I did not say you were wrong as to the outcome, I said you are wrong on determining Lakin AWOL...he is NOT AWOL, he stated very clearly he is willing to serve upon proof of receiving LEGAL orders.
And yes, you are most likely correct that the issue will not be addressed in a court of law whose duty it is to protect Americans from unconstitutional acts by Congress and the office of the president. The Courts also have failed in their duty, as well as the politicians and 29% of the voting Americans who cast a thoughtless vote.
My statement that YOU are deeming him AWOL is incorrect and thinking the ONLY issue is that he is AWOL is quite wrong, and even the court knows this.
He is not being charged with being AWOL. He is charged with missing movement. Your argument will not be heard by the court. He received a legal order, the evidence will show that without ever mentioning the President, and the evidence will show that he refused to obey it. It won’t take long.
AWOL..........Absent Without Orders or Leave....He did not have orders to be absent, nor was he on leave...he is guilty of being AWOL....simple facts, simple judgement...he is not bound by the constitution, but by the UCMJ...he signed the papers voluntarily...he is going to be found guilty, because he is....he will be sentenced, because he is guilty...now, the officers serving a jury may grant him leniencey because of his argument, but he is guilty, under the UCMJ, of being AWOL...period...it is clear to me that you have not served in the armed forces, or you would already know this, as it is taught extensively in basic training...