Friday, January 16, 2009

Rodriguez's reply to Government's opp to recon petition [CORRECTED]

The defense has filed its reply to the Government's opposition to the reconsideration petition in United States v. Rodriguez, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0900/MC (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2009). The briefing is now complete and the issue is ripe for CAAF's decision.

I posted the wrong link when I tried to upload the Rodriguez reply onto CAAFlog.com. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until Wednesday to post the correct link. Sorry!
Posted by Dwight Sullivan at 5:08 PM
Labels:

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I guess Code 45 attorneys better set some regular hours and keep them to be available for service. You will now be accountable for every minute of every business day. Be careful what you wish for...

Fri Jan 16, 05:32:00 PM EST
Dew_Process said...

Or they could "designate" someone to be the "responsible person" for service.

Fri Jan 16, 06:12:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

It may be that the appellant wins this case and has his case heard but it will not change the overall issue of the 60 day jurisdictional bar. It seems that if an ADC is not available for service there will be some significant accountability issues internal to the appellate defense divisions.

Fri Jan 16, 06:21:00 PM EST
Dwight Sullivan said...

It would be the easiest thing in the world to both serve appellate defense counsel and document that service. Simply e-mail the decision to the counsel of record.

Fri Jan 16, 06:58:00 PM EST
Dew_Process said...

Dwight - don't you have to 'consent' to get service via email?

I had an issue with Navy GAD a year or so ago, when they refused to consent to accept email service.

Or have they changed policies?

Fri Jan 16, 07:20:00 PM EST
Dwight Sullivan said...

Dew, the consent for e-mail service is in CAAF's service rule. Article 67(b)(2) provides no guidance concerning the form of the required service on appellate defense counsel of record. An e-mail to the actual counsel would seem to be the best possible means of service. Obviously the server could embed an electronic request for delivery confirmation and a read receipt, thus providing an even better paper trail.

Fri Jan 16, 08:20:00 PM EST
Phil Cave said...

DHS, not if the receiver has their Outlook setting to not send "receipts" or "read receipts," or if they read their mail in a reading pane without automatically double clicking the message to read it.

Fri Jan 16, 08:53:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

Were CAAF to function as a federal court it would be connected to PACER CM/ECF. This would do away with all of these problems. Alas, CAAF just will not make the change even though it is a system open to all federal courts.

Fri Jan 16, 10:59:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

CAAFlog, this is not the Defense reply that is posted...its the original motion to reconsider.

Sat Jan 17, 01:01:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

CAAFlog, this is not the Defense reply that is posted...its the original motion to reconsider.

Sat Jan 17, 01:01:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

Assuming this is overturned as to the appellant Rogriguez (let's not hold our breath), does MJ permit the result - effectively an advisory opinion on an issue not presented?

Sat Jan 17, 07:56:00 PM EST

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)