Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Bob Muth <bob.muth@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:34:59 To: <cvokey@fhsulaw.com> Subject: Fwd: Fw: hohman written at Gavin Sir, I hope all is well with you. Kevin told me to fwd this along to you. Attached is a draft of the defense's response to the government motion ICO Hohman. I think they made a few changes between this version and the final submitted version but I believe this was the gist of their argument. The fact section of the defense motion does a good job of explaining the situation. As you might imagine, Gannon's version for the government left a few things out... We have heard that the judge was not buying what Gannon was selling with regard to accusing me of some sort of misconduct and that Gannon in response said he never intended to imply that. However, neither I nor my lawyer were present for that 802 so I can't say that we have it completely accurate. Gannon then failed to subpoena me properly so I did not attend the last 39a where presumably Gannon was going to interrogate me regarding all kinds of things that clearly fall within the A/C relationship. Let me know if you have any questions. Bob ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: lucas.kunce@gmail.com <lucas.kunce@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:18 PM Subject: Fw: hohman written at Gavin To: Robert Muth <bob.muth@gmail.com> 2nd def hohman... is the one submitted this time -- Sent from my Palm Pre ________________________________ From: lucas kunce <lucas.kunce@gmail.com> Date: Aug 19, 2010 21:43 Subject: hohman written at Gavin To: lucas.kunce@gmail.com
Attachment:
2nd Def Hohman_Rt_to_Atty_Brief.doc
Description: MS-Word document