Re: IRO Reconsideration hearing request

["Sullivan LtCol Sean" <sean.sullivan@usmc.mil>]

All
Remove me from this email chain as litigation via email is unprofessional 

Maj Schweitzer. If you intend to request reconsideration of initial pretrial confinement decision then please put that request in writing and send it via defense and trial counsel for endorsement and info the convening authority so we have a clear written argument with supporting docs for record.

If you do not wish to comply with my reccomended COA relating to this matter, then please inform the Convening Authrity and trial and defense counsel of that decision.

Finally, you are directed not to bring any animals to any other hearings you may have in this matter

If you have any communications for me, then you are directed to put that in writing and forward to my office as SJA for MCRD

Ltcol Sullivan


--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry


----- Original Message -----
From: John H. Schweitzer <John@cadivorcelaw.com>
To: Houtz Maj Pete D; Logan Capt Gavin K
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>; Boyer Capt John F; Maroudis Maj Socrates S; Sullivan LtCol Sean
Sent: Mon Aug 30 18:11:08 2010
Subject: RE: IRO Reconsideration hearing request

Major Houtz:

I think we are jumping around a bit.  RCM 304(b) states that any
commissioned officer can place an enlisted member in pretrial restraint
(pretrial confinement under RCM 305(c) looks back to 304(b) as to the
individual that may order pretrial confinement.  For restraint or
confinement, probable cause is the proper burden on the officer at the
initial stage.  Since charges have not been referred, then the CG, the
CO/CA, any other immediate commander or higher commander, or the
commander of the installation where the facility is located (MCAS
MIRAMAR CG) and/or the officer appointed under regulations to conduct
the review may direct the release from pretrial confinement.  I expect
that a 72-hour memorandum was completed (it was not eluded to at the
Article 32) and the 7-day review was also made and completed by a
neutral and detached officer.  That review's burden is preponderance of
the evidence.

What we have now is a request for reconsideration of the pretrial
confinement.  All parties have been noticed and a date has been set.
This is reconsideration of the decision to continue confinement based
upon any significant information not previously considered.  That being
said, the IRO is an independent reviewer IOT preserve the rights of the
accused and also to make sure continued pretrial confinement is
warranted.

As if that is not enough, I have another finding as I have been going
through the evidence presented and received from both counsels.  I did
not hear anything at the Article 32 on this specifically, but that does
not mean I cannot place it in my report.  I found correspondence from
the insurance company with respect to the alleged forgery and policy
taken out on the victim, Ms. Orcutt.  Within that submitted information
was other documentation provided and refers to the mother, Katie Orcutt,
having once been a client of said insurance company.  She took out a
policy on her son Cody and on herself.  I believe there was one other
individual - this was back in 2005 and 2006.  The information requested
when somebody calls in for coverage is contained electronically.  A
woman identifying herself as Katie Orcutt called - the information
obtained is only that kind of information that the individual herself
would know (i.e. - mother's maiden name, city born, etcetera).  This was
for the policies of 2005 and 2006 but not for the policy of 2010.  I am
not certain, because I did not see, the same type of computer generated
information provided for the 2005/2006 policies as for the 2010 policy.
If I missed it, please direct me to it because that will have the
caller's name requesting the policy.  The reason for the letter was due
to a report being made to the insurance commissioner on the parent or
subsidiary group handling the insurance policy.

You can be sure that I will provide any significant information not
previously considered by the officer conducting the IRO to him.  It
would be meaningless for me to rely upon defense counsel or trial
counsel to do so.

Alas, Major Houtz, thank you for the recommendation but I am my own
legal advisor.  I will provide my letters as appropriate to the CA.  I
cannot provide a recommendation, however, without the findings of the
Sheriff's Department with respect to the allegation of forgery even
though the facts surrounding the allegation cannot pass the "smell-test"
according to me.  But I could be wrong.  I owe that much to the CA,
trial and defense counsel, and most certainly, the accused.

Out here.

R/
John
Major John H. Schweitzer, USMCR
Judge Advocate, Legal Support Services Section-IMA
Marine Corps Installations West, Camp Pendleton
619.688.6505 work
619.688.3985 facsimile
858.220.4180 cell






-----Original Message-----
From: Houtz Maj Pete D [mailto:pete.houtz@usmc.mil] 
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 5:28 PM
To: John H. Schweitzer; Logan Capt Gavin K
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Boyer Capt John F; Maroudis Maj Socrates
S; Sullivan LtCol Sean
Subject: RE: IRO Reconsideration hearing request

Maj Schweitzer,

The CO is absolutely the one who decides on confinement.  The IRO
reviews confinement.  The CA is the one who placed him in and she can
take him out.  The IRO reviews pursuant to its hearing or re-hearing
authority in RCM 305.

You were appointed by and report to the Convening Authority.  

Please consult with your legal advisor regarding your duties as well as
any extensions you may need in order to complete your report on time.

Please review your appointment order and complete your report in a
timely manner.
 
Maj Houtz

-----Original Message-----
From: John H. Schweitzer [mailto:John@cadivorcelaw.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 16:56
To: Logan Capt Gavin K
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Boyer Capt John F; Houtz Maj Pete D;
Maroudis Maj Socrates S
Subject: RE: IRO Reconsideration hearing request

Captain Logan:

The CO is not the one who decides on confinement - the officer who
conducted the pretrial confinement hearing is the individual who decides
if confinement is warranted.  Otherwise there would be an inference of
command influence if it were up to the CO to comment at all on the
pretrial confinement.

I am not going to comment on confinement as if I have the authority to
release, which I do not.  I will, however, comment on my preliminary
recommendations that will be in my final report for the officer
conducting the hearing to see if further confinement is warranted.  I
have found nothing that legally prevents me from doing so.  There is
really nothing that prevents the officer from reopening his pretrial
confinement hearing based upon new facts and evidence.  The only way to
get those new facts and/or evidence to the officer for another pretrial
confinement hearing is for you, defense counsel or the Article 32
officer to present them.
R/
John
Major John H. Schweitzer, USMCR
Judge Advocate, Legal Support Services Section-IMA
Marine Corps Installations West, Camp Pendleton
619.688.6505 work
619.688.3985 facsimile
858.220.4180 cell




-----Original Message-----
From: Logan Capt Gavin K [mailto:gavin.logan@usmc.mil] 
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 4:30 PM
To: John H. Schweitzer
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Boyer Capt John F; Houtz Maj Pete D
Subject: RE: IRO Reconsideration hearing request

Sir,

The Government objects to any comment on confinement.  Commenting on
confinement is outside the scope of the appointing order and RCM 405.
Further confinement is a call for the Commanding Officer/IRO to make
based on their analysis of the evidence presented at any subsequent
confinement review hearings. 

V/r

-Capt Logan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Torresala Capt John W 
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 16:02
To: Logan Capt Gavin K
Subject: FW: IRO Reconsideration hearing request



Very Respectfully,

John W. Torresala
Captain, USMC
Senior Government Counsel
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego
3700 Chosin Avenue
San Diego, California 92140
Com: (619) 524-4089
Fax: (619) 524-6784

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure may result
in both civil or criminal penalties.  The information contained in this
message is privileged.  It is intended only for the individuals or
entities addressed or their designees.  If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of
this message, in any form, is prohibited.  If you have received this
message in error, please immediately notify the originator and delete or
destroy any copy of this message.


-----Original Message-----
From: Boyer Capt John F 
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 15:53
To: John H. Schweitzer
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Houtz Maj Pete D; Torresala Capt John W
Subject: RE: IRO Reconsideration hearing request

Sir,

The defense asks that you comment, in your report, on whether continued
confinement of SSgt Vega is appropriate and/or necessary based on the
evidence and testimony you heard at the Article 32 hearing.

V/R,

Capt Boyer

-----Original Message-----
From: John H. Schweitzer [mailto:John@cadivorcelaw.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:57
To: Haytham Faraj
Cc: Maroudis Maj Socrates S; Boyer Capt John F; Johnson, Carrin QM2
NCBM; mariam@puckettfaraj.com; John@cadivorcelaw.com; Logan Capt Gavin K
Subject: Re: IRO Reconsideration hearing request

I am including Captain Logan in this chain as well.

Sent from my iPhone

STASSINOPOULOS & SCHWEITZER, APLC
591 Camino de la Reina, Ste 802
San Diego, California 92108
619.688.6505 work
619.688.3985 facsimile
www.cadivorcelaw.com
www.mymilitarydivorce.com


On Aug 25, 2010, at 17:59, "Haytham Faraj" <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
wrote:

> Dear Maj Maroudis,
> 
> My formal request for a hearing is attached.  I have read Maj Hatch's
email.
> I recognize that I am probably inconveniencing you with this request.
This
> case demands your immediate attention.  I have cc'd the Article 32
hearing
> Investigating Officer in this case, Maj John Schweitzer at
(619)688-6505.
> I invite you to speak with him about the facts I have alleged for
> substantiation.  
> 
> 
> 
> Vrs,
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> <http://www.puckettfaraj.com/> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> <ltr requesting a rehearing.pdf>