Any suggestions Lind? Again Lind, the unlawful order in question originated from the White House, and therefore, all orders that support said order, even if "on the face of it", that it appears to be lawful. The order on the face of it doesn't make it lawful. The order has been challenged in your court where you have failed to redress the issue by obfuscation, and where you elect to take the easy way out. Lind, it is your conclusion that is erroneous.
An excerpt from pg 818 of "Military Law and Precedents" by Winthrop:
"...But while a military inferior may be justified in not obeying an order as being unlawful, he will always assume to do so on his own personal responsibility and at his own risk. Even where there may seem to be ample warrant for his act, he will, in justifying, commonly be at a very considerable disadvantage, the presumption being, as a rule, in favor of the legality of the order is an executable mandate, and the facts of the case and reasons for the action being often unknown in part at least to himself and in the possession only of the superior.
In the great majority of cases therefore it is found both safer and wiser for the inferior instead of resisting an apparently arbitrary authority, to accept the alternative of obeying even to his own detriment, thus also placing himself in the most favorable position for obtain redress in the future.
On the other had, should injury to a third person, or damage to the United States, result from the execution of an order by a subordinate, the plea that he acted simply in obedience to the mandate of his proper superior will be favored at military law, and a court-martial will almost invariably justify and protect an accused who has been exposed to prosecution by reason of his unquestioning fidelity to duty, holding the superior alone responsible."
-end snip-
- - - - - - - -
What is said in this excerpted is a mouthful. In para. 2 of the excerpt, it explains the reason that "on the face of it" why Obama is not challenged by more officers since it is the safest avenue to take to accept his orders other than put yourself at risk, which blows apart the silly argument why other active duty personnel have not come forward to challenge Obama's legality. Through the grapevine we know numerous active duty officers question the Constitutional legality of Obama to hold office and give lawful orders.
And moreover, in para. 3, the officers who take Obama's orders "on the face of it" will be looked on more favorably as they were just following orders.
We know that the Lind has dishonestly and erroneously cut Obama out of chain of command for the follow up deployment orders to a war zone because she said that the Pentagon is where Lakin's order originated, but again we know that is an erroneous judgment.
Furthermore, Lind's court is a miscarriage of justice in an effort to protect a politician who was treated like crowning king when he was elected to be president. And no election overrides or amends the US Constitution, which has been disingenuously and falsely argued on this thread.
LTC Lakin in Lind's court has been cut off from basic jurisprudence of defense rights and so left bare:
"Based on the evidence available, his conviction is certain," Puckett told WND. "He has no affirmative defense for the offenses he committed."
"There is not much left to do" in defense of his client, Puckett said. Lakin's previous defense counsel, Paul Jensen, already "sought discovery of documents, and to introduce evidence and expert witnesses, but the judge shut down all those efforts."
And from the Greeley Gazette article,
Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!
An absolute miscarriage of justice.