Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00214282DOJ Data Set 9Other

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

From To: Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:54:59 +0000 Importance: Normal We have been very cautious here b/c of the issue of whether a facility of ISC requires proof of a state line. And, if the cell phone tower communications or the land line call did not cross a state line or if the call didn't involve an internet connection, we've held back. I don't know that there is a clear answer - however, I'd absolutely love to do these cases if you get good law out there on the subject. hat you find out! Thanks! Or From: Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:07 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 prosecut

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00214282
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity

Summary

From To: Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:54:59 +0000 Importance: Normal We have been very cautious here b/c of the issue of whether a facility of ISC requires proof of a state line. And, if the cell phone tower communications or the land line call did not cross a state line or if the call didn't involve an internet connection, we've held back. I don't know that there is a clear answer - however, I'd absolutely love to do these cases if you get good law out there on the subject. hat you find out! Thanks! Or From: Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:07 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 prosecut

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: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:54:59 +0000 Importance: Normal We have been very cautious here b/c of the issue of whether a facility of ISC requires proof of a state line. And, if the cell phone tower communications or the land line call did not cross a state line or if the call didn't involve an internet connection, we've held back. I don't know that there is a clear answer - however, I'd absolutely love to do these cases if you get good law out there on the subject. hat you find out! Thanks! Or From: Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:07 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. EFTA00214282

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.