| Agree with Haytham's assessments. Believe he'll rule against us. He truly believes that Colby was still on the case continuously through his retirement right up until he was excused by the MJ due to the imputed conflict, despite Colby's and Wuterich's testimony to the contrary. The absence of any movement in the case during the Art 62 appeal is the justification for finding Colby was simply waiting in the background with the rest of us, even though throughout that period he was uncertain whether he was going to be able to return. 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. On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:04 AM, Haytham Faraj wrote: I foresaw that he won’t want to admit that he’s wrong. That’s why I took responsibility for faulty analysis of the Texas Rules and my conclusion in the first motion that the only relief available is dismissal. In this motion I wrote and we argued that we were wrong in our earlier analysis of the Texas Rules and that there is a remedy. He cannot find that there is no severance without disturbing the law of the case that found severance in March of 2009. We gave him an escape avenue in that the Hutchins decision was not out when he decided that previously but he now has a decision that counsels otherwise. From: dhsullivan@aol.com [mailto:dhsullivan@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:35 AM To: haytham@puckettfaraj.com Cc: neal@puckettfaraj.com Subject: Re: Ruling? Thanks!!! How does the government explain the statements ON THE RECORD that Colby was off the case? Another factor that suggests Jones will deny the motion is he won't want to admit he was wrong. Semper Fi, Dwight -----Original Message----- Government asked for 4 days to submit written additional argument. We didn't object to that because Jones wanted to consider the motion and think about this. He said he was going to begin to immediately work on his findings. Government vigorously argued that Vokey never came off the case and again focused on Colby's actions to stay in. Redmon testified and without a doubt lied about what he told Colby. He was coached and prepped. They sent him a timeline and our motion. I don't feel like Jones will grant this motion because of the questions he asked Colby during the ex parte portion. He was very focused on collecting information to support a factual finding that Colby can assist the defense or can be called as a witness. Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone
= |