Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogThe safeguardourconstitution website has a posting that a Writ of Mandamus has been filed with the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
The site still lists the judges decision as pending.
A copy of the petition is not posted to the website.
Articles Tagged with lakin
LTC Lakin sitrep
It has been (fill in the blank) days since LTC Lakin has been denied some discovery and witnesses for his case. His website has been updated in one place to say “Judge To Rule On Defense Request,” but the breaking news column still has the old verbiage, “Judge to Rules On Defense Request.” Of course we all know the judge has ruled. The point is though that someone is updating the site. The ruling has been adverse to LTC Lakin. I think we can say that the site managers have deliberately avoided placing adverse information on the site. Here’s some questions.
LTC Lakin and his attorney are advertising the case on the internet and a website is being used to solicit funds for LTC Lakin’s defense (we can take issue with the purported amount, compare for example an estimate of $100,000.00 to defend PFC Bradley Manning the Wikileaks accused). Mr. Jensen’s website links back to safeguardourconstitution “For More Information Visit the Case Site.” Is the advertising for funds truthful at this point, if the advertising is not truthful at this point is LTC Lakin himself complicit in a lack of truthfulness, and if LTC Lakin is complicit in this is he acting as an officer and a gentleman? At what point, if any, and I think this question goes beyond LTC Lakin, is a client responsible for “advertising” about their case which is ongoing? At what point is an attorney responsible for the accuracy of his or her advertising about a case they have ongoing? To what extent is advertising about an ongoing case consistent with Rule 3.6 of the Army (or similar other Service rule) professional responsibility rules – AR 27-26. As we bloggers know the Army has been reluctant to publically discuss and/or release LTC Lakin’s case.
Subsequent to the 2 September 2010 ruling LTC Lakin through counsel has said publically a number of times that an extraordinary writ will be filed. To date no writ appears to have been filed. The next scheduled event is for an Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing on 28 September 2010. So now what?
LTC Lakin sitrep
This is the 13th day that APF (safeguardourconstitution), LTC Lakin’s support site, has failed to post the military judge’s findings and conclusions, and advertises as “Breaking News,” “Judge to Rules (sic) . . ..”
This is the 13th day that LTC Lakin and his team have failed to file a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. (I’m reliably informed that no such petition has been filed as of yesterday.)
1. Delay in filing the writ will not necessarily gain delay in the trial.
LTC Lakin sitrep
This is the 12th day that APF (safeguardourconstitution), LTC Lakin’s support site, has failed to post the military judge’s findings and conclusions, and advertises as “Breaking News,” “Judge to Rules (sic) . . ..”
The Post & Email reports today, submitted by Maj. Gen. Vallely:
The current Lakin defense strategy is limited to an ongoing search for a missing birth certificate that is of no real consequence, and they have been denied discovery access to any of Obama records, as well as anyone who has had access to those records. There is no defense for Lakin on this basis. . . .
LTC Lakin sitrep
This is the 10th day that APF (safeguardourconstitution), LTC Lakin’s support site, has failed to post the military judge’s findings and conclusions, and advertises as “Breaking News,” “Judge to Rules (sic) . . ..”
The APF website does not list or encourage attendance as the previously scheduled Article 39(a), UCMJ, session for tomorrow.
The 10 September 2010 docket for the First Judicial Circuit (Judge Lind’s circuit) does not show a hearing scheduled in LTC Lakin’s case for tomorrow.
More thoughts on LtCol Eidsmoe’s thinking
This is the 9th day that APF (safeguardourconstitution), LTC Lakin’s support site, has failed to post the military judge’s findings and conclusions, and advertises as “Breaking News,” “Judge to Rules (sic) . . ..”
The Greeley Gazette, hometown newspaper for LTC Lakin has the piece, “Retired JAG Officer Says Judge’s Ruling Against Discovery for Lakin Could Derail Case Based on Legal Precedent.” I posted earlier two quick disagreements with the piece, or what was said in the piece.
First this item:
LTC Lakin sitrep
The Greeley Gazette reports that:
A retired JAG officer with over 23 years of experience, says the military judge who ruled against discovery for a Greeley Army officer may have derailed the government’s case based on precedent from another high profile case involving a military officer.
Lt. Col John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force officer who works for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the Foundation for Moral Law, said Lakin is “raising legitimate constitutional questions” regarding President Obama’s eligibility to be commander-in-chief.
LTC Lakin sitrep
Navy Times reports:
The combat systems officer of the destroyer Cole is back on duty this week after he was arrested in a courtroom outburst over a disputed traffic ticket in Portsmouth, Va.
Lt. Timothy Barry appeared in court to challenge a speeding ticket, but the proceedings started off bad and got worse: According to a report in the Washington Times, which cited a Sept. 3 internal Navy message, Barry refused to rise when the judge entered the courtroom. When a bailiff asked him why he hadn’t stood, Barry asked whether that was required by law.
More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – IV
And now for the political question doctrine.
See fn. 2., I believe at one point Mr. Jensen was complaining that the military judge wasn’t going to apply any “civilian” cases.
See fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.
More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – III
And now for some history. Those with some basic familiarity with military law and who have been following the blogs of those with military law experience will recognize the cases cited.
