Here's the current, almost final, draft. I'm now going to compile the index and table of authorities. I'll file when I'm done. So if you have any further edits, please get them to me within the next hour. Unfortunately, rather than being pared down, the brief has grown since last night. Was it Voltaire who said he would have written a shorter letter if he had had more time? 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: Friday, September 02, 2011 9:53 AM To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; neal@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com Cc: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Draft Wuterich writ appeal Got it, and the discussion to Rule 1.10 specifically says that non-USG attorneys need to answer to their state Bars on imputed disqualification. So the drafters of the JAG rule certainly knew that it would diverge from many state rules. > From: Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil > To: babu_kaza@hotmail.com; neal@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com > CC: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com > Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:40:37 -0400 > Subject: RE: Draft Wuterich writ appeal > > Babu, > > I think not on the Vokey imputed disqualification issue. Look at Navy Rule 1.10. There's a different rule for USG attorneys and non-USG attorneys. As I read the rule, he has to be a USG attorney to get out from under a state imputed disqualification rule. (That's why that language is in the brief saying he'd become a USG attorney for purposes of the Navy Rules if he were to be recalled to active duty.) > > 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: Friday, September 02, 2011 9:39 AM > To: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; neal@puckettfaraj.com; dhsullivan@aol.com > Cc: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com > Subject: RE: Draft Wuterich writ appeal > > For comment 3 of Rule 8.05, wouldn't that apply to Vokey even if he wasn't recalled? > > If he were practicing at Fitzpatrick, he has an imputed disqualification under TX rules. But if he is appearing at a court-martial, then under comment 3 to Rule 8.05 wouldn't the professional responsibility rules which cover the court-martial jurisdiction take precedence? And wouldn't those be the JAG rules, whether he was in uniform or not? And JAG rules say he could represent Wuterich. > > So then couldn't he then represent Wuterich while he was still a civilian at Fitzpatrick? > > Also, if this is a denial to CAAF, is the next step to administratively ask the CA to have Vokey recalled, and then if that fails, to ask for another site visit? > > > > From: Dwight.Sullivan@pentagon.af.mil > > To: neal@puckettfaraj.com; DHSULLIVAN@aol.com > > CC: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com > > Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:08:03 -0400 > > Subject: RE: Draft Wuterich writ appeal > > > > With the trial set for 30 November, CAAF wouldn't grant a stay at this point. The odds are that CAAF will issue a final ruling on this way before then. (And the odds are that that final ruling will be a denial.) But if CAAF were to set the case for oral argument or otherwise take more than two months to decide this, we could ask for a stay then and have a far better chance of getting one. > > > > 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: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com] > > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 9:06 AM > > To: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com > > Cc: Sullivan, Dwight H CIV USAF AFLOA/JAJA; kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil; babu_kaza@hotmail.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; ksripinyo@yahoo.com > > Subject: Re: Draft Wuterich writ appeal > > > > Request for a stay? > > > > 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 Sep 2, 2011, at 2:25 AM, DHSULLIVAN@aol.com wrote: > > > > Here's a draft of the Wuterich writ appeal. Warning: it's way longer than I'd like it to be (though it's still about 3,000 words below the limit under CAAF's rules). Please cut anything that seems unnecessary. > > > > I still have a little work to do on it, but it will easily be finalized for filing tomorrow. > > > > Does anyone need longer than until noon EDT Friday to get me your edits, additions, etc.? > > > > Semper Fi, > > DHS > > <Wuterichwritappeal Sep 2011.doc> > > >
Attachment:
Wuterichwritappeal_Sep_2011_(Sullivan)_Sripinyo_Edits[1].doc
Description: MS-Word document
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature