UPDATED: Nance'd: Army GAD's Response

The primary argument is that Bergdahl should have known about Nance's Spath issues earlier and included the argument in regular briefing. The case is distinguished from Nashiri​ in only one footnote. The Government wisely refrained from relying on their personal opinions about Nance's reputation for integrity. The brief contains no warning to "tread lightly."

u.s._v._bergdahl_robert_b.___usca_dkt_no_19-0406-ar__government_answer_to_motion_to_supplement_the_record.pdf
File Size:	237 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

UPDATE: The Government filed an amended pleading, removing an erroneous claim that Bergdahl's  filings were not timely (and removing a cheeky citation to opposing counsel Eugene Fidell's scholarly treatise on CAAF rules).

u.s._v._bergdahl_robert_b.___usca_dkt_no_19-0406-ar__appellee_motion_to_file_amended_answer_to_motion_to_supplement_the_record.pdf
File Size:	209 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

Brenner Fissell

EIC