Those transcripts exist. Gannon has them all. I reviewed them when I drafted the original UCI and loss of counsel motions. Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone
Oorah -- we need those transcripts as soon as possible, though our need for
the 22 March transcript is far greater than our need for the others. If we
can get the 22 March transcript before the others, please do so.';
Semper Fi,
DHS
39(a)
was held on 22-24, 26 March 2010.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Marshall Maj Meridith L
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 9:52
To:
DHSULLIVAN@aol.com; Tafoya LtCol Patricio A; haytham@puckettfaraj.com;
neal@puckettfaraj.com
Cc: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil
Subject: RE:
HELP!!!!
All,
Nick Gannon is working on getting me the 22 March
2010 transcript.
ALSO - Govt denied my request for me and/or SSgt
Wuterich to travel to DC to attend oral argument. That response is on
its way to me too.
R.
Major Meridith L. Marshall
Senior
Defense Counsel
MCAS, Miramar
858-577-1720 (desk line)
dsn
267-1720
858-997-8332 (government cell)
meridith.marshall@usmc.mil
-----Original Message-----
From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com
[mailto:DHSULLIVAN@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 9:49 AM
To:
Tafoya LtCol Patricio A; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Marshall Maj Meridith L;
neal@puckettfaraj.com
Cc: kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil
Subject: Re:
HELP!!!!
Patricio,
Thanks!!! Do we have any way of
determining whether Article 39(a) sessions did or did not occur in the case on
22 March 2010? Any luck in tracking down Gannon? Can you please go
to the head court reporter for the LSSS -- or whatever the hell you have out
in Pendleton -- and see if they have transcripts for a 22 March 2010 Article
39(a) in Wuterich??
Semper Fi,
DHS
In a message dated
3/14/2011 12:45:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, patricio.tafoya@usmc.mil
writes:
Sir,
We have transcript from
Article 39(a) on 11-12 Mar 2009 where Mr. Puckett was on the phone and SSgt W
waived the presence of Mr. Zaid/Mr. Faraj and was told due to retirement, the
MC could not compel the presence of LtCol Vokey.
We can scan and send it, but we have no copy of a 39(a) from
Mar 2010.
V/R,
Patricio
-----Original
Message-----
From: DHSULLIVAN@aol.com
[mailto:DHSULLIVAN@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011
9:37
To: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Tafoya LtCol Patricio A;
Marshall Maj Meridith L; neal@puckettfaraj.com
Cc:
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil
Subject: Re: HELP!!!!
AHA!!! Great point, Haytham. Thanks!
Was there an Article 39(a) session on 22 March
2010????
In a message dated 3/14/2011
12:33:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, haytham@puckettfaraj.com
writes:
March 22, 2009 is a Sunday. Neither I
nor Neal were in California on March 22 and 23 and I have no record of a 39a
taking place in March of 2009. I have no memory of Colby sitting at
counselâs table in March 2010.
From:
DHSULLIVAN@aol.com [mailto:DHSULLIVAN@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:27 PM
To:
patricio.tafoya@usmc.mil; meridith.marshall@usmc.mil; neal@puckettfaraj.com;
haytham@puckettfaraj.com
Cc:
kirk.sripinyo@navy.mil
Subject:
HELP!!!!
Okay, Keller is confusing the shit out
of me. Here's what he writes:
"LtCol Tafoya
informed the Military Judge that as of March 2009, no definitive decision had
been reached about whether Mr. Vokey would represent Appellant in a civilian
capacity. (R. 3, Mar. 10, 2009.) Several weeks later, on March 22, 2009, the
Defense informed the Military Judge that Mr. Vokey was indeed on the defense
team, but Appellant waived Mr. Vokeyâs presence. (R. 5-6, Mar. 22, 2010.)
Despite this, after a court recess for lunch, Mr. Vokey sat at counsel table
with Appellant. (R. 64, Mar. 22, 2010.) Mr. Vokey then informed the Military
Judge that he had continued to represent Appellant since departing active duty
(R. 65, Mar. 22, 2010)."
Note that
Keller refers to a 10 March 2009 Article 39(a) session, then says several
weeks later, there was a 22 March 2009 Article 39(a) session, but he
identifies it in his citation as a 22 March 2010 Article 39(a) session.
Which is right???
Keller continues the
confusion in the next sentence, which states: "Mr. Vokey was also
present on March 23 and 24, 2010. (R. 1, Mar. 23-24, 2010.)" The next
sentence again refers to events he identifies as occurring in 2010: "On
March 26, 2010, Mr. Vokey was absent, and Appellant waived his presence. (R.
1, Mar. 26, 2010.)" Which is right? Did those Article 39(a)
sessions occur in March 2009 or March 2010? The answer to that question
matters quite a bit.
Semper Fi,
DHS
|