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

Re: Vokey Declaration



Concur with the Oracle.  We can't even get a wavier from Salinas without revealing atty/client privileged information to him and without tipping off the government to our strategy for him.  That's why we had to move for Colby's excusal in the beginning.

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 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 22, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA wrote:

Maj Kaza --

Thanks; that's good to know.  Of course, the military's answer is the exact opposite of Texas's -- the military says, in essence, "Obey our rules; they trump your state rules."  Even if a state provided a different answer, that would still be the "right" answer for a uniformed attorney.

I really don't think we want to ask Salinas to waive anything.  I think it's important that we have no control over what Salinas does.  Nor do we have any control over what Vokey does.  Jones' solution of saying Vokey can do X, Y, and Z if (but only if) Salinas does W doesn't help Wuterich, since he can't control any of that.

Semper Fi,
DHS

Dwight H. Sullivan
Acting Chief
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: Monday, August 22, 2011 12:33 PM
To: dhsullivan@aol.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com
Cc: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; haytham@puckettfaraj.com
Subject: RE: Vokey Declaration

All,

Scott Stoebner got back to me, and said that he had a phone conversation with an individual on the Texas hotline.  He gave her the facts, and she told him that the best course of action was to go with the more restricitve rule...that is, Texas Rule 8.05.  And under that rule, there would be an imputed conflict.

Now that is only an informal opinion over the phone, and I still think it is highly unlikely that TX would do anything to LtCol Vokey if he were recalled, but regardless that is not the answer we needed.

As for options, any chance of getting a waiver from Salinas?  Concurrently, how about a waiver from Wuterich which is specifically worded, such that Wuterich only waives the TX conflict if LtCol Vokey is recalled and in uniform at counsel table?  Justification would be that (1) he had a right to LtCol Vokey as an Article 38 military counsel, not as a pro bono civilian and (2) he would not feel comfotable waiving the conflict unless LtCol Vokey were not actively working at the firm during trial.

That's about all I can think of.


________________________________

From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:52:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Vokey Declaration
To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com
CC: dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; haytham@puckettfaraj.com


p.s. -- we might be in a race with NMCCA on this.  I would think that the opinion will come out pretty soon.  Since I'll be out of the office Monday through Wednesday, it will no doubt be then.  ;-)

In a message dated 8/13/2011 11:36:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, babu_kaza@hotmail.com writes:


       Scott Stoebner, a trustworthy former Navy JAG who I served with at Code 45, and a licensed Texas attorney, has agreed to make the call to the 1800 number on Monday.  I didn't give him any details beyond the skeleton outline.

       The question he will pose will be words to the effect of:  "If I am hypothetically recalled to active duty to handle a case, would I be allowed to represent a client who had a materially adverse interest to a former client of my civilian firm?  I was screened off and never obtained any privileged or confidential information concerning my firm's former client.  Would Texas sanction me if I was properly following all Navy JAG rules while in a military status and representing a servicemember at a court-martial?"


________________________________

       Subject: Re: Vokey Declaration
       From: neal@puckettfaraj.com
       Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:50:31 -0400
       CC: dwight.sullivan@pentagon.af.mil; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; dhsullivan@aol.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com
       To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com

       I read "not in litigation" to be applicable in our case.  Believe that avenue of requesting an opinion is foreclosed.
       As far as I know, Haytham has not heard anything back from Colby.









       Neal A. Puckett, Esq
       LtCol, USMC (Ret)
       Puckett & Faraj, PC
       1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
       Alexandria, VA 22314
       703.706.9566
       www.puckettfaraj.com <http://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 10, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Babu Kaza wrote:


       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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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












       =