Really? I'd love to see a source for that little nugget.”
The Manual for Courts Martial states: “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.“
Basically, if you can't point to a specific illegal outcome intended by the specific order you received, you are presumed to have violated a lawful order. It goes on to add: “...the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
Lakin is basically asking the judge to determine that the line officers in question did not have authority to issue the orders he received because he has personal doubts about Obama’s birth. That's going to be a total nonstarter.
Complete and utter rubbish. Give me a direct link to this manual.
Presumptions can be overcome. If the defense makes offers a defense that the order is unlawful because Obama is not a legitimate President, the burden would then shift to the government since it has access or can get access to the appropriate documents.
That said, I am not going to be surprised if the judge or government refuses to turn over those documents. On the other hand, the members of the court martial board can choose to acquit if those documents are not provided to the defense no matter what the judge tells them.