Sir- In support of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of an immediate stay, we had filed a motion to compel production of a verbatim transcript of the Article 39(a) sessions where you litigated the "Hutchins Motion." The Court denied that petition on the 27th. They then rejected the filing where we asked them to compel production on the 28th. They rejected the filing, rather than denied the motion because at that time (the morning of the 28th) there was no writ petition before them (i.e., it did not address a matter before the court). The evening of the 28th we filed our new petition asking for relief from the judges ruling. Now, the case is once again before the court and, accordingly, I'll re-file the motion to compel production of a verbatim transcript. I'm assuming everyone agrees we still need one. Sorry if my previous e-mail was a bit confusing. Let me know if this clears it up. v/r Sip -----Original Message----- From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:03 To: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45; 'Neal Puckett'; DHSULLIVAN@aol.com; 'Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA' Subject: RE: Motion to Compel Production ICO Wuterich Please explain. I don't understand what that means. -----Original Message----- From: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45 [mailto:kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 8:31 AM To: Neal Puckett; DHSULLIVAN@aol.com; Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; Haytham Faraj Subject: Motion to Compel Produciton ICO Wuterich Gentlemen- The NMCCA rejected the subject filing late yesterday as not addressing a matter before the Court. Obviously, they rejected it before we refiled. I will file another motion to compel today. v/r Sip
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature