|
I agree with your thoughts about NMCCA sir. They have never found this ex writ worthy. And when they issued their opinion after it was kicked back by CAAF they spent a good part of the opinion explaining why they didn't find it ex writ worthy when they initially considered it, and why it was not ex writ worthy. Of course, they were constrained by CAAF directing them to consider the merits. Wouldn't CAAF previously directing this to be considered on the merits be law of the case?
My thoughts are that the oral argument is going to revolve around ex writ authority more than counsel severance. > From: Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil > To: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; neal@puckettfaraj.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:35:46 -0400 > 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. > > |