DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 24 of 74 24 t this cterstate prosecution. the division and tion Unit. was not squarely that some There are submissions 1 She received submissions from the defense tha 2 was essentially a local crime without the necessary in 3 elements that constitute the foundation of federal 4 We had a meeting in Washington with a number of 5 defense team with representatives of the criminal 6 the representatives of the CEOS, the Child Exploita 7 They recognized that their position 8 within the precedence that had preceded this March 2008 9 meeting. They recognized the arguments were novel; 10 of the provisions in the NPA were novels. But they endorsed 11 the exercise of prosecutorial discretion that was at the heart 12 of the NPA. 13 THE COURT: Was there any proceeding at which their 14 position is documented or any correspondence? 15 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. 16 by the defense to the criminal division in Washington that 17 believe were dated in March. And then there was a response in 18 May which in essence authorized —- 19 THE COURT: May of what year? 20 MR. WEINBERG: May of 2008. 21 THE COURT: What did it say? 22 MR. ROSSMILLER: £t endorsed th xercise of 23 discretion after recognizing in about a six- or seven-page 24 letter that the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA 25 were unusual; that these allegations were not within the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000534