You beat me to the answer. As to the cover photo on Lakin's book, according to Army regulations, wearing a uniform is "In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interest, or when engaged in off duty civilian employment." Now I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time today) but I would include promoting birtherism as "political". While I doubt Lakin is going to make a lot of money off the sales of the book (I think he will be hard pressed to cover costs associated with producing this book.) I really doubt that Lakin got clearance from the Army to use his photo on this book. IMO Lakin has brought nothing but dishonor to the uniform and the military.

I doubt the Army even knows about this book. I want to report Lakin's actions but I don't know who or where to send the report. Do you have a suggest? If anybody else know or has a suggestion, please let me know.

majorbabs wrote:

You might call a public affairs officer. They should be able to point you in the right direction.

I think I've seen Dan Choi wearing his uniform at appearances. I think that's stopped. I wonder if he had a talking to or if he just stopped?

You can contact any CID (Army Criminal Investigation) Office at any Joint or Army Post/Base - These folks investigate crimes committed by Army members.

IMHO - I agree "someone" should do something about LTC Dipstick, but the results may not amount to a but 10% of the trouble. You could end up with birfer all over you...not good.

He's already toast, but someone could add the jam.

Thanks all for the suggestions. I did send a message to the "publisher" expressing my concerns. I also asked if the Army had given permission to allow Terry to wear his uniform on the book cover. I was surprised to find a reply from them this morning. Basically they didn't have an answer, but they did say this: "However, I will confirm with this Terry's current JAG."

I was/am concerned a little bit by birther blow-back, but Terry's actions make me so angry that I want to at least contact some folks so that I know the Army is aware of this.

As a long time (now) retired Army guy...
Fair seas and all that - good luck - if you get some on your shoes, make sure to use the mat out front. It is specially treated with Chlorox BrainBleach®.

Paperclip Press is a vanity press. He self-published.

http://www.paperclippress.com/index.htm

I notice when you click through, the other example book that pops up is one Marco worked on. "How to Cut America's Divorce Rate in Half: A Strategy Every State Should Adopt".

Then I saw the contact address for paperclip press:

Guess who lives there?



http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/rp_rewrite ... 3%20144658


ETA: That's probably a mom & pop place. who signed the email?

Babs / SueDB ... just to be clear ...

He wasn't supposed to use that photo on his book cover without permission? I wondered about that, too.

I can't find another book published by paperclip. Just those two.

I found this on a google of the quoted portion of bab's post:



http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf

This is also why the Judge in one of Wally Fitzfundfilcher's hearings told Wally NOT to show up in his white sailor suit for his court appearances. This is a great disrespect to the honor and traditions of the military service. Since Wally is a ring knocker (Acad grad), he really should have known better - of course he should have known better before filching his crew's Morale and Welfare monies.

LTC Dipstick is being cashiered. It will be like he never was in the Army (except for all that education the Army paid for (see CV brag sheet)) and a criminal record (6 months in the Little-Big House Midwestern Confinement Facility for his Kansas Vacation.) IRR he nor his family can be buried in a National Cemetery, so double bunking at Arlington is out. Many folks have strong feelings about sharing their last resting place with a Blue Falcon (AKA Buddy Fu**er), nutter, and convict.

That's a 365-page document! It clearly covers appearance in person, but does it cover photographs on book covers?

Edit : searching for "photograph" produces nothing relevant.
Edit 2 : nor does portrait or image

I wonder about that too. Assuming that he was authorized to wear the uniform when the photo was taken, is it illegal to display it on the book?

He can most likely get by with it because he was technically NOT out of the Army when the picture was taken. I have no idea on if the rules allow a serving member, even awaiting his dismissal, to use a picture of themselves in uniform on a book cover.

Once his dismissal comes through he will NOT be able to legally wear it again.

As far a retiree's and honorably discharged members wearing the uniform, the easy basic rule of thumb to remember is that the event should be of a fundamentally military nature.

Now would be a good time for all you current and former military folks to go online wherever you see his book promoted and talk about how it makes you feel.

Only place this 'book' will ever be promoted are places that I'd only use a 'Full body PC Condom" in order to go there. I'd still not want to take a chance.....

The problem is not that Lakin is seen in a photo, nor is it because he appears on a book cover. It boils down to one sentence "When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces." This comes from DoD Instruction 1334.01; October 26, 2005 which specially deals with the issue of when the wear of the uniform is prohibited. Because it comes from the DOD level, it applies to all members of the Armed services.

You can read the DOD Instruction at: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133401p.pdf

It doesn't matter if Lakin was active military, retired, or simply a former member of the military. What matters is if his wearing of the uniform meets the standard "When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces." This sentence comes from from DoD Instruction 1334.01; October 26, 2005. I've seen this sentence (or one very similar in the AF regs.) I included a link in another post.

The only real question that needs to be answered is does the military consider the birther movement as well as Lakin's behavior before, during and after his court martial something that brings discredit upon the Armed Forces. IMO, Terry and his actions do bring discredit. I just want the Army to be aware of this cover so that they can decide.

I totally agree. I keeping checking sites like Amazon and Barnes & Noble but, so far, they don't carry the book. I haven't found any site (so far) that is actively selling the book so I'm not sure if it's been released yet. I'll keep checking and when I find it for sale, I think it only right that I share my thoughts about the book.

That's a three-page summary of the 300-page-army (and similar navy) documents.

They all cover wearing a uniform, NOT using a picture in uniform. Lakin can't appear at a book-promotion in uniform. But I can't find ANYTHING on using a picture taken when legally entitled to wear a uniform.

From the 300+ page document, Section 1-10



The book furthers both interests, political and commercial, so wearing the uniform for the photo was prohibited. The photo is the result of a prohibited act.

But it's a pre-existing photo, taken when he was still an officer. It's the exact same photo they had on his website since last year.

I believe Lakin may be in the clear on the photo. I'll try to go back and find a reference if time permits later, but I took a brief look a the issue a couple of years ago, as it related to use of photos on websites.

IIRC, there is a provision that permits at least some use of photographs in media in cases of politics. I don't think that's in the reg on wear of the uniform. I think I found that in a separate reg that deals purely with political activities of servicemembers.

A use also prohibited by that section.

No matter when the photo was taken, the uniform cannot be used to promote a political or commercial interest. I think we are splitting hairs here.

See this for the DOD directive on political activities: