[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rowe motions
Russ
Thanks for jumping right in. We can talk whenever you are ready.
Jim
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "Shinn Capt Scott R" <scott.shinn@usmc.mil>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:09:27
To: Haytham Faraj<haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
Cc: Jim Rowe<jroweusmc@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Rowe motions
Haytham,
Attached is the transcript from Owen's deposition, as we discussed on the phone. I've made it searchable and able to copy/paste from it in case we need to select portions during trial. I can do the same with the 32 transcript or any other discovery, if you want. I've found it makes prepping questions easier when you can search the PDF for what you want instead of having to flip pages.
I'm about 2/3ds of the way through the Art 32 transcript - bluntly, her testimony is a shit-show. Credibility will be huge and I think she does a fantastic job of shooting herself in the foot in that arena. Crossing her at trial should be a goldmine.
==BREAK BREAK==
Jim,
If it's ok with you, can we hold off on our phone call tonight until I've fully digested the materials I got this morning and finished drafting the motion to dismiss some of the charges? If not, I'd be happy to talk to you - introductory and the get-to-know you stuff and we can wait for the more substantive conversation later. If you'd like to get a feel for who I am, I've attached a bio. I've got a conference call this evening with the CDC and RDCs at 1800, but if you want to talk this evening, I can call you afterwards. Just let me know - I'm flexible.
S/F
~Russ
S. Russell Shinn
Captain, US Marine Corps
Officer-in-Charge
Defense Counsel Assistance Program
Marine Corps Defense Services Organization
703.614.0885 (w)
703.470.0671 (c)
"Marines Defending Marines"
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. The information contained in or attached to this communication is confidential, legally privileged and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is transmitted. Any other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. Do not disseminate without the approval of the OIC, DCAP. This e-mail and all other electronic or voice communication from this address are for informational purposes only. No such communication is intended by the sender or the agency to constitute either an electronic record, or an electronic signature, or to constitute any agreement by the sender to conduct a transaction by electronic means. If you receive this e-mail in error, please permanently delete the original and any other copies or printouts of this e-mail, and notify me immediately at the above e-mail address or phone number. To the extent the information contained in or attached to this communication contains Privacy Act information, that information is for OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
-----Original Message-----
From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:34
To: Shinn Capt Scott R
Subject: Re: Rowe motions
Let me get back to you later. I'm about to start an article 32. I trust your judgement. I prefer we get a pleading filed as soon as practicable to be fair. We can always adjust.
Haytham Faraj
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 9, 2011, at 7:04 AM, "Shinn Capt Scott R" <scott.shinn@usmc.mil> wrote:
> Haytham,
> Here's what I'm thinking...
>
> For the Multiplicity Argument:
>
> - Charge I Spec 5 mult. w/ Charge I Spec 1
> - Charge I Spec 2 mult. w/ Charge II
> - Charge II Spec 1 mult. w/ Charge II Spec 2
> - Charge IV mult. w/ Charge VII Spec 3 and Add'tl Charge Spec 2
> - Charge V mult. w/ Charge I
> - Charge VI mult w/ Charge VII Spec 1
>
>
> For the UMC Argument:
>
> Charge I Spec 4 (indecent act) as the umbrella offense for:
> - Charge I Specs 1, 2, 3, and 5
> - Charge III
> - Charge V
> - Charge VI
> - Charge VII Specs 1 and 4
> - Add'l Charge Spec 2
>
> Charge III Spec 1 is the umbrella for Spec 2
>
> Add'l Charge Spec 2 is the umbrella offense for Charge IV
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> ~Russ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 20:01
> To: Shinn Capt Scott R
> Subject: Rowe motions
>
> Russ,
>
> I would like you to take a close look at the charge sheet and draft a motion to challenge multiplicity and UMC. I think there are a lot of multiplicious charges or unfair multiplication of charges. We should be able to kill a few of those before trial.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>