Replies

By the Constitution, LTC Lakin has the responsibility to question the authority of Obama and in the same respect those officers appointed over him IF HE BELIEVES THAT ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL.

He did that, which is why he's being court martialed. Not he has to show why the orders of his brigade commander are illegal.

he has to show why the orders of his brigade commander are illegal

That is, I believe, the tack the prosecution would like to see the defense take. Without being able to bring in the appropriate evidence or witnesses, it's probably a non-starter. But if the defense does not lose its head, takes a step back, and remembers that Lakin is on trial and not Obama, the picture changes.

All the defense has to show is that Lakin was willing to deploy, but that his efforts to properly vet the lawful nature of the orders passed down to him were blocked or left unanswered right up to the point of deployment. He can certainly evidence this if he calls for the right witnesses and paperwork. I hope he does so as this will not be denied as the birth certificate evidence was.

As "LITTLE V. BARREME" clearly indicates, an officer is personally liable for obeying unlawful orders. As the officer's oath clearly indicates, an officer is responsible first and foremost to the Constitution. With this one-two punch, Lakin can show his actions were not only "just", but mandated, and not willful dereliction of duty. In this way, even if he does not prove Obama is not a natural born citizen, his actions are at least vindicated in the eyes of the court -- which, for the sake of Lt. Col. Lakin, should be first and foremost in the priorities of the defense counsel.