Here is a link to the American Patriot Foundation’s press release regarding their new strategy for LTC Lakin and his new legal team:

The American Patriot Foundation is pleased to announce that LTC Lakin has repositioned his forces, has retained new legal counsel, and is extremely grateful that the Foundation will be dedicating the critical next few weeks before his planned court-martial on November 3-5, to focusing entirely on public affairs, strategic communications/messaging and coalition-building and that their support will continue seamlessly as the new attorney prepares for trial.

This should be interesting.

61 Responses to “APF Supporting LTC Lakin’s New Attorneys”

  1. Rob A says:

    chaff and flares

  2. sg says:

    “LTC Lakin has repositioned his forces”?
    Really? Wow. So, it’s like a game of Risk or something now?

  3. Rob M says:

    I like how he/they think that “public affairs, strategic communications/messaging and coalition building” will have any effect whatsoever on the outcome of his.

  4. Greg says:

    The press release seems to me to be a blatant attempt to pressure Lakin into “staying the course.” After all, it’s hard to believe that Lakin’s new attorney would think that keeping Lakin on the Birther-approved script – really serves the best interests of his client.

  5. Phil Cave says:

    The release is also factually and legally wrong. It is not the prosecutors who have stopped LTC Lakin. It is the law and a unbiased military judge. As I have posted elsewhere, a denial of a motion for discovery and witnesses is not by itself evidence of actual bias. I can’t see anything in what the judge has done so far that shows actual bias and nor is there any hint of implied bias.

  6. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Some might suggest that LTC Lakin’s current counsel have recent success stories regarding the use of strategic communications and coalition building to to assist in defending against courts-martial charges.

  7. Greg says:

    “LTC Lakin has repositioned his forces”?

    Let’s not forget that Lakin is a Lieutenant Colonel – so presumably he has soldiers under his command. And by the sound of this press release, Lakin is positioning his subordinates in order to storm the courthouse (on his order).

    Or something like that.

  8. Norbrook says:

    I can’t see anything in what the judge has done so far that shows actual bias and nor is there any hint of implied bias.

    The problem is that you have legal training, experience, and think like the lawyer you are. In the birther legal lexicon, any judge who does not automatically grant all requests for discovery, along with requiring silly things like “standing” is “biased.”

  9. BigGuy says:

    ‘In the birther legal lexicon, any judge who does not automatically grant all requests for discovery, along with requiring silly things like “standing” is “biased.”’
    __

    Funny, that reminds me of something I saw on a birfer blog yesterday:

    “Dwight Sullivan at CAAFlog is an Obot, just read his writings.”

  10. SueDB says:

    ‘… like “standing” is “biased.”’
    __Funny, that reminds me of something I saw on a birfer blog yesterday:“Dwight Sullivan at CAAFlog is an Obot, just read his writings.”

    This just jumped right out at me. I saw that on the birferblog… Totally hilarious as it seems the LEGAL experts are Obots too.

    I couldn’t atop laughing… My sides hurt. The absolute and total cluelessness of da Birfers it almost too much to fathom…

  11. John O'Connor says:

    Isn’t Sullivan an Obot (whatever that means)? I bet “yes.”

  12. sg says:

    Obot–Obama Robot, one who mindlessly repeats whatever phrases and sayings Obama has programmed one to say. Also one who exhibits mindless, robotic devotion to Obama.

  13. Dwight Sullivan says:

    That does not compute.

    That does not compute.

  14. Rob A says:

    Obot–Obama Robot, one who mindlessly repeats whatever phrases and sayings Obama has programmed one to say. Also one who exhibits mindless, robotic devotion to Obama.

    Obots are also usually programmed to receive instrsuctions from SOROS.

  15. Joey says:

    I am highly offended that you would denigrate our religion and use the name of S_ _ _ S, HE who must not be spoken of or seen.
    Next you’ll probably be printing cartoon pictures of HIM.
    DEATH TO THE INFIDEL!

  16. NbC says:

    He is a palindrome, you know? But no relationship to the ignorant former governor of Alaska.

  17. sg says:

    Ahh, but which is better and which is worse? The Obot, or the Palindrone?

  18. Trevor says:

    For those who like their IQ dropped by a minimum of 15 points this is where the comment was made.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/10/developing-story-it-appears-ltc-lakin.html

    It’s nice to see as well that CAAFLOG and Court-Martial-UCMJ are also now branded as nefarious OBOT hangouts, I’m sure the monthly stipend of Soros Bucks helps out nicely…..8-)

  19. Ama Goste says:

    Like one of the SEAL cases?

  20. soonergrunt says:

    I’m sure the monthly stipend of Soros Bucks helps out nicely…..8-)

    Yay! I can finally get the big screen TV I want without stealing the identities of birthers that come round…
    {Did I say that out loud?}
    I mean, I can finally get that big screen TV I want and spend less time here heckling the birthers that come round. Yeah, that’s what I meant!

  21. Dave says:

    So one assumes “supporting” means any donations APF gets to LTC Lakin’s defense fund will pay the new lawyers’ bills, which raises a question. safeguardourconstitution.com still claims that contributions to the defense fund are tax deductible, and it is not clear that this is consistent with tax law. If not, would the new lawyers have any liability for this?

  22. Rob A says:

    This Facebook fan page is publishing Denise Lind’s email address. I can’t imagine that being a smart move.

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Thank-you-Lt-Col-Terry-Lakin/104776059554639?v=wall&ref=ts

  23. soonergrunt says:

    That’s some serious whackaloon right there.
    Re: COL Lind’s email address, one of the nuts states that he sent her an email and got a follow up call from the Army and that they weren’t happy. No details.
    I don’t know how all this works, but I have to assume that the Army wouldn’t have called him unless he said something they considered a threat, or am I wrong?
    He could just be (more) full of crap.

  24. Norbrook says:

    Press CTRL-ALT-DELETE and install Obot patch 2.01724. It’ll compute then.

  25. Rob M says:

    It’s not to say it’s never a viable strategy, just not in this case. (It helps when your client hasn’t acknowledged his willful commission of the acts that constitute the elements of the crime(s) alleged).

  26. Greg says:

    It’s certainly improper (to say the least) to lobby a judge or otherwise to try to influence their opinions – or to interfere with an ongoing trial.

  27. Trevor says:

    Rule 1……All Birfoons lie
    Rule 2……See Rule 1

    So…..did Monkey Boy “Thank_You” include his telephone number in his drool stained missive….kinda doubt it…so how did the “Army call him…?

    If he had fired off such an excessive email that it would require track and trace of his mail address, IP, ISP and chase for his home address, there would have been at the least one search warrant needing to be granted even under the fun of The PATRIOT Act.

    The call would then in all probability have been from the FBI and not the Army.

    See Rule 1

  28. soonergrunt says:

    I figured it was something like that, Trevor.

  29. nolu chan says:

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release/press101004.html

    “Contrary to the impression left by some blogs and internet commentary, LTC Lakin is consistent in continuing on the same path that he announced publicly six months ago when he released his first YouTube video– and consistent with his military training, to continue to request assurance from Pentagon leadership that his military orders, including his deployment orders to Afghanistan, are legal–”

    This is a smooth rewrite of history, that Lakin will continue on the same path he announced six months ago, to request assurance from Pentagon leadership that his military orders are legal. He did not announce he would continue to request assurance, he said he would disobey military orders. He stated and wrote his belief that any and all military orders were illegal.

    In his video of March 30, 2010, LTC Lakin stated,

    “I have no choice but the distasteful one of inviting my own court-martial.”

    “I am choosing to disobey what I believe to be illegal orders.”

    “I will disobey my orders to deploy because I, and I believe all servicemen and women, and the American people, deserve the truth about President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to the office of the presidency and the commander-in-chief. If he is ineligible, then my orders, and indeed all orders, are illegal, because all orders have the origin with the commander-in-chief, as handed down through the chain of command.”

    In his letter to President Obama of March 30, 2010, LTC Lakin concluded, “Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproved eligibility, I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.”

    One of the charges stems from the very next day, March 31, 2010 when LTC Lakin failed to report to the office of Col. Roberts, as directed.

  30. Norbrook says:

    Well, in a comment over at NBC’s blog, Phil Cave has now been labeled an Obot as well.

  31. Greg says:

    Wait a minute – now I am confused. Aren’t Phil Cave and Dwight Sullivan – one and the same person?

  32. Phil Cave says:

    No Greg, we are not one and the same to look at. We are two different people. :-) I suspect we have similar views, but I will gladly agree he’s the much smarter one. Brother Bill (C) is the better looking. Me, I’m me. Also I’m pouting because I can’t ever run for President, Emperor maybe whereas Dwight can be both.
    I’ve been traveling today but was bemused to find that I’m now an Obot. How did they know I have a droid and am a fan of all things android. Maybe Dwight and I can be Obotwins, and with the addition of Bill C (which he’d never do) we could be the Obotriplets. I was so upset I gave a very large donation to the DNC. There, so take that!
    Danger Will Robinson

  33. Trevor says:

    Phil,

    At least for you, the Birfoon name calling is still stuck on “Obot”…….currently..8-)

    We happy multitude who tramp the verminous alleys and blasted heaths of Birferstan get called all sorts of horrid names….and they call you a “gurl” as well.

    Usually format is after presenting basic facts and asking for rebuttals….”Mean Girl Madness” tends to ensue at that point.

  34. sg says:

    Probably stupid question here–
    Why has LTC Lakin not been charged with Art. 88? Is it not contemptuous towards the President to question his authority and/eligibility and to imply if not outright state that he is a ‘usurper’?
    Thanks

  35. Trevor says:

    IANAL and pure supposition but the burden to show this was not protected speech (even in the curtailed military sense) isn’t worth the work.

    In addition it would be leveraged by Birfoons as a demand for “Discovery” as hey, how can Lakin be charged if Obama’s not REALLY the President.

    All downside, no upside and defiant refusal to follow orders and to deploy is open and shut.

  36. sg says:

    That makes sense, Trevor. Even though, to my non-lawyer understanding, the truth or falsity of the violating statements is irrelevant to the charge, why bring in the extra layer of pain when you have a slam-dunk case?

  37. Horus says:

    This changes NOTHING.
    Lakin still has no standing.

  38. Greg says:

    Now that a military judge has told Lakin that his orders were legal, I am wondering what further “assurances” Lakin needs at this point.

  39. Phil Cave says:

    SG:
    1. Not a stupid question. It’s a valid question.

    2. IMHO there are a number of charges, including Article 88, which could be added. However, I think, IMHO, that the prosecution is following Ockham’s Razor (KIS). Why add baggage to an otherwise straightforward easy to prove set of charges. A review of many appellate cases will demonstrate that the prosecutors/SJAs/GCMCAs who routinely overcharge routinely have more problems in their cases. All of the surrounding matters could be used under RCM 1001 as aggravation.

  40. Norbrook says:

    A run through the UCMJ would give you a nice laundry list of charges that could have been brought, just based on LTC Lakin’s statements and actions. What was apparent to me was that the charges that were actually filed are very nicely crafted to a) make the point; and b) give him zero opportunity to turn it into a birther showcase.

    “You disobeyed an order to report to your commanding officer, the full bird with the CMOH? Because you don’t think the President is a natural born citizen?” Oh yeah, that’s going to fly with a military panel!

  41. Phil Cave says:

    Wait, Trevor, I can get money for this? Where do I apply?

  42. Greg says:

    It appears that the AFP is no longer the official sponsor of the Lakin Court Martial™. Instead, the shadowy “United States Patriots Union” now lays claim to the franchise and the role of Lakin’s authentic fundraiser.

    However, a careful reading of their asinine press release makes it clear that USPU’s ties to Lakin and his defense counsel are very tenuous at best.

  43. Phil Cave says:

    Greg,

    I and my civilian colleagues are hired and sometimes paid by the family or other friends to represent an accused client at court-martial or on appeal. And I would classify the several notorious cases over the last several years where there are fundraiser sites in that category. That leads to a number of interesting issues. Primarily the issue is who is the client? Do you do what the family wants or do you do what is best for the accused and risk not getting paid?
    I don’t think that’s going to be an issue for Neal or a problem for him. But sometimes you find yourself litigating with the payor more than the prosecution. I find it an interesting thought in the back of the mind when I read APF or USPU statements on the best defense for LTC Lakin.

  44. BigGuy says:

    The fragility of the relationship can be seen in the fact that the USPU’s fourth “White Paper” has, in the course of the day, made an abrupt and apparently coordinated disappearance from the many web sites on which it appeared. As of the moment it can still be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/38830921/LTC-Lakin-Chooses-New-Defense-USPU-White-Paper-4, but get your copy quick!

    The document implies that Neal Puckett will be taking the case in the direction prescribed by the USPU’s earlier White Papers, which bore a strictly Vattelist orientation.

    It looks like someone was unhappy to see that online.

  45. Phil Cave says:

    Is not the bottom line of USPU the same or similar to APF – challenge the lawfulness of the presidency and the orders?

  46. BigGuy says:

    Hey, did anyone notice — in that URL that Greg and I gave — in the White Paper, where they speak of the “corrupted justice system within the UCMJ,” the link points to http://www.caaflog.com/2010/10/02/goodbye-guano-crazy/ !!

  47. Greg says:

    From my reading of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (Army Regulation 27-26), the client’s interests are the attorney’s only concern – no matter who is paying the bill. Specifically, the commentary for Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest) reads:

    Interest of a Person Paying for a Lawyer’s Service

    A civilian lawyer practicing before a tribunal conducted pursuant to the Manual for Courts-Martial or the Uniform Code of Military Justice may be paid from a source other than the client, if the client is informed of that fact, consents and the arrangement does not compromise the lawyer’s duty of loyalty to the client. See Rule 1.8(f). For example, an accused soldier’s family may pay a civilian lawyer to represent the soldier at a court-martial.

  48. Phil Cave says:

    Greg, agree your reading and interpretation. However, rules and reality don’t always work well together without some friction. And this all assumes that USPU or some other entity is paying the bill.

  49. Greg says:

    Both the APF and the USPU believe that Obama is not eligible to be President – and both believe that Lakin’s orders were “illegal” for that reason.

    The two groups differ, however, on the question of why Obama is not a natural-born citizen. The APF cites Obama’s supposedly Kenyan birth as the problem, while the USPU argues that the foreign nationality of Obama’s father is the actual defect. In fact, these two opposing viewpoints have created a schism within the Birther community – as each member is torn between the two sides – and must decide which one of the two equally specious arguments – they (and Lakin) should rally behind.

    Of course, any outside, rational observer would probably look at this situation and recall George Wallace’s famous quote about the Democrats and the Republicans: “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them.”

  50. Phil Cave says:

    Greeg, well, I take your point. I guess I’m being a little too simplistic in thinking that the issue of President Obama’s eligibility is not on the table regardless.

  51. Greg says:

    Well, I guess we now know what Dwight does in his spare time: he corrupts the justice system within the UCMJ.

    Who would have guessed it?

  52. nolu chan says:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38764962/LTC-Lakin-Chooses-New-Defense-Release-Copy

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38830921/LTC-Lakin-Chooses-New-Defense-USPU-White-Paper-4

    The 38830921 version still up varies slightly from the earlier number 38764962 “Release Copy” version that was removed.

    The “Release Copy” lists Debra A. Gunnoe, Lt Col (Ret), USAF between Reynolds and Hollister as a member of The Veterans Council. It shows Hollister as a Lt Col rather than as a Col.

  53. BigGuy says:

    I think you’re both on the same wavelength. The USPU (and some other birther groups) have been grousing for weeks that the APF is making the mistake of restricting itself to the birth certificate issue and waiving what to them is the important one. The USPU issued its first three White Papers in an attempt to influence or preempt Jensen’s strategy.

    When it became clear that Jensen had been dumped, the USPU quickly jumped in and claimed credit, boasting that the defense was now going to go its way, notwithstanding the fact that Judge Lind’s ruling excluded both in an identical fashion. (The second approach, unlike the first, doesn’t require discovery, but that’s a trivial distinction — eligibility is simply off the table and the orders are legal.)

    And that’s why, IMO, the fourth White Paper was quickly scrubbed — it misrepresented the situation at a time when relations among the defense parties were strained enough already.

  54. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Which of you spilled the beans?

  55. BigGuy says:

    Dwight — you really should make your comments on the guano-crazy page. After all, that’s the one that’s going to be read by anyone following the link in the “White Paper.” How can you resist the temptation to address the True Believers directly?

    Maybe the USPU will modify their document accordingly. We may end up with a pair of reciprocal references worthy of Gödel, Escher, Bach.

  56. sg says:

    I find it an interesting coincidence that these people didn’t have a problem with the way the UCMJ functioned when G.W. Bush was CinC and the services were Courts-Martial and Discharges in Lieu of Courts-Martial for the members who had gone AWOL or refused to deploy but now the Military-Justice system is corrupt when it won’t give them what they want.
    It’s the obverse, to be true, of the liberal left screaming about how the Military-Justice system was cruel and unfair to those guys but now is the sword and shield of the nation protecting us against would-be coup plotters like Lakin.

  57. Trevor says:

    I love it when Birfoons go Full Metal Internecine cannibal……

  58. Interested onlooker says:

    Sg, weren’t most of those refusing to go low-ranking individuals who had a reasonable chance of being shot at, unlike our “brave patriot” Lakin the flight surgeon? Not suggesting it makes their actions right, but rather Lakin’s even less so. But hey, those retired colonels in USPU who dont like the current President need to look out for one of their own!

  59. sg says:

    Mechanics, medics, and infantry, a lot of them were. Some of them refused to go at all, others refused to return from leave, some refused second or third deployments for whatever reason. The only officer of which I am aware was 1LT Ehren Watada who if memory serves, refused to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that it was an illegal war, which reasoning he supported by volunteering to deploy to Afghanistan.
    They were all just as wrong as LTC Lakin is.
    I’m not ready to question Lakin’s bravery in the face of the enemy, and I doubt it’s part of the issue. Lakin served a prior combat tour with honor and distinction. He appears to be a true believer in the cause. That absolutely doesn’t excuse him in my opinion, any more than it excused 1LT Watada.
    Honestly, if LTC Lakin were refusing to go because he was afraid, I would have more respect for that. It wouldn’t excuse him legally, but I could understand that. Every man has his breaking point and I know good men who couldn’t handle the repeated stresses of combat deployments. I’m very uncomfortable with damning a man who is scared. I was scared out of my mind at one point or another on each of my deployments. I don’t know what if anything makes me different than those good men. I can have sympathy for those guys while still thinking they need to be dealt with. I have no use at all for somebody who uses his uniform or his rank for a blatantly political purpose, which I believe LTC Lakin is doing, and for which I believe he should be punished harshly.

  60. Rickey says:

    There sometimes is tension between the defendant and the entity paying the bill in civil lawsuits where an insurance company is providing the defense. The defense attorney has to do what is best for the client, but also wants to continue getting cases from the insurance company. It gets a bit dicey at times, particularly when there is danger of an excess judgment.

  61. Joey says:

    Now I understand why the Tea Party endorsed candidate for the US Senate in Colorado called birthers “dumbasses”.
    Why Karl Rove called them “conspiracy nuts.”
    Why Ann Coulter called them “cranks”.
    And why Glenn Beck called “birtherism”, “just about the dumbest thing I ever heard of.”