Sir,
I read your Hutchins motion from the Wuterich case online. Its really good. I just wanted to share a few thoughts with you. Take them for what they're worth.
The biggest problem you have, I think, is remedy. One possible ruling from the MJ would be to abate the proceedings until the government reactivates you and/or LtCol Vokey. In the Hohman case, Bob is beyond the USMC jurisdiction at this point. Maybe something similar can be said for you two. The federal statute barring post service grafting (18 USC 203) might be a good hook. But I think there are ethics opinions that say an attorney can represent a client he rep'd while on active duty. Bob knows all about that issue.
I think LtCol Jones will ask you specifically about LtCol Vokey's conflict. I would be prepared to fully explain why LtCol Vokey's employment at the firm that rep's Salinas prevents him from rep'ing Wuterich now. MORE IMPORTANTLY, assuming that the conflict does bar further represenation, how is that not the Defense's (i.e. LtCol Vokey's) fault? In other words, how did LtCol Vokey, Wuterich, Salinas and the firm handle the conflict as it arrised? If handled properly, could the conflict have been avoided or waived? If the MJ thinks the defense created the issue, then the MJ will likely not give the dismissal remedy.
Also, make sure your timelines are locked down. The motion states you and LtCol Vokey were detailed to the Wuterich case in January 2006. I checked into the LSSS in April 2006 and I don't remember anything about these cases until much, much later. Also, the motion implies that LtCol Vokey stayed on active duty much, much longer than you did but then it says you both retired in August 2008.
I'm on your side. I think the motion was extremely well presented. This is just red cell stuff.
Let me know if you need anything, Sir.
V/R Capt Slabbekorn |