| 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 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. |