[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
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
=
--part1_5dcff.4580d38b.3b2068f5_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.19048"></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=3Dr=
ole_body bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7><F=
ONT id=3Drole_document color=3D#000000 size=3D2 face=3DArial>
<DIV>New mind about pages 46 and 47; I found them in an email. They=
reveal=20
Jones' ruling to be a bad cut-and-paste job:</DIV>
<DIV><BR>From page 47: "<SPAN style=3D"mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><=
FONT size=3D3><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Dismissal of the charges in=
this case is a=20
windfall for the accused and is not </FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN style=3D"F=
ONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-weig=
ht: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language:=
EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">warranted=
=20
based on the actions and inactions of all parties."</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style=3D"LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in" class=3DMsoNorma=
l><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt;=
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language:=
AR-SA"><SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></SPAN> </P>
<P style=3D"LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in" class=3DMsoNorma=
l><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt;=
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language:=
AR-SA"><SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">I don't believe that dismissal=
was requested as relief=20
in the motion that this ruling purports to deny.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in" class=3DMsoNorma=
l><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt;=
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language:=
AR-SA"><SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></SPAN> </P>
<P style=3D"LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in" class=3DMsoNorma=
l><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt;=
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language:=
AR-SA"><SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">I must admit I'm a bit surprise=
d that his ruling is as=20
bad as it is.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in" class=3DMsoNorma=
l><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt;=
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language:=
AR-SA"><SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></SPAN> </P>
<P style=3D"LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in" class=3DMsoNorma=
l><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt;=
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language:=
AR-SA"><SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">Semper Fi,</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in" class=3DMsoNorma=
l><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt;=
mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language:=
AR-SA"><SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">DHS</SPAN></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/8/2011 1:48:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,=20
DHSULLIVAN@aol.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARG=
IN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=3D#00=
0000 size=3D2 face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2 face=3DArial>
<DIV>I just finished my first detailed review of Jones' new findings of=
fact=20
and conclusions of law (except for pages 46-47, which were missing from=
my=20
copy. Can anyone scan those and send them to me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jones puts an incredible number of eggs in the "there was never a=
break=20
in representation" basket. We now have EVEN MORE evidence demonstr=
ating=20
that that's clearly erroneous. He also makes several other errors=
--=20
many of them seemingly arising from a stubborn refusal to admit that any=
thing=20
he's done in this case wasn't correct.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Given the errors in Jones' ruling, I think we can submit an excepti=
onally=20
strong opposition to the government's motion to lift the stay of proceed=
ings,=20
which we must file no later than Friday (and which, at present, I=
see no=20
reason to file before Friday).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Semper Fi,</DIV>
<DIV>DHS</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/6/2011 12:37:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,=20
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;=
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" colo=
r=3D#000000 size=3D2 face=3DArial>Sir-<BR><BR>I just received paper=
copies of the=20
following:<BR><BR>(1) Gov't motion to attach Unauthenticated ver=
sions=20
of the record of trial, government argument on the issue below, and th=
e=20
judge's FoF and conclusions of law.<BR><BR>(2) Unauthenticated=
record=20
of the Article 39(a) session that occurred on 25 April=20
2011.<BR><BR>(3) Judge Jones' FoF and Conclusions of law dated=
31 May=20
2011.<BR><BR>(4) The government's written argument on the defens=
e=20
motion below.<BR><BR>(5) Appellate government's motion to remove=
the=20
stay of proceedings and expedite review of the case. In it the=
=20
government says, among other things, that Neither LtCol Sullivan nor=
Maj=20
Gannon has ever visited the site.<BR><BR>There's frankly too much here=
to=20
scan. I can fedex it to you if you give me an address. The=
=20
service document says that this stuff was served on me and the "counse=
l of=20
record" on June 3rd. Did anyone else receive this=20
stuff?<BR><BR>v/r<BR>Sip<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>=
From:=20
DHSULLIVAN@aol.com [mailto:DHSULLIVAN@aol.com] <BR>Sent: Sunday, June=
05,=20
2011 14:55<BR>To: neal@puckettfaraj.com<BR>Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.co=
m;=20
Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45; Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil;=
=20
babu_kaza@hotmail.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil<BR>Subject: Re: Wute=
rich=20
follow-up<BR><BR>Oorah. I think we certainly shouldn't file=20
tomorrow. We should be ready to file on 9 June but then decide=
whether=20
we actually want to. I'll begin drafting the mandamus petition=
=20
today.<BR><BR>Semper Fi,<BR>DHS<BR><BR>In a message dated 6/5/2011 12:=
18:16=20
P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, neal@puckettfaraj.com writes:<BR><BR> =
;=20
I believe the correct answer is, "neither." <BR> =
=20
<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>  =
;=20
<BR> <BR> <BR> Neal A. Puckett,=
=20
Esq<BR> LtCol, USMC (Ret)<BR> Puckett &=
Faraj,=20
PC<BR> 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210<BR> Alexa=
ndria,=20
VA 22314<BR> 703.706.9566<BR> www.puckettfar=
aj.com=20
<http://www.puckettfaraj.com/> <BR> =20
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj<BR> <BR> <BR>&n=
bsp;=20
The information contained in this electronic message is confide=
ntial,=20
and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above.=
If you=20
are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notifie=
d that=20
any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is=
=20
strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, plea=
se=20
notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 888-970-0005 or via a return the=
e-mail=20
to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately wit=
hout=20
reading or making any copy or distribution.<BR><BR> On Ju=
n 5,=20
2011, at 11:45 AM, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com wrote:<BR><BR> <BR>=
=20
Haytham,<BR> <BR> I seem to hav=
e=20
misremembered. I think this is what I was thinking of:<BR> =
=20
<BR> "I will send the transcript of the ex=
parte=20
proceeding to the Clerk of Court for NMCCA. I have already made=
=20
corrections to the record which have been captured by my identity and=
the=20
date and time of the change."<BR> <BR> =
So=20
it's possible that NEITHER transcript has been filed with NMCCA yet.&n=
bsp;=20
So, Maj Sip, please hold off on filing the motion I suggested. =
Is it=20
possible to check with NMCCA tomorrow to see whether either transcript=
has=20
been filed yet? If neither transcript has been filed, that would=
seem=20
to strengthen the case for waiting past 9 June to file our mandamus=20
petition. If Jones waits until 13 June to file the authenticated=
=20
transcript and we have to then file our motion for access to the seale=
d=20
transcript, it literally might not be possible to file our mandamus pe=
tition=20
until next week.<BR> <BR> Semper=20
Fi,<BR> DHS <BR> <BR> =20
<BR> <BR> In a message dated 6/5/2011=
=20
11:30:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com=20
writes:<BR><BR> <BR> &n=
bsp;=20
Thanks, Haytham. My recollection is that Jones filed an authenti=
cated=20
copy of the sealed ROT with NMCCA. I'll try to verify that. =
; But=20
I don't think I've heard of him filing an authenticated copy of the un=
sealed=20
ROT.<BR> <BR> &nb=
sp;=20
Maj Sip, would you be so kind as to file a motion with NMCCA tom=
orrow=20
for us to access the sealed portion of the ROT. (We don't wan't=
to=20
file a motion to unseal it; we don't want the government to have acces=
s to=20
it, but we need access to it ourselves. The motion should be sim=
ilar=20
to what we filed at CAAF, attached.)<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
<BR> Semper Fi,<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
DHS <BR> <BR> &nb=
sp; In=20
a message dated 6/5/2011 11:26:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,=20
haytham@puckettfaraj.com writes:<BR><BR> &n=
bsp;=20
<BR> I don't believe=
Jones=20
has authenticated a copy of the sealed portion. He asked Gannon to for=
ward=20
the record to the court including the sealed portion but directed that=
only=20
the court reporters handle it. <BR><BR> &nb=
sp;=20
None of us have the sealed portion. <BR> &n=
bsp;=20
<BR> <BR> =
=20
Haytham Faraj <BR> &nb=
sp;=20
Sent from my iPhone<BR><BR> =
=20
On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:29 AM, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com=20
wrote:<BR> <BR> =
=20
<BR><BR> =
=20
<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
Team Wuterich,<BR> =20
<BR> &nbs=
p; Two=20
questions which give rise to other questions:<BR> =
=20
<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
(1) Has Jones authenticated the non-sealed portio=
ns of=20
the ROT of the Article 39(a) session yet?<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
(2) Do Neal, Hatham, and/or Meredith have=
access=20
to the sealed ROT of the ex parte hearing?<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
The answer to (1) affects our optimal filing=20
date. If Jones hasn't filed the authenticated ROT before 9 June,=
=20
there's no reason for us to file our mandamus petition before then.&nb=
sp; If=20
Jones hasn't filed the authenticated ROT by 9 June, we'll have to make=
a=20
decision about whether to go beyond 20 days from the ruling complained=
of to=20
file the mandamus petition.<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
If the answer to (2) is no, Maj Sip, can you please file a moti=
on=20
with NMCCA tomorrow for access to the sealed ROT?<BR> &nb=
sp;=20
<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
Oh, and a third question -- Maj Kaza, were=
you=20
able to get associate duty orders but?<BR> =
=20
<BR> &nbs=
p;=20
Semper Fi,<BR> =
=20
DHS<BR> &=
nbsp;=20
<BR><BR><BR> =20
=3D<BR><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FO=
NT></BODY></HTML>
--part1_5dcff.4580d38b.3b2068f5_boundary--