safeguardourconstitution Tag Archives — Page 3 of 3 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

It’s the fourth of July

July 4, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

When enlisting or at certain other times:"
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

When commissioning and at certain other times:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the ____ of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:

Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army." The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them."

Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

You can see more of the history of U.S. military oaths at the U.S. Army Center of Military History.

LTC Lakin update

June 16, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

World Net Daily reports that LTC Lakin, not unexpectedly, has received an adverse OER.

Welcome to the club of just about every accused who faces court-martial charges.

LTC Lakin today

June 12, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Officer to Army: See you in court, is the title of a posting to World Net Daily. The piece also links to the new video release. I did not see a new confession, merely a continuance of his supposed reasons for his contumacy.

He cited a long list of "reasonable arguments" raising questions about whether Obama was born on American soil.

Assuming arguendo that there are reasonable questions about President Obama’s citizenship, the questions remain irrelevant to LTC Lakin’s court-martial.

And more on the LTC Lakin 32 waiver

June 9, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a link to the press release.

The YouTube video isn’t operational yet.

Courtesy of TPMMuckraker here is the WRAMC statement:

LTC Lakin update

June 2, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Thanks to safeguardourconstitution.com we have the Article 32, UCMJ, IO’s written ruling on several matters in LTC Lakin’s case.

Note, “the Army” did not refuse the defense requests. The IO did, acting in his role assigned under Article 32, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 405. This is what I would have expected MAJ Kemkes, the military defense counsel to have told LTC Larkin, and by inference, Mr. Jensen.

The written ruling is as expected.

LTC Lakin’s contumacy

May 13, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

safeguardourconstitution reports that: “Obama Administration unleashes Army lawyers instead of releasing birth certificate.” This is shameful hyperbole and utterly incorrect.

LTC Lakin is alleged to have committed offenses in violation of the UCMJ. The conduct alleged cuts to the very heart of military requirements of obedience to orders, fidelity to the oath of office, and the need for seniors to set the example. I’m reliably informed that in addition to formal counselings every effort was made pre-preferral to convince LTC Lakin to obey his orders. In the face of such contumacious behavior the Army had no choice but to prefer charges. Enlisted personnel are regularly disciplined, court-martialed, and jailed for the same or similar conduct and who have better reasons for their AWOL. Such a stunning lack of officership cannot pass unnoticed or undisciplined. Neither President Obama nor his administration has any role in this case at all. Should the administration try to get involved they should be told – politely – to butt out.