[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: LTC Lakin’s Court-Martial Nears
LTC Terrence Lakin’s court-martial opens next week on December 14 at Fort Meade, Maryland. I saw a photo online recently of Lakin with his beautiful family, which I won’t post here for the sake of their privacy. But I felt very sad looking at it. Lakin’s irresponsible actions gambled with their future security and family reputation. I wonder if the GOP ops behind this miserable fiasco, like Margaret Hemenway and Paul Rolf Jensen, or World Net Daily, for that matter, ever give a thought to what they have done to these kids. All the Birthers out there, every single one, who pushed this man farther and farther to self-immolation should be ashamed, including, more recently, his own brother. It would be one thing if LTC Lakin had continued with the Birther defense. Lakin must have realized the damage he was doing to his family and to the service and himself, or he wouldn’t have fired the American Patriot Foundation and hired a non-Birther lawyer, one of the best in the military law business, to represent his interests over the Birther movement’s interests. It’s a shame the Birther movement continues to exploit Lakin in defiance of his legal strategy. No sympathy here for LTC Lakin–he deserves what he gets–but for his children. And for the armed forces, who have better things to worry about than half-assed, unpatriotic conspiracy movements. Col. Dwight Sullivan of CAAFlog described on The Fogbow how the military sentencing process works in a plea bargain: In the military, the convening authority (the commanding general or other high ranking official who decided to prosecute the case) actually enters into a contract with the defendant (called an accused in military justice parlance). The convening authority agrees that if the accused pleads guilty and does whatever else he or she agrees to do, then the convening authority will reduce the accused’s sentence to an agree-upon limit. The case then goes to court-martial, where the accused pleads guilty and goes through a “Care inquiry,” during which the accused is required to convince the military judge that he or she is actually guilty. This is a lengthy process during which the accused basically has to explain in his or her own words why his or her conduct satisfied every element of the offenses to which he or she has pled guilty. Once the military judge finds the accused guilty in accordance with the pleas, the case then moves immediately into a sentencing hearing. There are no presentence reports — sentencing is an adversarial evidentiary process, much like a contested trial. At the end of the sentencing case, the sentencer (it could be the military judge alone or a panel of service members) deliberates and then announces a sentence. (For members, it generally takes a 2/3 vote for the sentence, though there are some exceptions to that rule.) Then the accused gets the lighter of the sentence adjudged or the sentence as agreed to with the convening authority. So the defense can, as we say, “beat the deal” by getting the sentencer to adjudge a more lenient sentence than that in the contract (called a PTA for pre-trial agreement) between the convening authority and the accused. During the defense’s sentencing case, the accused can elect to either testify under oath or make an unsworn statement to the court-martial. If the accused testifies under oath, he can be (and almost invariably will be) cross-examined by the prosecutor. If the accused makes an unsworn statement, he isn’t subject to cross-examination, though the prosecution in its rebuttal case is allowed to rebut any statements of fact made during the unsworn statement, but not opinions. Military case law construing the right to make an unsworn statement holds that the accused can say just about anything he wants. In practice, because the case law is so expansive, a military judge almost never precludes the accused from saying something because she knows that if she does, there’s a pretty good chance she’ll get reversed on appeal. So, if LTC Lakin so chooses, there could indeed be an “open mike afternoon” at his court-martial during which he would have the option of delivering a birther manifesto. He would almost certainly be allowed to do so if he wants. (Of course, the sentencing authority — be it Judge Lind or a panel of Army colonels — will then be free to consider that as a matter in aggravation when determining the appropriate sentence.) Col. Sullivan intends to attend the trial, so we can look forward to his reports on CAAFlog. A very interesting interview he had recently on Reality Check is well worth listening to. If he does attend the court-martial, Reality Check will be lucky again to have him as a guest to discuss it. Don’t miss the show next week. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32. It kills me to say this...but LtC Latkin is painfully wrong here, and is going to pay a dreadful price, as will his family. He disobeyed a lawful order, folks. Period. And you all know I have no use for our POTUS politically. I think he's a disaster that only Jimmy Carter can match. If he felt this way, he should have resigned his commission. That he didn't was a huge error in judgement on his part. He will lose. And he will be made an example of. The 'birthers' and the 'truthers' are two sides of the same fucked up coin in short. JMHO.
#17. To: Badeye (#13) It kills me to say this...but LtC Latkin is painfully wrong here, and is going to pay a dreadful price, as will his family. I believe everything you say will come to pass, but my question is, why would a person like him, with everything going for him throw it all away just to suffer, and his family suffer as well?
#18. To: Murron (#17) I believe everything you say will come to pass, but my question is, why would a person like him, with everything going for him throw it all away just to suffer, and his family suffer as well? I have no insight on this one, murron. I don't get it either. He should have resigned if he felt that strongly about it, at least then he could have found work in the private sector, maybe with a defense contractor.
#20. To: Badeye, Murron (#18) I have no insight on this one, murron. He did it because it was the right thing to do,and he took a oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution sets certain standards that any president MUST meet in order to be the CiC and give orders to the military. It is the DUTY of career officers to insure those standards are met in order to avoid following illegal orders. Military people are always putting not only their careers but their actual lives at risk in order to do the right thing. The only thing surprising to me is that more haven't done it.
#21. To: sneakypete (#20) sneaky, For that to be 'valid' both as a debate point, or a defense in his coming court martial, he would have to have proof positive POTUS is not an American Citizen. He simply doesn't.
#24. To: Badeye (#21) For that to be 'valid' both as a debate point, or a defense in his coming court martial, he would have to have proof positive POTUS is not an American Citizen. And he can't do that because the man that is ultimately responsible for his court-martial refuses to provide proof that the Colonel is wrong. ALL it would take to settle this whole matter is for the acting president to release his actual birth certificate.
#28. To: sneakypete (#24) And he can't do that because the man that is ultimately responsible for his court-martial refuses to provide proof that the Colonel is wrong. ALL it would take to settle this whole matter is for the acting president to release his actual birth certificate. LOL... still chasing your tail on this one, David Duke. So not only are you a Storm Front trooper, but you're a proud member of the Birther Brigade! You must be so proud!
#29. To: meguro (#28) didn't you vote for john kerry?
#31. To: continental op (#29) didn't you vote for john kerry? Nope, I voted third party in 2004. How about you? Furthermore, how is that relevant?
#32. To: meguro (#31) (Edited) checking your credibility levels. so far so good. I don't vote.
Replies to Comment # 32. There are no replies to Comment # 32.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 32. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|