Trial in the Lakin court-martial is scheduled to begin on 14 December 2010 at 0900. Colonel Sullivan will be in attendance at Fort Meade and will provide information as events warrant. His dispatches will be posted here and updated periodically throughout the day. 

Background: LTC Terrrence L. Lakin is charged with one specification of missing movement, in violation of UCMJ Article 87 (10 USC 887); three specifications of failing to obey a lawful order, and one specification of dereliction of duty, all in violation of Article 92, UCMJ (10 USC 892). 

0745: Colonel Sullivan is at the site of the trial. It’s cold and snowing; no word on any protestors. 

He reports “the word on the street” is that the accused will plead guilty to at least some of the Article 92 specifications and may litigate the Article 87 specification. Possible avenues of defense on that specification were previously discussed on CAAFlog here and here

A guilty plea to any of the Article 92 specifications would essentially abandon the cherished birther claim that no military orders are lawful under President Obama. Specifications 1-3 of Charge II explicitly allege that the orders were lawful; Specification 4, the dereliction of duty specification, is predicated on the accused’s obligation to report to Fort Campbell in accordance with temporary change of station orders issued in support of Operation Enduring Freedom by Colonel Peter McHugh.  If those orders were unlawful, there could be no duty and hence, no dereliction. 

0755: Further word from Col Sullivan – the defense team will argue that the Article 92 specifications are multiplicious. On their face, Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II allege failure to obey orders to report to the brigade commander’s office (issued by two different officers), while Specifications 3 and 4 allege a failure to report to Fort Campbell pursuant to an order issued by the same person. Spec 3 alleges the failure to report as a failure to obey a lawful order; Spec 4 alleges it as a dereliction of duty. 

1015: The Lakinista site, safeguardourconstitution.com, has a post on its front page indicating the court-martial “is proceeding on Jan 14-15,” and another next to it saying that the trial is scheduled for December 14-16. There’s probably a valuable lesson in those conflicting bits of information, but at the moment, I can’t quite put my finger on it. 

1215: Associated Press reports Lakin entered a guilty plea on at least one specification under Charge II. If this is correct, it means the accused has abandoned the birther claim that no military orders issued while President Obama is commander-in-chief are lawful.  AP confirms Colonel Sullivan’s earlier reporting that the defense will litigate the missing movement charge. 

For those unfamiliar with the court-martial process: to plead guilty, a military accused must enter into a colloquy with the military judge in which the judge explains the elements of each offense and the legal definitions that accompany it.  See United States v. Care, 40 C.M.R. 247 (C.M.A. 1969). The accused has an opportunity to discuss the elements and the definitions with the judge, who must be satisfied that the accused understands them before accepting his plea.  The accused must also describe under oath the acts he committed that give rise to his plea, so that the judge is satisfied that he is, in fact, guilty.  If the accused makes statements or offers evidence inconsistent with his plea, it cannot be accepted, and the military judge must reopen the discussion with the accused  (formally referred to as a “providency inquiry” or more often and informally known as a “Care inquiry”) to resolve the inconsistency; or, if it cannot be resolved, reject the plea and enter a not guilty plea on his behalf.  UCMJ Article 45(a).

Per press reports, it appears LTC Lakin entered guilty pleas to three of the specifications of Charge II. For those pleas to be accepted, he would have to explicitly admit that the orders he received were lawful orders which he had a duty to obey.

89 Responses to “United States v. Lakin liveblog”

  1. SueDB says:

    Who’s bringing the bacon salt???

  2. sg says:

    Great! One link to check all day while out and about and experiencing my soul ground down and my will to live sapped by the VA!

  3. Kachonka says:

    Count down begins. Wonder how obummer is feeling about the congressional review?

  4. Christopher Mathews says:

    Jason & Kachonka: in all the excitement, you may feel the urge to post under multiple names, as you’ve just done. Sock puppetry, however, is not welcome here.

    Please limit yourself to posting under one name.

  5. sg says:

    You can’t hide from the Judge!

  6. Anon says:

    Isn’t “sock puppetry” an offense under Art. 134? Or does it fall under DADT and will soon be legal and/or mandatory?

  7. Anon says:

    Re: 0745 Weather Report….I see a foundation being laid for a personal decoration for Col. Sullivan.

  8. sg says:

    @Anon 0850,
    The Order of the Golden Galoshes? The White Snowflake?

  9. John O'Connor says:

    I predict the “Jake Blues” defense. “It was raining and I couldn’t find a cab, I had a friend come in from out of town, LOCUSTS! It wasn’t my fault I swear to God!!!”

  10. Christopher Mathews says:

    It worked for Jake, didn’t it?

  11. John O'Connor says:

    Can Lakin do the eyebrow thing?

  12. sg says:

    PUCKETT–“It’s 1 specification of article 87, and 4 specifications of article 92, it’s 0900 on first day of the Court-Martial, we have six witnesses to get through, and we have half a bottle of water and full box of animal crackers. It’s dark here in the hallway in doors, and we’re wearing sunglasses.”
    LAKIN–“Hit it.”

    It doesn’t work for me.

  13. sus says:

    Yay!

    Looking forward to Col. Sullivan’s reports (as well as the Fashion Report from Mari).

  14. Greg says:

    I predict the “Jake Blues” defense.

    I predict the Animal House defense:

    The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests; we did. But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg! Isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!

  15. Southpark Johnny Cochran says:

    Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

  16. Plutodog says:

    Thanks for being there, Col. Sullivan!

  17. realist says:

    Ditto what Plutodog said.

  18. John O'Connor says:

    PUCKETT (holding pictures up to members): Ladies and gentlemen, who is better looking, Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson.

    MJ: Mr. Puckett, I fail to see the relevance of this.

    PUCKETT: Your Honor, my case is so strong, I can waste these members’ time rating the superhunks.

    TC: Uh oh. He’s gonna win.

  19. Norbrook says:

    JOC has given us a hint about the super-secret defense strategy that the birthers have been hinting about! Oh Noes! We’re doomed!

  20. Norbrook says:

    The different dates on the SOC site is probably to give a “good reason” for the birthers to fail to show up for the “mass rally in support of LTC Lakin!” (snicker) Not that one was expected anyways by the rest of us, but heck, if anyone needed an excuse, there it is.

  21. Margie says:

    Dad kenyan, Mom American = Dual Citizenship = ineligible for CIC Only natural born Citizens are eligible for CIC. NBC’s are those born in a country to citizen parents. God Bless Lt. Col.Lakin’s.

  22. Ama Goste says:

    And we’re off…

  23. qwertyman says:

    Margie, there is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

    Even if your interpretation was correct, that does not justify LTC Lakin’s actions. Look up the de facto officer doctrine to see why.

  24. sg says:

    Margie, be a dear and explain to all the military lawyers here what that has to do with the charges against LTC Lakin. I don’t think they really understand how this all works.

  25. aarrgghh says:

    Dad kenyan, Mom American = Dual Citizenship = ineligible for CIC Only natural born Citizens are eligible for CIC. NBC’s are those born in a country to citizen parents. God Bless Lt. Col.Lakin’s.

    um, marge, i think this is the guy you need to convince …

  26. Anonymous says:

    Margie, shouldn’t you be checking out that guy out on Moose Lake? You know, the funny looking guy?

    *Fargo reference.

  27. missTerry says:

    This doctor is a true American Hero.
    It means nothing to OBAMA.
    He is a narcissist and has no heart
    for anyone but himself.
    Sir, we are all praying for you.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Slo why is it you are all military lawyers? I did that for 4 years, but I was successful with a mind so I moved on to play with the big boys that earn money, not tax payer handouts

  29. Christopher Mathews says:

    Slo why is it you are all military lawyers? I did that for 4 years, but I was successful with a mind so I moved on to play with the big boys that earn money, not tax payer handouts

    Just patriotic, I guess.

  30. DCH says:

    LTC Latkin is a defendent (and not a plaintiff in a birther lawsuit). He is on trial because he intentionally disobeyed a order. His unit is in Afganistan and someone else had to go in his place, or they are a doctor short. Some hero. So get this, HE is the one on trial, not the President. This won’t end well. There is no question that he disobeyed that order and that is ALL that is at issue, his motivation was not legitimate.

  31. John O'Connor says:

    That’s great, Anon 1144. You people laud Lakin as a hero for his service (never mind his current refusal to deploy) but piss on others for electing to serve.

  32. Anonymous says:

    you didn’t elect. You have nothing else you can do. The ones that elect do not act like you fools

  33. aarrgghh says:

    That’s great, Anon 1144.You people laud Lakin as a hero for his service (never mind his current refusal to deploy) but piss on others for electing to serve.

    oh don’t worry — as soon as lakin ceases to be of use to the birfers, they’ll piss on him as well …

  34. Anonymous says:

    oh snap! you told us, hmmm mmmm, you shore did girlfriend.

  35. Armywife says:

    I came to this site to get updates on this trial. I was looking for objectivity, but I found the following
    ” The Lakinista site, safeguardourconstitution.com, has a post on its front page indicating the court-martial “is proceeding on Jan 14-15,” and another next to it saying that the trial is scheduled for December 14-16. There’s probably a valuable lesson in those conflicting bits of information, but at the moment, I can’t quite put my finger on it.”
    What you can’t put your finger on,in my opinion,is when one has a view or opinion contrary to yours, it still is possible to have civil discourse without resorting to poking fun and sarcasm.

  36. Frank Arduini says:

    @ Anon 1144

    You are a lawyer? And a Birther at the same time? And you admit it?

    The iconic Birther lawyers are currently Taitz, Berg, Donofrio, Apuzzo, Pidgeon, Hemenway, Jensen and Kreep. At least three of them (Taitz, Berg and Apuzzo) are in the running for the title of “Worst Lawyer in the Local Galaxy Cluster.” The winner goes on to compete for the Virgo Supercluster crown.

    Are you offering to throw your hat into the ring for that honor?

  37. sg says:

    It never ceases to amaze me just how little respect for actual military personnel the birfers have. They love us as long as the CinC is a Republican.

  38. Nbc says:

    What you can’t put your finger on,in my opinion,is when one has a view or opinion contrary to yours, it still is possible to have civil discourse without resorting to poking fun and sarcasm.

    What’s wrong with Sarcasm…

  39. verbalobe says:

    What you can’t put your finger on,in my opinion,is when one has a view or opinion contrary to yours, it still is possible to have civil discourse without resorting to poking fun and sarcasm.

    True, but so much more entertaining to have civil discourse WHILE poking fun and sarcasm, especially when such deserving targets abound.

  40. Anonymous says:

    I came to this site to get updates on this trial. I was looking for objectivity, but I found the following
    ” The Lakinista site, safeguardourconstitution.com, has a post on its front page indicating the court-martial “is proceeding on Jan 14-15,” and another next to it saying that the trial is scheduled for December 14-16. There’s probably a valuable lesson in those conflicting bits of information, but at the moment, I can’t quite put my finger on it.”
    What you can’t put your finger on,in my opinion,is when one has a view or opinion contrary to yours, it still is possible to have civil discourse without resorting to poking fun and sarcasm.

    It’s possible, when the opposing side is completely wrong, loony, biased, and in some cases, worse things.

    So, in other words, it is pretty darn hard to have civil discourse without poking fun at the side of the birthers. Some positions are so extreme, so clearly ridiculous, that mockery is an acceptable behavior.

  41. Steve Schulin says:

    What’s the precedent for applying that de facto officer doctrine to President? Without such precedent, it’s fair to say the judge railroaded Lt. Col. Lakin. Many folks here seem to revel in it. What’s up with that?

  42. Nbc says:

    As to objectivity, this site is quite well known for present the facts

    This doctor is a true American Hero.
    It means nothing to OBAMA.
    He is a narcissist and has no heartfor anyone but himself.
    Sir, we are all praying for you.

    And yet, he provided his COLB which shows him born on US soil, so why did Lakin go do this path?

  43. Christopher Mathews says:

    If there’s an explanation for the contradiction in dates, Armywife, I’m all attention.

  44. sus says:

    I came to this site to get updates on this trial. I was looking for objectivity, but I found the following
    ” The Lakinista site, safeguardourconstitution.com, has a post on its front page indicating the court-martial “is proceeding on Jan 14-15,” and another next to it saying that the trial is scheduled for December 14-16. There’s probably a valuable lesson in those conflicting bits of information, but at the moment, I can’t quite put my finger on it.”
    What you can’t put your finger on,in my opinion,is when one has a view or opinion contrary to yours, it still is possible to have civil discourse without resorting to poking fun and sarcasm.

    ah… yeah. Can’t point out that the Lakinista website posted wrong dates?

    How about the fact that they are still asking for money for Lakin, when they don’t represent him? At least not as attorneys.

    How about the fact that Birther websites all direct birthers to safeguardourconstitution to donate, when they don’t represent him.

    You will get the facts of the case here. Col. Sullivan is an experienced litigator. Or, you can go to the birther sites and read the propaganda you want to hear.

    BTW, at least you can post here. Mario Apuzzo comes here to post as he doesn’t allow any dissent on his own blog. Nor does Citizen Wells allow comments, or The American Grand Jury, etc., etc., etc.

  45. Nbc says:

    What’s the precedent for applying that de facto officer doctrine to President? Without such precedent, it’s fair to say the judge railroaded Lt. Col. Lakin. Many folks here seem to revel in it. What’s up with that?

    The de facto officer doctrine has no relevance since the issue of the eligibility of the President was found to be irrelevant to Lakin failing to obey direct lawful orders.

    As even Lakin’s lawyer agreed, the judge was right in her ruling. Lakin railroaded himself…

  46. Rickey says:

    Slo why is it you are all military lawyers? I did that for 4 years, but I was successful with a mind so I moved onto play with the big boys that earn money, not tax payer handouts

    Why don’t you ask LTC Lakin why he is a military doctor? Has he been collecting “tax payer handouts” for the past 18 years?

    It disgusts me when I see people who claim to be “patriots” trashing the military.

  47. Ouch! says:

    Army Wife, you came to the wrong place if you are looking for objectivity.

    Just have a look at the ringleader at this circus of Obamabots.

    ‘Exposed: Now we know why the anti-American obots love Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin Basher, Colonel Dwight Sullivan of CAAFLOG.’

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/now-we-know-why-anti-american-obots.html

  48. sg says:

    @armywife
    Please define objectivity. If the coverage of the Court-Martial is fair and doesn’t mislead, then I don’t see a problem. The other site is so far out there, so off the field, as to have no value to anyone who is interested in the world as it is (instead of how one wishes it to be) as to worthy of scorn. True objectivity does NOT require some form of artificial balance.

  49. Nbc says:

    ‘Exposed: Now we know why the anti-American obots love Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin Basher, Colonel Dwight Sullivan of CAAFLOG.’

    Nice little libel… What’s the problem? That the ‘Obots’ have been correctly predicting the outcome of over 100 lawsuits and appeals?

    Pathetic

  50. Anonymous says:

    Wow, COL Sullivan when did you get the giant ACLU tattoo across your forehead? I hear all the cool kids are getting them these days.

    I also like that site rising up to 3rd grade level with the “ooh, he’s gay” insinuations throughout the “article.”

    I look forward to the “Col Sullivan: Cooties?!” article that is sure to follow.

  51. Trevor says:

    Oooooh ObamaBots…excellent, do we get to be Transformers as well?

    One item I have noted is that with only one exception (the truly strange Squeeky Fromm) all Birfoons appear to have had their senses of humor, irony and proportion surgically removed.

    Along with serving as a damning indictment of elements of the American education system…….

  52. squee says:

    Update from AP

    FORT MEADE, Md. — An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions President Barack Obama’s citizenship has pleaded guilty to one of two charges against him.

    At a court-martial proceeding Tuesday in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty to a charge that included not meeting with a superior when ordered to do so and not reporting to duty at Fort Campbell.

    Lakin faces up to 18 months in prison and dismissal from the Army.

    He pleaded not guilty to a second charge of missing a flight he was required to be on. His court-martial at Fort Meade is continuing on that count.

  53. realist says:

    By pleading to those two counts, it appears he also then is admitting the orders were lawful. yes/no?

  54. Christopher Mathews says:

    By pleading to those two counts, it appears he also then is admitting the orders were lawful. yes/no?

    For his pleas to be accepted by the military judge, he will have to make that admission, yes.

  55. sg says:

    Holy shit! Did Lakin just admit that the orders he was given were lawful?
    On my android phone is why it takes so long today.

  56. Greg says:

    For his pleas to be accepted by the military judge, he will have to make that admission, yes.

    Since lawfulness is determined as a matter of law, does he have to admit its lawfulness, or only that he knew about the order? (And abandon any defense of unlawfulness.)

  57. sg says:

    Hey, birfers! Where’s that super-duper fiddly-diddly-do-da surprise whozi-whatsit that was going to totally shock everybody?
    I think you’re running a tad late. But there’s still time to shock everybody.

  58. Ama Goste says:

    Greg and SG, as part of the Care inquiry (guilty plea dialogue with the military judge), he’ll have to admit that he had a duty to obey the orders to which he’s pled guilty to violating.

  59. Frank Arduini says:

    What you can’t put your finger on,in my opinion,is when one has a view or opinion contrary to yours, it still is possible to have civil discourse without resorting to poking fun and sarcasm.

    When one’s beliefs are ridiculous, one should be prepared for ridicule.

  60. Abbey says:

    Greg and SG, as part of the Care inquiry (guilty plea dialogue with the military judge), he’ll have to admit that he had a duty to obey the orders to which he’s pled guilty to violating.

    Is that what’s referenced in the latest update (above)? The ‘Care’ enquiry?

  61. gorefan says:

    Army Wife, you came to the wrong place if you are looking for objectivity.

    Armywife, if you follow Ouch’s link, be prepared for outright hatred and disrespect for the President of the United States.

    Also, you will only be allowed to post comments that are in agreement with that hatred and disrespect.

    Ask yourself, why,if someone is truely interested in the constitution, truth and justice, they need to limit the conversation to people who agree with them and prevent any dissenting voices? Which does that remind you of, the United States or Venezula under Chavez?

  62. mikeyes says:

    Christopher Matthews,

    Will you please tell that guy (trevor, anon, army wife, etc.) to stop using so many lame names?

    BTW, since the President of the United States is an officer confirmed by the Senate, doesn’t he also fall under the de facto officer doctrine if it were to apply? (Of course, in this case it is moot.)

  63. Christopher Mathews says:

    Has Lakin’s plea guaranteed at least part of his sentence?

    Anon 1247, if the pleas are accepted, it guarantees that there will be a sentencing proceeding, but not any particular sentence.

    The minimum sentence for most military offenses is “no punishment;” that’s true of the offenses to which LTC Lakin has apparently entered his guilty pleas. The maximum punishment for those offenses is dismissal from the service (the only kind of punitive discharge that can be imposed on an officer), confinement for eighteen months, and lesser punishments including forfeiture of pay.

  64. mikeyes says:

    For that sock puppet guy, it should be pointed out that every thing that has happened in the LTC Lakin trial was accurately predicted by the law gurus on this site. I suspect that has something to do with brains and experience while the sock puppets seemed to be batting .000 on this issue.

    I am not sure what to attribute that latter number to, but it is not brains and experience.

  65. Nbc says:

    For that sock puppet guy, it should be pointed out that every thing that has happened in the LTC Lakin trial was accurately predicted by the law gurus on this site. I suspect that has something to do with brains and experience while the sock puppets seemed to be batting .000 on this issue.

    Exactly, but it is hard for these foolish people to realize that the facts are not exactly what they have been told that they are. It’s this somewhat blind repetition of myths, mistakes and misrepresentations that forms the foundation as to why they continue to fail.

  66. pgw says:

    Abbey, yes, the Care inquiry is what Ama Goste was referencing. Basically, in the military courts, unlike civilian courts, it’s not enough to just plead guilty, you have to explain why you believe you’re guilty. It is typically a very long and detailed question/answer session.

  67. gorefan says:

    Anon 1247, if the pleas are accepted, it guarantees that there will be a sentencing proceeding, but not any particular sentence.

    By pleading guilty, does Ltc Lakin give up the right to appeal those counts?

    Many seem to be assuming that the point of this whole exercise was to get to appeals courts and get around the standing issues.

  68. Anonymous says:

    Any word on election of forum for remaining offenses?

  69. Greg says:

    Per press reports, it appears LTC Lakin entered guilty pleas to three of the specifications of Charge II.

    How does this square with the multipliciousness argument? I thought that it was suggested that only 2 of the four Article 92 specifications would survive such an analysis.

  70. Ouch! says:

    ((Ask yourself, why,if someone is truely interested in the constitution, truth and justice, they need to limit the conversation to people who agree with them and prevent any dissenting voices? Which does that remind you of, the United States or Venezula under Chavez?))

    Scanning the comments at the obamareleaseyourrecords link above, and others, I see both pro and con comments.

    Maybe you should ask the same to your fellow Obamabot site http://court-martial-ucmj.com/

  71. Frank Arduini says:

    @ Ouch

    I have never had a single comment of mine survive moderation at obamareleaseyourrecords.

  72. Abbey says:

    Abbey, yes, the Care inquiry is what Ama Goste was referencing. Basically, in the military courts, unlike civilian courts, it’s not enough to just plead guilty, you have to explain why you believe you’re guilty. It is typically a very long and detailed question/answer session.

    Thank you. Yes I now recall DS explaining it. I think he said something to the effect that Lakin would have to describe in excruciating detail exactly how and why he was guilty.

  73. Nbc says:

    Ask yourself, why,if someone is truely interested in the constitution, truth and justice, they need to limit the conversation to people who agree with them and prevent any dissenting voices?

    You describe most birther sites quite accurately here. So why do you think they limit the conversation?

    Think about it.

  74. Trevor says:

    Oy, “mikeyes”

    Don’t you f’ing dare lump me in with those fuc*wit Birfoons.

    If you can deign to place your eyes on screen and wander the site you will see the fun I’ve been having with Mario and the the rest of the muppets.

    Mario in particular loathes me….8-)

    Your diatribe however stinks of the censoring that is the norm in Birferstan.

  75. Christopher Mathews says:

    How does this square with the multipliciousness argument? I thought that it was suggested that only 2 of the four Article 92 specifications would survive such an analysis.

    Greg, it’s possible to plead guilty to two or more offenses and still argue that they should be punished as a single offense. Multiplicity in sentencing has been referred to in various colorful ways: as “chaos,” a “minefield,” and the “Sargasso Sea of military law.”

    My personal favorite description begins thusly: the appellant “invites us to descend with him into that inner circle of the Inferno where the damned endlessly debate multiplicity for sentencing …”

  76. Nbc says:

    Your diatribe however stinks of the censoring that is the norm in Birferstan.

    Let’s all calm down and remain patient and polite. We can perhaps have a good exchange of information and thoughts.

  77. mikeyes says:

    Trevor,

    Whoops, sorry. There are so many names out there that I made a mistake and beg forgiveness. Nice invective, however.

  78. Capt. Obvious says:

    ((Ask yourself, why,if someone is truely interested in the constitution, truth and justice, they need to limit the conversation to people who agree with them and prevent any dissenting voices? Which does that remind you of, the United States or Venezula under Chavez?))Scanning the comments at the obamareleaseyourrecords link above, and others, I see both pro and con comments.
    Maybe you should ask the same to your fellow Obamabot site http://court-martial-ucmj.com/

    How many of the comments on ORYR are plants from a delusional birther willing to lie to provoke the ire of birthers? To generate birther website hits for a dying breed of unAmerican scum who have no respect for the Constitution or U.S. law, military or civilian?

    Most of them?

    Birther lies make John Boehner cry. But then most everything make John Boehner cry.

  79. John O'Connor says:

    Dear Anon 1153:

    You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    Best regards,
    J O’C

  80. Nbc says:

    In the mean time, Butterdezillion is praying to her ‘god’

    God, damn sin and everyone who refuses to repent of it. This is what You died for. This is why You had to suffer hell, because there is real, rotten, stinking sin that has control over this world and has infected every one of us in this world. Sin that clings to us and would ruin Heaven if it was allowed to enter There. I want to hit Obama, Puckett, and Lind. I want to sear them with burning acid until the smirk on their damned faces burns into oblivion. I want them to get what they deserve for what they are doing to Lakin, to this country, and to all of us who love both Lakin and this country.

    Knock knock…

  81. sg says:

    @NBC,
    The crazy is strong with this one.

  82. Ama Goste says:

    In answer to Gorefan at 1305 hrs (before we got side-tracked), it is against public policy for an accused to agree to give up the right to appeal as part of a plea agreement in the military. Before everyone gets excited, I have no information that indicates there is any type of plea deal in this case.

  83. Dave says:

    Whoa — BZ is now hating on LTC Lakin’s attorney? For what he is “doing to Lakin”? Who does she think hired him?

  84. Jez says:

    I have one question for the true believers of Lt. Col. Lakin:

    If Lakin was so convinced the President was not eligible for office, why did he not resign his commission when Obama won? If he has so many doubts about serving under this particular Commander in Chief, wouldn’t the honorable thing to do be to resign and at least retire with some dignity? And his medical license intact?

    Please, I would really love to have an answer to that question. Or were his possible future benefits a stronger lure then his own conscience and conviction?

  85. Ama Goste says:

    nimjblog reports no PTA and members is forum selection.

  86. WorldWatcher says:

    >

    OK, there is now a guilty plea. Obama’s birth certificate is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the charges, but what about in the sentencing phase?

    Does the game change now?

    >>>>

  87. Capt. Obvious says:

    In the mean time, Butterdezillion is praying to her ‘god’
    Knock knock…

    And to think Butterdezillion is a teacher. Perhaps the FBI or the Secret Service has questions she can answer for the whole class.

  88. Nbc says:

    >OK, there is now a guilty plea.Obama’s birth certificate is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the charges, but what about in the sentencing phase?Does the game change now?>>>>

    Lakin may argue whatever he wants but other than dig an even deeper hole, there is really nothing to look forward to, certainly not ‘discovery’.

    And since the eligibility has nothing to do with his guilty plea, I doubt that it will get him far.

  89. Christopher Mathews says:

    Part 2 of the liveblog is now posted here. Comments will be closed in this thread.