Articles Tagged with lakin

We finished around 1700 with the last government witness.  Looks like the government will rest in the AM.

Dwight will be blogging a little later and we’ll be on RealityCheck radio at 2100.

Remember this phrase, “You have had your chance.”

There is an increasing disconnect between the “birther” movement and LTC Lakin’s case.  Hopefully that “wishy washy” attorney representing him will make that clear when pleading for mercy.

The Post&Email has been following LTC Lakin and most of the other presidential eligibility cases.  Recently they ran a piece about some “demonstrations” in Arizona in favor of Congress stepping in to stop the court-martial.  A recent comment had this to say which may qualify for a humor in military justice posting.

I very much hope that Miss Taitz is going to attend and somehow convinces LTC Lakin to fire that wishy washy attorney Neal Puckett and let her take over the case. I have listened to Puckett on a couple of radio shows and he is already giving up and saying Lakin will be found guilty. He will not even say that Obama is not eligible. Why Lakin hooked up with this loser I will never know. He must be getting bad advice from Ms Hemenway or Gen. Vallalley.

There’s a second part which I’m having a little trouble uploading right now.  So, go to the YouTube and it should follow on from there.

Note that in the second part Neal is soliciting funds NOT for Lakin’s defense, but for his life after the military.

You will know that Neal Puckett was on the Peter Boyles radio show yesterday.  The show continued today with Gen Valleley as the guest.  This was (is?) a defense witness whose presence was litigated at the Article 39(a), UCMJ, session.

According to Gen Valleley the court-martial process is corrupt, Military Judge Lind and the generals above her should be court-martialed for allowing the corruption.  He describes Military Judge Lind as the “Kangaroo court judge,” in this “kangaroo court.”

Apparently he’s trying to “light a fire” under the current defense team to go full NBC.

Here is a new piece of information from wing nut daily:

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, a distinguished Army flight surgeon, is "certain" to be convicted of disobeying orders, according to his lawyer, Neil Puckett.

Notice he does not apparently address the missing movement.  Maybe the “specific” movement issue is a winner?  See below.

A thought as we get closer to trial.  As the Greeley Gazette article and the current postings at such places as PostandEmail, safeguardourconstitution, and wing nut daily, demonstrate there is a great deal of criticism about Judge Lind.  Some of that criticism has been harsh and excessive.  Other than a statement from LTC Lakin’s lawyer that the judge was right, there has been no public disavowel from LTC Lakin.  I don’t know he required to do so, except in an effort to get clemency.  But . . . .

Will the new defense counsel voir dire the military judge and challenge her or ask her to recuse herself?  If this is to be a members trial, then I think she can clearly say the right words in response to a voir dire and not recuse herself and not to have been found in error on appeal.  But, what if LTC Lakin elects a judge alone trial?  Maybe that’s different (unless it is part of a PTA)?  Implied bias can be a reason to challenge a military judge just as much as members.  Remember the Marine case from some years ago, where the SJA got heavily involved in trying to remove the MJ because of her alleged relationship with the defense counsel.

As trial approaches the Greeley Gazette has an article part of which notes that the case is now something of a comedy routine on the late night shows.  Apparently being the focus of a skit on SNL adds merit.

LTC Lakin’s brother Greg is a lawyer as well as a doctor.  There is an interesting comment:

Greg stated that he has not received any response to his letters and is concerned the Army will simply take the easy way out by avoiding the issue and simply lock up his brother. He said based on his experience as a prosecutor in situations like this where there is no case law, “Judges go in with a pre-determined idea how they are going to decide it and take case law and policy statements to say whatever they want. There is no magic law that supports either position.”