Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00214686DOJ Data Set 9Other

Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact

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

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00214686
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity

Summary

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

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
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

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.