No, Lakin was charged with disobeying a LAWFUL ORDER.
And Driscoll refused to let Lakin get evidence regarding whether the order was lawful - by saying that Lakin would still be guilty, EVEN IF.
Just like the military said this other guy would still be guilty EVEN IF he didn’t escape custody of the guy they said he escaped custody from.
The point is that an “EVEN IF” argument is a violation of due process. They have to allow the accused to defend himself from the ACTUAL CHARGES.
The only way it makes any difference whether Lakin disobeyed an order from the brigade commanders is if those orders were LAWFUL. If the military uses an “EVEN IF” argument to deny Lakin the ability to prove that the orders were not lawful - based upon the “political question” issue or the “de facto officer doctrine” (as Driscoll relied uppon) - they are denying Lakin due process, by refusing to let him defend himself from the actual charges.
About the de facto officer doctrine. In past cases all the way up to the Supreme Court, The defendants charged that the officers in questions had no authority after the facts. As in finding out later. In Obama's case, Lakin charges that Obama is a de facto president, which he has questioned for about 2 years.
The Courts would have to expand and conflate their arguments to cover Obama from what they have said in their past opinions.