LTC Lakin’s latest (military jag blog)

Military Law & Justice ^ | 11-10-10

[STARWISE]

Thanks to a jab from RealityCheck. Let’s parse the current defense information release from LTC Lakin’s defense counsel.

His previous civilian attorney complicated his case and is partially responsible for two of these charges by advising LTC Lakin to refuse to report to his superior officer.

I posted a while back about the TMLUTB defense.

(("Throw the lawyer under the bus (TMLUB) seems to be a current favorite. Whether that will get relief will be a different question. By that defense I mean a “my lawyer (Mr. Jensen) told me the orders were unlawful and that I could disobey them. I reasonably relied on his advice and I must be found not guilty. Dew Process over at CAAFLog raises the question of “acting on the advice of counsel,” citing to some federal court cases as being a defense to some or all of the charges and also use of a Maynulet approach."))

I think the two charges referred to above are the harder on which to establish a TMLUTB defense. I think it would be harder to convince members that the order to report needed the advice of counsel. But . . . .

I and my colleagues frequently get calls from our clients under investigation or pending charges who are told to report to the commander. The client wants to know what to do. “Don’t go” is the wrong advice.

The basic advice is to go, because otherwise it is an orders violation.

What you then tell the client is to remind the commander you are represented by counsel and have nothing to say about the allegations. Oftentimes a quick phone call or email can resolve what the meeting is about and serve as a reminder about impromptu interrogations.

I suspect that’s the advice the current defense counsel would have given, and possibly they might have gone to the meeting with LTC Lakin.

I stick by my analysis that the defense won’t work. As to mitigation under R.C.M.1001, maybe. But I think that only works up to a point.

The defense team is now working to minimize the damage caused by this inappropriate legal advice and return LTC Lakin to his family quickly and with his medical career intact.

[patlin]

That’s all very interesting, but this case has nothing to do with Obama or his place of birth. The military judge has so ruled...

So the judge is a mind reader! Ahhh, yeah you stick to that defense & see where it gets ya.

[centurion316]

Oh my, while you have been out trying to spin flax into gold, the counsel for the defense has publicly stated that the charges brought against LTC Lakin have nothing to do Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President and that he agrees with the judge’s ruling that so stated. He considers it correct both in fact and in law. Since you choose to deny the reality of these simple facts, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously.

[nosf40]

We have already established the fact that you cannot explain the discrepancy shown in Obama’s alleged birth certificate.

Let’s try something different:
I read that the chief judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, ruled that allowing Lakin discovery on President Obama’s eligibility to be president could be an embarrassment to the president.

Which law prevents a defendant from using a defense that could be an embarrassment to somebody else?

[cvq3842]

I had always assumed that LTC Lakin would rather be in jail than follow orders he considered issued by an ineligible commander in chief. (I understand that the order was issued by Lakin’s immediate superior, but my understanding of the argument was that questions about Obama’s eligibility were the reason for missing movement.) If there is indeed some “plea bargain” or other such disposition, then I would have to re-think my assumptions.

I have also asked on this forum whether questions about Obama’s eligibility raise the risks for all deployed personnel. Our enemies certainly don't need any excuse to brutalize our soldiers, as history unfortunately demonstrates. But I expect the “eligibility” point to be raised by anyone who captures US military personnel, to deny such personnel the POW protections of the Geneva Conventions.

But I am not an expert. I merely ask the question whether it is possible. I would certainly not want to see it.

As always, many thanks to all members of our armed services. thanks for any answers, responses, flames, etc. in advance.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I think I agree with you. Anyone behind bars for attempting to uphold the Constitution against a stacked deck has my gratitude. There have been few judges ruling in recent years on the basis of what the document says. The least likely group to give Lakin a fair trial would be Judicial people who have managed to gainsay just about everything in that document. They just rule that black is white and we get a chorus at FR saying that is how the law works.