[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Notes



Here is a chop which includes Haytham's below edits.
 

 

From: haytham@puckettfaraj.com
To: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com; babu_kaza@hotmail.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com; dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil
CC: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil
Subject: RE: Notes
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 06:27:41 -0400

To question 14 for Erickson  I recommend adding “If no, why not?

To question 12 for Gannon add “LtCol” before Darren

 

From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com [mailto:DHSULLIVAN@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:15 AM
To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com; dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil
Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil
Subject: Re: Notes

 

Here's a draft of the interrogatory motion.  It's still a work in progress - I have more to do on it in the morning.  But I have no doubt we can have it ready to file on Thursday. 

 

I used footnote 1 to smuggle in a status report.  If we file this motion, I don't believe there's a need to file a separate motion to provide a status report.  If, however, we elect not to file this motion, then we should file a separate motion for leave to file a status report.

 

Please feel free to chop away on this.  If you do so, please use the Track Changes feature.

 

Semper Fi,
DHS

 

In a message dated 6/8/2011 11:12:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, babu_kaza@hotmail.com writes:

I meant US v Jenkins for the cutting and pasting. 


From: babu_kaza@hotmail.com
To: dhsullivan@aol.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com; dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil
CC: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil
Subject: Notes
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:09:32 -0400

I went over Jones' ruling again, and here are some notes for the petition:

 

Factual Errors:

 

1. FF 11: List of prosecutors fails to include LtCol Erickson, who, as noted below, made 2 site visits and took depositions.  That fact is also noted on pg 35 of the ROT. 

 

2.  Vokey "continued" to represent Wuterich and there was no break in representation.  Repeated throughout. 

 

3.  FF15:  Redmon recommended against sanctuary.  As noted in the motion, Redmon's endorsement was favorable, noting the recs of the Generals, and that if they could create a billet, then it was "legit."  That Jones did not reference this is a hard indicator that he did not read the defense motion. 

 

4.  FF4 and 5:  Vokey did not seek JA assistance or chain of command assistance.  He spoke to Col Favors.  Also could bring up the impropriety of the MJ relying on an affidavit from a requested witness the Govt failed to produce.  Could also reference here the SD Trib article to show public awareness:  http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20080818-9999-1m18vokey.html

 

5.  MJ still references Mattis as CA, which is false.

 

Legal issues:

 

1.  The MJ notes that Haytham and Vokey transitioned from DCs to CDCs.  He also repeatedly finds that Vokey continued uninterrupted, but in a "more limited fashion."  Even if this were true, I think the MJ talking about a "limited fashion" is strong evidence to show that there was a "material alteration" in the ACR.  The case law for material alterations of an ACR being prohibited was in the motion.   The prejudice from this material alteration is that it led to the employmentt at Fitzpatrick, which led to the imputed conflict. 

 

2.  The Effron/Ryan appearance issue.  Redmon does in fact endorse Sullivan's package, in no small part due to the influence of the General's recommendations.  On the other hand, Favors and by implication Walker are aware of the Vokey issue and do nothing.  And from the SD Trib article the public and therefore the whole Government was aware but did not intervene.  

 

3.  Jones acknowledges that Meeks erred.  Jones acknowledges that the Govt is NOT blameless.  He then finds harmless error under Weichmann because there was no break in representation.  That legal conclusion is incorrect because (1) there was a break in representation, (2) it is a misreading of Weichmann because there is a complete severance here, it is not a guilty plea, and the error is not being waived, and (3)  Jones already found that the alleged continutation of the ACR with Vokey was "limited," so that is de facto prejudice. 

 

4.  Jones finds that there is "little prejudice" in losing Vokey.  We can just include our boilerplate irreparable prejudice response based on the site visit, etc.  Also, this gets to a foundational issue that I argued in Hutchins:  how can an accused truly show prejudice pretrial?  Is he supposed to completely divulge all defense responsibilities and strategy so the MJ can determine how important a DC is?  Is that what the law should require?  

 

5.  Jones misunderstands the distinction between an actual and imputed conflict.  Critically, he makes no FF that Vokey obtained privileged or even confidential info about Salinas during his employment at Fitzpatrick.  Jones cites Navy ethics rules, but wholly fails to reference that Navy rules explicitly reject the imputed conflict concept.  Similarly, he cites ABA rules without citing Navy rules.  And, of course, Navy rules are controlling. 

 

6.  His entire discussion of recall authority (copied and pasted from the gov't--see US v Lewis) is fundamentally flawed.  It relies on peacetime statutes, and ignores the independent recall authority under 10 USC 12301(a).  The President has declared a state of emergency every year since 9-11.  That aside, the more fundamental problem is that the Govt never affirmatively says that they cannot recall Vokey.  They just say that it is unlikely.  That decision, and whether having Wuterich's lawyer present at his court-martial is in the interests of national security or some other permissible reason, are decisions to be made at the departmental level.  They should at least indicate whether or not they will, and then the MJ can review their decision.  It is not the role of the MJ to step in for the SecNav and presumptively say what is or is not a national security matter.  Plus, the entire fucking house of cards collapses that a court-martial cannot be a "national security" matter when their own evidence indicates that a Marine was recalled precisely for a court-martial.  If it can be done once, it can be done again.     

 

 

 


From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:29:10 -0400
Subject: Re: SitRep
To: neal@puckettfaraj.com; Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil
CC: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil


Neal, did Erickson know whether Gannon or Sullivan had been to Haditha?

 

S/F,
DHS

 

In a message dated 6/8/2011 9:17:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, neal@puckettfaraj.com writes:

All,

Long meeting with LtCol Erickson.  Bottom line is that as the LSSS OIC, he has not been asked and does not plan to re-enter the Wuterich case as TC or Asst TC.  He continues to be a resource, of course, as he made TWO trips over there for the investigation.  The second was to do the depositions.

S/f,

Neal

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 Jun 8, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA wrote:

 

I just spoke with Neal.  For tactical reasons, we want to hold off on filing the motion for interrogatories until at least tomorrow.  So I'll finish that up and circulate it tonight.

Now that the government and Jones have filed everything required by NMCCA's order, the ball is in our court.  But it will be difficult for us to advance that ball (at the risk of mixing metaphors) until NMCCA has ruled on our motion for access to the sealed materials.  To let NMCCA know what we're doing, my current thought is that we should file a motion to provide NMCCA with a situation report tomorrow telling them where we see the case now and where we see it going.  I'll draft and circulate something tonight.  (I had been planning to use our opposition to the government's motion to lift the stay as a vehicle for providing a SitRep to NMCCA, but NMCCA eliminated our ability to do that by denying the motion without waiting for input from us.)

So it looks like no filing today, with one or two filings tomorrow.

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  



 

=

=

Attachment: Wuterich_motion_for_interrogatories[kaza].doc
Description: MS-Word document