Articles Tagged with paul rolf jensen

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?

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.imageimage


image imageSee fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.

The spinning has begun, and yes there’s a pun in there, or at least an attempted one.  Based on cherry-picked comments from a number of Lakin supporters it appears that all of this is merely the military judge saving the President “embarrassment.”  They are grasping at a straw as a way to explain a complete and utter refutation of what they have been trying to incorrectly advertize as the state of military law, assuming they were present.  Some comments about the military judge as an individual have become so personal, so obnoxious, and downright nasty that I have decided to remove or not post such comments.  Yes, this is a change from my normal attitude of let what’s said be said and the sayer  and his/her worth as a person be evaluated.


I was present for the “40 minute” reading of her written findings and conclusions.  These written findings and conclusions are now part of the record of trial, and are also now available to Jensen, LTC Lakin, and the prosecutors.  Perhaps APF could post the findings so we can see just how badly the military judge ruled – APF let’s get those wrong headed arguments of the judge out in the open where the full text can be read and dissected?

World News Daily has this report:

At the conclusion of the arraignment, Lakin was ordered not to speak with the press and was taken back to Reed under military escort, surprising and disturbing a civilian lawyer who has been working on his case.

“This was completely inappropriate. Col Lakin was brought here and taken away from here as if he was a common criminal. He was prohibited from talking to the press for two minutes; he was prohibited from talking to anybody, even me,” Paul Rolf Jenson said.

WorldNetDaily has commented on the recent memorandum issued by the Article 32, UCMJ, IO in LTC Lakin’s case.

But Lakin said the result "makes it impossible for me to have a fair hearing."

"I cannot even raise the issue of the president’s eligibility, on the grounds that my position has ‘no basis in law,’" he said

Thanks to 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 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.

Contact Information