Replies

Go with your first assumption ... YES, you are wrong.

First of all, Lakin is bound by the UCMJ, which actually gives him more protections than a civilian, but also restricts his civil liberties. As such, he does not want to be in violation of Article 88 (Contempt toward officials) and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman).

I see, Lakin addresses his letter to Obama, as the President, because he doesn't want to be guilty of contempt toward officials and then writes:

"Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders."

So Lakin takes care to show Obama proper respect due a lawful President of the United States so as not to run afoul of the UCMJ, and then announces his intention to not obey any orders until Obama proves to him that he is, indeed, the President and due the respect he takes care to show.

Second of all, to remain above the fray, it is wise for him to let his attorney use phrases like "de facto" in the courtroom or in front of TV cameras, not Lt Col Lakin in a public letter.

Obama IS the president until he is not the president. Until he is proven to not be eligible for the office he holds, his orders are legal, Lakin is obligated to follow them.

These arguments about the form of the Col’s letter are incredibly silly. Using a proper salutation or showing respect is an ‘admission against interest?’

Have you never noticed Members of Congress and Senators referring to each other as “the honorable Gentleman/woman from xyz?” Civility/manners/etiquette/decorum/hypocrisy, call it what you may, but the language of the Col’s letter doesn’t fall into any category of admission.

Yep, it's the Eligibility to hold office that is the heart of the matter ... where this is all heading.

Quo warranto literally means "by what warrant?" Think of it as the Salute, which is based upon a medieval knight's gesture of raising his visor to reveal his identity. Obama occupies the office, that is undeniable. However, the question is: IS Obama Constitutionally-Eligible to act as the president?

Furthermore, Lt Col Lakin has NOT violated Article 88 (Contempt toward officials). It's a fine line, but it can be threaded if you know the limits of the law, in this case, as it applies in Military Court. It's obvious he and his attorney know those limits.

Background:

Following WWII, Congress debated and created the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1950. For the re-numbered Article 88, the Senate agreed to use the 1949 Army Manual for Courts-Martial, which defined Contempt this way:

This article covers both (i) words which are contemptuous in themselves, such as abusive epithets, denunciatory or contemptuous expressions, or intemperate or malevolent comments upon official or personal acts, and (2) words which are contemptuous because of the connection in which they are used and the surrounding circumstances.

Compare Lt Col Lakin's necessary statements to address his conscientious objections in a respectful manner, to that of someone like Lt Howe in US v. Howe (1968), where the Fort Bliss officer carried a sign reading "End Johnson's Fascist Aggression in Vietnam," and you'll understand that Lt Col Lakin has NOT violated Article 88 (Contempt toward officials).

The government would simply be UNABLE to prove that Lt Col Lakin used "abusive epithets, denunciatory or contemptuous expressions, or intemperate or malevolent comments upon official or personal acts", etc.