Does anyone know why we can’t file the same motion and rely on the evidence submitted at the last hearing supplemented by whatever additional evidence we need? The motion will have to include a discussion of the Texas rules regarding imputed disqualification. We will request that Colby be brought back on active duty or paid a fee to represent Wuterich in a civilian capacity rather than dismissal of the charges. Jones will want to do this motion on the eve of trial, deny it and push ahead to trial so as to prohibit us an opportunity to re file our writ. From: Puckett Neal [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com] So we'll be doing it over. Nice prediction, Dwight! You called it the same day. We'll have to re-style the nature of the conflict and convince Jones we we mis-interpreted the ethics regs and that Colby only has an imputed disqualification, not an actual one. 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. On Apr 4, 2011, at 3:17 PM, dhsullivan@aol.com wrote: A classic Effron can kick -- the style is very much his; I'm pretty sure he wrote it. The only thing that surprises me is that footnote 2 wasn't more critical of the way Jones handled the issue the first time. For those of us at oral argument, the criticism is implicit, but Jones may very well not read it that way. So, essentially, CAAF called a Mulligan and told everyone to do it over. Semper Fi, |