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

Fwd: FW: Discovery ICO U.S. v. Wacker

Gentlemen,

Fascinating how we asked for these notes before the last Art 32 hearing... again before the Art 39(a) hearing... and the Gov't stated that they were not in their possession. WTF?!?! Seriously... did anyone ever ask SA Burge?! If I'm not mistaken, NCIS is a government agency, therefore if he is in possession, the Gov't is in possession.

I've only read the first 10 pages and already see discrepancies between his notes, his typed interview notes, and her sworn statement, as well as her other statements.

Please bring this up to the IO, the fact that the Government did not produce this until 5 April 2010 (or 19 March 2010), three years after the incident, and nearly a year after the first request for such records. I'm ready for the Due Process motion: (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

S/F

Doug

p.s. Sorry, had to vent a little.

-dsw



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christian Hur <christian.hur@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: Discovery ICO U.S. v. Wacker
To: Douglas Wacker <douglas.wacker@gmail.com>


Christian P. Hur

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hur Capt Christian P" <christian.hur@usmc.mil>
Date: Apr 5, 2010 10:20 PM
Subject: FW: Discovery ICO U.S. v. Wacker
To: <christian.hur@gmail.com>

-----Original Message----- From: Day Capt Evan S Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 11:04 To: Hur Capt...




--
Douglas S. Wacker
1719 Adams Ave
San Diego, CA 92116
858.401.9392

Attachment: Wacker bates stamp 68-228.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature