Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tired_old_conservative

Sir,

Your arguments are always solid and well founded in the law, however I would like to raise a point that I believe needs consideration.

I would ask you to consider the possibility that this officer fully understands that he is about to be convicted and will have no chance to argue his main thesis.

Perhaps the game is more complex than it seems.

It is odd, is it not, that an highly educated and intelligent officer would make such an idiotic move.

No reasonable person with full understanding would assume that he would be able to force the President to produce the papers he has requested.

So why.....

Mental breakdown with delusions of grandeur?

Bad legal advise?

I think not, and I am reasonably certain you agree.

Sometimes brave men are called upon to lead - even when the issue is in serious doubt.

If I might be so bold (being that your perceptive skills are, thus far, nearly perfect) ask you the following:

Where do you think the appeal will be heard?

Who do you believe will represent him on appeal?

Huck


141 posted on 08/02/2010 8:00:00 PM PDT by I'll be your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: I'll be your Huckleberry

Perhaps LTC Lakin ought to be using his medical skills to treat wounded soldiers. No, not perhaps. That’s exactly what he ought to be doing.


143 posted on 08/02/2010 8:10:50 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]

To: I'll be your Huckleberry
“Sir,

Your arguments are always solid and well founded in the law, however I would like to raise a point that I believe needs consideration.

I would ask you to consider the possibility that this officer fully understands that he is about to be convicted and will have no chance to argue his main thesis.

Perhaps the game is more complex than it seems.

It is odd, is it not, that an highly educated and intelligent officer would make such an idiotic move.

No reasonable person with full understanding would assume that he would be able to force the President to produce the papers he has requested.

So why.....

Mental breakdown with delusions of grandeur?

Bad legal advise?

I think not, and I am reasonably certain you agree.

Sometimes brave men are called upon to lead - even when the issue is in serious doubt.

If I might be so bold (being that your perceptive skills are, thus far, nearly perfect) ask you the following:

Where do you think the appeal will be heard?

Who do you believe will represent him on appeal?

Huck”

Well, based on what I've seen to date, I think Lakin needs better counsel than he's got. They've not exactly distinguished themselves in their responses to date. The Article 32 submittal was especially weak as it didn't even try to craft a rationale why Lakin was entitled to production of evidence requested. It was basically bald assertion and demand, which doesn't work in any legal setting.

I think there are two possibilities. The first is that Lakin really doesn't understand how weak his case is and has been misled on the prospects by his counsel and allies, who are using him for their own ends. Unscrupulous lawyers can and will do that, and even bright people can fall for it if they're being told something they'd like to believe. Because of the technical formality of the law, lawyers are in an advantageous to bamboozle their clientele, which makes them especially reprehensible when they do.

Second, Lakin may simply believe what he is saying and be prepared to take the consequences. If so, he is entitled to do that. I think it's unfortunate and won't yield the results he wishes, but it's his life.

If I had to guess, I’d say it's 75% Number 2 and 25% Number One. I think Lakin does believe this, but I also think that belief is being reinforced by the promise of legal arguments that aren't going to fly. You get that flavor in some of Lakin’s public statements. And to date, his counsel don't seem to be setting him up well for what limited appeal options he will have.

I guess that's what bugs me about this case. Lawyers are supposed to represent the interests of their client. I can't escape the feeling that Lakin’s lawyers are representing their cause, with him as a vehicle for it. Even if he's a willing vehicle, I wouldn't do that. For example, as his lawyer, you're obligated to provide the best dang Article 32 responses you can. They didn't do that, and I suspect it's because they're more interested in pumping the cause than the ultimate fate of their client.

211 posted on 08/03/2010 12:28:31 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson