Lakin charged

Lt. Col Terry Lakin has been formally charged with 4 counts of violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by failing to report for duty.

Lakin disobeyed orders in order to force a court martial which he believes will further his cause of ousting President Obama from office.

LTC LAKIN CHARGED – Chargesheet – apf-14-chargesheet by Jack Ryan

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Birthers Behaving Badly, Crimes, Terry Lakin. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Lakin charged

  1. sarina says:

    Another birther bites the dust!

  2. richcares says:

    He fell for the birther crap hook line and sinker, he’s not aware of what this will do to him, what an idiot. More proof that hating Obama causes brain damage.

  3. Mary Brown says:

    I feel for his family. They are in the military with him. My husband is astounded by these people who do not seem to understand their obligations. Neither do I.

  4. SluggoJD says:

    I seriously doubt he “fell for the birther crap…”

    He’s a big boy. Most likely, he’s just a stupid racist.

  5. Black Lion says:

    Great review….

    “What will be especially difficult for Lakin are the specifications alleging that he failed to obey the orders of his brigade commander, who happens to be Colonel Gordon R. Roberts. Colonel Roberts is the sole Medal of Honor recipient currently on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, and the contrast between his dedication to duty and the antics of Lieutenant Colonel Lakin will probably not sit well with the members. Lakin refused to accompany the 101st Airborne Division to Afghanistan; while Roberts, who was then a young enlisted man, won the Medal of Honor while assigned to the 101st in Vietnam.

    Lakin, will, of course, become a celebrity with the far right and will be portrayed as a martyr for their cause. He would be wise to recall the eventual fate of the last such tool employed by the right against a sitting President: Paula Jones, who wound up filling in for Amy Fisher in a celebrity boxing match with Tonya Harding … broadcast on FOX.”

  6. Rickey says:

    And of course one of the first things that the court-martial panel will do is rule that Obama’s eligibility to be president is irrelevant.

    If Lakin were allowed to raise the birther defense, it would open the door for any military officer to refuse to obey any orders on the grounds that a superior officer in the chain of command might be illegitimate. That’s never going to happen.

  7. Mary Brown says:

    Perhaps. But remember when you volunteer for military service you are joining an extremely diverse population. I found far less bigotry in the military then I have in civilian life. That being said it is possible.

  8. So i noticed the Patriots are asking folks for money for lakin’s defense. I’m not sure how court martials work in this regard – CAN you have non-military attorneys come in and defend on your behalf?

  9. Mary Brown says:

    You are so right. The problem is that so many of these right wing folks have never served and have some kind of notion that the military consists of civilians in uniform.

  10. Mary Brown says:

    I believe so. They can come in and work with the military defense attorney.

  11. Rickey says:

    The answer is yes, but only in concert with a JAG officer appointed by the Army. He gets the JAG officer for free, but the civilian attorney is Lakin’s financial responsibility.

    I believe that the JAG officer remains the lead attorney, and he or she could be placed in an awkward situation if Lakin’s civilian attorney insists upon arguing defenses which are untenable.

  12. Zixi of Ix says:

    I feel for his family. They are in the military with him. My husband is astounded by these people who do not seem to understand their obligations. Neither do I.

    I feel for his family, too. It’ll be hard to get along without him while he’s in prison.

    I remain astounded by all of the people who are encouraging Lt. Col. Lakin’s actions. They are encouraging this man to throw his entire life and future away with both hands, but none of them will have the basic decency to be around after Lakin’s conviction.

    None of the people egging him on will serve his hard time at Fort Leavenworth.

    None of the people egging him on will make up for the retirement income he’s going to lose after his discharge.

    None of the people egging him on will pay for the health coverage he and his family lose when he’s discharged.

    And none of the people egging him on will help him find a job if he no longer has the ability to practice medicine after his conviction.

    Terry Lakin is ultimately responsible for making these decisions, but I have to wonder if he’d be making them without all the publicity and “support”. Those “supporters” will scurry like cockroaches and leave the Lakin family to bear the entire burden.

  13. Rickey says:

    Even Fox News is conceding that Lakin has no chance of turning his court-martial into a fishing expedition for Obama’s records.

    One military attorney said Lakin had advice from a lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, but that Jensen had “only three months’ experience in military law as a clerk in the 1980s” and was not an expert in military law. Jensen did not return a phone call seeking comment, but military experts called Lakin’s effort a tragedy and waste.

    “He is likely to lose everything and accomplish nothing,” one attorney lamented. “No military judge will say that (obtaining documents) of the president is necessary to prove the charges,” said Philip D. Cave, a Washington attorney and director of the National Institute of Military Justice.

    Cave said that the validity of Lakin’s orders, under military law, does not depend on the president but on the chain of command. “He will be convicted and is in jeopardy of dismissal,” he said.

    Dismissal, for a military officer, is the same as a dishonorable discharge for an enlisted servicemember.

    “We all feel saddened,” said David Price, a former captain and 25-year veteran of the Navy Judge Advocate General’s office, now in private practice.

    “He was issued an order to deploy and didn’t. End of issue,” he said. He said the military has dealt with these types of cases since Vietnam, when soldiers tried to make larger political issues the basis of their trials, and is experienced at keeping the proceedings free of politics.

    Price also said that if the case does finally get to a general court-martial and a judge is asked to approve discovery requests by the defense, it is unlikely that it would be allowed to encompass the presidency. He said this wasn’t because of a conspiracy, but because the case is relatively simple and doesn’t require it.

    Gary Myers, a former military lawyer who now heads a Washington firm specializing in military law, says he “just shook my head” when he heard about the case “I think [Lakin] is out of his mind” for thinking he could challenge the president this way, he said.

    “It is grandstanding.”

  14. Rickey says:

    I found a 2001 case in which a soldier refused to obey an order which he considered to be unlawful. I have highlighted some of the key findings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, findings which would appear to applicable to Lakin’s case:

    United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001).

    This case involves some of the most difficult choices that may confront our Government and our men and women in uniform. Faced with increasing instability in the Balkans, the United States had to decide whether to deploy U.S. troops in support of the peacekeeping effort in the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, how to structure command and control relationships with other national and international forces in the area, what types of orders were needed to implement those relationships, and how to dispose of alleged violations of such orders. Appellant had to decide whether he should voice his opposition to those decisions, how to do so, and whether to obey orders that he viewed as unlawful.

    Appellant chose to manifest his opposition through disobedience of an order from his commander, and he challenged the legality of that order at his court-martial. He now asks this Court to create an exception to the requirement that the military judge decides questions of law where, as in this case, appellant claims the question of law is an element of the alleged offense.

    This Court reviews the question of whether the military judge correctly determined that the issue was a question of law on a de novo standard of review. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that lawfulness of an order, although an important issue, is not a discrete element of an offense under Article 92. We further hold that, in this case, the military judge properly decided the issue of lawfulness as a question of law. See Art. 51(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 851(b).

    Orders are clothed with an inference of lawfulness. See Hughey, 46 MJ at 154; United States v. Nieves, 44 MJ 96, 98 (1996). “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Para. 14c(2)(a)(i), Part IV, Manual, supra (1995 ed.). Appellant has the burden to establish that the order is not lawful. Hughey, 46 MJ at 154; United States v. Smith, 21 USCMA 231, 234, 45 CMR 5, 8 (1972).

    This Court has held that an Air Force Captain disobeyed a lawful order when he refused to fly as a training instructor on a fighter plane that was used in Vietnam. United States v. Noyd, 18 USCMA 483, 485-86, 40 CMR 195, 197-98 (1969). The Noyd court noted that “[m]ilitary service is . . . a matter of status,” like becoming a parent, rather than just a contractual relationship and that status establishes special duties between the soldier and the Government. 18 USCMA at 490, 40 CMR at 202. It further noted that “the fact that a person in a military status determines that he has undergone a change of conscience does not, at that instant and from that time on, endow him with the right to decide what orders are compatible with his conscience.” 18 USCMA at 491, 49 CMR at 203.

    So –

    1. There is a presumption that the orders given to Lakin were lawful.

    2. The burden of proof is on Lakin to prove that the orders were unlawful.

    3. For an order to be unlawful, it must be patently unlawful, such as an order to commit a crime. In other words, the alleged unlawfulness must stem from the actions required by the order, not from reservations about the legal authority of the superior who issued the order.

    4. Arguing that Lakin was following his conscience or beliefs will not exonerate him. No matter how sincere his motives, a lawful order is a lawful order.

  15. BatGuano says:

    Paul Rolf Jensen

    Practice Areas
    Animal / Dog Law
    Car Accidents
    Employment Law
    Injury Law
    Medical Malpractice

  16. G says:

    LMAO! Well, for birther “Constitutional” Lawyers, he’s par for the course, then…heck, he’s at got some actual “legal” experience under his belt in a few areas, so he’s pretty much the creme of the crop for them! LOL! Like being called the skinny kid at fat camp.

  17. Mary Brown says:

    As has been noted here before,we would think that the people who support these notions about the President would wonder why intelligent, experienced conservative attorneys do not come forward in these cases.

  18. Black Lion: Lakin, will, of course, become a celebrity with the far right and will be portrayed as a martyr for their cause.

    And perhaps after he gets out of jail he will go on a tour selling his birther book, and will as so many other right-wing criminals, host a talk radio show.

  19. Steve says:

    Probably because they’re experienced and intelligent.

  20. LCDR USN RET says:

    Hope he enjoys his stay in Kansas.

  21. misha says:

    Orly will get an order for an interior decorator. Orly is the greatest lawyer since Clarence Darrow.

    And the folks in Kansas will be in awe of her prowess.

  22. Lupin says:

    And that’s how it should be. Well put.

  23. Arliss says:

    Nah, by the time he gets out of prison no one will hardly remember anything about the Birthers.

  24. thanks!

  25. Okay, thanks!

    Man, I feel sorry for his JAG.

  26. The browser’s being funny with letting me reply to others’ comments. But thanks for answering my question above.

  27. ron says:

    Yes this drives me crazy, that people really believe that a court martial panel would make a ruling thats supports insubordination, and political grandstanding while in uniform, and the ability for any soldier to refuse orders without proof of qualification of a superior.I doubt any company would support the colonel if he were a civilian Operations Officer refusing to move to a new job by direction of his CEO becuase he questions his bosses credentials.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.