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

RE: Wuterich

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