[no subject]

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 =20


-----Original Message-----
From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:06 PM
To: dhsullivan@aol.com
Cc: babu_kaza@hotmail.com; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; Sullivan, Dwight H CIV U=
SAF AFLOA/JAJA; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil
Subject: Re: Show Cause Order ICO Wuterich

Buzz kill.

Neal A. Puckett, Esq
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.706.9566
www.puckettfaraj.com
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj


The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and i=
s 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 an=
y use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictl=
y prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Pu=
ckett & 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 Jul 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, dhsullivan@aol.com wrote:

Of course, to be the hypertechnical appellate counsel, it isn't actually a =
substition of a party. We named the United States as a respondent too.  So =
really they are dismissing a respondent, not substituting one.

Semper Fi,
DHS


-----Original Message-----
From: Puckett Neal <neal@puckettfaraj.com>
To: Babu Kaza <babu_kaza@hotmail.com>
Cc: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; dhsullivan@aol.com; dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af=
.mil; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil
Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 11:45 am
Subject: Re: Show Cause Order ICO Wuterich


Wow, I like the way this guy thinks!  Who's with me?

Neal A. Puckett, Esq
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.706.9566
www.puckettfaraj.com <http://www.puckettfaraj.com/>=20
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj


The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and i=
s 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 an=
y use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictl=
y prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Pu=
ckett & 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 Jul 12, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Babu Kaza wrote:

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that NMCCA substituting the United Sta=
tes as the Respondent is a good thing.  This would appear to indicate that =
NMCCA's focus is jurisdictionally on the United States taking action to rec=
all Vokey, as opposed to Judge Jones having to do anything.  If that is whe=
re their focus is at then I would think we have already won the major battl=
e.=20

Maybe I'm reading too much into it... =20


________________________________

Subject: Re: Show Cause Order ICO Wuterich
From: neal@puckettfaraj.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:59:01 -0400
CC: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com; dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; haytham@puckettfar=
aj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com
To: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil

How long after that do you think they'll take to issue a ruling?

Neal A. Puckett, Esq
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.706.9566
www.puckettfaraj.com <http://www.puckettfaraj.com/>=20
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj


The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and i=
s 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 an=
y use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictl=
y prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Pu=
ckett & 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 Jul 12, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45 wrote:

Sir-

Yes, unless we moved for an enlargement of time to file.  But without speci=
fic reasons for doing so, such a motion would likely not be well received.

v/r
Sip

-----Original Message-----
From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com <mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.=
com?> ]=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:55
To: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45
Cc: Sullivan Dwight; Sullivan Dwight; Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith; Bab=
u Kaza
Subject: Re: Show Cause Order ICO Wuterich

Awesome!  Does that mean we'll be replying NLT 28 July, if they file on the=
 deadline?

Neal A. Puckett, Esq
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.706.9566
www.puckettfaraj.com <http://www.puckettfaraj.com/>=20
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj


The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and i=
s 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 an=
y use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictl=
y prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Pu=
ckett & 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 Jul 12, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45 wrote:

Team Wuterich-

Yesterday, the NMCCA issued a show cause order to the government in the sub=
ject case.  It ordered two things:

"(1)  That the Government shall, on or before 21 July 2011, show cause as t=
o why relief in the form of abatement of court-martial proceedings should n=
ot be granted.  The Petitioner may file a reply within seven days of receip=
t of the Government's response to this order.

(2)  That both parties take note of and incorporate into all future pleadin=
gs the fact that the United States has been substituted as Respondent in th=
is case."

In a footnote, the Court notes that "Petitioner has previously sought and o=
btained from this Court a stay of proceedings in the case, which was issued=
 on 27 May 2011 and remains in effect until further order of this Court."

v/r
Sip






=3D=20