I find it quite amusing that these guys chose the same word to describe their loon rally.
The "Sanity Squad" in DC. Hey look it's Parsy! LoL.
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 ...
You say “I understand where Lakin’s defense attorney is going with this. I am inclined to agree with his approach.”
Please explain what you mean. What exactly about Lakin’s “lawyers’ approach” do you agree with?
Do you agree with him announcing that his client was guilty 11 days before trial?
Do you agree with him pleading his client guilty without a plea bargain?
Do you agree with him advising his client to waive attorney/client privilege?
Which part of his bizarre approach is it that you agree with?
Wrong on both counts. No surprise there.
Every time you read about NATO troops getting killed in Afghanistan like the six soldiers today, and then you read the names of the soldiers, it’s always Americans. Don’t you think that’s odd, since NATO is supposed to be a joint force with the EU? Shouldn’t they share the hazard? Also, don’t you think it’s odd that American soldiers are commanded by the EU through NATO? I am curious to know what you think of that, constitutionally speaking.
What do you think of the EU as a socialist governing body. Do you think they support American individualism and American’s rights as enumerated in the Constitution? Do you think our troops should be led by socialists?
Wind up on a list? I have news for you, Obot troll. You’re nearly at the top of the list ...
Right after me, of course. :)
VERY telling .. wonder what the percentage of
Americans today is 80% brainwashed?
Gee. I thought I was your boss troll. I'm truly disappointed.
But hey, if I have to lose out to someone then it may as well be Buckeye Texan. Someone I respect.
Three factoids from today’s proceedings:
(1) the order to report that LtC. Lakin has pleaded guilty to ignoring came from the Brigade Commander at Walter Reed Medical Center, Colonel Roberts. Colonel Roberts is one of two winners of the Medal Of Honor in the active duty military.
(2) The prosecution has on its witness list for sentencing, the wife of the doctor who took Lt.C. Lakin’s place in Afghanistan.
(3) Colonel Lakin requested and took his pre-deployment leave AFTER he refused deployment.
You say “I understand where Lakin’s defense attorney is going with this. I am inclined to agree with his approach.”
Please explain what you mean. What exactly about Lakin’s “lawyers’ approach” do you agree with?
Do you agree with him announcing that his client was guilty 11 days before trial?
Do you agree with him pleading his client guilty without a plea bargain?
Do you agree with him advising his client to waive attorney/client privilege?
Which part of his bizarre approach is it that you agree with?
The fact that a bunch of posters on here act like they’re at a victory party is extremely revealing.
Well and beautifully stated, mills!
Butter, you are truly a noble warrior for truth,
relentless in its pursuit. God bless you.
I suppose that my last post might be criticized for not answering your questions.
I expect that Lakin’s counsel will point out in the sentencing phase as matters of extenuation and mitigation the deficiencies of his previous legal defense team. As a panel member, I would be somewhat sympathetic to this approach and would certainly take it into account when deciding on a proper sentence. That together with the story of his career of service to his country may help reduce his sentence. As competent military attorneys have pointed out, the Court Martial panel has a great deal of leeway when it comes to determining sentence. I have personal experience of how this works in real life.
100%
[;^)
I freepmailed this to someone and then to a couple of more people and someone asked why not post it to the thread, so I am.
Among conservatives (leaving aside the 0bot toadies), there are two camps (according to this division I’m discussing, surely there are other ways to divide):
1. Those who think that somehow things will muddle along, pretty much as they’ve always done, maybe get a bit worse, a bit better, hopefully a lot better. Gradually, gradually - maybe next time an R president who’s more conservative will help straighten things out, or maybe one who isn’t, but then maybe the time after that things will improve. The various crises will pass, get resolved, or just sort of drift along and effects will dissolve, and be in the past almost forgotten, just like all of Clintoon’s horrorshows and previous crises. (Of course, China wouldn’t have the technology it has now were it not for Clinton’s treason....)
This group cannot foresee the end of our Replublic, a huge war, or widespread extreme devastation of any kind. Things could get “really” bad but not collapse, they’ll improve again, it’s all relative. Our Republic just can’t get destroyed - because - it just won’t happen.
2. The second group thinks that utter destruction of our Republic not only could happen, it can happen - and is happening right now. The enemy within (no doubt helped by the enemy without) is feverishly and busily working on destroying what is good about our country - what is left of what is good - right now, right this minute.
These enemies are driven by a passionate fervor, and just hoping they’ll go away means utter defeat for all that is good. Pretending that they either don’t mean and plan utter destruction, or that they’re weak or foolish (they are foolish but that’s beside the point), or that they’re somehow “destined” to lose, is the way to ensure that we fail and they win.
There are so many crises about to hit - already hitting - some just happenstance (inasmuch as any human influenced or caused situation can be happenstance) or nefarious plan - that one can hardly count them.
I think we are in some of the most dire times in the known history of the world. That so many here on FR scorn such concerns as tinfoil nuttery, conspiracy theories and so on is very disheartening.
Anyway, /rant off!
Ultimately - I am convinced without a shred of doubt that the Supreme Lord is ultimately in charge; He gives us our free will, and when that free will becomes so misused it becomes a sort of critical mass, He will by one way or another, arrange something. What or how - that’s His job, not mine. But whatever is in the future, I think it is a rough road to get to the other side. (And I’m just talking about this world of course.)
sigh....
Do you always evade questions when you are losing arguments?
You say “I understand where Lakin’s defense attorney is going with this. I am inclined to agree with his approach.”
Please explain what you mean. What exactly about Lakin’s “lawyers’ approach” do you agree with?
Do you agree with him announcing that his client was guilty 11 days before trial?
Do you agree with him pleading his client guilty without a plea bargain?
Do you agree with him advising his client to waive attorney/client privilege?
Which part of his bizarre approach is it that you agree with?
I find it quite amusing that these guys chose the same word to describe their loon rally.
The "Sanity Squad" in DC. Hey look it's Parsy! LoL.
Asked and answered. Puckett never acknowledged guilt. He stipulated Lind was right on the law in her previous denial of Lakin's affirmative defense.
"Do you agree with him pleading his client guilty without a plea bargain?"
Yes. Why do you want to litigate something you can't win, and in the process piss-off the members of the jury panel who would have to listen to your drivel? Officers don't like to have their time wasted, and that's especially true of bird colonels and above. Puckett is trying to respect the panel, hoping for a more favorable outcome at sentencing.
"Do you agree with him advising his client to waive attorney/client privilege?"
Yes. Again, Sullivan - who was actually in the courtroom, reports the exchange between DC and MJ this way...
He said the defense would be raising the legal advice given to LTC Lakin (probably during the sentencing case), so it would be better to address it during the providence inquiry than have to reopen the providence inquiry when the defense raised it later.
Gee, how about that? Clearly, Puckett is working towards sentencing here. Of course, as a guy who hasn't spent a minute practicing military law, this escapes you, apparently.
All well and good, but what cannot be predicted is
the fallout and the unintended consequences in the
eyes of the public and others in govt of a career MD/Lt.
Colonel choosing this path out of courage of his
convictions, taking the jail time and his medicine.
That story won’t go away.
The truth will come out .. it always does eventually.
There will be a little something extra in your check this week for those comments. :)
Hey! I didn't catch that. We copyrighted the name "Sanity Squad." We're going to sue!
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.