Here is a copy of ACCA’s 28 July order granting LTC Lakin’s motion to withdraw his case from appellate review.  A review of the court-martial now must be conducted by a judge advocate pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1112.  And pursuant to Article 71(b) of the UCMJ, LTC Lakin’s dismissal can’t be executed until approved by the Secretary of the Army or his designee.  So while the case of United States v. Lakin is now over, execution of his dismissal is probably not imminent.

UPDATE:  A copy of the transcript of LTC Lakin’s court-martial that CAAFlog obtained under the Freedom of Information Act is available here.  The good folks at ACCA were incredibly helpful and swift in responding to our FOIA request.  On the off chance that anyone there sometimes visits our little gab fest, thanks ACCA!

p.s. thanks to the good folks at The Fogbow for uploading the transcript onto the web.

p.p.s.  The Terry Lakin Action Fund’s website includes an update from 31 July explaining the withdrawal of the case from appellate review:  “Concerning Appeals: The process has begun to accelerate Terry’s discharge and skip the appeals for now (there is a secondary process that can optionally be pursued at a later date). His charges remain. Terry will recieve a formal dismissal which is customary for officers involved in a court martial.”

I’m not sure what that “secondary process” might be. By choosing to forgo his military appeals, LTC Lakin has declined to exhaust his remedies. That will almost certainly result in the foreclosure of any collateral attack on his court-martial conviction. However, that’s not an enormous sacrifice; there would have been no viable grounds for a successful collateral attack.

UPDATE:  The TLAF website also provides this information about LTC Lakin’s forthcoming book, which sheds more light on his decision to withdraw his case from appellate review:

Books and Media: Terry’s book is well underway with twelve completed chapters completed, all the vignettes written, and about 1/3 of the essays submitted. We have a great cover as well. The publication date will be adjusted to reflect Terry’s formal dismissal. Why? Since he is still “in the army” he cannot publish a book under military guidelines. The same is true of media. Terry will continue to appear on select radio shows to discuss his experiences and interest in the Constitution.

15 Responses to “ACCA grants LTC Lakin’s motion to withdraw his case from appellate review [updated again]”

  1. stewie says:

    “secondary process” means ad law review and is no doubt used to keep as many people as possible from getting angry that he’s “given up” and maybe a few more sheckels coming in for support.

  2. John O'Connor says:

    . It’s sort of like if they had settled Brown v. Board of Education right before oral argument in the Supreme Court.

  3. soonergrunt says:

    5 will get you 10 that he’s going to run for office, and he wants the whole process complete so that he can clear decks for it.

  4. Rob M says:

    If “formal dismissal” is “customary for officers involved in a court martial,” I think many on this blog might have to start looking for work elsewhere.

    SG- you’re right; the “action fund” website even says he’s considering a run for political office and “they” are looking to find a race he could win.

    I also wonder what “military guidelines” prohibit publishing books. I guess those “Taking the Guidon” guys better find a good lawyer and fast.

  5. Abe Froman says:

    I knew something like this was coming, and it’s just the first step in a chain of events that will reveal the truth behind this court-martial. Stay tuned folks…

  6. Not me says:


    No military guidelines prohibit publishing books, but I could think of a few UCMJ articles the future Mr. Lakin would likely violate if he published now what he likely wants to publish. That said, he better be damn sure that he gets his DD 214, final accounting of pay, etc, before he does anything else stupid or he might find the Army to be a spiteful bunch. (Or they may just decide to ignore the crackpot, which I wish people would do)

  7. Not me says:

    Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago?

  8. John O'Connor says:

    There are some DoD regs. That require pre-publication review of certain writings, but those tend to involve classified materials and the like, so probably don’t apply to Lakin. And as others have noted, there are UCMJ provisions that could come not play depending on what he says.

    And I would be remiss if I didn’t note the irony of Lakin being “interested” in the Constitution when he ignored so many of it’s principles in his fool’s errand.

  9. SueDB says:

    reveal the truth behind this court-martial

    Truth? Read the transcript 3 GUILTY pleas and 1 not guilty – on which he was subsequently convicted by the panel.

    Abe must be the Sausage King that fell into his grinder – head first.

  10. Rob Klant says:

    OGE has a nice summary of the regulations, including when compensation may or may not be received for the writing, here:

    For those with NKO access, Code 13 also has Ethicsgram 10-2 (30 Sep 2010) addressing the issue.

    It’s worth noting that not all of the restrictions are simply regulatory in nature. Certain acts could give rise to violations of the criminal conflict statutes (e.g. 18 U.S.C. sections 208, 209).

    I could see other violations occurring where publication involves the unauthorized release of classified information or records covered by the Privacy Act. I wonder, for example, what authority an accused or counsel would have to publish an official document released to them only to allow them to craft a defense at court-martial.

  11. Rob M says:

    RK/NM- I was making a joke at the birthers’ expense. They make it seem like all he wants to do is write an unassuming book about his favorite pie recipes but the Army won’t let him. Their understanding of military regulations matches their understanding of, well, most things.

    And after all, it’s understanding that makes it possible for people like us to tolerate [people] like [them].

  12. Reality Check says:

    According to the Colorado Division of Registrations of the Department of Regulatory Agencies web site Terrance Lakin reactivated his license to practice there on June, 1 2011. Each physician has to complete a professional profile that is part of the public record. Here is the one for Dr. Lakin:

    I would appreciate any comments on how Dr. Lakin answered some of the questions on the profile, especially these:

    Disciplinary Actions
    Have you ever had public disciplinary action taken against your license by any board or licensing agency in any state or country? Answer – No


  13. Reality Check says:

    cont’d (hit the button too early)

    Restrictions or Suspensions
    Have you ever entered into any agreement or stipulation to temporarily cease your practice or had a board order issued restricting or suspending your license?
    Answer – No

    Health Care Facility Actions
    Since September 1, 1990, have you had any final actions resulting in involuntary limitations or probationary status on or reduction, nonrenewal, denial, revocation or suspension of medical staff membership or clinical privileges at a hospital or healthcare facility? You are not required to report a precautionary or administrative suspension unless you resigned your medical staff membership or clinical privileges while the suspension was pending.
    Answer – No


    Since you were issued a license to practice your profession in any state or country, have you had any final criminal conviction(s) or plea arrangement(s) resulting from the commission or alleged commission of a felony or crime of moral turpitude in any jurisdiction?

    Answer – No

  14. interested onlooker says:

    Seems like the first 3 No answers are legitimate. As for the fourth one, perhaps there’s some wiggle room given that the wheels of military justice haven’t yet finished grinding in his case? I have to say I’m tempted to go see if there’s somewhere on the website that one can point out a discrepancy in the profile, because while a “No” might meet the letter of the law, it doesn’t seem to meet the spirit!

  15. Phil Cave says:

    I’m not convinced any of his convictions are felonies. However, I’d be interested to know if any adverse credentials actions were taken at his “hospital.” If there was, even if it was an abeyance for misconduct, that would be reportable to the Data Bank as an adverse action, would it not.