[jamese777]

Driscoll’s point is that the movement order for Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is a legal order regardless of Obama’s eligibility.
That has been the way the US Military has always operated under “lawfulness of orders” and “de facto officer.” The exception is if an order is to commit an unlawful act.
Deploying to Afghanistan is not an unlawful act and I’m willing to bet that the name Barack Hussein Obama does not appear on the movement order.
Lakin is charged with a violation of 887.87 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Missing Movement
“Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

[centurion316]

I believe that you may have wandered into the wrong thread, as you have done with other threads concerning LTC Lakin. Here you are arguing points of law concerning a legal matter when all around you only want to make emotional pleas to the nobleness of his cause.

The Article 32 Officer will find probable cause to proceed and will so recommend to the Convening Authority.

He will be tried by Court Martial and found guilty.

He will be transported to the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. He probably won’t serve much time, but his life and career will be ruined.

No one will care that he sacrificed himself for a cause.

I would like to have been able to advise him to choose a different path.

Thanks for all of your posts, very educational.

[Red Steel]

Driscoll’s point is that the movement order for Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is a legal order regardless of Obama’s eligibility. That has been the way the US Military has always operated under “lawfulness of orders” and “de facto officer.” The exception is if an order is to commit an unlawful act.

And we know that LTC Lakin contends orders from the putative president may NOT be lawful. We know the government doesn't want to go there and wants to restrict the defense to Lakin's detriment.

And 'the de facto officer' argument does not cover Obama in this case as I so posted to you before. Again here it is:

- - - - - -

The “de facto officer doctrine” has been on the books since 1886.

... Whenever I look at the details your story falls apart.

In the STATE_V_OREN.92-113; 160 Vt. 245; 627 A.2d 337,

it states:

"Whether the officer with defective title appeared to be an intruder or usurper depends on whether other government officials and the public reasonably believed that the officer was entitled to exercise the powers of her office during the period of defective title. Id. at 261. Under the de facto officer doctrine, it is irrelevant whether defendant understood the deputy sheriff was a law enforcement officer on the occasion in question."

This passage from the Vermont Supreme Court's opinion make two statements. One is that the "public reasonably believe" the officer is entitled to office. With Obama, there are millions of American who have more than reasonable suspicions that Obama has usurped the presidential office.

And number two.

At the time of his unlawful act, the defendant believed that the officer was entitled to his office. It is also stated that the defense discovered after the fact that the deputy sheriff usurped the office. The difference here is that LTC Lakin reasonably believes that Obama was and is an Usurper. Lakin has questioned the authorities and his chain of command without satisfaction for about a year and a half, which he has documented.

The Vermont opinion further states,

"To satisfy the doctrine, the officer must be "in the unobstructed possession of the office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper." Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302, 323 (1902). "

We have seen Obama acting more than just as an intruder or usurper where RXSID gave you a presentation further up in the [another] thread. We have statements from Michelle Obama, and Kenyan government officials that state unequivocally that Obama is a Kenyan and was born in Kenya:

I hope you enjoy making up your own interpretations of the law of the land as a hobby but your hobby bears no resemblance to real law.

Oh, I'm good at analyzing the law, which is better than most if not all the Obot lawyers that I converse with online, and I'm being very modest.

- - - - -

As we see again, Driscoll was not complete in his reporting to the Article 32 hearing.