| Nothing more than this re: tea leaves. 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. Begin forwarded message: From: "Jones LtCol David M" <david.m.jones5@usmc.mil> Date: May 11, 2011 4:14:12 AM EDT To: "Haytham" <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>, "Gannon Maj Nicholas L" <nicholas.gannon@usmc.mil> Cc: "Neal Puckett" <neal@puckettfaraj.com>, "Marshall Maj Meridith L" <meridith.marshall@usmc.mil> Subject: RE: Government Argument and Evidence on Defense Motion to Abate Proceedings Pending Involuntary Recall of Mr. Vokey to Active Duty All, I have been in trials and dealing with Article 6 visit since I arrived back to Okinawa. I am now in a contested trial in Iwakuni. I will get out the ruling as soon as I can. It's easy to get out the ruling, it's harder to get the time to write the findings of fact and conclusions of law. I am not in court ALL of next week, so I anticipate writing out the ruling then. Thank you for your patience. R, LtCol Jones -----Original Message----- From: Haytham [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:39 To: Gannon Maj Nicholas L Cc: Jones LtCol David M; Neal Puckett; Marshall Maj Meridith L Subject: Re: Government Argument and Evidence on Defense Motion to Abate Proceedings Pending Involuntary Recall of Mr. Vokey to Active Duty We object to this in it's entirety. This is a pleading with new evidence. Why wasn't Col Ingersoll produced. I personally remember being at meetings when LtCol Vokey discussed difficulties in dealing with manpower. Had Col Ingersoll been produced we could have discussed the period at issue with him. This doesn't change our position that LtCol Vokey's conduct in attempting to extend on active duty is irrelevant but this now attacks his credibility without providing us an ability to respond. Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone On Apr 28, 2011, at 7:54 PM, "Gannon Maj Nicholas L" <nicholas.gannon@usmc.mil> wrote: Your honor, I hope you had a safe trip back to Japan. Attached is the government's written argument ICO U.S. v. Wuterich. Please note that I have included several attachments to the argument. Including two affidavits that are newly obtained (Ingersoll & Tate). I will ensure that the this new evidence is marked as the next appellate exhibits in order, and attach them to the record at our next Article 39a session. Very respectfully, Maj Gannon <Gov argument of Def Motion re-Abate Proceedings dtd 28Apr2011.pdf> |