|
Patricio,
Thanks!!! Do we have any way of determining whether Article 39(a)
sessions did or did not occur in the case on 22 March 2010? Any luck in
tracking down Gannon? Can you please go to the head court reporter for the
LSSS -- or whatever the hell you have out in Pendleton -- and see if they have
transcripts for a 22 March 2010 Article 39(a) in Wuterich??
Semper Fi,
DHS
In a message dated 3/14/2011 12:45:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
patricio.tafoya@usmc.mil writes:
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
|