The court-martial of convicted Army doctor LTC Terry Lakin resumes today.

First off is a session held outside the presence of the members between the judge and counsel for both sides, with the accused in attendance.  This proceeding, held pursuant to UCMJ Article 39(a), will likely focus on administrative matters such as the prosecution’s intent to put on evidence in rebuttal and the expected length of the rebuttal case, objections by the defense to the rebuttal case, if any, and so on.  If there are any additional motions to find offenses multiplicious for sentencing purposes — thus reducing the maximum sentence in the case — they will be likely be resolved in this session.  The instructions to be given the members before they retire to deliberate on a sentence may also be discussed during the Article 39(a) session.   

Rebuttal may consist of any evidence which directly contradicts evidence offered by the defense, or evidence which tends to explain the defense evidence, including statements of fact contained in the accused’s unsworn statement.  The prosecution is also entitled to rebut any inference which may be fairly drawn from the defense case, which expands the scope of permissible rebuttal evidence.  During my time as a circuit prosecutor, I referred to rebuttal as “the trial counsel’s best friend.”  In addition to the substantive information it conveys, a good rebuttal case carries with it the subtext that the defense has attempted to pull a fast one and cannot be trusted. 

Colonel Sullivan is of the opinion that there may be several fruitful avenues for rebuttal in this case.  We will have to wait and see what the prosecution plans.  If the prosecution offers rebuttal, the defense can offer evidence in surrebutal; otherwise, the case goes directly on to argument by counsel and instructions to the members by the military judge.  Either side may propose a specific sentence; often the defense will decline to do so, arguing instead in general terms for leniency or simply arguing that the sentence proposed by the prosecution is too high.

During sentencing deliberations, the members may each propose a sentence.  Sentences represent a single punishment for all the offenses, rather than for each specification; members are not told what maximum penalty each specification carries, only the maximum for the whole as an aggregate.  The sentences are then voted on in ascending order – i.e., from the most lenient to the most severe.  Once a proposed sentence receives at least a 2/3-rds vote, that becomes the sentence of the court.  Because there are eight members of the court-martial, it requires the vote of six members to reach the two-thirds threshold.  Put another way, any three members can scuttle a proposed sentence, requiring consideration of the next most severe option.   Prosecutors often urge the members, during argument, to “just say no” to any sentence that seems too lenient or insufficiently weighty to address the crimes of the accused. 

Updates will be posted here as events warrant.

If you missed last night’s interview with Colonel Sullivan, retired CDR Phil Cave, and Fogbow blogger Mata Mari, you can still find it online here: blogtalkradio.

1057:  The members are now deliberating on sentence.

The prosecution presented excerpts from LTC Lakin’s Care inquiry in which he admitted under oath that his former attorney, Paul Jensen, expressly told the accused that the orders he’d received were lawful, and that as an attorney, Mr. Jensen said he could not ethically advise the accused to disobey them.  There was no surrebuttal.

The defense asked the military judge to find Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II, which address LTC Lakin’s violation of two separate orders to report to the brigade commander on 31 March, multiplicious for sentencing purposes.  She granted the motion, and in so doing reduced the maximum sentence to confinement from 42 months to three years.

The prosecution asked for dismissal, confinement for 24 months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.  The trial counsel who argued noted that in LTC Lakin’s unsworn statement, his focus was always on himself: how he was concerned about the President’s eligibility, how he felt his concerns needed to be addressed, and so on, until the moment came to accept responsibility — at which point the accused focused on other people and how they let him down or supposedly misled him.  The prosecutor also noted that at no point during LTC Lakin’s tearful discussion of his family or during his apologia to the commander did LTC Lakin see fit to mention MAJ Dobson or the hardships endured by anyone else as a result of LTC Lakin’s actions.  Trial counsel tied the request for 24 months to the period of time the accused should have been in theatre: 2 days for every day he was not with the 1-32 Cav overseas.

The defense asked for a reprimand, “some” forfeiture of pay, and restriction to geographical limits (generally, such limits are to the limits of the base, or of some other geographical area, in the discretion of the convening authority).  He argued for no dismissal and no confinement.  The defense’s parting words to the members:  “Merry Christmas.”

We will post the sentence when the members return.

It’s 22 degrees at Fort Meade and snowing heavily (for those who find the weather reports fascinating).  According to Colonel Sullivan, the birther faithful have thinned out somewhat, as has the media contingent.

1335:  The members have sent for lunch to be brought in and will resume their deliberations shortly.

One update on courtroom personnel:  Mr. Puckett has another case he has to attend to, in Italy, and has — with the consent of the accused — been excused from the remainder of the trial.  The military counsel assigned to the defense team, MAJ Kemkes, will handle any further matters at trial and post-trial.  Depending on the sentence, LTC Lakin may also be assigned military appellate counsel.

1545:  Sentence announced.  Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.

SPECIAL NOTE: For folks joining us from Army Times blog, please feel free to look through our site.  Coverage of the Lakin court-martial, starting with the most recent entries, can be found here.

249 Responses to “United States v. Lakin liveblog V”

  1. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    I almost always argue for a specific sentence. I think just saying “be lenient” is too amorphous. As DC I believe you should own the courtroom. Be reasonable, and never look like you don’t know the answer. Suggesting a specific sentence (within reason) IMO works best. Be firm and set a bar below what your client can live with but above what is patently unreasonable. Going last gives you the benefit of recency, and the fact that they vote on the most lenient sentence first can work in your favor.

    I know some might disagree with me on this point – thinking that by doing so you set a floor, but it is the rare case where a floor is not apparent through the sentencing phase already. Showing you are cognizant of this lets the members see that the defense is not unreasonable. Particularly in this case, where your argument on the merits fell on deaf ears, I’d say Puckett should argue for some confinement (hell, Lakin asked for it in his unsworn) and spend time on why a dismissal is not appropriate. I might also argue that he should be docked pay and allowances for his selfish behavior instead of a dismissal, which gives the members an alternative hammer. Just my $.02.

  2. Eric L. Mayer says:

    Argue for confinement? Maybe not. His DC just needs to show the aggregate punishment already assessed upon Lakin. The conviction alone is enough to prejudice him, make employment difficult, and places his license to practice in jeopardy.

    At the same time, I’d rather have a bit of jail time than a dismissal. I think the biggest worry for the defense here is the possible dismissal which can add to the stigma of the conviction, preclude retirement, and deprive him of all significant veterans benefits. Unfortunately, given the nature of what has already transpired, I wouldn’t be surprised if most panel members already consider a dismissal to be a must.

    Or, perhaps his likely future book deal makes the dismissal toothless.

  3. Tekriter says:

    I am an outsider when it comes to military justice, my only experience with it was having to explain to my CO why I saw the need to go 41 in a 25mph zone while stationed at Offutt AFB about three hundred years ago.

    That being said, I want to express my appreciation for the existence of this blog and for the information it has provided in the Lakin case.

    Having an observer in the courtroom giving such timely reports has been a godsend in this age of instant internet experts.

    Thanks, from a veteran in a family of veterans.

  4. Christopher Mathews says:

    Tekriter, on behalf of the various denizens of this blog: thanks for your kind comments, and we’re happy to have been of service.

  5. WorldWatcher says:

    >
    Maybe some of the more knowledgeable could comment on this.

    Aren’t there laws which prevent a criminal from profiting from their crimes (including book deals during the period of incarceration)? If so, and if the sentence is 3.5 years that puts any possible book deal squarely after the 2012 elections. Either Obama wins a second term or there is a new President and the whole thing is OBE. Now if the sentence is a year or less, then it would put publication square in the primary season.

    Or, perhaps his likely future book deal makes the dismissal toothless.

    >>>>

  6. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Eric,

    I concur that arguing for confinement is not always the right answer. I guess the point is that DC needs to be aware of what the landscape looks like in the courtroom. I’m not there, but from Col Sullivan’s descriptions it looks like Lakin is going down, and probably going to serve time. If Lakin’s biggest desire is to avoid dismissal you have to convince the members that what is happening is enough so they don’t drop the D on him. So I concur that you talk about all the other stuff (conviction, etc) but I think you need to give them SOME direction. Otherwise the only non-amorphous direction they have is from the TC. And if you give them something ridiculous (such as arguing for a LOR only), then they will ignore you completely.

    In my experience members are like gaping baby birds trying to figure out what is an appropriate sentence. If they hear “3 years” and “be lenient” they’re going to gravitate more toward 3 years. But if they hear 3 years and 6 months, well, now we have a range. Assuming you sound more reasonable in your request for 6 months than TC did for 3 years, you’ll likely get them more on your side of the equation. Note – these numbers are completely made up, I’m not suggesting Puckett should argue for 6 months or that TC should argue for 3 years.

  7. Spike says:

    Or, perhaps his likely future book deal makes the dismissal toothless.

    I honestly don’t see any profitable book deals in Lakin’s future. He’s outlived his usefulness and he’ll end up as no more than a sad footnote in the long string of failed birther legal theories and court cases.

  8. WorldWatcher says:

    >

    If, and I mean a big **IF**, LTC Lakin had stayed with a “Not Guilty” charge on all counts and had not reversed himself under oath on the lawfulness of orders (correct or not) I would think that he would have pretty much guaranteed a book, speaking tours, and probably a politically oriented “job” with certain circles.

    But with his guilty plea and admission that the Presidents orders are legal the only job he would find in those circles is as a wedge under the wheel of a bus.

    I honestly don’t see any profitable book deals in Lakin’s future. He’s outlived his usefulness and he’ll end up as no more than a sad footnote in the long string of failed birther legal theories and court cases.

    >>>>

  9. WorldWatcher says:

    >

    Maybe I should have said “order of superior military officers” instead of “President’s orders”. Sorry.

    >>>>

  10. Reality Check says:

    We have all seen LTC Lakin do interviews on CNN, G. Liddy’s, and other programs. I do not see him writing a book himself. I am sure Wild Nut Daily (HT to CDR Cave for that one) or Hemenway could hook him up with a ghostwriter. Would it sell? I doubt it.

  11. sg says:

    I think any book would likely have very few potential buyers. Of course, in this day and age, an e-book could be put together for a relatively low cost, but like I said, I don’t see a book working out. Now, a job as a military or medical analyst at Whirled Nuts Daily (another good friend came up with that one) or possibly even at Faux News, but Faux at least tries to pretend they’re mainstream so probably not there. Limbaugh’s production company? Sure.

  12. Christopher Mathews says:

    It’s hard to say what path LTC Lakin will follow.

    Certainly, his case was a source of tremendous excitement among certain political elements, and may remain so for some period of time. He could achieve the minor-celebrity status enjoyed by G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North; there may be book deals and a stint as a FOX News analyst somewhere in his future.

    On the other hand, he could be relegated to obscurity, like Paula Jones. In part, that’s likely to be influenced by the outcome of the trial — if he’d given the birther movement a cache of documents to pour over and find fault with, he’d be a hero to them. Having failed to get anything tangible (and having pled guilty, as well) his worth may seem somewhat lessened.

    At this point, I think he’s on the Paula Jones track. I’ve asked many of the birther faithful who post here whether their support for LTC Lakin will extend beyond the trial, and what form it will take. There’s never been an answer that I recall. But perhaps they will rally around him as a flesh-and-blood human being, rather than simply a means to a political end. We shall see.

    One other factor that ought not be overlooked: LTC Lakin himself may not want the circus that surrounds him to contimue. I think he very much was in control of what happened, up until the point that he had to face a real judge and contend with real law. He wanted the publicity, wanted the notoriety, wanted to be the focus of attention. But perhaps that’s no longer the case. Again: we shall see.

  13. OldJarhead says:

    This is my first posting, but have been following this case with great interest as I’m a former Marine JA myself, but it’s been a while since I’ve done any UCMJ work (days of wooden ships and iron men). But wonder if the TC in rebuttal will intoduce Lakin’s letter to General Casey and his Article 138 complaint (and OJAG’s response)? That stuff is dynamite and shows this was something Lakin had been planning for a long time and was not under the influence of bad legal advice. This born-again contrition is a load of crap.

  14. Cap'n Crunch says:

    I always have argued for a specific sentence, depending on the wishes of the client. If you have a great appellate issue, I typically will argue for a punitive discharge after consulting the client. Some clients don’t want prison; others care about avoiding the punitive discharge but don’t care about forfeitures or enlisted rank reduction. But the point is that its always a question of what the accused wants.

    As for my Lakin bet… 1 year confinement; total forfeitures (some of which the CA will likely defer for the benefit of Lakin’s dependents); dismissal.

  15. Christopher Mathews says:

    Cap’n C, if you were on the other side of the case, what would you argue for as the trial counsel?

  16. 8041 says:

    I recognize that most of the posters here are JAG officers, many of whom act in their professional careers as DCs. So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone to see a discussion about how Lakin could best minimize his exposure on sentencing.

    BUT, as Marine infantry officer, allow me to lobby for something else – maximum punishment. For our country to maintain an effective, disciplined and loyal fighting force, we must ALWAYS respect the civilian control that is so elemental to our country’s Armed Forces. Lakin, irrespective of how he colored it, was in a very real, tangible way working to undermine that civilian control. That CANNOT stand.

    We have a civilian political process that is in place to select our civilian leadership. The military, to especially include military officer (field-grade officers, in this case) must always defer to that political process. Obama is the president, period. Whether or not we believe he holds that office defectively must have no impact on our obligation to meet the demands of our mission, and to ultimately complete that mission. Lakin’s hubris directly and negatively impacted his unit’s ability to obtain mission accomplishment. Such hubris cannot be tolerated in our officer corps, and it must be punished to the fullest extent possible. This isn’t just about Lakin, it’s about foundational principles of military leadership.

  17. Cap'n Crunch says:

    Colonel Mathews: I’d argue for the max. I’d argue that he put troops in danger and forced someone who had already been deployed to deploy again, thinking of himself and not his country or fellow soldiers. I’d argue that he willfully undermined the chain of command, and that maintaining order and discipline is paramount, or the army will cease to function and that a message needs to be sent.

  18. Eric L. Mayer says:

    As for my Lakin bet… 1 year confinement; total forfeitures (some of which the CA will likely defer for the benefit of Lakin’s dependents); dismissal.

    Are you starting the office pool?

    I’m in for 4 months and a dismissal.

  19. John Harwood says:

    SDC, I agree with you. I didn’t always argue for a specific sentence — sometimes I just argued for leniency, but in this case I think Puckett’s gotta give the members a suggestion. This isn’t a one-time pop for coke where the gov’t argues for 3 months/BCD — the jury has no idea what a case like this is really worth (neither does anybody for that matter – how many “officer refused to deploy because the CinC shouldn’t be the CinC” cases have any of us seen?). Puckett has to show he’s reasonable, understands some punishment is appropriate considering the misconduct, acknowledge some of the gov’t’s strengths, and give them a number, then argue like hell for why it’s the right number but no more. From the cozy confines of my armchair, that’s how I’d quarterback this one.

  20. Tes says:

    Colonel Mathews: I’d argue for the max.I’d argue that he put troops in danger and forced someone who had already been deployed to deploy again, thinking of himself and not his country or fellow soldiers.I’d argue that he willfully undermined the chain of command, and that maintaining order and discipline is paramount, or the army will cease to function and that a message needs to be sent.

    … and that he did it deliberately, with forethought. (Malice?)

  21. Bill B says:

    Like Tekriter, I’m a military justice outsider (although unlike him, I never served, a much-regretted decision I’m now too old to rectify.) The only brush I’ve ever had with military justice was when an MP yelled at me for riding my bike in the middle of the road on Fort Monmouth.

    I’d like to add my thanks to you folks for your informative posts. You’ve made following this issue a heck of a lot easier, and sometimes even humorous. So, from a civilian in a family of vets, I thank you for that and for your service.

  22. mari says:

    I just wanted to express my thanks to the guys for attending each day of the trial and converting all the goings on into plain civilian english and for their remarkable insight into all things military justice.

    I had the pleasure of meeting both of these extraordinary gentlemen on Day 1 of the trial and want all to know that they are as nice and genuinely hilarious in person as they are knowledgeable.

    Thanks a million!!

  23. Greg says:

    @Tekriter, you’ve had 300 years to come up with a reasonable explanation why you were speeding and still can’t offer one? Sheesh! :-)

  24. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    8041,

    I agree that the discussion can get one sided from time to time, and as you can see from my moniker, I am inclined to think along one set of lines. That said, I’ve done my tour as TC as well, and can talk out of both sides of my mouth.

    From a TC point of view, I think that this is one of those rare times where you can argue for the maximum with what are seemingly minor charges. You have here a set of facts that do auger in favor of a stiff sentence and it seems that TC have been skillful enough to string those together. Wilfull misconduct? Check. Real danger to GO&D? Check. An accused who “should have known better?” Check. Human impact? Check. Mission endangerment? Check. Half hearted apology? Check. With these facts I think TC would be well within their baliwick to argue for Dismissal, 3.5 years, and total forfeitures.

    Lakin’s supporters have, IMO, ruined his chance of a light sentence. And the fact that he never pointed to them in the audience and said “They don’t represent me. I don’t agree with their cheers, and I recognize that I screwed up. The blame is on me and only me,” will likely be the nail in his coffin. As DC, once I knew there would be a guilty plea I would have made sure my client knew that he needed to completely renunciate his former actions and cohorts. Arguing for the max as TC in this case is almost a gimme.

  25. Ama Goste says:

    WW, not every state has the “Son of Sam” law, and the state laws vary, based on First Amendment sensibilities, so, conceivably, Lakin could write a book. As with the other posters, I can’t see it being a best-seller.

    In answer to the thread about what a defense counsel or trial counsel might legitimately ask for under these circumstances (and having been both in previous lives), I agree that this is a rare instance in which arguing for the max is completely reasonable. However, I wouldn’t call these infractions “minor.” Disobeying orders, particularly leading up to a deployment, go to the heart of military discipline. If I was a defense counsel, I’d ask for a period of confinement that matches or slightly exceeds the length of the deployment. Even when I was a defense counsel, I could never stomach the argument for “hard labor without confinement” that seemed to be the standard defense line in every case, regardless of the crime.

  26. sg says:

    As a Combat Arms NCO, I agree 100% with 8041. This is about so much more than Terry Lakin. It’s about the very foundation of the organization and role of the American military. It’s about who we are and how we see ourselves in relation to our nation and our society. And we must be clear. There must be NP question in anyone’s mind as to whether or not the military forces of the US see ourselves as subordinate to.the will of the elected civilian government.

    Side note: every time I type “Lakin ” into my phone the autocomplete turns it into “Palin “. Coincidence? I think NOT.

  27. Norbrook says:

    I’m in agreement that I’d like to see the max handed out in this case, but I realize that what I’d like and what the panel will do are not necessarily the same thing. While I’m up in the air on confinement – and I think there will be some, I’m certain that dismissal is a definite. I can’t imagine any panel – particularly of O-6’s – listening to this testimony and not thinking “get this (expletive) out of the Army.”

  28. Steve-o says:

    There’s one point that I haven’t seen mentioned here, which is what bothers me most about this case. Many of the people Lakin has associated himself with quite openly advocate for wide-scale military misconduct, and in some cases even advocate for what is basically a military coup. Now I’m not aware of Lakin himself ever suggesting that anyone else follow “his path,” but what happens here is clearly followed by a passionate bunch (as demonstrated nicely by the applause in the courtoom). And by Lakin’s own words, this includes “enlisted members and officer members.” Talk about a threat to good order and discipline…

    Admittedly that’s not Lakin’s actions, and he shouldn’t be responsible for every nutcase that follows or supports him, but still. Any hint of leniency would only serve to bolster anyone on the verge of doing something stupid.

  29. Christopher Mathews says:

    The sentencing requests for both the prosecution and defense are now posted in the main article.

  30. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Merry Christmas? Man, if I were a member I would think: Major Dobson spent a Christmas in theater because of this guy. Does Puckett really think this will work on me?

    From Col Sullivan’s admittedly small post, it sounds like TC outclassed and outgunned DC from the get-go, and even pulled their punch by not asking for 3 years (which might have played into Puckett’s argument of overreaching). I again stick by my prediction: members award TC’s recommendation.

  31. Yoshi99 says:

    “Merry Christmas”??? He ended his sentencing argument before eight full colonels with “Merry Christmas”? However much he’s getting paid … it’s too much.

  32. Cheap Seats says:

    I see the members going over the top of the TC. I think they’ll go with 30 months.

  33. Cap'n Crunch says:

    And I reiterate my belief that the panel gives him a year, dismissal, and total forfeitures. I think his DC made a mistake in arguing for a sentence that was far too light. I’d have thought about arguing for the punitive and forfeitures only as the DC, on the grounds that the punitive is appropriate in light of his undermining the chain of command, but no more. And then I’d have made the point that there is more to the punitive than meets the eye, since he will lose 17 years of service, have a federal felony conviction for the rest of his life that may preclude his ability to find civilian employment, he will lose his retirement which was only 3 years away — and adding prison to the mix doesn’t add much at all — the message will be sent with that punishment. Obviously his DC didn’t go that route — so we’ll see.

  34. Chilidog says:

    Cap’n Crunch, maybe he’s saving it for the appeal.

  35. Lawyerwitharealdegree says:

    Merry Christmas?Man, if I were a member I would think: Major Dobson spent a Christmas in theater because of this guy.Does Puckett really think this will work on me?From Col Sullivan’s admittedly small post, it sounds like TC outclassed and outgunned DC from the get-go, and even pulled their punch by not asking for 3 years (which might have played into Puckett’s argument of overreaching).I again stick by my prediction: members award TC’s recommendation.

    According to Col. Sullivan and CDR Cave, via last night’s radio show, Dobson pulled 6 months, and some other poor fellow is now finishing out the remainder of Lakin’s tour. I think the Merry Christmas sign off was very weird. But Puckett is a little “different”. Let’s see what the panel does.

  36. Greg says:

    Are the members deliberating on the sentence for only the offense for which they found Lakin guilty? Or are they deliberating on a comprehensive sentence that also includes the charges to which Lakin pleaded guilty?

  37. Christopher Mathews says:

    … it sounds like TC outclassed and outgunned DC from the get-go …

    I assume the sentence request from the defense was client driven.

    As I’m sure you experienced, some clients are better suited to pleas of leniency than others. But as a defense counsel, some days, you’re the windshield, and some days, you’re the bug.

  38. Ama Goste says:

    Greg, it’s on the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

  39. Lawyerwitharealdegree says:

    Are the members deliberating on the sentence for only the offense for which they found Lakin guilty? Or are they deliberating on a comprehensive sentence that also includes the charges to which Lakin pleaded guilty?

    Someone addressed this earlier. The panel will impose sentence for all offenses.

  40. TerribleTom says:

    Lemme see if I’ve got the defense’s sentencing request right.

    It amounts to a scolding, loss of some of his allowance, and partial grounding.

    What, no loss of TV privileges? I’m outraged.

    IMO, at minimum, he should have to walk the dog and take the garbage out for a full week.

  41. Christopher Mathews says:

    Are the members deliberating on the sentence for only the offense for which they found Lakin guilty? Or are they deliberating on a comprehensive sentence that also includes the charges to which Lakin pleaded guilty?

    They sentence as to all offenses on which there was a finding of guilt: so the ones he pled to, and the one they convicted him of.

  42. Chilidog says:

    TerribleTom, AND pick up the dog poop in the yard.

  43. Greg says:

    Thanks for the quick answers to my last question. Now I thought of another one:

    Once the panel returned with the findings, could Lakin have asked to have the Military Judge (Judge Lind) decide the sentence, or does the Judge only ever decide the sentence in a bench (judge-only) trial?

  44. Anonymous says:

    Lemme see if I’ve got the defense’s sentencing request right.
    It amounts to a scolding, loss of some of his allowance, and partial grounding.

    It’s a bartering position. Start low and hope for a resolution 1/2 way between your position & theirs. Don’t open with & concede the 1/2 position.

    Thanks to all the smart locals on this board for putting up with the tour bus. It’s been nice visiting & listening to you all. Merry Christmas.

  45. Anonymouse says:

    I am an Army O-6. I would give this “hero” three years- My sense of Honor would require me to give more time than any JAG weenie TC asked for. The dismissal is, of course, a must have for X-mas.

  46. bob says:

    And then I’d have made the point that there is more to the punitive than meets the eye, since he will lose 17 years of service, have a federal felony conviction for the rest of his life that may preclude his ability to find civilian employment, he will lose his retirement which was only 3 years away — and adding prison to the mix doesn’t add much at all — the message will be sent with that punishment.

    While all of that makes sense in this case, some confinement is necessary to deter those who wouldn’t be deterred by a negative dismissal and loss of benies (e.g., a fresh enlistee) who might otherwise be tempted to play birther to avoid deploying.

  47. TerribleTom says:

    anon wrote: “It’s a bartering position. Start low and hope for a resolution 1/2 way between your position & theirs. Don’t open with & concede the 1/2 position.”

    All I can say is: Puckett obviously did not learn his negotiating skills from Obama.

    [With a h/t to Chilidog: Maybe omission of the dog-poop pickup was designed to create negotiating room, no?]

  48. Lawyerwitharealdegree says:

    Thanks for the quick answers to my last question. Now I thought of another one:Once the panel returned with the findings, could Lakin have asked to have the Military Judge (Judge Lind) decide the sentence, or does the Judge only ever decide the sentence in a bench (judge-only) trial?

    According to the military lawyers (I am not one of them), once a Defendant elects to go with a panel for anything, the panel does all findings of guilt/innocence and sentencing. These are good questions, BTW.

  49. Gordon Smith says:

    If Lakin is sentenced to a dismissal, does the Secretary of the Army have to approve it?

  50. Sterngard Friegen says:

    The posts here by non-JAG Army personnel are the most revealing — since that’s what’s on the panel about to assess a sentence on Lakin. And it appears from the non-JAGs here that Lakin is going to get pretty much what TC has requested. I’ve always thought 18 months, forfeitures and a dismissal. I also predicted it could go to 24 months if Lakin went full birther. By Lakin’s failure to disavow his peanut gallery and their applause, I think 24 months is the most likely outcome, along with FF and dismissal. Lakin’s friends really helped him. Into more time.

    But, of course, we shall see. Maybe the panel is going to have a warm Chrstmas glow, as Puckett hopes. I tend to doubt it.

  51. Cheap Seats says:

    Gordon – yes. SECARMY will have to execute the dismissal, but only AFTER the appeal is complete.

  52. anon says:

    Gordon, a dismissal, if awarded and approved by the Convening Authority, cannot be executed until after appellate review of the case by ACCA. However, it does not require Secretarial approval.

  53. Brian le chien says:

    My 2 cents: 12m, TF, kick, and, because the defense asked for it, a reprimand.

  54. anon says:

    Based on the feedback of cheap seats, I better double check my dope. I thought the OEGCMCA has the authority to order the dismissal executed after completion of appellate review.

  55. Ama Goste says:

    Anon 1215, RCM 1113(c)(2) specifies the “Secretary concerned” must approve a dismissal of an officer.

  56. realist says:

    18 months, dismissal, forfeiture.

    The time certainly could go up or down, IMO, but without some time (minimum of 6 months), and dismissal and forfeiture, I don’t believe it sends a strong enough message to others who may wish to follow this foolish path.

    Just my .02.

  57. Constitutionalist says:

    Since Barry was born a Brit, Likin should get the Victoria Cross!

  58. Tekriter says:

    One question for those who have followed this case…

    A common theme with the birthers is that Lakin had offered to resign his commission rather than be deployed, and that his offer to resign was refused. This, in effect, pushed him into a corner where his only choice was to refuse to go.

    Is there any truth to this? I have only seen mention of this “fact” on full-bore birther websites.

  59. Lohengrin says:

    I think Puckett erred in requesting such a lenient sentence, and the prosecution showed more prudence in choosing a mid-to-high range sentence. I believe the panel will be annoyed enough with the slap on the wrist offered by defense that they will be inclined to meet or exceed TC’s recommendation.

  60. Abbey says:

    Since Barry was born a Brit, Likin should get the Victoria Cross!

    Lakin already has a cross – of his own making.

  61. Capt. Obvious says:

    Since Barry was born a Brit, Likin should get the Victoria Cross!

    Who is Barry and who is Likin?

  62. Mike Dunford says:

    I’m honestly surprised the panel is taking so long. I figured it wouldn’t be any longer than it took them to convict.

  63. Anonymous says:

    I think the only thing Lakin has going for him right now is that it is the Christmas season & the members may be feeling somewhat generous. However, there needs to be a STRONG message sent.

  64. Christopher Mathews says:

    Tekriter, I’ve not heard that LTC Lakin offered his resignation. It would certainly have been inconsistent with his stated objective of inviting a court-martial.

    He may have explored the option of offering to resign in lieu of court-martial at some point after the Army accepted his invitation: in fact, given the strength of the evidence against him, his counsel would have been remiss in not inquiring about a RILO. But just because he offers a RILO doesn’t mean it has to be accepted.

  65. Gordon Smith says:

    Gordon – yes.SECARMY will have to execute the dismissal, but only AFTER the appeal is complete.

    Thanks. I checked the relevant article and saw that you are correct. Interestingly, I noticed that the Secretary also has the authority to commute a dismissal to reduction to the enlisted ranks in time of war or national emergency. I wonder if that power has ever been exercised in the modern era.

  66. Anonymous says:

    I’m honestly surprised the panel is taking so long. I figured it wouldn’t be any longer than it took them to convict.

    Does that say that there are more votes, hence worse punishment?

  67. Chilidog says:

    Private Terry lakin?

    I like that.

  68. realist says:

    Tekriter… I have never heard that Lakin offered his resignation. The only thing I’ve heard/read along those lines was some time back Jensen issued a statement that they were going to file a Motion to Dismiss, which certainly would not be in line with the stated goals of being granted discovery of Obama’s records.

    Of course, it was never filed, to my knowledge, but to me was just another indication of the lack of dogbite’s legal acumen, given the goal of Lakin and his birther brigade.

  69. Rob A says:

    I’m a former Marine field artillery man, so I have to bet with SG and 8041:

    Max and dismissal

  70. Gordon Smith says:

    Private Terry lakin?I like that.

    If he remained in the army, and finished up his twenty years, would he still be entitled to a pension?

  71. Christopher Mathews says:

    Does that say that there are more votes, hence worse punishment?

    Don’t read too much into the timing. There are often a lot of documents to review on sentencing: performance reports, personnel records, letters asking for leniency, and so on, that are submitted to the members and not read in open court. But they will read everything when they deliberate.

    The issues are also more complicated: deciding findings is pretty much a simple binary solution set, guilty/not guilty, with the possibility of some LIOs to make it more interesting. But in sentencing, they have the full range of options, from no punishment to the max.

  72. KyAtty says:

    I would guess that Lakin’s only hope of avoiding dismissal and confinement is if there is anyone on his panel sympathetic to birfism or who just despises the President passionately, but that seems unlikely since they already found him guilty on all charges.

  73. Anonymous says:

    Well, it sure seems that SAFEGUARD still has their donation link up but have pulled back from anything else. They have provided nothing to the people that sponsored them, no pictures, nothing but generic babble
    Go figure what their motive was. Donations?

  74. Phil Stackhouse says:

    I bet they come back soon – snow is getting deep. Cynical? – sure. Right? – yep.

  75. Anonymous says:

    I bet they come back soon – snow is getting deep.Cynical? – sure.Right? – yep.

    And they don’t know what to do with snow in MD.

  76. Norbrook says:

    Don’t read too much into the timing.There are often a lot of documents to review on sentencing: performance reports, personnel records, letters asking for leniency,

    If the birthers in the audience have submitted letters for leniency, (oh lord!) do you think that would help or hurt? ;)

  77. Brian le chien says:

    If Lakin had offered to resign instead of deploy, I think it would have been mentioned in the hour-long woe-is-me unsworn.

  78. Christopher Mathews says:

    I bet they come back soon – snow is getting deep. Cynical? – sure. Right? – yep.

    They may come back quickly and the snow may be getting deep outside the courtroom. But let’s not go too far into post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments. You could as easily argue on a nice day that they’d come back with a quick decision in order to go out and enjoy the pleasant weather.

  79. Anonymous says:

    since they already found him guilty on all charges.
    He did plead on his own to some and admitted guilt. I think the ease on the court might give less action in the punishment phase.

  80. Brian le chien says:

    One more thing on the resignation bit. LTC Lakin said in his unsworn that he had several specialties (at least one of them recently obtained). It is a fair bet that he has an outstanding ADSO, and we have seen MEDCOM’s desire not to let doctors resign who still have service obligations (see e.g. MAJ Hassan).

    My guess, he didn’t offer to resign because his stated motive was to use the CM process to further his birther ends. Resigning would get him no closer to the “real” COLB. But if he had offered, it would not have been kindly received.

  81. Tes says:

    I think the only thing Lakin has going for him right now is that it is the Christmas season & the members may be feeling somewhat generous.However, there needs to be a STRONG message sent.

    I’d think that the season, which makes them only MORE aware of the sacrifices soldiers make … would make them less generous, if it affected them at all.

  82. Ama Goste says:

    Yes, Lakin would get a pension if he wasn’t dismissed or separated by an admin discharge board and he served out his 20 years. I think that’s highly unlikely at this juncture.

    As for the panel potentially having sympathizers of Lakin’s, recall it only takes 2/3 of the panel agreeing to reach a sentence in the military. So, you’d need at least 3 members to disagree with the others in order for that to work.

  83. Mike Dunford says:

    @Brian:

    I’m pretty suer that the Occupational Med residency only incurs a total 2-year ADSO (1 for the MPH, and one for the clinical year). If so, he should have been done with the training ADSO at the end of 2009.

  84. Yoshi99 says:

    since they already found him guilty on all charges.
    He did plead on his own to some and admitted guilt. I think the ease on the courtmight give less action in the punishment phase.

    I dunno. My sense was always that members didn’t really “get” the whole “but I pled guilty” mitigation argument. The defense really has to beat them over the head to get any benefit (saved government resources, victim didn’t have to testify, etc.), and that’s really tough to do when you only plead to some of the charges. I think the members will think he was trying to weasel out of the missing movement charge.

  85. grytpype says:

    What Lakin has going for him is his many years of good service before he turned Birther and committed crimes so he would have a crack at getting Obama’s Secret Birth Certificate from Mars or some damn thing.

    After he turned Birther he became a total shitshow.

  86. Frank Arduini says:

    @ Rob A

    I am a former Army artilleryman, and was stationed at Ft. Bragg in the 82d Divarty. You guys used to come from Camp LeJune to use our impact areas. I have only one thing to say about Marine Artillerists.

    You guys can shoot!!!

  87. verbalobe says:

    If the birthers in the audience have submitted letters for leniency, (oh lord!) do you think that would help or hurt?

    Have you been following birthers long? I think I can guarantee that not a one of them would have been able to figure out HOW to “submit” such a letter, so that it would be physically available in the sentencing conference. :)

  88. Norbrook says:

    As for the panel potentially having sympathizers of Lakin’s, recall it only takes 2/3 of the panel agreeing to reach a sentence in the military.So, you’d need at least 3 members to disagree with the others in order for that to work.

    I also think, whether they’re birthers or not, they probably aren’t in agreement with him on the disobeying orders part.

  89. Rob A says:

    You guys can shoot!!!

    @Frank, thanks for the kind words.

    I used to operate the slide ruler and protractor.

  90. John O'Connor says:

    Somebody make sure they don’t lose the “Good Soldier Book.”

  91. Norbrook says:

    Have you been following birthers long? I think I can guarantee that not a one of them would have been able to figure out HOW to “submit” such a letter, so that it would be physically available in the sentencing conference.

    Oh, I’ve been following them for a while now. :) You mean to tell me that the members don’t have a special e-mail account so that birthers can flood their in-box with their “evidence?” :P

  92. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    JO’C – No kidding.

  93. Brian le chien says:

    Yeah, but what about his combat accupunture skills? (I am kidding in regards to the ADSO, but he did mention it in his unsworn statment as a reason not to kick him).

  94. BigGuy says:

    Maybe he was just needling them.

  95. Christopher Mathews says:

    Maybe he was just needling them.

    I think I can get you a stand-up gig at one of the casinos here in town.

    Not on the Strip, mind you, but …

  96. Ama Goste says:

    That’s great, BigGuy. Lucky for the military, Lakin’s not the only one skilled with needles: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62053

  97. Chilidog says:

    Have you been following birthers long? I think I can guarantee that not a one of them would have been able to figure out HOW to “submit” such a letter, so that it would be physically available in the sentencing conference.

    Can you imagine what such a letter from Olry Taitz would look like?

    Even better, if there is an appeal, can you imagine what a letter from Orly would look like then? look at the invective she spewed on the judges that dismissed all of her lawsuits.

  98. Greg says:

    Have you been following birthers long? I think I can guarantee that not a one of them would have been able to figure out HOW to “submit” such a letter [asking for leniency], so that it would be physically available in the sentencing conference.

    In addition, the birthers would have had little time either to write or to post such a letter. By their lights – and Lakin’s own (pre-reformed) comments – Lakin was “not guilty” of all of the charges, so no sentencing phase would have been anticipated – had “justice” prevailed.

  99. sg says:

    Brian le chien says: Yeah, but what about his combat accupunture skills?
    BigGuy says: Maybe he was just needling them.

    Pretty pointed humor here.

  100. Capt. Obvious says:

    Here’s an idea. Obama should grant Lakin a pardon. That little popping noise? A few hundred birther heads exploding.

  101. Rob M says:

    Still infantry for now; I’m with 8041, SG, other Rob, et al. Max him out. An O-5 deserves nothing less.

  102. Mike Dunford says:

    @Brian:

    You do NOT want to get me going on the whole “combat acupuncture” thing. It’s the result of a fruit loop of an air force O6 who has been around forever. There’s no research – the army’s supposed to be big on evidence-based medicine – but this dude gets to offer his class, and we send Dos to it apparently on funded TDY……

  103. realist says:

    Here’s an idea. Obama should grant Lakin a pardon. That little popping noise? A few hundred birther heads exploding.

    How could he possibly do that? He’s a usurper, illegal president, ineligible. ;)

  104. sus says:

    Yeah, but what about his combat accupunture skills?

    Might sting a bit.

  105. Anonymous says:

    I just heard from a colleague that some in the NCR are being let go early due to weather. Any word as to “weather” the same is going to happen at Ft Meade?

  106. Ama Goste says:

    Dunford, are you referring to Dr. Burns?

  107. sg says:

    @Realist 1318,
    That’s the problem for them, isn’t it? You know they think he shouldn’t be in jail, but once the trial is over, any clemency is an executive function, and they don’t accept his right to exercise executive functions.

  108. Brian le chien says:

    Ft Meade is outside of the Beltway, but no one here knows what to with an inch of snow.

  109. Capt. Obvious says:

    How could he possibly do that?He’s a usurper, illegal president, ineligible.

    Exactly. Wouldn’t Lakin, in good conscience, have to refuse the pardon?

  110. Capt. Obvious says:

    Maybe he was just needling them.

    I get your point.

  111. Anonymous says:

    Ft Meade is outside of the Beltway, but no one here knows what to with an inch of snow.

    I wonder what they’d do with the 55 inches we’ve endured the past 2 weeks.

  112. Spike says:

    Can you imagine what such a letter from Olry Taitz would look like? Even better, if there is an appeal, can you imagine what a letter from Orly would look like then? look at the invective she spewed on the judges that dismissed all of her lawsuits.

    I think one of Birfistans finest will claim the next ‘super secret method to get discovery’ will be that SECARMY can’t execute the dismissal because Obama is a muslin. That’s right up Orly’s alley

  113. Mike Dunford says:

    @Ama:

    No, I’m referring to the guy who trained him – I believe the last name is Niemtow (but not positive on the spelling, and don’t have that info with me now).

    The doctor I’m thinking of is the editor for an alternative medicine journal. There was one point when I recall him writing an editorial describing his efforts, commenting that he thought it strange that so many combat amputees were “initially resistant” to the idea of acupuncture, because they didn’t want the needle sticks. That raises serious ethical questions in my mind, because it strongly suggests that the guy – an O6 doctor – was attempting to convince casualties, mostly enlisted, to accept unproven alternative therapy.

  114. Chilidog says:

    I thought that “combat acupuncture” was a joke until I googled it.

    Is this from a Stublebine disciple?

  115. Chilidog says:

    I believe the last name is Niemtow (but not positive on the spelling, and don’t have that info with me now).

    Did he also teach how to do the Vulcan neck pinch?

  116. realist says:

    @Realist 1318,
    That’s the problem for them, isn’t it?You know they think he shouldn’t be in jail, but once the trial is over, any clemency is an executive function, and they don’t accept his right to exercise executive functions.

    Yep, it’s a real pickle ;)

  117. John O'Connor says:

    I get your point.

    Quit being a prick.

  118. Frank Arduini says:

    @ Chilidog

    Stublebein!!!!

    Oh man, you bring back depressing memories from the 70s.

  119. sg says:

    @JO’C–
    Why are you so sharp today?

  120. DC Steve says:

    I wonder if when he’s at the DB, he will get a new following. I can see all the convicts gladly filing habeas petitions claiming that an illegal president cannot continue to confine them. My guess: the birthers will accept convicted child rapists among their midst if it advances their agenda.

  121. Ama Goste says:

    JO’C, when will you start singing “I’m the tack, I’m the tack…”?

  122. Rickey says:

    That’s the problem for them, isn’t it?You know they think he shouldn’t be in jail, but once the trial is over, any clemency is an executive function, and they don’t accept his right to exercise executive functions.

    Yes, it is a tangled web which they have woven.

    And when LTC Lakin goes off to serve whatever punished is meted out to him, let us not forget that the vile birthers who cheered him on and told him that he is a hero will suffer nothing more than hurt feelings and the cost of the PayPal donations which they foolishly made.

    Oh For Goodness Sake blog published a devastating analysis of the American Patriot Foundation in September. For those who may be unaware, Rolf Paul Jensen is the foundation’s Chairman of the Board, President and General Counsel. The Executive Director is Margaret Hemenway, whose father-in-law was the attorney of record in one of the many failed birther lawsuits, Hollister v. Soetoro.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=12078

    Jensen, Hemenway and the rest may not have any legal responsibility for Lakin’s fate, but their moral culpability is undeniable.

    None of this excuses Lakin’s actions, of course.

  123. anon says:

    ama goste – thanks for the correction on dismissals and RCM 1113. when in doubt, read the directions (aka the maroon harpoon)!

  124. Rickey says:

    Exactly. Wouldn’t Lakin, in good conscience, have to refuse the pardon?

    In an earlier thread I asked a birther if he was going to refuse to accept the extension of the Bush tax cuts after Obama signs them into law.

    The birther didn’t respond, of course.

  125. Ama Goste says:

    DC Steve, Lakin won’t necessarily go to the USDB just because he’s an officer. I had an O-5 client at Ford Island.

  126. Anonymous says:

    DC Steve, Lakin won’t necessarily go to the USDB just because he’s an officer.I had an O-5 client at Ford Island.

    Maybe when released Lakin could go into town & check out the BC.

  127. Rob A says:

    Speaking of birthers, where are the trolls this morning?

  128. Tes says:

    Speaking of birthers, where are the trolls this morning?

    Deciding which straw to grasp next….

  129. DC Steve says:

    True, but whether it the DB, an RCF, or whatever, there is a chance the story doesn’t end just yet.

    I am fairly certain that his first stop is Quantico, and I think I the Marines are salivating already. For a doctor who never went through anything but “gentlemen” courses, DB or not, this will be slight change in scenery.

  130. Capt. Obvious says:

    Quit being a prick.

    Ouch. Nice jag but no need to inject such a sharp invective. :-D

  131. Capt. Obvious says:

    Speaking of birthers, where are the trolls this morning?

    FEMA camps.

    Deciding which straw to grasp next….

    FEMA camps.

  132. Lawyerwitharealdegree says:

    True, but whether it the DB, an RCF, or whatever, there is a chance the story doesn’t end just yet.I am fairly certain that his first stop is Quantico, and I think I the Marines are salivating already.For a doctor who never went through anything but “gentlemen” courses, DB or not, this will be slight change in scenery.

    For us ignorant civilians, can you translate the acronyms? Thanks.

  133. bob says:

    My guess: the birthers will accept convicted child rapists among their midst if it advances their agenda.

    Well, birthers had no problem accepting a Kenyan “birth certificate” from a (literally) convicted forger….

  134. Rob A says:

    FEMA camps.

    As I stated yesterday, my goal in life is to become a Re-education Officer at a FEMA camp.

  135. Anon says:

    If Lakin doesn’t get a dismissal, can he still be administratively separated? That would also make him lose his retirement.

  136. Ama Goste says:

    DB=US Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth
    RCF=regional correctional facility

  137. Ama Goste says:

    Anon 1400, yes, although he’d get a discharge board, lengthy service consideration, and need the SecArmy to approve admin sep too.

  138. sg says:

    @ Anon 1400,
    Yes, he can. It escapes me at the moment who pointed it out, but the term is “dropped from rolls” and would be possible after six months of confinement.

  139. Maybe, Maybe Not says:

    Wow…so the attorney just up and left the good Doctor with his military counsel?

  140. Ama Goste says:

    M,MN–I’ve seen it happen more than once with civilian counsel.

  141. Christopher Mathews says:

    Wow…so the attorney just up and left the good Doctor with his military counsel?

    Not quite. The military judge permitted him to leave, after first ascertaining that he did so with the consent of the accused.

  142. Rob A says:

    Puckett didn’t waste any time getting down range.

  143. sg says:

    Obviously, it was Ama Goste, in another thread, and now this one.

  144. Greg says:

    Ouch. Nice jag but no need to inject such a sharp invective.

    This pointed exchange has revealed just how thorny this issue really is!

  145. Brian le chien says:

    Although Lakin claimed in his video to have 18 years of service, if I heard the charge sheet data correctly, he only has 17 years. This makes is slightly easier to ADSEP him.

  146. Rob A says:

    I am really looking forward to the Manning CM.

  147. Capt. Obvious says:

    As I stated yesterday, my goal in life is to become a Re-education Officer at a FEMA camp.

    The brownshirts potluck dinner is tomorrow night. Bring potato salad. Soros is paying for the hot wings. He’s surprisingly cheap.

  148. Anonymous says:

    The brownshirts potluck dinner is tomorrow night. Bring potato salad. Soros is paying for the hot wings. He’s surprisingly cheap.

    As long as there’s bleu cheese…

  149. sg says:

    He sure is, CPT Obvious. I never did get that “EEEvil Liberal Blogger” stipend I’ve heard so much about.

  150. Rob A says:

    Before this finishes up, just wanted to give a big thank you to Messrs. Mathews, Sullivan, O’Connor, Navarre, Cave and to all the other great regulars.

  151. Christopher Mathews says:

    Before this finishes up, just wanted to give a big thank you to Messrs. Mathews, Sullivan, O’Connor, Navarre, Cave and to all the other great regulars.

    Rob A, thanks for the kind words. Happy to be of service.

  152. John Harwood says:

    Man, if I’d paid Mr. Puckett the going rate for civ. C-M defense, I’d sure as shootin’ have his butt in the seat next to me for the duration of the court-martial.

  153. Dew_Process says:

    DB = US Disciplinary Barracks [prison], Ft. Leavenworth, KS

    RCF = Regional Confinement Facility [there are a number scattered around CONUS and OCONUS] = Continental US and “O” = “Out” of CONUS.

    Unless the policy has changed recently, if an Officer gets 30 days or more s/he goes to the DB (if they have “room in the Inn”).

  154. Ama Goste says:

    DP, that may be the general policy, but my guy got 4 months and stayed at Ford Island the entire time.

  155. Rob M says:

    Brian- I think the 18 year threshold is only for enlisted adseps, AR 635-200. For officers, the term is “elimination” and DA approval is required for all under AR 600-8-24 (I read somewhere that streamlined procedures are available for officers with less than 5 years, but I don’t know what those are.)

  156. Rob M says:

    As the guy who keeps making Watada comparisons, I’ll just add one more:

    His statement that he’d be willing to deploy to Afghanistan now reminds me of Watada saying he’d be willing to go to Afghanistan, just not Iraq. We don’t get to decide when we fight any more than we get to decide where.

  157. realist says:

    I too would like to extend my thanks to Messrs. Matthews, Sullivan, Cave, and all the military legal eagles here who have taken of their time to educate all us less knowledgeable of the military legal system. It has been very educational and much appreciated.

    I know the folks at Fogbow would echo my sentiments as well, especially to Sullivan and Cave for posting there and answering questions, and also in the giving of their time for Reality Check’s radio show.

    Well done, gentlemen.

  158. Anon 1430 says:

    I have to wonder what Lakin actually got by ditching Jensen and hiring Puckett. Puckett definitely brought some clear thinking and professionalism to the process and he kept the trial from being a complete circus. But with Lakin pleading guilty to the meat of the offenses and semi-renouncing his previous birther rationale for the offenses, he still is exposed to the same max punishment that would have applied if Jensen had stayed on and contested the actual offenses. The guilty pleas waived a lot of appellate issues, and they kept Lakin from arguing the same tripe he apparently still believes. I assume the punishment would be closer to the max if Jensen stayed on and did his show for the members, but from what I’ve read here, Puckett didn’t present too much in extenuation and mitigation (and its effectiveness seems questionable). Realistically, Puckett didn’t have much to work with, but I just don’t see that things got much better for Lakin on the whole when he ditched the crazy lawyer.

  159. Mike Dunford says:

    @Rob M:

    The Watada comparison has occurred to me. My opinion of Watada is similar to my view of Lakin, but softened slightly by his age and lack of experience. Lakin is definitely old enough to know better.

  160. TJ Hunter says:

    > I too would like to extend my thanks to Messrs. Matthews, Sullivan, Cave …

    Ditto and likewise.

    > I just don’t see that things got much better for Lakin on the whole when he ditched the crazy lawyer.

    I’m now inclined to think that a crazy lawyer WOULD have helped him. (Despite his protestations that he didn’t advise his client to miss movements.)

    ps : I’m a HUMAN, dangit !
    The sum of 1 – 7 is -6
    The sum of 1 TO 7 is 28
    The sum of 1 AND 7 is 8

  161. WorldWatcher says:

    >

    I’m trying to resolve a conflict in my mind. LTC Lakin said that Jensen advised him the orders we legal. Yet didn’t the briefs to Judge Lind (resulting in the 9/2/2010 decision) claim that because (in their opinion) Obama was illegitimate, that all orders issued by the military were illegal. Seems inconsistent to me between previous filings and claims during trial. (Decision Page 3, Paragraph 2) Wouldn’t that be Jensen telling him the orders were illegal. (That of course ignores independent military authority to issue orders under the USC.)

    >>>>

  162. Rob A says:

    Question: assuming he gets detention, does the military do parole or any type of early release?

  163. Maybe, Maybe Not says:

    Until we see the sentence, we can only surmise that Puckett was worth the money and didn’t pull a Steve Miller Band.

  164. Ama Goste says:

    Rob A, yes, the military generally gives 5 days off the sentence for every 30 days of “good time.” There’s also a parole procedure for lengthier sentences and “Christmas early release” possible.

  165. Rob A says:

    @M,MN

    Take the Money and Run???

  166. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Rob A,

    The answer to your question is yes. There is both a clemency and parole board, which can grant early release, and “good time” and “earned time.” Good time is 5 days for every 30 – so a sentence of 2 years would essentially be 20 months assuming he stayed out of trouble. Earned time is granted for taking certain classes, etc. and can be as high as I believe 8 days per month, but only kicks in after 1 year. (Thus, a sentence of 1 year is effectively less than that of 11 months 29 days). So, assuming that Lakin gets what TC asked for he will likely be out in less than 1.5 years (unless he acts up).

  167. Chilidog says:

    I was thinking more like: “Fly Like an Eagle.”

  168. Capt. Obvious says:

    @M,MNTake the Money and Run???

    The Joker? Abracadabra? Fly Like an Eagle?

  169. John O'Connor says:

    I was thinking Jungle Love.

  170. DC Steve says:

    Well, if Lakin gets any time, he sure needs to be on suicide watch. No job, no pension, and a homemaker wife with three kids (ages 3-11). SGLI starts looking like a reasonable way out.

    Oh, wait. I forgot he loves himself so much.

  171. Chilidog says:

    I though his Wife was DR also.

  172. That Guy says:

    Mr. Puckett has another case he has to attend to, in Italy, and has — with the consent of the excused — been excused from the remainder of the trial.

    DAMN YOU SPELL CHECK!!!!! Accused vs Excused!

  173. Anonymous says:

    Well, if Lakin gets any time, he sure needs to be on suicide watch.No job, no pension, and a homemaker wife with three kids (ages 3-11).SGLI starts looking like a reasonable way out.Oh, wait.I forgot he loves himself so much.

    From other comments his wife did not show up for the trial.

  174. realist says:

    I though his Wife wasDR also.

    She is a licensed physician. She has been a stay-at-home mom for a while, however.

  175. Capt. Obvious says:

    I was thinking Jungle Love.

    Of course you were. ;-)

  176. Ama Goste says:

    All new confinees in military lock-ups are subjected to a 48-hour or so close monitoring/segregation while they get adjusted to the new scenery.

  177. Christopher Mathews says:

    Mr. Puckett has another case he has to attend to, in Italy, and has — with the consent of the excused — been excused from the remainder of the trial.

    DAMN YOU SPELL CHECK!!!!! Accused vs Excused!

    Damn, where’s my AFCCA macro?

    Ah, here it is: (This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release.)

  178. Maybe, Maybe Not says:

    What is :Sentence announced. ismissal, confinement for , forfeitures.

  179. BigGuy says:

    : Sentence announced. ismissal, confinement for , forfeitures.
    __

    ???

  180. Capt. Obvious says:

    Perhaps his cell will have a southwest view towards Wichita, the birthplace of Ann Dunham.

  181. SueDB says:

    about PVT Lakin

    If he remained in the army,and finished up his twenty years,would he still be entitled to a pension?

    They would give him Spc just because he had a college degree.

  182. Yoshi99 says:

    Orly has revealed her next step on her self-described “World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site.” Apparently spelling things correctly isn’t part of the plan. Read and weep:

    In my opinion the defense was supposed to honestly state at trial, that Judge Denise Lind is preventing them of providing a meaningful and effective defense, that they demand to recuse her and have a court martial with another judge. They should have reported her for judicial misconduct and appealed up to the Supreme Court, if need be and demand judicial revue of the House Judicial committee. With an incoming Republican congress, they would have obtained a meaningful revue of their grievance in Congress.

    If you are a member of U.S. military, please fill out an article 138 grievance and send it up the chain of command up to admiral Mullin and cc to the house Judiciary committee, (upcoming chair is congressman Lamar Smith from TX) and cc me to orly.taitz@gmail.com. Congress cannot ignore hundreds and thousands of article 138 grievances.

  183. bob says:

    I have to wonder what Lakin actually got by ditching Jensen and hiring Puckett.

    Puckett seemed to be angling for a PTA. Whether the TC didn’t make it worth Lakin’s while, or Lakin balked, that’s privileged.

  184. Rob A says:

    All new confinees in military lock-ups are subjected to a 48-hour or so close monitoring/segregation while they get adjusted to the new scenery.

    So then at least 48 hours until he has his first “date”.

  185. bob says:

    I would be interested in that judicial revue….

  186. SueDB says:

    Orly has revealed her next step on her self-described “World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site.”Apparently spelling things correctly isn’t part of the plan.Read and weep:In my opinion the defense was supposed to honestly state at trial, that Judge Denise Lind is preventing them of providing a meaningful and effective defense, that they demand to recuse her and have a court martial with another judge. They should have reported her for judicial misconduct and appealed up to the Supreme Court, if need be and demand judicial revue of the House Judicial committee. With an incoming Republican congress, they would have obtained a meaningful revue of their grievance in Congress.If you are a member of U.S. military, please fill out an article 138 grievance and send it up the chain of command up to admiral Mullin and cc to the house Judiciary committee, (upcoming chair is congressman Lamar Smith from TX)and cc me to orly.taitz@gmail.com. Congress cannot ignore hundreds and thousands of article 138 grievances.

    Oh goody more trash going to the wrong folks. One of these days Oily will actually read what Article 138 states…not that she would understand a word of it…

  187. Christopher Mathews says:

    M,MN, Big Guy: that’s me trying to get ready for the announcement. “ismissal” lets me fill in “No dismissal” or “Dismissal,” and so on.

    Sorry.

  188. Chilidog says:

    She is a licensed physician. She has been a stay-at-home mom for a while, however.

    Not for much longer.

  189. DC Steve says:

    Well, it looks like Orly has joined LTC Lakin in not reading Article 138 BEFORE speaking. ADM Mullin commands no one (ok, maybe his own staff, but not many).

  190. Capt. Obvious says:

    So then at least 48 hours until he has his first “date”.

    It will be Terry Lakin Action Week after all.

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/14/ltc-lakins-supporters-sponsor-terry-lakin-action-week/

  191. Mike Dunford says:

    Well, it looks like Orly has joined LTC Lakin in not reading Article 138 BEFORE speaking. ADM Mullin commands no one (ok, maybe his own staff, but not many).

    Fits her MO perfectly, though – send the wrong paperwork to the wrong people, then yell a lot when the predictable occurs.

  192. Chilidog says:

    Orly has revealed her next step on her self-described “World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site.” Apparently spelling things correctly isn’t part of the plan. Read and weep:In my opinion blah, blah, blah

    Is that the only legal strategy she knows?

    Has it ever worked for her?

    Did you really go on her malware infested site? Hope you wore a condom.

  193. Rob A says:

    Yet another question: does the dismissal occur before or after the confinement?

  194. Ama Goste says:

    Spelling Mullen’s name correctly would be a good start.

  195. Anonymous says:

    Did you really go on her malware infested site? Hope you wore a condom.

    Never go there with a Windows system. UNIX should be OK.

  196. DC Steve says:

    Also, me thinks the HASC would not look kindly on the judicial committee’s revue. And not only because everyone knows that the judicial committee dress poorly – no one wants to see them dancing around.

  197. Ama Goste says:

    Confinement is (usually) immediate; dismissal only kicks in after the appeals run.

  198. John O'Connor says:

    M,MN, Big Guy: that’s me trying to get ready for the announcement. “ismissal” lets me fill in “No dismissal” or “Dismissal,” and so on.Sorry.

    You left flogging out of your template. That’s still an authorized punishment, right?

  199. Anonymous says:

    Confinement is (usually) immediate; dismissal only kicks in after the appeals run.

    It’s too bad he won’t have a visit with a shrink.

  200. Rob A says:

    Confinement is (usually) immediate; dismissal only kicks in after the appeals run.

    I am guessing the time between sentencing and dismissal after appeals will not count towards retirement, correct?

  201. Capt. Obvious says:

    “The members have sent for lunch to be brought in . . .”

    Does Lakin get a plate of crow?

  202. Christopher Mathews says:

    Confinement is (usually) immediate; dismissal only kicks in after the appeals run.

    The convening authority can grant a deferment of confinement to allow the accused to put their affairs in order prior to beginning their sentence. It doesn’t always work our the way they’d like: I prosecuted one NCO at McConnell AFB right around Thanksgiving who had stolen over $30,000 from the Air Force Aid Society. She asked for a deferment to spend time with her family … and spent the time writing $12,000 in bad checks. She got another year and an oak-leaf cluster for her BCD.

  203. yguy says:

    For our country to maintain an effective, disciplined and loyal fighting force, we must ALWAYS respect the civilian control that is so elemental to our country’s Armed Forces.Lakin, irrespective of how he colored it, was in a very real, tangible way working to undermine that civilian control.

    While superficially reasonable, this fails to take into account the fact that while a presidential election is undoubtedly an expression of the will of the civilian populace, the ultimate expression of that will is the Constitution. This document implicitly prohibits anyone from wielding presidential authority who is ineligible for the office, and thus prohibits anyone under a constitutional oath from following orders from one lacking such eligibility, and, by implication, from giving orders to subordinates in pursuance of such orders. This being the case, to expect military personnel to take the oath seriously and simultaneously insist they ignore evidence of the nominal President’s ineligibility is to put them in an impossible predicament – which, in the instant case, no one is more responsible for than Barack Hussein Obama.

    And as for civilian control, if We the People thus talk out of both sides of Our collective mouth, we can no more be said to be in control of the military than a schizophrenic can be deemed competent to fly an airliner.

  204. Ama Goste says:

    Appeals can take from a few months to several years. Depending how long the confinement is, a dismissal could take place during or after the completion of confinement. And, no, neither the time served in confinement, nor appellate leave afterwards (if appeals not completed at release date) count towards retirement.

  205. Chilidog says:

    Birther alert

  206. Rob A says:

    Oh boy, the idiots are back.

  207. Rob A says:

    @Ama

    thanks

  208. Yoshi99 says:

    And as for civilian control, if We the People thus talk out of both sides of Our collective mouth, we can no more be said to be in control of the military than a schizophrenic can be deemed competent to fly an airliner.

    Seems like we could get rid of the co-pilot and save some money.

  209. Christopher Mathews says:

    This being the case …

    Except it’s not.

    Do you have any thoughts to offer on the likely sentence in this case?

  210. SueDB says:

    While superficially reasonable, this fails to take into account the fact that while a presidential election is undoubtedly an expression of the will of the civilian populace, the ultimate expression of that will is the Constitution. This document implicitly prohibits anyone from wielding presidential authority who is ineligible for the office, and thus prohibits anyone under a constitutional oath from following orders from one lacking such eligibility, and, by implication, from giving orders to subordinates in pursuance of such orders. This being the case, to expect military personnel to take the oath seriously and simultaneously insist they ignore evidence of the nominal President’s ineligibility is to put them in an impossible predicament – which, in the instant case, no one is more responsible for than Barack Hussein Obama.And as for civilian control, if We the People thus talk out of both sides of Our collective mouth, we can no more be said to be in control of the military than a schizophrenic can be deemed competent to fly an airliner.

    I would think that you would have learned your lessons by now, but there is that word ‘learned’…

  211. BigGuy says:

    @Christopher — if I may ask, has Dwight been in touch while the jury’s been out? Any interesting stories?

  212. Capt. Obvious says:

    Side note: every time I type “Lakin ” into my phone the autocomplete turns it into “Palin “. Coincidence? I think NOT.

    Is that because they’re both Androids?

  213. Hektor says:

    And as for civilian control, if We the People thus talk out of both sides of Our collective mouth, we can no more be said to be in control of the military than a schizophrenic can be deemed competent to fly an airliner.

    Yguy, I’m a schizophrenic. I can’t fly a plane but I’m in grad school for mathematics. I also don’t subscribe to fantasies that magically undo the results of elections I don’t like. No matter how hard the real world is, I’d rather live in it and hold my head high that I can deal with it and its responsibilities and consequences. What’s your and Lakin’s excuse?

  214. Bill B says:

    I would think that you would have learned your lessons by now, but there is that word ‘learned’…

    You folks crack me up …

  215. Anonymous says:

    In reference to the procedures by which the members are deliberating proposed sentences starting with the most lenient until a 2/3 majority is reached, how does that actually work in practice?

    Do the members just ask “Who’s in favor of a dismissal? Confinement?…etc.” and then count the votes, down the line, with whatever further deliberations on the specific amount of confinement and forfeitures/fines as may be necessary?

    Or, does each member come up with one “complete” sentence which they then match up against the others?

    If it’s the latter, how do they decide whether a sentence, for example, to a dismissal and one year confinement is more or less severe than a sentence to no dismissal and three years confinement?

  216. Ama Goste says:

    Slugfest comments aside, I’m still having trouble grappling with why Lakin chose to disobey only selected orders.

  217. OldJarhead says:

    Hey, YGUY, what do you know that the Clinton and McCain campaign staffs didn’t know, that the 50 governors (including Sarah Palin) who certitifed the elegibility of Obama’s electors didn’t know, that Vice Pres Cheney didn’t know when he read the election results into the Congressional Record, that every member of Congress who unanimously consented to the reading didn’t know, or that Chief Justice Roberts didn’t know when he swore Obama into office? Get a life!

  218. Capt. Obvious says:

    Oh boy, the idiots are back.

    The village called.
    They’re missing a yguy.

  219. Abbey says:

    Slugfest comments aside, I’m still having trouble grappling with why Lakin chose to disobey only selected orders.

    Indeed, escecially given that he stated in writing he wouldn’t be obeying *any*.

  220. Anonymous says:

    While superficially reasonable, this fails to take into account the fact that while a presidential election is undoubtedly an expression of the will of the civilian populace, the ultimate expression of that will is the Constitution. This document implicitly prohibits anyone from wielding presidential authority who is ineligible for the office, and thus prohibits anyone under a constitutional oath from following orders from one lacking such eligibility, and, by implication, from giving orders to subordinates in pursuance of such orders. This being the case, to expect military personnel to take the oath seriously and simultaneously insist they ignore evidence of the nominal President’s ineligibility is to put them in an impossible predicament – which, in the instant case, no one is more responsible for than Barack Hussein Obama.And as for civilian control, if We the People thus talk out of both sides of Our collective mouth, we can no more be said to be in control of the military than a schizophrenic can be deemed competent to fly an airliner.

    So then, if we are attacked tomorrow of course you advocate soldiers ignore the orders of their superiors to defend the country, right?

    More relevantly, Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should all find the next flight back home right? After all, every last one of them are fighting based on “illegal orders” from a usurper right?

  221. Your Master says:

    Has anyone here seen the CAAFlog site? I seem to have accidentally been redirected here to the dailykos. Or is this the huffington post? I’m not sure. I’m looking for a military law blog called CAAFlog.

  222. Tekriter says:

    While superficially reasonable, this fails to take into account the fact that while a presidential election is undoubtedly an expression of the will of the civilian populace, the ultimate expression of that will is the Constitution. This document implicitly prohibits anyone from wielding presidential authority who is ineligible for the office, and thus prohibits anyone under a constitutional oath from following orders from one lacking such eligibility, and, by implication, from giving orders to subordinates in pursuance of such orders. This being the case, to expect military personnel to take the oath seriously and simultaneously insist they ignore evidence of the nominal President’s ineligibility is to put them in an impossible predicament – which, in the instant case, no one is more responsible for than Barack Hussein Obama.And as for civilian control, if We the People thus talk out of both sides of Our collective mouth, we can no more be said to be in control of the military than a schizophrenic can be deemed competent to fly an airliner.

    Well, you can be the next one to push a court case.

    Remember, it’s up to you to prove your allegation, not the other way around.

  223. Mike Dunford says:

    @Ama:

    You don’t think a guy who is worried about being billed for the movement he missed is going to challenge the legality of, say, an order that would promote him and substantially increase his income, do you?

  224. Christopher Mathews says:

    Has anyone here seen the CAAFlog site? I seem to have accidentally been redirected here to the dailykos. Or is this the huffington post? I’m not sure. I’m looking for a military law blog called CAAFlog.

    YM, you’ve come to the right place.

    Not the far, far right place, though.

  225. John O'Connor says:

    Anon 1542:

    The members are inastructed that proposals should be for complete sentences (which could lead to some philosophical questions in trying to rank them from least to most severe).

    I bet in practice, the members talk it through and end up deciding what they are going to do by consensus without having three, four, or eight slips of paper with a sentence put into a hat.

  226. SueDB says:

    Slugfest comments aside, I’m still having trouble grappling with why Lakin chose to disobey only selected orders.

    If you don’t cash those “bogus” paychecks (Usurpechecks???) then you don’t eat.

    Get your new Usurpeaccount now at the Federal Reserve – first 100 customers get a free autographed Lakin toaster – “It’s not a matter of toast or not, it is how dark you like it.”

  227. Rob M says:

    They should have reported her for judicial misconduct and appealed up to the Supreme Court, if need be and demand judicial revue of the House Judicial committee. With an incoming Republican congress, they would have obtained a meaningful revue of their grievance in Congress.

    Even ignoring the fact that “judicial revue” sounds like a really boring date night, she hasn’t read 28 USC 1259 (in addition to not reading many, many other things). Her appeal wouldn’t get “revued” by the Supreme Court because no way CAAF would lift a finger.

    Ironically, it’s Representative Smith and the Republicans about to take over the judiciary committee who don’t want cases like this to be “revued” by the Supreme Court and oppose the Democrat-sponsored legislation that would make such “revue” possible.

    (I know, feeding the trolls, but sometimes I can’t help myself).

  228. Capt. Obvious says:

    . . . than a schizophrenic can be deemed competent to fly an airliner.

    Are you a physician or just the same mentally challenged birther troll with dire self-esteem issues and an overwhelming need to spew idiotic, meaningless rhetoric?

  229. Dave says:

    Ama Goste — I’m not sure LTC Lakin’s thoughts are something that can be exactly understood, but one gets the impression that he sees deployment orders are being somewhat more President-ish.

  230. Christopher Mathews says:

    Sentence is posted.

  231. Greg says:

    I still find it fascinating that Dwight Sullivan and Phil Cave were observed in the same room.

    I have long suspected that “Phil Cave” was a projection of Dwight’s: an invented person who had all of the things (the British pedigree, the spotless Naval career, a distinguished appearance) that Dwight somehow felt was missing from his own life. And since the two names are anagrams of each other – wait – oh, no, I guess not. Oh well, it looks like I may have been mistaken.

    Never mind.

  232. Mike Dunford says:

    Even ignoring the fact that “judicial revue” sounds like a really boring date night,

    Damn. Now I’ve got some images stuck in my brain that are going to take weeks to get rid of.

  233. TerribleTom says:

    It’s a rare skill, it is. I love me the relatively few crazies who demonstrate a decent vocabulary, punctuate and spell acceptably and are capable of forming complex sentences that ultimately make no sense.

    Lyndon LaRouche has that knack and Christopher Earl Strunk is unsurpassed in sheer sentence length. But Yguy is hard to beat in the category of “superficial reasonability”.

    So sit back, make some popcorn, and enjoy.

  234. juniper55 says:

    If you please, what DID Lakin do since that plane took off last spring? Did he just sit at home from then until now, was he confined in any way, did he do other doctor stuff for the Army, what?

    Also, can a member of the US military be a dual citizen? How far up the chain of command?

    Thanks in advance

  235. Frank Arduini says:

    Only 6 months. Merry Christmas indeed.

  236. Rob A says:

    Troll Alert: “Your Master” is Sharon Rondieu

  237. Lawyerwitharealdegree says:

    I would have liked to see more time, but I would have been satisfied with dismissal also. Terry Lakin is a damned fool.

  238. Your Master says:

    I think it is clear that we can’t expect members of the military to defend the Constitution. Their loyalty is to their brothers in arms, their commanders, and the military itself. Besides, most members of the military have virtually no knowledge of the Constitution. And, if the Constitution conflicts with their ideology, their ideology takes precedence. For example, if the Constitution makes someone they favor ineligible to be President, they argue that the election overrode the Constitution and made him President. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but an election cannot override the Constitution. If Obama is constitutionally ineligible, then he is not the President and you are being lead by a man who has no authority to lead the military of the United States. In that case, any actions you take in a war in a foreign land are illegal. You better hope and pray the Obama’s ineligibility never gets officially recognized or the consequences to you will be severe, much worse than what LTC Lakin is facing now.

  239. Capt. Obvious says:

    I still find it fascinating that Dwight Sullivan and Phil Cave were observed in the same room.I have long suspected that “Phil Cave” was a projection of Dwight’s: an invented person who had all of the things (the British pedigree, the spotless Naval career, a distinguished appearance) that Dwight somehow felt was missing from his own life. And since the two names are anagrams of each other – wait – oh, no, I guess not. Oh well, it looks like I may have been mistaken.
    Never mind.

    Well, Dwight Sullivan anagrams to having wild lust and Phil Cave to evil chap.

    Take that, conspiracy buffs.

  240. Chilidog says:

    it’s a damned shame that this guy threw it all away on a silly conspiracy theory.

    He’s not the only one. There have been a number of cases where otherwise inteligent, competent people have done the same thing for various causes.

    This needs to be catagorized in the DSM IV

  241. Rob A says:

    Justice has been served.

  242. 8041 says:

    military personnel to take the oath seriously and simultaneously insist they ignore evidence of the nominal President’s ineligibility

    While I am not a lawyer, nor any kind of learned expert on the USC, I am pretty sure that the Constitution does not give the US military any determinative authority regarding this president’s or any president’s qualifications for office. We are not the arbiters of who can be, or even is President. Why do you fail to understand that?

    That is a plainly political process, and as any officer knows, political processes DON’T include the Armed Forces, at least not in this country. And, that’s EXACTLY why this country works, and has for over 230 years.

    If LTC Lakin was unhappy with civilian leadership, or thought it was defective in some way, he should have resigned his commission and written a book, or ran for office. Officers of the US Armed Forces DO NOT enjoy the privilege of making political statements. Lakin was making a political statement, and needs to be reprimanded accordingly.

  243. Anon says:

    damn. no retirement for you.

  244. Anonymous says:

    so he will be home in mid-May.

    Just in time to start his speaking tour where he unfortunately will probably reap great reward and prestige from the crazies over this…thankfully, in 15 days, I will no longer have to call him Sir.

  245. sg says:

    @juniper55
    I don’t know what LTC Lakin did, but he would’ve been assigned duties within his specialty that would not interfere with his ability to assist in his own defense. He couldn’t work at the Pentagon any more because his security clearance and building access had been revoked. Most likely a position at Walter Reed AMC.

    As far as dual citizenship goes, I knew two different Infantry officers who came from other countries. One was born in and grew up in England, went to school there, and spoke with a British accent, but his parents were US citizens. The other officer had an American father and a Polish mother and had lived in both countries and traveled extensively. I don’t know about their citizenship, though.
    The Army once had a Chief of Staff named John Shalikashvili, who was not born a US citizen:
    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Shalikashvili

  246. Anonymous says:

    actually I forgot it’s different for officers and his dismissal won’t happen probably for another year at least.

    Sigh, sir it is.

  247. John O'Connor says:

    I’m a little surprised by the relatively short confinement. But the length of confinement is almost always a big-time wild card in member cases so trying to divine what they will do is nothing more than a complete wild guess.

  248. Welsh Dragon says:

    And, if the Constitution conflicts with their ideology, their ideology takes precedence

    Sounds more like most of the birthers I’ve come across!

  249. Christopher Mathews says:

    Day three wrap is posted here. Comments in this thread are closed.