Fwd: Transcript of 22 March 2010 session???

You mistyped Haytham's email on your original request. You put only one "t" in "puckettfaraj."

Neal A. Puckett, Esq
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.706.9566
www.puckettfaraj.com
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj

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.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Puckett Neal <neal@puckettfaraj.com>

Date: March 12, 2011 8:00:13 AM EST

To: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com

Cc: haytham@pucketfaraj.com, kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil, ksripinyo@yahoo.com, meridith.marshall@usmc.mil

Subject: Re: Transcript of 22 March 2010 session???

Dwight,

No joy on transcript. I read that in the Gov't brief, as well, and couldn't remember Colby saying that. But it's possible. The key here is that he didn't actually continue, (more about why that's true below). His representation was effectively terminated at retirement. But I'm not sure that legal fact is vitiated by his desire to try to figure out a way to come BACK to representing Wuterich. And in his mind he may have even believed that he "continued to represent" even though he didn't, because of that desire. But when he retired, he went about the task of finding employment and there was no certainty to whether he'd be ABLE to come back. There were discussions that he wanted to, for sure. But it was always about "coming back on the case." After he retired, there was no "hiring" of Vokey by Wuterich after his retirement, even though he showed up at a hearing or two. He wanted to help, even if only informally. Based on that desire of Colby's, there were a couple of occasions that we assigned him some tasks to accomplish. He did not accomplish those tasks. After that, Haytham and I had a couple of discussions about not wanting him to come back on the case because he was too busy with his own work at his firm. He filed no notice of appearance. There was no written agreement at all between attorney and client, with or without compensation. Let me know if you want to talk through this today. And I welcome supplement or corrections to my recollections from Haytham.

Let's be clear. Even Haytham did not CONTINUE to represent Wuterich. He came back on the case through Puckett and Faraj. Haytham's A/C relationship was severed without authorization as well. But he re-established that relationship later. We're actually going to file a claim for the other half of Haytham's full pay and allowances for the intervening time if the court finds that the relationship continued through retirement.

202.340.0069.

Neal

On Mar 12, 2011, at 4:18 AM, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com wrote:

Do any of you have access to the 22 March 2010 Article 39(a) in Wuterich?

Here's what Keller says:

Mr. Vokey then informed the Military Judge that he had continued to represent Appellant since departing active duty (R. 65, Mar. 22, 2010).

I don't trust Keller's characterization of facts and this assertion is strikingly unsupported by a direct quotation. Can any of you scan and sent me pages 64-66 of the 22 March transcript?

Semper Fi,
DHS