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

RE: WUTERICH V. U.S., 200800183 - 8 AUG 2011 ORAL ARGUMENT



The phrasing of those issues seems very unfavorable to us.  I assume that
NMCCA is setting out to vindicate its answer that it gave last time.  It's
also VERY interesting that there is no issue concerning whether there was an
improper termination of representation upon Colby commencing terminal leave.

As usual, getting denied by the CCA will just be a prerequisite to seeking
relief from CAAF.

Semper Fi,
DHS

Dwight H. Sullivan
Senior Appellate Defense Counsel
Air Force Appellate Defense Division
(AFLOA/JAJA)
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 1100
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
240-612-4773
DSN:  612-4773
Fax:  240-612-5818  


-----Original Message-----
From: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45 [mailto:kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 8:54 AM
To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; neal@puckettfaraj.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Babu
Kaza
Subject: RE: WUTERICH V. U.S., 200800183 - 8 AUG 2011 ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument order in the subject case.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
[mailto:Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:36
To: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45; neal@puckettfaraj.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Babu
Kaza
Subject: RE: WUTERICH V. U.S., 200800183 - 8 AUG 2011 ORAL ARGUMENT

The question about the appropriateness of mandamus is odd and suggests that
NMCCA may be looking for a way to avoid addressing the merits of the claim
-- in which case, we lose.  It's odd because CAAF's treatment of the issue
never suggested for a moment that CAAF thought it wasn't appropriate for
mandamus.  If NMCCA holds that, all they're doing is kicking the can to CAAF
(which, in my view, would be cowardly).  Also, it should be facially obvious
that the last thing in the world that should happen is to have this case
tried once, be set aside, and then have to be tried again.

I'll hit the appropriateness of mandamus point hard in the reply.

Semper Fi,
DHS

Dwight H. Sullivan
Senior Appellate Defense Counsel
Air Force Appellate Defense Division
(AFLOA/JAJA)
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 1100
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
240-612-4773
DSN:  612-4773
Fax:  240-612-5818  


-----Original Message-----
From: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45 [mailto:kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:31 PM
To: neal@puckettfaraj.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com;
Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Babu Kaza
Subject: FW: WUTERICH V. U.S., 200800183 - 8 AUG 2011 ORAL ARGUMENT

Here's the email I received.

I don't think it means that the Court is leaning one way or another,
personally.  I sort of suspected that the Court would take a little more
time with the decision this time around given CAAF's handling of their
summary denial in the most recent round of litigation.  I'm not sure what
Col Sullivan has planned for the oral argument, but presumably he'd want
Babu to argue it if he's (1) willing and (2) able.

v/r
Sip

-----Original Message-----
From: Morison, Gregory M LT OJAG, CODE 51
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 10:40
To: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45; Moore, Samuel C Captain OJAG, CODE
46
Subject: WUTERICH V. U.S., 200800183 - 8 AUG 2011 ORAL ARGUMENT

Gentlemen:

	This email is a follow-up on the informal heads-up I gave both of
you that the Court will be ordering oral argument for Wuterich on Monday, 8
Aug 11 at 1100.  I am informing the two of you because your names were on
the most recent briefs that the Court received.  Mr. Toidl is out today, so
do not expect the order before COB today.  Instead, it will go out Monday or
Tuesday latest.  However, the Court wanted to give you as much advance
notice as possible.  There will be two issues relating to whether mandamus
review is appropriate and the underlying issue of the termination of the
attorney-client relationship between SSgt Wuterich and Lt Col Vokey.  Let me
know if you have any procedural questions.  Thank you.

Very respectfully,

Gregory Morison
LT, JAGC, USN
Law Clerk
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (Code 51)
1254 Charles Morris St. SE
BLDG 58, Suite 320
Washington Navy Yard, D.C. 20374-5124
Tel: (202) 685-7726; DSN 312-325-7726
Email:  gregory.morison@navy.mil

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY / PRIVACY SENSITIVE / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.  The
information contained in this e-mail and/or accompanying documents is
intended for the exclusive use of the individuals to whom it is addressed.
It may contain information that is pre-decisional, privileged or protected
from release under the Privacy Act, FOIA or other applicable laws.  Do not
disseminate this e-mail, or its contents, to anyone who does not have an
official need for access, or without the express consent of the sender.  If
you are not the intended recipient, you are on notice that copying,
disclosure or any distribution of this message, in any form, is prohibited.
Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure can result in both civil and criminal
penalties.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature