|
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
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.
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
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
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
=
|