|
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20080818-9999-1m18vokey.html What about requesting CDR Gordon as a witness, as he provided the official pentagon response to the retirement in the above SD tribune article. May be worth referencing the article in the motion, in the paragraph which talks about how everyone knew what was happening. From: babu_kaza@hotmail.com To: neal@puckettfaraj.com CC: dhsullivan@aol.com; dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil Subject: Motion to cite news articles as supplemental authority Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:11:38 -0400 All, What are your thoughts on filing a motion to cite supplemental authority and referencing the below articles. The first is a San Diego Union-Tribune article from August 2008 which profiles LtCol Vokey, and notes that he was being forced into retirement over his objections. Interestingly, the article includes a quote from a Pentagon spokesman, saying that Vokey's facts don't add up--so the Pentagon was in the loop. The headline of the article is "Marine Lawyer has Sought Judicial Reform--Officer was retired over his objections." Again, this is August 2008, so it shows that the Govt had plenty of notice that this was a problem: http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20080818-9999-1m18vokey.html Also, this is a June 2008 post from CAAFlog, noting that Vokey and Faraj were being retired and may not be extended by the Government (since the Gov't wants to use CAAFlog posts as exhibits): http://www.caaflog.com/2008/06/05/haditha-courts-martial-update/ That CAAFlog post cites to this article from the Record-Journal, which I believe either Haytham or Neal referenced on the record during the August or September 2010 39(a) (I can't find it right now, but will go back over the hard record tonight, which I left at home). The article talks about the concern that they won't be extended anymore (which we know from the record is due to Redmond's May 2008 email). The only drawback is that Neal says that the Marine Corps is not required to replace them, and it already shows the defense planning to have both come back as civilian counsel. But I don't think that is in any way inconsistent with what the defense team has been saying all along, and if anything shows that the defense team was not in favor of what the Government was unilaterally doing, and was publicly complaining about it: http://www.myrecordjournal.com/latestnews/article_04456cac-85a6-5cbd-a773-007963b2e995.html These are all matters of public record, so I believe that it would be legit for CAAF to consider them now. But I wanted to see what everyone's thoughts were. s/f Babu |