Main Menu

The two faces of Terry Lakin

Lt. Col. Terry Lakin

Terry Lakin seems a complicated character.

On the one hand he is a sympathetic figure. He is willing to jeopardize his career to save the country from a constitutional crisis. He gets good marks for 18 years of military service including deployment to a war zone. He is quiet and deferential, moved to tears as he talks about the bad choices he made. He said he made the wrong call, thinking that the Army was the place to find answers to his questions about President Obama.

On the other hand there is another very self-centered. He takes pre-deployment leave, knowing full well that he intended to refuse to deploy. And finally, he showed no regard for the doctor that was going to be snatched away at short notice to replace him.

Don Quixote

I don’t know how to sort this all out, but I will note that Lakin seems to have some mental problems. I don’t mean that he’s crazy because he’s a birther. He’s got problems because he somehow thinks that he is the hero in a completely unrealistic scenario that exists in his head. He certainly had legal advice that told him that the Army would never let him carry out that scenario, but yet he put his wife and children (notably absent from the court proceedings) in financial jeopardy anyway. Don Quixote definitely comes to mind.

26 Responses to The two faces of Terry Lakin

  1. avatar
    gorefan December 15, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    “This Lakin tells the Jury that he was wrong to disobey his orders, and turns around and gives an interview the same day saying he would do it again.”

    Is this correct? Or is it a reference to the “Bary Farber show” interview that was played in court?

    Some comments were made suggesting that this was an interview he and Jenson gave in September.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    gorefan: “This Lakin tells the Jury that he was wrong to disobey his orders, and turns around and gives an interview the same day saying he would do it again.”

    Is this correct? Or is it a reference to the “Bary Farber show” interview that was played in court?

    Some comments were made suggesting that this was an interview he and Jenson gave in September.

    I may have got that wrong. I will remove it from my article until confirmed.

  3. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 15, 2010 at 10:34 pm #

    Don Quixote is more or less the archetype of a birther hero, isn’t he? It’s all about never giving up or acknowledging your (repeated) defeats…

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Don Quixote is more or less the archetype of a birther hero, isn’t he? It’s all about never giving up or acknowledging your (repeated) defeats…

    I can see that. In one other respect, birthers are the reverse of Quixote who enobled the profane, while they defame the noble.

  5. avatar
    charo December 15, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    Doc,

    Doesn’t it seem like he really understood his situation only when he got new representation? His disrespectful remark seems out of the norm of his past conduct. Maybe he really doesn’t even remember that he said it. (I am not excsuing the comment.) Everyone in his chain of command would have known what was going on, and it would seem to me, that he was feeling the pressure. He might have been lashing out, but only that one comment was presented. I thought I remember reading that he was upset about a mental evaluation ordered. That would have likely been ordered by his commanding officer.

    Here is an alleged time line from Lakin himself that leaves off in November 2009 from a link that I will omit:

    Lakin timeline of concern of CinC’s Constitutional eligibility:

    OCT/NOV/DEC 2008
    October was looking at volunteering to deploy with my old unit that was deploying to Iraq. Started to learn more about the issues and concerns. Stopped my efforts to volunteer to deploy.

    JAN/FEB/MAR 2009
    Sought out opinions from supervisors, friends and family.
    Called Legal Assistance at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. They returned my call. I discussed with some staff member. He stated he needed to research a little and would call me back. I called at least 1-2x/per week for about 3 weeks with leaving messages on voice mail or not getting an answer.
    Proceeded to submit an Article 138 through my Company Commander against BHO. This was submitted at the end of March 2009.
    Received official reply 11 June 2009 from Company Commander. In conversing with him, he said I had the right to submit Congressional complaints.

    APR
    24 April submitted question to Sens Alexander and Corker, and Congressman Wamp.

    MAY/JUNE/JUL 2009
    Sought further advice from friends.
    June Received email response from Senator Alexander’s staffer. Conversed with Congressman Wamp’s staffer (Steele) several times. Steele submitted complaint to Office of Military Legislative Affairs.

    JUL 2009
    Change of jobs to work at the Pentagon
    AUG/SEP/OCT/NOV
    Continued to dialogue with friends, leaders, supervisors regarding my concerns and seeking advice.

    NOV 20, 2009
    Submitted Art. 138 against GEN Casey, Army Chief of Staff. Reply 11 DEC

    I thought it would provide a glimpse into his thinking, but I can’t vouch for its authenticity.

  6. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 15, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I can see that. In one other respect, birthers are the reverse of Quixote who enobled the profane, while they defame the noble.

    Nicely put.

  7. avatar
    richCares December 15, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    Lakin used internet blogs to form his opinion and never once checked them for factual content. His silly conclusions cost him his job, his prestigue, his money and also affected his wife and children. What an idiot, all he’s done is confirm that hating Obama causes brain damage. What does he tell his wife and children?

  8. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP December 16, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    They all have delusions of grandeur. Listen to Kerchner, he’s the same way, so is Taitz and Berg. They all mistakenly see themselves as patriots who are going to save America by bringing down the “evil” black man in the White House. They somehow think they have a right to just void the constitutional rights of 69.5 million Americans just because they didn’t vote for him.

  9. avatar
    G December 16, 2010 at 12:56 am #

    charo: Doesn’t it seem like he really understood his situation only when he got new representation? His disrespectful remark seems out of the norm of his past conduct. Maybe he really doesn’t even remember that he said it. (I am not excsuing the comment.) Everyone in his chain of command would have known what was going on, and it would seem to me, that he was feeling the pressure. He might have been lashing out, but only that one comment was presented. I thought I remember reading that he was upset about a mental evaluation ordered. That would have likely been ordered by his commanding officer.

    He was most definitely being used as a pawn (both for fund raising & propaganda) by his former attorney, Jensen and that RW/birther outlet “Saveourfreedoms”.

    But he, as he testified himself, was a willing and eager participant in playing his role for them. So yes, he got a lot of bad advice from them and from birther sites. But he’s responsible and accountable for his own actions and he willfully and until recently was arrogantly proud to play the fool.

    Amazing how often the guilty only feel “bad” or “regret” their actions at the point that they have to face the music for what they’ve done…

    So, no sympathies here. I say throw the book at him with maximum penalties and send a strong example to others as a reminder that personal/political views cannot be used as an excuse to disobey orders in the military.

  10. avatar
    SueDB December 16, 2010 at 1:20 am #

    It is considered terribly bad form for an 0-5 LTC to lie at this point in time.

  11. avatar
    gorefan December 16, 2010 at 1:36 am #

    G: So yes, he got a lot of bad advice from them and from birther sites.

    In his unsworn testimony, he said that McCain provided his BC, that the President’s family members said that he was born in Kenya.

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/16/lakin-court-martial-day-two-part-v/

    Both of these are untrue – McCain let one reporter look at his BC for a short time period and it was never publicly released. The President’s Kenyan relatives all say he was born in Hawaii.

    So he was going 100% on internet rumors. And for that he throw away his career.

    Damn fool

    “Are you a fool or a mutineer? There’s no third possibility.”

  12. avatar
    Sean December 16, 2010 at 3:51 am #

    Lakin should have just taken an extended leave of absence until we get a White President.

  13. avatar
    Bovril December 16, 2010 at 6:08 am #

    The problem for LAkin is unlike Quixote, he has no couterprt to Sancho Panza to show him the realities of the world and protect him from himself.

    He had folks more akin to Loki.

  14. avatar
    kimba December 16, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    Even in his testimony yesterday he talked about worrying about his country. I don’t believe he saw the light and that’s why he got new counsel. He’s either still full on birther or still playing that role to try to garner sympathy and a more lenient sentence. I think someone in his family realized he was brunt toast and retained Puckett to get him the best deal possible and was somehow able to convince Lakin to cooperate. Perhaps it was his wife’s last stand. It’s really odd she’s not at the court martial. I agree he has some kind of mental problem. With the crying and the insisting he’s been soul-searching and seeking advice and being so concerned, my guess is a touch of histrionic personality. He doesn’t seem to be a very emotionally mature person, despite his education. I’ve been suspicious the birtherism was an excuse to try to get out of going to a war zone and he’s continued to play the role because he got lots of attention from birtherdom.

  15. avatar
    charo December 16, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    kimba: I think someone in his family realized he was brunt toast and retained Puckett to get him the best deal possible and was somehow able to convince Lakin to cooperate.

    In a radio interview, Mr. Puckett said that the two of them met at a political function and Lakin asked Puckett to represent him. Puckett agreed. The radio link is the subject of a post.

    kimba: With the crying and the insisting he’s been soul-searching and seeking advice and being so concerned, my guess is a touch of histrionic personality.

    If there are mental issues, they have to be recent. Something would have shown up in his past record. His CO testified that one of his four concerns initially was whether or not Lakin was suffering from PTSD. That is in the testimony. That doesn’t seem likely, but obviously, his CO didn’t see a history.

  16. avatar
    Black Lion December 16, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    charo: Doc,Doesn’t it seem like he really understood his situation only when he got new representation? His disrespectful remark seems out of the norm of his past conduct. Maybe he really doesn’t even remember that he said it. (I am not excsuing the comment.) Everyone in his chain of command would have known what was going on, and it would seem to me, that he was feeling the pressure. He might have been lashing out, but only that one comment was presented. I thought I remember reading that he was upset about a mental evaluation ordered. That would have likely been ordered by his commanding officer. Here is an alleged time line from Lakin himself that leaves off in November 2009 from a link that I will omit:Lakin timeline of concern of CinC’s Constitutional eligibility:OCT/NOV/DEC 2008 October was looking at volunteering to deploy with my old unit that was deploying to Iraq. Started to learn more about the issues and concerns. Stopped my efforts to volunteer to deploy.JAN/FEB/MAR 2009 Sought out opinions from supervisors, friends and family. Called Legal Assistance at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. They returned my call. I discussed with some staff member. He stated he needed to research a little and would call me back. I called at least 1-2x/per week for about 3 weeks with leaving messages on voice mail or not getting an answer. Proceeded to submit an Article 138 through my Company Commander against BHO. This was submitted at the end of March 2009. Received official reply 11 June 2009 from Company Commander. In conversing with him, he said I had the right to submit Congressional complaints.APR 24 April submitted question to Sens Alexander and Corker, and Congressman Wamp.MAY/JUNE/JUL 2009 Sought further advice from friends. June Received email response from Senator Alexander’s staffer. Conversed with Congressman Wamp’s staffer (Steele) several times. Steele submitted complaint to Office of Military Legislative Affairs.JUL 2009 Change of jobs to work at the PentagonAUG/SEP/OCT/NOV Continued to dialogue with friends, leaders, supervisors regarding my concerns and seeking advice.NOV 20, 2009 Submitted Art. 138 against GEN Casey, Army Chief of Staff. Reply 11 DECI thought it would provide a glimpse into his thinking, but I can’t vouch for its authenticity.

    The link or source would help asertain the veracity of the so called Lakin timeline. Why omit it? Is it from one of those “pro birther” site that are “all in” for Lakin, at the expense of actually telling the truth? However I suspect it is from his own safeguard our freedom site where whatever is written is to be taken with a grain of salt….

  17. avatar
    Black Lion December 16, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    More Post and Fail “analysis” commentary…It is amazing how shocked they are that Lakin was found guilty and pled guilty even though it was predicted here and on CAAFlog months ago…I guess when you get your news from the Post and Fail, WND, or from blogs like Free Republic or Dr, Kate, your view of reality is skewed….

    Outraged says:
    Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM
    I don’t know how much to believe that commie Col. Sullivan, but according to him, Lakin did speak during sentencing. He said if he had it to do over again, he’d deploy, and would deploy tomorrow if he could. He supposedly was in tears. I can’t believe any Col. in the US Army would cry in public to save his own hide. That’s just despicable. Walt Fitzpatrick didn’t cry at his trial, or EVER. He’s rotting in the Monroe County Dungeon and he’s not crying.

    Troy says:
    Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 11:52 AM
    Puckett is completely dishonorable if he persuaded Lakin to plea guilty to disobeying “lawful orders” via a backroom deal….There is no other explanation for yesterday’s 360 degree turn of events.

    Lakin’s ONLY chance of ever restoring what’s left of his military career was to stick to his guns.

    Whatever “plea deal” was conjured up between Puckett and military brass will NOT be honored….They are going to throw him in prison and dishonorably discharge him….He is going to lose absolutely everything because he listened to a piece of s**t excuse for an attorney.

    Pleading guilty to ANYTHING was the biggest mistake he could have ever made!

    He’s now without any means of recourse.

    Lakin is a smart guy and I’ll never be able to figure out what could have possibly made him hang himself in court….Did they threaten to kill his family?…WTF???

    And talking about individuals needing to take some medication, more “analysis” by our non lawyer friend Jedi Pauly…

    Jedi Pauly says:
    Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 5:26 PM
    Sorry Troy but you are way wrong and way off base. You are the only one espousing opinions because It is only your opinion that I am espousing an opinion. In fact, I am just describing a factual objective observation of nature that was also realized and discovered in 1776 and written into the Declaration of Independence that Sovereign Political Rights are Natural Rights that are inherited from males. This is an observable natural reality that is dictated by the males natural superiority in strength and aggression that I am just describing. Sorry if you cannot perceive reality the way it is.

    It is a fundamental principle of nature, independent of man’s beliefs or opinions, that males and females are not “equal” under the Positive Law jurisdiction when it comes to POLITICAL RIGHTS that are in fact recognized for thousands of years in hundreds of countries to be inherited and insured by the males who are naturally physically stronger than the females. It is only a modern occurrence in the last 90 years that females have even had any recognition of their natural political rights recognized and protected, incidentally by MALES who created and consented to the protections (19th Amendment). That fact alone, that it is males who created and extended the recognition and protection to females, that they may enjoy their natural political rights that are inherited equal to the males, aught to clue you in to the natural order of reality. Why do you think Vat says:

    “§215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country. It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;” [Emphasis added]

    and

    “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights [means that both male and female children gets their citizenship and natural political rights from their fathers]. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society [now it is implied that Mr. Vattel is only talking about the male citizens who enter into society], reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;…” [Emphasis added]

    The children naturally follow and succeed to their father’s rights (not mother’s) as declared by Vattel who is only reporting an observation of nature (“by the law of nature alone”) not stating an opinion. It is obvious that you do not understand Natural Law or Vattel. And, you say that I am making this up as my opinion? I don’t think so or else Vattel would not be saying the same thing that I have been trying to teach you. Children naturally follow the political rights of their fathers because a mother can not physically prevent it but a father can physically insure it against a mother or anyone else.

    I am sorry Troy but your ability to perceive natural reality is what is at issue here not my stated facts of Nature and Law that I am just describing and not inventing. I stand by my writings and do not accept your arguments which I find to be baseless when they are critically examined by observing natural reality and nature.

    I know when I am asserting an opinion or just describing a natural fact and that is all I have ever done is describe natural reality. You fail to take into account the physical differences between males and females that is a natural fact of nature that has influenced the Positive Law jurisdiction to recognize that both males and females must secure recognition of their equal natural political rights away from other males who would deny those natural rights. That is the way Nature and History and Law is whether or not you accept it.

    If Sovereign citizen mothers can pass on equal sovereign political authority to their children, the same as the sovereign citizen father can, then I guess Obama would have to qualify under Article II and be a legitimate President because he would inherit a sovereign political authority as a U.S. citizen from his U.S. citizen mom, no matter what the statutes say or how old she was, and his foreign dad would not matter because one recognized sovereign jurisdiction (foreign dad) cannot trump another (U.S, mom) and the 14 year residency rule of Article II would sever any political loyalties due to his foreign dad.

    I cannot even begin to address your incapacity to perceive reality (cognitive dissonance) and the natural logic of the situation (probably because you refuse to give up your wrong notion that it requires BOTH parents to be citizens and born on the soil of the U.S.) but I would suggest you give it some more thought as it is clear by Natural Law scientific principles, and by natural reason alone, that a mother’s citizenship and place of birth are irrelevant for Article II purposes but a father is essential and required.

    Natural Law is an objective science based on observed facts of nature and natural physical principles. Why do you think that Vattel is described as the foremost authority in his time on Natural Law THEORY? The term THEORY means a scientific THEORY not supposition according to mankind’s opinions. You clearly do not understand the Natural Law jurisdiction, Sovereignty, the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Article II, Science, etc. I would suggest abandoning your wrong headed insistence that it requires both parents to be citizens which is causing you a psychological dissonance that is preventing you from accepting reality and causing you to falsely accuse me of inventing opinions, that you must believe is the case, in order to obtain emotional placation in your self induced confused mind caused by your false belief in the correctness of your position.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/12/15/is-the-u-s-now-ruled-by-military-dictatorship/comment-page-1/#comment-35786

  18. avatar
    misha December 16, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    “Terry Lakin seems a complicated character.”

    He’s just a schmuck.

  19. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 10:07 am #

    Black Lion: The link or source would help asertain the veracity of the so called Lakin timeline.

    The testimony bore out the information as stated in the time line.

  20. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    charo: The testimony bore out the information as stated in the time line.

    Not quite…I was just curious why you were adverse to posting the source of the information. Wasit because it came directly from Lakin’s camp? Anyway it was easy to find. It was originally posted over at the Lakinista webiste safeguard our traitors….

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf03-lakintimelineofconcern.pdf

    Then it was crossposted all over the Free Republic where the freepers went crazy for it….

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2635498/posts?page=273

    The bottom line all this so called timeline can be used for is propaganda by Lakin. We have no objective proof that this was the way events transpired. Either way if we do take it as fact we can see at any time Lakin could have resigned his commission, especially after he was informed that the order to deploy was lawful. So this was not a spur of the moment decision by Lakin to screw over his unit by deserting them, he seemed to be planning to do it for awhile.

    So the bottom line is that Lakin made a stupid decision based on non-factual information. Which cost him his career. He understood his situation but decided that he knew more that the Army, Congress, and everyone else. And it cost him big time…

  21. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    Black Lion: Not quite…I was just curious why you were adverse to posting the source of the information.

    I knew it was easily accessible. Somebody here objected to a site that I linked once so now if I find something from a site that I know others will object to, I don’t link it. He testified to the information and I don’t recall any rebuttal to what he says he did.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 17, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    The article has been changed to remove the “you had your chance” remark as there is no evidence that specifically attributes this to Lakin. This is an evidence-based blog, not a smear sheet.

  23. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    charo:
    I knew it was easily accessible.Somebody here objected to a site that I linked once so now if I find something from a site that I know others will object to, I don’t link it. He testified to the information and I don’t recall any rebuttal to what he says he did.

    It was just my opinion, charo. I believe in the expression, “consider the source.”

  24. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    Black Lion: Troy says: There is no other explanation for yesterday’s 360 degree turn of events.

    360 degrees? That’s pretty funny.

  25. avatar
    misha December 17, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    Majority Will: 360 degrees? That’s pretty funny.

    Birthers are always back where they started.

  26. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm #

    Majority Will:
    360 degrees? That’s pretty funny.

    While being completely accurate…