I agree that this is counter to what I stated to the Court (and
also counter to what LtCol Vokey has stated).
But what about the
fact that to request an opinion, the requestor must make "A statement
that the question(s) presented is not in litigation." It would seem that
since the question of Vokey's recall is in litigation, he would not have been
eligible to ask the PEC for an opinion.
> From:
Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil>
To:
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil;
babu_kaza@hotmail.com;
ksripinyo@yahoo.com;
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil;
neal@puckettfaraj.com> CC:
dhsullivan@aol.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:29:01 -0400
> Subject: RE: Vokey
Declaration
>
>
Great find!
>
>
Serious question -- should we file supplemental authority with NMCCA to
let
> them know that such a vehicle exists? It's outside the record and,
from our
> perspective, legally irrelevant. But given representations
made during the
> oral argument, I think the proper thing to do would be
to inform the court.
>
> Semper Fi,
>
DHS
>
> Dwight
H. Sullivan
> Senior Appellate Defense Counsel
> Air Force
Appellate Defense Division
> (AFLOA/JAJA)
> 1500 West Perimeter
Road, Suite 1100
> Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
>
240-612-4773
> DSN: 612-4773
> Fax: 240-612-5818
>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Sripinyo, Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45
[mailto:kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil]
> Sent: Wednesday, August
10, 2011 12:51 PM
> To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; Babu
Kaza;
ksripinyo@yahoo.com;
>
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil;
neal@puckettfaraj.com> Cc:
dhsullivan@aol.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
Subject: RE: Vokey Declaration
>
> Turns out there is a way
to request an ethics opinion. From the website:
>
> "Request an Opinion from
the Professional Ethics Committee (PEC)
> The PEC, which is a committee
appointed by of the Supreme Court, issues
> ethics opinions responding
to ethics-related questions. Only members of the
> State Bar of Texas
may request a PEC opinion.
>
> Before you request an
opinion:
>
> Check to see if an ethics
opinion has already been published regarding your
> subject. The Texas
Center for Legal Ethics maintains a searchable database
> of ethics
opinions and rules at
www.txethics.org>
> To request an opinion
from the PEC:
>
> Prepare a written request
that includes:
>
>
> A scenario of background
facts in the hypothetical situation;
> The question(s) presented;
> A discussion of
applicable authority. This may not need to be exhaustive,
> but should
focus on specific disciplinary rules that may be involved and any
> case
law, prior opinions or opinions from other jurisdictions that may
>
apply; and
> A
statement that the question(s) presented is not in litigation.
>
>
> Send your request to the
following address, and we will forward it to the
> PEC:
> Michelle Jordan, Attorney
Liaison
> State Bar of Texas
> Office of the Chief Disciplinary
Counsel
> Post Office Box 12487
> Austin, Texas 78711
>
> The PEC will not issue an
opinion on a particular lawyer advertisement, but
> will consider
general forms of lawyer advertising. Also, the PEC will not
> issue an
opinion that concerns interpretation of legislation or
> interpretation
of the unauthorized practice of law."
>
> There's no way we're
getting that back before the opinion comes out, though.
> I've been
searching the database for an opinion on TX military lawyers but I
>
can't find anything that addresses our situation.
>
> v/r
>
Sip
>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
>
[mailto:Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil]
> Sent: Wednesday, August
10, 2011 12:32
> To: Babu Kaza;
ksripinyo@yahoo.com;
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil;
Sripinyo,
> Kirk Major NAMARA, CODE 45;
neal@puckettfaraj.com> Cc:
dhsullivan@aol.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
Subject: RE: Vokey Declaration
>
> The person I would
normally contact about this is Jack Zimmermann. But his
> daughter Terri
is a Reserve judge on NMCCA, so I don't think I can in this
> instance.
On the NLADA side, I know Dick Burr in Texas, but I don't think
> he's
the right guy for this. Let me think.
>
> Semper Fi,
>
DHS
>
> Dwight
H. Sullivan
> Senior Appellate Defense Counsel
> Air Force
Appellate Defense Division
> (AFLOA/JAJA)
> 1500 West Perimeter
Road, Suite 1100
> Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
>
240-612-4773
> DSN: 612-4773
> Fax: 240-612-5818
>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Babu Kaza [mailto:babu_kaza@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August
10, 2011 12:13 PM
> To:
ksripinyo@yahoo.com; Sullivan, Dwight H
CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA;
>
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil;
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil;
neal@puckettfaraj.com> Cc:
dhsullivan@aol.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
Subject: RE: Vokey Declaration
>
> Only other option if
nothing else works, and we want to press on this, would
> be to identify
either a member of the TX Bar committee, or a law professor
> in TX who
teaches TX ethics who could opine in writing that JAG rules trump
> TX
rules for active duty judge advocates. Any members of the Marine mafia
>
there, or anyone have contacts? Col Sullivan: Do you have any NLADA
>
connections in TX, or other law prof friends who would know a TX law
prof?
>
> Although, the absurdity
of all this is stark. If JAG rules did not trump
> state bar rules, we
would have all been likely committing ethical violations
> simply by
being active-duty judge advocates. Every case with co-accused who
> are
represented by different JAs from the same defense shop and under the
>
same Senior Defense Counsel probably violates plenty of states' rules.
But
> we never even consider that. Or that the 02 writes fitreps for
both Code 45
> and Code 46.
>
> There is an inherent
conflict of interest endemic to military practice that
> we ignore. But
now, all of a sudden, we are going to be worried about state
> bar rules
for judge advocates when it has always been a non-factor before?
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 9 Aug
2011 17:31:03 -0400
> > Subject: RE: Vokey Declaration
> >
From:
ksripinyo@yahoo.com> >
To:
babu_kaza@hotmail.com;
dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil;
>
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil;
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil;
neal@puckettfaraj.com> >
CC:
dhsullivan@aol.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
>
> > I checked,
we don't have any texas attys. Still waiting to hear from the
> texas
bar. I'm fairly certain they won't talk to me.
> >
> >
> > Babu Kaza <
babu_kaza@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > >Obviously, something in writing from Vokey would be
awesome, and if he
> said that he wanted to come back to active-duty,
that would likely be
> case-dispositive. But it doesn't seem likely that
is going to happen.
> Haytham/Neal: Any chance you could talk LtCol
Vokey into at least calling
> the hotline to see what they say?
>
> >
> >
>Kirk, anyone at Code 45 a member of the TX bar, in case they want to
play
> the game that they only talk to TX lawyers? Any other TX licensed
judge
> advocates who could be trusted to do this if they don't talk to
you?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>> From:
Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil>
> >> To:
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil;
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil;
>
neal@puckettfaraj.com> >
>> CC:
dhsullivan@aol.com;
ksripinyo@yahoo.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com;
>
babu_kaza@hotmail.com> >
>> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:23:53 -0400
> > >> Subject:
RE: Vokey Declaration
> > >>
> > >>
Meredith,
> > >>
> > >> I'm pretty
sure Colby doesn't want to be recalled. The issue that came
> up
>
> >> at oral argument yesterday is whether he would zealously
represent his
> > >> client if he were recalled to active duty.
The notion was thrown out by
> one
> > >> of the judges
-- Judge Booker if I remember correctly -- that he might
> > >>
refuse to actually participate in Wuterich's defense for fear of
>
violating
> > >> the Texas Rules even if he were on active
duty.
> > >>
> > >> We're
united in thinking the question is bat shit crazy. We're
>
wrestling
> > >> with how best to respond to that bat shit
crazy question.
> > >>
> > >> Semper
Fi,
> > >> DHs
> > >>
> > >> Dwight H.
Sullivan
> > >> Senior Appellate Defense Counsel
> >
>> Air Force Appellate Defense Division
> > >>
(AFLOA/JAJA)
> > >> 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite
1100
> > >> Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
> > >>
240-612-4773
> > >> DSN: 612-4773
> > >> Fax:
240-612-5818
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Marshall Maj
Meridith L [mailto:meridith.marshall@usmc.mil]
> > >> Sent:
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:10 PM
> > >> To: Sripinyo, Kirk
Major NAMARA, CODE 45; Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF
> > >>
AFLOA/JAJA; Puckett Neal
> > >> Cc: Sullivan Dwight; Kirk
Sripinyo; Faraj Haytham; Babu Kaza
> > >> Subject: RE: Vokey
Declaration
> > >>
> > >>
Gentlemen,
> > >>
> > >> Just got
back into the office and have been reading through the email
> >
>> traffic.
>
> >>
> >
>> From Maj Sip's last paragraph, it sounds like we are back at
square
> one.
> > >>
> > >> Does Colby
want to be recalled to active duty to be on the case?
> >
>>
> >
>> Major Meridith L. Marshall
> > >> Senior Defense
Counsel
> > >> MCAS, Miramar
> > >> 858-577-1720
(desk line)
> > >> dsn 267-1720
> > >>
858-997-8332 (government cell)
> > >>
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil > > >>
> > >>
> > >>
-----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Sripinyo, Kirk Major
NAMARA, CODE 45
> [mailto:kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil]
> > >> Sent:
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:28 PM
> > >> To: Sullivan, Dwight H
CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; Puckett Neal
> > >> Cc: Sullivan Dwight;
Kirk Sripinyo; Faraj Haytham; Marshall Maj
> Meridith L;
> >
>> Babu Kaza
> > >> Subject: RE: Vokey
Declaration
> > >>
> > >> I agree
that our starting position is that it doesn't matter whether
>
Texas
> > >> would take disciplinary action against Vokey. But
to me, this makes an
> > >> affidavit stating what Texas would,
in fact, do irrelevant to our
> argument
> > >> by
definition. In my mind, it detracts from our argument because we're
>
in
> > >> effect saying "Oh yeah, well if you don't agree with
that well, the TX
> bar
> > >> happens to say it's
ok."
> > >>
> > >> I
understand that we would be providing the information to the court to
>
> >> reassure them that they wouldn't be wasting their effort in
abating the
> > >> proceedings, (i.e., that Vokey would in fact
do something rather than
> be a
> > >> potted plant) but
that seems best addressed by having Vokey say so.
> > >>
Regardless of what TX says on the hotline and even what the Courts say
>
the
> > >> state bar of Texas can censure Vokey if they want
to. Certainly that's
> > >> something that he could fight and
perhaps win. But having Vokey say
> that he
> > >>
doesn't care and would do his job is the best reassurance that we
could
> > >> provide the court that he'll do his job.
>
> >>
> >
>> At any rate, the entire discussion is academic. I just called the
Texas
> > >> hotline to ask, and there's a message stating that
it is a resource
> provided
> > >> "exclusively for
members of the Texas bar." In addition, it states that
> if
> >
>> we're calling for another attorney that the attorney in question
must
> call.
> > >> No humans, of course, but I left a
message stating the issue very
> briefly
> > >> and asked
them to call me back.
> > >>
> > >> Since it
hasn't been mentioned, I'm guessing Vokey's not willing to
>
call,
> > >> find out the answer, and then fill out an
affidavit for us?
>
> >>
> >
>> v/r
> > >> Sip
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
-----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Puckett Neal
[mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
> > >> Sent:
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:04 PM
> > >> To: Sullivan, Dwight H
CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
> > >> Cc: Sullivan Dwight;
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil Major NAMARA 45 Sripinyo
>
Kirk;
> > >> Kirk Sripinyo; Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith;
Babu Kaza
> > >> Subject: Re: Vokey Declaration
> >
>>
> >
>> Good idea. Find out the answer first and then decide whether to use
it.
> > >> That's why you make the big bucks.
> >
>>
> >
>> Neal A. Puckett, Esq
> > >> LtCol, USMC (Ret)
>
> >> Puckett & Faraj, PC
> > >> 1800 Diagonal Rd,
Suite 210
> > >> Alexandria, VA 22314
> > >>
703.706.9566
> > >>
www.puckettfaraj.com> > >>
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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 703-706-9566 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 Aug 9,
2011, at 2:00 PM, Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA
>
wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Upon
reading Maj Sip's email, my immediate thought was Babu's
>
next-to-last
> > >> point: why not have someone make the call
and see what we find out
> before
> > >> making a
decision?
> > >>
> > >> Some states
formally say that where military rules are inconsistent
> with
>
> >> state rules, they won't impose discipline based on the state
rules on
> > >> military attorneys. See, e.g., Major Bernard
Ingold, Professional
> > >> Responsibility Note: JAG Attorneys
Following Military Ethics Rules Will
> Not
> > >> Be
Subject to Discipline for Violating Oregon Rules, Army Law., June
>
1990,
> > >> at 42 (discussing Or. State Bar Ass'n Informal
Ethics Opinion 88-19
> (1988)).
> > >>
> > >> If Colby
were an Oregon lawyer, that would seem to be dispositive.
>
Given
> > >> the Texas Hotline folks a chance to tell us
whether there's anything
> similar
> > >> for Texas
lawyers seems to be worth the time to make a phone call.
> >
>>
> >
>> Semper Fi,
> > >> DHS
> > >>
> > >> Dwight H.
Sullivan
> > >> Senior Appellate Defense Counsel
> >
>> Air Force Appellate Defense Division
> > >>
(AFLOA/JAJA)
> > >> 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite
1100
> > >> Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
> > >>
240-612-4773
> > >> DSN: 612-4773
> > >> Fax:
240-612-5818
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Puckett Neal
[mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
> > >> Sent:
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:33 PM
> > >> To: Sullivan, Dwight H
CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; Sullivan Dwight
> > >> Cc:
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil Major NAMARA 45 Sripinyo Kirk;
Kirk
> Sripinyo;
> > >> Faraj Haytham; Marshall Meridith;
Babu Kaza
> > >> Subject: Re: Vokey Declaration
> >
>>
> >
>> Col Sullivan,
> > >> Which side do you take in this
disagreement?
> > >> 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> > >>
www.twitter.com/puckettfaraj> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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 703-706-9566 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 Aug 9,
2011, at 1:22 PM, Babu Kaza wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I
disagree...if the answer is in our favor how does that hurt the case?
>
> >> That supports the argument we have already made in writing: JAG
rules
> trump
> > >> TX, and there is no problem. How is
getting corroboration from TX for
> what
> > >> we
already said a problem?
> > >>
> > >> And it is
consistent with our focus on Wuterich vice Vokey. This is
>
about
> > >> Wuterich's rights. Whether Vokey likes it or not,
he is in retired
> status
> > >> and subject to recall.
He had (has) an ACR with Wuterich that was only
> > >>
putatively severed under the improper notion that there was an
> >
>> irreconcilable conflict. If there is no irreconciliable conflict,
and
> this
> > >> is cured by recall, then what Vokey
wants is irrelevant. Having an
> > >> affidavit from another
counsel reinforces that this is about Wuterich's
> > >> rights,
not what Vokey wants. Besides, it would make sense as Col
>
Sullivan
> > >> pointed out to not have a declaration from a
counsel who would be on
> the
> > >> case.
> >
>>
> >
>> TX rules should be irrelevant to NMCCA. But obviously, NMCCA
cares
> about
> > >> them, and do not want to abate for
futile reasons. If they are at all
> on
> > >> the fence,
this closes that hole and tells them that if they flip
> switch
>
> >> then Vokey is sitting at counsel table in uniform, no question.
Whether
> he
> > >> is happy about it is irrelevant. The
Court was not concerned with how
> > >> effective Vokey could
be, but whether he could in fact ethically serve
> as
> >
>> counsel.
> > >>
> > >> Regardless,
we should get an answer from TX and make a decision then.
> If
we
> > >> don't like the answer we don't need to use it.
> > >>
> > >> If the
expectation is that we lose, or have a slim chance of winning,
>
then
> > >> why would we not want to alter the paradigm and err
on the side of
> decisive
> > >> action?
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> Subject: RE: Vokey Declaration
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Date: Tue,
9 Aug 2011 12:46:08 -0400
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From:
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> To:
babu_kaza@hotmail.com;
dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil;
>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>>
dhsullivan@aol.com;
neal@puckettfaraj.com;
ksripinyo@yahoo.com> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> CC:
haytham@puckettfaraj.com;
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> I think that getting an affidavit about "what the TX hotline
told
> > >> me" is a
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> bad idea.
If LtCol Vokey is unwilling to say that he would zealously
> >
>> represent Wuterich then an affidavit from a separate attorney
saying
> that
> > >> they called the hotline and got an
informal and non-confidential
> opinion
> > >> based on a
brief description of the case wherein the attorney says "I
>
called
> > >> the TX state bar and they said 'it's good to go'"
is not going to help
> us.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
Disregarding the fact that it's hearsay for a moment, it's
> >
>> completely
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> non-binding
on the bar and rendered based solely on the facts provided
> to
>
> >> the bar by us. Because of this, the statement is totally
meaningless.
> All it
> > >> says is that we can explain
the case to the Texas hotline in such a way
> that
> > >>
they'll say (but not be bound to this statement) that they wouldn't
>
sanction
> > >> Vokey. The Court's going to recognize that, and
give it no weight--if
> it
> > >> even chooses to allow
the attachment.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Even worse
though, it suggests that Vokey wouldn't zealously
> > >>
represent
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Wuterich if
ordered back to active duty. Why else would some OTHER
>
attorney
> > >> be making this statement? Certainly they'll
figure out that we asked
> Vokey
> > >> to make that very
statement, and that he was at least concerned enough
> with
> >
>> the ethical obligations that he chose not to.
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> Beyond this, Babu spent 30 minutes trying to convince the Court
that
> > >> the
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> rights at
issue were Wuterich's rather than Vokey's. The Court
>
continuously
> > >> focused on Vokey's rights and ethical
obligations. If we entertain the
> > >> question of what the TX
bar will do to Vokey post trial, we're telling
> the
> >
>> court that it was correct to do so. That's wrong. And it's dangerous
to
> our
> > >> case because it focuses the Court's
attention where we don't want it,
> back
> > >> on Vokey
rather than on Wuterich.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I realize
that we're trying to close the hole of "what will Vokey
> > >>
do," so
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> that we can
make the court comfortable with ordering an abatement, but
> we
>
> >> just don't close the hole without a statement directly from
Vokey. What
> has
> > >> he said?
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> v/r
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sip
>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: Babu
Kaza [mailto:babu_kaza@hotmail.com]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sent:
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:46
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> To:
dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil;
dhsullivan@aol.com;
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
neal@puckettfaraj.com; Sripinyo, Kirk
Major NAMARA, CODE 45;
> > >>
ksripinyo@yahoo.com> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> Cc:
haytham@puckettfaraj.com;
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>> Subject: RE: Vokey Declaration
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Good point
sir. Makes sense to have a non-counsel do it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From:
Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>> To:
babu_kaza@hotmail.com;
dhsullivan@aol.com;
> >
>>
neal@puckettfaraj.com;
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil;
ksripinyo@yahoo.com> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> CC:
haytham@puckettfaraj.com;
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:40:57 -0400
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Subject:
RE: Vokey Declaration
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Roger that,
but I would suggest having a counsel who isn't
> > >> counsel
in
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
this
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> case make
that call. Maj Sip, do you have someone who could
> > >> do
that?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Semper
Fi,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> DHS
>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> Dwight H. Sullivan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Senior
Appellate Defense Counsel
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Air Force
Appellate Defense Division
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
(AFLOA/JAJA)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 1500 West
Perimeter Road, Suite 1100
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Joint Base
Andrews, MD 20762
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
240-612-4773
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> DSN:
612-4773
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Fax:
240-612-5818
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: Babu
Kaza [mailto:babu_kaza@hotmail.com]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sent:
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:36 AM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> To:
dhsullivan@aol.com;
neal@puckettfaraj.com;
> >
>>
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil;
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
ksripinyo@yahoo.com> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> Cc: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA;
> >
>>
haytham@puckettfaraj.com;
>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>>
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>> Subject: Vokey Declaration
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Team
Wuterich,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Any luck
with getting the declaration from Vokey?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If not, or
as an addition, I was thinking that maybe one of
> > >> us
could
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
call
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> the Texas
Bar 1-800 number, and lay the situation out, and
> > >> see
what they
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> say? Would
they discipline an attorney with an imputed
> > >> conflict,
who is
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> recalled to
active duty to try a case, and then returned to
> > >> his firm
2
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> months
later?
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> Although they can't issue an ethics opinion, based on what
>
> >> they said
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> couldn't we
do a declaration from one of us saying that we
> > >> called
the
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
Texas
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> bar 1-800
number and they would be fine with this if Vokey
> > >> was
recalled?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That would
get us around any unwillingness on the part of
> > >> LtCol
Vokey to
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> do
>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>> his own declaration.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> s/f
>
> >>
> >
>>
> >
>>
> >
>> Babu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
>