Reading comprehension is not the strong suit, I see. I didn't say it was an abstract concept, I said we weren't discussing military law in the abstract. We were, and are, discussing military law as applied to Lakin's particular circumstances.
If you believe that citation is relevant to Lakin's case, then yes, I am absolutely convinced you really are Paul Jensen.
Lakin made a huge mistake. He should have kept you on board, and avoided Puckett. It's clear that your superior grasp of military law would have prevailed at trial, and stuff.
What part of 'this could have been applied to Lakin's case' are you not understanding. M-e ... t-y-p-e ... s-l-o-w-e-r ... f-o-r ... y-o-u??
Did that help??