`
`Exhibit V
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1411-3 Filed 12/01/21 Page 2 of 3
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1411-3 Filed 12/01/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Ernie Allen
`Ann Scofield
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`FW: Kristof on Backpage
`Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:06:00 AM
`Women's Women Foundation Strib.docx
`
`Adapt for me.
`
`From: Cordelia Anderson [mailto:cordelia@visi.com]
`Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:34 PM
`To: Ernie Allen; Patty Wetterling; Sharon Cooper; Sharon Cooper
`Subject: RE: Kristof on Backpage
`
`All this attention is representing what | hope is a norms change and major pressure on them to
`change or at least in the mean time for many more to question “how can this possibly be legal?”
`Read the last few paragraphs of the front page attention Mondayto the Strib article about the
`Women’s Foundation funding.
`
`We are also trying to amp up our efforts to get Mpls to make the zoning changes St Paul made re
`the businesses surrounding the sportsfacilities that profit from commercial sexual exploitation
`“gentleman’s clubs”
`
`Cordelia Anderson, M.A.
`Director, Sensibilities
`Currently Consulting with:
`- MN Coalition Against Sexual Assault(MNCASA)
`- National Children's Advocacy Centers
`Past-President, National Coalition to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse & Exploitation
`4405 Garfield Avenue South
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419
`612-824-6217 h/w
`612-207-1779cell
`
`http://www.cordeliaanderson.com/
`
`Stnalliies
`Peevenmin Serices
`
`From: Ernie Allen [mailto:EALLEN@ncmec.org]
`Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:51 PM
`To: Patty Wetterling; Sharon Cooper; Cordelia Anderson; Sharon Cooper
`Subject: RE: Kristof on Backpage
`
`Patty:
`
`They know they are in the prostitution business, but they feel protected and insulated by the civil
`immunity provided by the Communications Decency Actfor Internet “publishers.” When | had my
`contentious meeting with their leaders a year ago, they said to me, “we will do everything possible to
`keepthe kids off our site, but adult prostitution is none of your business.” In my meeting with the
`Attorney General, | argued that while they might have civil immunity, | didn’t understand how that
`protected them from criminal prosecution.
`| argued that they werefacilitating a criminal enterprise, a
`federal crime. Several weekslater, the AG sent prosecutors from his Criminal Division along with
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS PRODUCED PURSUANT
`TO 05-16-17 LETTER REQUEST FROM U.S. DOJ
`
`NCMEC000383
`
`DOJ-BP-0004570397
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1411-3 Filed 12/01/21 Page 3 of 3
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1411-3 Filed 12/01/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`several FBI agents to NCMEC to meet with me. What they said was that they didn’t think that
`Backpage’s actions roseto the level of criminal culpability. They warned users about misuse of the
`site, made people click on answers promising not to do anything wrong, etc. DOJfelt that their
`activities did not generate the requisite “intent” to hold them criminally accountable. Clearly,
`| don’t
`agree. However, | also understand the sensitivity on the part of the administration about doing
`anything that looks like Internet censorship. Look at the uproar generated by Hollywood’s attempt to
`deal with online piracy; i.e., Google blacks out their logo, Wikipedia shuts down for a day, etc.
`
`| am hopeful that the pressure is growing. My friends sent me an article today that indicated that a
`New York movie house which has advertised in Village Voice for years announced today that they
`would no longer advertise in VV due to the Kristof article.
`| will forward you the article.
`
`Onestep at a time, butit is frustrating.
`
`Ernie
`
`From: Wetterling, Patty (MDH) [mailto:Patty.Wetterling@state.mn.us]
`Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:53 PM
`To: Sharon Cooper; Ernie Allen; Cordelia Anderson; Sharon Cooper
`Subject: RE: Kristof on Backpage
`
`| don’t understand how Backpage can’t see that their profit off of the sale of these girls puts them
`in the same category as the pimps themselves.
`It is so important that the pressure continues...
`
`Thanks for sharing Ernie,
`Patty
`
`[mailto:sharon
`From: Cooper, Sharon Watkins
`Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:05 PM
`To: Ernie Allen; Cordelia Anderson; Wetterling, Patty (MDH); Sharon Cooper
`Subject: RE: Kristof on Backpage
`
`Ernie et al,
`
`The paragraph about Charles Hynes having prosecuted notrafficking cases and then in one year
`indicting 32 people (nearly 3 a month) is an endorsement that we need to continue to education state
`investigators on how to recognize the real offender.
`
`ECPATUSA has a new video out called What I Have Been Through is Not Who I Am which I am already
`using in trainings on this topic. Carol Smolenski kindly got one to me shortly after it was released. The
`video highlighted an interesting report from DePaul College of Law on interviews of ex-pimps. Thought
`this might add ammunition to this ongoing battle.
`
`Sharon
`
`From: Ernie Allen [EALLEN@ncmec.org]
`Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:51 AM
`To: Cordelia Anderson; Patty Wetterling; Sharon Cooper
`Subject: FW: Kristof on Backpage
`
`Cordelia, Patty, Sharon:
`
`In the event that you didn’t see Nicholas Kristofs columm in Thursday’s New York Times, | am passing
`it along.
`It is extraordinary.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS PRODUCED PURSUANT
`TO 05-16-17 LETTER REQUEST FROM U.S. DOJ
`
`NCMEC000384
`
`DOJ-BP-0004570398
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site