| Dwight, Do you have time to ruminate about this on the phone today? I have some ideas I want to share and reality-check. 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 Jan 11, 2011, at 11:25 PM, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com wrote: There is much good language in the Hutchins opinion. Like Neal, I'm
inclined to think that CAAF batted the Wuteriich petition for extraordinary
relief back to NMCCA to get a full record and return the case to CAAF NLT
10 JANUARY knowing that Hutchins would come out around 10 January and CAAF could
proceed to analyze Wuterich in light of Hutchins.
I have a motion to stay proceedings from another case on my computer at
work. We should be able to tailor it to the Wuterich case fairly
quickly. When do we expect Judge Jones to rule on the continuance
request?
Semper Fi, DHS |