EFTA00214688.pdf

From: "Kin , Damon' To: "USAEO-PSC- Coordinators" Subject: RE: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:08:35 +0000 I mportance: Normal US I. Clayton, 108 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 1987) (telephones are instrumentalities of interstate commerce; US I. Corum, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9517 (D. Minn. 2003) ("it is axiomatic that telephones even when used intrastate are instrumentalities of interstate commerce"); Dupuy I Dupuy, 511 F.2d 641 (5th Cir 1975) (intrastate phone calls conferred jurisdiction over an SEC case because they satisfied the "use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce" element in the statute); US Giordano, 260 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D. Conn. 2002) (denied motion to dismiss 18 USC 2425 counts because the telephone calls at issue were intrastate; good discussion of how telephones are "part of a larger interstate network, and even though the calls at issue were intrastate, they were made through an interstate facility. As such, there would be a sufficient basis for the jurisdictional element of the 2425 charges"); US I. Gilbert, 181 F. 3d 152, 158 (1st Cir. 1999) (intrastate telephone call used to make bomb threat conferred federal jurisdiction because telephone is an instrumentality of interstate commerce "and this alone is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction based on interstate commerce"); US I. Riccardi, 258 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 2003) (one 2422 count of which defendant was convicted was an intrastate phone call) and - dak Damon A. King Deputy Chief Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Ave. N.W. Suite 6400 Washineton. DC 20005 From: Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:07 AM To: USAEO-PSC-Coordinators Subject: 2422(b) based upon telephone contact 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. EFTA00214688 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 EFTA00214689