Your statement makes it sound like "following procedure" automatically makes an order "lawful". That would mean that an officer merely needs to establish a "procedure" to implement an unlawful order and then it is no longer unlawful.
Also, a criminal defendant will always have "standing" to appeal a conviction. That is one of the reasons that federal gun laws, such as that which forbids sawing one-quarter-inch off an eighteen-inch shotgun barrel, carries such significant prison time. Without the serious prison time, the law would be easy to challenge. Getting "standing" in such a case poses some real jeopardy for the offender. That's the way the government wants it.
Finally, one should not confuse "standing" with "relevance".
Michael New was court-martialed for refusing to wear UN insignia on his uniform. The court-martial panel refused to allow New to introduce evidence demonstrating that the order to do so was unlawful. The Military Court of Appeals considered the case with a split decision against New. A dissenting judge pointed out that denying New the opportunity to prove that the order was unlawful renders the obligation for New to obey only lawful orders meaningless.
The Supreme Court refused to hear New's appeal, thus allowing the very situation that the dissenter at the Appeals Court anticipated.
If, as you describe, Lakin is permitted to argue that the orders are unlawful, then Lakin will not face the same problem that New faced.
The problem for Lakin then becomes one of "relevance" and not "standing". If the court-martial panel finds that Obama's eligibility is relevant and that production of documents concerning that eligibility is relevant, then Lakin should be granted subpoena power to have such documents produced. For example, there is no compelling reason why the State of Hawaii should be permitted to shield the information concerning the birth of our Commander-in-Chief at the expense of a conviction in a court-martial.
If Lakin's court-martial panel refuses to let Lakin address Obama's eligibility and the Military Court of Appeals repeats its mistaken decision from the New case, and the Supreme Court once again refuses to hear Lakin's appeal, then Lakin will be convicted and it will be established pretty finally that soldiers must obey orders whether they are lawful or not.
The next time the National Guard finds itself confiscating guns from civilians in the middle of a disaster, the individual soldier will know that refusing to do so will result in his imprisonment and that he has no obligation to recognize the rights of citizens.
“Your statement makes it sound like “following procedure” automatically makes an order “lawful”. That would mean that an officer merely needs to establish a “procedure” to implement an unlawful order and then it is no longer unlawful.”
You are confusing two different issues. A federal court will look to see if the military court followed correct legal procedures.
OTOH, a order is assumed to be legal unless the person refusing had reason (facts, not opinions) to believe otherwise.
During my time in the military, I refused several orders. For example, I was ordered by my Sq/CC to change my section of an Officer Performance report on one of my subordinates. That was a direct violation of regulations, and I refused to obey. My refusal undoubtedly affected my own OPR, but that was my choice.
I also refused a direct order to alter logbooks that were legal documents. I told the officer that if he would put his order in writing and get it reviewed by legal, I’d do it...but until then, absolutely not. He backed down.
In each case, I was willing to be brought up on charges because I knew the orders were illegal. I wouldn’t have to fish for evidence. I knew what was illegal about each order.
However, I never said, “I refuse to obey, and when it goes to trial, I’ll ask to see every document you have to prove you are a legitimate officer...”