From: ' (USAFLS)" To: (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: CVRA case Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:49:04 +0000 Importance: Normal I agree with your statement. I thought that you had framed our initial response to their complaint in terms of "mootness," but your response has reminded me that you didn't say it was moot, just that the Court had no authority to set aside the non-prosecution agreement. I will watch CM/ECF while you are at the NAC. Assistant U.S. Attorne Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:46 PM To: . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: CVRA case A moot case is one where there is no longer any dispute for which the court can grant relief. If their previous conduct is any indication, plaintiffs will probably assert that the CVRA obligated the government to consult with them prior to entering into the non-prosecution agreement. They seem to be resigned to the fact that the court cannot or will not set aside the non-prosecution agreement, since the relief plaintiffs seek is a declaratory judgment. I don't believe we can argue there is no longer any dispute between the parties. I agree that plaintiffs' leisurely pace in conducting the litigation has undermined the vitality of their case, but the issue is whether there is still a live controversy between plaintiffs and the government. Plaintiffs will no doubt dispute the government's contention that the court has no authority to grant relief. Moreover, a declaratory judgment is a form of relief. I will take a closer look at the caselaw to determine if we can advance a good faith mootness argument. I will be at the NAC next week. I intend to tell Judge Cassell that the government has no objection to stipulating to facts which we agree are correct, but we don't agree plaintiffs are entitled to any relief since we did not violate the CVRA. Please let me know what you think Front: (USAFLS) Sent Thesda October 12, 2010 4:23 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: CVRA case But isn't the judge askin