[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Wuterich

Can the song be "Lawyers, Guns, and Money"?  :- )

-----Original Message-----
From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
Cc: Faraj Haytham; Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45
Subject: Re: Wuterich

Thanks, Dwight.  Your dedication to this cause will be remembered in song by children throughout the country for generations to come.

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


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 Nov 16, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA wrote:

My basic reaction to the government's brief is, "Huh?"  What the hell is Keller talking about?  He repeatedly says we concede things we don't concede and seems to make an internally inconsistent argument regarding UCI (which isn't even in play).  Maybe I will be able to finish a draft reply tonight -- it isn't going to require much heavy lifting.

Semper Fi,
DHS

-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA 
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:03 AM
To: Puckett Neal; Faraj Haytham; 'Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45'
Subject: Wuterich

Gentlemen,



Iâm going through the governmentâs brief now.  Unfortunately Iâm heading to Fort Leavenworth tomorrow and I donât know if Iâll be able to do the reply brief before then.  Itâs due NLT Monday.



The governmentâs statement of facts makes the erroneous statement that there was never an interruption in the attorney-client relationship with Vokey.  We provided portions of the record demonstrating thatâs not true.



Hereâs my question for the moment.  The government says (page 11):  âAs Appellant concedes he was never misadvised about his rights to detailed defense counsel, Appellantâs request for relief must be denied.â  When did we concede that?  We relied on Jonesâ language that the counsel and Judge Meeks did misunderstand the law.  Any idea what this sentence is talking about?



Semper Fi,

DHS