Articles Tagged with world news daily

I use Google Chrome for a browser so this wasn’t apparent to me.  But Dr. C. at obamaconspiracy.org points out the following:

I have no way of knowing whether LtC Terry Lakin authorized the use of his image to sell tax advice, bridge loans, auto liability insurance, and whatever other advertising attaches itself to his photo over at WorldNetDaily (hover mouse anywhere over the photo at WND for maximum advertising effect). Nonetheless, I think this image, as much as any other, points out how this honorable, but confused, soldier has become the tool of [select a name].

Of course when viewed in MSIE you can see what the doctor ordered.

Some reporting of last weeks Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing appears to attribute the military judge’s ruling to a desire to save the president embarrassment. I believe this is a gross distortion of a small part of what the military judge said.  I was there and heard her read her findings and conclusions which were then made a part of the record of trial and available to the parties.  These are the relevant references.

image

The above is from the discussion of the political question doctrine.  The sole use of the word embarrassment is here:

imageDoes the above compute with what World Net Daily or others have said?  You decide.

World News Daily reports:

A reported threat by a senior Army officer to "Taser" another officer on trial for challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president could be a serious "command influence" issue that could taint the case, according to an expert.

Here is the Greeley Gazette article referred to:

I previously posted about this but here is a more detailed Navy Times report about CSM Crump, formerly of WRAMC.

A former command sergeant major at Walter Reed Army Medical Center fired for allegedly faking his record and wearing unauthorized awards and decorations faces military discipline for a series of bold deceptions that span several years and multiple commands, according to the charges against him.

World News Daily has a piece on LTC Lakin’s OER issue.  The piece seems to accept without question or fact-check the allegation that the, “Army convicted me without trial.”  It would seem a proper journalistic analysis would review the actual report (still publically unavailable) and review in comparison to AR 623-3 .

Oh, For Goodness Sake blog is reporting that Orly Taitz is now assisting in LTC Lakin’s defense?

A posting at A Natural Born Citizen . . .  Orly? appears to indicate that one of Orly Taitz’s blogs has been taken over – I think by aliens.  Oh man what a pun.  She does have some blather, but apparently repetitious of some of the events in the Lakin case.

Declaration 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 has made his CNN appearance.  Courtesy of Dwight “ML” Sullivan and CAAFLog, here is a link.  Like DMLS I found the comment about protecting the client somewhat odd in light of counsel’s apparent involvement in producing the video which has in effect become LTC Lakin’s public confession of an “intent” to refuse orders.  As DMLS points out there is a link to Mr. Jensen’s own website, Paul Rolf Jensen . . . Lead Counsel for LTC Lakin.  That certainly should be admissible as circumstantial evidence of intent as to the missing movement charge.  LTC Lakin’s supporters are not happy about the CNN interview, as this piece at World News Daily indicates.  Frankly I wasn’t happy with it either as a lawyer who regularly defends clients at court-martial.

I thought I’d use this case as a way to refresh ourselves on how a defense counsel should approach an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing regardless of the accused or the charges.  (I HAVE CREATED A LTC LAKIN PAGE here – which I will update as a relevant event happens or I have time.)

Cooper dominated the combative interview, demanding answers from Lakin, telling his lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, to let his client answer and then forging ahead with his own arguments.

LTC Lakin has made his CNN appearance.  His supporters are not happy, as this piece at World News Daily indicates.

I found a humorous note in the article.  The writer points out a typo in the charge sheet.

“in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary (sic) Regiment, 101st Airborne”

Contact Information