Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Lakin Sentenced
1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.
He could have preserved that issue for appeal by pleading not guilty to Charge II, but he pleaded guilty and testified, under oath, that his orders were legal and that he knew they were legal. So he has waived that issue forever, as far as the courts are concerned. And you cannot "file suit" in civil court to challenge a criminal conviction that hasn't been reversed on appeal.
The lawfulness of a military order is a matter of law for the MJ to decide. Lakin made his case. It was predictably uncompelling and was rejected during pre-trial motions, and the rejection was well founded in military law.
He's not going to "file suit" over anything. He will have an automatic appeal to ACCA. That chances of him prevailing on appeal are the same as his chances of prevailing at GCM - precisely 0.00%. The chances of CAAF granting review on this case is slightly better - 0.001%. Once they refuse to grant review, it's over. That's it. Of course, Lakin isn't going to be confined for nearly the requisite time for a habeas petition.
“She may soon comment about it on her Facebook page.”
If it is to condemn his persecution...that would be good. I would also like her to clearly state she opposes repealing DADT.
That's not exactly what she said, although what she did say is still poorly reasoned. She said the CinC shares authority over the military with Congress and the SecDef, and that these bodies exercise independent authority over the military. The problem is that two of the charges were not inseparable from the CinC, nor does the co-authority of Congress or SecDef substitute for the authrotiy of the CinC. He doesn't have to be removed in order for his putative authority to be invalidated.
And a court martial board lacks Constitutional authority to investigate or act. THAT RESPONSIBILITY lies with Congress!
This is factually incorrect. The judicial system has authority over cases of law, equity and controversies. Second, the Constitution prescribes no power to Congress over the vetting of presidential eligiblity or the establishment of citizenship. The court had no expectation of removing the president from office, only in establishing whether this officer was legally justified in disobeying orders emanating from illegitimate chain of command compromised at the very top by a constitutionally ineligible CinC.
But she wouldn’t allow Lakin to show any evidence that Obama is not Constitutionally able to “act as President”.
She disallowed that because she said it was “irrelevant”. Just as I said. She claimed that whether or not there is combat troop authorization from a Constitutionally-authorized President is irrelevant to the combat deployment orders.
It can also be an essential element that can be presented for a jury to decide. Either way, an accused is still supposed to be able to challenge lawfulness in the trial.
>What do you mean specifically by “defend and UPHOLD . . . against ALL enemies”?
Just that; all who would seek to destroy, subvert, or invalidate the Constitution. This is not JUST external enemies, but internal ones such as a Congress which passes ex post facto, bill of attainder, tax laws (AIG/bailout-bonus recipients); a supreme court that declares that the government can size your property not for failing to pay taxes, but because they ‘project’ that they could get more “if things were different” (Kelo v. New London); and a military command which has been utterly negligent in regards to “protection from invasion” [US Constitution, Art 4, Sec 4].
>In your opinion is Hussein an enemy that our Armed Forces are duty bound, constitutionally bound to overthrow?
Let’s expand on that last one I mentioned, “protection from invasion.” The actual text of the US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4 is as follows:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of
the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic Violence.
AZ in particular could claim invasion; there are whole areas in AZ that are “Off Limits” because the Mexican drug-gangs are operating there. Let me repeat that: there are places in Arizona where a Citizen cannot go because of the activities of foreign nationals!
Now, what would you say is some upstanding General somewhere said “enough of this crap!” and ordered his men to Arizona’s southern border for battle?
Would he be doing his duty? Or would he be overstepping his authority?
Would he be crazy, and “provoking a war”? Or would he be upholding his oath to the Constitution?
He never said that about his deployment orders, if I’m understanding correctly. He pleaded not guilty to that.
First, thanks for the information regarding whether the conviction will be treated as a felony.
Second, I was just reading the DEA regulations and cases, and from what I read, it’s similar to your description of state law. That is, a person will lose DEA number if he has a GCM conviction that relates to distribution or misuse of drugs (in other words, a violation of federal or state drug laws). I don’t think a GCM conviction for other reasons will disqualify him from getting DEA number.
He only got 6 months. He'll be out of Leavenworth long before the next president enters office.
Flashback:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Army judge tells officer: Shut up and be punished!
Defense counsel warns ‘fair trial’ impossible under military rulings
Posted: September 28, 2010
###
An Army judge has made it “impossible” for a career medical officer to get a fair hearing on charges he refused to deploy to Afghanistan because of concern that obeying orders in the chain of command under an ineligible commander in chief would be illegal, his attorney says.
The rulings came today from Col. Denise Lind, who, in effect, told Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to pound sand. Rocks actually. He faces up to four years at hard labor if convicted in his case.
*snip*
In her decision, Lind, acting as judge in the case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin planned to make in his defense: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying the order and contend that it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders that he believes to be illegal.
The defense also planned to call as witnesses Ambassador Alan Keyes and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. Keyes was to explain the constitutional issues involved in the case, and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.
Lind was following up on her rulings from Sept. 2, when she rejected defense plans to introduce evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility.
The defense also requested for Lakin’s defense documents referencing Obama’s birth records on file in Hawaii, but Lind refused to allow that either, noting that providing the documents might prove “embarrassing” to Obama.
((there’s apparently some question about the definition
of the term ‘embarrassing’ in this context ))
“Our arms were cut off last time,” said Jensen. “Our legs are being cut off this time.”
In rejecting Lakin’s right to discovery of Obama birth documents, Lind joined a host of other judges – in civilian courts – who have refused to allow plaintiffs suing Obama to obtain his birth records. Jensen told WND he had hoped the court would permit Lakin to go to discovery, because Lakin is the defendant in a criminal case and has the right to mount a full defense.
In objecting to the participation of Keyes and McInerney and the presentation of Lakin’s planned arguments, the prosecution argued that all issues related to Obama’s eligibility, Lakin’s motives and the good-soldier doctrine were “irrelevant.”
“We have to have the opportunity to present some defense!” Jensen countered.
Just before Lind recessed the hearing to prepare her decision, Jensen asked rhetorically whether the government intended to allow him to call any witnesses at all and thundered, “This is all we had left!”
Jensen’s pleas fell on deaf ears. Less than two hours after the court recessed following arguments, Lind returned to the bench to render a lengthy, detailed decision. Reading in a dry monotone, Lind reaffirmed her Sept. 2 decision and ruled out discussions of motive and duty.
Lind, with her rulings, effectively has restricted the scope of Lakin’s trial to what the government wanted: the simple questions of whether the officer had received orders to deploy to Afghanistan and whether he complied.
Neither of these facts is in dispute
But Jensen said the trial will not end the case.
“We will look to appellate courts for justice. With these constraints it’s not possible here,” he said.
*snip*
Lind’s first round of censorship decisions came just days after a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons said the disclosure of Obama’s documentation is not just critical to Lakin’s defense, but to the preservation of the nation itself.
The vehement statements came in an affidavit from McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
McInerney, who retired in 1994 after serving as vice commander in chief of U.S. Air Force in Europe, commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing and assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, among other positions, said the chain-of-command issue is critical, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.
“Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution,” he said in the affidavit.
“There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States.
As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution.”
He explained “good order and discipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes under great adversity – whether an order is illegal.
“The president of the United States, as the commander in chief, is the source of all military authority,” he said.
“The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=209357
Lind ruling = September 2, 2010
You explain things so well. I think I’m going to shut up and just let you do the talking. If I can control myself. lol
Do we even know that Obama knew about this case? I do not know every courts martial that goes on in the Navy for example. I think he is scum but regardless of that it has nothing to do with the charges against this guy. The way to go about this issue would be get a conservative Senator who agrees with him and see if he could state his case to Congress. Many people speak to congress on a daily basis (perhaps exaggerated) but very often. That is the way to go not saying FU to your bosses who simply ask you to report to their offices. That was his biggest mistake. How does he know that seeing his superiors would not have ended up being a positive thing.
I didn’t think you would answer my question. I was right.
A bit late for all this. He made his decision and now he has to live with the repercussions.
As ButterZ says — Thank you!
He pleaded not guilty to missing movement on the basis that he had not been ordered to take that specific mode of transport. He was not charged with not deploying.
“But she wouldn’t allow Lakin to show any evidence that Obama is not Constitutionally able to “act as President”.”
And since all 50 states allowed Obama on the ballot, and a majority of voters voted for him, and the Electoral College voted for him, and Congress accepted the results without any dissent, and the Supreme Court swore Obama in as President, he IS THE PRESIDENT until someone with constitutional authority (Congress) acts to remove him.
THAT is why the birth certificate was irrelevant. Nothing on the birth certificate could impact the legality of the orders already given. At best, it could give cause to Congress to remove Obama, and THEN any subsequent orders would be illegal. But that would not make the orders already given to Lakin illegal, any more than it would repeal Obamacare.
Oh geesh, quick you are to praise harshness!
He went to a Congress-critter and high-level staffers and was told he had a legitimate concern but because the media ridicules the issue the Congress-critter wasn’t going to do anything about it.
Not only are we not governed by the rule of law, we are governed by Olbermann and Matthews. Can you believe this is really happening? Good Lord, preserve us all!
Good grief. NO IT CAN'T. You're entitled to your own opinion, but stop making crap up.
The Issue of lawfulness of an order is not an element decided by the court-martial members.Do you understand the difference between matters of law, and matters of fact?U.S. v. Deicher, 61 M.J. 313 (C.A.A.F. 2005) citing U.S. v New, 55 M.J. 95, 105 (C.A.A.F. 2001)
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.