Haytham,
Please give me a call on my cell to discuss counsel option for Capt Rowe's GCM as Tom's on leave and our most likely COA will be for me to detail Capt Russ Shinn who just checked into my office to this case.
It is an understatement for me to say that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of detailing a case to a DC a week before a contested GCM. It's my understanding that this case is set for trial on 14 Nov and that despite a last minute release of detailed counsel and the detailing of a new counsel that your desire is to stick with the 14 November start date and that you understand that if a new counsel is detailed this Monday and you start trial the following Monday that the new counsel will not be well prepared for trial.
It will help me if you can get me something in writing to me as the detailing authority for Mareine DCs signed by Capt Rowe releasing Maj McConnell due to a perceived conflict of interest and requesting that a new counsel be detailed who can be available to start trial on 14 Nov. The letter should be written with the expectation that it will be attached to the record of trial.
S/F,
John
Semper Fi,
Colonel John G. Baker, U. S. Marine Corps
Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps
Marine Corps Defense Services Organization
"Marines Defending Marines"
Office: (703) 614-0885; Cell: (703) 944-2580
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 Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps. 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: Jasper Maj Thomas F [mailto:thomas.jasper@usmc.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 15:26
To: Baker Col John
Subject: Fw: Capt Jim Rowe
As discussed Sir.
I followed up with a phone conversation cut short by his required training.
V/R
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Mcconnell Major Matthew N
To: Jasper Maj Thomas F
Sent: Fri Nov 04 13:59:27 2011
Subject: FW: Capt Jim Rowe
Good afternoon, Sir.
Well, I think I can be persuasive sometimes, but no luck in this case. Considering all of the circumstances with his case, I can actually see his point here.
As for what to do next, here is my suggestion: We cannot go to the Navy Yard. Apparently, former Lt Klay (accuser) has already been over there and according to Capt Rowe spoke with a Judge Advocate. Also, Capt Rowe said that all the JAs over there have knowledge of Klay and knowledge of the case due to proximity. I have to take him on his word. So, I think that means that we will need to dip into the well down at Lejeune again. I am drafting an official document for Capt Rowe to sign that will remove me from this case.
I appreciate your guidance on this issue, Sir. Please let me know what you think and what you would like me to do. Thanks for your assistance, Sir.
v/r
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: jim rowe [mailto:jroweusmc@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 13:25
To: Mcconnell Major Matthew N
Cc: Haytham Faraj
Subject: Capt Jim Rowe
Sir,
After careful consideration of all the factors involved in this case, most notably my accusers interactions with your office. I have decided to request that you be removed from my case for my own peace of mind in receiving a fair trial. The fact that the Article 32 found no grounds for a general court-martial, yet we continue to move forward, forces me to believe that there are other factors at play here. You have been nothing but professional in your approach to me in this matter, however, I would be more comfortable with government defense from outside the NCR.
Thanks for all your help,
R/S
Capt Jim Rowe
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature