Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Lakin Sentenced
1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.
OK ... my thinking was based on the George Washington University Hospital in DC. Most, if not all, doctors and surgeons at the hospital are members of a practicing partnership “Medical Faculty Associates” ... so, from a corporate/liability perspective, I guess MFA is not the same entity as the hospital or university. But they are to the public and patients. It could be that just the docs who teach and practice are members of the MFA group.
I can’t imagine with Lakin’s experience, he would not be well received at many hospitals, unless they don’t want the publicity he would bring at first. His penalty has nothing whatsoever to do with his actual practice of medicine, and with the awards he’s received over his career, one assumes he’s pretty good at what he does. I just hope he lands on his feet when this is all over.
What’s fascinating about this is that they’re carrying on about issues which, as Old Deck Hand said, aren’t controversial at all. Legally, they are CRYSTAL CLEAR.
If these people want to complain about legalese and Alice-in-Wonderland stuff, they should latch on to environmental and safety regulations. I did work for private industry once that has made me a consultant on certain types of cases, and Good God Almighty. Way too much of that is just completely mindless. I actually did a case once that turned on how much exposure to a certain chemical a worker could get if he could stay alive in a room engulfed in flames. Seriously. I found a sentence in a related reg that weaseled out of that, but it’s so painful. You have to think like them to beat them.
Up until the day of his court martial, yes. When the trial was about to start, he changed his tune. From the CAAFlog:
"The providence inquiry [guilty plea questioning by the judge] was extensive — with the bulk of the questioning coming at the suggestion of the trial counsel to foreclose possible avenues of appellate attack, and eliciting some damaging statements to boot. At one point, LTC Lakin appeared to draw a distinction between the orders to report to his brigade commander’s office — which he seemed quite willing to admit were lawful — versus the order to deploy to Fort Campell — which he characterized as a step in deploying to Afghanistan and appeared to tie to President Obama’s surge order. Judge Lind carefully inquired into whether LTC Lakin thought he had a legal defense to violating the order to report to Fort Campell. And she elicited several statements from him that the order was legal, he had a duty to obey it, and he knew at the time that the order was legal. And, of course, he said all of that under oath."
And “gun-rights activists” continue to challenge gun restrictions; yet that there are still restricted areas [like courtrooms] obviously means that their cause is insane.
[/sarc]
Presidential authorization was irrelevant to the orders Larkin refused.
Good point. Lakin told them well in advance that he was considering refusing deployment. Why no back-up plan?
When they rescinded the orders of Maj Cook, was there a sob story about the person who had to replace him?
I don’t say that to belittle the hardship on the Dobson family, but to say that Lakin gave them as much warning as he could and did everything he could to mitigate the costs to everybody else - as shown by his unwillingness to have the troops have a doctor whose head was only half in the game because he was trying to find out whether he was obeying an enemy of the US.
God bless Lakin.
Amen! It isn’t easy standing up for what is right when everything is at stake. There are many biblical stories about it - Esther ‘if I perish, I perish’ is just one. YES, God bless Col Lakin!
Right here on this thread - show who are on the other side - who stand for nothing. Wimps are a dime a dozen, true character is rare.
So true character involves shirking your duty over a ridiculous conspiracy theory?
Never. He pled guilty.
No, because you weren't elected to the office and sworn into it. Don't be ridiculous.
What I hear you saying is that the only power the people have to ensure that a usurper doesn’t hold the office is physical violence - literally throwing him out on his ear. Is that what you’re saying?
No, that is very clearly not what I said. If that's what you heard, then you've gone off the deep end.
It doesn’t matter if he can "act as President"? That REALLY sounds like "Constitution be damned." Did you really mean to say that?
No, that's not what I said or implied. In fact, I said and implied exactly the opposite of that.
Who is legally authorized to administer the oath of office to the Pres elect and VP elect? How does one get authorized to do that? Who was authorized to administer the oath to LBJ, and what authorized them?
The Constitution does not stipulate who shall administer the oath to the President-elect and Vice President-elect. Therefore anyone vested with the authority to administer an oath of office to a member of the Executive branch can administer it. Traditionally, that has been the Chief Justice.
I believe Title 5 of the U.S. Code stipulates who may administer an oath.
No one in particular was authorized to administer the oath to LBJ. Sarah T. Hughes, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Texas administered the oath to LBJ in a conference room aboard Air Force One at Love Field, Dallas, Texas.
And exactly where does the Constitution authorize the person who administers the oath to interpret and apply the 20th Amendment? I know the Third Article authorizes the federal judiciary to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws, but you’re talking about a single person outside the process of the courts. Where is it ever said in the Constitution that a single person, without hearing any case or considering any evidence, can interpret and apply the 20th Amendment?
The Constitution doesn't say that and you know it. When I said that the person administering the oath stipulates that the oath was properly administered, I didn't imply that he would interpret the 20th Amendment.
Ya think? ;p
Have you ever read the 20th Amendment?
Why do you think it is there? Is it just fluff to fill up another page, or does it actually serve a purpose that is worth serving? To be ratified it had to go through an elaborate process that this nation will probably never have enough consensus on anything to ever do again. Why did the people go through the process to have that Amendment ratified?
Was it so we could laugh and say that it’s fine and dandy to have a Russian czar as our president - since the 20th Amendment was a totally useless waste of time anyway?
I appreciate the support, counselor.
I separate my support for Ltc Lakin from my support for troops in the field during wartime. His missing movement could have caused serious disruption and potentially cost lives.
I didn’t want Lakin to spend even a day in jail. At the same time, I thought his decision to miss movement was ill-advised.
He should have made his only crime speaking against the legitimate authority of the commander in chief to see if it would be prosecuted.
“1.(law prevents) Commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against the President and other senior civilian government officials.” 10 US Code, para 801-904”
“A significant and much publicized military first amendment case of recent times was United States v. Howe.14 Howe, a second lieutenant stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, was convicted of using contemptuous words against the President and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, in violation of articles 88 and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Specifically, he had participated in a demonstration in downtown El Paso and was observed by military police while carrying a sign reading: “Let’s have more than a choice between petty ignorant fascists in 1968,” and, on the reverse side, “End Johnson’s fascist aggression in Vietnam.” “
(different case...US v Priest) “In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the Court of Military Appeals to explain the unique need of the military. The latter court stated in United States v. Priest:
In the armed forces some restrictions exist for reasons that have no counterpart in the civilian community. Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does not directly affect the capacity of the Government to discharge its responsibilities unless it both is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. In military life, however, other considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on a command structure that at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.19”
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/may-jun/moran.html
When are you going to offer some?
The problem is, what if the only defense you have is no defense? What if, even if what you claimed were true, it wouldn't defend you from the charges? That's why Larkin's "only defense" was rejected.
That it was his "only defense" is his fault. He did a very stupid thing.
Given the playing rules that Lind put into place by ignoring the elements of lawfulness for Article 90, Lakin could honestly say that he had no defense he could offer against the charges.
Funny thing how, after somebody cuts off both your legs, you’re suddenly able to agree in good conscience that you can’t walk.
We can only hope that Lt. Col. Lakin will get a favorable appeal, but he chose badly.
I don’t know how the BC thing will play out in 2012. We can only hope that the controlling legal authorities (to borrow from Al Gore) will do their duty and make this POS prove his bona fides.
It’s clear at this stage that Zero cannot prove his eligibility. Hell, I don’t think he can prove citizenship let alone Natural Born.
The founders and anyone since never thought that there would be anyone with the balls to attempt to be a usurper, so they never provided for a mechanism to verify eligibility, nor a method to deal with a usurper.
What is so striking is that there hasn’t been a leak from Hawaii or anywhere else with respect to this POS. Nothing. Not a chirp from any little birdies anywhere. Isn’t that truly odd? Even John f’n Kerry, while he wouldn’t sign form 180, was pretty much an open book. Not this bastard. Absolute silence from every quarter. Not even a former girlfriend, classmate, drug dealer.....nothing. It’s like he was a ghost for all of his life.
After he’s out of office, I’d be willing to bet there will not be word one about him either. This is simply the most disgusting chapter in US history. It demands a release of everything including his FBI and CIA files. And rest assured that they have a CIA file on him and I’d be willing to bet it is lengthy.
Prayers for Lt. Col. Lakin just the same.
I have found in life that personal desires and facts get confused for one another very easily.
Lakin refused to show up for the first leg of his deployment to Afghanistan - an order which was passed down through the chain of command and could only lawfully be initiated by Gates with the approval of the President.
Without valid Presidential authorization the orders failed requirement ii under lawfulness for Article 90. (See p 296 of the Manual for Courts-Martial at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf )
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.