Another point is that Lind uses “lawful” to mean anything that must be obeyed. Until you know that the person doesn’t hold the position he claims to have, the orders he gives must be obeyed because of the de facto officer doctrine. But the orders were NEVER “lawful”, according to the definitions included in the elements of Article 92.
Lind worms her way around that in her judgment by totally ignoring the elements of Article 92 when saying what constitutes a “lawful order”, even though she does mention the “beyond their authority” language. In effect she says orders are not lawful if given by someone acting beyond their authority, but they have to be obeyed anyway because of the de facto officer doctrine, and anything that has to be obeyed is lawful, so it’s lawful after all.
Chasing tails. Not lawful but lawful all at the same time, if you believe her convoluted spin.
They’re going to convict a man of violating Article 92 by ignoring what ARticle 92 actually says. Blatant violation of due process.
>Not lawful but lawful all at the same time, if you believe her convoluted spin.
That is exactly what happens when you have people who have swallowed hook-line-sinker-rod-and-reel the philosophy of relativism; the wholesale rejection of the Law of Non-Contradiction which states: no statement may be simultaneously both True and False.
>They’re going to convict a man of violating Article 92 by ignoring what ARticle 92 actually says. Blatant violation of due process.
*sigh* - It looks that way.