To say that an order that may be inferred to be lawful must be obeyed is exactly the same thing [implementationally] as saying "any order which is not illegal on-its-face must be obeyed; there can be no questioning or confirmation-requests to the validity of any order."
The underlined part lies at the heart of the matter and, sadly, is ignored by our judicial system. In fact, our judicial system is trained not to read the actual law; this is what case-law and precedence is all about. It is nothing more than the judiciary playing the children's game Telephone with your rights & liberties.
For a long time I avoided the Lakin case because all the talk of procedures and what-not made me think it was too complicated for a layperson like myself to understand. Eventually I decided to go right to Article 92 to know what the case was about. I couldn’t believe it. All this mumbo-jumbo clouding things up but when I went straight to the law itself it wasn’t jumbled up.
In order to charge him with an Article 92 violation he needed to disobey a “lawful order” as defined by the elements - which clearly says a lawful order must be in compliance with the Constitution.
All this talk about whether Lakin had to obey the order is irrelevant. All that matters TO THIS CHARGE - which he MUST be allowed to defend himself against - is whether he was given a lawful (law-compliant, Constitution-compliant, and properly authorized) order, and if so, whether he disobeyed it.
The people who have introduced irrelevancies to the case are the prosecution and judge. They refuse to allow him to defend himself against the actual charge, favoring instead some irrelevant “even if” argument (”even if it wasn’t a lawful order according to the law he’s accused of violating, he’d have to obey it for some other reason”).
I can’t help but think that Lind knows what she’s doing.
Did you notice that she inserted one paragraph of “judicial notice” - and in that paragraph she misspelled Obama’s name (IIRC in a different way than Lakin’s counsel misspelled the name so it wasn’t mocking Lakin’s spelling) and referenced an electoral vote certification that didn’t actually fulfill the requirement of the law? That certification became the basis for her whole argument, but it didn’t fulfill the law and was the subject of a pending court case.