Ltc Lakin (JAG blog analysis)

LTC Lakin is no longer pending an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing, most likely he is pending consideration for a general court-martial.

Here is a link to the preferred charges pending against LTC Lakin which will be considered by MG Horst, Commander, Military District of Washington, the general court-martial convening authority.

According to a press release from LTC Lakin and others he has waived his right to be present at an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. The command could proceed with the hearing anyway.

There have been times when an accused waives the hearing but the command goes ahead with it anyway. Apparently in this case the command has decided to accept the waiver and forward the case to Commander Military District of Washington for the next steps in the process.

Note, IMHO, LTC Lakin has waived, forfeited, given up, any complaints he had about the Article 32, UCMJ, process so far by his waiver of the hearing. Having waived his right to a hearing he cannot be heard to complain.

LTC Lakin waived his Article 32 hearing on 4 June 2010. Once the Article 32 was waived, the charges were forwarded by Walter Reed commanding general with a recommendation as to disposition to MG Horst, the Military District of Washington Commander, on 8 June 2010.

It is now up to MG Horst, to determine if the case will go to court-martial and the level of court-martial. MG Horst could also decide that some other disposition is more appropriate than court-martial.

MG Horst is the General Court-Martial Convening Authority for Soldiers assigned to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Under Article 34, UCMJ, the Staff Judge Advocate, Commander, Military District of Washington must review the case and make a recommendation to the commander.

The SJA then has to get on MG Horst’s calendar to discuss the case. MDW, like most GCMCA’s, has a regular meeting on legal matters several times a month. So the timing of a decision on this case depends on when the next legal meeting is scheduled for.

2. Return the case to the commander at WRAMC for the commander to deal with administratively (Article 15, UCMJ, action, adverse OER).

4. Forward the case to HRC with a recommendation and request for administrative discharge action.

*** One effect of this waiver is that LTC Lakin has also waived a challenge to the pre-hearing decisions of the IO on evidence and witnesses.

He can no longer argue that the IO (or as he and others say, “the Army”) denied him a fair Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. Gone, done, finished with. He has rendered all of his and his lawyer’s crying about how the hearing was unfair to the wastebasket as meaningless.***

The first step will be for the trial and defense counsel to prepare and submit an Electronic Docket Notice (EDN) to the judiciary. In the document the prosecution will state a proposed trial date.

The defense will either agree or request a different date. A date for arraignment will be set. At that first Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing little will be accomplished: a trial schedule will be agreed, and the formality of arraignment takes place. Note that many deadlines are already set out in the court rules — Rules of Practice Before Army Courts-Martial.

Upon referral of charges there are certain items of discovery they must provide the defense, and the defense can serve a request for discovery. See R.C.M. 701.

In the event the defense is not satisfied with the discovery provided they can file a motion to compel discovery with the military judge. The military judge will decide the issue.

In addition to a discovery motion the defense can file other motions. One anticipates the defense will file a motion to challenge the lawfulness of the orders given to LTC Lakin. Under United States v. New, it is up to the military judge to rule whether or not an order is lawful.

“Your rant is all over the place and you certainly don't know what I think or why I pursue this issue. You can ascribe all the motives you want. I merely want to make sure that those who hold office do so legitimately.”

I assume you pursue this issue because you believe Obama is not qualified to be President. I think that's wrong, but fair enough. The distinction I think you are failing to make is between what you would like to see as due diligence from the law and what the law actually requires for due diligence.

That's not uncommon. I've turned down lots of cases that are pointless because the prospective client is envisioning the law as something other than what it is. As I've said before, the law isn't King Soloman’s court or some Oracle where you go to get the wise man to make it up on the fly because he's wise. The law is a process constrained by its sub-processes. It can't just do whatever it wants.

“So here's a fact, if I can be so arrogant as to present information to a scholar such as yourself. There are already ballot rules and qualifications in place, but they were not enforced. Do you understand the difference between having a law and then not enforcing it. It doesn't do any good to pass more laws when the officials can ignore them without consequence. If you don't understand and need an example see “illegal immigration.”

In California, the secretary of state has excluded people from the ballot before because their birth certificates indicated they did not meet the minimum age requirement for the office of president. Yet, in 2008, when confronted with information that a candidate may not be a natural born citizen, the current democrat incumbant did nothing, accepting a form signed by party officials who had every reason to not look into the issue.”

Ballot rules specify what level of verification is required. The substantiating official has no legal obligation to do anything beyond what those rules state. Legally, by definition, it is not negligence to limit oneself to what is required. If the rules don't say “as verified by submittal of candidate's birth certificate,” the substantiating official doesn't have to see one. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the stipulated facts of the candidates biography are an adequate basis for decision.

Now, you may not like that this is so. That does not change the fact that legally it is so. I vividly recall one poor, red-in-the-face business owner who insisted over and over that a state regulatory agency could not make him do something. I had the unfortunate task of telling him that, yes, legally they can, that questioning their authority to do so was a guaranteed loser as opposed to other avenues of appeal.

“That means she failed to carry out her ministerial responsibilities. This is what you are characterizing as my discontent. Of course you mean my discontent with the negligence committed by our government and elected officials.”

No, it does not. It means the duties that are defined for her do not seem satisfactory to you. You may think it is negligence, but legally it is not. Obama’s placement on the ballot met the legal requirements in place. If you don't like those requirements, work to strengthen them.

“Lastly, we need a USSC decision on the issue of the father's citizenship and whether or not the guy is a natural born citizen. Don't bother posting the links, I've read the threads. We still need a ruling and apply it to the 2008 situation. If enough people like you wake up and smell the coffee, perhaps this issue would get some traction. Instead you waste time arguing with people who want the constitution followed.”

We may need one, but we are extremely unlikely to get one. The Supreme Court's failure to accept any of the cases that would allow it to examine that issue to date is telling.

What I'm saying is that in the eyes of the law, the Constitution is being followed. And no one has a shred of meaningful evidence to the contrary. That's simply the cards on the table.

My point is I don't know if he is actually qualified or not. If you think you know for certainty you are as delusional as I have been accused of being. Since there are some considerable doubt, people who want the law upheld are asking for a court or some one in a position of responsiblty to pursue the issue. You, on the other hand, have pursued the ostrich approach on what could be the biggest fraud ever commited in the US.

There are rules about ballot registration. However the secretaries of state have the power to ask for more info. In the case of Cal, the secretary or her staff were aware of the allegations about Obama. Instead of clearing it up or asking for documents as had been done in the past, she chose to just accept a form signed by two democrat party officials. This is what passes for proof by you and what you are chosing to defend.

As I said to another poster, if I am wrong, then there is no harm and I'll move on. However, if you are wrong, you have supported a criminal gaining the most powerful position in government in the world. I will accept my risk, but I cannot accept yours.

My advice since you’re new here is to completely ignore what 0thugga toady suckups say. It’s like stepping in dogs***, doesn’t clean up the mess and only aggravates yourself.

Their comments are as worthless as dogs***. Can’t even compost nicely like cow manure.

Tired of conservatives has posted nothing on FR other than 0thugga support. These guys all lie, post the same stinking crap over and over again, and distract normal sane conservatives with their puked up drivel over and over and over again. Their “arguments” - aka as puked up drivel - have been soundly defeated umpteen times by rational, knowledgeable freepers and they still drag the dead stinking carcasses of their lies in again and yet again.

Just avoid them as you would avoid a stinking rotten dead carcass that the dog shat on. My humble advice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.