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