(USAFLS) From: Roy Black < Sent: Wednesda , Februa 11, 2015 8:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Your phone call Great. Speak to you then. Original Message From: (USAFLS) Imailt Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:49 AM To: Roy Black Subject: Re: Your phone call Hi Roy. Thanks for your message. Dexter wants to participate in the call so it is helpful to have a roadmap of the discussion points. We will call your office at 2:00. If there is a better number to call, just shoot me an email. Talk to you soon. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:35 PM, "Roy Black" < mailto: wrote: Marie I was not calling you about the correspondence so don't worry about that. I called you to discuss the plaintiff's replies filed as dockets 310 and 311. We think there are serious misstatements by them in these pleadings. So I just wanted to let you know what our suggested responses are. I have decided to summarize them here because it is easier than going through it on the phone and I assume you need to discuss this with dexter. JD 3 is willing to sign any affidavit put before her and it is hard to stomach. Whenever they have a problem they just have her file a new affidavit. I admit I am steamed and biased about this because of the trashing of alan's reputation. This makes me sick. I don't mind defending almost any accusation but gratuitously destroying a man like alan is going beyond any ethical boundaries. How about if I call you at 2 tomorrow? 1. The CVRA case is a Complaint about whether certain statutory rights were violated by the Govt. The Govt not JE is the defendant. Whether JD 3 or JD 4 are or are not victims is not the test of whether they are proper petitioners: they also must allege a basis for the allegations that their rights to consultation and notification were violated. JD 4 was not even known to the Govt: by definition how could she have