Thanks to Reality Check for calling our attention to the following post on the Puckett & Faraj, PC, website:

LTC Lakin Trial Update

The Law Firm of Puckett & Faraj, PC, is preparing the defense of LTC Lakin for trial currently scheduled for December 14, 2010 at Fort Meade, MD. LTC Lakin is being charged with missing movement, disobeying orders to report to a new unit, disobeying orders to report to his brigade commander and dereliction of duty.

His previous civilian attorney complicated his case and is partially responsible for two of these charges by advising LTC Lakin to refuse to report to his superior officer. The defense team is now working to minimize the damage caused by this inappropriate legal advice and return LTC Lakin to his family quickly and with his medical career intact.

The trial is expected to last 2 days at Fort Meade beginning on December 14, 2010.

27 Responses to “Puckett & Faraj website posts Lakin update”

  1. Marcus Fulton says:

    Reality check, indeed.

  2. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    That bus is gonna leave a mark on Mr. Jensen.

    Meanwhile, informed citizens in Washington DC settle the whole where-was-he-born controversy once and for all.

  3. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    I can’t help but notice that the message says that they hope to keep his “medical” career intact. Looks like they are preparing for either a dismissal or a BOI.

  4. KyAtty says:

    Lakin should do hard time. He took the position that officers of the US armed forces should refuse to do their duty during war-time until the President of their choice is sworn in-in effect, a passive-aggressive coup. The court needs to send a message to any Lakin sympathizers in the military that the only role they have to play in presidential elections is to vote, just like any other citizen. The US is not a banana republic run by colonels.

  5. Reality Check says:

    Dwight

    I think you predicted this might be a strategy that Neal Puckett could adopt. “My lawyer made me do it”.

    At the time that LTC Lakin blew off the meeting with COL Roberts he had not been charged with anything,correct? How will this play that a LTC had to consult his attorney and took his advice before obeying or disobeying a simple order to meet with his CO?

  6. Norbrook says:

    It looks like an admission that LTC Lakin is toast. Mr. Puckett is doing his best to make sure that the toast is very lightly browned instead of burned to a blackened mess.

  7. KyAtty says:

    I wouldn’t think it would play well, but its about the only play Lakin has, other than to beg for mercy based on his prior service record.

  8. John O'Connor says:

    It’s the best counsel can do with a bad set of facts. If I were the TC, I’d make Reality Check’s argument, that Lakin is basically saying that when an officer gets orders, he needs to check with a lawyer and if any lawyer will tell him he should disobey then that should limit his punishment. I’d also run hard with the idea that some other guy had to go to Iraq in Lakin’s place because Lakin lawyered up rather than served and that Laking is not asome nineteen-year-old impressionable kid.

    But I assume Lakin will be waiving his privilege with Jensen, et al., and running hard with the idea that Jensen is the villain here.

  9. mikeyes says:

    I’ll point out my personal experience with CAPT Yolanda Huet-Vaughn: she served time but was allowed to practice medicine in KS. CAPT Huet-Vaughn’s journey was identical to that of LTC Lakin until the appearance of some real lawyers on his side. She left our unit (after trying to got others to desert), went on a peace tour (no facebook in those days), and continues to play the peace card to this day as a minor hero in the movement.

    The KS medical board decided to fine her rather than take her license away. This was partly due to members of her unit pointing out that while she did miss a movement, ect. that this did not effect her ability to practice medicine in a very poor part of Kansas City, KS.

    One of the three medical boards that LTC Lakin holds licenses with may view his record in the same way but he will have a hard time getting hospital privileges or getting on certain insurance boards because his record of avoiding service and abandoning patients. This will limit his practice somewhat, but he is an expert in industrial medicine and flight medicine so he could have a good career doing those specialties.

    I think that a civilian career is what his lawyers are trying to preserve, not his military reputation. He may even serve some time (Huet-Vaughn did) and most likely will be dismissed. He has made too many incriminating statements and appeared to do so freely. I suspect that the cross examination of COL Roberts will consist of looking at his MOH and saying “no questions, your honor.”

  10. gorefan says:

    For what it is worth, LTC Lakin’s brother gave an interview on a birther internet radio program.

  11. Rickey says:

    KHOW actually is a broadcast radio station in Denver. The host, Peter Boyles, has been beating the birther drum almost since the beginning.

  12. Brian le chien says:

    Ok, so if the new defense is “my lawyer made me do it.” What are the chances that the defense calls Jensen as a fact witness during sentencing (waiving priv. of course)?

    If the defense doesn’t call Jensen, but through an unsworn claims that Lakin acted on the advice of Jensen, wouldn’t that vitiate the privlige, and allow the Government to call Jensen? (Ok, there is not much reason for the GOvernment to call Jensen, other than to “get” Jensen. But maybe he would appear so nutty on the stand that the panel would realize that 1) Lakin should have realized how nutty he was; or 2) Only another true brither would drink Jensen’s cool-aid.

  13. Christopher Mathews says:

    I once had occasion to prosecute an accused who argued that she was simply following her civilian lawyer’s advice when she committed some of the charged offenses. The members were not impressed. As we pointed out, the lawyer works for the client, not the other way around.

  14. Ama Goste says:

    My predictions (worth the screen they’re written on):

    Lakin pleads guilty. All the “my lawyer advised me to do it” info will be used as an attempt at mitigation in sentencing.

    Unless there’s a PTA with contrary limits (like a dismissal with no confinement), he gets at least as much time (and, possibly double) as the poor schmuck who took his place at the last minute spent in the AOR.

  15. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    He’s alive!!! Two words, very simple, sum up all of our thoughts. Brilliant!! Though I may have had one too many Guinesses so the brilliant thing could be wrong.

  16. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    JMTG–
    I tend to agree with you for officers or senior enlisted. But, in the case of a junior enlisted lawyer I have seen a few trial judges that knew certain defense counsel’s SOP cut a junior enlisted accused some slack for conduct (though not necessarily separate offenses) that was their lawyer’s doing. I think our system has tried to address this issue with things like the onerous providency requirements, though judge intervention is obviously a better solution, just not codifiable.

  17. Charles Gittins says:

    In case anyone failed to notice, former-President Bush’s excuse for approving waterboarding — a practice that the United States brought war crimes charges against people during the Spanish American War when the practice was used against Americans — was that he was told by his lawyers that waterboarding was lawful. I would jam that statement up the Government’s ass at trial in cross, in argument, and whenever I had the chance to talk about it on the record at trial. The Matt Lauer interview only demonstrated that we had a guy shopping for BS legal advice for a President. If the President can rely on his lawyers advice . . . . !

  18. Anonymous says:

    Reading DP right now and it is actually quite refreshing to see someone who could actually make a decision when called for. Regardless of your opinions on the guy, we have nothing like that right now.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Pity they were so uniformly bad.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Reading DP right now and it is actually quite refreshing to see someone who could actually make a decision when called for.Regardless of your opinions on the guy, we have nothing like that right now.

    Wow, pretty silly comment. It’s one thing to debate the correctness of the decisions of the former or current president, but you are the first person to argue that the current president doesn’t make decisions.

    And for the record, the last president may be the first one to be an utter failure at both domestic and foreign policy at the same time.

  21. Ama Goste says:

    You must not be old enough to remember #39–stagflation, gas lines, giving away the Panama Canal, the Iranian hostages…

  22. Bill C says:

    If he tries this in front of Judge Lind, it will get him absolutely nowhere. If he pleads naked in front of a panel, maybe they show him some love.

  23. Anon says:

    A footnote to Mr. Gittins note..
    We must never forget that the attorney calling the shots was David Addington – legal counsel and COS to VPOTUS now at the Heritage Foundation and will be back in the next Republican Administration. No, NOT the poor fools at DOJ – Mr. Addington called the legal shots.

  24. Keith says:

    So when the Lakin case is done and dusted, does anyone go after Jensen?

    Is there such a thing as ‘inciting an officer to disobey orders’ or ‘encouraging an officer to commit a crime’ or something like that?

    Can his bar privileges be lifted at least?

  25. OBJECTION says:

    Gittens,

    (1) The GC only applies to uniformed soldiers, not terrorist masquerading as civilians.

    (2) The Japanesse waterboarding differed substantially from USA waterboarding.

  26. Tami says:

    I don’t think “I was acting on my attorney’s advice” is a defense in this case–maybe extenuating for sentencing purposes, but not a defense. Discussion of R.C.M. 916(l)(1) says “If the accused disobeyed an order, under the actual but mistaken belief that the order was unlawful, this would not be a defense because the mistake was as to the order itself, and not as to a separate nonpenal law.” Also “reliance on the advice of counsel that a certain course of conduct is legal is not, of itself, a defense.”

    Isn’t that Lakin’s argument–“my attorney told me the orders deploying me are not lawful b/c POTUS isn’t lawfully the POTUS?” And “my attorney told me not to show up, so I didn’t?”

  27. Charles Gittins says:

    Objection (posting anonymously, of course):

    So they employed torture more or less effectively than the US? That makes it OK for us to do it? I think that is a stupid argument. And, since I do post using my name, please do me the favor of spelling it correctly, since all of my posts do so.