Replies

“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.

I can't escape the feeling that Lakin’s lawyers are representing their cause, with him as a vehicle for it.

I can't help but think that you came up with that feeling, because that it is how you would act.

"For example, as his lawyer, you're obligated to provide the best dang Article 32 responses you can."

Why he waived his Article 32 rights is a mystery. If Lakin wants to build an appeal based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, there's a good place to start.

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.

--------------------------

I believe there is at least a third option that correlates very well with the facts. In April I posed the following example.

-------------------------

"Birther" Doc a No Show At Campbell
Monday, April 12, 2010 11:07:44 PM · 163 of 259
I'll be your Huckleberry to El Gato; All

For some time I have wondered whether this case might be a setup.

The rank and service record of this officer suggest a higher level challenge to the question.

The armed forces of the United States are loyal and disciplined but (like in the population as a whole) there is an element within that community who feel deeply concerned with the current POTUS.

It is not too abstract to wonder if there is support and planning behind this challenge.

If this officer is indeed a “stalking horse” we should know rather quickly.

Should he be quietly removed as a focus of the challenge - then it was an admirable choice of conscious.

If, however, the officer refuses to go quietly into the night and the case moves into a more open judicial realm (with accompanying publicity and leaks) - then one might prudently ask if there is deeper backing/command/control behind his position.

I am uncertain whether this President is equipped to play back channel politics at this level.

-------------------------

I believe a fair person would say that it is the later option that has been exercised. Until I see a deviation in this line of attack - it is a possibility that must be included in our discussion.

Huck

You might remember 1LT Easterling, who was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3d Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) in the Support Operations Division.

1LT Easterling had some questions of his own - yet it is instructive to see his current standing - which is quoted below.

------------------------------

After this incident and subsequent investigation and action, 1LT Easterling was not involved in any other incidents.

As a result, his supervisors recommended him for promotion on his officer evaluation report.