LTC Lakin’s latest

Thanks to a jab from RealityCheck.  Let’s parse the current defense information release from LTC Lakin’s defense counsel.

His previous civilian attorney complicated his case and is partially responsible for two of these charges by advising LTC Lakin to refuse to report to his superior officer.

I posted a while back about the TMLUTB defense.  I think the two charges referred to above are the harder on which to establish a TMLUTB defense.  I think it would be harder to convince members that the order to report needed the advice of counsel.  But . . . .

I and my colleagues frequently get calls from our clients under investigation or pending charges who are told to report to the commander.  The client wants to know what to do.  “Don’t go” is the wrong advice.  The basic advice is to go, because otherwise it is an orders violation.  What you then tell the client is to remind the commander you are represented by counsel and have nothing to say about the allegations.  Oftentimes a quick phone call or email can resolve what the meeting is about and serve as a reminder about impromptu interrogations.  I suspect that’s the advice the current defense counsel would have given, and possibly they might have gone to the meeting with LTC Lakin.

I stick by my analysis that the defense won’t work.  As to mitigation under R.C.M.1001, maybe.  But I think that only works up to a point.

The defense team is now working to minimize the damage caused by this inappropriate legal advice and return LTC Lakin to his family quickly and with his medical career intact.

Posted in:
Tagged:
Updated:

38 responses to “LTC Lakin’s latest”

  1. Reality Check says:

    Thanks for the update, sir. It appears this case is progressing along the lines that you suspected it would with the new defense team in place. That is better for LTC Lakin in the long run but bad for the rest of the Birthers.

    Did you see that now that LTC Lakin has been prohibited in from radio appearances that Jerome Corsi from WND has hooked up with with LTC Lakin’s brother, Dr. Greg Lakin? This Lakin also seems to have birther leanings but does not seem enthusiastic about the path his brother has chosen. The other Dr. Lakin is a lawyer, also it seems. The program was on KHOW in Denver, the Peter Boyle program, and is available in podcast form. Corsi seemed almost enthusiastic about the prospect that LTC Lakin could going to prison and become a martyr. I suppose it is easy to be a cheerleader on the telephone in the comfort of one’s own office.

  2. dancingrabbit says:

    The Supremes in 2003: Vattel’s Law of Nations” has been domestic law for 200 years”. It would appear Obama is illegal based on the Law of Nations. Since all military orders come from the Commander in Chief. Guess what..LTC Lakin is innocent. Congress and the putative president should be charged with crimes against the Law of Nations.

  3. BigGuy says:

    Umm, no. What they said was, “For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations.” “The Law of Nations” is a book by de Vattel. The “law of nations” is a branch of international law. They are not the same thing, and no one with any knowledge of the law is going to fall for that one.

  4. dancingrabbit says:

    The Law of Nations is more than an International Law it is domestic law. It is in the offense clause. It was used to form the United States.s. It was used to begin the American Revolution.

    Justice Marshall said the courts are bound by the law of nations..it is the law of the land.

    The states in their wisdom can base their voting laws on the Law of Nations.

    Their are some who want to protect a despotic Obama at all costs and they seem to be flourshing in thiss forum. Saying the Law of Nations is limited to International law is nonsense.

    The case is simple. LTC Lakin is innocent based on the Law of Nations.which is.part of our domestic laws.

  5. BigGuy says:

    The Supreme Court quotation had nothing to do with the book. Is that understood?

    And, even if US citizenship were governed by de Vattel’s book — which it most assuredly is not — you’re still stuck with Judge Lind’s ruling (which Neal Puckett has endorsed by saying “She was right on the facts and right on the law”):

    “Any suggestion by the defense that the authority of military officers to issue any lawful orders ceases to exist if a serving President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office is an erroneous view of the law. Similarly, any suggestion by the defense that if a President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office, service-members have no duty to follow any orders issued by their military superiors is equally erroneous.”

    So, your claim of innocence for LTC Lakin appears to have no legal basis whatsoever.

  6. dancingrabbit says:

    What nonsense BIGGuy is spouting..from the Court decision:

    They sourced the translated edition of Chitty.

    “eE. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883”

    They referred to Vattel 6 times.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-339.pdf

  7. dancingrabbit says:

    The Obots want the citizens of this great country to believe Vattel is obscure and no one reads him or pays any attention. They do this to protect an illegal President. The Law of Nations is a part of our nations laws. The Supreme Court has said this several times since the country’s founding.

    Do not listen to the Obot attorneys..they are paid to distort Vattels Law of Nations ..to make him as they often say…”obscure”.

    Vattel helped guide our Founding Founders to break away from the yoke of King George and form the United States.

  8. dancingrabbit says:

    Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations”

    It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art “law of nations”, and not confuse it with “international law”. They are not the same thing.

    The phrase “law of nations” is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations.

    The Obots want to distort the meaning of the Law of Nations.

    Why..because..two citizen parents make a natural born citizen.

    The Supreme Court quoted the 1833 Edition of the Law of Nations..they said it is part of our laws. They did not say International law they said domestic.

  9. BigGuy says:

    Yes, they do, with regard to six specific issues, and when they are writing a book title they use initial capital letter. But the phrase “law of nations” is used dozens of times written in lower case letters — as it is in the quote about the “domestic law of the United States” — and in those spots it is clearly not referring to a particular book but rather to a body of law. In fact, the title “Law of Nations” is used within the decision to refer to yet another book, one written by a gentleman named Casto.

    You have yet to relate the “domestic law of the United States” quote to the de Vattel book, nor have you explained why the President’s citizenship is even relevant given Judge Lind’s ruling that it is not.

  10. tina says:

    Lt.Col Lakin is a true patriot! people please go to obamareleaseyourrecords.com and read the case filing there posted tonight. It makes all the sense. “THE FRAUD IN OUR WHITEHOUSE-THE BIGGEST CRIME EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”!!

  11. dancingrabbit says:

    SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, Parts I and III of which were unanimous,

    Part II of which was joined by REHNQUIST,
    C. J., and STEVENS, O’CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., and

    Part IV of which was joined by STEVENS, O’CONNOR, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BREYER, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

    E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883) l)

    Part IV For two centuries we have affirmed that the domes-tic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations.

    When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its mod-ern state of purity and refinement.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.).

    The Nereide, 9 Cranch 388, 423 (1815) (Marshall, C. J.) (“[T]he Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land”);

  12. dancingrabbit says:

    The Obots write..no court..ever..in the 20th and 21st century would refer to Vattel..he is obscure and meangingless. They trash him..why..one web site..said the Founders could not speak or write French..how in the world could they read the 1758 edition.

    They is an ongoing effort to discredit the importance of the Law of Nations in our history.

  13. paul says:

    Dancingrabbit. I think you are confused. If you read the entire doucment, you will find taht (1) they do refer to Vattal’s book “Law of Nations” (2) but it’s used to strictly with regards (a) behavior of national states with each other and (b) the obligations correspondent to those rights. This case is strictly about an international event between Mexico and the US. It DOES NOT DEAL WITH DOMESTIC LAW!!!

    The following quote from the document you referenced sums it up nicely:

    “When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.). In the years of the early Republic, this law of nations comprised two principal elements, the first covering the general norms governing the behavior of national states with each other: “the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights,” E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883) (hereinafter Vattel) (footnote omitted), or “that code of public instruction which defines the rights and prescribes the duties of nations, in their intercourse with each other,” 1 James Kent Commentaries *1. This aspect of the law of nations thus occupied the executive and legislative domains, not the judicial. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 68 (1769) (hereinafter Commentaries) (“[O]ffenses against” the law of nations are “principally incident to whole states or nations”).”

  14. dancingrabbit says:

    “It DOES NOT DEAL WITH DOMESTIC LAW!!”

    The offense clause in the constitution..offenses against the Law of Nations.

    Tucker tells us the 10th Amendment is from Vattel’s Law of Nations.

    Read the old dictionaries..the Founders used.. Natural..inhererent, descent, kinship, family, Kind.

    Suggest a study of the word Kind and its relationship to natural in natural born citizen. There you will find the meaning of natural born citizen.

  15. BigGuy says:

    @dancingrabbit: “Suggest a study of the word Kind and its relationship to natural in natural born citizen.”
    ___

    Thank you for the suggestion, but from a legal point of view a great deal of analysis has already been done.

    You might want to look at a recent court decision, Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, a case specifically relating to Pres. Obama’s eligibility. You can read it at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903, and they explain their reasoning in great detail

    The unanimous decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals held that “[b]ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    There was no outcry among legal scholars or constitutional lawyers, as the decision accurately represents the currently prevailing view in the legal community. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you’ve got a huge uphill battle in trying to overcome the vast preponderance of legal expertise that holds your view to be erroneous.

  16. dancingrabbit says:

    Kind…is the secret word to the meaning of natural born citizen. See the history of the word Kind. Kind..Kin…Kindred..Natural..Kindship..Family..belonging by right of birth..lawful..descent..heir..native..innate..

    The Commentaries of Gaius..which the Founders had in 1783..

    The marriage taking place between a Roman citizen and a foreigner the child is a foreigner.

    Aristotle..two citizen parents the child is a citizen. The Founders had the book.

    genuine..born in us natural not spurious….The Romans tells us and the Founders the child born to a citizen and a foreigner is spurious.

    The Romans tell us..a child born from parents of two different countries is a Hybrid.

    The Obots tells us..a child born on the soil from any type of citizenship parents..is natural born.

    This defies history..it defies natural law..it defies..the wishes of the Founders.

  17. dancingrabbit says:

    “The unanimous decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals held that “[b]ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.””

    Show me where in the SCOTUS opinion of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that said Ark was a natural born CITIZEN. It is not there.

  18. dancingrabbit says:

    WKA recognized the findings in Minor v. Happersett in that a person born in the country to citizen parents is a natural born citizen whose citizenship does not depend on the 14th amendment.

    If your citizenship IS dependent on the 14th amendment, you aren’t a natural born citizen.

    It’s why Justice Waite declared Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of the 14th amendment, but clearly avoided declaring him to be a natural born citizen.

    Hint Hint… remember the word Kind and its relationship to natural.

  19. BigGuy says:

    Well, remember what I said: “You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you’ve got a huge uphill battle in trying to overcome the vast preponderance of legal expertise that holds your view to be erroneous.”

    You haven’t said anything to dispute that. Your theory, however firmly you hold it, is greatly at odds with the way U.S. citizenship law has been interpreted for many years.

    Not to mention the fact that the president’s citizenship status is completely irrelevant to the Lakin case — not only in the opinion of the judge, but also in the opinion of the attorney representing LTC Lakin. You haven’t once addressed that stumbling block.

  20. Joey says:

    Since it only takes four Supreme Court Justices to agree to hear an appeal before the full court (grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) and since Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are the originalists sitting on the current High Court, and since all Obama eligibility appeals to reach the Supreme Court have been denied “cert.” I would assume that the Court as currently constituted does not agree that Vatell’s Law of Nations has relevance to US domestic law or to who is a “natural born citizen.’
    Justice Scalia argued that “jus loci” was the requirement for natural born citizenship in
    “Tuan Anh Nguyen v INS (No. 99-2011) 533US553 from 2001.

  21. dancingrabbit says:

    The states should pass president eligibility laws based on the Law of Nations.

    It is law all orders originate from the Commander in Chief.

  22. BigGuy says:

    @dancingrabbit — “It is law all orders originate from the Commander in Chief.”
    __

    No, I’m afraid it is not. As judge Lind pointed out in her ruling,

    “The Secretary of the Army has promulgated numerous Army Regulations pursuant to his authority under 10 U.S.C. 3013.1 These Army Regulations provide an independent authority for military officers to issue lawful orders.”

  23. dancingrabbit says:

    “It is law all orders originate from the Commander in Chief.”
    __

    No, I’m afraid it is not. As judge Lind pointed out in her ruling,

    Wanna bet?

  24. BigGuy says:

    @dancingrabbit — Wanna bet?
    __

    What is there to bet on? Not only did Judge Lind rule that way, she specifically rejected the defense’s contention that “the President, as Commander in Chief under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, is the source of all military authority.”

    LTC Lakin’s lawyer, Mr. Puckett, said of her ruling that ‘“She was right on the facts and right on the law.”

    Puckett is not challenging the judge’s ruling, so that’s unquestionably the law, at least as far as the Lakin case is concerned.

    But if you have a legal argument that leads to a contrary conclusion, I’d be delighted to know what it is.

  25. dancingrabbit says:

    That military commanders in giving legal orders, represent the Commander in Chief, the President, see Clark vs Dick, I Dillon, 8; Lockington’s Case, Brightly, 289; O’Brien, 30.

    The Constitution devolves it upon LTC Lakin to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” LTC Lakin saw the laws were not being faithfully executed. Obama is not a natural born citizen. The 14th Amendment did not make any one a natural born citizen.

  26. dancingrabbit says:

    There is a misconception the 14th amendment created two types of citizens and the natural born citizen must be disgarded. Born citizens and naturalized citizens. If you are a born citizen you are automatically a natural born citizen. This is false.

    The following is a quote…

    “The SCOTUS recognized natural born citizenship as separate from the two categories of citizenship established under the 14th amendment. NBC is extraconstitutional.

    Justice Waite: “The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”

    Justice Gray says NBC is OUTSIDE of the Constitution: “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.””

    Justice Gray affirms Waite’s opinion that Virginia Minor’s citizenship was due to jus soli and jus sanguinis, not the 14th amendment, and is, as such, a separate type of citizenship: “Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, …”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2626433/posts?page=582#582

  27. dancingrabbit says:

    “The SCOTUS recognized natural born citizenship as separate from the two categories of citizenship established under the 14th amendment. NBC is extraconstitutional.

    Justice Waite: “The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”

    Justice Gray says NBC is OUTSIDE of the Constitution: “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.””

    Justice Gray affirms Waite’s opinion that Virginia Minor’s citizenship was due to jus soli and jus sanguinis, not the 14th amendment, and is, as such, a separate type of citizenship: “Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, …” ”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2626433/posts?page=582#582

  28. BigGuy says:

    Thank you for your arguments. Unfortunately, as I’ve pointed out, none of them will come into play in the Lakin case, as Judge Lind has made contrary rulings and Mr. Puckett has voiced his agreement with them. For the purposes of the Lakin court-martial, the citizenship status of President Obama is completely irrelevant.

    If you wish to see your theories tested in this case, perhaps you can persuade LTC Lakin to switch lawyers again. But the trial is scheduled to take place in just a few weeks, and there is no sign that anyone involved in it is giving any attention to your point of view.

    Incidentally, I believe you are being disingenuous when you say, ‘The following is a quote…“The SCOTUS recognized natural born citizenship as separate from the two categories of citizenship established under the 14th amendment. NBC is extraconstitutional.”‘

    It is indeed a quote — a quote from a poster on a Free Republic thread.

  29. dancingrabbit says:

    “It is law all orders originate from the Commander in Chief.”

    “No, I’m afraid it is not. As judge Lind pointed out in her ruling,”

    That military commanders in giving legal orders, represent the Commander in Chief, the President, see Clark vs Dick, I Dillon, 8; Lockington’s Case, Brightly, 289; O’Brien, 30.

    Military Law and Precedents, William Winthorp

  30. The Law Office of Philip D. Cave Viking says:

    As a historian and as a hobbyist in military law I love to read Winthrop, and have on occasion cited to Winthrop. But I do that with a recognition that military law has changed substantially since Winthrop and that Winthrop has no precedential status in deciding a case. There are times I wish it would. The UCMJ itself represented a sea-change. I’d love to go back to trials where you spent no more than five hours in court, instead of the stamina-tolling trials some of which go to 0400 (in the Army).

    The point is that basing decisions today on Winthrop is nice, but not overly helpful in this scenario. Further, in the hierarchy of authority Winthrop is down the bottom along with other treatises (which includes Vattel), law review articles — just above Google, in terms of legal precedent.

  31. dancingrabbit says:

    The point is that basing decisions today on Winthrop is nice, but not overly helpful in this scenario. Further, in the hierarchy of authority Winthrop is down the bottom along with other treatises (which includes Vattel), law review articles — just above Google, in terms of legal precedent.

    Nonsense.

    Col Winthrop was referred to below:

    See, e.g., United States v. Norfleet, 53 M.J. 262 (2000); United States v. Quintanilla, 52 M.J.
    839 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000); United States v. Quiroz, 53 M.J. 600 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App.
    2000).

  32. The Law Office of Philip D. Cave Viking says:

    Colonel Winthrop’s treatise has actually been cited in at least 883 cases.

  33. dancingrabbit says:

    A Founder, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a member of the Continental Congress serving on 5 committees, President of the Congress said Vattels Law of Nations is Municipal Law.

    Thomas McKean

  34. dancingrabbit says:

    The post popular dictionary in the 18th Century. Federal: Children born to Christian parents.

    Is this the covenant of the Federal Government, the intention of the Framers..is a natural born citizen children born to Christian parents.

  35. BigGuy says:

    Should we take that to mean that only children born to Christian parents are constitutionally eligible to be President?

  36. dancingrabbit says:

    82R302 JRJ-D

    By: Berman H.B. No. 295

    A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
    AN ACT relating to certification for placement on the ballot of candidates
    for president or vice-president of the United States.
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
    SECTION 1. Section 192.033, Election Code, is amended by
    amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (d) to read as
    follows:
    (a) Except as provided by Subsection (c) or (d), the
    secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the
    general election ballot the names of the candidates for president
    and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on
    the ballot.
    (d) The secretary of state may not certify the name of a
    candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has
    presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating
    that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.
    SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00295I.htm

  37. BigGuy says:

    I don’t see how that helps you. Birth certificates don’t normally state the citizenship of one’s parents.

  38. Anonymous says:

    A little problem with Berman’s bill. Apparently he doesn’t realize that Presidential candidates don’t really appear on the GE ballot. People are really voting for Electors pledged to a candidate. The current wording will not pass muster.

Leave a Reply

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