Yesterday ACCA summarily denied LTC Lakin’s petition for extraordinary relief.  A copy of the order is available here.  LTC Lakin’s new defense counsel have 20 days from yesterday to file a writ appeal with CAAF if they wish to challenge Judge Lind’s denial of discovery further.

(Thanks to the wonderful public servants at ACCA for providing us with a copy of the order.)

In other Lakin news, Phil “My Liege” Cave attended today’s Article 39(a) session and reports here that Judge Lind accepted Paul Rolf Jensen’s removal as LTC Lakin’s counsel.  Neal Puckett entered an appearance in the case.  And the trial dates were moved to 14-16 December.

36 Responses to “ACCA’s order denying LTC Lakin’s petition for extraordinary relief; trial pushed back”

  1. Reality Check says:

    Thanks for posting the denial order from the ACCA. I guess that brings to a close the strange saga of Paul Rolf Jensen and his rendezvous with destiny.

  2. soonergrunt says:

    Get ready for sixty posts from yguy and a bunch of new personalities about how

    THE ARMY IS COVERING UP FOR OBAMINATION TO PERVANT AN IMBERRISMENT TO HIM….ZOMG!!!1!!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!1!!11!

    Popcorn, hors d’oeuvres, and chilled beer on order. I’m telling you guys, this is gonna be fun!

  3. SueDB says:

    Thanks for posting the denial order from the ACCA. I guess that brings to a close the strange saga of Paul Rolf Jensen and his rendezvous with destiny.

    Watch the right froth.

    As Sir Winston Churchill observed in 1942,

    “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

    On with the show.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Actually, not for much longer. I suspect once the birfers find out that Mr. Puckett is not playing their game (and thus one hopes neither is the good LTC Lakin) then they will cut him from their good graces faster than you can say sanity restored.

  5. soonergrunt says:

    @Anon 2029hrs–
    I’m talking about this thread. By this time tomorrow, it’s going to be full of people whose grasp of military legal concepts make me look like Judge Matthews, and they’ll all be nuttier than squirrel poo.

  6. Norbrook says:

    @sg – you mean like this quote?

    Obama would be a Usurper Commander In Chief and therefore all trust, security, confidence would be forclosed. It would be impossible for Lakin to follow him which would include following orders in adherance to the present Commander in Cheif’s policies which is Obama. Any policy decisions made by the Usurper Commander In Chief regarding AF could not be trusted. Thus any orders in support of those policies could no longer be trusted or followed.

    The problem with trying to spoof the birthers is that they turn out to be even more guano-crazy than the best satirists can make them. I made a crack on NBC’s blog about “next thing you know, they’ll want DNA proof.” Well, now there’s a group that does.

  7. soonergrunt says:

    Nothing with these idiots surprises me anymore.

  8. Christopher Mathews says:

    Oh, dear God:

    A certificate that a child was born to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu on 4 August 1961 might be true; but, assuming it’s true, it does not necessarily follow that Mr. Obama is that child. Whether he is or not requires genetic analysis.

    I guess this was inevitable. The goalposts are on wheels, and equipped with gas-turbine engines.

  9. soonergrunt says:

    @ Christopher Matthews:
    Sir, you know as well as I do that genetic testing won’t prove anything to them because they’ll want to see Stanley Ann Dunham’s remains dis-interred or they won’t believe that it was really her DNA being sampled.
    Then they’ll demand DNA proof that she was related to her parents, and so on.
    It’s because of the President’s skin tone. We all know it. Why, why, WHY are we not calling these racists what they are whenever they dare to show their faces (real or virtual)?

  10. aarrgghh says:

    y’know, it’s been a very long time since a birfer’s come up with an original idea:

    and why are you still on the birth certificate?
    it’s moved past that.

    i don’t actually believe barry sr is barry jr’s father. if you look at pix after pix of the two together there is not one facial feature in common between them. not one. and i am certain the forensic skull overlap will/has already proven that.

    and barry left plenty of utensils and glasses to obtain his DNA from, which as you know, counselor, is perfectly legal if obtained in a public place – even for the POTUS.

    what you may not know is DNA can be tested from folks of “african” descent and the location in africa from whence their ancestors arose — sometimes down to the exact tribe (i imagine even the luo) — can be determined.

    they certainly have no trouble determining if the DNA is of east african or west african origin.

    and the testing can be accomplished in complete anonymity without need of comparison from a relative.

    what is more gold standard than a birth certificate?

    DNA.

  11. Trevor says:

    @ Christopher Matthews:Sir, you know as well as I do that genetic testing won’t prove anything to them because they’ll want to see Stanley Ann Dunham’s remains dis-interred or they won’t believe that it was really her DNA being sampled.Then they’ll demand DNA proof that she was related to her parents, and so on.It’s because of the President’s skin tone. We all know it. Why, why, WHY are we not calling these racists what they are whenever they dare to show their faces (real or virtual)?

    H’mm, the Birfoons are aware, I trust that S.A.D. was cremated and her remains scattered over the Pacific…?

    Quick get Horatio and the CSI Miami team on it, surely there is a way….. (cue epic sunglass toss and waily music)

  12. sg says:

    H’mm, the Birfoons are aware, I trust that S.A.D. was cremated and her remains scattered over the Pacific?

    MORE PROOF OF THE CONSPIRACY!!
    Because all caps means it MUST be true.

  13. SueDB says:

    y’know, it’s been a very long time since a birfer’s come up with an original idea:

    Just when you thought it was safe to enter the gene pool…

  14. SueDB says:

    H’mm, the Birfoons are aware, I trust that S.A.D. was cremated and her remains scattered over the Pacific…?

    How convenient. See the commies knew over 40 years ago that genetic testing would ferret out their man going to the Whitehouse [snicker] and made sure the body was not around for testing

  15. Anonymous says:

    I figured it out, this Lakin obsession. He gaffed off your guy. Had it been Bush, there is no Lakin obsession.

  16. sg says:

    I figured it out, this Lakin obsession.He gaffed off your guy.Had it been Bush, there is no Lakin obsession.

    What does that even mean?

  17. John O'Connor says:

    It means that we’re all in the bag for President Obama so we are anti-birther, when we wouldn;t share that same anti-birther vitriol if a Republican was President.

  18. Capt. Obvious says:

    I figured it out, this Lakin obsession.He gaffed off your guy.Had it been Bush, there is no Lakin obsession.

    This means that huffing whatever is under the sink and chugging a gallon of homemade rum will not make you smarter.

  19. Sharshar says:

    I think that this is called Poe’s law, if we substitute birther for Fundamentalist.
    From Urban dictionary:
    Similar to Murphy’s Law, Poe’s Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics. “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.” In other words, No matter how bizarre, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

  20. sg says:

    It means that we’re all in the bag for President Obama so we are anti-birther, when we wouldn;t share that same anti-birther vitriol if a Republican was President.

    Thanks.
    But that doesn’t actually mean anything because if the President were a republican there wouldn’t be any birthers.
    It’s the functional equivalent of saying that if the sun comes up in the morning anybody who doesn’t complain about it being dark is a hypocrite. It’s one of the dumber things I’ve heard or read recently.

  21. mikeyes says:

    It means that we’re all in the bag for President Obama so we are anti-birther, when we wouldn;t share that same anti-birther vitriol if a Republican was President.

    Not for me and I suspect the majority of veterans on this list.

    The military has dealt with similar issues for over 40 years since Viet Nam. CAPT Huet-Vaughn was tried and convicted on virtually the same charges and used the same political defense that her orders were illegal because something in a pay grade above her was illegal. She deserved the punishment that she got – she was an 11 year veteran – for the same reasons. She abandoned her fellow soldiers, advocated mutiny (I witnessed that), dishonored her office and shirked her duty. LTC Lakin has done the same thing.

    My politics have nothing to do with my opinion of LTC Lakin, I judge him as an officer. Had he done the right thing, resign, I would have respect for him. Again, this has nothing to do with my politics and everything to do with what an officer should do.

  22. Greg says:

    So a person’s DNA can establish the time and place of their birth?

    Wow, the things you can learn in the far corners of the Internet….

  23. Greg says:

    Anonymous might have a point with the the Obama vs. Bush comparison.

    After all, President George W. Bush was born in New Haven. And I’m sure for many Americans, being born in Connecticut would make Bush as good as foreign born.

    The problem was that – back then – there was no one in the entire U.S. military (apparently not even Lakin himself) who was principled enough to make a Lakinesque stand on the matter.

  24. Anonymous says:

    One little post got your goad. You guys all made my case. Thanks.

  25. Not a zombie says:

    Just as I suspected: throw down the racist.birther card. You guys are the subject of the attached: http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton101310.html

  26. sg says:

    Listen, Zombie guy–
    I am the only one here who calls the birthers the racists that they are. I don’t even know how any of the others feel about the subject. So it would be proper to say “soonergrunt is the subject…”
    And I’ll note that just because your fee-fees were hurt by my labeling the birthers as racists, that does not contradict the fact that the birthers are racists.
    The way to stop being called a racist is not to whine about being called a racist. It’s to stop doing and saying racist things.

  27. sg says:

    That would be “got your goat” you illiterate dipstick. Goad is a verb, not a noun as in “He goaded me to punch him in the neck by saying and posting things that made no grammatical sense.”
    What you said here is the grammatical equivalent of “One little post got your eat.” or “one little post got your jump.” It’s only slightly less stupid and meaningless than your first blathering. Please try harder.

  28. Trevor says:

    Dear Anonymous

    Do tell, when Lakin goes to Leavenworth for being the worthless, cowardly buddy-fucker he is, will you and your ilk continue to support him for the next 30 odd years. I mean, no pesnion, no benefits, unlikely to practice as a doctor again etc.

    Or, as happens with all Birfoons, when the tool turns out to be worn beyond use, drop him like a rabid ferret.

    Further, you do understand that by adhering to this perverse insanity of his, he caused another to stand in his stead, in danger?

    Do tell….

  29. Greg says:

    Whether birthers are racist or not, we know one thing for certain: birthers are sore losers.

  30. Rob M says:

    Agree, and add that in the category of “had he done the right thing” there is also the obvious- STFU, kept his politics to himself, and done his job.

    CPT H-V deserved what she got, Watada deserved what he didn’t get, Lakin deserves what in all likelihood he will get. If one wants to be political, go be political- don’t put on the uniform.

  31. mikeyes says:

    Anonymous 2:46,

    The reason that the Constitution is one of the most important political documents (of not THE most important) in history is that the Founders anticipated human behavior. They knew that humankind was flawed and that given an opportunity, they would do the wrong thing. Hence the tripartite form of government and the explicit instructions about human rights and governance.

    Among those instructions is a large concentration on the establishment and control of the military (and specifically officers.) The purpose of these sections is to assure the safety of the Republic and the Constitution.

    The First Amendment gives individual citizens protection from the government so they can state their political and religious preferences without punishment. As a result, people can have all sorts of ideas, including unfounded thoughts about sitting presidents, that they can admit to in public without suffering consequences.

    The one exception to this rule has to do with those people who literally put their lives on the line to protect this country from those who would like to destroy our way of life. In case you are not aware, this is the military. Members of the military have separate rules and regulations mandated by the Constitution which include the inability to disobey legal orders and to stay neutral concerning political questions while in uniform.

    Now, I suspect that you have not been a member of this organization in the past, so I can understand your confusion and even understand the “kangaroo court” references that others of your political persuasion have made concerning Article 1 courts. I even understand your contempt for the discussion on this military justice blog – I kind of like that “get your goad” malapropism (I hope these big words are not making your brain explode) – but I don’t understand the constant (and anonymous) call for other military members to emulate LTC Lakin.

    You see, this puts you and others like you into another category.

    For one thing, you are totally wrong about the legal aspects of this case. A member of the military, even officers, cannot refuse to follow a legal order unless they are incapable of doing so or, in the case of officers, they resign. The security of the country depends on this aspect of the UCMJ (which is a Constitutionally mandated set of rules)and every member of the various services is aware of this. Since you are unaware of this, I can only conclude that you have never served your country in the military.

    Still, people make mistakes, as did LTC Lakin. And they pay for it under UCMJ.

    So where does that leave people like you who are urging others to follow suit? Under Article III, Section 3 (and let me put this as gently as possible) that makes you an ignorant traitorous coward who is more than willing to advocate the destruction of military order and thereby the Constitution for an idea for which the oft quoted Article II, Section 1 already has a solution for.

    So you are not getting anyone’s “goad”. at least not on this blog, but you are insulting a large number of persons who have volunteered for the highest public service and who have literally put themselves in harm’s way in order that you might have the opportunity to make silly statements and/or advocate treason.

  32. soonergrunt says:

    @Birthers and other such people who come here:
    first, re: mikeyes 0855; What he said.
    There’s really no getting around this, so it bears saying again. Our lives are not like the lives of most Americans. We choose to live by a set of rules that, among other things simplifies our lives by removing certain subjects from consideration. One of those subjects is politics beyond a very limited set of behaviors. Another simplification is that the rules are known by all and enforced (as much as practicable) for all.
    Many of the people here have served in places where the military wasn’t specifically enjoined from political activity or wasn’t specifically subordinated to civilian rule. Those countries are almost invariably less technologically, economically, and socially advanced as the United States. This is the inevitable result for a country of the group with the best guns deciding that it knows better than anyone else. We have the rules we have for a reason.
    I am a Liberal, and unashamedly so. Others on this board are self-described Conservatives. We don’t agree on much, but you will find no daylight between us on this issue. LTC Lakin MUST be held to account for the crimes of which he is accused, and if found guilty MUST be punished severely. The charges and specifications go to the heart of the military subordination to civilian authority, the precept at the very base of the institutions we love, to which we have dedicated our lives.
    Contrary to whatever you may believe, there were Liberals like myself serving during the Bush administration. Many of us had questions about the election of 2000. Many more of us had very serious issues with the invasion of Iraq. Specifics are beyond the scope of this post, but very very few of us refused our orders, and those who did were mostly punished severely. The vast majority of us kept our mouths shut and did our jobs and took care of our subordinates and peers to the best of our abilities because that is the job for which we signed up and for which we were being paid.
    The system has an out for people like Terry Lakin. He could have resigned his commission and then publicly voiced his concerns, and nobody here including me would’ve had a problem with him, but that’s not the path he chose.

  33. Norbrook says:

    Hmm.. not really. Is there a strong racist component in the birther movement? Yes. It’s demonstrable. Your citation about “zombie ideas” would be more applicable if there wasn’t that aspect. Does it mean that LTC Lakin is a racist? No.

    That said, what is your explanation for the sudden appearance of the birthers, when faced with an African-American President? It’s hard to write it off simply as “he’s a liberal” or “he’s a Democrat,” because quite frankly, no one has ever demanded this of Presidents before. I don’t recall anyone demanding to see “proof” that Gerald R. Ford or William Jefferson Clinton (which were not their birth names) were who they said they were, and that they were born inside the U.S. I recall a lot of nasty things being said about President Clinton, but not that. Maybe it’s just that they had European names that gave them a pass on that.

    It’s also interesting that these same “defenders of the Constitution” are attempting to incite the military overthrow of the elected government. Thankfully, failing, but it’s a thread I’ve seen a lot in their postings.

  34. Anonymous says:

    You make Jesus cry.

  35. Norbrook says:

    One of the other factors is the oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” That document is very, very clear as to who has the ability to question the legitimacy of someone elected to the Presidency, and the ability to remove them from office. It’s not the military, and most certainly not a lieutenant colonel in the Medical Corps. It doesn’t matter what their personal beliefs are, once a new President has been sworn in, the military will salute and say “Yes, sir.”

    Those of us who have served, and are serving, understand that. I served under two Presidents I didn’t vote for, and didn’t agree with politically. But that didn’t change the fact that they were the President, and I was obligated to follow orders. That’s the way only way the military can work in this country. If someone had tried to pull the stunt LTC Lakin has back then, yes, I would have had just as scathing an opinion of them as I do of him.

  36. Rickey says:

    World Net Daily, of all places, has confirmed that Neal Puckett agrees that Judge Lind’s ruling on discovery was correct:
    Puckett confirmed that the judge in the case, Denise Lind, “rendered the proper legal ruling” regarding access to Obama’s birth and eligibility evidence.

    “She was right on the facts and right on the law,” he told WND.

    He hinted about his plan of defense.

    “All those issues concerning the president’s eligibility to hold office are completely irrelevant as to whether Lt. Col. Lakin was issued lawful orders and whether he obeyed them,” he said.

    The full article is here, but most of it is the usual birther nonsense.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=217241