Re: Show Cause Order ICO Wuterich

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

www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj

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 Jul 12, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Babu Kaza wrote:

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that NMCCA substituting the United States 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 recall Vokey, as opposed to Judge Jones having to do anything. If that is where their focus is at then I would think we have already won the major battle.

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

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@puckettfaraj.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?

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 specific 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]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:55
To: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45
Cc: Sullivan Dwight; Sullivan Dwight; Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith; Babu 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
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj

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 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 subject case. It ordered two things:

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

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

In a footnote, the Court notes that "Petitioner has previously sought and obtained 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