RE: Wuterich motion

Thanks, I will have a chopped draft to you by about noon tomorrow. This is due on Friday, right?

From: haytham@puckettfaraj.com
To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Wuterich motion
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:36:36 -0400

Babu,

I beefed up the facts section. It’s very rough. I did not reformat the discussion section. I need your help on best styling it to be able to support the inevitable writ later. Would you take a chop or give some recommendations using the review function. I am at a slight disadvantage because I don’t have any of the trial transcripts.

This is my priority over the next couple of days so feel free to contact me anytime. My number is 760-521-7934. Emails come right to my phone as well.

From: Babu Kaza [mailto:babu_kaza@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:43 PM
To: haytham@puckettfaraj.com
Subject: RE: Wuterich motion

I would beef up the factual narrative to reflect what we now know and can prove from the record, and then use that to address Jones' original ruling:

-it was made clear on the record that there was a problem with your upcoming retirement dates
-There was a severance in August 2008
-There was a misstatement of law by Meeks
-Vokey orally sought to be extended through completion of trial, and Redom said no. (And Mattis was not the CA at the time)
-Redmon did in fact approve Sullivan's sanctuary request
-There is not an irreconcilable conflict.

These facts undermine Jones' distinction between this case and Hutchins. In distinguishing Hutchins, Jones found that there was no severance until Sept 2010 and that there was no misadvisement by the judge. So since Hutchins can no longer be distinguished then that supports the requested relief: abatement until Vokey is restored (or dismissal if he can't be restored). These facts more squarely place the blame for this situation at the Government's feet.

I would also want to beef up your prejudice argument, because I do think we can get traction on the whole transfer from military to civilian being an improper "material" alteration to the ACR by the Government. You should mention that VOkey interviewed witnesses who are now scatterred, and how difficult it will be to reproduce that work. And then via affidavit or assertion in the brief, that you and Neal have not been receiving pay and that donations are minimal and how this has impacted your representation. You laid it out well on the record orally, but you should add that to your brief.

If you have a rough draft I would be happy to take a chop at it.

From: haytham@puckettfaraj.com
To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com
Subject: Wuterich motion
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:16:52 -0400

Babu,

I am stuck on where to go with this motion. I included the issue of imputed conflict and changing our request for relief to a request to abate the proceedings. Is there anything more besides cleaning up what I had in there the first time around?

Haytham Faraj, Esq.

PUCKETT & FARAJ, PC

_______________________

WASHINGTON DC METRO

The Law Firm of Puckett & Faraj, PC

1800 Diagonal Road

Suite 210

Alexandria, VA 22314

703-706-0442 Phone

202-280-1039 Fax

DETROIT METRO

The Law Firm of Puckett & Faraj, PC

P.O. Box 1016

Dearborn Heights, MI 48127

313-457-1390 Phone

202-280-1039 Fax

www.puckettfaraj.com

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.