|
I just finished my first detailed review of Jones' new findings of fact and
conclusions of law (except for pages 46-47, which were missing from my
copy. Can anyone scan those and send them to me.
Jones puts an incredible number of eggs in the "there was never a break in
representation" basket. We now have EVEN MORE evidence demonstrating that
that's clearly erroneous. He also makes several other errors -- many of
them seemingly arising from a stubborn refusal to admit that anything he's done
in this case wasn't correct.
Given the errors in Jones' ruling, I think we can submit an exceptionally
strong opposition to the government's motion to lift the stay of proceedings,
which we must file no later than Friday (and which, at present, I see no
reason to file before Friday).
Semper Fi,
DHS
In a message dated 6/6/2011 12:37:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil writes:
Sir-
I just received paper copies of the
following:
(1) Gov't motion to attach Unauthenticated versions of
the record of trial, government argument on the issue below, and the judge's
FoF and conclusions of law.
(2) Unauthenticated record of the
Article 39(a) session that occurred on 25 April 2011.
(3) Judge
Jones' FoF and Conclusions of law dated 31 May 2011.
(4) The
government's written argument on the defense motion below.
(5)
Appellate government's motion to remove the stay of proceedings and expedite
review of the case. In it the government says, among other things, that
Neither LtCol Sullivan nor Maj Gannon has ever visited the
site.
There's frankly too much here to scan. I can fedex it to
you if you give me an address. The service document says that this stuff
was served on me and the "counsel of record" on June 3rd. Did anyone
else receive this stuff?
v/r
Sip
-----Original
Message-----
From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com [mailto:DHSULLIVAN@aol.com]
Sent:
Sunday, June 05, 2011 14:55
To: neal@puckettfaraj.com
Cc:
haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45;
Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com;
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil
Subject: Re: Wuterich
follow-up
Oorah. I think we certainly shouldn't file
tomorrow. We should be ready to file on 9 June but then decide whether
we actually want to. I'll begin drafting the mandamus petition
today.
Semper Fi,
DHS
In a message dated 6/5/2011 12:18:16
P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, neal@puckettfaraj.com writes:
I believe the correct answer is, "neither."
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/>
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 888-970-0005 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 Jun 5, 2011, at 11:45 AM,
DHSULLIVAN@aol.com wrote:
Haytham,
I seem to have
misremembered. I think this is what I was thinking of:
"I will send the transcript of the ex parte
proceeding to the Clerk of Court for NMCCA. I have already made
corrections to the record which have been captured by my identity and the date
and time of the change."
So it's
possible that NEITHER transcript has been filed with NMCCA yet. So, Maj
Sip, please hold off on filing the motion I suggested. Is it possible to
check with NMCCA tomorrow to see whether either transcript has been filed
yet? If neither transcript has been filed, that would seem to strengthen
the case for waiting past 9 June to file our mandamus petition. If Jones
waits until 13 June to file the authenticated transcript and we have to then
file our motion for access to the sealed transcript, it literally might not be
possible to file our mandamus petition until next week.
Semper Fi,
DHS
In a message dated
6/5/2011 11:30:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com
writes:
Thanks, Haytham. My recollection is that Jones filed an authenticated
copy of the sealed ROT with NMCCA. I'll try to verify that. But I
don't think I've heard of him filing an authenticated copy of the unsealed
ROT.
Maj
Sip, would you be so kind as to file a motion with NMCCA tomorrow for us
to access the sealed portion of the ROT. (We don't wan't to file a
motion to unseal it; we don't want the government to have access to it, but we
need access to it ourselves. The motion should be similar to what we
filed at CAAF, attached.)
Semper Fi,
DHS
In a message dated
6/5/2011 11:26:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, haytham@puckettfaraj.com
writes:
I don't believe Jones has authenticated a copy of
the sealed portion. He asked Gannon to forward the record to the court
including the sealed portion but directed that only the court reporters handle
it.
None of us have the
sealed portion.
Haytham Faraj
Sent from
my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2011, at
10:29 AM, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com wrote:
Team Wuterich,
Two questions which give rise to other
questions:
(1) Has Jones
authenticated the non-sealed portions of the ROT of the Article 39(a) session
yet?
(2) Do Neal,
Hatham, and/or Meredith have access to the sealed ROT of the ex parte
hearing?
The answer to (1)
affects our optimal filing date. If Jones hasn't filed the authenticated
ROT before 9 June, there's no reason for us to file our mandamus petition
before then. If Jones hasn't filed the authenticated ROT by 9 June,
we'll have to make a decision about whether to go beyond 20 days from the
ruling complained of to file the mandamus petition.
If the answer to (2) is no, Maj Sip, can you
please file a motion with NMCCA tomorrow for access to the sealed
ROT?
Oh, and a third
question -- Maj Kaza, were you able to get associate duty orders
but?
Semper
Fi,
DHS
=
|