Witnesses admit Lakin was never ordered to get on airplane to deploy

By Jack Minor

Several witnesses in the court-martial of former Greeley resident Lt.Col. Lakin, admitted he was never ordered to board a US Airways flight as alleged in the charges against him.

After more than a year of attempting to resolve questions he had over President Obama’s eligibility to be president, Lakin felt he had no choice but to disobey orders until the issue was resolved. In March, Lakin was ordered to Ft. Campbell, Kentucky to prepare for a tour in Afghanistan. Lakin did not arrive at Ft Campbell.

As a result he was charged with violating Articles 87, missing a movement aboard US Airways flight 1123 and Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order on April 22. Tuesday morning Lakin pleaded guilty to violating Article 92.

As the trial began, the hearing room was filled with Lakin’s family and supporters. During the initial phase the judge had Lakin agree multiple times that the order was lawful and that he had disobeyed them. Lakin’s lawyer, retired Marine Corps Col, Neil Puckett explained that Lakin was given counsel by a previous lawyer to disobey the orders.

The judge also questioned a letter Lakin sent to President Obama, in which he indicated that his orders as well as others could possibly be illegal. Puckett pointed out this possibility was the dilemma Lakin felt regarding the decision he ultimately had to make. Throughout the proceeding Lakin had a very humble spirit regarding the charges.

Lt. Commander Kirchner, who currently has an eligibility case before the Supreme Court, said “the trial is a total corruption of the Constitution.”

Following the acceptance of the Article 92 guilty plea, selection began on the members of the panel who would decide Lakin’s guilt on the other charge. Following lunch, the prosecution began its case calling several witnesses who testified as to the validity of the orders given to Lakin.

During his opening arguments, Puckett pointed out that although the charge was missing the movement of US Airways flight 1123, nowhere in his orders did it say Lakin was required to take a flight to his destination. Puckett went on to say the orders actually gave Lakin a choice as to his method of travel. During cross examination, every prosecution witness admitted that Lakin’s orders did not contain a requirement to fly on US Airways flight 1123.

At times the prosecution seemed unsure of themselves. At one point prosecutor Capt. Jonathon Kobrinski asked Lt. Col. William Judd a question regarding whether Lakin had met with his commander, Puckett objected. After sustaining the objection Kobrinski appeared unsure how to respond. This prompted Judge Denise Lind to prompt the prosecutor “you can ask him if he complied with the memo.”

Lt. Col. Gordon Roberts testified that Lakin had not complied with on order to meet with him on March 31 but instead met the next day. Puckett asked Roberts his reasons for wanting to meet with Lakin. Roberts testified that upon hearing of Lakin’s refusal to deploy he was concerned as the action was out of character for Lakin who had an exemplary record. Roberts also indicated he wished to ensure that Lakin understood the consequences of his actions. Roberts confirmed that he accomplished every goal he wished to accomplish for the meeting. Puckett also said this appeared to bolster claims that Lakin reached the decision not to deploy only after much soul searching and after he felt all other avenues to resolve his issue had been exhausted.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback  •  Posted by Jack Minor in General News category

 
  • Biff Guiznot says:

    LCOL Edwards testified he was instructed to get on the specific airplane that he missed.

    Only a person unfamiliat with courts martial would say the rosecutors were unsure of themselves. Trial counsel were competent and just ecause an objection was sustanied is meaningless.

    Kerchner’s case was denied and he has no case before the Supreme Court.

    This article is grossly inaccurate and pro-birther.

  • HistorianDude says:

    What abysmal reportage.

    1. Lt. Cdr. Kirchner does NOT “currently (have) an eligibility case before the Supreme Court.” His petition for certiorari was denied by the court more than two weeks ago,

    2. It is not true that “every prosecution witness” denied that Lakin had orders to board that plane. In point of fact, LTC Edwards, the Deputy Commander for Clinical testified that COL Roberts said LTC Lakin’s duty was “to get on that plane and go to Fort Campbell,” and that she relayed that order to LTC Lakin. In the opinion of several experienced JAG officers at the trial, that testimony is sufficient to win a conviction on the charge Lakin is otherwise trying to beat with a technicality.

    3. You also leave out COL Robert’s (a Medal of Honor Recipient) testimony that when ordered to report to his office, Lakin did not merely disobey the order but he showed profound disrespect with the dismissive comment, “You had your chance.” Such arrogance will be remembered by the panel of full Colonels sitting in judgment when time comes for sentencing.

    But most important, you gloss over the fact that by pleading guilty and admitting that his orders were lawful, LTC Lakin has completely and explicitly abandoned the Birther cause he was supposedly trying to advance. This has now become an ordinary General Court Martial with exactly no political implications whatsoever.

    It is likely that sentencing will take place as early as tomorrow. Lakin is likely to receive more than a year of jail time, be dismissed from the service (the commissioned officer equivalent of a dishonorable discharge) and forfeit all pay and benefits.

    And President Obama’s eligibility will be unchallenged in the proceedings.

  • Truther says:

    Jag had you up late i see HD,

    The one thing that would verify the Presidents birth place and time “was’ the “original” document of birth.

    The scanned document provided has been scrutinized by many professionals to be a ‘new” version of the Hawaii birth certificate, and could be a re- issued or counterfeit document.

    Has either news paper publication been verified as being authentic?

    Has the original birth certificate been verified third party?

  • raj says:

    There is only one fact worth discussing and that is Obama’s refusal to lift the document embargo he has employed in this matter. Brave men of conscience like Lt. Col Lakin are leaps and bounds above the anti-birther sycophants like Historiandude and Biff. It is a sad commentary of this nation when a man of integrity like Lt Col Lakin are imprisioned and belittled for asking a simple question and proof for Constitutional eligibility.

  • Bonnlass says:

    Anyone believing that the “Birther’s” are dead, must be smoking pot or eating Dr. Andrew Weil mushrooms. The Birthers are more united and organized than the opposition ever dreamed of. Any effort on the part of the anti-birthers working in Congressional offices will cost them their jobs and the Birthers will throw out the anti-Consitutionalists. Congressmen who do not adhere to the lawful articles of the Constitution will lose their title of Representative because they have failed to address the issue legislatively. Congress needs to call for hearings demanding that Barack Hussein Obama presents all documents including the certified live Birth Certificate with the name of the hospital and the attending physician’s name on it. Until this happens I am happy to be included in the growing number of Birthers.

  • John says:

    As a Vietnam vet I am glad this coward was convicted. I now hope he loses his medical license.

  • Patrick says:

    Hey Historian Dude – The eligibility clause in the Constitution is there for a reason and it’s the law, remember the LAW? The term “birther” is a misnomer, the real name for people who doubt the eligibility of putative President Obama should be Constitutionalists or patriots. Talk about “profound disrespect”, how can a man without a valid birth certificate who held British citizenship at birth be a natural born American citizen? The only “profound disrespect” going around on this issue is that of liberals for the Constitution!

    P.S. – Please don’t refer me to that phony electronic image of a Hawaiian COLB posted to the internet, that is proof only for fools! We the people have the absolute right to know exactly who our Commander in Chief really is, do we not?

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Patrick

    The eligibility clause in the Constitution is there for a reason and it’s the law, remember the LAW?

    Absolutely. And it’s purpose is not to indemnify disobedient and dishonorable soldiers from their consequences of their criminal acts.

    The term “birther” is a misnomer, the real name for people who doubt the eligibility of putative President Obama should be Constitutionalists or patriots.

    That would only be true for those small number of Birthers who actually are Constitutionalists or patriots. Certainly the labels are no more obviously substitutable than say “fern” and “bicycle.”

    Because many (I would contend most) are not. The ignorance of the Constitution and constitutional law that pervades the writings, blogs and court filings of Birthers is transcendent. And as someone who has fought for my country, I am not impressed by their patriotism.

    Talk about “profound disrespect”, how can a man without a valid birth certificate who held British citizenship at birth be a natural born American citizen? The only “profound disrespect” going around on this issue is that of liberals for the Constitution!

    President Obama publicly released his valid birth certificate more than two years ago. And no British law (to include their grants of citizenship) can override the sovereignty of the United States and deny our natural born citizens their status or their rights. It is ironic that you would consider yourself a patriot and then assert that US law is somehow inferior to British law when it comes to citizenship.

    That’s just… droll.

    P.S. – Please don’t refer me to that phony electronic image of a Hawaiian COLB posted to the internet, that is proof only for fools! We the people have the absolute right to know exactly who our Commander in Chief really is, do we not?

    Actually, no. There is no such thing as absolute anything. You have the right to vote your conscience based on what you believe to be true. You have the right to hold whatever standard you personally want to hold for proof, no matter how absurd or anomalous. You have the right to tattoo your political beliefs on your forehead and be pissed off when things don’t go your way.

    But we have learned today that LTC Lakin does not have the right to disobey his orders for the purpose of political grandstanding. As of this writing he has been found guilty of all charges against him.

    He will probably be in prison before the sun sets in Greeley.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Bonnlass

    The Birthers are more united and organized than the opposition ever dreamed of.

    And still have never had a single decision in a single court case ever go their way.

    Certainly, you are damning with faint praise.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ raj

    It is a sad commentary of this nation when a man of integrity like Lt Col Lakin are imprisioned and belittled for asking a simple question and proof for Constitutional eligibility.

    LTC Lakin is not being imprisoned for asking questions.

    He is being imprisoned for the commission of crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

  • The last link may not be correct. Here is the correct link:

    Standing with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin

  • HistorianDude,

    You claim:

    President Obama publicly released his valid birth certificate more than two years ago.

    Please name the Senators and Representatives who inspected this hard copy document, in the process of supporting and defending Section 3 of the 20th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Please explain why this document, which you claim is “valid”, has an invalid seal. The seal is required, by law to be a raised seal. Instead, the seal on that document is an incised seal. The side of the seal that reads properly should be raised, while the flip side, showing the mirror image, should be incised. But that is not the case for the document that you claim is “valid”, and the State of Hawaii has never claimed that that document is “valid”.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ ITookTheRedPill

    Please name the Senators and Representatives who inspected this hard copy document, in the process of supporting and defending Section 3 of the 20th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Why? There is no, and never has been any Constitutional requirement for them to do so. They have never done so with any prior President… partially because at least 36 of our 44 Presidents never had birth certificates at all. What would you have had them inspect?

    One can only ponder over what is specifically “different” about this President that causes you to invent entirely new standards and hurdles to eligibility out of whole cloth, especially when there exists exactly no evidence that contradicts the COLB.

    Please explain why this document, which you claim is “valid”, has an invalid seal. The seal is required, by law to be a raised seal. Instead, the seal on that document is an incised seal. The side of the seal that reads properly should be raised, while the flip side, showing the mirror image, should be incised. But that is not the case for the document that you claim is “valid”, and the State of Hawaii has never claimed that that document is “valid”.

    There is no need to explain what is not true. The seal is valid, and can be seen on many other other Hawaiian COLBs on line, even those provided by Birthers. In fact, not a single COLB ever presented on the web has a seal different from President Obama’s.

    There is further no difference whatsoever between a “raised” seal and an “incised” seal. They are the exact same thing. It merely depends on which side of the document one is examining at the moment. The idiocy of any claim otherwise is profound testimony to the complete intellectual incompetence of the entire Birther movement.

    That said, I also refer you to the June 27th, 2008 article on the website Politifact.com in which Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Hawaii DoH explicitly stated in reference to Obama’s COLB that “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    It is an accomplishment of note to be as absolutely and profoundly wrong as you appear to be. It is my hope that you are more competent at real life than you are as a Birther apologist.

  • Finn says:

    Too bad there is not a charge for being a weak- minded fool. Much simpler and to the point.

  • Sarge says:

    He must have had a set of written orders which he obviosely disobeyed. People don’t just call and tell you to be somewhere in the military.

    As for the birth ceritficate. Maybe all Americans should have to produce their original or be deported? How many of you have originals?
    It’s the regiestration that counts and Hawaii state officials have already verified it

  • raj says:

    lack-of-HistoryDude,
    You avoid discussing the only facts relevant as I pointed out and yes, he is being imprisoned for only asking a question since he was denied any self defense to the questions he asked.
    You are stuck on stupid by repeating he released his valid birth certificate over two years ago. You lack the simple integrity and intellectual curiosity required to get past that partisan stupidity.

    1. The Constitutionality of a person born with dual citizenship and the Constitutional Natural Born clause has never been adjudicated and hyper-liberal anti-birthers like you don’t care to ask and fear to ask the question.
    2. The state of Hawaii won’t acknowledge if the COLB first released to the DailyKos and then FactCheck- but never his official Senate website was issued by them.
    3. The State of Hawaii admits to having seen the full record but can’t legally release it without permission from Obama. He would rather send men to jail than release it. This fact alone makes your defense of Obama as irrational as he is.

    Why not just admit you don’t care if Obama is ineligible instead of dancing around the facts of the document embargo he has employed? Obama’s world-citizen view rather than a natural born American view is at the heart of the matter and is the relevant objection to Obama.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ raj

    You avoid discussing the only facts relevant as I pointed out and yes, he is being imprisoned for only asking a question since he was denied any self defense to the questions he asked.

    You seem very confused. Lakins charge sheets can be found here:

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf-14-chargesheet.pdf

    Please, show me where he was charged with asking questions? He can hardly have been denied a defense for something he was never charged with in the first place.

    The Constitutionality of a person born with dual citizenship and the Constitutional Natural Born clause has never been adjudicated and hyper-liberal anti-birthers like you don’t care to ask and fear to ask the question.

    Then assemble a non-frivolous court case that would elicit such an adjudication. Of course, that will require you to leap the hyper-conservative invented hurdle of “standing.” Birthers have now tried at least 72 times without success. Perhaps 73 will be charm.

    That said… there are tens of millions of living Americans who satisfy the most conservative Birther standard for natural born citizen… and yet are still dual citizens. Even Birther Lawyer Mario Apuzzo has explicitly acknowledged that a person can be a dual citizen and a natural born citizen at the same time.

    The state of Hawaii won’t acknowledge if the COLB first released to the DailyKos and then FactCheck- but never his official Senate website was issued by them.

    Of course they won’t. Your point?

    The State of Hawaii admits to having seen the full record but can’t legally release it without permission from Obama. He would rather send men to jail than release it. This fact alone makes your defense of Obama as irrational as he is.

    You seem to have forgotten that he publicly released his birth certificate more than two years ago. Ti is odd since you acknowledged that fact just one sentence ago.

    Why not just admit you don’t care if Obama is ineligible instead of dancing around the facts of the document embargo he has employed?

    Because it would be a lie.

    Obama’s world-citizen view rather than a natural born American view is at the heart of the matter and is the relevant objection to Obama.

    If you object to this, then do not vote for him. But the Constitution places three and only three requirements on Presidential eligibility. Not having a “world-citizen view” is not one of them.

Please leave a reply...



You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>