On Tuesday, Earle Partington’s lawyers filed this reply brief in his appeal currently pending before the D.C. Circuit challenging the Judge Advocate General of the Navy’s imposition of professional responsibility discipline against him.  Among other claims, Mr. Partington challenges the Judge Advocate General’s authority to discipline a civilian counsel.

Oral argument in the case will be heard on 12 December.

2 Responses to “Reply brief in Partington v. Houck”

  1. A. Hernandez says:

    “[T]he Navy defendants have made factual misrepresentation after factual misrepresentation in their answering brief, especially refusing to acknowledge that the Navy changed the verb tense of his first alleged misrepresentation and “restyled” legal arguments in the remaining as statements of fact…”

    So, “the Navy” would be engaging in the same, or worst, conduct they allege forced them to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Partington.  Of course, this is Partington’s posture; but if the Court disagrees with this posture (or the Government’s in their writings), shouldn’t the Court then have to initiate disciplinary action against the losing party? 

  2. Just Sayin' says:

    This is nothing new.  In the VWAP FLAILEX debacle the Navy frequently misquoted numerous people.  Amazing that statements in response to leading questions like “I don’t recall, but it’s possible that…” got re-translated into absolute declaratory statements by operatives of the “Rules Counsel”. Even more amazing that, none of the officers interrogated in that witch hunt were given the benefit of 31b warnings before being interrogated and subsequently slapped with bogus PR complaints.
    I hear all those complaints were uniformly dismissed without further action (though it’s clear the arbitrary damage done by the process is irreparable. My personal feelings of some of the players in that mess aside, all of them got shafted by OJAG).  I also hear it took weigh-ins from more than a couple members of the SASC before OJAG called off the dogs.