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 ...
What kind of “lawyer” allows his client to testify to privileged information, olddeck?
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/14/united-states-v-lakin-liveblogging-day-one-wrap/
United States v. Lakin liveblogging, Day One wrap
By Christopher Mathews, December 14, 2010
The prosecution has now rested and the court-martial is in recess until tomorrow. Some highlights from today:
According to LTC Lakin, his former counsel, Paul Rolf Jensen, told him that although disobeying military orders would be consistent with Lakin’s thinking, he specifically said “I can’t ethically advise you to disobey” those orders.
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? ...
Thanks. Commanders have an obligation to try to protect soldiers from themselves. Sounds like that was what COL Roberts was trying to do.
No, I know full well why ignorant folks do it. Ignorance, mostly.
video of the National Guard disarming the Citizens of New Orleans after Katrina
Yeah. We in Houston wound up with most of the Katrina folks.
Charming little cherubs, the lot of 'em.
None of this has to do with Obama's birth certificate or Obama support or Lakin.
You're branching off into other issues, which is fine I guess.
It makes no kind of point, but fills up the thread.
As a lawyer, I have often had clients waive the attorney-client privilege. If you are going to defend against a claim by saying that you were relying on the advice of counsel when you did what you did (which is evidence that you were acting in good faith and without criminal intent), you have to waive the privilege in order to disclose the advice.
It appears to be part of LTC Lakin's strategy here to rely on the advice of his former counsel in mitigation of punishment. From the blog post linked above:
"During the providence inquiry, there was significant questioning concerning the legal advice that LTC Lakin had received. Judge Lind asked LTC Lakin’s civilian counsel — Neal Puckett — whether he was comfortable with her making such inquiries. He replied that he encouraged it. He said the defense would be raising the legal advice given to LTC Lakin (probably during the sentencing case), so it would be better to address it during the providence inquiry than have to reopen the providence inquiry when the defense raised it later."
There are a couple here that have always been on the side that Obama’s eligibility should not be questioned, in fact they devote their posting efforts to ensuring that that point of view is predominant on these threads.
I won’t point them out for you, if you have been following this issue from the beginning you would already know who they are...
Probably the kind of lawyer who is either attempting to build a foundation of ineffective assistance of counsel for later appeal, or preparing the jury panel for some explanation at allocution that will perhaps mitigate exposure at sentencing. Without the benefit of reading the trial transcript (and without omnipotence with respect to precisely what his prior counsel said), it's tough to tell just from Judge Matthews' one or two sentence description.
Well, people who understand the Constitution understand that Vattel's "clear and concise" definition is not the Law of the Land.
I find it interesting that Lakin's wife and children are not at the trial with him.
Not at all, the conversation has drifted I'll admit but you participated....that's what you do on these threads after all. Those who are following this thread can see it all too clearly.
Yeah. We in Houston wound up with most of the Katrina folks. Charming little cherubs, the lot of 'em.
You have once again evaded the question, let me be concise here, DO YOU SUPPORT IT?
You stated emphatically, using your son as an example that it could not yet I pointed it already has happened and you will not address that.
Will you support or condemn those in the Military who disobey orders to engage the American Citizens?
May as well expose the other side of the CAAFLOG guy who is a leftist:
- - - - -
"Now, if you were to dig a little deeper(no pun intended) you will find out that Col. Sullivan was the managing attorney of the ACLU's Baltimore office from 1997 to 2003. Col. Sullivan was a champion for homosexual and sodomy rights and fought hard(again, no pun intended) to keep the Ten Commandments off all public property. Note: Col. Sullivan did not bring up the rear in the sodomy case but instead was the lead attorney of the case(and again, no pun intended).
Sullivan was also the chief defense counsel for the Gitmo Jihadists. Yes, he was the chief defender of the 7th Century Throwbacks that would cut off his head quicker than he can publish a hit-piece on LTC Lakin.
I find it a bit hypocritical that Col. Sullivan spent a lot time crying about how the Jihadists were not getting fair trials under the military tribunals and now spends some of his time championing the fact that LTC Lakin himself is not getting a fair trial in his court-martial. Nevermind that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court-martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his defense."
"Bonus: The audio below is Col. Sullivan speaking with Amnesty International, praising them and talking about the Jihadists not getting fair trials.
Sources for the info above can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here".
-end snip-
Well, if nothing else, Roberts proves himself to be a man of considerable restraint. I know PLENTY of bird colonels who would have been apoplectic at such insubordination, ESPECIALLY if that insubordination was communicated through an intermediary, like the XO. That statement alone could have been a career-ender. I knew a commander who was passed over because he made the mistake of sarcastically asking the ship's captain if "he was serious" when he issued a duty-change order.
Maybe Roberts cut him some slack because he was a medical officer.
Politijab it up America’s ass is calling out for their missing idiot FR troll.....using Drew68 as their call sign.
Who are you to tell others what to say? Aren’t you the bossy a$$. Be glad I’m not butter, I would tell you what to do and where to go. I didn’t realize you now owned FR and were now the boss. I’m not sticking up for butter or anyone and I’m not taking a side or stating my opinion on this thread, but when I saw your arrogant, bossy comment, I just couldn’t help myself. You remind me of Obongo.
*snip*
After requesting assignment to a combat unit so he could serve in Afghanistan, Lakin was required in his orders to produce his birth certificate.
According to Puckett, Lakin’s conscience was troubled when he realized Obama, the man responsible for sending American servicemen to Afghanistan, has never produced his own birth certificate.
Lakin deliberately disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan again because of doubts that Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office.
“He’s stuck in a situation where he has disobeyed military orders, those orders issued from military authority, and the army is not allowing him to look beyond that,” said Puckett. “That’s why he’s going to court martial. ... Our job will be to minimize that punishment and allow him to move forward in a way that is not damaging to his family.”
Puckett characterized Lakin’s disobedience as “courageous” and an act of “civil disobedience.”
“He acknowledges responsibility for his decisions he made and he’s made them courageously. He’s sort of engaging in classic civil disobedience. He’s saying ‘I am acting in accordance with my conscience. My conscience will not let me do this unless I find out certain information.’
He knew from the very beginning this could cause him personal harm, That’s true courage. It’s moral courage, it’s physical courage. You have to admire him for that.
“The goal we would all like to have is to be acquitted of charges, but sometimes the evidence or the facts or the circs don’t allow for that,” said Puckett. “The next level of defense for someone who cannot be acquitted under the evidence is to achieve the best possible outcome under the circumstances.
“The prosecution is really out to get him,” Puckett added. “They really trumped up the charges higher than they needed to be.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=239605
Can anyone decipher Puckett’s last statement as to what
harder than typical process or charges were levied ?
Excellent find.
Well isn’t THAT interesting.
...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.
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.