LTC Lakin Formally Charged (Violation of UCMJ Articles 87 & 92)

American Patriot Foundation ^ | 04/22/2010

[BuckeyeTexan]

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin was charged today with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Articles 87 and 92.

(Chargesheet at the link in PDF format.)

[little jeremiah]

Crocodile tears, anyway.

[browardchad]

"There’s one for a man as astonishingly lazy as he is certain of things he doesn’t understand."

Worth repeating.

And repeating again.

[Non-Sequitur]

Would that have offered any legal support to Lt. Col. Lakin’s case?

Probably not. Lakin is not charged with disobeying Obama's orders but instead the orders of his commanding officer.

[Non-Sequitur]

If the charge is disobeying a lawful order, they have to prove it is lawful.

The order of his brigade commander is a lawful order, and I cannot imagine how the defense can demonstrate that it was not.

If LTC Lakin gets his day in court, and that is a big if, the question of obumbers eligibility will be answered.

Lakin will get his day in court. And Obama will never enter into it.

Though I don’t claim to be an expert, I do know a defendant has the right to defend him/her self and the prosecution has to prove it’s case.

Before it gets there the defense has to prove to the court that Obama's eligibility is relevant. Based on these charges, it isn't.

[Non-Sequitur]

IIRC, there are very clear guidelines for what constitutes an illegal order.

OK, what is illegal about being ordered to deploy to Afghanistan by his brigade commander?

[Non-Sequitur]

By “evidence” do you mean all evidence available to the court by normal standards, or do you mean only that which the Obama regime will allow the courts to access?

By 'evidence' I mean all evidence relevant to the case. Obama's citizenship isn't part of that since he's not charges with disobeying Obama's order but that of his brigade commander.

[Cyropaedia]

Every citizen should have the right to question the constitutional qualifications of a President through a quo warranto action.

Amen to that.

[mtntop3]

More power to Lt. Col. Lakin.

He has followed his conscience. His cause—seeking to resolve doubt on Obama’s birth certificate and hence Obama’s qualification to be commander in chief—is reasonable and just.

Lt. Col. Lakin’s military record of long-time and distinguished service speaks for itself. Obama has no valid reason not to permit the birth certificate to speak for itself.

[edge919]

General question: If it were proven that Obama faked his credentials in order to fool people into thinking that he was born in Hawaii and that he is in fact not Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS, would a court martial of LTC Lakin stand??

[OldDeckHand]

'General question: If it were proven that Obama faked his credentials in order to fool people into thinking that he was born in Hawaii and that he is in fact not Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS, would a court martial of LTC Lakin stand??"

Yes, Obama's fraudulent candidacy for, and installation into political office would have no impact on the legal authority of Lakin's superior commissioned officers, and civilian command authority to issue orders, including deployment orders. Why this escapes so many people - including Lakin and his representation is a mystery.

[mtntop3]

Lt. Col. Lakin is going to come out a winner on this simply for two reasons:

1) He has followed his conscience.

2) The specified court martial charges/procedures may indeed not permit consideration of Obama’s birth certificate.

But this very exclusion will publicly accentuate the unreasonable withholding of this document.

And that is Lt. Col. Lakin’s objective.

[Exmil_UK]

The CIC of the US Armed forces is the POTUS.

The United States has civilian control of its military.

POTUS ordered the “surge” in afghanistan and also Ordered changes to the rules of engagement that apply to every soldier once deployed to that country.

The Deployment order required the legal authority of the president. If he is not eligible according to the terms of the constitution, the surge order does not have the authority of POTUS.

Without the presidential authority of a legal eligible POTUS, the deployment order does not have legal authority.

What you are arguing is that the local commander is isolated from the chain of command. This is not so, there is a cascade of orders following from Obama’s surge order downwards to Lakin, then linking back to Obama himself if traced back up the chain of command to the CIC.

If Obama is not eligible, he is a domestic enemy, and it is Lakin’s duty under his officier’s oath to challenge and or disobey an order with no legal authority.

Since lakin has been charged he already has standing, and can even proceed separately with a Quo Warranto suit in the DC courts. I doubt he will do so.

Since Lakin is the defendant, he has to be proved guilty of disobeying an legal order from a local commander who has the legal authority to give it from the chain of command.

Moving troops to a war zone requires the Authority of a legal, eligible POTUS.

Remember, *civilian control of the military.*

The result will depend on the Military Judges and their views of the role of the constitution. If they believe in the constitution as supreme law they sould allow Lakin discovery.

[BuckeyeTexan]

BP2,

Your taking joy in LTC Lakin’s misguided actions disgusts me. It’s unconscionable to sit back and smile while an honorable, decorated military officer makes the biggest mistake of his life all for naught. Your political agenda appears to trump your basic human decency. This man has put his life on the line for our freedoms many times and I will not take joy in this sad affair. Neither should you.

Tex

[OldDeckHand]

"The Deployment order required the legal authority of the president. If he is not eligible according to the terms of the constitution, the surge order does not have the authority of POTUS."

No, that's not accurate, at all. This is well-settled law. It's called the de facto officer doctrine and it says "The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.". This doctrine has been incorporated into military law for decades - see: US v. Jette and US v. Watson. Of course, none of this will even be considered by the court because the military judge will rule Obama's eligibility irrelevant. That ruling will be upheld on appeal, easily.

"Since lakin has been charged he already has standing, and can even proceed separately with a Quo Warranto suit in the DC courts. I doubt he will do so."

Obama is neither the issuer of the order that was disobeyed, nor was he the convening authority for Lakin's court-martial. Why would a prerogative writ be granted in such circumstances?

"Since Lakin is the defendant, he has to be proved guilty of disobeying an legal order from a local commander who has the legal authority to give it from the chain of command."

This statement doesn't acknowledge that in a military court of law, orders are presumptively legal. Do you know what presumptively legal means, and how that affects burden of proof? For the government to prove its case, all it has to demonstrate is that Lakin missed a movement, and that he disobeyed an order(s). These are two charges that are proved EASILY.

"The result will depend on the Military Judges and their views of the role of the constitution. If they believe in the constitution as supreme law they sould allow Lakin discovery."

This is how liberals think - they want jurists to ignore statutory law, case law and principles of jurisprudence to arrive at the conclusion that that feel is just, rather than legal. This is not how a competent and conservative trial court works.

[BuckeyeTexan]

ODH,

Some birthers claim that LTC Lakin expects to be convicted and is doing this to obtain standing to initiate a quo warranto proceeding in D.C. For the sake of discussion, assume that to be true.

Could the prosecution argue that LTC Lakin disobeyed his orders specifically to achieve a political agenda. If so, how would you expect that to affect this proceeding and his sentence once convicted?

Would you then expect a D.C. District Court judge to deny his petition to initiate a quo warranto on the basis of standing because his injury was a direct (and intentional) result of his own actions and not that of Obama’s?

This is going to blow up in LTC Lakin’s face. The attorneys counseling him are wretches for advising him to do this. His best interest is not their objective.

(Anyone with experience in court martial proceedings and the UCMJ, please feel free to address this post. I’m interested in all opinions on the matter.)

[BP2]

The order of his brigade commander is a lawful order, and I cannot imagine how the defense can demonstrate that it was not.

LOL, didn't you learn anything in Basic Training, son? It's called a Chain of Command:

Lakin's brigade commander's Command Authority stems from General Casey's Command Authority, which comes down from the SECDEF (another non-elected official) -and- the POTUS/CinC, comprising the NCA.

Only ONE of these people in the Chain of Command is NOT appointed to his post, and thus can also be removed by the same man at the top — Barack Hussien Obama.

The entire reason Lt Col Lakin is deploying in the FIRST PLACE is because his (defacto) Commander-in-Chief has issued Military Directives to continue fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
haven't you been watching the news?!

It's laughable to watch you SHAMELESS Liberals change the rules of your own disingenuous Blame Game:

[BuckeyeTexan]

That’s exactly your problem. You think this is a game. This is a man’s career at stake. Obama will not suffer one bit from this whole affair.

[OldDeckHand]

"Some birthers claim that LTC Lakin expects to be convicted and is doing this to obtain standing to initiate a quo warranto proceeding in D.C. For the sake of discussion, assume that to be true."

If that's true, it's the dumbest reason I have ever heard for committing an (alleged) crime. The stupidity alone is criminal.

"Could the prosecution argue that LTC Lakin disobeyed his orders specifically to achieve a political agenda. If so, how would you expect that to affect this proceeding and his sentence once convicted?"

Why complicate an extraordinarily easy prosecution with unnecessary and irrelevant allegations. The alleged actions stand on their own. Lakin's motivation is immaterial.

"Would you then expect a D.C. District Court judge to deny his petition to initiate a quo warranto on the basis of standing because his injury was a direct (and intentional) result of his own actions and not that of Obama’s?"

Do you mean before or after he stops laughing, 'cause that's going to take some time? Obama is neither the issuer of the order(s) in question, nor is he the investigating officer, the trial counsel or the convening authority of the court-martial.

'This is going to blow up in LTC Lakin’s face. The attorneys counseling him are wretches for advising him to do this. His best interest is not their objective."

I would say in the interests of fairness, it's impossible to know precisely what advice his counsel has offered, or how much of it Lakin has accepted. But, to speak generally, if any attorney advocated this course of action, especially with the hope that a sentence of confinement from a conviction at GCM will open the door to a prerogative writ, is nothing short of malpractice. Of course, we have no idea if that's the actual legal advice he's received. I hope it is not.

[El Gato]

Some birthers claim that LTC Lakin expects to be convicted and is doing this to obtain standing to initiate a quo warranto proceeding in D.C. For the sake of discussion, assume that to be true.

The point of Lakin's cae is not to remove the de facto President, that would have to be left to other cases or actors. The point is to determine, as a matter of law, if Barack Hussein Obama is in fact eligible to the office of President, and thus de jure President, able to issue lawful orders.

Thus quo warrento proceeding would not be a direct outcome of this case.

[BuckeyeTexan]

See post #139. That’s the impetus of my questions.