PRO

Timothy James Bilecki's Legal Cases (543)

Call for a consultation Call (813) 669-5859 Message View Profile

Military law

Air Force Academy Article 120 Investigation Ends at Article 15; No Conviction

Oct 28, 2022

OUTCOME: Article 120 sexual assault investigation declined. Article 15 only. General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge. No federal conviction, no SORNA.

This was an Air Force Academy cadet whose AFOSI investigation opened on an Article 120 sexual assault report and could have referred to a general court martial with sex offender registration on convict ... ion. Four cadets shared a hotel room off base in late September 2021 at a Quality Inn near Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs. The Government alleged that during the night our client and a fellow cadet had sex with the alleged victim, that our client recorded a portion of the sexual activity on Snapchat, that the Snapchat clip was later circulated to a group of fellow cadets at the Academy, and that the alleged victim later reported a sexual assault on the theory that she had been too intoxicated to consent. The Government also alleged that our client had used a fake ID to buy alcohol on the night in question, that he had been part of the Snapchat group that circulated the recording, and that he had deleted evidence after the investigation began. AFOSI opened the investigation in late September 2021 and interviewed our client under Article 31 rights advisement. Our client retained Bilecki after the AFOSI interview and before any Article 15 paperwork dropped at the Air Force Academy. The Article 120 sexual assault piece was the heaviest exposure in the case. A general court martial conviction on Article 120 carried mandatory dismissal track exposure for an officer or cadet, federal felony conviction, sex offender registration on conviction, and confinement. The Article 120c indecent recording and distribution piece carried its own sex offender registration framework on conviction at general court martial. The Article 117a intimate visual image piece carried federal felony exposure. The Article 131b obstruction piece and the Article 133 conduct unbecoming an officer piece compounded. In May 2022, the Commandant of Cadets at the Air Force Academy notified our client of intent to impose Article 15 nonjudicial punishment on the residual six specifications. The Article 120 sexual assault piece did not refer. The Article 15 paperwork charged Article 105a (false identification), Article 117a (intimate image distribution), Article 120c (recording private areas), Article 120c (distribution of recording of private areas), Article 131b (obstruction of justice), and Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer). We submitted the Article 15 Rebuttal Matters to the Commandant of Cadets in May 2022. The rebuttal conceded the Article 105a allegation up front and refused to litigate it. Defense work was on the residual five specifications. The pretext recordings did the heavy work. They showed that the dissemination, deletion, and obstruction conduct the Government had charged across multiple specifications was the fellow cadet's conduct, not our client's. They also showed the alleged victim with full contemporaneous memory of the night within hours of the encounter, in her own words, captured on her own initiative. The Commandant of Cadets imposed Article 15 punishment after the rebuttal. Our client appealed, and the appellate authority granted the appeal in part. The matter then routed to the disenrollment side of the Air Force Academy under USAFAI 36-3504. Our client submitted a Resignation in Lieu of Involuntary Disenrollment in late August 2022. The Superintendent accepted the resignation in September 2022 with a General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge. The DD-214 issued in October 2022. For an Air Force Academy cadet whose AFOSI investigation opened on an Article 120 sexual assault report, the actual exposure was a general court martial referral with sex offender registration on conviction and federal felony exposure. None of that happened.

Military law

Bilecki Walks Article 134 CSAM Distribution Specification Off Seven-Specification West Point GCM Charge Sheet

Oct 28, 2022

OUTCOME: Distribution specification dismissed. Possession image count thresholds reduced to "5 or more" by plea. 48 months concurrent confinement, dismissal, reprimand, total forfeitures.

This was a West Point cadet charged at general court martial with seven Article 134 child pornography specifications spanning four devices and two cloud storage accounts. The Article 134 distribution s ... pecification carried the higher SORNA tier exposure and the federal child pornography distribution sentencing framework. The investigation began with NCMEC CyberTipline reports and federal and state reporting from Microsoft OneDrive, Google, and Discord. Devices were seized at West Point in March 2021, including a solid state drive, a cellular phone, an iPad, and a Samsung storage drive. Charges were preferred in March 2022. The case was referred to general court martial in April 2022. The case stipulated to 21,994 images and videos of suspected child pornography across the four devices and two cloud accounts, of which 1,218 images and 7 videos were confirmed by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children as known child pornography. Our client retained Bilecki pre-preferral. Notice of Representation went in June 2021. Defense Digital Forensic Examiner William Oettinger of Metadata Forensics took apart the Discord file architecture and showed the "distribution" the Government had charged was a structural issue with how Discord automatically cached files on the device, not a deliberate act of distribution by our client. Defense built the rest of the forensic team around that core finding. COL Christopher Perry as forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Gabriel Holguin as forensic psychology consultant. The work made the distribution specification expensive enough for the Government to walk from in exchange for a possession-only plea structure. The plea agreement was signed in late summer 2022. Trial Counsel offered no evidence at trial on the Discord distribution specification. The Military Judge entered not guilty and the Government dismissed without prejudice, ripening into prejudice on completion of appellate review. Removing the distribution specification took the federal child pornography distribution sentencing framework out of the case entirely. On the surviving possession specifications, the plea was guilty by exceptions and substitutions. On Specifications 1, 4, and 7, the alleged minimum image counts of "25 or more" or "20 or more" were excepted and substituted with "5 or more." On Specification 5 (iPad), the same numeric reduction. Tim Bilecki traveled to West Point, New York for the trial. Trial proceeded military judge alone. Defense forensic psychiatrist COL Christopher Perry testified at sentencing in extenuation and mitigation. The adjudged sentence was a reprimand, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 48 months confinement on each specification running concurrently, and a dismissal. For a West Point cadet on a seven-specification Article 134 charge sheet with a Discord distribution specification carrying the federal child pornography distribution sentencing framework, mandatory dismissal exposure on conviction, and SORNA Tier II registration on the line, the distribution specification's federal sentencing exposure and the higher SORNA tier on conviction were the actual exposure. Both came off the case.

Military law

Bilecki Holds GOMOR-Only Disposition for ADA First Lieutenant on AR 600-20 Sexual Harassment Allegation in Bahrain

Oct 21, 2022

OUTCOME: GOMOR filed permanently in AMHRR performance folder. No NJP. No court martial. No AdSep. No officer elimination.

This was an Air Defense Artillery First Lieutenant deployed in Bahrain on his first command tour facing a Task Force Spartan CG GOMOR built on sexual harassment allegations the underlying record did no ... t support. For an O-2 in his first command, AMHRR permanent filing on a sexual harassment GOMOR is a career endpoint before the first OER cycle. The GOMOR was harsh. Signed by the CG in late August 2022, it stated that "for months" our client had "consistently and repeatedly bullied and degraded a subordinate officer" and that the conduct was "motivated by their rejection of your advances." The CG framed the conduct as "sexual harassment and bullying ... in clear violation of AR 600-20 and Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The CG's stated intent was permanent AMHRR filing. The GOMOR arose out of a fraternization rumor and a subordinate officer who had been confronted about it. Tim Bilecki and Benjamin Gold filed Notices of Representation in August 2022, before the GOMOR was signed. The defense rebuttal told the rest of the story. Our client had confronted the subordinate officer about a substantiated fraternization rumor. The subordinate had then gone to the Battery Commander with a vague threat to file an EO/SHARP complaint with the Battalion EO/SHARP Representative if our client reported her. The investigating officer's findings, the rebuttal argued, were not factually substantiated, not legally sound, and not complete. The Government had withheld the subordinate officer's own statement from the IO record. The rebuttal pulled it into the rebuttal record. The supporting documentary record cut against the GOMOR's "rejected advances" framing. Three text message conversations between our client and the subordinate were attached, beginning in late October 2021, late November 2021, and April 2022. The October text record contained the subordinate officer's own line: "I'm not dating right now due to personal reasons" and "I'm have trouble letting people in, but maybe give it some time." Those texts read as a romantic conversation between two officers who had been involved with each other, before the fraternization rumor surfaced. Not the language of a junior officer rejecting unwanted advances from a superior officer. The package included twenty one enclosures. The subordinate officer's own June 2022 sworn statement. An MFR from a peer LT. An annotated Report of Investigation by the IO. Character letters from a CW2, two SSGs, two CW2s, four SPCs, and the unit 1SG. The closing paragraph framing was direct. The rebuttal asked the CG to recognize that "after months of being under investigation, [the LT] is now firmly aware that, had he been a little more personable, maybe none of this would have happened. In effect, he has been trained as such. We ask that you keep training him, keep counseling him, and yell at him if you have to, because this is an individual you want in your Officer Corps and someone the U.S. Army arguably cannot afford to lose." In late October 2022, the CG signed the Filing Determination. The GOMOR was filed permanently in the AMHRR performance folder. No NJP. No court martial. No administrative separation. No demotion. No officer elimination action under AR 600-8-24.

Military law

No Article 120 Charges Preferred After Fort Bragg CID Investigation; Text Messages Undermined Sexual Assault Allegation

Sep 16, 2022

OUTCOME: No Article 120 charges preferred. No court-martial. No federal conviction. No SORNA.

The day CID wanted to interrogate a Fort Bragg Specialist for sexual assault, Bilecki stopped the interview and made the case about the messages. In June 2022, the command called the Soldier in for ... a CID interview on an Article 120 sexual assault allegation. He retained Bilecki that same day. Before CID questioned him, Bilecki sent Notice of Representation to the assigned CID Special Agent, invoked the Soldier's Article 31 rights, directed that all questioning stop, revoked any consent to search or seize property, refused any future consent searches, and declined any polygraph. The Soldier gave no statement. That mattered because Article 120 cases often become stronger when CID gets the accused talking. A statement gives investigators words to parse, inconsistencies to argue, and admissions to build around. Here, CID got none of that. The defense then turned to the alleged victim's own messages. The message thread did not read like the aftermath of a sexual assault. The alleged victim repeatedly initiated contact after the alleged incident. She asked for rides. She asked for help with errands. She made plans to hang out. She asked for alcohol and store runs. She talked about friends, relationships, work, money, pregnancy concerns involving others, health issues, hospital visits, tattoos, food, and ordinary day-to-day problems. The exchanges were casual, familiar, and ongoing. The defense did not need to dress up one perfect text. The pattern was the point. For weeks and months after the alleged incident, the alleged victim continued to reach out to him voluntarily. She asked him to pick her up. She coordinated plans. She asked him to help with basic life problems. He checked on her when she was sick or at the hospital. The messages showed ordinary social contact that was hard to square with the allegation later given to CID. Bilecki provided the message record in a formal defense package before charges were preferred. The defense put the alleged victim's own words in front of the decision makers and showed the gap between the accusation and the contemporaneous communications. The investigation closed. No Article 120 charges were preferred. No court-martial. No NJP. No administrative separation. For a Fort Bragg Soldier facing an Article 120 sexual assault allegation, the exposure was a General Court-Martial, Dishonorable Discharge, federal conviction, confinement, and sex offender registration. None of that happened.

Military law

Bilecki Walks Five-Charge GCM at Camp Humphreys to 150 Days, No Punitive Discharge

Aug 26, 2022

OUTCOME: Charge IV dismissed. 117a narrowed. 128b Spec 2 acquitted. 150 days confinement, no kick.

This was a Sergeant First Class, former 160th SOAR, facing a referred general court martial at Camp Humphreys on five Articles of the UCMJ. Maximum exposure ran into decades of confinement and a Dishon ... orable Discharge. The case started at a bar. Outside the hotel, in view of the CCTV cameras, the Staff Sergeant came up on him again, got in his face, and started talking trash. On video, it looked bad. The clip showed our client hit first. He struck the Staff Sergeant with the rocks glass in his hand, cutting him across the face and near the eye socket. Our client took him to the ground and controlled him with a martial arts hold until other people intervened. Then the Government expanded the fight. Our client had a prior GOMOR in his file from Fort Campbell. The original allegation had come out of an inappropriate relationship with his neighbor, who happened to be married to a senior CID agent. As our client was preparing to PCS to Korea, the two of them went tubing on the river. The woman got drunk. They argued because she did not want him to leave. The argument got ugly. She started throwing rocks at our client and threw his belongings into the river. He threw her phone in and walked off, then called another 160th SOAR Soldier to pick him up. Our client retained Bilecki pre preferral. We retained Patrick Eller of Metadata Forensics in February 2022 to work the Article 117a image distribution and the metadata record on the Fort Campbell side. The defense fight at trial centered on the M.R.E. 412 motion. The Government moved in July 2022 to bar evidence of the Fort Campbell relationship's documentary record on the alleged victim's side. We replied under M.R.E. 412(b)(3) constitutional exception, M.R.E. 401, and M.R.E. 403, arguing that an Article 117a allegation built on a long running consensual relationship and an Article 115 threat tied to that same relationship cannot be tried while excluding the documentary record of the relationship itself. Chapter 10 Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial was disapproved by the Convening Authority. The case proceeded to GCM. Charge IV, the Yongsan glass container aggravated assault charge, was withdrawn and dismissed under R.C.M. 604(a). On the Article 117a specifications, the plea was guilty by exceptions and substitutions, narrowing the harm theory to "personal relationships" only and excising the broader harm theories the prosecution had charged. On Article 128b Specification 1, the Fort Campbell DV strike, the plea was guilty by exceptions, excising the pickup and drop conduct. Article 128b Specification 2, the substantial bodily harm temporary unconsciousness theory, came out as not guilty. Tim Bilecki traveled to Camp Humphreys, Korea for the trial. Trial was August 2022, military judge alone. The plea agreement capped confinement at 0 to 180 days, capped reduction at three grades to E-4, and prohibited a punitive discharge. For an Aviation SFC at Camp Humphreys with a five charge sheet across five Articles and a Dishonorable Discharge ceiling on conviction, that was a different ending than the one the Government was driving toward.

Military law

Bilecki Walks Article 80 Civilian Predator-Catcher Sting Away From Court Martial Referral for Junior Sailor

Aug 12, 2022

OUTCOME: Court martial avoided. NJP. AdSep at General (UHC). No federal conviction. No SORNA. No state prosecution.

This was a young Navy Sailor in a Surface Combat Systems training pipeline at Naval Base San Diego facing the worst possible internet exposure. There was no actual minor at any point. The "minor" ident ... ity was a civilian vigilante running a private sting operation. The vigilante had lured our client to a hotel, recorded him on video, and posted the encounter to YouTube to drive clicks. Article 80 attempted sexual act on a person purporting to be under fifteen normally rides a referral to general court martial, a mandatory dishonorable discharge, federal conviction, and lifetime federal sex offender registration. Our client retained Bilecki shortly after the report, before the Navy had built its internal investigation file. The defense filed a takedown request against YouTube on the recorded encounter. The takedown was granted. The video came down. The defense pressed the civilian vigilante operator directly on his own civil liability for filming and distributing the encounter. The vigilante had been running the operation for views and ad revenue, not for prosecution. Civil exposure to suit on the recording, distribution, and the YouTube monetization was not a position the operator had factored in. The vigilante's willingness to cooperate with the Navy's internal investigation collapsed once his own civil exposure was on the table. We negotiated the General (Under Honorable Conditions) cap onto the face of the AdSep notice with the legal officer pre-issuance. Other Than Honorable was off the table from issuance, not from board litigation. For a junior Navy Sailor in a training pipeline at Naval Base San Diego facing an Article 80 attempted sexual act charge built on a YouTube-posted civilian predator-catcher recording, with mandatory dishonorable discharge exposure on referral, federal conviction on conviction, and lifetime federal sex offender registration on the line, the court martial conviction track and SORNA registration were the actual exposure. Neither materialized.

Military law

Bilecki Walks ~$190,000 FLIPL on Sitting Battalion Commander to Significantly Reduced Partial Liability

Jul 08, 2022

OUTCOME: FLIPL liability significantly reduced. No GOMOR, no relief for cause, no adverse action. Battalion command preserved.

This was a sitting Battalion Commander of a newly activated cyber unit at Fort Gordon staring down a roughly $190,000 FLIPL on a property loss that had happened after the inactivation of his prior comm ... and, with the loss window running on the receiving end of the property transfer, not on his. The FLIPL was a regulatory mismatch with the actual facts. Our client's prior command, an Expeditionary Signal Battalion at Fort Bragg, had received its inactivation order in fall 2020 as the first piece of a phased operation that would stand up his new cyber battalion at Fort Gordon. Through fall 2020 and spring 2021, the prior battalion had maintained its Immediate Response Force commitment and had prioritized real world missions over its inactivation timeline. FORSCOM and XVIII Airborne Corps had themselves accepted that posture. The battalion inactivated on schedule. The property transferred to a Corps Signal Brigade and a follow on Task Force. The actual loss of accountability window ran from fall 2021 through winter 2022. That window started after the prior battalion had inactivated. Property accountability for that window sat with the receiving entity under AR 710-2 Table 2-2's 30 day post joint inventory signing obligation on the Primary Hand Receipt Holder. That is not where the FLIPL Investigating Officer pointed. Our client retained Bilecki after the IO findings memorandum hit, with the seven day rebuttal window already running. The defense FLIPL Response went in July 2022 with fifteen enclosures. The rebuttal challenged the FLIPL under AR 735-5 for failure to establish proximate cause. It walked the Approving Authority through AR 710-2 Table 2-2 and the receiving entity's 30 day signing obligation on the Primary Hand Receipt Holder. It put the operational record in front of the Approving Authority on what the prior battalion had actually been doing through the relevant period: SITREPs, OPORDs, and contemporaneous emails from a Captain, a Lieutenant, a Master Sergeant, and a Sergeant Major running the IRF commitment and the inactivation. The Sergeant Major's own Q&A response to the IO read directly: "I do not believe the order was disregarded." We put the FORSCOM and XVIII Airborne Corps acceptance of the operational posture in the same package. The narrative the IO had built, that our client had unilaterally disregarded the FORSCOM and Corps inactivation order, did not survive contact with FORSCOM and Corps's own contemporaneous email record. The Approving Authority read the rebuttal. The final action found partial liability significantly reduced from the IO's recommended one month's base pay. No GOMOR. No adverse action. No relief for cause. No UCMJ charges. The LTC was retained in command at Fort Gordon. For a sitting Battalion Commander of a newly activated cyber unit named on a roughly $190,000 FLIPL with an IO recommendation of liability and a "disregarded the inactivation order" framing in the findings memorandum, the relief for cause and officer elimination posture that follows that finding was the actual exposure. That posture did not materialize.

Military law

Bilecki Defeats Article 112a Drug Pop on Junior Sailor at Eglin AFB by Exposing Unconstitutional Mass Urinalysis Order

Jul 01, 2022

OUTCOME: No charges preferred. No NJP. No Captain's Mast. No AdSep. Sailor retained on active duty.

This was a junior Navy enlisted Sailor at Eglin AFB headed for a court martial after a positive urinalysis. Trial Counsel was preparing the case for referral on Article 112a wrongful use of a controlle ... d substance and Article 92 violation of a lawful order. A federal conviction, a punitive discharge, and an administrative separation were all on the table. Our client retained Bilecki while Trial Counsel was preparing the case for referral. The cadre order had no warrant, no Command Authorization for Search and Seizure, and no probable cause. The defense walked Trial Counsel and the OSJA through that documentary defect. The urinalysis result the Government had built the case around was not going to come into a court martial. Without the urinalysis, the Article 112a specification did not have a case. The case was closed. No charges preferred. No NJP. No Captain's Mast. No administrative separation. The Sailor stayed on active duty. For a junior Navy enlisted Sailor at Eglin AFB facing court martial referral on Article 112a wrongful use of a controlled substance with a federal conviction track, punitive discharge exposure, and administrative separation queued behind it, the court martial conviction track and the punitive discharge were the actual exposure. Neither materialized.

Military law

Navy E-6 Facing Cocaine, Amphetamine, and Methamphetamine Urinalysis Avoids OTH After Bilecki Revokes Uncounseled Waivers

Jul 01, 2022

OUTCOME: General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions. No OTH. No court martial. No federal conviction.

A Navy E-6 at Naval Air Station North Island tested positive for cocaine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine. Three substances on one urinalysis is a bad fact. The command moved quickly, put the case on ... the Article 15 NJP track, and notified him for administrative separation for drug abuse with an Other Than Honorable characterization in play. By the time he retained Bilecki, the command had already gotten the paperwork it wanted. He had signed the rights election. He had waived his administrative separation board rights. He had waived his right to representation. In a Navy drug case, that is how a Sailor gets processed out before anyone outside the command ever slows the case down. The first job was not to win a courtroom fight. There was no courtroom yet. The first job was to undo the damage from the uncounseled rights election before the separation package became final. Bilecki was retained in mid July 2022. The next day, the waivers were revoked in writing. The Sailor was no longer waiving his board rights. He was no longer waiving his right to representation. The defense made clear that it needed time to review the urinalysis package, examine the lab record, prepare written matters, and put mitigation in front of the command. Bilecki also made clear that if the command tried to rush the case forward, the Sailor could refuse NJP and demand trial by court martial. The Navy still held NJP. The Commanding Officer awarded punishment. The administrative separation process continued. But the end result was not an OTH. The Sailor was separated with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions. For a Navy E-6 facing cocaine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine positives, NJP, and drug abuse separation after already signing away his rights, that was the save.

Military law

NCIS Closes Okinawa Article 120 Investigation Without Charges After Text Messages

Jun 24, 2022

OUTCOME: NCIS Article 120 investigation closed without charges. No federal conviction. No SORNA. No adverse administrative action.

A short Okinawa dating relationship turned into an NCIS Article 120 sexual assault investigation. Our client was a Marine Sergeant stationed in Okinawa. The alleged victim was a civilian English tea ... cher on Okinawa who had a history of dating Marines. They met, flirted, spent time together, and had a short sexual relationship. After she found out he was seeing other women, she reported to the command that the sex had been nonconsensual. The allegation moved from command to NCIS. Bilecki was retained early, before charges were preferred and before the Marine gave NCIS a statement. That mattered. NCIS did not get an uncontrolled interview. The Marine did not sit for a polygraph. He did not consent to a search. Instead, the defense forced the case back to the evidence that existed before the allegation: the messages between the two of them. The key evidence was the text message thread the alleged victim did not give the Government. The alleged victim denied having a prior sexual relationship with the Marine. The messages showed otherwise. They showed the relationship developing in real time: flirting, plans to meet, him picking her up, her confirming he made it home safely, the two of them continuing to talk afterward, and more plans to see each other again. After the alleged incident, she kept texting him. She referenced the sexual encounter, the hickeys, what she enjoyed, what she wanted, and what they might do next. She told him she had fun. She made plans to meet again. The messages did not read like fear, damage control, or someone trying to avoid him. They read like two adults continuing a sexual relationship after a consensual encounter. The messages also showed why the allegation changed. The alleged victim was upset that he was seeing other women in Okinawa. That context mattered because the later accusation did not arrive in a vacuum. It came after jealousy, continued contact, and text traffic that contradicted what she told command. She did not turn over those messages. The defense did. Bilecki provided the text messages to prosecution and command. That was the difference in the case. The Government no longer had just an allegation. It had the messages the alleged victim refused to provide, and those messages showed the prior sexual relationship, the post-incident flirting, the plans to meet again, the hickeys, the sexual references, and the jealousy over other women. After reviewing the messages, prosecution and command decided not to prefer charges and not to issue adverse administrative action. The NCIS investigation closed without charges. For a Marine Sergeant in Okinawa facing an Article 120 sexual assault allegation, the exposure was a general court-martial, federal conviction, Dishonorable Discharge, sex offender registration, and confinement. None of that happened.