LTC Lakin sitrep

|

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.”

Suffice it to say that LTC Lakin got through a tortuous providency inquiry on the orders violations.

After the prosecution case I’m satisfied the prosecution presented substantial evidence on the missing movement, that the military judge will not grant a 917 motion, and if the prosecution witnesses are believed LTC Lakin will be convicted of missing movement.

“You have had your chance” is a comment from LTC Lakin to COL Roberts, it will be a sentencing theme for the prosecution.

Posted in: Uncategorized
Tagged: lakin
Updated:

8 responses to “LTC Lakin sitrep”

  1. Viking (Phil Cave) says:
    December 14, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Maybe. It will depend on whether the members believe that COL Roberts told the LTC to tell Lakin to “get on that plane” or words to that effect.

  2. sus says:
    December 14, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    I’d say he’s ‘brunt toast’.

  3. Brett says:
    December 14, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    What if LTC Lakin has changed legal tactics and now makes the following claim:

    Barack Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen because his father was a British Subject at the time of Barack Obama’s birth and so according to natural law (using de Vattel’s Law of Nations as his legal guide) Barack Obama could only be a Natural Born Citizen of England not the USA. You cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of two countries.

    Therefore Barack Obama is ineligible according to the U.S. Constitution and all Joint Chief of Staff Military appointees are illegal or unlawful and therefore all Military orders to deploy to Afganistan flow from illegal or unlawful appointees and are there “unlawful orders”.

    How will the Court Martial Judge or Jury handle this argument?

    Are all soldiers required to follow all Orders even if the President is found to be ineligible?
    If so, then why are soldiers required to swear an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic?

    If LTC Lakin is denied this defense in this case, could you give us an example of when a soldier could disobey an order he thought was UnConstitutional?

    Thank you.

  4. Brett says:
    December 14, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Never mind.

    I just read the latest update from the SafeguardourConstitution.com website and it appears LTC Lakin has now plead guilty and is trying to get mercy from the Court Martial Judge (maybe he got a deal he couldn’t refuse).

    Unless he gets a deal and saves his retirement pension, I do not understand why he didn’t cave in way earlier. Maybe he thought more Americans actually cared about the Constitution and would take a stand with him. Even Fox News didn’t stand with him.

  5. Sabrina says:
    December 14, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    Um, in order to deploy, LTC Lakin would have received PAPER copies of his orders; he would not have been verbally told to “get on the plane” or words to that effect. A deploying soldier is required to carry several copies of their orders on them when deploying or transferring between units or PCSing to a new station, etc; verbal orders for deployments don’t exist, except in that a soldier is warned they will deploy before receiving copies of their orders. So I’m afraid (not really) that soon-to-be FORMER LTC Lakin cannot claim that in his defense.

  6. SueDB says:
    December 15, 2010 at 10:07 am

    It is a matter of naming the specific flight in the charge sheet. LTC Lakin could have taken other transportation to Ft Campbell – for instance another flight or drive – heck even a private plane. As long as he signed in before midnight on his reporting date the military doesn’t care how he gets there. The point is that the charges named a specific flight. Since LTC Edwards stated that his place of duty (or words to that effect) is aboard that specific aircraft, he had to be there. It is what I could call a ‘technicality’ that may get the charge thrown out. It is nothing to do with guilt, but everything to do with how the case is structured.

    Now does that make sense? If so then could you explain it to me…

  7. mikeyes says:
    December 15, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Brett,

    Hardly anyone cares about what happens to LTC Lakin and virtually no one even knows that the trial is going on. Most of my active duty friends never even heard of LTC Lakin and they are all medical officers living outside of DC.

    As for your other questions, read the 600 or so threads on this blog and CAAFlog and the legal gurus will explain the answers. Hint: Read the rest of the Constitution, especially those parts about Congress and the military.

  8. Eric L. Mayer says:
    December 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    This case has a bit more attention than the average, anonymous case because of two factors: his rank and the proximity of the case to Washington, DC. Outside of the beltway, it has not received a much publicity.

    At the same time, it is interesting to see the birthers at work. Frankly, I’d be furious at the applause after the video. His association with them, I think, will mean a bit more punishment. At the same time, I could also see a panel give only a dismissal (if they truly disregard the outburst(s)). I know I always attempt to verify the intentions of the folks in the audience after most recesses, and I’ve had the judge order exclusions in a preemptory fashion. All I had to do was show the likely prejudice to my client.

Contact Information
1629 K St NW
#300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 703-298-9562Toll Free: 800-401-1583Fax: 703-997-6076

This site is for the trial practitioner (the military lawyer) of military justice, and for the information of U.S. active duty, Guard, and reserve service-members, their spouses and their families. Our goal is to focus on trial practice issues in cases arising under the UCMJ and being tried at court martial. We hasten to add that nothing on this blog should be taken as specific legal advice for a specific client.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2014 – 2024, The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design