|
Roger...I think in Hohman the counsel was not augmented before he went into the IRR, and Gannon was claiming in that case that there was nothing they could do unless he accepted augmentation. He was probably wrong. But in this case, as you mentioned, Vokey is retired, and there is precedent in bringing back to active-duty someone who is retired. Subject: Re: Edited Draft From: neal@puckettfaraj.com Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:50:13 -0500 CC: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; dhsullivan@aol.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com I believe that we were mistaken as the nature of the conflict. Have no concern about not being listed by name on the brief. We didn't overlook the remedy of Vokey being recalled. We argued it during the motion hearing. And Nick Gannon took the position that they had researched the availability of that remedy on the same motion in a case called, Hohman, and determined they had no authority to involuntarily recall an officer to active duty (though I don't think that officer had retired). S/f,
Neal
Neal A. Puckett, Esq
LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.706.9566
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. On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Babu Kaza wrote: |