DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY Bar No.1430909, admitted pro hac vice) 

Erin E. McCampbell (NY Bar No. 4480166, admitted pro hac vice) 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

pcambria@lglaw.com 

emccampbell@lglaw.com 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (CA Bar No.135311, admitted pro hac vice) 

Whitney Z. Bernstein (CA Bar No. 304917, admitted pro hac vice) 

BIENERT | KATZMAN PC 

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

San Clemente, California 92673 

Telephone: (949) 369-3700 

Facsimile: (949)369-3701 

tbienert@bienertkatzman.com 

wbernstein@bienartkatzman.com 

Attorneys for James Larkin 

Additional counsel listed on next page 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED 

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION 

(Oral argument requested) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1236 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 7
 ii 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gary S. Lincenberg (CA Bar No. 123058, admitted pro hac vice) 

Ariel A. Neuman (CA Bar No. 241594, admitted pro hac vice) 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (CA Bar No. 279856, admitted pro hac vice) 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW PC 

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561 

Telephone: (310) 201-2100 

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 

glincenberg@birdmarella.com 

aneuman@birdmarella.com 

gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com 

Attorneys for John Brunst 

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832) 

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA 

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

bf@federlawpa.com 

Attorney for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218) 

DAVID EISENBERG PLC 

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 237-5076 

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273 

david@deisenbergplc.com 

Attorney for Andrew Padilla 

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181) 

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC 

P.O. Box 2734 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252 

Telephone: (602)374-5321 

Facsimile: (480)361-4694 

joy.bertrand@gmail.com 

Attorney for Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1236 Filed 08/26/21 Page 2 of 7
 1 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On August 19, 2021, the Court circulated proposed preliminary jury 

instructions. (See Aug. 19, 2021 Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions, attached hereto as 

Exhibit A.) As discussed at the August 20, 2021 hearing, the Court’s instructions did not 

include any instruction concerning the application of the First Amendment to this case in 

contravention of fundamental First Amendment law. Preliminary instructions are necessary 

because First Amendment presumptive protection is as critical as the presumption of 

innocence: it exists unless the government can prove otherwise. The government’s objections 

to this cannon assume the very conclusion it must prove at trial. Defense counsel respectfully 

requests inclusion of the following Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions: 

DEFENSE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 

All speech is presumed to be protected under the First Amendment of the United 

States Constitution unless the government establishes otherwise. The speech at issue in this 

case – advertisements – are legally protected speech under the First Amendment. 

Authorities:

See Bursey v. United States, 446 F.2d 1059, 1082 (1972) (“All speech, press, and associational 

relationships are presumptively protected by the First Amendment; the burden rests on the 

Government to establish that the particular expressions or relationships are outside its 

reach.”); Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 561, 

(1980) (“The First Amendment . . . protects commercial speech from unwarranted 

governmental regulation. . . . Even when advertising communicates only an incomplete 

version of the relevant facts, the First Amendment presumes that some accurate information 

is better than no information at all.”); Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868-70 (1997) (“[O]ur 

cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be 

applied to [the Internet].”). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1236 Filed 08/26/21 Page 3 of 7
 2 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFENSE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 

 Advertisements for escort services, strippers, massage services, dominatrix, and dating 

are presumptively legal and constitutionally protected speech, unless the government proves 

otherwise, because escorting, stripping, providing massage or dominatrix services, and dating 

all are legal activities. 

Authorities: 

See Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F.Supp.2d 961, 968 (N.D. Ill.2009) (Sheriff Dart “is simply wrong 

when he insists that [craigslist’s adult services category and related subcategories] are all 

synonyms for illegal sexual services;” craiglist’s “adult services” section “is not unlawful in 

itself nor does it necessarily call for unlawful content”); Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 

229, 234 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 46 (2016) (rejecting sheriff’s presumption that 

ads on Backpage.com were illegal: Backpage.com was “an avenue of expression of ideas and 

opinions” protected by the First Amendment, including its “classified ads for ‘adult’ service;” 

“Fetishism? Phone sex? Performances by striptease artists? (Vulgar is not violent.) One ad in 

the category ‘dom & fetish’ is for the services of a ‘professional dominatrix’—a woman who 

is paid to whip or otherwise humiliate a customer in order to arouse him sexually. It’s not 

obvious that such conduct endangers women or children or violates any laws, including laws 

against prostitution. The district judge remarked ‘that the majority of the advertisements [in 

Backpage’s adult section] are for sex’—but a majority is not all, and not all advertisements for 

sex are advertisements for illegal sex.”) (internal citations omitted); Backpage.com, LLC v. 

McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1281-82 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (rejecting similar presumption of 

state AG defending law targeting Backpage and noting the “third-party publication of offers 

to engage in illegal transactions does not fall within [the] ‘welldefined and narrowly limited 

classes of speech’ that fall outside of First Amendment protection.” (quoting Chaplinsky v. New 

Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942)); Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d 805, 833-

34 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (rejecting state’s argument that escort ads on Backpage.com were 

unprotected speech); Backpage.com, LLC v. Hoffman, 2013 WL 4502097, at *9-11 (D.N.J. Aug. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1236 Filed 08/26/21 Page 4 of 7
 3 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20, 2013) (same); M.A. ex rel. P.K v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 

1049-50 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (rejecting similar presumption in dismissing plaintiff’s civil claims 

based on 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1595, and 2255); People v Ferrer, 2016 WL 7237305, at *9 (Cal. Super. 

Ct. Dec. 9, 2016) (dismissing state’s pimping charges against Larkin and Lacey; noting that the 

only “whiff of illegality” in the AG’s complaint improperly “require[ed] the presumption that 

illegal content was contained in the ads,” yet the website’s actions in posting the ads “would 

not be illegal”). 

CONCLUSION 

 For all these reasons, this Court should read the proposed preliminary instructions. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of August, 2021, 

 Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Erin E. McCampbell 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

 

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (Oct. 2020) 

§ II (C) (3), Erin E. McCampbell hereby attests that all other signatories listed, and on whose behalf this filing 

is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized its filing.

 Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

BIENERT KATZMAN, PLC 

 By: /s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein 

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

Attorneys for James Larkin 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1236 Filed 08/26/21 Page 5 of 7
 4 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gary S. Lincenberg 

Ariel A. Neuman 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 

By: /s/ Ariel A. Neuman 

Ariel A. Neuman 

Attorneys for John Brunst 

Bruce Feder 

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A. 

By: /s/ Bruce Feder 

Bruce Feder 

Attorneys for Scott Spear 

 

David Eisenberg 

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C. 

By: /s/ David Eisenberg 

David Eisenberg 

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla 

 Joy Bertrand 

JOY BERTRAND, ESQ. 

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand 

Joy Bertrand 

Attorneys for Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1236 Filed 08/26/21 Page 6 of 7
 5 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On August 26th, 2021 a PDF version 

of this document was filed with 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

System for filing and for Transmittal 

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the 

Following CM/ECF registrants: 

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Daniel Boyle, Daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1236 Filed 08/26/21 Page 7 of 7