RE: Motion to cite news articles as supplemental authority

[Babu Kaza <babu_kaza@hotmail.com>]

Haytham,
 
Are you talking about information that was not already put on the record?  I thought you guys did a great job of laying everything out in the August and September 39(a) sessions. 
 
Testifying to the Court during oral argument is not an option.  About the only possible way to provide additional information to the Court at this point would be through affidavits.  But it seems like we have a good argument that LtCol Vokey wanted to stay on, and that both his chain of command and the Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps were aware of the problem, but Manpower was not willing to adjust any more. 
 
Also, from reviewing the record, LtCol Meeks, at the March 11, 2009 Article 39(a), gave the exact same false advisement to SSgt Wuterich that he did to Sgt Hutchins:  he stated that there was "no way" the Government could bring back LtCol Vokey to continue representation.  This is in fact false.  That has never made it into the pleadings before now because the Government never produced that part of the transcript until last week.  
 
So I think that we are on solid ground that the original severance was improper.  Both because the MJ never approved it, and also because the MJ gave affirmatively false advice after it occurred.
 
We can discuss more tomorrow,  but I think it is undisupted from the record that both of you wanted to continue and were not allowed to continue by the Government, and that Vokey's actual severance was perfected by Meeks' false legal advice.   
 
s/f
 
Babu
 

---

CC: neal@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com; dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; cvokey@fhsulaw.com
From: haytham@puckettfaraj.com
Subject: Re: Motion to cite news articles as supplemental authority
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:28:15 -0400
To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com

I'd like you to think about how to get the court to hear from me and Colby on Wednesday. I know the rules may not permit it. Nevertheless, I think it's important. We were never deposed but  we were the ones who faced resistance from continuing representation. Those facts can best be presented by me and Colby. You'll hear it tomorrow. We need to find away to get the judges to hear it on Wednesday. 

Haytham Faraj 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Babu Kaza <babu_kaza@hotmail.com> wrote:

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