Sir, We have transcript from Article 39(a) on 11-12 Mar 2009 where Mr. Puckett was on the phone and SSgt W waived the presence of Mr. Zaid/Mr. Faraj and was told due to retirement, the MC could not compel the presence of LtCol Vokey. We can scan and send it, but we have no copy of a 39(a) from Mar 2010. V/R, Patricio -----Original Message----- From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com [mailto:DHSULLIVAN@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 9:37 To: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Tafoya LtCol Patricio A; Marshall Maj Meridith L; neal@puckettfaraj.com Cc: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil Subject: Re: HELP!!!! AHA!!! Great point, Haytham. Thanks! Was there an Article 39(a) session on 22 March 2010???? In a message dated 3/14/2011 12:33:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, haytham@puckettfaraj.com writes: March 22, 2009 is a Sunday. Neither I nor Neal were in California on March 22 and 23 and I have no record of a 39a taking place in March of 2009. I have no memory of Colby sitting at counselâs table in March 2010. From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com [mailto:DHSULLIVAN@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:27 PM To: patricio.tafoya@usmc.mil; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; neal@puckettfaraj.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com Cc: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil Subject: HELP!!!! Okay, Keller is confusing the shit out of me. Here's what he writes: "LtCol Tafoya informed the Military Judge that as of March 2009, no definitive decision had been reached about whether Mr. Vokey would represent Appellant in a civilian capacity. (R. 3, Mar. 10, 2009.) Several weeks later, on March 22, 2009, the Defense informed the Military Judge that Mr. Vokey was indeed on the defense team, but Appellant waived Mr. Vokeyâs presence. (R. 5-6, Mar. 22, 2010.) Despite this, after a court recess for lunch, Mr. Vokey sat at counsel table with Appellant. (R. 64, Mar. 22, 2010.) Mr. Vokey then informed the Military Judge that he had continued to represent Appellant since departing active duty (R. 65, Mar. 22, 2010)." Note that Keller refers to a 10 March 2009 Article 39(a) session, then says several weeks later, there was a 22 March 2009 Article 39(a) session, but he identifies it in his citation as a 22 March 2010 Article 39(a) session. Which is right??? Keller continues the confusion in the next sentence, which states: "Mr. Vokey was also present on March 23 and 24, 2010. (R. 1, Mar. 23-24, 2010.)" The next sentence again refers to events he identifies as occurring in 2010: "On March 26, 2010, Mr. Vokey was absent, and Appellant waived his presence. (R. 1, Mar. 26, 2010.)" Which is right? Did those Article 39(a) sessions occur in March 2009 or March 2010? The answer to that question matters quite a bit. Semper Fi, DHS
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature