I have no way of knowing whether LtC Terry Lakin authorized the use of his image to sell tax advice, bridge loans, auto liability insurance, and whatever other advertising attaches itself to his photo over at WorldNetDaily (hover mouse anywhere over the photo at WND for maximum advertising effect). Nonetheless, I think this image, as much as any other, points out how this honorable, but confused, soldier has become the tool of [select a name].

Of course when viewed in MSIE you can see what the doctor ordered.

If LTC Lakin has done this deliberately, then he has created a problem for himself with the Joint Ethics Regulation, an enforceable order. On this however I doubt LTC Lakin has any specific fault. He’s likely being taken advantage of. But I wonder how he thought all of this might play out.

DoD employees may not state or imply an endorsement of a non-Federal entity, event, product, service, or enterprise. DoD employees may not use or allow their titles, positions, or organization names to suggest official endorsement or preferential treatment of any non-Federal entity except organizations in subsection 3-210.

Emphasis added to this quote from a SOCO briefing.

•DoD Directive 1344.1,Wearing of the Uniform. (1) Not allowed in connection with private employment or commercial interests; (2) Not allowed when an inference of official sponsorship may be drawn; and (3) Not allowed when wearing would bring discredit on the Armed Forces. (4) Applies to active duty, reserve and retired members. (5) Each Service also has separate regulations with similar wording: –Army – AR 670-1

1. Trial is continued until 4 November 2010 from 13 October 2010. Not sure of the reason. It appears Mr. Jensen asked the judge to hold the case “in abeyance” pending resolution of an (untimely?) writ which has been filed with NMCCA. According to Charlie the defense said the reason for the potentially untimely filing was “for reasons I can’t get into right now[.]” Huuuuuuuum, this has resonance. I think I’ll try this one in a couple of weeks. (Note to DMLHS, this citation to authority has to be on the top ten this year.)

2. Unsurprisingly to those familiar with military justice the judge ruled the orders to be legal.

3. Unsurprisingly the judge ruled that several defense witnesses would not be permitted to testify as experts in constitutional law and obedience to orders. No doubt the prosecution would have had many people who could testify in opposition.

4. The military judge granted a prosecution motion in-limine to preclude “irrelevant” information and testimony about the president and his birth.

Hearing this, the civilian defense counsel remarked that this gutted the defense case, and he had to put on some sort of defense. Apparently, LTC Lakin is chomping at the bit to testify in his own defense, so that might be the sum total of the defense case after today’s rulings.

According to a piece in WorldNetDaily:

“We got absolutely slammed today,” said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. “It’s impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings.” “Our arms were cut off last time,” said Jensen. “Our legs are being cut off this time.”

I had opined in a recent radio interview that LTC Lakin had been cut off at the knees by the 2 September 2010 rulings. I guess I was ahead of myself. Seems like he got what’s euphemistically called in some circles as a six-pack.

Still no posting of the Writ on safeguardourconstitution.

The above is from the discussion of the political question doctrine. The sole use of the word embarrassment is here:

He cited a long list of “reasonable arguments” raising questions about whether Obama was born on American soil.

Assuming arguendo that there are reasonable questions about President Obama’s citizenship, the questions remain irrelevant to LTC Lakin’s court-martial.

Lakin’s attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, told WND that of all the dozens of cases that have been brought to various courts over the issue of Obama’s eligibility, Lakin’s probably is the strongest yet. He said that after the preliminary procedures but before the actual trial, there will be a time for the discovery of evidence. Jensen expressed confidence that the necessary information will be obtained. “This is a criminal case,” he noted, with a possible punishment of several years in jail. “In order for a criminal defendant to defend himself in a criminal court he has to be given the opportunity to put on a defense.” “The records are relevant.”

A broad statement of “relevance” will not get LTC Lakin too far in the legal debate as to discoverability of birth records. Note once again, LTC Lakin inexplicably forfeited an opportunity to succinctly argue the merits of the relevance claim by waiving the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing.

He said Driscoll’s order would have allowed a “defense” but only the defense that would have been approved by prosecutors.

This is drivel.