Army birther pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges

AP ^ | December 14, 2010 | AP

[Smokeyblue]

An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has pleaded guilty to 1 of 2 charges against him.

At a court-martial proceeding Tuesday in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty to not meeting with a superior when ordered to do so and not showing up at Fort Campbell in Kentucky where he was supposed to report.

[deport]

For what it's worth:

 

APPELLATE REVIEW

 
Appellate Review of Courts-Martial

Courts-martial are conducted under the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946, and the Manual for Courts-Martial.  If the trial results in a conviction, the case is reviewed by the convening authority -- the person who referred the case for trial by court-martial.  The convening authority has discretion to mitigate the findings and sentence.

If the sentence, as approved by the convening authority, includes death, a bad-conduct discharge, a dishonorable discharge, dismissal of an officer, or confinement for one year or more, the case is reviewed by an intermediate court.  There are four such courts -- the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals. The Courts of Criminal Appeals review the cases for legal error, factual sufficiency, and sentence appropriateness.  All other cases are subject to review by judge advocates under regulations issued by each service.  After such review, the Judge Advocate General may refer a case to the appropriate Court of Criminal Appeals.  The Courts of Criminal Appeals also have jurisdiction under Article 62 of the UCMJ to consider appeals by the United States of certain judicial rulings during trial.  Review under Article 62 is limited to issues involving alleged legal errors.

The Court’s primary jurisdictional statute is Article 67(a) of the UCMJ, which provides:

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces shall review the record in –

 (1) all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a Court of Criminal Appeals, extends to death;
 (2) all cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review; and
 (3) all cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has granted a review.

Under Article 67(c), the Court’s review is limited to issues of law.

The Courts of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces also have jurisdiction to consider petitions for extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

The Supreme Court of the United States has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 to review cases under the UCMJ on direct appeal where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has conducted a mandatory review (death penalty and certified cases), granted discretionary review of a petition, or otherwise granted relief.  If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied a petition for review or a writ appeal, consideration by the Supreme Court may be obtained only through collateral review (e.g., a writ of habeas corpus).       
 

[jamese777]

I’m saying what I feel. The military leadership that has totally screwed the Constitution, the MCM, Lakin, and everybody who loves this country disgusts me. The enemy within disgusts me even if it wears a military uniform - and we can be guaranteed that the enemy will try to infiltrate the military because the military has been a great tool for good.

There are fantastic people in the military. A couple of my nephews included. At this point the military leadership cannot be trusted. Which is what the retired military brass told Lakin also. I guess they wouldn’t belong here either, huh?

---

Lieutenant Colonel Lakin could have simply pleaded not guilty, trusted a military panel of his fellow officers to side with him and kept his judicial options open to appeal if convicted.
You can try to deflect the blame onto others if you want but a Lieutenant Colonel who is a physician is capable of simply saying the two words: “NOT GUILTY.”

[pnh102]

No, at the very least, the Army would prevail in its contention that Lakin’s orders were legal even if the President were ineligible.

By pleading guilty, the Army no longer has this responsibility. Had the defendent been tried on this charge, and the Army been forced to go on this contention, the defendent would have either been acquitted, or would have had a chance to appeal any conviction.

[Red Steel]

Military brass are political entities. Them doing what is right may conflict with their goals and careers.

[El Sordo]

As long as the situation is understood.

It should be interesting to see how they argue against the second charge.

[butterdezillion]

The judge won’t allow Obama’s Constitutional status to be addressed. That is the whole point. She said it is IRRELEVANT whether there was a valid presidential order authorizing the use of force.

And then because she said the authorization was IRRELEVANT she won’t allow any evidence about that into the proceedings. Lakin could actually have Obama’s BC in his hand, proving that Obama was not born in Hawaii and isn’t old enough to be POTUS, or anything else - and Judge Lind WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO BE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE. She says it is irrelevant.

Take that to its logical conclusion. Brigade commanders could issue combat troops to Iran, and it wouldn’t matter whether there was a valid Presidential order authorizing it (as required for the “use of force” in SJ Res 23) or not. Brigade commanders have authority to invade other countries without authorization from the President or Congress (which delegated their authority specifically to “the President” alone for the war on terrorism).

That is why this is such an emotional issue for a lot of us. This precedent would totally undo the command structure of the military, if brigade commanders can decide, on their own, to invade a foreign country when the law only allows “the President” to do that.

[Red Steel]

Lieutenant Colonel Lakin could have simply pleaded not guilty, trusted a military panel of his fellow officers to side with him and kept his judicial options open to appeal if convicted. You can try to deflect the blame onto others if you want but a Lieutenant Colonel who is a physician is capable of simply saying the two words: “NOT GUILTY.”

LTC Lakin did plead "NOT GUILTY" to the missing movement charge on his deployment to Afghanistan.

From the article:

"He [Lakin] pleaded not guilty to a second charge of missing a flight he was required to be on. His court-martial at Fort Meade is continuing on that count."

[Lurking Libertarian]

SCOTUS has jurisdiction. They can take up the case.

Leaving aside the issue of the guilty plea, SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction of this case, and may never get it.

A military defendant convicted at a court martial has a right to appeal to the Court of Appeals of that branch of the service (in this case, the Army Court of Military Apeals). If that court upholds the conviction, the defendant can ask the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) to hear his appeal, but that court's jurisdiction is discretionary; they can refuse to hear any case without giving any reason.

If the CAAF refuses to hear the case, the case is over and there is no right to even ask SCOTUS to hear the case. Only if the CAAF agrees to hear the case, and then upholds the conviction, is there a right to ask SCOTUS to hear the case, but there again, SCOTUS's jurisdiction is discretionary and they may refuse to hear the case without giving a reason.

[BigGuy22]

“This precedent would totally undo the command structure of the military...”
__

You’re really being silly. The precedent reflects perfectly what the command structure of the military has been since the founding of our Nation.

I know you’re emotional about this, but it does no good to spout nonsense. Do a little homework.

[OldDeckHand]

"I suspect that Lakin’s “lawyer” has already gotten a plea bargain in exchange for a guilty plea on both charges from the Army lawyers."

You would suspect wrong. In what's known as a care inquiry, such an agreement would have been acknowledged by MJ when a guilty plea was entered in open court, and the agreement itself would have been explored in detail with defendant in open court and on the record, per the MCM. The MJ has an obligation to determine if there was any coercion used by the government in obtaining the agreement. This wasn't done ergo there is no plea agreement.

It's not all that dissimilar to how a plea arrangement is entered in civilian federal court.

[Red Steel]

SCOTUS's jurisdiction is discretionary and they may refuse to hear the case without giving a reason.

I figured Danae knew this...as most of us do.

[LucyT]

We understand "your feelings" perfectly well.

You want to spit on the United States Military. Those are YOUR words.

Words have meanings, and there are no weasel words to get you out of this. You can waffle/ backpedal all you want to, you posted your opinion/ "feelings".

Go over to DU, or some other place that will welcome you. Anyone who wants to spit on any person in the United States Military is a disgusting piece of excrement, and an embarrassment to this forum.

[TankerKC]

This makes me want to...

You should consider having that comment removed. I don't think you mean it. I understand that you are frustrated, but that's just not the right way to express it.

[jamese777]

Here here.

I don’t even know the mechanism by which it does.... how does the Military JAG work with regards to that?

SCOTUS has jurisdiction. They can take up the case.

---

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has jurisdiction and only they can refer this case to the Supreme Court. Since Lt.C. Lakin has pleaded guilty, an appeal is highly unlikely since Lt.C. Lakin has to meet with Judge Lind and convince her that he understands all the ramifications of entering guilty pleas.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 to review cases under the UCMJ on direct appeal where the CAAF has conducted a mandatory review (death penalty and certified cases), granted discretionary review of a petition, or otherwise granted relief. If the CAAF denies a petition for review or a writ appeal, consideration by the Supreme Court may be obtained only through collateral review (e.g., a writ of habeas corpus).Since 2007, several bills have been introduced into Congress to expand the accessibility of service members to the Supreme Court.”

[STARWISE]

Joefonebone: "the people who hold this scumbag up as a savior of sometype have never, ever, even considered serving a day in the military, much less giving a moment of their selfish time to their country. These are the same people that have never held someones life in their hands, nor have had to place their own life into someone else’s hands...the people that for the most part label this guy a coward, traitor and/or deserter are the ones that have served"

ARE THESE people you have the gall to slander ..

"who hold this scumbag up as a savior of sometype have never, ever, even considered serving a day in the military.....the same people that have never held someones life in their hands, nor have had to place their own life into someone else’s hands"

????

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerny (Ret.)

3-Star General Supports Army Surgeon Lakin

***

MGen. Paul Valleley (Ret.)- father of a soldier who gave his life for us in Iraq

Gen. Paul Vallely re LTC Terry Lakin challenge to Obama legitimacy: “This is a corrupt court in my opinion”

***

Comment from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) - "I will be attending the scheduled Court Martial of LTC Terry Lakin on Tuesday, 14 Dec 2010 at Ft. Meade MD, to show my support for this brave man ..."

[BuckeyeTexan]

The Army properly charged Lakin under Article 92 via Article 90. See below.

Article 90, Element d - Lesser included offenses, Part 3 - Willfully disobeying lawful order of superior commissioned officer, Section a - Article 92: failure to obey lawful order.

Note that Lakin’s charges we’re written using the sample specifications outlined in Article 90, Element f.

Lakin’s orders were general orders according to the definition of such in Article 92.

[joe fonebone]

No, that comment needs to be kept where it is, and shown for what it is.......this PERSONS posts over the last several months have all but proven she not only despises, but actually hates our military, and has no respect for those that are serving, or have previously served. She has finally shown her true colors......

[OldDeckHand]

"Especially if they get indignant when someone calls them out on it."

It reminds me of an hysterical bit Chris Rock used to do about men who get caught - red handed - cheating on their wives. The central thesis was, no matter how incriminating the evidence, deny, deny, deny. Indignation, in Rock's illustration, was key to selling the lie.

[BuckeyeTexan]

We’re = were

[SE Mom]

I have to wonder if the Lt. Col. received the best legal counsel. Did his legal team understand what was at stake and what they were doing, what his guilty plea would mean and what not-guilty would have entitled him to? Was this the lawyers amateur hour?

I’m baffled.