Re: U.S. v. Sezginalp

[Laura Bruzzese <laura.bruzzese@gmail.com>]

Neal,

Great to hear from you.  I'm in GTMO.  Got here a few days ago, and
I'll be here at least 6 months.  Not sure I'd be reasonably available
if this did go back to trial, but you know I'd be up for it personally
(even if as unofficial help only) - I wonder if they even could retry
it at this point.  It happened a hundred years ago in Iraq -- where
are the witnesses now?  And would you have a mental responsibility
defense even if they made a prima facie case?

In any event - I'm probably the wrong girl to form an opinion of what
to do.  So far removed, and not knowing the state of the evidence, I'm
not sure what they chances at trial would be.  Conversely, I don't
have any experience with BCNR or the VA in advocating for the receipt
of benefits despite an OTH or in having a discharge characterization
upgraded.

Mitigating the discharge characterization in a SILT might be fertile
middle ground?  I don't have a sepsman handy -- can the SILT be
contingent on a General or Honorable discharge, or a basis other than
"misconduct"?  I'm pretty sure that some bases for separation aren't
OTH eligible (like 'convenience of gov't' and 'substandard
performance' and personality disorder. . . I'd have to check.)

If you need some research done, I can probably facilitate.  I'll try
to get ahold of a sepsman tomorrow to check on SILT rules and
characterizations of different bases.  I'll get back to you w/
whatever I find out.

Two unrelated questions:  #1) Is the IAC issue still outstanding?  and
#2) How is the SEAL case going?  I was googling the SEAL cases, and
came across one of your facebook posts - it made me smile.  And I
loved your cnn quotes that I saw.

Best of luck, and I'll do my best to get you something on the sepsman
by the end of the week.

VR/ Laura

On 2/10/10, Neal Puckett <neal@puckettfaraj.com> wrote:
> Laura,
> With the knowledge that San and his folks want him to get VA
> treatment, what do you think about this flippant reply from the SJA?
> If by SILT he means an OTH, I think we may want to call his bluff and
> retry the case together. Thoughts?
> Neal
>
> Neal A. Puckett
> LtCol, USMC (Ret)
> Puckett & Faraj, PC
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Woodworth Col John R" <john.woodworth@usmc.mil>
>> Date: February 10, 2010 17:53:18 EST
>> To: "Neal Puckett" <neal@puckettfaraj.com>
>> Subject: RE: U.S. v. Sezginalp
>>
>
>> Neal:
>>
>> While I've barely had a chance to talk to the CA (he's been on the
>> road), I don't think he's overly exercised about this case.  I'd
>> like to think I could obtain support for a SILT.
>>
>> Hope you are enjoying the snow.
>>
>> s/f Woody
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Neal Puckett [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 4:20
>> To: Woodworth Col John R
>> Subject: U.S. v. Sezginalp
>>
>> Woody,
>> Got your correspondence just now.  So what's the plan for Sezginalp,
>> assuming his conviction is reversed?  Are we going to retry him or
>> separate him?
>> S/f,
>> Neal
>>
>> Neal A. Puckett, Esq
>> LtCol, USMC (Ret)
>> Puckett & Faraj, PC
>> Washington DC | Virginia
>> 888.970.0005
>> www.puckettfaraj.com
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>