[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Clemency ICO US v. Capt Wacker

To: "Haytham Faraj" <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>, "Douglas Wacker" <douglas.wacker@gmail.com>, "Hur Capt Christian P" <christian.hur@usmc.mil>
Subject: RE: Clemency ICO US v. Capt Wacker
From: "Wacker Capt Douglas S" <douglas.wacker@usmc.mil>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:50:47 -0700
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of douglas.wacker@usmc.mil designates 138.162.140.135 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=douglas.wacker@usmc.mil
Delivered-to: haytham@puckettfaraj.com
In-reply-to: <033b01cbe640$3f969640$bec3c2c0$@com>
References: <74509E61E4DB6E40BBDE809E4CE7307A01DB08A5@mcuspndlez03v.mcdsus.mcds.usmc.mil> <B6136705-68D0-44A5-AC5F-C8A0633536F9@puckettfaraj.com> <AANLkTin4qCO7d828B+O5N-PEPS_zFVZSoRn1a_yBoD1y@mail.gmail.com> <033b01cbe640$3f969640$bec3c2c0$@com>
Thread-index: Acvlx9JR47wolDL1SDO1+xvJrGuIOwAeA6+wAGrqaUA=
Thread-topic: Clemency ICO US v. Capt Wacker

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Gentlemen,

I spent the weekend processing everything, including reviewing RCM 1105-07 and other pertinent Rules.

So it appears that the SJA is to provide a written recommendation notifying us of what he plans to propose to the CA. We then have 10 days after that notice, or after the ROT is provided to us, whichever is later.

Is the SJA supposed to remain unbiased? Or do the TCs have his ears? How is that relationship supposed to be?

References:
- Re: Clemency ICO US v. Capt Wacker
  - From: Douglas Wacker <douglas.wacker@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: (Cynowa v. CSSS) Copy of the served subpoena for Larry Carver...
Next by Date: 2011 Litigation Section Summer Conference--Presented by ICLE and the Litigation Section
Previous by thread: Re: Clemency ICO US v. Capt Wacker
Next by thread: [no subject]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread