Re: Government Argument and Evidence on Defense Motion to Abate Proceedings Pending Involuntary Recall of Mr. Vokey to Active Duty

[Haytham <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>]

We object to this in it's entirety. This is a pleading with new evidence. Why wasn't Col Ingersoll produced. I personally remember being at meetings when LtCol Vokey discussed difficulties in dealing with manpower. Had Col Ingersoll been produced we could have discussed the period at issue with him. This doesn't change our position that LtCol Vokey's conduct in attempting to extend on active duty is irrelevant but this now attacks his credibility without providing us an ability to respond. 

Haytham Faraj 
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2011, at 7:54 PM, "Gannon Maj Nicholas L" <nicholas.gannon@usmc.mil> wrote:

> Your honor,
> 
> I hope you had a safe trip back to Japan.  Attached is the government's written argument ICO U.S. v. Wuterich.  Please note that I have included several attachments to the argument.  Including two affidavits that are newly obtained (Ingersoll & Tate).  I will ensure that the this new evidence is marked as the next appellate exhibits in order, and attach them to the record at our next Article 39a session.
> 
> Very respectfully,
> Maj Gannon
> <Gov argument of Def Motion re-Abate Proceedings dtd 28Apr2011.pdf>