LTC Lakin appeared on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show today.  You can listen to it online here.  (Click on the second link, under GGL – 4-20-10 H1.)  His attorney states that he’s been told charges may be preferred as soon as today or tomorrow or later this week.

LTC Lakin’s attorney is Paul Rolf Jensen, who has had some involvement in the birther movement.  The first item in his “Practice Areas” list on his Cornell Law Directory page is, and I swear I’m not making this up, “Animal / Dog Law.”  I can’t wait to see how he does in a court-martial.

LTC Lakin doesn’t speak much during the show, but he does state that he’s been “flagged for missing movement and, and my intent to disobey all orders.  That flagging means there can be no favorble actions taken for me, including my — I am — have been picked up for promotion to full colonel, which would probably take place in a little over a year, but that’s in jeopardy now.  And I was told I’m under investigation.”  Mr. Jensen says LTC Lakin was given written notice of the flagging yesterday.

13 Responses to “LTC Lakin’s attorney says he expects charges to be preferred today, tomorrow or later this week”

  1. Nah Man says:

    Was that flagging or flogging? I think one is more appropriate in this case.

  2. John O'Connor says:

    Oh no, he won’t get promoted to Colonel? Refusing to, you know, deploy really shouldn’t flag someone for non-promotion. Cry me a river.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Animal/Dog Law you say? Well, I guess Fluffy needs representation too.

    Cornell? Wonder if he sang in Andy Bernard’s A cappella group.

  4. Cap'n Crunch says:

    If I were an enterprising young JA, maybe I’d set a message with this case and draft charges of desertion (he’s remaining away from his place of duty with an intent to stay away); Missing movement (yes they have this); contempt towards officials; willful disobedience of command; Article 94, mutiny and sedition; misbehavior before the enemy; and multiple 134 counts.

    And I’d see if I could include death specifications. Because, this is all fun and games for LTC Crackpot. So, lets set an example and make him sweat.

  5. DC Steve says:

    The idea of a sedition charge made me smile.

    Just make sure you don’t include a 134 charge for abusing a public animal…his attorney may actually know what to do with that one.

    LTC Lakin: If you’ve removed the tinfoil hat, and are reading this, perhaps the best way to settle this dispute you have with your commander in chief is by challenging him to a duel.

    Please, do us practitioners this one (additional) favor. We need some case law on Art 114.

  6. Mike says:

    A first at CAAFlog?

    I don’t think I’ve seen this much ire and sarcasm directed against an accused and his defense counsel.

    Is LTC Lakin’s defense argument dumb? Sure, but no dumber than some other defense argument’s I’ve seen.

    It’s refreshing though. From now on, anytime I hear people accuse the defense counsel of being pro-defense hacks, I’ll just point them to the curious case of LTC Lakin.

    Btw, anyone know of similar situations where military members argued that the Bush administration wasn’t legitimate because the Supreme’s “handed” him the White House? That kind of talk was all the rage back in the day.

  7. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Don’t knock the dog law stuff. For plaintiff’s attorneys, dog bite cases (an aspect of “animal/dog law”) can be a very fertile source of cases and income. As an added benefit, homeowner insurance companies usually settle the cases quickly, so they’re much less effort than grinding out fender-benders where you fight for months over chiropractor bills and degrees of lordosis.

  8. Bridget says:

    I am not predisposed to be critical of those trying to make a living as a lawyer. Y’all in uniform may never have to figure out how to get the payroll paid and then pay your own bills. Haven’t really heard of LTC Lakin’s attorney doing military cases in SoCal, but then I don’t know them all. Hope he has done some military law since the CAAF was CMA-or as we used to call it “COMA”.

    Cap’n Crunch, all those charges are just an increased chance at promoting martyrdom. Keep it simple, get your result and move on. Why would the service want to be a part of the side show? This is someone who is going to continue carrying on so why make his day? Better, a court-martial with a sub-jurisdictional sentence and an ad sep. Just get it done. You hope the Army learned something from Watada.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Ummmm…no I’m going to say it’s up there in the hierarchy of dumb arguments. I think the level of dumb is what has caused even “defense hacks” to openly mock the argument, because it’s just that ridiculous.

    And no, I do not recall a single person missing movement or otherwise disobeying orders because of Bush v. Gore.

  10. Rob M says:

    I don’t think they ever needed to make that argument, since the war itself was “illegal,” “unconstitutional,” etc. They were lucky that they were only “obligated” to disobey the orders to do their jobs (i.e. fight the nation’s wars), not all orders.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Well we will have to disagree. I thought the war in Iraq was a criminally stupid decision, but I swore an oath and I didn’t think it illegal.

    However, I don’t think it crazy to think the war was illegal, and thus those folks who stood on that principle weren’t standing on crazy like these folks were.

    There is a difference between wrong and crazy wrong. I can imagine you yourself might have an extreme scenario come into play where you also would refuse to fight a war if it were patently immoral in your mind.

  12. Rob M says:

    I agree that the debate over the legality of the Iraq war was more based in law and reason than the debate over POTUS’s citizenship. But for those in the military (an important qualifier), the debate does not matter. As you’ve said, we swore an oath- anyone who’s been in the military for three years now has served under a republican CinC and a democratic CinC, and owes the same respect to both. We don’t publicly take sides or advocate partisan causes.

    My point with the earlier (admittedly sarcastic) post was that the servicemembers who sided with the anti-Bush left never had to challenge the legitimacy of the president himself, since they believed (probably rightly so) that they had a more credible argument to make against the war. Whereas the servicemembers who sympathize with the anti-Obama right have only one club in the bag, attempting to argue that the President is constitutionally illegitimate (a more difficult, and probably crazier argument to make, but the only one they’ve got).

    This is why, in answer to the original question, no military members had to argue that the Bush administration wasn’t legitimate.

    Regardless of the relative strengths of the two arguments (war illegal/Obama illegitimate), I have equal contempt for servicemembers who refuse to do their jobs and attempt to justify it by cloaking themselves in a political cause.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I guess my respect at the end of the day boils down to the validity of the cause. Sure, we swore an oath, but that is not the end of the analysis. I don’t question the earnestness of either group. So in either case I don’t view it as cloaking a desire to not do their job in a political cause.

    LTC Lakin has deployed before, for 16 months total. A lot of the folks who were against Iraq had deployed before. It wasn’t about fear, cowardice or laziness, but principle.

    Now the thing with principle is, it better be a really, really good one, because there is a competing principle, that oath we all swore.

    The Iraq War folks simply didn’t have a strong enough principle in my opinion to justify their actions (better to serve, then get out and protest til the cows come home), but it was understandable, could be respected (if disagreed with) and it was light-years stronger than this current group.

    I see no way of equating the two groups. Completely different IMO.