[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Strategy question re: Wuterich



I asked her if her esteemed colleague, Maj Gannon had been put on the short list.  The answer is that he was, but declined (or was declined by HHQ), due to the Wuterich case.
But remembering the original order of battle, CG, MarCent directed that RDC Pacific be the detailing authority for the Haditha cases.  If all 3 RDCs and their boss were conflicted, it seems that they could pick any non-conflicted JA O-5 to the job and there would be no regulatory or statutory ground to challenge it.  Thus, highlighting the inadequacy, once again, of the Marine Corps defense system.
Neal  
Neal A. Puckett, Esq
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 2231
703.706.9566

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to sender.  You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.

On Aug 21, 2011, at 1:06 PM, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com wrote:

Neal,
 
I think any COA is neutral in terms of effect on legal issues.  Having SSgt Wuterich agree to release her would be consistent with his position that Vokey is special and no one else brings to the table what he would.  The identity of the non-Vokey detailed defense counsel is irrelevant; Vokey is irreplaceable, so it doesn't matter who the government tried to replace him with.
 
OH!!!  Something just occurred to me, leading me to erase a lot of what I had just typed.  Question:  if Marshall were to be relieved WHO WOULD DETAIL HER REPLACEMENT???  Paul Atterbury is now the RDC West -- would he be conflicted?  His boss is Col Baker, who I believe is conflicted.  Severing with Marshall may create the net plus of creating new difficulties for the government trying to come up with a non-conflicted individual to detail a new counsel.
 
Semper Fi,
DHS
 
 
In a message dated 8/21/2011 11:37:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, neal@puckettfaraj.com writes:
Dwight,
Good Sunday to you!
Maj Marshall called me yesterday to tell me she's on the short list to deploy as an RCT SJA in Afghanistan for 7 months, beginning in late Sep.
She owes "availability" information tomorrow.  She's in conflict because she wants to go for all of the obvious reasons, but senses that if she lists "U.S. v. Wuterich" as one of her current obligations, she'll be off the list.
Reading between her lines, I know she wants to go and would not be disappointed to be released by SSgt Wuterich.  Haytham and I discussed this last night but I want to get your take.  Here are some COAs  
COA 1:  Release Maj Marshall, thus requiring the gov't to appoint a new detailed counsel.
Possible advantages:  Delay while new counsel gets up to speed (Judge Jones said he's give us all the time we need), which could easily take six months, depending on how many other cases he/she had and how experienced he/she is.
Possible disadvantage:  Waiving any concern that the loss of Maj M hurt us (not sure this is a real concern).
COA 2:  Do nothing.  
Possible advantage:  Good help on the case, though I doubt she's even read the entire investigation
Possible disadvantage:  Not leveraging this assignment to buy some delay, all of which helps us tactically
Can we get your thoughts?
What do you think is our best tactical move vis-a-vis Maj M?
S/f,
Neal
Neal A. Puckett, Esq
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.706.9566

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to sender.  You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.

=