In answer to your questions: (1) Yes The detailing authority was in Okinawa (2) Yes (3) Jones was the detailing authority in August of 2008 From: dhsullivan@aol.com [mailto:dhsullivan@aol.com] I'm stunned by the implications of what Haytham writes below. Let me see if I understand this correctly (I might not): (1) The detailing authority was NOT the RDC at Pendleton, but the RDC in Okinawa. (2) As a matter of law, when LtCol Vokey left active duty, one of the authorities who could relieve him is the authority with detailing power. R.C.M. 505(d)(2)(B). (3) That makes whoever was the RDC in Okinawa on 6 August 2008 a necessary witness to determine whether that individual relieved Colby. Was Jones the RDC in Okinawa on 6 August 2008? If so, you should move to recuse him, you should put him on your witness list for purposes of the motion, and you should do whatever else we can think of to make his disqualification obvious. So who was the RDC in Okinawa on 6 August 2008? Semper Fi, -----Original Message----- Neal, Here it is. Babu took what I started and returned a couple of hours later with this masterful writing. He gets all the credit. Please review and send it back to me. Babu, I want to come and spend a day in the office with you to learn how you organize before you begin writing. I am thoroughly impressed with your command of the facts and the law on such a short notice. One notable change that I made is the part about detailing. Here is how detailing worked. Colby was granted detailing authority for the Hamdaniya and Haditha cases. He, however, wanted to represent Wuterich. He, therefore, had Col Favors ask the convening authority at the time âGen Mattis- to grant detailing authority to RDC-Pacific, LtCol Simmons. By doing that Colby would not be conflicted out of being detailed and he really wanted to represent Wuterich. Colby Vokey was RDC-West and remained in that billet until April of 2008. LtCol Simmons was replaced as RDC-Pacific by LtCol Jones âYes! Our Judge. So theoretically detailing authority would have moved to Jones. (I am now thinking that this is an issue that we might want to raise. Jones assumed cognizance as the detailing authority for the cases. Can he act as a Judge in the case?) Detailing authority for the Haditha cases never rested with RDC-West. It could not have because Tafoya was detailed to the case and, as you know, he cannot be a detailing authority to counsel who represent his clientâs co-accused. Thank you again for your help Babu. From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com] Point paper on Dept of Navy manpower policies and regulations. 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 888-970-0005 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. Begin forwarded message: From: WPappas@aol.com Date: January 25, 2011 4:53:05 PM EST Subject: Retiree Involuntary Recall Neal, After discussing the hypothetical scenario and confirming my findings with SMEs at Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) Quantico, the Commandant of the Marine Corps can authorize the involuntary recall of a retired Marine. Specifying reason(s) for recall action not necessary. Of course, the retired member must pass a recall physical. My report is attached. Note: Pgs 1-7 address your specific questions Pg 8 is a summarized list of references used Pgs 9-19 provide excerpts from references reviewed Please let me know if this gives you what you need. Sincerely, Bill |