|
I think it is great, and very tight.
My only suggestion would be on page 16, where you cite to the TX ethics rules and the JAGINST, to block quote in the text of those rules; the choice of law provision from the TX ethics rules, and also the text from the JAGINST that indicates that (1) there is no imputed disqualification rule for covered USG attorneys, and (2) JAGINST rules trump state rules for covered USG attorneys. I think it is important enough point that extra emphasis would be beneficial, and the judges would have it in front of them, and see how black and white it is that TX and JAG rules would allow Vokey's representation were he to be recalled. From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:21:20 -0400 Subject: Draft Wuterich Reply draft 2 To: Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com CC: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com Thanks, as always, to Maj Sip for his outstanding editing. Draft 2 is
attached. I've also added some things since the first draft, including a
discussion of the "defense counsel dilemma" in the prejudice section. (I
also added a quotation to Secretary Rumsfeld's famous "known unknows"
formulation.)
I plan to file the reply tomorrow morning. My MS Word version of the
index and TOA for the latest writ appeal are on my office computer. It
will be much easier to revise that index and TOA than to start from scratch, so
I plan to do a quick revision of the index and TOA and then Wednesday
morning, probably around 0800. So please get me any further revisions to
the reply by then.
Semper Fi, DHS |