Posted on 12/14/2010 9:25:59 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wkrn.com ...
“What kind of “lawyer” allows his client to testify to privileged information, olddeck?”
Probably the kind of lawyer who is either attempting to build a foundation of ineffective assistance of counsel for later appeal, or preparing the jury panel for some explanation at allocution that will perhaps mitigate exposure at sentencing.
389 posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:24:25 PM by OldDeckHand
Well, you’re a better man than I.
______________
That’s not hard to do.
What, Katrina? I wasn't too pleased but it didn't harm me much.
Will you support or condemn those in the Military who disobey orders to engage the American Citizens?
Condemn obviously. What, are you ignorant?
Further, I'm not obligated to answer to you for a damned thing.
If you feel that failing to buy into the birther lunacy makes
someone an Obama supporter that's your business. And your right.
It's also retarded.
The military is not supposed to be the personal praetorian guard of the president, beholden to him personally.
Are there any facts being reported that you dispute?
He did? I guess we're ignoring the other contested charge, aren't we.
Again, did I mention you're an idiot?
By the by, what part of "he's going to be sentenced by a jury panel" don't you understand. Right now, everything Puckett does will be to mitigate Lakin's exposure at sentencing. The panel could find for "no punishment" to as high as 3(ish) years confinement, dismissal and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. If Puckett can craft a narrative that Lakin, although told explicitly not to disobey, was implicitly persuaded to do just that, it might just help him at sentencing.
Of course, you're the "legal expert" here, so I'm not telling you anything you don't understand already.
Oh and FYI, I don't know who this supposed military is that thinks he is legit and respects him. I'm not going into personal details but based on what I see and hear, it's about 80-20. Majority questions his eligibility and his motives and can't stand him.
The flight surgeon who had to step up and take Lakin's spot in Afghanistan is putting something a helluva lot more valuable than a career on the line.
You know who's faithfully doing his duty right now? The guy who had to take Lakin's spot in Afghanistan.
How about trying to vote him out
__________________
Good luck with that. Want to make a bet?
Is anything reported on that blog inaccurate?
I believe that you have mentioned that. But, you have never proven that assertion. Proof of your assertion has come from FS11 and unassailable proof it certainly is.
Just showing you that guy has an leftist axe to grind.
I've had to ask you three times now whether or not you condemn or support it, then you call me ignorant...lol.
Further, I'm not obligated to answer to you for a damned thing.
No, you are not, but this is a debate forum. no? Is there some reason you don't like being called out to justify your posts?
You stated it can't happen here and I pointed out where it has, you said it couldn't using you own SON as an example.
Don't like it then tough sh%t!
If you feel that failing to buy into the birther lunacy makes someone an Obama supporter that's your business. And your right.
Well thank you for admitting you're an Obama supporter, it's about time.
My questions are relevant in determining just when it is acceptable for the Military to question their orders and where you stood on it.
Retarded, lol, you got backed into a corner and now you're scrambling like a wuss.
Great post and the reason I don’t have much hope for this country.
What kind of “lawyer” allows his client to testify to privileged information, olddeck?
“If you are going to defend against a claim by saying that you were relying on the advice of counsel when you did what you did (which is evidence that you were acting in good faith and without criminal intent), you have to waive the privilege in order to disclose the advice.”
387 posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:23:57 PM by Lurking Libertarian
More nonsense. The bad advice of Lakin’s lawyers does not mitigate his guilt in any way.
It is obvious that you two are ignorant of the law, but perhaps you have heard the saying that “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat,”, i.e. ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
Lakin waived his right to appeal when he plead guilty and the bad advice of his lawyers does not “mitigate exposure.” In fact, Puckett’s bad advice is increasing Lakin’s “exposure,” i.e., Lakin testified that Jensen advised him that “I can’t ethically advise you to disobey those orders.”
Having the opinion that the birther nonsense is going nowhere makes one an Obama supporter?
You keep thinking that, Spunky.
Great post and the reason I don’t have much hope for this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_vsaPEajh0
I love you too, joe.
But for the record, I wasn’t bossing anyone. I gave an example of an appropriate apology. Butter could take it or leave it. She took it, which speaks volumes about her sincerity.
You always tell me what to do and where to go. Why should this thread be any different? Let me have it. I can take it.
Your words, not mine, spunky.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.