Judge Lind decision flawed, Defense of LTC Terrence Lakin, White paper

Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrence Lakin September 3, 2010 researched and Prepared by J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington

“We find foundational flaws in Col. Lind’s decision, which Lakin’s defense team must seize upon in orderto alter the current course of this trial.

• Lind’s authority is derived from the same place as LTC Lakin’s and all other members of the United States Military – from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.
• Lind is attempting to use her authority under her Commander-in-Chief to break the military chain of command, isolating the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military specifically, exempting the President from his position of authority in the chain of command, without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.
• Lind then reaches outside of the US Military Justice system to the Civil Court, relying upon civil court precedent to deny Lakin any access to discovery and thereby, a proper defense guaranteed him by the US Constitution and UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civil Court precedent has no legal standing in a UCMJ criminal proceeding. In fact, the UCMJ is based upon the Articles of War (aka War Articles) and is a “penal system” unlike the US Justice System – as explained by Col. William Winthrop in Military Law and Precedents. As a result, precedents set in courts outside of the UCMJ are without legal standing in any UCMJ proceeding.
• Not even in the UCMJ can the United States government deny the accused his/her right to a trial, complete with discovery of related evidence. Yet Lind attempts to do so, under the authority derived from her Commander-in-Chief. If the chain of command is broken, then Lind herself has no authority.
• Lind’s statement that the legality of the Commander-in-Chief is “not relevant” in matters ofmilitary command is false on its face. As stated in a sworn affidavit filed by LTG Thomas G. McInerney executed on August 20, 2010 – “In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as totheir legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. – By thus stepping up to the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. – That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.”
• Lind attempts to break the chain of command at The Pentagon level, which she claims has no issue with the current Commander-in-Chief and that this should be good enough for Lakin. Yet she cannot break this chain of command without eliminating her own authority, and Lakin’s oath requires that he decide for himself whether or not his orders are legal, as affirmed in LTG McInerney’s sworn affidavit.

At issue is not whether or not LTC Lakin refused orders, but rather whether or not he “unlawfully” refused orders. If his orders were not “lawful,” including but not limited to, emanating from a “lawful”chain of command which begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief, then Lakin must be found NOTGUILTY of “unlawfully” refusing orders.

Read more:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12ad99e56f2bb6c8&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D2485918dad%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12ad99e56f2bb6c8%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQq8K2LEI7Jyn8E46_77A76s6qtiA&pli=1