Posted on 11/22/2010 10:23:57 AM PST by STARWISE
Now that the Lakin case has moved away from the guano crazy birther defense devised by Paul Rolf Jensen, it seems time to consider whether LTC Lakin is actually guilty of the charges he faces.
As to Charge I and its specification, the answer seems to be, “Not necessarily.”
LTC Lakin faces two charges with a total of five specifications. Charge II alleges an Article 92 violation supported by three specifications of disobeying a lawful order and one specification of willful dereliction of duty.
(Two pairs of specs appear duplicate one another– one (Spec 3) alleges failure to report to Fort Campbell as an orders violation and one (Spec 4) alleges the same failure as a willful dereliction of duty; two specs (Specs 1 and 2) appear to allege failure to report to the brigade commander’s office as a violation of two separate commissioned officers’ orders.)
Charge I alleges a missing movement. Here’s the spec:
In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, U.S. Army, did, at or near Arlington, Virginia, on or about 12 April 2010, through design, miss the movement of U.S. Airways Flight Number 1123, departing from Baltimore/Washington International Airport arriving in Charlotte, North Carolina, in order to deploy for a Temporary Change of Station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with which he was required in the course of duty to move.
So LTC Lakin is charged with missing movement by failing to take a commercial flight from BWI to Charlotte. Does missing such a commercial flight constitute a missing movement offense? Here’s what CMA had to say on that subject:
[T]he Government presented no evidence that appellant was required to travel aboard that specific aircraft. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. Because appellant was issued a “Category Z” ticket, he could exchange or cancel the ticket by dealing directly with the airline, without approval or intervention by any military official.
If he failed to use the ticket, the Government would not be charged for the ticket, and the seat would be available to any other commercial passenger. There is no evidence that there would have been any impact on military operations if appellant had taken an earlier flight or used alternate means of travel to arrive at his new duty station on time.
See United States v. Gibson, 17 MJ 143, 144 (CMA 1984) (absentee who was given ticket for commercial flight back to duty station but missed flight not guilty of missing movement).
Accordingly, we hold that the Government failed to prove that appellant was required to move with a specific ship, aircraft, or unit.
*snip*
Even if LTC Lakin were to plead guilty to missing movement, without facts establishing that LTC Lakin wasn’t authorized to change his flight or that no other flight could have taken him to Fort Campbell on time, Judge Lind would be precluded from accepting his guilty plea.
Rest @ link
They can’t let the truth get in the way of slimming a good man.
Obama is a presumed citizen he is not a natural born citizen. It takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
The following tells us this..
Chief Justice Story
Chief Justice Waite
Aristotle
E. Vattel
Perciles
John Jay
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
John Adams
Justice Scalia
Any one who signed the Constitution
We the people...
Presumed citizen Obama can never be a natural born citzen. It matters not where he was born.
The only real problem I see, is that the LTC deprived our troops from having an experienced combat surgeon where he should have been.
Would there still be a few conspiracy nuts out there claiming he is not a natural born citizen? Sure! But...For the vast majority of Americans this would no longer be an issue.
Obama denied the troops of an experienced surgeon. All that was needed here was for Obama to nod his head to his secretary and release a few common but key documents.
Not only would this have provided the troops with an experienced surgeon but would have completely eliminated all doubt that they may (or may not) have been marching to the orders of a usurper.
No, the LTC denied them by not going and persuing this after his return. I think he had a responsibility to the troops first, regardless of Obama.
Again:
Obama denied the troops of an experienced surgeon. All that was needed here was for Obama to nod his head to his secretary and release a few common but key documents.
Not only would this have provided the troops with an experienced surgeon but would have completely eliminated all doubt that they may (or may not) have been marching to the orders of a usurper.
From now on, whenever I meet a current or retired officer I will **always** have doubt. Will they, or will they not, uphold their oath to defend the Constitution? In the face of tyranny, whose side will they defend?
Surely, I can't be alone.
He was experienced, why didn’t he do this when he didn’t have orders? He is the surgeon that didn’t go, so I can’t see where his not going could be anyone other than his own fault. All he had to do was go and do his duty like he had done before.
Not only would the troops then have had an experienced surgeon, but the troops would also know that they were serving under a Commander in Chief that is a natural born citizen.
Again...We are at an impasse. We must agree to disagree ( pleasantly)>
I have no idea. I just believe his responsibility as an officer and a doctor, is to his men first.
Gee! I thought officers swore an oath before God to defend the Constitution.
I don't recall defending a military career as an officer, a professional standing as a doctor, or the men under command being in any oath.
True, but I personally think the men come first, even before an oath. If it wasn’t for the fighting men, there wouldn’t even be a constitution.
I don’t see why he couldn’t have persued this after his return. He could have disobeyed orders just as easily after his tour was over.
So?...Lakin would follow illegal orders from an illegal usurper to go to the war front to fix up blown apart soldiers who were illegally sent there by a likely usurper who made it more likely they would get blown up by issuing illegal and very stupid Rules of Engagement.
Yeah! I get it! Going along to get along would be looking out for the troops? I don't think so.
Regardless of why those men are out there, there is still the real need for medical care.
Take care of the men first, then challenge the orders.
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.