SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduct

[PTADER]

SAF & SAF Captain Heroes Vs Canadian Forces Officer - A Short Study Into Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduct

SAF & SAF Captain "Heroes"

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/high-court-strikes-out-lawsuit-against-saf-2-officers-over-smoke-grenade"

"The family of Private Dominique Sarron Lee had also sued his platoon commander as well as the chief safety officer of the exercise, alleging negligence on their part.

"However, all three defendants [SAF, Captain Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal & Captain Chia Thye Siong] applied to strike out the claim on the grounds that there is no reasonable cause of action and that the suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

The defendants relied on a provision in the Government Proceedings Act, arguing that they are indemnified from being sued for negligence for deaths and injuries if the acts are certified to be attributable to service."

Vs

Canadian Forces Officer

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-soldier-pleads-guilty-in-afghan-friendly-fire-1.1158245

A decorated Canadian Forces officer has been hailed by a military prosecutor for his "integrity and honour" even as he pleaded guilty to negligent performance of duty.

Maj. Christopher Lunney, 42, had to pause to compose himself several times as he told a court martial Wednesday of his shock and remorse over the friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan that took the life of Cpl. Josh Baker and wounded four others.

"I can offer no words of regret or apology that will address their loss," Lunney said of the Baker family...

Lunney's negligence was in failing to ensure that Capt. Darryl Watts was properly qualified, something the major had assumed because of Watts' rank at the time...

"What transpired that day in Afghanistan was an avoidable incident," Lunney's civilian lawyer, Phillip Millar, told the court martial, adding there were "triable issues" that could have been mounted in his client's defence.

Instead, Lunney had instructed his lawyer that "the buck stops with me."

 

[mojito]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

No honour among thieves.

 

[steffychun]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

SAF Captains throw soke grenades, get into trouble. Canadian Majors have to fire huge about of weapons to get into trouble. ISIS is laughing.

 

[borom]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

Will the 70% still vote the same knowing that to sue the SAF or its officers for their children's death is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process. Sons of singapore die just like that?

What will the NS men think?

Of course foreigners don't have to bother as they can get cushy jobs and places reserved for their children (who don't have to serve NS ) in universities with generous scholarships to boot.

 

[halsey02]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

No honour among thieves.

Bargain Hen said they inherited the law from the British, you cannot bring a Civil Case against members of the SAF...or they will get disillusioned & cannot perform...

SAF....well!....remember who said this ?? "Duty, Honor, Country"......SAF ha!, ha!, ha!....please count in MONEY!

 

[jw5]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

Will the 70% still vote the same knowing that to sue the SAF or its officers for their children's death is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process. Sons of singapore die just like that?

What will the NS men think?

Of course foreigners don't have to bother as they can get cushy jobs and places reserved for their children (who don't have to serve NS ) in universities with generous scholarships to boot.

Easily impressionable and manipulated sinkies usually don't think too much until something bad happens to them. So yes, the 70% will still vote the same.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

Will the 70% still vote the same knowing that to sue the SAF or its officers for their children's death is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process. Sons of singapore die just like that?

What will the NS men think?

Of course foreigners don't have to bother as they can get cushy jobs and places reserved for their children (who don't have to serve NS ) in universities with generous scholarships to boot.

And don't forget how kfc's son avoided his ns plus the many white horses who were taken care of like in a nursery.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

Bargain Hen said they inherited the law from the British, you cannot bring a Civil Case against members of the SAF...or they will get disillusioned & cannot perform...

SAF....well!....remember who said this ?? "Duty, Honor, Country"......SAF ha!, ha!, ha!....please count in MONEY!

They inherited the jury system but peng when such a system did not favour them.

 

[halsey02]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

And don't forget how kfc's son avoided his ns plus the many white horses who were taken care of like in a nursery.

KFC's served N.S. by washing test tubes....wished my dad was that high up or I am 'son's of the soil' ( BUMIPUTRA) like chekgu's son next door told me, when I ask, why never served N.S., he was living next door to me when young.....not only they have 'white horses', back then...they even have 'bumiputras'......

 

[PTADER]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

Taken from: "Dead NS boy family ask for forensic report, MINDEF tell them to fuck off, cover u" thread

Originally Posted by scroobal
Some donkey wrote about a Hero Canadian Major who pleaded guilty for a death of soldier. What he did not reveal was that the major offered a reservist officer as a scapegoat when the investigation first began. That scapegoated officer was convicted and dropped 2 ranks down. The Court of Appeal threw out the conviction. The AG when preparing for the appeal realised that they have been sent up the creek, began proceedings against the major. The reason the Major pleaded guilty was to avoid a trial where it would reveal how he sacrificed his no.2 to save his own hide. The wrongly convicted officer was however reinstated to his original rank continues to serve in the reserves. It did not have to take 3 years to clear the mess and destroy people's life. That Major if he had done his duty, no lives would have been lost in the first place and if he had told the truth during the investigation, he would not have tortured an innocent reservist for all the years until the appeal.

Response (taken from that thread):

Absolutely beautiful TPX story. Very creative and imaginative. Brought out a couple of tears from my ageing eyes. Now here are some inconvenient timelines and facts.


2010 February 12 - Death of soldier, Cpl Joshua Baker, from Claymore Mine training incident in Afghanistan resulting in three people ("Hero", TPX's "Alleged Scapegoat" & "WO" being court martialled in 2012 & 2013. (Ref: Click here)

2011 June - Two Officers (TPX's “Alleged Scapegoat” and Warrant Officer ("WO") under Lunney's command charged by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the independent policing unit for the military. The charges will have to be approved first under the CFNIS' system and may be sent to a court martial later. (Ref: Click here)

2012 Feb - Charges preferred against TPX's "Alleged Scapegoat” & "WO". However court martial against these two still not convened yet. (Ref: Click here)

2012 September – “Hero Canadian Lunney”, Maj Christopher Lunney, is the 1st to be court martialled, BEFORE TPX's "Alleged Scapegoat" & "WO". (Ref: Click here )

2012 November - Maj Darryl Watts is the 2nd Officer AFTER Maj Lunney to be court martialled (Maj Watts is the Reservist Officer under Maj Lunney's command, TPX's “Alleged Scapegoat” who was supposed to have already been “convicted” before Lunney, “dropped 2 ranks”, “appealed”, "succeeded" in his "appeal”, his rank “reinstated” to “original rank” in this TPX bullshit story). (Ref: Click here)

2013 January – WO Paul Ravensdale is the 3rd to be court martialled. (Ref: Click here)


For tips on how to proceed after being caught out, please refer to some valuable tips which are available here.

 

[jw5]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

KFC's served N.S. by washing test tubes....wished my dad was that high up or I am 'son's of the soil' ( BUMIPUTRA) like chekgu's son next door told me, when I ask, why never served N.S., he was living next door to me when young.....not only they have 'white horses', back then...they even have 'bumiputras'......

He did much more than wash test tubes, he was a pioneer in the amazing wonders of soil research.

 

[PTADER]

Re: SAF Captains Vs Canadian Major - Of Cowardice, Gutlessness & Dishonourable Conduc

As a Commonwealth country, Canada has a similar "Government Proceedings Act" as Singapore. It's called the "Crown Liability and Proceedings Act" (see below).

So why did Maj Christopher Lunney not rely on the "Crown Liability and Proceedings Act" as a defence as his gutless and shameless Singapore weasels had done?

This is because as an Officer, he conducted himself as one. He acted with Honour.

That, Ng Eng Hen, Chan Wing Kai, Najib Hanuk and Chia Thye Siong, is what "Honour" and being "An Officer and a Gentleman" is all about.

It's not behaving like disgraceful gutless weasels, scampering about looking for something to evade responsibility, disclaim liability and to cover your arses.

With your spins, tai chis, lies, evasions, failure to act honorably and to take responsibility, the four of you contemptible cunts have thoroughly disgraced, and have trash the Values of, wreaked enormous shame upon, and brought total disrepute to, the SAF Officer Corp.


************************************

Section 8 of this "Crown Liability and Proceedings Act" states:

Liability and Civil Salvage

8 Nothing in sections 3 to 7 makes the Crown liable in respect of anything done or omitted in the exercise of any power or authority that, if those sections had not been passed, would have been exercisable by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown, or any power or authority conferred on the Crown by any statute, and, in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, nothing in those sections makes the Crown liable in respect of anything done or omitted in the exercise of any power or authority exercisable by the Crown, whether in time of peace or of war, for the purpose of the defence of Canada or of training, or maintaining the efficiency of, the Canadian Forces.

Special Provisions respecting Liability
Marginal note:No proceedings lie where pension payable

9 No proceedings lie against the Crown or a servant of the Crown in respect of a claim if a pension or compensation has been paid or is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or out of any funds administered by an agency of the Crown in respect of the death, injury, damage or loss in respect of which the claim is made.

Marginal note:Liability for acts of servants

10 No proceedings lie against the Crown by virtue of subparagraph 3(a)(i) or (b)(i) in respect of any act or omission of a servant of the Crown unless the act or omission would, apart from the provisions of this Act [See provisions in Sect 8], have given rise to a cause of action for liability against that servant or the servant’s personal representative or succession.

Vs

Section 14 of Singapore's "Government Proceedings Act" which similarly states:

Provisions relating to the armed forces

14. (1) Nothing done or omitted to be done by a member of the forces while on duty as such shall subject either him or the Government to liability in tort for causing the death of another person, or for causing personal injury to another person, in so far as the death or personal injury is due to anything suffered by that other person while he is a member of the forces if —

(a) at the time when the thing is suffered by that other person, he is —

(i) on duty as a member of the forces; or

(ii) though not on duty as a member of the forces —

(A) on any land, premises, ship, aircraft or vehicle for the time being used for the purposes of the forces; or

(B) on any journey necessary to enable him to report for duty as such or to return home after such duty; and