Re: bubbles answered

[dhsullivan@aol.com]

Oorah -- I'll have to look at the pro hac vice rule.

Semper Fi,
DHS

-----Original Message-----
From: Haytham <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
To: dhsullivan@aol.com <dhsullivan@aol.com>
Cc: neal@puckettfaraj.com <neal@puckettfaraj.com>; 
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil <kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil>
Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: bubbles answered

I am not a CAAF Bar member.

Haytham Faraj
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 4, 2010, at 11:56 AM, dhsullivan@aol.com wrote:

> Okay, I think I've got it.  I'm pasting the revised language below.
>
> Haytham, are you a CAAF bar member?  If so, do you have your CAAF bar 
number accessible?
> On March 11-12, 2009 â after the Governmentâs first Article 62 appeal 
but before its second â an Article 39(a) session was held to hear 
motions.  During that session, Judge Meeks briefly discussed LtCol 
Vokeyâs status:
> MJ:  All right.  Also representing previously as a, I believe, 
detailed defense counsel was Lieutenant Colonel Vokey.  My 
understanding is that Lieutenant Colonel Vokey has since retired from 
the Marine Corps, is that correct?
> DC (LtCol Tafoya):  Thatâs correct, Your Honor.
>
> MJ:  There has been some discussion that he may be retained in this 
case in the capacity as civilian counsel, but that has not occurred, is 
that correct?
> DC (LtCol Tafoya):  Thatâs correct, Your Honor.
>
> Article 39(a) Excerpt at 2-3 (from the record in United States v. 
Wuterich, 68 M.J. 511 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.) (en banc), certificate of 
review dismissed, 68 M.J. 404 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Appendix, Tab D).
> During Article 39(a) sessions on May 13 and 14, 2010 â after the 
litigation concerning the second Article 62 appeal was complete â LtCol 
Vokey made an appearance as a civilian counsel though he did not 
actively participate.  After that appearance, the defense team realized 
the imputed conflict that now existed between LtCol Vokey and Appellant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Puckett Neal <neal@puckettfaraj.com>
> To: dhsullivan@aol.com
> Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil
> Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 2:49 pm
> Subject: Re: bubbles answered
>
> Yes.  Definitely.
> 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 4, 2010, at 11:48 AM, dhsullivan@aol.com wrote:
> This is from the 11 March 2009 hearing:
>
> MJ:  All right.  Also representing previously as a, I believe, 
detailed defense counsel was Lieutenant Colonel Vokey.  My 
understanding is that Lieutenant Colonel Vokey has since retired from 
the Marine Corps, is that correct?
> DC (LtCol Tafoya):  Thatâs correct, Your Honor.
> MJ:  There has been some discussion that he may be retained in this 
case in the capacity as civilian counsel, but that has not occurred, is 
that correct?
> DC (LtCol Tafoya):  Thatâs correct, Your Honor.
>
> So was Colby's first post-retirement appearance in the case in 2010?
>
> Semper Fi,
> DHS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Puckett Neal <neal@puckettfaraj.com>
> To: dhsullivan@aol.com
> Cc: Faraj Haytham <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>; CODE Sripinyo Kirk 
Major NAMARA 45 <kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil>
> Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 2:20 pm
> Subject: Re: bubbles answered
>
> Pretty sure it was 2010 vice 2009.  There was no hearing in Mar 2009. 
 Colby was not on the record until after the second appeal, I think.  
Let's check Haytham's recollection of this.
> 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 4, 2010, at 10:48 AM, dhsullivan@aol.com wrote:
> Neal -- at one point in the brief, we say:
>
> On March 22, 2009 â after the Governmentâs first Article 62 appeal 
but before its second â an Article 39(a) session was held to hear 
motions.  LtCol Vokey (Ret.) and Maj Faraj (Ret.) were both present as 
civilian counsel, though neither filed a notice of appearance.  The 
military judge, LtCol Meeks, made no inquiry concerning either LtCol 
Vokeyâs or Maj Farajâs changed status.
> Is that right?  If so, would that be Colby's first post-retirment 
Article 39(a)?
> Semper Fi,
> Dwight
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Puckett Neal <neal@puckettfaraj.com>
> To: Sullivan Dwight <dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil>; Sullivan 
Dwight <DHSULLIVAN@aol.com>
> Cc: CODE Major NAMARA 45 Sripinyo Kirk <kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil>; 
Faraj Haytham <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
> Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 1:40 pm
> Subject: bubbles answered
>
> 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.
> =
>
>
>
>
> =
>
>
>
>
> =