RE: Lopez_UMC Motion

[Haytham Faraj <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>]

Your motion looks good.  Did you happen to review the Jones case which is
the most recent UMC case?  It is worth reading.  I understand your argument
with respect to the Charge II.  I didn't think we could get all three
dismissed but to strike out some of the language alleged as it is
multiplicious with Charge I spec 12.

-----Original Message-----
From: White Capt Bret A [mailto:bret.a.white@usmc.mil] 
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 9:22 PM
To: Haytham Faraj; Haytham Faraj
Cc: usmc.esq@gmail.com
Subject: Lopez_UMC Motion

Haytham,

Please take a look at the motion.  I wasn't able to figure out how to move
for dismissal of all the ones we discussed in relation to Charge II.
Basically, the motion covers all the running (Charge I, spec 1, 6, and 7,
and Charge II, part 1).  It's worded so we'd dismiss two specs (1 & 6).  I
don't think we can dismiss part 1 of Charge II because it is the more severe
between the articles (92 vs 93).  Either way, I don't see a way to dismiss
all three parts of Charge II.

If I missed something and you want me to put in argument about other specs,
please reply to all (to include my gmail) and I'll make the modifications
first thing in the morning.

- Bret