EFTA00214283.pdf

From To: Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:03:49 +0000 Importance: Normal Thank you, Laurel. I agree, but they seem to shout this out louder and louder every time (as though that makes their arguments more convincing). Assistant . Attome est am eac , From Sent: ues ay, ecem er , 11:17AM To: Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact The first question I have is what difference does it make? Either you have a facility of interstate commerce or you don't. The fact that it is a phone, or that it is the ONLY facility of interstate commerce you have in your case, is irrelevant. While we did not go to trial in one case on a phone, we did prosecute a 2422(b) case where the only facility we had was the internet --AOL Instant Messaging -- on intrastate communications (in other words, the communications were from one California computer to another California computer). Your defense attorney is ill-informed. From11.11 Sent: Tuesday. December 18, 2007 6:07 AM To: USAEO-PSC-Coordinators Subject: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact Hi everyone -- Sorry to trouble you, but I have a defense attorney who is claiming that NO ONE has ever been prosecuted anywhere in the United States for a violation of 2422(b) based exclusively on the use of a telephone as the facility of interstate commerce. I know that is false because I have prosecuted two of these, but it would be really helpful if you could provide me with examples of other cases throughout the country. Thank you so much. sustant u.s. Attorney West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00214283