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 ...
From: http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/16/united-states-v-lakin-liveblog-v/
“The court-martial of convicted Army doctor LTC Terry Lakin resumes today.
First off is a session held outside the presence of the members between the judge and counsel for both sides, with the accused in attendance. This proceeding, held pursuant to UCMJ Article 39(a), will likely focus on administrative matters such as the prosecution’s intent to put on evidence in rebuttal and the expected length of the rebuttal case, objections by the defense to the rebuttal case, if any, and so on. If there are any additional motions to find offenses multiplicious for sentencing purposes – thus reducing the maximum sentence in the case — they will be likely be resolved in this session. The instructions to be given the members before they retire to deliberate on a sentence may also be discussed during the Article 39(a) session.
Rebuttal may consist of any evidence which directly contradicts evidence offered by the defense, or evidence which tends to explain the defense evidence, including statements of fact contained in the accused’s unsworn statement. The prosecution is also entitled to rebut any inference which may be fairly drawn from the defense case, which expands the scope of permissible rebuttal evidence. During my time as a circuit prosecutor, I referred to rebuttal as “the trial counsel’s best friend.” In addition to the substantive information it conveys, a good rebuttal case carries with it the subtext that the defense has attempted to pull a fast one and cannot be trusted.
Colonel Sullivan is of the opinion that there may be several fruitful avenues for rebuttal in this case. We will have to wait and see what the prosecution plans. If the prosecution offers rebuttal, the defense can offer evidence in surrebutal; otherwise, the case goes directly on to argument by counsel and instructions to the members by the military judge. Ether side may propose a specific sentence; often the defense will decline to do so, arguing instead in general terms for leniency or simply arguing that the sentence proposed by the prosecution is too high.
During sentencing deliberations, the members may each propose a sentence. Sentences represent a single punishment for all the offenses, rather than for each specification; members are not told what maximum penalty each specification carries, only the maximum for the whole as an aggregate. The sentences are then voted on in ascending order – i.e., from the most lenient to the most severe. Once a proposed sentence receives at least a 2/3-rds vote, that becomes the sentence of the court. Because there are eight members of the court-martial, it requires the vote of six members to reach the two-thirds threshold. Put another way, any three members can scuttle a proposed sentence, requiring consideration of the next most severe option. Prosecutors often urge the members, during argument, to ”just say no” to any sentence that seems too lenient or insufficiently weighty to address the crimes of the accused.
Updates will be posted here as events warrant.
If you missed last night’s interview with Colonel Sullivan, retired CDR Phil Cave, and Fogbow blogger Mata Mari, you can still find it online here: blogtalkradio.
1057: The members are now deliberating on sentence.
The prosecution presented excerpts from LTC Lakin’s Care inquiry in which he admitted under oath that his former attorney, Paul Jensen, expressly told the accused that the orders he’d received were lawful, and that as an attorney, Mr. Jensen said he could not ethically advise the accused to disobey them. There was no surrebuttal.
The defense asked the military judge to find Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II, which address LTC Lakin’s violation of two separate orders to report to the brigade commander on 31 March, multiplicious for sentencing purposes. She granted the motion, and in so doing reduced the maximum sentence to confinement from 42 months to three years.
The prosecution asked for dismissal, confinement for 24 months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The trial counsel who argued noted that in LTC Lakin’s unsworn statement, his focus was always on himself: how he was concerned about the President’s eligibility, how he felt his concerns needed to be addressed, and so on, until the moment came to accept responsibility — at which point the accused focused on other people and how they let him down or supposedly misled him. The prosecutor also noted that at no point during LTC Lakin’s tearful discussion of his family or during his apologia to the commander did LTC Lakin see fit to mention MAJ Dobson or the hardships endured by anyone else as a result of LTC Lakin’s actions. Trial counsel tied the request for 24 months to the period of time the accused should have been in theatre: 2 days for every day he was not with the 1-32 Cav overseas.
The defense asked for a reprimand, “some” forfeiture of pay, and restriction to geographical limits (generally, such limits are to the limits of the base, or of some other geographical area, in the discretion of the convening authority). He argued for no dismissal and no confinement. The defense’s parting words to the members: “Merry Christmas.”
We will post the sentence when the members return.
It’s 22 degrees at Fort Meade and snowing heavily (for those who find the weather reports fascinating). According to Colonel Sullivan, the birther faithful have thinned out somewhat, as has the media contingent.”
From the above:
“The prosecution presented excerpts from LTC Lakin’s Care inquiry in which he admitted under oath that his former attorney, Paul Jensen, expressly told the accused that the orders he’d received were lawful, and that as an attorney, Mr. Jensen said he could not ethically advise the accused to disobey them. There was no surrebuttal.”
That’s gonna hurt him bad, I would think.
But what if I were unconscious and you didn’t have authorization to take me to the ER? Would the pain medication relieve my pain if the doctor didn’t have authorization to give it to me? What if the doctor were an illegal alien? Would I still have to pay the ER medical bill? Would the monkeys be natural born?
But what if I were unconscious and you didn’t have authorization to take me to the ER? Would the pain medication relieve my pain if the doctor didn’t have authorization to give it to me? What if the doctor were an illegal alien? Would I still have to pay the ER medical bill? Would the monkeys be natural born?
As Obamacare will restrict our available options, the “hospital” you'll be taken to will likely be under the awning of a taco truck. Therefore the question of the doctor being an illegal alien will not be much of a mystery.
The good news is that we'll be able to pay in chickens.
As for the NBC status of the monkeys, the court is evading that issue. Not that I blame them...
Oh yeah? But have you ever seen his birth certificate?
FORT MEADE, Md. – Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin apologized today for forcing the Army to court-martial him over his attempt to compel President Barack Obama to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
"I am extremely sorry for everything that has come of this," Lakin said in unsworn testimony during the sentencing phase of his trial. "As a military member, I was wrong."
...
"I didn't want it to end this way," said the 17-year veteran flight surgeon. "I want to continue to serve the military""
Continued: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240373
After admitting he went about this the wrong way...question remains...does he now believe that Barry is Constitutionally qualified? Would be interesting to know if he's changed his mind on the core issue that got him to where he is now.
"Lakin: 'I chose the wrong path'"
Hmmm, was he “talked” to? Or has he seen the writing on the wall and trying to save the benefits for his family.
“The defense asked for a reprimand, “some” forfeiture of pay, and restriction to geographical limits (generally, such limits are to the limits of the base, or of some other geographical area, in the discretion of the convening authority). He argued for no dismissal and no confinement. The defense’s parting words to the members: “Merry Christmas.”
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/16/united-states-v-lakin-liveblog-v/#comments
Lakin and Puckett = mind boggling and confounding... all of it now.
This snippet posted below was published by Col. Sullivan from the CAAFlog blog(anti-Lakin). I'm very surprised Col. Sullivan was able to keep his ridicule of LTC Lakin down to a minimal in his latest writings on LTC Lakin's court-martial. What this blog shows is that there are real concerns about Obama's constitutional eligibility to be CiC all the way up the chain-of-command. I can't wait until the official trial transcripts are released.
Snippet via CAAFlog; LTC Lakin continued that he became the chief of primary care at the Pentagon’s clinic in July 2009. Mr. Puckett then observed that the purpose of the hearing was for the members to determine an appropriate sentence. He then discussed the origins of LTC Lakin’s offenses."He testified that he started to have concerns about the Constitution during the primary elections, when he was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. He learned that there was controversy as to the natural-born-citizen status of both major political parties’ general election candidates. He said Senator McCain provided everything he could to address his status, including a birth certificate with the doctor’s name and hospital’s name. He compared that with the lack of scrutiny that Senator Obama received. He had questions about the image of a certificate of live birth on the Internet and relatives stating they were present at his birth in Kenya. He said he had an open mind, but he was skeptical. One candidate went through scrutiny, but there was a lack of information as to the other.
Mr. Puckett pressed, “Why were you so interested in this?” I think he expected the answer to be because of the oath of office, but LTC Lakin instead gave an answer about reading newspapers. LTC Lakin testified that after the election, he became “extremely concerned.” He said the issue wasn’t about politics or anything else (probably an implicit denial of racism) but the Supreme Law of the Land. He stated that he “wanted a valid Commander-in-Chief.” He testified that after the election, he was no longer comfortable with being selected for deployment. He was “concerned that the Constitution wasn’t being followed.” He believes his “oath as an officer is to protect and defend the Constitution.” He believed questions about the President’s eligibility “may weaken the Constitution.” He said he doesn’t know if the President is ineligible and he doesn’t believe that anyone can know.
Neal Puckett asked, “What did you do as a soldier.” LTC Lakin said his “sought out advice” from his command and from his friends. He contacted legal assistance at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, who said they would research the issue and get back to him, but then they would never return his calls. He talked to his commander and supervisor who said there was an issue and there were questions, but they did not know what to do to answer them. He then filed an Article 138 complaint. He was asking, “Please, someone in my command, tell me there’s not an issue about illegal orders.” He submitted the Article 138 complaint to his company commander and asked him to forward it. The reply he received back was that his Article 138 complaint was deficient, so the Army didn’t have to answer it.
LTC Lakin then wrote letters to his two Senators and Congressman. One Senator didn’t reply. One said the issue had been raised “and Twittered about and been found not to be an issue.” His Congressman forwarded his letter to Military Affairs.
He continued to “pursue what else I could do.” When he was transferred to the Pentagon, he raised the issue with his clinic’s commander. He “acknowledged concern” but had no guidance as to what to do. LTC Lakin then submitted another Article 138 complaint, this one routed through General Casey. (BTW, it would later come out that he was referred to Paul Rolf Jensen while he was at Aberdeen Providing Ground, so it seems likely that he was working with Mr. Jensen at the time he filed this Article 138 complaint.) The response he received back was that General Casey wasn’t in his chain of command, so his Article 138 complaint wouldn’t be addressed.
LTC Lakin then became aware he was “on the short-list for deployment. This greatly concerned me.” He went to Capitol Hill for face-to-face meetings with one Congressman and high-level staffers. He was told that the issue was a concern, but the media ridiculed it, so they let it go.
He was advised to go to Afghanistan and then raise the issue while he was on deployment. He considered this a “worse” option. He said it would be “extremely wrong to raise this in a combat zone.”
Mr. Puckett asked, “You thought if the Commander-in-Chief wasn’t eligible, you thought your deployment order might retroactively be considered an illegal order.” LTC Lakin agreed.
Mr. Puckett asked when LTC Lakin first sought the advice of an attorney. He answered that it was two-and-a-half years ago. He was the leader of an intermediate level school small group. There were JAGs in the group. He discussed his concerns with the JAGs and asked what he should do. One of the JAGs referred him to Paul Jensen and LTC Lakin called him. He said he “ultimately hired” Mr. Jensen.
He then testified about receiving his deployment orders. At the bottom of the orders, it said he had to bring a copy of his birth certificate. He said, “I thought, there’s an issue here.” That was followed first by laughter from the birthers in the audience, and then by applause, bring another sharp, “Members of the gallery!” from Judge Lind.
He said that in March 2010, he turned to Mr. Jensen for legal advice. When asked about Mr. Jensen’s advice, LTC Lakin replied, “There’s a Kenyan birth certificate.” He said that on Mr. Jensen’s advice, he decided not to deploy. Mr. Puckett then asked, “Who made the decision to say to your command, ‘I’ll deploy if the President shows he’s eligible?’” LTC Lakin said he did. Mr. Puckett asked, “Whose fault was it?” LTC Lakin replied, “Mine.” Mr. Puckett asked, “Whose responsibility was it?” LTC Lakin answered, “Mine.” Mr. Puckett elicited LTC Lakin’s response that he didn’t think his orders were illegal, but he “still thought there was a constitutional issue.”
He agreed with Mr. Puckett that he used his deployment orders as a vehicle to increase the level of attention that the issue would receive. He confirmed that there were “lots of people urging you to stick to your guns.” In a reply likely to hurt him with the members, he answered: “Yes, including enlisted members and officer members.”
From: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/details-from-ltc-lakins-court-martial.html
Damn it!! There are questions IN the military! The country DESERVES To know the truth about Barry and whether or not he's Constitutionally qualified. Enough already with the obfuscation! This isn't a freakin game.
“The wrong path” is standing up for The Constitution in this police state.
ALL of TV and Hollywood support the one and Islam. A lot of idiots think AL Waleed’s Fox is our savior. Yeah right.
Clearly, this is not a good situation to be in.
Unfortunately for him, LTC Lakin choose the "wrong path" to try and "force" those questions to be answered. As Jim alluded to, it's not up to him (nor should it be) to have to put his life, career and sacred honor on the line for a question that the Congress, the Secretaries of State, the media and freakin Barry himself should have answered. This is beyond disgusting, and clearly will not go away until those questions are answered.
Yes, that's not going to help his case.
It would be interesting to know what billets these bird colonels all hold. In my experience, field-grade officers not in command billets don't sentence as harshly as officers who do have command responsibility (what the Navy & Marine Corps refers to as "line officers") and who may better understand the practical consequences of a break down in good order & discipline.
This court-martial is being held in the DC Military District. It's possible that a good percentage of those 0-6s aren't line officers, which might help Lakin a bit.
I wonder what the TC and DC recommended.
WHO's doing that, dummy???
>>This isn’t a freakin game.<<
When high command had no problems with putting UN flags on American servicemen’s uniform, I saw a problem. To them this is a game of how long will Americans quietly mumble as the country advances to the New World Order. Will they actively resist when the UN is in Supreme Command and the US Constitution is replaced with the Charter of the United Nations.
My opinion; No, not as long as there’s sports to watch on TV and beer to be had from the corner store.
Wow.
I don't care if he answers to the Easter Bunny. The Secretary of Defense has statutory authority to issue operational orders to the UCC. Who the president is, what defects he may or may not suffer as an office holder are all wholly irrelevant to the orders of SecDef.
I know, you either can't grasp this, or you don't care. But please, don't bother me with your ignorance any longer. I haven't the time nor patient to endure the stupidity.
I’m so glad you posted that .. I’ve not seen anything
of the kind posted. Should be its own thread, for
sure!
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.