations where you are attempting to pass yourself off as a military member.
The way the law reads to me, what is "likely to be mistaken therefor" is "a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force." Not a member, but a uniform.
Is there somewhere that it is made plain that it is a service member one is "likely to be mistaken therefor"? Certainly, everything else then falls into place.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 07:00:57 PM
The way it is worded, it seems you certainly could. In practice, I reckon you could not, as there are presumably laws against impersonating a service member. I am thinking this particular law has never been invoked, so never subjected to scrutiny. Maybe our esteemed Canadian Crown Counsel can correct my misapprehension, if that is what it is.
The bit about "Canadian Forces" is the key, in my opinion - since they were not founded until 1968, then the way the law is written suggests to me that any uniforms from before that period are not covered (except possibly where their use continued in the unified command structure for a while after 1968.) Since the part of the law that refers to Canadian uniforms specifies a command that did not exist until 1968, and the sentence carries on without any further qualifier for date, then the rest of the line refers to current armed forces as well (or at least, 1968 or later.)
Thus a Napoleonic reenactor is perfectly safe - as is a WWI and WWII reenactor in all probability due to the many uniform changes over the century.
I do bear in mind of course that my reading of this line is made more as a historian than as a lawyer (since I am demonstrably not a lawyer) but there seems to be no retroactive element in the language used.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 07:09:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 06:59:56 PM
I'm pretty certain that the language wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor" deals with situations where you are attempting to pass yourself off as a military member.
The way the law reads to me, what is "likely to be mistaken therefor" is "a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force." Not a member, but a uniform.
Is there somewhere that it is made plain that it is a service member one is "likely to be mistaken therefor"? Certainly, everything else then falls into place.
Well in the absence of compelling judicial authority, we can have differing opinions on this point.
And I hit up the legal search database: s. 419 referred to only 3 times, and each time seems to deal with 419(c), military identity cards. So there is no caselaw on point.
While I can understand your reasoning, I would suggest that it is unlikely any prosecutor would ever charge for wearing a Napoleonic uniform based on the "public interest" test, and that even if a prosecutor did charge, I suspect a judge would read the section down to only include modern military uniforms. However I've seen stranger things happen in court, so I can not categorically rule out your interpretation either.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 09, 2010, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 07:00:57 PM
The way it is worded, it seems you certainly could. In practice, I reckon you could not, as there are presumably laws against impersonating a service member. I am thinking this particular law has never been invoked, so never subjected to scrutiny. Maybe our esteemed Canadian Crown Counsel can correct my misapprehension, if that is what it is.
The bit about "Canadian Forces" is the key, in my opinion - since they were not founded until 1968, then the way the law is written suggests to me that any uniforms from before that period are not covered (except possibly where their use continued in the unified command structure for a while after 1968.) Since the part of the law that refers to Canadian uniforms specifies a command that did not exist until 1968, and the sentence carries on without any further qualifier for date, then the rest of the line refers to current armed forces as well (or at least, 1968 or later.)
Thus a Napoleonic reenactor is perfectly safe - as is a WWI and WWII reenactor in all probability due to the many uniform changes over the century.
I do bear in mind of course that my reading of this line is made more as a historian than as a lawyer (since I am demonstrably not a lawyer) but there seems to be no retroactive element in the language used.
Short of doing some legal research you'd have no way of knowing this, but your analysis won't hold up. The term "Canadian Forces" is a defined term in the Criminal Code, and it is defined as "the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada". That would clearly include pre-1968 Canadian military units.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 07:16:49 PM
Short of doing some legal research you'd have no way of knowing this, but your analysis won't hold up. The term "Canadian Forces" is a defined term in the Criminal Code, and it is defined as "the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada". That would clearly include pre-1968 Canadian military units.
Before 1968 Canada had the RCAF, the RCN and the Canadian Army as separate corporate entities. After 1968 they were merely separate commands under the umbrella "Canadian Forces" (officially Canadian Armed Forces, but every abbreviation used in general, even in the command names that I can find use the shortened form "Canadian Forces".)
So, on the assumption the law is post 1968, then you would certainly have a justifiable argument that use of this term precluded earlier uniforms, as they are uniforms of entities that are not mentioned in the Code and that no longer exist. The actual correct definition you have given me does not actually preclude that argument. And I still argue there is no retroactive language in the statute as quoted.
But I repeat, I'm a historian, not a lawyer, and am thus reading the language of the statute "as written", without complete knowledge of the background to the terminology in question...but I find if very interesting that the statute reads "Canadian Forces" and then mentions "navy, army and airforce" when talking about other nations that still maintain three separate services.
Surely that law was drafted with "The Mountie" in mind.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsp3.fotologs.net%2Fphoto%2F35%2F12%2F10%2Fwwf_superstars%2F1174330393_f.jpg&hash=30dee5e42410cda49a29c67e7bbf731a49977300)
Actually, Aggie, you are reading it as a person with a screw loose. :(
Quote from: Agelastus on April 09, 2010, 07:27:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 07:16:49 PM
Short of doing some legal research you'd have no way of knowing this, but your analysis won't hold up. The term "Canadian Forces" is a defined term in the Criminal Code, and it is defined as "the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada". That would clearly include pre-1968 Canadian military units.
Before 1968 Canada had the RCAF, the RCN and the Canadian Army as separate corporate entities. After 1968 they were merely separate commands under the umbrella "Canadian Forces" (officially Canadian Armed Forces, but every abbreviation used in general, even in the command names that I can find use the shortened form "Canadian Forces".)
So, on the assumption the law is post 1968, then you would certainly have a justifiable argument that use of this term precluded earlier uniforms, as they are uniforms of entities that are not mentioned in the Code and that no longer exist. The actual correct definition you have given me does not actually preclude that argument. And I still argue there is no retroactive language in the statute as quoted.
But I repeat, I'm a historian, not a lawyer, and am thus reading the language of the statute "as written", without complete knowledge of the background to the terminology in question...but I find if very interesting that the statute reads "Canadian Forces" and then mentions "navy, army and airforce" when talking about other nations that still maintain three separate services.
Err, no, not at all.
Like I said - it was a good effort on your part, but you didn't take into account the definition section.
Canadian Forces = "armed forced of Her Majesty raised by Canada". Thus any armed force in Canada, from the Boer War, 1885 Rebellion, WWI and WWII, would all qualify as "Canadian Forces" since they meet the definition.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 09:17:10 PM
Err, no, not at all.
Like I said - it was a good effort on your part, but you didn't take into account the definition section.
Canadian Forces = "armed forced of Her Majesty raised by Canada". Thus any armed force in Canada, from the Boer War, 1885 Rebellion, WWI and WWII, would all qualify as "Canadian Forces" since they meet the definition.
Well, while I am not a lawyer, even by your no doubt legally correct argument that serves to extend the law backwards, it still cannot apply to uniforms from pre-1922, since that is when the Canadian Armed Forces gained their own separate identity. Before that the term would be raised "by her majesty in Canada", not "by Canada". Moreover, the term "Canadian Forces" is a specific term that originates at a specific time. Pre-1966 or 1968 it would be meaningless; one would talk of the RCN etc.
From your expert testimony it appears that the use of this term is immaterial, despite the apparent precision with which the law is written. From what I know of lawmaking and politicians, this would not be the first time...
QuoteThe Canadian Forces (CF) (French: Forces canadiennes; FC), officially the Canadian Armed Forces (French: Forces armées canadiennes),[5] are the unified armed forces of Canada, as constituted by the National Defence Act, which states: "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."
QuotePassed in 1922
QuoteOn 4 November 1966, Bill C-243, "The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act," was introduced to amend the National Defence Act. The aim of the bill was to reorganize the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, previously separate and independent services, under one umbrella. Following debate in the House of Commons and further examination by the Defence Committee, the Bill was given third and final reading in April 1967, clearing the way for unification.
The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act came into effect on 1 February 1968, creating one organization responsible for the defence of Canada, the Canadian Forces, and amending the National Defence Act.
And Garbon? I'm just reading the law as quoted and presumably as written. Nothing else.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 06:59:56 PM
I'm pretty certain that the language wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor" deals with situations where you are attempting to pass yourself off as a military member. Since the Napoleonic armed forces no longer exist, it is almost impossible (arguably) that anyone could ever mistake the wearer for being a member of the military.
Actually, alot of "Galla" uniforms, especially here in Europe are exact copies of "ordinary" everyday uniforms from various centuries. So an enacter of say a Danish Hussar uniform would actually wear the parade uniform of the today hussars and thus possibly be mistaken for one ;)
V
Martinus stole my valor.
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2010, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2010, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 11:34:40 AM
We have a similar law:
Quote419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
I infringe that law part a) on a, mostly, weekly basis.
What, do you dress up like a sailor to cruise gay bars or something?
I play Paintball. I wear a CADPAT uniform.
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 07:01:27 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 09, 2010, 06:52:21 PM
However, I am also somewhat disturbed that the defendant needs to prove innocence rather than the prosecution guilt. Is this from the Franco-Canadian tradition of jurisprudence?
See my response to grumbler. The defendant doesn't need to prove their innocence. But, once the Crown has proven the person was wearing the uniform, the defendant must prove they wore it with lawful authority.
Yeah. The burden of proof of exculpating circumstances rests on the defendant. Same goes for pretty much any defense - for example in a murder case, the burden of proof that the killing was in self-defense is on the defendant.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2010, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2010, 07:01:27 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 09, 2010, 06:52:21 PM
However, I am also somewhat disturbed that the defendant needs to prove innocence rather than the prosecution guilt. Is this from the Franco-Canadian tradition of jurisprudence?
See my response to grumbler. The defendant doesn't need to prove their innocence. But, once the Crown has proven the person was wearing the uniform, the defendant must prove they wore it with lawful authority.
Yeah. The burden of proof of exculpating circumstances rests on the defendant. Same goes for pretty much any defense - for example in a murder case, the burden of proof that the killing was in self-defense is on the defendant.
That's not the case in Canadian law. The Crown has to negative self-defense (once it has been raised).
How can you prove the negative? Surely they have to disprove any evidence raised by the defendant, but not prove lack of self-defense if there is no evidence presented to the contrary (including no testimony of the defendant)? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2010, 05:19:28 PM
How can you prove the negative? Surely they have to disprove any evidence raised by the defendant, but not prove lack of self-defense if there is no evidence presented to the contrary (including no testimony of the defendant)? :huh:
Essentially, once the defendant has raised a defense with an 'air of reality', the Crown must disprove the defense as it is an element of the offense. Essentially, if the victim says 'the accused stabbed me', that should be good enough. But if the accused says 'yeah, well he threatened to kill me which is why I stabbed him', self-defense has been raised, and we must negative that element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ok I see your point. So the standard of proof is higher when it comes to the defense under this uniform law, is that what you are saying?