EFTA00214686.pdf

From: To: Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:03 +0000 Importance: Normal -- I read that case. Fascinating stuff. Can I ask why you chose 2425 instead of 2422(b) [using a facility of interstate commerce to induce a minor to engage in prostitution]? And any chance you could send me a copy of the indictment? Thank you so much. From: Se To Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact -- I did a 2425 prosecution (USA I Giordano,442 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006)), in which the 2d Cir. held that a cellular was a facility of interstate commerce, even when the offending calls were intrastate. Good luck. From: Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:07 AM To: USAEO-PSC-Coordinators Subject: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact ( - ) 1 1 1 1 . - Hi everyone -- Sony 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. EFTA00214686