[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Hutchins type ruling
One of the biggest hurdles is convincing the court that it should deal with this issue NOW. The section laying out the reasons for handling the case via petition for extraordinary relief rather than awaiting the normal course of appeals has to be compelling.
Semper Fi,
Dwight
-----Original Message-----
From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:00 AM
To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; 'Puckett Neal'
Cc: 'Marshall Meridith'
Subject: RE: Hutchins type ruling
How much work do we need to put into this? My motion lays out the issue. I
also did some more research into supporting law that I used in my oral
argument. We can tighten up the facts a little more from the testimony but
I think we should be fairly close.
Haytham Faraj, Esq.
PUCKETT & FARAJ, PC
_______________________
WASHINGTON DC METRO
1800 Diagonal Road
Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-706-0442 Phone
DETROIT METRO
6200 Schaefer Road
Suite 202
Dearborn, MI 48126
313-457-1390 Phone
202-280-1039 Fax
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
[mailto:Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:43 AM
To: Puckett Neal
Cc: Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith
Subject: RE: Hutchins type ruling
CAPT LeBlanc just detailed me for purposes of the Wuterich petition for
extraordinary relief (if one is filed).
Semper Fi,
Dwight
-----Original Message-----
From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:37 AM
To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
Cc: Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith
Subject: Re: Hutchins type ruling
I, too, assume they will, since they claim that bringing Muth back to active
duty involuntarily is not just too hard, but barred by law, in the absence
of a direct connection to national defense.
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 Sep 21, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA wrote:
I thought it was a strong opinion. Obviously a case can be made either way
for forwarding it to Jones. I lean toward doing so -- simply knowing that
another judge did something similar will make it easier for him to provide
relief. Do we know whether the Government has or will file an Article 62
appeal in Hohman? (I assume they will.)
Semper Fi,
Dwight
-----Original Message-----
From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:19 AM
To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
Subject: Re: Hutchins type ruling
Thanks, Dwight. You have a gift for explaining things in a way we cave
dwellers can comprehend.
And your impression of the Hohman decision by Judge Sanzy? Should we
forward that to Judge Jones as helpful to our case or would it be harmful as
distinguishable and therefore cause him more easily to fashion a denial?
S/f,
Neal
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 Sep 21, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA wrote:
For a writ, there's no notice requirement like there is for an Article 62
appeal. Rather, counsel can simply go right to NMCCA and file a petition
for extraordinary relief.
CAAF has a 20-day filing deadline for most petitions for extraordinary
relief. NMCCA doesn't appear to have a filing deadline, but obviously one
would want to file the petition almost immediately.
One of the big issues with petitions for extraordinary relief is trying to
avoid having them moot out. Unless a ruling is delivered well before the
trial, either the military judge will have to grant a continuance (which the
military judge almost never does, since the military judge always thinks his
ruling was right) or the appellate court will have to issue a stay of
proceedings (which it does occasionally).
The vast majority of petitions for extraordinary relief are denied without
prejudice to raise the issue in the normal course of appeals. Once the CCA
rules on the petition for extraordinary relief, the losing party can file a
writ appeal at CAAF within 20 days.
I'll shoot off an e-mail to CAPT LeBlanc now to try to grease the skids --
though I know he's out on jury duty actually sitting as a juror in a medical
malpractice case in D.C.
Semper Fi,
Dwight
-----Original Message-----
From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 5:03 PM
To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
Cc: Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith
Subject: Re: Hutchins type ruling
So what do you think of Judge Sanzy's analysis and ruling? Can you get
yourself detailed to assist soon? We expect a ruling any day now. I'd like
to have something ready to go when Judge Jones rules, unless you think we
have ample time to do it after we find out. We'd like to be timely with our
notice to the MJ. What wickets should we be prepared to navigate? In other
words, please tell us what we need to do upon being disappointed by his
ruling.
Neal
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 Sep 20, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA wrote:
WOW!! I hadn't seen that. Thanks!
A request for a remedy to bring Colby back into the case (or to abate
proceedings until Colby is brought back into the case) would be susceptible
to a petition for writ of mandamus in a way that seeking dismissal as a
remedy would not. In fact, a large percentage of the few petitions for
extraordinary relief that have actually been granted since Clinton v.
Goldsmith have involved interference with counsel issues.
I'll be more than happy to assist in the appellate arena, assuming (as I do)
that the head of Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense (CAPT Paul LeBlanc)
agrees to detail me to the case.
Semper Fi,
Dwight
-----Original Message-----
From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 2:59 PM
To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
Cc: Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith
Subject: Hutchins type ruling
Dwight,
Have you seen the ruling in the Hohman (attached below)? Wondering if I
could get your opinion about it's efficacy and comparison with our facts.
Also, Haytham is considering readying an extraordinary writ (mandamus) to
force Judge Jones to follow the Hutchins ruling in granting some form of
relief if he denies our motion. Does such a motion lie in our case? If so,
can you assist with its preparation as our appellate counsel?
S/f,
Neal
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.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Haytham Faraj <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
Date: September 20, 2010 2:23:16 PM EDT
To: "'Puckett Neal'" <neal@puckettfaraj.com>, "'Marshall Maj Meridith L'"
<meridith.marshall@usmc.mil>
Cc: "'Vokey Colby'" <cvokey@fhsulaw.com>
Subject: RE: RE:
Haytham Faraj, Esq.
PUCKETT & FARAJ, PC
_______________________
WASHINGTON DC METRO
1800 Diagonal Road
Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-706-0442 Phone
DETROIT METRO
6200 Schaefer Road
Suite 202
Dearborn, MI 48126
313-457-1390 Phone
202-280-1039 Fax
www.puckettfaraj.com <http://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.