UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

_________________

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:18-cr-00422-DJH

Phoenix, Arizona

October 11, 2023

12:46 p.m.

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, JUDGE

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

JURY TRIAL - DAY 16

(P.M. SESSION)

Official Court Reporter:

Cathy J. Taylor, RMR, CRR, CRC

Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 312

401 West Washington Street, Spc 31

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151

(602) 322-7249

Proceedings Reported by Stenographic Court Reporter

Transcript Prepared by Computer-Aided Transcription

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 150
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Government:

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

By: Mr. Kevin M. Rapp, Esq.

Mr. Andrew C. Stone, Esq.

Mr. Peter Shawn Kozinets, Esq.

Ms. Margaret Wu Perlmeter, Esq.

Mr. Daniel G. Boyle, Esq.

40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov

- and -

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

By: Mr. Austin Berry, Esq.

1301 New York Avenue NW, 11th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

austin.berry2@usdoj.gov

For the Defendant Michael Lacey:

LIPTSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA, LLP

By: Mr. Paul J. Cambria, Esq.

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

pcambria@lglaw.com

For the Defendant Scott Spear:

KESSLER LAW OFFICE

By: Mr. Eric Walter Kessler, Esq.

6720 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 210

Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

eric.kesslerlaw@gmail.com

- and -

FEDER LAW OFFICE, PA

By: Mr. Bruce S. Feder, Esq.

2930 East Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

bf@federlawpa.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 2 of 150
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)

For the Defendant John Brunst:

BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS

By: Mr. Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Esq.

Mr. Gary S. Lincenberg, Esq.

1875 Century Park E, Suite 2300

Los Angeles, California 90067

gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

glincenberg@birdmarella.com

aneuman@birdmarella.com

For the Defendant Andrew Padilla:

DAVID EISENBERG, PLC

By: Mr. David S. Eisenberg, Esq.

3550 North Central Avenue, Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

david@deisenbergplc.com

For the Defendant Joye Vaught:

JOY BERTRAND, ESQ, LLC

By: Ms. Joy Malby Bertrand, Esq

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252-2734

Joy@joybertrandlaw.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 3 of 150
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

I N D E X

SUMMARY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS: PAGE

Proceedings Outside the Presence of the Jury 5

Proceedings Outside the Presence of the Jury 73

Motion for Mistrial 76

Proceedings outside the presence of the Jury 138

Motion for Mistrial 145

WITNESSES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: PAGE

Breahannah Leary

Direct Examination (Cont'd) by Ms. Perlmeter 8

Cross-Examination by Ms. Bertrand 10

Cross-Examination by Mr. Cambria 15

Cross-Examination by Mr. Kessler 18

Redirect Examination by Ms. Perlmeter 36

Isaac Luria

Direct Examination by Mr. Berry 38

Cross-Examination by Mr. Cambria 78

Cross-Examination by Mr. Eisenberg 105

Redirect Examination by Mr. Berry 107

Mickey Hansen

Direct Examination by Mr. Kozinets 113

EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION REC'D

466 Email from Ferrer to Hansen re American

Express, 04/22/2015

DOJ-BP-0004929197

128

466a Attachment. AMEX_Screen_shot

DOJ-BP-0004929198

129

470 Email from Ferrer to Hansen re American

Express, 04/24/2015

DOJ-BP-0005064721

131

475 American Express Merchant Reference Guide,

April 2015

DOJ-BP-0004694982- DOJ-BP-0004695047

117

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 4 of 150
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

12:46:30

12:46:52

12:47:08

12:47:38

12:48:12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

P R O C E E D I N G S

(Proceedings reconvene at 12:46 p.m.)

(Jury not present at 12:46 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

Let me -- let me just ask, Ms. Perlmeter, you

referenced something about the government's stating its

position in Doc. 1614. That did not look like an appropriate

document citation, and I wondered if that, what you were

referencing, was the government's trial brief.

MS. PERLMETER: It's 1642. That's what I thought I

said, but if I said some other number, I apologize.

THE COURT: Okay. And who has their cell phone on? I

can hear that ringing.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just turned it off, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Now, let me also say that I reviewed very quickly the

Court's prior ruling back in May of 2021 at Document 1156. And

while it, once again, admonished the government not to

introduce lengthy testimony regarding a day in the life of the

prostitute or prostitution, the testimony that was indicated

that could be introduced were areas about how ads were created,

drafted, edited, and paid for.

And so the Court will remind counsel of that as well

and, also, that it goes to notice that these ads were placed on

Backpage.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 5 of 150
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

12:48:25

12:48:44

12:49:04

12:49:30

12:49:43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

Now, Mr. Kozinets.

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you, Your Honor.

On Sunday evening we received an email, and the Court

did, too, from Mr. Panchapakesan about three exhibits that the

defense hopes to introduce through the government's witness,

Mickey Hansen, from American Express.

There are two exhibits that I just briefly wanted to

bring to the Court's attention that we would object to. They

are Exhibit 6234 and 6235. They were both documents that were

filed as exhibits in the Backpage.com vs. Dart litigation in

the Northern District of Illinois. They both reflect

communications from Sheriff Dart's office with other people at

American Express but not Mickey Hansen.

The first is an email chain from the sheriff's office

with certain PR personnel at American Express. Mr. Hansen is

not on any of the emails. My understanding is he's never seen

or doesn't recall ever seeing them. The -- the emails are

hearsay, and they do raise the risk of getting into

Sheriff Dart related issues, which are confusing and involve

other issues, and we would argue fall within the scope of the

Court's prior orders, including Doc. 1643 at pages 9 through

11.

I could show you part of one of the documents, if

you'd like, on the document camera.

THE COURT: No, not at this time.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 6 of 150
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

12:49:59

12:50:17

12:50:33

12:50:48

12:51:46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

And was there another matter you wished to raise?

MR. KOZINETS: The second exhibit is just a letter

from the sheriff's office to the CEO of American Express

just -- just kind of lotting American Express for past actions,

but it's not something that involves the witness that we are

going to call. He's not copied on it, didn't receive it, and

it's not relevant to his testimony.

THE COURT: All right. I'll take a look at those two

exhibits, and then perhaps I can have a conversation with

Mr. Lincenberg tomorrow.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, I could respond now.

MR. KOZINETS: In the second --

THE COURT: Let's move forward with the trial. Let's

bring the witness back. And, as you know, we're on a condensed

time frame. I want to make sure that we have our jurors out,

as I promised, and so we can take these matters up later.

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you.

MR. STONE: Your Honor, what time are you

contemplating the afternoon break?

THE COURT: I hope around 2:10, 2:15 now.

MR. STONE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Please all rise for the jury.

(Jury present at 12:51 p.m.)

THE COURT: And come to order.

All right. Please be seated.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 7 of 150
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

12:52:11

12:53:06

12:53:14

12:53:31

BREAHANNAH LEARY - DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

The record will reflect the presence of the jury. The

witness is on the witness stand.

And, Ms. Perlmeter, you may continue.

(BREAHANNAH LEARY, a witness herein, was previously duly

sworn or affirmed.)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

BY MS. PERLMETER:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Leary.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. I want to direct your attention to Exhibit 216.

MS. PERLMETER: If we could please have that up again.

Okay. Scroll down to the words in the ad.

BY MS. PERLMETER:

Q. All right. Can you read this? And -- and who -- this is

your ad, right, Ms. Leary?

A. Correct.

Q. And who is Alexis?

A. Alexis? That is myself.

Q. Is that the name that you used?

A. Yes. That's an alias.

Q. What do you mean by "pleasing you is my mission"?

A. I didn't write this.

Q. Okay. But in terms of the Backpage ad, what did you

understand would happen when people called in response to it?

MR. CAMBRIA: Calls for speculation.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 8 of 150
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

12:53:38

12:53:52

12:54:18

12:54:46

12:55:03

BREAHANNAH LEARY - DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Calls for speculation and

hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: "Pleasing you is my mission."

That -- to me, that is any sexual act that the john

would want.

BY MS. PERLMETER:

Q. And what does 24/7 mean?

See further down in the middle of the ad it says,

"Period available, 24/7"?

A. Yes.

Q. What does that mean?

A. 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

MS. PERLMETER: I'm going to call up 216a. We could

show that to the room. And I'm going to page down to the text.

BY MS. PERLMETER:

Q. The second ad, are you also available 24/7?

A. Correct, from what the ad says.

Q. And are you going by the name Alexis again?

A. Yes.

Q. And where it says that this is not -- this ad is not in any

form an ad for solicitation, slash, prostitution, what do

you -- how do you interpret that?

A. I interpret that that is a lie. It is an ad for

prostitution. I interpret it as they wrote it for law

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 9 of 150
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

12:55:20

12:55:31

12:55:43

12:55:52

12:56:19

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

enforcement.

Q. Now, we have the two ads for you here and posted in the

Denver marketplace, and then the second one the Fort Collins

marketplace.

Were you also -- when you were with Mr. Franklin, were

you also posted in other cities?

A. Yes. I was posted in other cities and other states.

Q. And how long were you with Mr. Franklin?

A. About four to five months.

Q. Okay. And after that four- to five-month period, did you

stop working with Mr. Franklin?

A. I did.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. All right. No further

questions.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cambria?

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, Ms. Bertrand's going first,

if that's all right.

THE COURT: Ms. Bertrand.

MS. BERTRAND: Thank you.

May I proceed?

THE COURT: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. BERTRAND:

Q. Good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 10 of 150
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

12:56:28

12:56:40

12:56:52

12:57:13

12:57:23

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Q. What -- what last name do you prefer to use? Hodges?

Leary?

A. Leary.

Q. Ms. Leary. Thank you. Nice to meet you.

A. Nice to meet you.

Q. I represent a woman named Joye Vaught. I think you

testified when talking with the government that you all haven't

met, so I'm just letting you know why I'm standing here.

A. Oh, okay.

Q. I think you testified that you're currently -- are you

currently working?

A. No. I'm unemployed.

Q. All right. Before -- what was the last job you held?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. What was the last job that you held?

A. I was an administrative director of a memory care facility.

Q. You mentioned having an -- using an alias online of Alexis

Roxx; is that correct?

A. No. That's incorrect. It was --

Q. Okay.

A. -- Alexis Foxx.

Q. Alexis Foxx.

Have you ever used the alias Alexis Roxx, R-O-X-X?

A. No, not that I can recall.

Q. But you've used the alias Alexis Foxx, F-O -- how many Xs?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 11 of 150
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

12:57:53

12:58:12

12:58:25

12:58:39

12:59:00

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

A. Two.

Q. Have you ever used Alexis Foxx or Alexis Roxx in other

online forums or platforms?

A. On platforms?

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Can you repeat the question? I'm not sure I understand.

MS. BERTRAND: Madam court reporter, could you please

read the question back.

(Record read.)

THE WITNESS: I have used Alexis Foxx.

BY MS. BERTRAND:

Q. And that was on what platforms?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Relevance.

THE WITNESS: To be honest, I don't recall.

THE COURT: Well, let me -- let me rule on the

objection.

Overruled.

You may answer.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I don't recall.

BY MS. BERTRAND:

Q. Could one of them have been xxx.nude.com?

A. No. I have heard of it.

Q. And it's your testimony today that you've never posted on a

platform as Alexis Roxx, R-O-X-X?

A. I have never.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 12 of 150
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

12:59:07

12:59:12

12:59:25

12:59:34

12:59:50

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MS. BERTRAND:

Q. What about as Roxx, Alexis?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MS. BERTRAND:

Q. Do you have a Twitter handle?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. What's your name on Twitter?

A. I don't have a Twitter.

Q. Do you have a Pornhub name?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you use the alias Inkd, I-N-K-D, Female --

A. I do not --

Q. -- on any platform?

A. -- no. I had a Instagram account that was that, but it is

now deleted.

Q. When was that deleted?

A. A while back.

Q. What about a website called Webcam Women?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MS. BERTRAND:

Q. Do you know whether or not you -- or, I believe -- was her

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 13 of 150
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

13:00:07

13:00:22

13:00:44

13:00:50

13:01:00

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

name Michelle?

I'm sorry if I'm -- your -- your friend, that was

Michelle?

A. Michelle. She was also in the case, but I wouldn't call

her a friend.

Q. Okay. The other woman that you referred to was Michelle,

and then the man you referred to is the pimp.

Do you recall whether or not the ads you looked at at

Backpage were posted anywhere else?

A. I do not recall.

Q. Do you recall telling the FBI when meeting with them that

for much of the time that these ads were placed you were a

regular drug user?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Relevance.

MS. BERTRAND: Goes to ability to recall.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. BERTRAND:

Q. Do you recall telling them that?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you a regular drug user at this time that these ads

were placed?

A. I was forced to take Molly. So, yes.

Q. Molly?

A. Molly. I was forced.

Q. And this was the -- this is by the same person that you --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 14 of 150
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

13:01:32

13:01:45

13:01:58

13:02:08

13:02:15

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

you went to when you left your boyfriend's house?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever speak to anybody, I'll say, before 2016,

anybody who worked for Backpage.com?

A. No.

MS. BERTRAND: Thank you. I have nothing further of

this witness.

THE COURT: Mr. Cambria?

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Do you recognize anybody over here?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Let the record reflect the attorney is

starting out at government's back table.

MR. CAMBRIA: Yes.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Do you recognize any of these gentlemen? This fellow here?

A. No, none of those three.

THE COURT: You need to stay by the microphone,

Mr. Cambria.

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, sorry.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. You don't or you do?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 15 of 150
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

13:02:30

13:02:45

13:02:57

13:03:04

13:03:16

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

A. None of those three.

Q. Okay. The money that you paid to Backpage was for ad

space, was it not?

A. Correct.

Q. Pardon?

A. Yes.

Q. Sorry. I'm a little hard of hearing here.

And you indicated that you place an ad and a phone

would ring.

Would you make some kind of agreement in that phone

call with the person?

A. Yes. There was usually an agreement to meet.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Yes. There was usually an agreement to meet up.

Q. To meet --

A. Usually.

Q. -- right?

A. That's what it got to.

Q. But you didn't discuss any activity during that phone call,

did you?

A. Sometimes, yes.

Q. Sometimes. All right.

But -- so somebody would call. You would tell them

where to meet you or you would go to them; correct?

A. Correct.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 16 of 150
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

13:03:35

13:03:54

13:04:00

13:04:25

13:04:37

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

Q. And then when you got together, you had a discussion as to

what activities you would agree to for what price; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And any of the money that you may have received from those

activities, did you send any of that to Backpage?

A. No.

Q. And as far as any ads that you posted -- well, here.

Strike that.

Did you post on any other websites?

A. No.

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Okay. And as far as the ad was concerned that you put on,

that was composed by you and somebody else?

A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

Q. Yes. The ad, whatever ad that you put on Backpage, was

something that you composed or you and this gentleman that you

referred to composed; correct?

A. Incorrect.

Q. Who composed it?

A. Mr. Franklin would compose my ads for me.

Q. Okay. But it wasn't somebody at Backpage who created your

ad?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 17 of 150
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

13:04:46

13:04:57

13:05:04

13:05:15

13:05:27

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

A. No.

Q. No. You just paid them for ad space; correct?

A. Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's all.

THE COURT: Mr. Lincenberg?

MR. EISENBERG: No questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I called on --

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: We have no questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I called on Mr. Panchapakesan.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: No questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And none from Mr. Eisenberg, I

take it?

MR. EISENBERG: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Kessler?

MR. KESSLER: Yes. Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Good afternoon, ma'am.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. We've never met, have we?

A. No.

Q. My name is Eric Kessler. I represent one of the

individuals who used to own Backpage.

Do you understand that?

A. Okay.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 18 of 150
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

13:05:35

13:05:47

13:06:08

13:06:22

13:06:46

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

Q. Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Kessler, can you speak up just a

little bit.

MR. KESSLER: Yes. I will try.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. You mentioned early in your direct examination -- and so

that we know what we're talking about, that's when the

prosecutor was asking you questions.

A. Okay.

Q. You mentioned that with the assistance of a friend you were

able to put together, through cutting and pasting and so forth,

your own ad. And you put it in the escort section of Backpage.

Is that accurate?

A. That is correct.

Q. I'm sorry. Say again?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you.

And you continued to do that until such time as you

began to work with Mr. Franklin; is that right?

A. Off and on, yes. I was on the weekends.

Q. Can you estimate when you first -- timewise when you first

posted an ad on Backpage?

A. In 2012.

Q. Can you refine that a little bit more to the month?

A. I would say winter months.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 19 of 150
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

13:07:20

13:07:29

13:07:42

13:08:13

13:08:27

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

Q. Okay. And there was -- there were some questions about

drug usage more during the time that you were with

Mr. Franklin, but during those -- during the time that you

decided to first post your ad on Backpage, were you taking,

either on a regular basis or periodically, any illicit

substances?

A. No --

Q. Or abusing --

A. -- not at that time.

Q. -- alcohol?

A. No, not in 2012.

Q. When did that start?

A. That started in 2015.

Q. Is that when you and Mr. Franklin started working together?

A. Correct.

Q. How many -- if you can recall, how many different ads did

you compose before Mr. Franklin came into the picture that you

then posted on Backpage?

A. I would probably say 15, 20.

Q. Were they all the same ad that you would just repost, or

were they different ads?

A. I would repost.

Q. Were any of those approximately 15 ads different than any

of the other 15 ads?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 20 of 150
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

13:08:35

13:08:54

13:09:11

13:09:33

13:09:47

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

Q. In what way?

A. Just photos.

Q. Just the photos?

A. Yeah. That was back in 2012, from what I recall.

Q. Okay. So from 2012 until 2015, when Mr. Franklin came into

the picture, you created all your own ads. There were roughly

15 of them. And you posted all of them on Backpage under the

escorts section; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. The text of each of the 15 ads remained the same, though;

correct?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. I'm not sure how to take that answer. Are you saying you

just don't know?

A. I just don't remember. Yeah.

Q. Okay. But you do remember that among those 15 or so ads,

some of the images of you changed; correct?

A. Back in 2012, yes.

Q. Okay. I'm -- just so we're clear, I -- I don't -- I'm not

intending to try to trip you up here. We're talking about the

time before Mr. Franklin came into your life. We're talking

about 2012 up until Mr. Franklin in 2015.

A. Oh, okay.

Q. Are we clear on that?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 21 of 150
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

13:10:15

13:10:34

13:11:00

13:11:24

13:11:46

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

Q. Okay. You had mentioned in response to the prosecutor's

questions that there were occasions where you would post.

Again, we're talking about those 15 or so ads with Backpage.

But what appeared on the Backpage site that could be viewed by

the general public was different in some way from what you had

sent in to Backpage to post.

Do you remember that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. If you can recall, it -- just give me an estimate. Of the

15 or so ads that you posted during this period of time, how

many of them were changed by the time they reached the public

version of Backpage?

A. From what I can recall, probably over half.

Q. Okay. Now, on any of those occasions when the ads were

changed, did you get a message, probably by email, from

Backpage telling you that you had done something incorrectly?

A. It just said it had been flagged.

Q. Did any of those messages tell you that you had used an

improper image?

A. Not that I recall. It just said flagged.

Q. Okay. Did you ever follow up on that with anyone at

Backpage?

A. No. I never did.

Q. You just let the ad run the way Backpage had changed it;

correct?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 22 of 150
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

13:12:09

13:12:33

13:12:51

13:13:13

13:13:34

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23

A. Correct.

Q. Can you give me -- again, if you can recall. I'm not

asking you to speculate. But, if you can recall, can you give

me at least one example of how an ad of yours, again, one of

these 15, was changed?

A. It was the photos that were taken out of the ad. Some

photos that I would put up would be there, and then later on a

few photos would be missing of that same ad.

Q. Okay. Is that the way it was with all the -- the changes

that were made?

A. That I noticed, yes. It was the photos.

Q. Did you ever notice that the ad appeared to be missing some

words, some text, some terms that you had put into the ad when

you submitted it?

A. I don't recall at the moment.

Q. Did you ever get a message back from Backpage, likely by

email, that you had used an incorrect or a banned term?

A. No.

Q. Or that you had violated the terms of use?

A. No.

Q. When you first posted on Backpage, do you recall there were

a few disclaimers? Like, for example, one of them was you have

to be at least 18 years of age to post on this site --

A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 23 of 150
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

13:13:47

13:13:59

13:14:20

13:14:36

13:15:02

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. And were you at least 18 years of age?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Do you also recall that there was a section that you had to

read through that was called terms of use?

A. Yes. I remember that, terms of use.

Q. Did you read that?

A. I did not read it all the way through.

Q. Why not?

A. I guess, just like with everything, I kind of just scrolled

to the bottom and click okay and move on.

Q. Well, the parts that you did read through, do you have any

recollection?

A. Just the ones you have to be 18, and that was it.

Q. As far as the terms of use, do you have any recollection of

the terms telling you what are the permissible and

impermissible uses of the Backpage site?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered. She's

testified she doesn't recall.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. And then along came Mr. Franklin, and he began creating ads

to be posted; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Let me back up a second.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 24 of 150
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

13:15:22

13:15:29

13:15:52

13:16:02

13:16:12

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25

In the time that you started posting on Backpage and

Mr. Franklin coming into your life, did you post anywhere else?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. KESSLER: I did not ask her that question.

THE COURT: Well, your prior counsel -- prior counsel

did, but I'll permit it.

You may answer.

MR. KESSLER: Oh.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Did you -- during that approximately three-year period of

time, those 15 ads that you made yourself, did you post any of

them or any other ads on any other adult site?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. 412.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, not that I can recall.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. If you had, do you think you would have recalled that?

A. Posting an ad on another website --

Q. Yes.

A. -- in 2012?

Q. Between 2012 and 2015.

A. No.

Q. If you had posted an ad on another website, do you think

that you would remember that?

THE COURT: Mr. Kessler, she said no.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 25 of 150
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

13:16:45

13:16:59

13:17:10

13:17:21

13:17:36

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

26

MR. KESSLER: Oh, I'm sorry. I could not hear her.

Could we have Exhibit 216 that's in evidence up.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. This, I think, is an ad that you testified earlier was

created by Mr. Franklin; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. He posed you and took the photographs?

A. Isis and Mr. Franklin.

Q. Pardon me?

A. Isis. One of the other females.

Q. Oh, okay.

A. Yes.

Q. I have to tell you, your screen covers the bottom of your

face, and so I have a hard time --

A. I'm sorry.

Q. -- seeing you.

Let me -- let me do this. I'll just scoot you over

here.

Okay. Better.

So Mr. Franklin or somebody else at his direction

helped pose you and take the photographs that appeared in this

ad; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And Mr. Franklin, according to your testimony, wrote all of

the text?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 26 of 150
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

13:17:46

13:18:03

13:18:16

13:18:39

13:18:46

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

27

A. From my understanding, it was him and Isis --

Q. Okay.

A. -- who wrote them, yes.

Q. So it was Mr. Franklin and somebody working at his

direction?

A. Correct.

Q. But you did not?

A. I did not.

MR. KESSLER: If we could go to the next page. And

the next page.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Do you see this disclaimer?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you read it, please.

A. It says, "By contacting me in any way you agree you are not

involved with any kind of law enforcement that is entrapment

any cash exchange is for companionship & for" -- I don't know.

I can't read the rest of it.

MR. KESSLER: And if we could go to the next page so

she could finish reading.

I guess that's the end of it.

THE WITNESS: My --

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Oh, there is a little bit more for you.

A. Yes. It's for my -- I don't know what that last word is.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 27 of 150
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

13:18:56

13:19:01

13:19:14

13:19:27

13:19:37

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28

Q. Portfolio?

A. Portfolio?

Q. Is that what it says?

A. I don't know.

THE COURT: I don't know that any of us know what that

says.

THE WITNESS: I can't read that.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Okay.

A. Make that out.

Q. All right. But none the -- nonetheless, your ad, this

particular one that was created primarily by Mr. Brock [sic]

contained that disclaimer; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you were asked about that by one of the defense

attorneys, and you said that that was for the benefit of law

enforcement.

I think I'm paraphrasing your answer, but --

MS. PERLMETER: Objection.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. -- that's the way I understood it. That was for law

enforcement?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Misstates testimony. No

one's lodged any question about this -- this text yet.

MR. KESSLER: That's not true.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 28 of 150
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

13:19:47

13:20:00

13:20:12

13:20:32

13:20:42

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

29

THE COURT: Well, there was a line of questioning

related to the area but not in particular to this particular

portion of the ad.

MR. KESSLER: All right. Then I'll just ask the

question.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Why is that disclaimer in your ad?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Did you put it there?

A. No.

Q. Do you know why Mr. Franklin put it there?

A. I'm sorry. Your glass just hit the mic when you --

Q. Do you know why Mr. Franklin put it there?

A. He was trafficking.

Q. Okay. This is a disclaimer saying that this has nothing to

do with prostitution and that anything -- any thoughts to the

contrary constitutes entrapment.

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Misstates the text of the

image.

MR. KESSLER: I'm paraphrasing, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, he can -- he's entitled to

paraphrase, but let him finish asking the question before you

object.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 29 of 150
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

13:20:58

13:21:24

13:21:49

13:22:03

13:22:15

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

30

All right. Mr. Kessler.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Let me reask the question.

This disclaimer makes clear, does it not, that the

purpose for hiring you is not for prostitution. It is for a

companionship and that any thoughts to the contrary constitute

entrapment, or something to that effect.

Isn't that what it says?

A. I am not sure.

Q. Well, let's go back to that slide.

MR. KESSLER: Go to the previous slide.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. "By contacting me in any way you agree you are not involved

with any kind of law enforcement that is entrapment any cash

exchange is for companionship &" -- and then we can't read that

bottom line.

But you agree that's what it says?

A. That does read what it says.

Q. It doesn't say that it's for sex?

A. No.

Q. In fact --

MR. KESSLER: If we could go to the next slide. And

the next one. Let's get to the text.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Here's the text of your ad. Is there anything in the text

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 30 of 150
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

13:22:40

13:23:18

13:23:36

13:23:59

13:24:19

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

31

of your ad -- are you able to read that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there anything in the text of your ad that says that you

will perform some sex act in exchange for money?

A. I'm sorry. I didn't write the ad, so I'm reading it.

Q. Go ahead and read it, please.

A. No, it does not say that.

Q. Okay. You had begun your testimony on direct examination

indicating that you placed an ad in Backpage and then, with the

help of Mr. Franklin, placed ads, such as this, so that you

could engage in prostitution; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. This is while you were living in Colorado?

A. I'm born and raised in Colorado.

Q. Well, that's nice, but that's not my question.

A. Oh. I misunderstood.

Q. This is while you were living in Colorado?

A. Oh, while? Yes. This is while I was living in Colorado.

Q. You're holding yourself out, at least back at that time, to

the jury here as a prostitute; correct?

A. Yep.

Q. What is your understanding of what prostitution is in

Colorado?

A. It's change -- exchanging any -- any act -- any sex act for

any means to live; money, food, a home.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 31 of 150
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

13:24:32

13:24:41

13:25:06

13:25:41

13:26:07

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

32

Q. What kind of sex acts?

A. Any sex acts.

Q. Anything?

A. That's my idea of prostitution? Is --

Q. Let me ask you this.

A. -- that the question?

Q. Let me ask you this.

A. Okay.

Q. Let's say somebody calls you up in response to this ad and

you set up a meeting, a date --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- and it's a guy, and he meets you. You guys agree on a

price, and he says, you know, today I just want to see you

naked, so I'm going to sit here and, for whatever price, I want

you to take off your clothes and model in front of me.

Now, would you consider that prostitution?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Okay. When Mr. Franklin was acting as your pimp, as you

call him, did he ever take the time to explain to you what is

or is not legal in terms of prostitution?

A. Mr. Franklin? We were barely allowed to use the restroom,

so, no, he did not explain anything to me.

Q. Okay. But you believed then, and apparently now, that

meeting a man in a hotel room where there is no contact

whatsoever between you and the man constitutes prostitution; is

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 32 of 150
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

13:26:19

13:26:28

13:26:50

13:27:13

13:27:24

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

33

that true?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KESSLER: I didn't ask -- I didn't ask it that

way.

THE WITNESS: That --

THE COURT: Yes. I'll overrule the objection.

THE WITNESS: All right. Can you repeat the question?

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Sure. You're telling us that back then and now your

understanding of prostitution is that prostitution --

prostitution can occur if a man comes to your hotel room and

gives you money but there is no physical contact between the

two of you; correct?

A. I believe so. In my --

Q. All right.

A. -- mind, yes. That is at this point. Back then, no.

Q. You were asked some questions earlier, but I want to maybe

be more particular about them.

You posted on Pornhub under the inked female category,

didn't you?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Oh.

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered and

412.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 33 of 150
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

13:27:36

13:28:02

13:28:24

13:28:58

13:29:18

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

34

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KESSLER: I don't know what 412 is, but I -- I

haven't asked her that question.

THE COURT: Ms. Bertrand did, but --

MR. KESSLER: I asked it a little bit different.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I sustained the

objection. Ask a different question, Mr. Kessler.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Have you ever -- not just now but ever posted or advertised

yourself on the site known as pornhub.com?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. KESSLER: I'm asking for a time.

MS. PERLMETER: And relevance. And 412.

THE COURT: Well, I --

MR. KESSLER: The Court's already ruled on relevance.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. On May 31st, 2018, isn't it true that you posted and

advertised yourself for sex on Twitter, which included

#bootypie and #bigbootytuesday?

A. No, I did not post those. I was also under another

gentleman at the time who was posting that. I do recall that

now.

Q. Okay. So you didn't post it, but it was -- but you were

posted by somebody?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 34 of 150
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

13:29:32

13:29:41

13:29:54

13:30:10

13:30:31

BREAHANNAH LEARY - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

35

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Well, let me go back to the -- the Pornhub posting

then.

Was -- were you posted by somebody else on Pornhub?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Relevance and 412. Asked

and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Somebody else posted you on Twitter; correct?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered. 412.

THE COURT: Well, she may answer yes or no, but beyond

that I'm going to not permit.

BY MR. KESSLER:

Q. Isn't that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And is the date that I gave you accurate? I'll remind you

it was May 31st of 2018.

A. The year sounds right.

Q. How long were you posted on Twitter?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. 412. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KESSLER: Ms. Leary, thank you. That's all I

have.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Ms. Perlmeter?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 35 of 150
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

13:30:47

13:31:00

13:31:14

13:31:32

13:31:46

BREAHANNAH LEARY - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

36

MS. PERLMETER: May I begin?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. PERLMETER:

Q. Ms. Leary, just a point of clarification.

You had been asked questions about a friend and about

Michelle. So the person who introduced you to Backpage in the

beginning, you said that that person was your friend --

A. Correct.

Q. -- is that -- is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. And then later on when you were engaged with

Mr. Franklin or, you know, working for Mr. Franklin, someone

named Michelle entered your life?

A. Correct.

Q. So are Michelle and your -- the friend the same or

different people?

A. Those are two different people.

Q. Okay. Regarding dates where men wanted to just watch you

take off your clothes --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- how often did that happen?

A. Very rarely or never.

Q. Oh, yeah. Did that happen at all? Do you recall that ever

happening?

A. I don't recall that ever happening. Not with my

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 36 of 150
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

13:32:02

13:32:19

13:32:27

13:32:37

13:32:53

BREAHANNAH LEARY - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

37

experience.

Q. Okay. And in terms of men responding to Backpage

advertisements of you, how often was it that someone -- that

you engaged in a sexual act with that person?

A. Every time.

Q. Okay. And in terms of sexual act, I mean in an act of

either oral sex, sexual intercourse, things like that.

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. And is that what happened when you met with men who

were responding to your ads on Backpage?

A. Yes. Correct.

MS. PERLMETER: Anything else?

Okay. Nothing further.

THE COURT: The witness may step down.

Is she excused from subpoena by the government?

MS. PERLMETER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any reason to hold the subpoena?

Hearing none.

MR. KESSLER: No.

THE COURT: Ma'am, thank you for your testimony. You

are excused. You are released from your subpoena.

Please call your next witness.

MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor. The United States

calls Isaac Luria.

THE COURT: Sir, please come forward to the courtroom

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 37 of 150
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

13:33:11

13:33:45

13:33:53

13:34:06

13:34:13

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

38

deputy and be sworn.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please raise your right hand.

(ISAAC LURIA, a witness herein, was duly sworn or

affirmed.)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Step over to the witness stand.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Luria.

A. Hi.

Q. Good to see you.

Would you please state and spell your first name for

the jury.

A. Isaac, I-S-A-A-C.

Q. And would you please state and spell your last name for the

jury as well.

A. Luria, L-U-R-I-A.

Q. How old are you, sir?

A. 40.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any children?

A. I do. Three.

Q. What are their ages?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 38 of 150
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

13:34:30

13:34:45

13:34:58

13:35:13

13:35:22

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

39

A. They're 13, 11, and 8.

Q. And where do you work right now?

THE COURT: Can you hold one -- one second.

I hear a -- an alarm. I don't know if that's

immediately outside.

And now it stopped. Okay. So someone triggered an

alarm again.

All right. You can continue.

MR. BERRY: All right. Thank you.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. I think I was asking you, where do you work now?

A. At the Nathan Cummings Foundation.

Q. And what is the Nathan Cummings Foundation?

A. It's a private family foundation based in New York City.

It distributes resources to those who advocate for social

justice causes.

Q. Okay. And how long have you been there?

A. About six years now.

Q. Did you graduate college?

A. I did.

Q. Where did you go to school?

A. Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut.

Q. And did you get a degree?

A. I did.

Q. What was your degree?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 39 of 150
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

13:35:31

13:35:49

13:36:09

13:36:23

13:36:43

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

40

What was your degree in?

A. American studies.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. American studies.

Q. Okay. Did you used to work for an organization called

Auburn Theological Seminary?

A. I did.

Q. What is that?

A. It is a leadership training institute for faith leaders to

support their social justice work in the world.

Q. And when did you work there?

A. From about 2009 until 2016.

Excuse me. 2015 --

Q. You said social justice --

A. The end of 2015.

Q. I'm sorry. I cut you off. Say that again.

A. From 2009 to the end of 2015.

Q. Okay. And you said it does social justice work. For those

who may be unfamiliar with that terminology, could you please

explain that to the jury.

A. Yeah. If I'm -- faith leaders, rabbis, imams, Christian

pastors, Catholic priests, all of whom had deep relationships

in their community and wanted to see their communities better,

for people without means to have access to housing, healthcare,

good food. And we supported their work in a variety of

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 40 of 150
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

13:37:00

13:37:17

13:37:32

13:37:47

13:37:59

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

41

communities and contexts.

Q. And what were your jobs there at Auburn Theological

Seminary?

A. I supported a technology rebuild of all of our internal

databases. I was also a trainer for faith leaders doing

communications work and organizing work in their communities,

supporting them in their campaigns. And then I also was the

organizing director for a digital platform we ran called

Groundswell.

Q. Explain Groundswell to the jury.

A. Groundswell was a place where faith leaders and other

people of faith could go to take action in their community to

make their communities a better place.

Q. And how did Groundswell function in that regard?

A. We would -- we opened -- had an open petition platform

where people could start petitions, and then they received

training and coaching support from us to -- to get more names

on those petitions and to try to achieve the change that they

wanted to see.

Q. And did Groundswell have an online presence?

A. It did. We had about a -- at the end of my time at Auburn

about 200,000 people nationwide that were part of the work on

Groundswell.

Q. And there was a website --

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 41 of 150
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

13:38:03

13:38:20

13:38:36

13:38:50

13:39:04

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

42

Q. -- associated with it?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. Groundswell Movement.

Q. And who was the leader of Auburn during your time there,

from 2009 to 2015?

A. Our president, the Reverend Dr. Katharine Henderson.

Q. Okay. And did you work closely with her?

A. Yes. And she -- she hired me for the job.

Q. And just explain to the jury, just give us a sense of what

the size of the organization is, the number of people that work

there, that sort of thing.

A. Yeah. At the time that I worked there, we were maybe

15 people, and the budget was between 5 and $7 million total.

We had a small endowment that helped cover our costs and --

yeah. So we were a midsize nonprofit.

Q. During your time at Auburn, did you ever deal with an issue

related to Backpage.com?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you become aware of Backpage?

A. In 2009, I attended a breakfast that Auburn --

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of

the question.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You said in 2009 -- oh.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 42 of 150
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

13:39:11

13:39:20

13:39:37

13:39:55

13:40:11

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

43

A. Yes.

MR. BERRY: Just let her -- let the judge rule for

just a second.

THE COURT: Well, yes. Let -- I'm going to overrule

the objection. He was starting to answer as to how he became

aware.

So you may continue.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. So you said you became aware in 2009; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you would please explain to the jury, how did you

become aware of Backpage in 2009?

A. There was somebody who came to speak to a group of us at

Auburn explaining about sex trafficking and prostitution and

that there were places, websites, where people could go to

access those -- those services.

Q. And did you have an opportunity in 2009 to go on Backpage

and observe what it looked like with your own eyes?

A. I did.

Q. Please describe for the jury what you recall seeing when

you went to Backpage in 2009.

A. Advertisements for sex.

Q. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that.

A. I mean, there were many on the page. There were many

different listings of different ways that people could purchase

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 43 of 150
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

13:40:31

13:40:53

13:41:13

13:41:32

13:41:40

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

44

sex from people in a -- in the neighbor -- in the location

where you were.

Q. Okay. Did you ever meet any of the owners of Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey.

Q. And do you know approximately when you met those folks?

A. In the -- late in 2011.

Q. And where did you meet these folks?

A. At a conference room that Auburn Theological Seminary

rented from the Union Theological Seminary near Riverside

Church on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Q. And why did you have this meeting at Union Theological with

Larkin and Lacey in late 2011?

A. We had gathered a group of faith leaders who were outraged

over sex trafficking occurring on the site, specifically the

prostitution of children and --

MR. CAMBRIA: Object to foundation.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. BERRY: He's testified --

MR. CAMBRIA: And hearsay.

MR. FEDER: And 403.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. BERRY: If I could be heard?

He's testified --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 44 of 150
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

13:41:49

13:41:59

13:42:17

13:42:33

13:42:51

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

45

THE COURT: Well --

MR. BERRY: Go ahead.

THE COURT: -- I'm going to overrule. He was

describing the gathering of the group, and he can further

testify about that. But let's move on.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Was this meeting significant from your perspective?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. We had been attempting to meet with Backpage executives for

a number of months to communicate our concerns over the

website.

Q. All right. And we'll come back to the details of that

meeting in a moment, but let's back up before this late 2011

meeting.

Do you recall Auburn publishing something in the New

York Times?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall approximately when that was in relation to

this meeting?

A. It was about six weeks beforehand, in October of 2011.

Q. And where was it published?

A. In the New York Times.

Q. And describe for the jury, as best you can, what it was.

A. It was --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 45 of 150
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

13:43:00

13:43:14

13:43:25

13:43:37

13:43:45

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

46

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

MR. CAMBRIA: Object. Hearsay.

MS. BERTRAND: And relevance, but hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You can answer the question.

A. It was a letter, an open letter to Backpage executives

asking them to shut down Backpage.com because of the concerns

with child sex trafficking and the selling of children for sex.

MS. BERTRAND: Same objection. Hearsay. Move to

strike.

MR. CAMBRIA: Join.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. How big was the -- did you say it was an open letter?

A. It was.

Q. Did you have to pay to publish it?

A. Yes. It was a full-page paid ad.

Q. A full-page paid ad in the New York --

A. In the New York --

Q. -- Times?

A. -- Times, yes.

Q. About how much did that cost your nonprofit organization?

A. About $75,000.

Q. Was it unusual for Auburn to take out full-page ads in the

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 46 of 150
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

13:44:04

13:44:07

13:44:22

13:44:40

13:45:13

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

47

New York Times?

MR. EISENBERG: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. EISENBERG: Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. It was unusual?

A. It was unusual.

Q. In fact, I think you said you were there from '09 to '15.

In the time that you were there, approximately six years, how

many times did you all do this?

A. This one time.

Q. One and only one?

A. Correct.

Q. Could you please describe the content of the ad that was

posted in the New York Times in October of 2011.

MR. CAMBRIA: Object. Hearsay. 401/403.

MS. BERTRAND: Join.

MR. BERRY: This goes -- this is a notice, Your Honor.

MR. FEDER: And 106.

THE COURT: Let me see counsel at sidebar.

(Sidebar discussion begins on the record.)

THE COURT: All right. Can you hear me?

THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 47 of 150
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

13:45:22

13:45:32

13:45:54

13:46:04

13:46:17

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

48

THE COURT: There's several objections. One was

notice. I don't know what that is in reference to. So who

made that --

MR. BERRY: He's saying this goes to --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BERRY: That's my response.

THE COURT: The second concern I have is, and I don't

remember what the exhibit looked like, but I know that there

was a prior ruling that there is nothing to be entered into

with the record regard -- regarding morality or the motive

reference to the Theological Society because it's -- it would

bend into the prejudicial area. So I just reviewed that ruling

a few moments ago.

So to the extent that testimony will come out, I'm

going to sustain any objection related to that pursuant to that

order.

What was the other objection?

MR. EISENBERG: One was relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. EISENBERG: We don't know whether it was seen by

any of the clients. And even if it had been, it has nothing to

do with this meeting and the extent of the meeting of the

people who were there.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. EISENBERG: It was just published, and now it's

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 48 of 150
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

13:46:29

13:46:48

13:47:13

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

49

publicly open.

THE COURT: Well, I think the relevance speaks for

itself in terms of why they had the meeting and they attended

the meeting in the first instance. The inference being that

had it not been for this posting, Mr. Larkin, Mr. Lacey would

not have shown up at the Theological Society. So it actually

is notice --

MR. EISENBERG: I don't know.

THE COURT: -- so --

MR. EISENBERG: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: But what I'm saying --

MR. EISENBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: -- is that to the extent you're going to

go down this avenue about what it said, and if there's anything

in the advertisement that relates to morality objections,

ethical objections, or anything of that nature, sex

trafficking, child sex trafficking, I'm not going to permit it.

MR. BERRY: I understand, Your Honor. If I could be

heard just briefly --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BERRY: -- on that?

So I've got to thread the needle here. So obviously

this was an organization of faith-based leaders who were coming

at this from a different angle than the Attorney Generals, for

example, but they were still trying to get Backpage to shut the

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 49 of 150
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

13:47:27

13:47:41

13:47:51

13:48:07

13:48:22

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

50

site down. So I was asking an open-ended question to avoid a

leading objection.

If, based upon what Your Honor's saying, I'm going to

have to do a little bit more direct questioning to say, did

this letter say X or did this letter say Y, in order to thread

the needle, because otherwise an open-ended response, what did

the ad say, that's going to come out. And I can't stop him

from saying that.

THE COURT: And that's the slippery slope. So I will

permit you to do that, but just be mindful --

MR. BERRY: Understood.

THE COURT: -- that if he starts going down that

avenue, you're going to have to cut him off.

MR. BERRY: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. CAMBRIA: Well, my position is that all the

morality stuff and so on should not be taken out of the article

because this is not -- and I think you should read the article,

because it's extremely prejudicial. It has a number of

conclusions, and it's all hearsay. And there's -- there's no

way we can confront whoever wrote this thing or any of the

so-called conclusions that are in it. And that's the problem

with this.

The morality part, it should be in here. This is --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. CAMBRIA: This is legal.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 50 of 150
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

13:48:37

13:48:47

13:49:00

13:49:12

13:49:19

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

51

THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to reevaluate the

Court's prior order with regard to that.

MR. BERRY: Well, if the defense is okay with morality

language and the United States is okay with it, I think we

could --

THE COURT: Well, then the whole thing comes in.

MR. EISENBERG: No. We don't want it in at all.

MR. BERRY: I'm actually not going to offer the ad at

all. I just want him to describe it.

THE COURT: Follow the ruling and go on.

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, with all due respect, I

think you need to review this, because it has a number of

ultimate conclusions. Clearly hearsay. It's clearly hearsay.

MR. BERRY: It's not being offered for --

MR. CAMBRIA: That's nonsense. If you didn't have --

if it wasn't being offered for the truth, it wouldn't be

offered at all. That's what they want them to believe.

THE COURT: But I'm not permitting the article to come

in. That's the point.

MR. CAMBRIA: I thought that you --

THE COURT: No. I'm not permitting the article to

come in.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

THE COURT: He's -- he can try to elicit what the

purpose of the article was and why the meeting occurred, but

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 51 of 150
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

13:49:31

13:49:40

13:49:55

13:50:05

13:50:18

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

52

he's not going to introduce the article.

MR. CAMBRIA: He shouldn't be in a position to say

what's in the article.

THE COURT: Well, he can.

MR. BERRY: I can ask him questions about what his

involvement was with the writing of it, and I can lay the

foundation for that.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm just saying I don't -- he shouldn't

be able to bring out what's in the article because it's

hearsay.

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, I have a suggestion. If

it's being offered in order to encourage the Backpage

defendants to come to the table, then why doesn't the

government simply link the article up with that event, that is

it got them to come in. And I think --

MR. BERRY: That's where we're going.

MR. EISENBERG: Okay. Then you don't need the article

except to say that the article caused Lacey and Larkin to come

to this meeting.

MR. BERRY: But the jury needs to understand what was

the content of the article that would encourage two maximum

owners of the company to be willing to travel across country

and have a meeting with these people.

THE COURT: And that is permitted. That is permitted

without getting into those statements of morality and ethical

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 52 of 150
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

13:50:29

13:50:40

13:50:53

13:51:01

13:51:11

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

53

issues.

MR. CAMBRIA: But the hearsay is still happening.

THE COURT: It goes to knowledge. It goes to

knowledge.

MR. FEDER: Can I address this knowledge, this notice

issue, because --

THE COURT: Quickly.

MR. FEDER: Okay. Unilaterally you've allowed to go

into a bunch of notice stuff.

THE COURT: As to this.

MR. FEDER: We have no counter to show that there's a

different side of this story so we aren't put in the position

of trying to cross-examine basically smoke, but we're not

allowed to bring in other articles, like the Wall Street

Journal article that we requested be admitted that the Court

denied us.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. FEDER: It has an even-handed explanation.

MR. CAMBRIA: Response of the Attorney General.

THE COURT: You were trying to bring it in for other

purposes in addition to that, and the other purposes --

MR. FEDER: And the reason --

THE COURT: Don't speak over me, Mr. Feder, please.

We need a clean record.

MR. FEDER: Agreed.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 53 of 150
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

13:51:25

13:51:56

13:52:09

13:52:17

13:52:30

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

54

THE COURT: You have a tendency to cut me off.

MR. FEDER: I'll try not to.

THE COURT: Try.

Now, let's go back. We're finished on this issue.

MR. BERRY: Thank you.

(Sidebar discussion begins on the record.)

THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.

MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Okay. Mr. Luria, I am going to ask you a couple of

specific questions about the content of the letter.

Do -- first of all, do you recall generally what it

said?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you involved in crafting the language that was

included in the ad?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you personally involved?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you testified this is the only time you all ever

published such a thing; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So you have a -- still have a good memory of that here all

these many years later?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 54 of 150
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

13:52:52

13:53:11

13:53:29

13:53:49

13:54:16

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

55

Q. Okay. Did the ad address the issue of prostitution in some

form on Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the ad make a request of the owners of Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that request involve asking the owners to shut down the

adult section of Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after the ad was published, did you write and publish

something in the Huffington Post related to Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. And did that take place after the New York Times ad, before

the meeting?

A. Yes, I think so. Yes.

Q. Did what you published also make reference to prostitution

in some form on Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. And did it also ask Backpage to shut down the adult

section?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, before the New York Times ad, so before the meeting in

late 2011, before the New York Times ad, before the Huffington

Post article, were you involved in communications between

Auburn and Backpage representatives of some kind?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 55 of 150
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

13:54:29

13:54:45

13:55:03

13:55:12

13:55:28

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

56

Q. Do you recall approximately when those communications

began?

A. Around August 2011.

Q. And what was the form of those communications?

A. A request for a meeting to express our concerns.

Q. All right. Let me rephrase it.

When I say "the form," was it phone? Email?

A. It started with email.

Q. Okay. Did those communications ultimately lead to the

meeting in late 2011 with Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey?

A. Yes, but I don't think we would have had a meeting without

the publication of the ad.

Q. Okay. Explain that to the jury.

A. They were -- we were attempting to have a meeting to

communicate our concerns about Backpage and what was happening

on the site.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BERTRAND: Move to strike.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You can continue.

A. And they were dragging their feet on having a meeting. We

could -- we wanted to have one quickly because we felt urgency

about the issue at hand. And they were not willing to meet

quickly and wanted to have all of the faith leaders that signed

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 56 of 150
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

13:55:36

13:55:45

13:55:56

13:56:11

13:56:17

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

57

the letter.

MR. FEDER: Object to the narrative and as

nonresponsive.

MR. BERRY: I've asked him to explain.

THE COURT: Well, overruled.

You -- but at this juncture, let's go ahead and ask

another question.

MR. BERRY: Will do, Your Honor.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. So you were having communications with Backpage folks;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you trying to have a meeting with them?

A. Yes.

Q. Were they willing to do so at that time?

A. It seemed like they were, but the conditions were not --

they were -- they were putting conditions on the meeting that

were unreasonable.

Q. Okay. Then ultimately the New York Times ad gets

published; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the tenor of those communications about a meeting

change --

A. Yes.

Q. -- after the publication of the ad?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 57 of 150
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

13:56:28

13:56:41

13:56:50

13:57:04

13:57:20

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

58

A. Yes.

Q. How?

A. They became more litigious, meaning that they were

communicating through lawyers and -- and threatening tones.

And they were open to scheduling a meeting.

Q. But they were also open -- more open to scheduling?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So you said this took place in -- in late 2011.

Do you remember if it was in December or another

month?

A. The meeting?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, the meeting took place in December.

Q. Okay. And you said it took place in New York City;

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And explain to the jury, who may not have been to New York,

sort of where the meeting was in relation to anything else that

they might be familiar with, like New York -- Times Square or

something.

A. North of Times Square on the edge of Harlem in the Upper

West Side. It's -- it's a very famous religious area. It's

where Riverside Church is, the Interchurch Center, and Union

Theological Seminary. It's next to Columbia.

Q. And Columbia is what?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 58 of 150
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

13:57:33

13:57:50

13:58:07

13:58:19

13:58:35

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

59

A. A university.

Q. A prestigious university in New York; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And who -- who attended this meeting, to the best of your

memory?

And you don't have to name each person, but just sort

of generally, who were the folks that were there?

A. A group of representatives from the Backpage executive team

and a lawyer. And then a number of faith leaders. The

Reverend Dr. Katharine Henderson, the president of Auburn; our

executive vice president, the Reverend John Vaughn; and a of

couple other faith leaders that signed the letter. Bishop Gene

Robinson. The Reverend Donna Schaper as well.

Q. Okay. And the -- the folks on the Auburn side, so to

speak, the faith leaders, were they all religious faith leaders

of some kind?

A. Yes. It was a diverse group.

Q. Okay. And I said you don't have to tell me the names of

the folks who were there, but when we talk about the Backpage

folks, can you name who you recall being there?

A. Yes. I recall a lawyer. I believe that was Ed McNally.

Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin. And I believe there was one other

person.

Q. And do you see any of those folks in the courtroom here

today?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 59 of 150
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

13:58:45

13:59:01

13:59:09

13:59:17

13:59:31

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

60

A. I do.

Q. Who do you see in the courtroom today?

A. I see Mike Lacey.

Q. Okay. Can you please -- and if you need to stand up to do

so, that's fine. Could you please identify Mike Lacey in the

courtroom by an article of clothing that he's wearing and

approximately where he's sitting.

A. He's wearing a white shirt and has one of those ties that's

like a -- got a -- like a line tie. I don't know what they

call it. Excuse me. I'm from New York.

Q. A bolo tie?

A. A bolo tie.

Q. All right.

A. And black glasses.

MR. BERRY: All right. Would the record please

reflect that the witness has identified the defendant, Mike

Lacey?

THE COURT: It may.

MR. BERRY: Thank you.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Now, if you would, please explain to the jury the demeanor

that you observed of the Backpage folks when you all got in the

room together.

A. I think everybody was nervous. And they were, too. They

seemed ready to get down to business.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 60 of 150
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

13:59:47

14:00:03

14:00:18

14:00:28

14:00:38

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

61

Q. Did you all shake hands?

A. We all did, yes.

Q. Was it jovial? Businesslike? What was it like?

A. No. It was not -- it was very businesslike. It was not

jovial or warm.

Q. Okay. If you would, just kind of set the stage and explain

to the jury, where's everybody sitting in this room?

A. We're sitting around a square -- large square set of

tables. Religious leaders on one side, and the Backpage

representatives were invited to take a seat across from them.

Q. And where were you sitting in this room?

A. I was sitting off to the side.

Q. Okay. Were there any other folks like you that were

sitting off to the side?

A. No.

Q. So you've got the -- the big wigs at the table, and Isaac

Luria is sitting on the side?

A. Exactly right. Yes.

Q. All right.

A. Yeah, that's right.

Q. Did you clearly see and hear everything that took place in

that meeting?

A. I did. I was actually supposed to take notes, so I did

that.

Q. Okay. Were you nervous in the beginning?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 61 of 150
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

14:00:53

14:01:14

14:01:31

14:01:40

14:02:01

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

62

A. I was.

MR. CAMBRIA: Object to the relevancy of --

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. So once everyone was seated, what happened next?

A. Katharine opened with a prayer that we might be able to

listen to one another and keep the kids that we were advocating

for at the center of our conversation. Then -- should I keep

going or --

Q. Let's stop there for just a second.

Let's -- we've talked about the ad and the article and

the desire to have this meeting and the -- the things that were

said in those ads.

Was -- was the purpose of this meeting the same in

terms of trying to get Backpage to shut down the adult section?

A. Yes.

Q. That was the point?

A. The point was to get them to reconsider their ways and to

shut down Backpage, yes.

Q. Okay. And we're going to talk about that without getting

too religiousy, if we can, if you understand my meaning about

that.

A. I'll do my best.

Q. Okay. So there was a prayer. And then who started talking

for Backpage?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 62 of 150
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

14:02:18

14:02:35

14:02:52

14:03:09

14:03:21

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

63

A. Jim Larkin.

Q. Okay. And what were the things that he was saying?

A. He was going over with a prepared statement the arguments

for why Backpage was actually a good thing to have in the

world, because it would be able to help law enforcement catch

people who were selling children for sex or prostituting

children.

Q. You said he read a prepared statement?

A. He did.

Q. Did he talk about content moderation?

A. He did.

Q. Did he talk about working with law enforcement?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he make an argument for why they should not shut

down the site?

A. Yes. He thought it was both a free speech issue and a good

thing that they -- they had a relationship with law

enforcement.

Q. Then after the -- did the Backpage folks say anything more

at -- in the beginning in that part of it, in their

presentation?

A. They said other things about their religious commitments,

but I'm going to try not to be too --

Q. They talked about their religious commitment?

A. Yes. Jim Larkin talked about the fact that he was a

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 63 of 150
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

14:03:40

14:03:59

14:04:06

14:04:15

14:04:26

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

64

Catholic.

Q. Okay. And then after that was done, what happened next?

A. We responded to the opening statement with -- and

Bishop Gene Robinson, who was the one who took the mic for us,

and he communicated that under no circumstances would we be

comfortable with a website that allowed child sex trafficking

or child prostitution to happen.

Q. Okay. And that message was communicated to --

A. Yes.

Q. -- Mr. Lacey and the others?

Is that a yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Sorry.

And if you would, just let me finish my question

before you answer. I -- I get it. You know what I'm trying to

get at.

A. Okay.

Q. That way the court reporter can get us down sequentially

and the record looks clear.

Is that okay?

A. Okay.

Q. Thank you.

While the bishop was -- was making the -- the Auburn

side of the argument about why they should shut this site down,

did -- did you observe anything about Mr. Lacey?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 64 of 150
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

14:04:35

14:04:40

14:05:06

14:05:14

14:05:38

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

65

MR. CAMBRIA: Object to the leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You can answer --

A. Yes.

Q. -- the question.

I'm sorry?

A. Yes, I did observe something about Mr. Lacey.

Q. What did you observe?

A. That he was growing increasingly agitated.

Q. Did he do anything as the bishop was talking?

A. Yes. He -- he ended up interrupting the bishop and

beginning to express his views.

Q. And, if you would, please explain to the jury what were

those views that he was articulating?

MR. FEDER: Relevance.

THE WITNESS: He would --

MR. FEDER: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: He was frustrated that we were having

this meeting. He didn't understand why religious leaders would

stick their noses in his -- in Backpage's business, and that he

also said something to the effect of adults -- consenting

adults can do what consenting adults want to do. Why would you

stop them?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 65 of 150
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

14:05:50

14:05:58

14:06:10

14:06:25

14:06:34

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

66

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. And what did you take that to mean when he said that --

MR. CAMBRIA: Object.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. -- based upon the overall conversation?

MR. BERRY: I think Mr. Cambria had an objection.

MR. CAMBRIA: It's not relevant.

THE COURT: Okay. I was waiting for the -- I was

waiting for the basis --

MR. CAMBRIA: Well --

THE COURT: -- for the objection. I'll sustain.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Did you -- based upon the whole tenor of the conversation,

the lead-up to the meeting, everything that had been said up to

that point, when he said that, were you able to draw a

conclusion about what you -- what you understood him to be

trying to convey to everyone in that room?

MR. CAMBRIA: That's objected to.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. CAMBRIA: Calls for a conclusion. That's why.

MS. BERTRAND: It's also speculative.

THE COURT: It was -- well, the question's calling for

his --

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- experience and his opinion as to what

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 66 of 150
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

14:06:40

14:06:46

14:06:53

14:06:59

14:07:17

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

67

he saw.

MR. CAMBRIA: It's calling for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: And speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FEDER: And relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Do you need to reask the question or have the court

reporter read it back?

MR. BERRY: I think I'll be okay, but let's check with

Mr. Luria.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Do you understand what my question was about were you able

to draw a conclusion --

A. Yes.

Q. -- about what he meant, what you understood him to mean?

A. Yes.

Q. Please explain that.

A. It wasn't just my conclusion.

Q. Well, let's only talk about yours.

A. My conclusion was that he believed prostitution was

occurring on the website and that that was legitimate.

MR. CAMBRIA: Object to that and move that it be

struck.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 67 of 150
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

14:07:30

14:08:04

14:08:20

14:08:39

14:08:49

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

68

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. At any point did -- while Mr. Lacey was talking, did

Mr. Larkin do anything?

A. Mr. Larkin attempted to get Mr. Lacey to stop talking.

Q. How did the meeting ultimately end?

A. We engaged in dialogue for a few more -- you know, 10 or

20 more minutes. At that -- after Mr. Lacey's remarks,

Bishop Robinson engaged him again and said: I'm not talking

about right now. I'm not talking about prostitution between

adults. I'm talking about the prostitution of children. Can't

we agree that that's out of bounds?

Q. And what was their response to that?

A. This is what we're doing with law enforcement. This is how

we're trying to stop that.

Q. Did -- was there ever an ultimate ask of Backpage during

that meeting?

A. Yes, to shut down the site.

Q. And what was the response of -- of Mr. Lacey or Mr. Larkin?

A. No.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. The answer was no.

Q. No what?

A. I will not -- they will not shut down the site.

We also asked if they would shut down the site while

we were in dialogue as well, and they also said no.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 68 of 150
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

14:09:07

14:09:16

14:09:24

14:09:37

14:09:54

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

69

Q. Explain that to the jury.

A. Well, we felt urgently that every day unconscionable acts

were happening on the platform on Backpage, and if they would

shut it down while we engaged in dialogue.

MR. FEDER: Relevance. Move to strike as

nonresponsive.

MR. BERRY: I asked him to explain it.

MR. FEDER: His explain is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You can keep explaining.

Do you need me to --

A. That if we were able to get Backpage shut for any period of

time, that that would be a victory.

Q. And they said?

A. No.

Q. In the days and weeks following the meeting, did you have

an opportunity to observe the website Backpage again?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you observe?

A. That it was online and continuing to operate.

Q. Had they made any changes that you could discern?

A. Not that I noticed.

Q. Did you learn anything about the traffic reports on the

site?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 69 of 150
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

14:10:05

14:10:13

14:10:21

14:10:36

14:10:59

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

70

A. Yes.

Q. Explain that to the jury.

A. One of the things that we monitored was how much traffic

the site was getting, and that helped us understand how many

ads were being posted on the site.

MS. BERTRAND: Your Honor, objection. Lack of

foundation. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You may keep going.

A. And we believed that, based on traffic reports, that

traffic was going up for the site.

Q. It was actually going up?

A. Correct.

Q. And the site was not shut down?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you and Auburn take any additional actions after the

meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. What actions did you all take?

A. We sent letters to Backpage representatives immediately

after the meeting summarizing our arguments and asking and

pleading with them to shut down the site. They responded also

with letters of their own written by their lawyer in which they

shared with us -- with us.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 70 of 150
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

14:11:10

14:11:19

14:11:35

14:11:47

14:11:55

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

71

Q. You don't have to get into what this is they're saying, but

there were continued exchanges?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Meaning additional actions. I mean, did -- did your

campaign against Backpage, did you all take any additional

actions?

A. We did.

Q. Explain that to the jury.

A. We continued throughout the end of the winter and early

spring to collect petitions from the general public to --

asking Backpage to -- and Village Voice Media at the time was

the owner of Backpage, for Village Voice Media to shut down

Backpage.

Q. Did you do anything to target advertisers with Village

Voice?

A. We did. Following the delivery of the petitions to the

Village Voice headquarters --

MR. EISENBERG: Objection, Your Honor, as to the

relevance of this. It doesn't go to notice.

MR. BERRY: If I could be heard?

THE COURT: I'm going to overrule.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You may go ahead.

A. We delivered petitions to Village Voice headquarters in

New York with a rally of about 75 people and faith leaders. We

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 71 of 150
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

14:12:22

14:12:45

14:12:53

14:13:04

14:13:22

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

72

put boxes of petitions outside their office doors and stacked

kids' shoes, the shoes of children, outside the door to

symbolize the people that had been sold for sex on Backpage.

Following that, we initiated -- because we did not

receive a positive outcome. You know, there was no -- the

Backpage continued to operate. We began to speak to

advertisers on Village Voice Media properties informing them

that Backpage was providing a platform for prostitution of

children and that they should know about that. Those

advertisers like Best Buy --

MR. EISENBERG: Same objection, Your Honor. Excuse

me. Same objection. It doesn't go to notice. This is a

political --

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You may keep going.

A. Advertisers included Target, Best Buy, a number of

airlines. And when informed, a number of them actually pulled

their advertising.

We decided to do that because we knew that only

financial pain for the company would choose -- would have them

choose to shut down this site.

MR. BERRY: If I could have just a second.

THE COURT: You have about two more minutes before we

take our break.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 72 of 150
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

14:13:40

14:13:57

14:33:58

14:34:16

14:34:39

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

73

MR. BERRY: Perfect. I think I'm done. Just give me

one second.

Pass the witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, since we're on -- at

that stage, the witness may step down for our afternoon break.

And, members of the jury, just remember the

admonition. We'll be on our 20-minute afternoon break. And

then hopefully we aim to get out promptly at 4:00 so that we

can beat all of that traffic.

So please all rise for the jury.

2:35.

THE COURT: Sir, you may step down.

(Recess from 2:13 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.)

(Jury not present at 2:33 p.m.)

THE COURT: Before we have the witness in,

Mr. Eisenberg.

MR. EISENBERG: Thank you, Your Honor.

Your Honor, I am going to address the Court with

respect to this testimony by Mr. Luria, and it's in the context

of now we've gotten beyond what Your Honor has ordered with

respect to what can happen with this witness and what he can

testify to and what I believe has now been a -- the jury has

been prejudiced, highly prejudiced by this testimony.

First I'm going to start with what Mr. Luria quoted

the bishop, I think it's Bishop Robinson, saying at the meeting

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 73 of 150
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

14:35:01

14:35:23

14:35:44

14:36:03

14:36:20

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

74

where he says: I'm -- I am not talking about adult

prostitution. I am talking about child prostitution.

And that is an element of this case that, I believe,

the Court has painstakingly directed the government to avoid.

The next thing that happened was now we're beyond the

meeting. And outside of that meeting later on, I think the

testimony of Mr. Luria was that they were doing up petitions.

That must be the seminary was doing up petitions against

Backpage. And they put shoes of children outside the door. I

assume that's the door, perhaps, of where Backpage is located.

So children has now been mentioned twice with respect

to this case, and the jury has heard it. And I believe that's

highly prejudicial to the point where we have a tainted jury.

The next thing he said was, "We spoke to advertisers

to try to get them," I believe in the context of taking their

business away from Backpage.

Whatever that has to do with notice, which is what I

think Auburn was originally offered for, is way beyond a

notice, and now we're getting into the advocacy of the seminary

in terms of what they are trying to do.

Well, that's not the issue for this jury, but they've

been advised by the seminarian that prostitution was taking

place, including child prostitution.

So I think we've come to the point, Your Honor, where

the jury's tainted.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 74 of 150
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

14:36:37

14:36:56

14:37:16

14:37:38

14:37:53

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

75

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Berry?

MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

With regard to what he said about the bishop trying to

articulate a distinction between adult prostitution and child

prostitution, Mr. Luria used the word prostitution. And that's

what's the critical point here, is that whether it had to do

with children, force, not forced, independent, not independent,

with a pimp, the case is about prostitution, and he used the

word prostitution. He didn't use the world child sex

trafficking, which is arguably more problematic.

But really importantly at this point, Your Honor, I

think the defendants' motion with regard to this issue have

been dramatically undermined by the 101 exhibits that they

moved into evidence in the cross-examination of Mr. Ferrer.

I'm happy to brief and articulate this for the Court,

but there are dozens of instances in the exhibits that they

introduced and admitted at trial that reference child sex

trafficking, juveniles, juveniles being rescued, pimps, things

like that. At this point, Your Honor, the defense has now

admitted as much, if not more evidence with regards to child

sex trafficking than the United States has, and we think that

argument is now moot.

But the bottom line is what Mr. Luria said was the

word prostitution, and that's what the statute says.

THE COURT: Well, I'll make my ruling. And we'll

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 75 of 150
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

14:38:20

14:38:50

14:39:18

14:39:26

14:39:35

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

76

continue on because my recollection of this witness's

testimony, in fact, I think also included the fact that

Mr. Lacey, Mr. Larkin were expressing to them, we'll help in

any way we can, law enforcement, with regard to children. So

it undercuts that notion in my -- in my view, which is really

irrelevant, but I think it's fair to say that the -- some of

the jurors could see it that way as well.

And so, to that point, I don't think it's my

conclusion that the witness's testimony has tainted the jury at

this point. And there's been cumulative evidence to show that,

indeed, they were communicating and publishing to the world

that they were communicating with law enforcement.

But let me move to a different point here. So your

objection is noted. I didn't hear you move for a mistrial, but

that's the inference that I drew.

MR. EISENBERG: And I intended to do that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And so I'm not going to grant that --

MR. EISENBERG: Right.

THE COURT: -- based on what I view the -- the

witness's testimony to be so far.

MR. CAMBRIA: Could I make one comment about that

issue before you move to the next one?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah.

THE COURT: Quickly.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 76 of 150
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

14:39:55

14:40:18

14:40:39

14:40:59

14:41:21

ISAAC LURIA - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

77

MR. CAMBRIA: Two things: In all the exhibits that

were moved in, there was no accusation that Backpage was

committing any kind of child trafficking. That's number 1.

And -- and so there's -- that's a vast difference.

Here that's exactly what this witness is saying their

mission was, is to communicate to Backpage that they were, in

fact, trafficking children. And then they talk about putting

all the little shoes and so on, which is very emotional,

very -- very much prejudicial, Your Honor. I say that as a

father of six girls. I know that bothers me that they would --

you know, just that optic. And that's the difference.

There was no accusation against us in any of these

at -- attaboys, if you will, that were put in under -- that the

exhibit he was talking about, 100 -- 101, I think it was, as

opposed to now, as to what he's saying here now.

He clearly said that they accused Backpage of that,

and then the demonstrative was the shoes and so on to make it

even more visually prejudicial. That's the difference.

THE COURT: Well, and I'll remind defense counsel that

I think it was Mr. Lincenberg, and everyone joined in, who said

no more correcting curative instruction to this jury that none

of our clients are charged with child trafficking.

And so you've made your position known on that. I was

inclined to raise it at this juncture because of the one

statement he made about the shoes at the door, but we're beyond

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 77 of 150
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

14:41:40

14:41:46

14:42:39

14:43:18

14:43:27

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

78

that now.

And so your objection is noted and my ruling stands.

MR. CAMBRIA: Could I comment on the Lincenberg thing?

That's because no instruction could undo the situation.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. CAMBRIA: No instruction could eliminate the

prejudice.

THE COURT: Well, I disagree, and I will give the

instruction at the end of the trial.

Now, let me just raise one other point -- or, no. Let

me just have the jury in, because I'll raise it at the end of

the day. And so let's have the witness on the stand and the

jury in.

All rise for the jury.

(Jury present at 2:42 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

And the witness -- excuse me. I'm sorry. The record

will reflect the witness is on the stand and the jury is

present.

And, Mr. Cambria, you may continue.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Luria.

A. Good afternoon.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 78 of 150
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

14:43:43

14:43:54

14:44:11

14:44:28

14:44:39

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

79

Q. Is it fair to say that each side, so to speak, was quite

passionate about their beliefs; in other words, all the

religious people and then Mr. Larkin, Mr. Lacey, the First

Amendment people?

A. At the -- at the meeting?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And I can't hear, so I have to put these babies on.

A. Okay.

Q. And so there was a degree of e- -- of emotion at that

particular meeting, was there not?

A. Yes.

Q. I mean, the religious leaders 100 percent believe in what

they believe in. Fair to say?

A. Yes.

Q. And clearly Mr. Larkin, Mr. Lacey are passionate about

their First Amendment, and so on; correct?

A. I'm not sure I would agree.

Q. Okay. Well, they obviously were talking about their

beliefs, were they not?

A. They were, but they had a financial interest.

Q. Well, so did you. So do the religious leaders.

Don't the religious leaders --

A. In what sense?

Q. Don't the religious leaders ask for money?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 79 of 150
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

14:44:56

14:45:07

14:45:25

14:45:44

14:45:50

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

80

A. To help people.

Q. That's obviously what the goal is; correct? But they,

nevertheless, ask for money, don't they?

A. I don't see the comparison at all.

Q. That wasn't the question.

The question is that they request for money by

religious organizations all the time; isn't that true?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Isn't that true?

A. Technically, yes.

Q. Okay. As a matter of fact, in some of the communications

here that dealt with Backpage, wasn't there also an area on

there where you could -- where you were soliciting for money?

A. Yes.

Q. So religious leaders obviously also ask for money for

things they believe in emotionally; correct?

THE COURT: Mr. Cambria, I'm sorry. I'm going to have

to have you use the microphone.

MR. CAMBRIA: Stay here?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. Sorry.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. True?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 80 of 150
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

14:45:56

14:46:11

14:46:22

14:46:36

14:46:44

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

81

A. The comparison to beliefs in prostitution you're making

is --

Q. Well, that's your opinion; correct?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Well, at this meeting was there a discussion about

the number of Catholic priests that have committed crimes

against young people?

A. There was.

Q. Ah. And, of course, that's serious, is it not?

A. It is.

Q. Did you take out an ad in the New York Times about that?

A. We did not.

Q. No.

Well, you know for a fact that that happened; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And by religious people of all individuals?

A. Yes.

Q. And, still, that didn't motivate any of your religious

leaders there to take out an ad in the New York Times and

complain about it?

A. I think there's a difference in the systemic --

Q. I'm sure --

A. -- financial --

Q. -- you do.

But nobody has done that, have they?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 81 of 150
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

14:46:54

14:47:04

14:47:14

14:47:29

14:47:47

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

82

A. I mean, not -- I just -- again, I don't think the

comparison is fair.

Q. I -- fine.

The question was, has anybody done that? Anybody

criticized their own for things that actually happened?

A. That -- in that room, absolutely people criticized --

Q. Okay.

A. -- their own.

Q. Did you take out an ad, or did you just keep it in the

room?

A. We -- they've published op-eds. They've said so in

closed-door meetings. They've done lots.

I mean, if you knew these leaders, you wouldn't be

saying this.

Q. Okay. Well, the point is that there are -- isn't there an

old saying about cast the first stone?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Well, let's get back to this.

A. Shockingly.

Q. You said -- it is.

You set this meeting up, and the point of the meeting

was supposedly to have a dialogue between the religious leaders

and the people at Backpage to discuss an issue; correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And your --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 82 of 150
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

14:47:52

14:48:04

14:48:21

14:48:30

14:48:38

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

83

THE COURT: Is that a yes?

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. -- side --

THE COURT: Please answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Excuse me.

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, they don't have an uh-huh key on the

typer, or whatever.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. So, anyway, the point was to have a meeting and see whether

or not differences could be resolved; true?

A. If we could convince them that Backpage should be shut

down.

Q. Okay. Were you familiar with the fact that when the adult

section of Craigslist was shut down that it was a negative and

not a positive?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm asking if he's familiar with it.

MR. BERRY: Objection to the form.

THE WITNESS: Your definition of negative and

positives haven't been communicated.

MR. BERRY: Let him rule -- let the judge rule.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. I'm going to --

THE COURT: Wait. There was an objection. Let me

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 83 of 150
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

14:48:43

14:49:03

14:49:16

14:49:19

14:49:29

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

84

rule.

I sustain the objection.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Are you familiar with the fact that when Craigslist took

down their adult section that the ads migrated to other areas

on Craigslist?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you --

A. I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with the migrating to other

areas of Craigslist. I am to Backpage, yes.

Q. Okay. Well, we're talking about Craigslist now. I'm

asking you -- because Backpage hadn't shut down the adult

section. Craigslist did.

You know that; right?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Did you --

A. Yes.

Q. -- know that then?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you follow up as to whether or not that was

a good thing or a bad thing?

A. We considered it in our discussions and believed that

ultimately it would be better if Backpage were to shut down.

Q. That's not the question. The question was, you knew about

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 84 of 150
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

14:49:45

14:49:53

14:50:02

14:50:13

14:50:24

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

85

Craigslist. You knew they shut down the adult section.

And the question was, did you know that that turned

out to be a negative thing?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Foundation.

THE WITNESS: I don't know that.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. You don't. Okay.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection, but the answer

may stay.

Go ahead.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Do you recall that you were interviewed by an FBI agent?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And they created a typed?

A. Yes.

Q. Yeah. And you reviewed that, did you not?

A. I've been shown it, but I don't -- I have not reviewed it

recently.

Q. Well, when they showed it to you, did you close your eyes

or something?

A. Could I see the document in question?

Q. No. I'm just asking you a question.

Did you review it?

A. They scrolled quickly through it a couple of months ago.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 85 of 150
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

14:50:55

14:51:01

14:51:06

14:51:11

14:51:25

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

86

Q. I see. Well, do you recall that you said that you got the

impression that Lacey did not object to adult prostitution?

MR. BERRY: Objection, Your Honor. You can't impeach

with another person's statement.

MR. CAMBRIA: This was his statement.

MR. BERRY: This witness --

THE COURT: Well, a --

MR. BERRY: -- has not identified -- adopted the

agent's report.

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, all right.

THE COURT: I'm going to --

MR. CAMBRIA: I'll take care of it.

THE COURT: I'll sustain.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'll do it.

THE COURT: Mr. Cambria, let's not talk over one

another. Okay?

MR. CAMBRIA: I apologize, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. You reviewed that statement, did you?

A. I -- I did a few months ago.

Q. All right. Did you disagree with what was in there, what

they said you said?

A. There were some issues with the timeline, and I -- I said

that -- said so at the time.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 86 of 150
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

14:51:35

14:51:49

14:52:06

14:52:22

14:52:38

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

87

Q. All right. Just the timeline?

A. I'm not sure if that's the full -- I mean, I'd love to see

the document. I feel like it's being hidden from me.

Q. Who's hiding it from you?

A. Well, I asked for it, and I haven't received it.

Q. Because I'm still asking you questions about your memory.

When you reviewed the statement, did you point out

anything other than the timeline?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Okay. Do you recall saying that you got the impression

that Mr. Lacey was okay with adult prostitution?

A. I believe I said that, yes --

Q. All right.

A. -- but I'm not -- again, I would like to see the document.

Q. All right. But my -- the next question, though, is this:

You're not claiming that he made a statement like that. You

said that was your impression; correct?

A. It was the thrust of his arguments in the meeting.

Q. But you used the word "impression," did you not?

A. I don't know if that was my word or the agent's word.

Q. Okay. Now, but you didn't -- you just told us that you

didn't object to anything except the timeline.

A. Again, the phrasing of the sentence could mean that the

agent said that or I did, and I'd like to see the sentence.

Q. Okay. Do you recall objecting to anything but the

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 87 of 150
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

14:52:55

14:53:05

14:53:23

14:53:37

14:53:50

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

88

timeline?

A. I don't think so, no.

Q. Okay. Now, next thing. You had a -- an agreement that

there was going to be a meeting between several religious

leaders and people from Backpage; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And you had set that up. And there was how

many religious organizations that were originally going to be

part of that?

A. There were, I believe, 16 signatories, all of whom signed

in personal capacities, not organizational capacities.

Q. Okay. And so originally the agreement with the Backpage

people was that all those religious leaders were going to show

up?

A. That was not the agreement. That's what they wanted.

Q. All right. What was the agreement?

A. There was not an agreement to have a meeting that included

all of them. We said we would have representatives join us.

Q. All right. How many were there?

A. I believe there were four, maybe -- no, there were five. I

believe there were five.

Q. Out of 16?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And that meeting, the religious leaders had an

attorney with them, did they not?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 88 of 150
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

14:54:00

14:54:12

14:54:19

14:54:31

14:54:41

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

89

A. To protect against --

Q. I'm not asking that.

The question is, did they have an attorney with them?

A. Yes. Absolutely.

Q. All right. And now you want to tell us to protect what?

A. Are you asking a question?

Q. Yes.

A. What's -- what's the question? I'm sorry.

Q. All right. Let's start this way: The religious leaders

were there, and they had their own attorney; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And Mr. Lacey and Larkin were there, and they

had their attorney --

A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?

All right. And do you remember his name?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Irrelevance about the

attorney, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: Irrelevant?

MR. BERRY: And prior order.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. All right. But there's no denying that there were

attorneys there from both sides?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 89 of 150
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

14:54:59

14:55:26

14:55:42

14:56:01

14:56:11

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

90

Q. All right. Now, did there come a time when the religious

people put out a statement, if you will, about Backpage to

advertisers?

A. Yes.

Q. And was there a request by the Backpage attorney,

Mr. McNally, that their, meaning Backpage's, response to your

letter be sent to these people as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of the things that your religious group indicates

that they stand for is transparency; right?

A. I'm not sure where you got that word.

Q. Well, religiously, if you're religious leaders, are they

transparent, this group --

A. I mean, it's --

Q. -- that you're of?

A. It's a value that religious folks have, sure.

Q. Okay. And they want to be open and honest; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And so when you submitted your letter, if you will,

to various advertisers, Backpage said, well, we would like to

submit our response to that --

MR. BERRY: Objection.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. -- right?

MR. BERRY: Hearsay.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 90 of 150
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

14:56:15

14:56:32

14:56:43

14:56:50

14:56:53

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

91

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. You were there to hear that?

THE COURT: Well, sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Were you specifically contacted by Mr. McNally asking you

to distribute Backpage's response to your letter?

MR. BERRY: Again, objection. Hearsay. Hearsay as to

what Mr. McNally asked or said.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Were you asked to distribute a letter --

A. What --

Q. -- answering your allegations in what you submitted?

MR. BERRY: Again. Objection. Same.

MR. CAMBRIA: How could that be --

THE COURT: Overruled.

He could answer yes or no.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Yes, we were asked --

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. All right.

A. -- that.

Q. And did that happen?

A. No.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 91 of 150
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

14:57:12

14:57:21

14:57:31

14:57:47

14:58:00

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

92

Q. And you were -- you were the one asked to do it; correct?

A. I communicated that interest to the team that was working

on it, and no one felt that we needed an addendum on our views.

Q. Well, how about a clarification on your views?

A. Why would we do that from --

Q. Maybe to --

A. -- our side?

Q. -- get to the truth.

A. We had enough information to make good judgments about what

was occurring on the site.

Q. So somebody else's difference of opinion you disregarded?

A. This is not a difference of opinion. It's a statement of

fact.

Q. That's your position.

A. Were children being prostituted on Backpage?

Q. Yeah, the -- the letter that they wanted to submit

basically went down chapter and verse answering your letter,

did it not?

A. It did.

Q. It did.

And the decision was made by you and others not to

give the others that you sent your letter to the benefit of the

other side; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And, in fact, didn't you suggest, well, why don't you

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 92 of 150
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

14:58:12

14:58:17

14:58:31

14:58:44

14:58:59

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

93

communicate with them yourselves?

A. They had every right to.

Q. But that's what you suggested; right?

A. They were their advertisers.

Q. I understand.

A. It's their business --

Q. That's not my question.

A. -- partners.

THE COURT: All right. Please do not speak over one

another.

Listen to the question carefully and answer it if you

can.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. So the question was, you indicated to Mr. McNally that if

they want to communicate, they should do it themselves;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And then you were asked, okay, can we have a

list of the people that you communicated with; right?

A. We said no. Yes.

Q. And you said -- you said yes.

You gave them a partial list, didn't you?

A. At -- yes, it was a partial list.

Q. Yeah. And didn't they point out to you that they thought

California and Colorado were left off the list?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 93 of 150
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

14:59:07

14:59:11

14:59:22

14:59:29

14:59:37

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

94

MR. BERRY: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Well --

A. Yes.

Q. -- all right.

THE COURT: Okay. Well --

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. So --

THE COURT: -- let me -- we've lost a little control

here this afternoon.

Listen to the question. Answer it if you can. When

there's an objection, please let me rule, and then --

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: -- we can continue from there. All right?

MR. BERRY: Your Honor, if I could?

Mr. Luria's obviously not a lawyer.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BERRY: Perhaps it would be helpful if you

explained what you mean when you say "sustained" or

"overruled."

THE COURT: All right. I thought maybe you had

covered that with him.

MR. BERRY: I thought I did, but maybe I didn't.

THE COURT: All right. When I sustain an objection,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 94 of 150
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

14:59:46

14:59:53

15:00:05

15:00:11

15:00:24

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

95

that means don't say anything else. If I overrule the

objection --

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: -- you may answer it. Okay?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: And if you need to have the question

repeated to you because that exchange has occurred, I

completely understand. You may ask to do that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. And Mr. Cambria promises not

to speak over you when you're answering.

MR. CAMBRIA: Hand to God.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Question: So the list that you gave them wasn't complete,

was it?

A. Yes.

Q. It was?

A. I'm sorry. It was not complete.

Q. Not.

And they pointed out that they believed that

California and Colorado were left off the list; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said, well, the reason for that is when you were

putting the list together, your mother-in-law got in a car

accident, hit a deer, and you couldn't -- you didn't put the --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 95 of 150
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

15:00:38

15:01:03

15:01:33

15:01:49

15:01:56

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

96

the list together?

A. I made an error. Yes.

Q. Yeah. But that's what you said. She hit a deer, and

that's the reason why two were left out; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So then eventually what happened is your letter went

out, and their letter responding did not go to all the same

organizations; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, of the religious leaders who were there that day, to

your knowledge, have any of them participated with law

enforcement authorities to investigate abuse, sexual abuse,

whether it be men, women, or so on?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Foundation and relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Well, my question is, to your knowledge, did anyone in that

room have experience with working with law enforcement to fight

crime involving prostitution?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. CAMBRIA: It's completely --

THE COURT: He may answer if he can.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. You can answer that, please.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 96 of 150
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

15:02:14

15:02:26

15:02:43

15:03:06

15:03:23

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

97

A. I'm thinking back to the group. They have a variety of

different community experience. Some had experience working

with law enforcement as pastors on the street. Some had

experience working with particularly trans youth, who are often

trafficked. A number of them worked with -- over the years of

their ministry with different communities that had experienced

sexual violence.

So, yeah, there were a number of people who had -- who

had experience.

Q. Do you know if any of them had provided records to law

enforcement authorities that helped them fight

prostitution-type crimes?

A. I'm -- I don't know about that.

Q. Do you know whether or not any of them have appeared as

fact witnesses in trials to help?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you -- have you at any time learned of the numbers of

subpoenas that Backpage has responded to for police authorities

in connection with investigations?

A. I did receive some of that information during this effort.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't remember it offhand.

Q. All right. And how about did you receive any information

about how many times people from Backpage testified for the

prosecution?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 97 of 150
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

15:03:37

15:03:57

15:04:20

15:04:31

15:04:50

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

98

MR. BERRY: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember specifically.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. But you remember that you were given that information. You

just don't remember the specifics?

A. Specific details, no, I don't.

Q. No. Okay.

Do you know whether or not some of the membership --

how many religious organizations were represented that day when

the Backpage people came up?

A. I think 12 different organizations. But it was a mix of

them, and it's hard to be specific. There were denominations

which were different than, obviously, individual churches.

Q. Okay. Were any of them representatives of Catholic

churches?

A. No.

Q. No.

Were -- did you -- do you know whether or not -- do

you know who the Episcopal church and leader was who was at

that meeting?

A. Well, there were two leaders. Bishop Gene Robinson was the

leader who spoke on behalf of us. But the other Episcopal

leader on the letter, Bishop Schori, was not present, and she

led the Episcopal church at that time.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 98 of 150
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

15:05:04

15:05:13

15:05:21

15:05:41

15:05:58

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

99

Q. Did you know that Bishop Schori had hired in her church an

admitted child molester priest?

A. I did hear --

MR. BERRY: Objection.

THE WITNESS: I did hear --

MR. CAMBRIA: We need the answer.

MR. BERRY: Relevance.

MR. CAMBRIA: Very relevant.

MR. BERRY: Prejudicial. It doesn't pertain to this

case.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: I can't ask that question?

THE COURT: I sustained the objection, Mr. Cambria.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Well, here. Let me ask you this question: Of the group

that was there that day, do you know if any of them had filed a

public protest against the leader of that Episcopal church?

MR. BERRY: Again, objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. So is it your belief that the people who showed up there

that day representing various religious organizations were in

some way immune from criticism for activities that might have

happened in their churches --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 99 of 150
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

15:06:05

15:06:33

15:06:45

15:06:55

15:07:08

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

100

MR. BERRY: Objection.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. -- that were against the law?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Compound question.

THE COURT: As to the form of the question, sustained.

Mr. Cambria, you can re- -- rephrase.

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, I'd like to ask that. He

responded to the question that I asked and with regard to the

former Catholic priest at the Episcopal, and I wanted to follow

that up to see if they did anything about it.

THE COURT: Well, rephrase the question. It was

compound, so --

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Well, we established, did we not, that the Episcopal church

had hired a priest who was a pedophile?

MR. BERRY: Objection. That issue was sustained by

the Court.

THE COURT: It was sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm asking that we revisit then, Your

Honor. I think it's relevant to see if they did anything about

it.

MR. BERRY: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: It has been asked and answered,

Mr. Cambria. And I sustained the objection, so let's move on.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 100 of 150
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

15:07:27

15:07:50

15:08:01

15:08:56

15:09:11

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

101

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Are you familiar with -- I'm sorry. I may have asked this

already. I'm starting to turn the corner here, I guess.

Are you -- I -- are you familiar -- are you familiar

with the fact that if a website is something that's offshore,

not under the jurisdiction of the United States authorities,

that process cannot be served on them?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Foundation. Compound.

THE COURT: Well, I think he -- he can answer yes or

no because it's calling for whether he's familiar with the

subject. So if he can answer -- he can answer yes or no if he

is.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. And so if, for example, in Craigslist's situation the adult

section was shut down and that traffic went to an overseas

platform, a subpoena wouldn't do any good, would it?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Are you familiar with any of the statistics of NCMEC?

Do you know what NCMEC is?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Are you familiar with whether or not

organizations like Facebook have reported 20 million incidents

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 101 of 150
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

15:09:34

15:09:56

15:10:05

15:10:18

15:10:30

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

102

of in- -- situations involving children and criminal acts?

A. I'm familiar that Facebook reported them, but I don't know

the number specifically.

Q. Well, it was a very significant number.

A. Significant, yes.

Q. Yes.

And has this group that was having a discussion with

Backpage, have they met with anybody from Facebook to see

whether or not there's certain portions of Facebook that should

be shut down?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: We did not. We were focused on

Backpage.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Okay. And how about TikTok? You know that TikTok has also

reported over 20,000 incidents involving children?

A. I don't know if TikTok was around when I was working on

this.

Q. Okay. What other groups were around when you went -- that

had high report numbers to NCMEC?

A. I'm not sure. I'd have to look at the report again.

Q. But there were others, were there not?

A. There were.

Q. And did your group contact any of them and see whether or

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 102 of 150
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

15:10:43

15:11:03

15:11:21

15:11:34

15:11:43

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

103

not they should change the way they operate?

A. Our intent was to ensure that --

Q. That's not the question.

A. -- Backpage --

Q. The question is, did you contact any of them to discuss

that their ways of operating should be changed?

A. We coordinated with other groups who did.

Q. Oh, okay. What -- and so what groups, then, did you ask to

change their protocols or change the way they operated?

A. We coordinated with the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children, who talked with us about the most important

threats to kids being trafficked, and they identified Backpage.

Q. Yeah. But, also, it -- Backpage was nothing compared to

the reports from Facebook.

A. We appreciated the expertise of the leading organization on

the issue.

Q. Well, Facebook was over 20 million, wasn't it?

A. Again, I don't have the statistics in front of me.

Q. And Facebook, you know, is a million-dollar-plus

contributor to NCMEC?

You know that?

A. Did not.

Q. Did not.

And they're -- TikTok, multimillion-dollar

contributor.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 103 of 150
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

15:11:48

15:12:06

15:12:19

15:12:58

15:13:15

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

104

Did you know that?

A. I did not.

MR. BERRY: Objection to foundation and relevance,

Your Honor.

MR. CAMBRIA: I asked him if he knew.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Have you ever gone on the website of Backpage -- I'm sorry.

Not Backpage -- of Facebook?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Have you typed in the word -- the letters GFE?

A. Ah, no.

Q. No.

Have you typed in female escort?

A. No.

Q. No.

Were you aware of a substantial number of law

enforcement agencies thanking Backpage for their assistance in

fighting crime involving adults, children, sexual activities?

A. I was aware that some congratulated, but I was also aware

of the Attorneys General who thought that Backpage should shut

down.

Q. Yeah. But the Attorney General didn't ask for records and

fight crime in the streets like the law enforcement agencies

do, did they?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 104 of 150
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

15:13:24

15:13:37

15:13:48

15:13:54

15:14:00

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

105

MR. BERRY: Objection to foundation and relevance.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Well, that's common knowledge, is it not?

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. That's all I have.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Bertrand?

MS. BERTRAND: I have nothing of this witness. Thank

you.

THE COURT: Mr. Panchapakesan?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Nothing, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Feder or Mr. Kessler? Mr. Feder?

MR. FEDER: No, thanks.

THE COURT: Mr. Eisenberg?

MR. EISENBERG: Yes, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Mr. Luria, good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. I represent the gentleman to my left, Mr. Padilla.

He wasn't at that meeting that you talked about --

A. Correct.

Q. -- correct?

A. Yes.

Q. He -- yes, he wasn't?

A. He was not at the meeting.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 105 of 150
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

15:14:14

15:14:29

15:14:47

15:15:03

15:15:14

ISAAC LURIA - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

106

Q. All right. Thank you, sir.

I'm going to follow up just a little bit on what my

colleague, Mr. Cambria, asked you about, TikTok and Facebook,

so it's going to be very defined.

First, when did you leave Auburn?

A. The end of 2015.

Q. Okay. Do you still maintain any kind of relationship with

the people there or the seminary itself?

A. I do.

Q. Do you know since you have left Auburn whether the seminary

has approached TikTok with respect to the issue of its content?

A. I do not.

Q. Same question with respect to Facebook. And, again, I'll

just put it in context.

Do you know whether the seminary since you have left

has contacted Facebook with respect to its content?

A. I do not.

Q. And do you know -- well, are you currently associated, sir,

with any seminary or religious organization?

A. Define "associated."

Q. Yeah. Work for. A member of.

How about that? A member of?

A. No.

MR. EISENBERG: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Yes, Mr. Berry, you may

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 106 of 150
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

15:15:48

15:16:01

15:16:16

15:16:36

///

ISAAC LURIA - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

107

redirect.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Mr. Luria, you were asked some questions by Mr. Cambria

about how both sides in this meeting were passionate.

Do you remember that?

A. I do.

Q. And you started to give an answer that's saying, I'm not

sure I would agree, and then you weren't permitted to finish

that.

Would you please explain what you meant by that.

A. I think one of us, one group entered the room, particularly

the religious leaders, passionate about how to protect children

from online prostitution, and the other group was trying to

protect their business interests.

Q. And then Mr. Cambria was asking you questions about how

Backpage is trying to make money and the religious leaders are

asking people for money. And you said, "I don't see the

comparison."

And you weren't really allowed to finish that thought.

Would you explain what you were thinking there.

A. I think if --

MR. FEDER: Excuse me. Relevance. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 107 of 150
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

15:16:59

15:17:16

15:17:26

15:17:47

15:18:22

ISAAC LURIA - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

108

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You may answer.

A. I think there is a significant difference between running a

business that facilitates the prostitution of children and

earning money off of that and raising money to achieve justice

in your community and to prevent that from happening. I'm

proud of every dollar we raised to stop the scourge of

Backpage.

Q. And the money that your organization, when you were at

Auburn, raised, what -- what were you all trying to do with

that money when you raised it?

MR. CAMBRIA: Object to relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You can answer.

A. To support the work of the staff doing research on the

issue; to meet with people who had been through, you know,

prostituting themselves on Backpage so we could learn about

what was happening; to maintain the websites that supported our

petitions; to contact media organizations to get the word out;

to produce online videos so that we could share this kind of

information with more people.

Q. You were also asked questions about Catholic priests

committing crimes against young people and how you all didn't

take out an ad in the New York Times about that.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 108 of 150
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

15:18:33

15:18:49

15:19:03

15:19:47

15:20:01

ISAAC LURIA - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

109

Do you remember that line of questioning?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you started to say, "I think there is a difference,"

and you don't think the comparison is fair.

Could you please explain that.

A. Well, everybody who commits a crime should be held

accountable. And today we're here to talk about the

accountability of Backpage. And that was what we were trying

to do in our campaign. There was a systemic effort to earn

money.

MR. FEDER: Objection. It goes beyond the scope and

is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Mr. Cambria probed it in his questioning, so -- but

let's move forward, Mr. Berry, and ask a new question.

MR. BERRY: Okay, Your Honor.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You were asked a question about a decision was made to not

provide Backpage's argument that they supplied to Auburn to

give to the advertisers.

Do you remember that line of questioning?

A. I do.

Q. Could you please explain why Auburn chose not to forward on

Backpage's defense.

A. I mean, have you ever attached a counter-opinion to your

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 109 of 150
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

15:20:14

15:20:31

15:20:45

15:20:49

15:21:22

ISAAC LURIA - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

110

opinions when you've shared them?

I mean, I think it's a ridiculous idea.

Q. Why?

A. That counter-opinion was defending the prostituting of

children, and that was exactly what we were fighting against.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's objected to.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Misstates the opinion.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection and ask

the jury to disregard the answer.

MR. FEDER: Move to strike, too.

THE COURT: And it will be stricken.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. During the -- Mr. Cambria was asking you several questions

about the meeting and things that took place and was said

during that meeting.

Do you remember those different --

A. Yes.

Q. -- questions about the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you remember whether Mr. Larkin or Mr. Lacey ever

told you guys about a website called The Erotic Review?

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, object. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You were asked questions about whether Auburn ever met with

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 110 of 150
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

15:21:30

15:21:44

15:22:04

15:22:24

15:22:37

ISAAC LURIA - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

111

anybody from Facebook or some of these other --

A. Yes.

Q. -- online social media platforms.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you started to give an answer where you said, "Our

intent," and then you weren't permitted to -- to finish.

Could you please finish that thought.

A. After consulting with numerous partners who worked on this

issue, we were all united -- unanimous that addressing

Backpage --

MR. CAMBRIA: Object for the hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BERRY: Could we read back what he was saying so

he could finish his thought.

(Record read.)

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You could finish.

A. -- that addressing Backpage would be our top priority, that

it would influence other actors in the space to not do what

Backpage was doing.

Q. You were asked questions about the back-and-forth letters

between Auburn and the Backpage representatives.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 111 of 150
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

15:22:50

15:23:01

15:23:08

15:23:16

15:23:33

ISAAC LURIA - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

112

Q. And Mr. Cambria was asking you several questions along the

lines of that back and forth?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. In any of that back and forth, did they ever mention

The Erotic Review?

A. No.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Same objection as --

outside the scope of cross and relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BERRY: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. May the witness be excused

from the government --

MR. BERRY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- subpoena?

Any objection to being released from subpoena by

defense?

All right.

MR. FEDER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Your testimony is complete. You are

released from your subpoena, and you may step down from the

witness stand.

The government may call its next witness.

Who is the next witness?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 112 of 150
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

15:23:49

15:24:01

15:24:45

15:24:50

15:25:03

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

113

MR. KOZINETS: The next witness is Mickey Hansen.

MR. EISENBERG: I'm sorry. Who?

MR. CAMBRIA: Who's next?

MR. KOZINETS: Mickey Hansen.

THE COURT: All right. Sir, please come forward and

be sworn by the courtroom deputy.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please raise your right hand.

(MICKEY HANSEN, a witness herein, was duly sworn or

affirmed.)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: If you'd please step over to

the witness stand, and make sure you speak into the microphone.

THE COURT: Do you need a moment, Liliana, to retrieve

the exhibits?

All right. Give Liliana just one moment.

MR. KOZINETS: May we begin, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hansen. I'm Peter Kozinets, one of the

attorneys for the United States here.

Can you please state your name for the record.

A. Sure. My name is Mickey Hansen.

Q. And can you spell your first and last name, please.

A. M-I-C-K-E-Y. Last name is H-A-N-S-E-N.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 113 of 150
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

15:25:15

15:25:30

15:25:38

15:25:57

15:26:18

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

114

Q. Thank you.

And where do you live? Where do you live?

A. I live in Phoenix, Arizona.

Q. And do you work in Phoenix?

A. I do.

Q. And where do you work?

A. I work for American Express.

Q. Did you attend school here in Arizona?

A. I did. I have a bachelor's degree in industrial

engineering and an MBA from Arizona State University.

Q. Thank you.

And how old are you, sir?

A. I'm 55.

Q. And you mentioned that you work for American Express.

How long have you worked there?

A. I've worked for American Express for 26 years.

Q. And what is your current title?

A. I am the vice president of Global Acquisition Capabilities.

Q. Can you briefly describe what American Express is.

A. American Express is a financial services company. Most

predominantly most people associate it with a company that

issues charge and credit cards to cardholders. And then we

also do acquisition directly and indirectly of merchants where

those card members can use their cards to purchase services and

products.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 114 of 150
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

15:26:29

15:26:49

15:27:04

15:27:35

15:27:44

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

115

Q. Thank you.

And you told us your -- your title. How long have you

been in your current position for?

A. I've been in my current role approximately 15 years.

Q. All right. And that would cover the years 2015 to 2018?

A. Yes.

Q. And what does your unit do?

A. We manage relationships with third-party partners who

acquire merchants on our behalf for acceptance of the American

Express card.

Q. And does your unit also have a merchant oversight role as

well?

A. We do. My organization, we -- we set up partners. We

oversee them to ensure that they are overseeing the merchant

that they acquire on their behalf to meet the program rules and

requirements that we set forth.

MR. KOZINETS: I'd like to show the witness only

Exhibit 475.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Mr. Hansen, do you see anything on the screen in front of

you?

A. I do.

Q. Do you recognize it?

A. Yes. This is our American Express Merchant Reference Guide

from April of 2015.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 115 of 150
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

15:28:01

15:28:13

15:28:35

15:28:55

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

116

Q. What is the American Express Merchant Reference Guide?

A. These are the rules and regulations for acceptance of a --

as a merchant. The rules that you must abide by to meet the

American Express requirement.

JURY PANEL MEMBER: We can see the screen.

THE COURT: Oh. I'm sorry?

JURY PANEL MEMBER: We can see the exhibit on the

screen.

THE COURT: Oh, okay. All right. Can he move the

screen?

No. The other way.

MR. BERRY: They don't want to see.

THE COURT: Thank you, jurors. You are very diligent.

I appreciate it.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. So are these basically rules that apply to the merchants

who participated in the American Express system?

A. Correct.

Q. And this set of rules here, what is the date on this?

A. April 2015.

Q. Were these rules the same rules that were in effect from

2015 to 2018?

A. They were. They are.

MR. KOZINETS: I move to admit this exhibit.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: No objection.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 116 of 150
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

15:29:26

15:29:44

15:30:08

15:30:29

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

117

THE COURT: It may be admitted, and it may be

published.

(Exhibit 475 admitted into evidence.)

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. We're now displaying on this screen the purchase reference

guide that you just described. And I'd like to direct your

attention to page 16 of the guide.

Do you see that in front of you?

A. I do.

Q. And what is reflected on this page?

A. The -- it's titled the prohibited uses of the card.

Q. And what are -- what is sort of the -- the concept, the

purpose of having these prohibited uses as set forth here?

A. It outlines prohibitions for using the American Express

card as a merchant. You must not do these -- do these things.

Q. Okay. I'd like to direct your attention to the tenth

bullet point. And I'll locate it for you.

Do you see that there, sir?

A. I do.

Q. And what is it that this bullet point covers?

A. It covers prohibition of use -- of doing anything that's

unlawful or illegal or would be fraudulent-type transactions.

And then it gives some examples of -- of what those are as to

be illustrative, not all-inclusive.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 117 of 150
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

15:30:38

15:30:54

15:31:10

15:31:55

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

118

Q. So accepting payment, for instance, for unlawful or illegal

activities is something that merchants are prohibited from

doing --

A. Correct.

Q. -- under this rule?

A. Correct.

Q. And there is a -- a final item here.

Do you see this one here, sir?

A. I do.

Q. And what does it say?

A. "Other items of which we notify the merchant."

Q. And what is this prohibition or rule meant to cover?

A. This gives us the ability if there's anything that a

merchant is doing that we would perceive as an impact or a risk

to our brand, that we have the right to cancel that merchant or

to end our relationship with them.

Q. I see.

MR. KOZINETS: And I'd like to take this down for --

for now.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Sir, are you familiar with the website Backpage.com?

A. I am.

Q. How did that website come to your attention?

A. In approximately 2014, we were made aware --

MR. CAMBRIA: I object. Hearsay.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 118 of 150
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

15:32:02

15:32:29

15:32:43

15:32:56

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

119

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. You may continue.

A. Okay.

In approximately 2014, there was a human -- human

trafficking symposium in New York, and they had reached out to

American Express and -- and asked if we were aware that we

allowed acceptance at Backpage.com. They were insinuating that

they breached that or they were involved in human trafficking,

prostitution.

And so at that time we evaluated our relationship with

Backpage.com as a merchant.

Q. So, just to be clear, this -- this is how -- it was in

connection with this forum that you first heard about

Backpage.com?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. And how -- how specifically was this brought to your

attention? Did -- was this relayed to you? Did a committee

ask you to look into this?

A. So they did. They have -- reporters and others were

reaching out to our public affairs asking if we knew if -- if

we were aware of our --

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 119 of 150
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

15:33:19

15:33:36

15:33:53

15:34:10

15:34:36

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

120

Q. You may continue.

A. -- if we were -- we were aware of our acceptance at this

merchant.

And then we have a Merchant Evaluation and

Cancellation Committee where we review internally merchants for

potential infractions of our rules to determine whether we want

to continue our relationships with them.

Q. Let's for a quick second talk about that committee, the

Merchant Evaluation Cancellation Committee.

Who generally sits on that committee at American

Express?

A. So we have a -- the general managers for the different

business units who manage merchant relationships. I'm on there

as one of the folks who manages our indirect merchant

relationships.

Q. And how often does the committee meet?

A. It meets periodically. Usually every two to three months.

Q. So did there come a time when the committee asked you

specifically to review Backpage.com?

A. Yes. It came up on our next meeting after -- after that

notification or that reach-out from the reporters. And so at

that point we reviewed the content on Backpage.com for

potential violation or risk to American Express.

Q. And did you -- so approximately what time -- approximately

when did you start to look at Backpage?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 120 of 150
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

15:34:48

15:34:59

15:35:21

15:35:41

15:35:55

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

121

A. That would have been November of 2015.

Q. 2015 or --

A. Oh, sorry. '14. 2014.

Q. 2014; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And so at that time did you personally look at the

website with your own eyes?

A. I did.

Q. And did you see anything there that raised any concerns

regarding the American Express system?

A. We did. Myself and then other members of that committee as

we looked at it, their -- the language for the ads in the

adults services section could be -- could insinuate that it had

other services besides dating and escort, potentially

prostitution and those type of activities.

Q. What was it -- was there anything specifically about these

ads that gave rise to these concerns that --

A. It was just the -- the implied nature of many of them that

implied that you could get those type of services, which we

were uncomfortable with.

Q. "Those type of services" being?

A. Prostitution.

Q. And do you recall when you looked at the site yourself, the

volume of these types of ads that gave rise to these concerns

in the adult section?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 121 of 150
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

15:36:09

15:36:25

15:36:46

15:36:55

15:37:04

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

122

A. There was several in that section. But I didn't look at

the entire section to do kind of a survey, so I wouldn't be

able to tell you what the overall volume of it was.

Q. Okay.

A. But enough that we knew that we saw it across that adult

sec- -- services section pretty frequently.

Q. You saw those ads across the adult services section?

A. Yes.

Q. And in -- at least such a -- such a volume that gave rise

to this concern that you're now articulating?

A. It did.

Q. So when -- so did you report back to the committee?

A. We did. As a committee, we voted to cancel our

relationship with Backpage.com based on that.

And then so I reached out to --

Q. Well, let me --

A. Okay.

Q. -- stop you right there.

So was this at a committee meeting that occurred in

2014?

A. It was. In November 2014.

Q. November 2014.

And so a decision was made to terminate Backpage for

all terms --

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 122 of 150
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

15:37:14

15:37:35

15:37:51

15:38:14

15:38:36

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

123

Q. -- with respect -- okay.

So not to have any American Express acceptance by

Backpage for any reason whatsoever?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. So what happened next? I mean, did -- were you

tasked with conveying that decision to American Express?

A. Yes. So I reached out to Jetpay, which is our partner who

acquired Backpages -- Backpage.com for American Express

acceptance. I spoke with the owner, Trent Voigt, and

instructed him that that's what we would like to do.

He asked if -- if we could hold off on cancelling. He

would like to set up a -- a call with himself and with the CEO

of Backpage.com, Carl Ferrer, to walk through their processes

before we took that action.

Q. Okay. And did you then talk with Mr. Ferrer?

A. I did.

Q. And did he -- what did he share with you about -- you know,

in an effort to -- to change your mind or to change American

Express's mind?

A. He shared what their internal policies and practices are

for evaluating ads in the adult -- adult section as well as

shared several articles and publications of where they had

worked with law enforcement to -- to take down prostitution

rings who had placed ads through that -- through that section.

Q. Through the adult section --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 123 of 150
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

15:38:43

15:39:06

15:39:28

15:39:45

15:39:58

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

124

A. Adult section --

Q. -- on Backpage?

A. -- yes.

Q. So did -- let's talk about the articles for a second.

So the articles that he provided, basically, I think

it's your testimony that they discussed investigations or

pros- -- prosecutions involving ads on Backpage?

A. Correct.

Q. And the nature of those investigations or pros- -- or

prosecutions dealt with what sort of activity?

A. As I recall, the majority of them were prostitution rings,

where they would then set up stings based on those ads and

people answering those.

Q. So did Mr. Ferrer sharing these articles with you allay

your concerns about the nature of these ads that you reviewed

on Backpage?

A. It did not. It did not lessen our concerns that this was

occurring on those ads.

MR. CAMBRIA: Asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: The ads in the adult section that --

that prostitution could be what they were advertising because

they --

MR. CAMBRIA: Calls for a yes-or-no answer, Your

Honor.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 124 of 150
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

15:40:04

15:40:15

15:40:24

15:40:47

15:41:07

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

125

THE COURT: Well, do you want to -- I've lost track,

Mr. Cambria --

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- because you were speaking over the

witness.

MR. CAMBRIA: I had to.

THE COURT: So let's -- let's ask the next question --

MR. KOZINETS: Okay.

THE COURT: -- Mr. Kozinets.

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. So you were explaining that these articles didn't alleviate

your concerns?

A. No, they did not.

Q. And why is that?

A. They supported some of our concern that the ads potentially

were for prostitution at times, and so that we were

uncomfortable with that being a possibility.

Q. Okay. Now, you said that he also shared certain

information about controls or things that they were doing in

this area as well; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And did his description of their internal process or

controls, did that alleviate your concerns about the nature of

what was being advertised here, of what you were seeing on the

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 125 of 150
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

15:41:18

15:41:37

15:41:59

15:42:18

15:42:34

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

126

website?

A. It did not.

Q. And why is that?

A. Because with those controls, they were still -- we still

viewed it as there was still opportunities and potential

inferences that those were services -- prostitution and those

were services that were offered through those ads.

Q. Did -- so I take it that you continued to discuss these

issues with Mr. Ferrer?

A. Yes.

Q. And did there come a time where you suggested to him that

Backpage simply close its adult section?

A. We did.

Q. And was -- was that a suggestion that American Express

wanted you to make as a way of resolving how to move forward

with Backpage?

A. It was a -- a compromise that we -- we came to. We were

asked is there a way we could keep the site open -- site -- or

keep American Express acceptance for many of the other services

and ads.

And so we looked at it, and the compromise was if

there was a way to restrict American Express acceptance on the

adult section, where that would be prohibited, then we

potentially could come forward with a solution to retain

acceptance for the other -- the rest of the site.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 126 of 150
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

15:42:50

15:43:06

15:43:27

15:43:43

15:44:05

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

127

Q. So I think we may have skipped ahead one step.

Just initially, though, was it the -- the suggestion

of American Express to Backpage first, why don't you just shut

down your adult section altogether?

A. We were. That was the intent. And the original message

was to end our relationship for the entire site.

Q. And how did Backpage respond to that?

A. That's where they asked us if we would reconsider and what

options we could do. And they provided the additional

information of how they oversee the adult section, because that

was our -- our area of concern.

Q. Right. Okay.

So you were then starting to talk about a sort of

compromise. And after some additional back and forth with

Backpage, did you believe that American Express and Backpage

had come to an agreement about Backpage's acceptance of

American Express?

A. We did.

Q. And what was the agreement?

A. The -- the agreement was to prohibit or restrict the use of

American Express cards for transactions on the adult services

section, and that was to restrict the payment when it took --

when it was attempted and also put a message saying that

American Express acceptance was not offered for that service --

for that section.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 127 of 150
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

15:44:42

15:44:56

15:45:10

15:45:17

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

128

Q. And I'd like to show you an Exhibit 466.

THE COURT: What was that?

MR. KOZINETS: Sorry. 466. And there is -- well,

let's start with this one.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Do you see it on your screen?

A. I do.

Q. And do you recognize this?

A. I do. It is an email from Carl Ferrer to myself.

Q. And does the email -- the first couple lines of the email

describe part of the agreement that you believed you had

reached with Backpage?

A. It does.

Q. And what is the date of this email?

A. April 22nd, 2015.

MR. KOZINETS: I would move to admit the email.

MR. KESSLER: No objection.

THE COURT: It may be admitted, and it may be

published.

MR. KOZINETS: Published.

Thank you, Your Honor.

(Exhibit 466 admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. I'm going to blow up the top part so it's a little easier

to see.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 128 of 150
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

15:45:42

15:46:05

15:46:25

15:46:36

///

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

129

So this is the April 22nd, 2015, email message from

Mr. Ferrer -- Ferrer, I think you were describing.

A. Correct.

Q. And does it refer to an attached screenshot?

A. It does, yes.

Q. And was it your understanding that people would see that --

would see the error message to the screenshot if they tried to

use American Express to buy an adult ad on Backpage?

A. That is correct.

Q. I'd like to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 466a.

Do you see Exhibit 466a on your screen?

A. I do.

Q. What is it?

A. It is a screenshot of the message that you would receive if

you tried to pay for an ad on the adult section using American

Express.

Q. On the adult section of Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this the screenshot attached to the email we were just

looking at?

A. It was.

MR. KOZINETS: Move to admit 466a, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be admitted and published.

(Exhibit 466a admitted into evidence.)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 129 of 150
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

15:47:05

15:47:21

15:47:51

15:47:58

15:48:17

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

130

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And so just highlighting the banner message here, what does

it say, Mr. Hansen?

A. It says, "Payment update: AMEX is no longer accepted for

adult postings on May 1st."

Q. And that would be May 1st, 2015, at this point?

A. It was, yeah.

Q. So was it your understanding that this message would

actually appear on Backpage whenever somebody tried to use

American Express to buy an adult ad on Backpage?

A. Yes.

MR. KOZINETS: I'd like to show Mr. Hansen only

Exhibit 470.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Do you see an exhibit on your screen?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recognize it?

A. I do.

Q. What is it?

A. It is an email from Carl Ferrer to myself on April 24th,

2015.

Q. And does it describe or summarize the agreement that you

believed you had reached with Backpage about --

A. Yes.

Q. -- American Express?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 130 of 150
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

15:48:27

15:48:37

15:48:53

15:49:11

15:49:30

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

131

A. Yes. The title of the email is Changes Completed by

May 1st.

MR. KOZINETS: Okay. Move to admit Exhibit 470.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: No objection.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be admitted, and it may be

published.

(Exhibit 470 admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And I think I neglected to ask you. What is the date of

this email?

A. April 24th, 2015.

Q. So between April 22nd and April 24th, 2015, you and

Backpage were finalizing kind of this -- this agreement

reflected here?

A. Correct.

Q. And kind of negotiating, coming to an agreement that this

is how you would proceed going forward?

A. Correct.

Q. And, to the best of your knowledge, you know, starting on,

you know, May 1st, at least, was Backpage actually displaying

that message on its payment screen when somebody tried to buy

an adult ad with an American Express?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. So -- and, to the best of your understanding, Backpage had,

in fact, disabled the ability of consumers to use American

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 131 of 150
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

15:49:58

15:50:21

15:50:26

15:50:37

15:50:55

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

132

Express to buy adult ads?

A. Correct.

Q. Did there come a time after Backpage took these steps that

you learned that Backpage, in fact, was still allowing

customers to use American Express to buy adult ads on its site?

A. We did.

Q. And was it your understanding that they were doing that

through the sort of way of having customers use the credit

card, the American Express credit card, to buy something called

credits?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Objection. Leading and

speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. What was your understanding of how they were allowing

American Express --

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. What was your understanding of how they were allowing

American Express cardholders to, you know, then use their cards

to buy adult ads?

A. We were made aware -- made aware that there was a way that

they could purchase credit on the Backpage.com site using their

American Express and then use those credits to purchase ads on

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 132 of 150
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

15:51:07

15:51:28

15:51:51

15:52:33

15:52:47

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

133

the adult -- in the adult section.

Q. And did this violate the agreement that you had reached

with Backpage?

A. It did. Our intent was to prohibit using American Express

to purchase any ads on the adult section.

Q. You thought you had an agreement to absolutely prohibit the

use of American Express to buy female escorts and other similar

ads on the adult section, just period, full stop; right?

A. Correct.

Q. What did you do when you learned about this situation?

A. I reached out to Carl and asked him how we would stop that

as soon as possible.

Q. And I'd like to show you Exhibit 474, which has been

admitted previously.

THE COURT: Yes. He may be shown, and it may be

published.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And I neglected to identify the date of this email, but

we'll just -- all right.

Do you see on Exhibit 474 an email dated July 10th,

2015?

A. I do.

Q. And what are you -- what did you say here in this email to

Mr. Ferrer?

A. It's an email from myself to Carl where I was asking him

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 133 of 150
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

15:53:06

15:53:29

15:53:46

15:53:56

15:54:28

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

134

for time to -- to discuss removing AMEX as a payment option for

credits --

Q. And --

A. -- because we found that you could use those to purchase

ads on the adult services section.

Q. And what did Mr. Ferrer do? Did -- did he follow through

on your request?

A. He -- he did take that away to see what they could do to

prohibit using the American Express for credits for the adults

only section. And the end result was that there was not a way

to block it for just that section. It would block it where you

couldn't use it for anything.

Q. So -- so he -- he wouldn't stop -- or said that he couldn't

stop the use of credits to buy these adult ads?

A. Correct.

Q. So how did American Express respond to that?

A. We cancelled our relationship at that time.

Q. Cancelled it for all purposes?

A. We did.

Q. Now I want to show you Exhibit 469, which has been

previously admitted. 469.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: And, Your Honor, I'm going to

object on foundation. This witness is not on the email.

THE COURT: Yes. Before we go any further, maybe just

lay some foundation.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 134 of 150
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

15:54:42

15:54:53

15:55:13

15:55:29

15:55:55

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

135

MR. KOZINETS: Sure.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Mr. Hansen, have -- in the course of preparing to testify

today, did you see this email?

A. I was made aware of this, yes.

Q. You were made aware of this email?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Your Honor, I'll object. That's

not sufficient foundation if he's not on the email.

THE COURT: Let him lay foundation. I don't think he

was finished.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And did -- did you -- you -- you reviewed the email, and

did you come to an understanding about what was being discussed

in the email?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Objection. It's vague as to time.

MS. BERTRAND: Also calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained as to vagueness as to time.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Did -- did you come to learn -- and just with respect to

the -- do you see the date on this email?

A. I do. April 22nd, 2015.

Q. Okay. And did you -- did you come to learn -- and this

is -- this is after AMEX had terminated Backpage.

You came to see this email?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 135 of 150
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

15:56:29

15:56:39

15:56:47

15:56:57

15:57:05

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

136

A. I did.

Q. And I'll just -- I'll show you a little bit more of it.

Did you learn from looking at this that around the

time of April 22nd, 2015, Backpage reached out to its American

Express customers to inform them about this credit process?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Your Honor, same objection on

foundation. I don't think we're there yet.

MS. BERTRAND: This hasn't been admitted yet. And

leading.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. KOZINETS: It's in evidence.

MS. BERTRAND: It is? Sorry about that. Okay. Well,

still leading.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain Mr. Panchapakesan's

objection.

MR. KOZINETS: Which was?

THE COURT: Let's move on.

MR. KOZINETS: I'm sorry. What was --

THE COURT: As to foundation --

MR. KOZINETS: Okay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- with respect to this specific email.

MR. KOZINETS: Okay.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Had --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 136 of 150
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

15:57:16

15:57:33

15:57:41

15:57:51

15:58:01

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

137

MR. KOZINETS: I'll just take it off.

THE COURT: Well, why don't we --

MR. KOZINETS: Can I just ask one?

THE COURT: Yes, you can.

MR. KOZINETS: Sorry. Thank you.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Had you known in April of 2015 that Backpage notified users

that they could use American Express to buy credits and then

buy adult ads with those credits, had you known that then,

would you still have moved forward with this agreement with

Backpage?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Lacks foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Calls for speculation.

THE WITNESS: We would not because that was our

agreement, which was to restrict using your American Express in

totality in the adult ads section.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Had you known this, would you have terminated Backpage at

that time?

A. We would have.

Q. And why would you have done that?

A. Because that was the only reason -- only way we would allow

continued acceptance with Backpage.com, is to block any access

for payment using American Express on the adult section.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 137 of 150
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

15:58:17

15:58:35

15:58:54

15:59:13

15:59:56

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

138

Q. If you knew at that time that they were telling you that

they were going to block adult ads but telling their customers

that they could get around this, what would you have done?

A. We would have cancelled at that time.

MR. KOZINETS: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. So this seems to be a natural

breaking point for you, Mr. Kozinets.

So, as I promised our jurors, we'll have them leave at

4:00. And we're about two minutes away from that time. And at

the same time, I'll -- let me just indicate that at the request

of our jury, we will resume the same schedule as we were on

today. So we will begin promptly at 8:45. That is, again, the

promise that our jurors have made, that they will be here and

ready to resume their seats.

And so what I will do, though, is hopefully you will

be occupied by other things this evening and you will not think

about the case, come to any conclusions, do any research about

anyone who's testified so far today or about the things talked

about, but just enjoy a pleasant evening. And I hope you all

make it to your destination safely.

Please all rise for the jury.

(Jury not present at 3:59 p.m.)

THE COURT: I didn't hear the door close. Can you

check. Are they -- all right. There we are.

All right. Before anyone leaves, let me just raise a

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 138 of 150
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

16:00:17

16:00:33

16:00:53

16:01:20

16:01:41

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

139

couple questions.

Mr. Panchapakesan, you wanted to make a record, and it

will help me when I look at Exhibit 6234 and 6235 as to this

witness. And so you can do that at this point.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Thank you.

So the background, which I think Mr. Kozinets got

into, is this question of Mr. Hansen became aware at some point

that credits were being -- American Express cards were being

used to buy credits on Backpage.

What he said in his July 18th, 2019, interview with

the government is that he was made aware of this by

Sheriff Dart. He says in his interview with the government

that in July 2015, AMEX was contacted by -- contacted by a

third party, a sheriff, who reached out about Backpage's

practice of allowing customers to use AMEX to purchase credits.

And so that kind of leads into the two exhibits. So

the first one, which is 6234, these -- this is the July 2015

email thread between someone from Sheriff Dart's office and

some American Express personnel. And this is the email where

American Express is made aware of its credits -- the credits

issue. There's a back and forth, and then eventually American

Express says: We'll contact Backpage and not allow our cards

to be used to buy credits.

6235 is an attachment to that email. It's a letter

from Sheriff Dart to the CEO of American Express. He's

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 139 of 150
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

16:02:04

16:02:25

16:02:44

16:03:01

16:03:22

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

140

basically -- he's writing to inform AMEX that Dart has sent

cease and desist letters to Visa and MasterCard, and that's

sort of the companion to the email.

And so the -- the relevance is, you know, I would

intend to elicit from the witness that he became aware of the

credits issue through Sheriff Dart, there was a back and forth

between Dart's office and AMEX, and then that is what

precipitated the termination and American Express not allowing

its cards to be used for credits.

Now, I think that Mr. Kozinets raised that Mr. Hansen

is not on the email, and so a couple of responses on -- on

that. One is he's indicated in his interview with the

government that he's aware of the sheriff raising this issue.

That's one.

And two is, I think I could lay some foundation as to

this being an internal AMEX email, that he's familiar with the

individuals who are on the email, the roles, that sort of

thing, so to lay sufficient foundation for that to come in.

But that's the background. I have no intention of

getting into the litigation or the complaint. AMEX wasn't

really even part of that, because I think they terminated

the -- their acceptance of cards for adult ads in April of

2015, which was before Visa and MasterCard got those letters.

So it's not even a risk that I would get into that. It's just

really for this narrow purpose of the credits issue.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 140 of 150
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

16:03:46

16:04:00

16:04:15

16:04:22

16:04:29

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

141

THE COURT: So do I understand you to say that you

would not be introducing Exhibit 6235, the letter from Dart to

the CEO of American Express, only you would have it for the

witness to refresh his recollection, or something of that

nature?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Well, the only purpose for which I

would use 6235 is to show that American Express was on notice

that Visa and MasterCard had received the cease and desist

letters. And I wouldn't go any further than that. And I think

that it informs what happens next, because American Express, my

sense, is they probably have no interest in getting into a back

and forth with Dart given on what's going on with Visa and

MasterCard, and so they just -- they terminate the

relationship.

THE COURT: Well, I'll look at the exhibit in its

totality this evening, and I'll let you know my ruling in the

morning.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KOZINETS: Sorry. Can I say one or two things on

that?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you, Your Honor.

So that letter really has nothing to do with this

credits issue or Mr. Hansen. He didn't receive the letter.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 141 of 150
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

16:04:50

16:04:59

16:05:20

16:05:38

16:05:51

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

142

It -- it doesn't encourage American Express to terminate

Backpage. They had already, you know, done that. So the

letter -- this letter, 6- -- what is it? 6230 --

THE COURT: 6234 or 62- -- yeah, 6234.

MR. KOZINETS: 35.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. 35.

MR. KOZINETS: So 35. 35. It's just totally

irrelevant.

THE COURT: Well, I think that remains to be seen. So

certainly I think if the witness is asked a question, then

we'll see whether it's relevant or not.

MR. KOZINETS: Okay, Your Honor.

And then as to the email chain, the 34, the exhibit

that ends in 34, that also isn't something that was sent to

Mr. Hansen. He -- he is generally aware that, you know, the

sheriff's office had notified his company about the credits

thing, but this whole -- like the nitty-gritty of any sort of

back and forth with Sheriff Dart's office he just wasn't privy

to, so --

THE COURT: All right. Okay. I'll look at it in that

context and the context in which Mr. Panchapakesan has

presented it.

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Now, let me just say, during -- I think it

was Ms. Bertrand and Mr. Kessler's cross-examination of the

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 142 of 150
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

16:06:12

16:06:40

16:06:59

16:07:24

16:07:55

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

143

witness, Ms. Leary, I sustained a couple of objections related

to Rule 412, and hopefully now Mr. Kessler's had a time to look

at that rule.

This is a little bit of a complex area, because on the

one hand my recollection is -- of the witness's testimony was

she did some self-posting between 2012 and 2015, and it was

only at the juncture of 2015 that she was using this other

person who was posting her and others. And so to the extent

Rule 412 -- Ms. Perlmeter, I'm speaking about your witness.

MR. BERRY: Sorry. I asked her a question. That's my

fault, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. So I want to be very cautious

and careful and make sure that you are very careful in the

remainder of your -- who you refer to as victim witnesses, if

there are any to be heard from, that you be very careful about

restricting your objections using 412 only as they relate to

the allegations in the indictment. So, in other words, if

there were circumstances where these individuals were posting

themselves, I don't think the rule applies.

And so I may have -- I may have sustained an objection

that probably could have been overruled during Mr. Kessler's

cross-examination, because he was talking about areas of

posting at other places from the time period of 2012 to 2015,

which I understood that her testimony was she was doing that

herself. And so, hence, the -- the other sexual conduct of

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 143 of 150
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

16:08:12

16:08:38

16:08:50

16:09:00

16:09:15

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

144

victim does not apply. So be very cautious and aware of that.

All right. Is there anything further before we

adjourn for the day from the government?

MR. BERRY: Your Honor, on that point I would ask the

Court to take a look at 412(b)(1)(B) and -- which says that

it's okay if that sort of thing is offered by the prosecutor.

It is not okay when the defense tries to get into that.

THE COURT: Well, again, the rule protects the victim.

And if there is no allegation that she is a victim at the

time -- she was doing her own self-posting. So she can't

create her own victimization, in other words.

MR. BERRY: I understand.

THE COURT: And that is the context in which I'm

referring.

MR. BERRY: I understand, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. And so is there

anything from defense before we adjourn?

MR. LINCENBERG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Oh, let me clarify. Tomorrow I've now --

the government has had an opportunity to respond to the renewed

objections. I'll have a ruling for you in the morning on those

areas that were covered.

Mr. Lincenberg?

MR. LINCENBERG: Could I have one moment to consult

with counsel?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 144 of 150
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

16:09:38

16:09:59

16:10:12

16:10:27

16:10:44

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

145

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, the defense just wants to

make something clear for the record, if it wasn't clear at the

sidebar.

We move for a mistrial based upon all of the child

trafficking testimony that they intentionally elicited from

Mr. Luria. It went far beyond even the outrageous testimony at

the first trial with -- with -- with this gentleman talking

about, you know, throwing shoes of children at the -- at the

building and so forth.

THE COURT: I think it was placing a box of shoes.

MR. LINCENBERG: Placing a box of shoes. Right.

So we move for a mistrial.

THE COURT: Who wishes to be heard from the

government?

MR. BERRY: Your Honor, I think Your Honor's already

sort of addressed this particular argument that they made

earlier regarding the testimony elicited regarding child sex

trafficking and those sorts of areas.

As this Court has ruled, as long as it's tethered

directly to a defendant and it's limited and it doesn't go into

a day in the life, then it is permissible. Mr. Luria did just

that. He tethered everything to a meeting involving Mr. Lacey

and Backpage specifically and the owners, including Mr. Larkin.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 145 of 150
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

16:10:58

16:11:11

16:11:34

16:11:57

16:12:13

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

146

And his testimony was -- even when he mention the word "child,"

it was always in conjunction with the word "prostitution." And

that's what is charged in this case. So whether it's an adult

or a child, it doesn't matter.

And so we would ask you to deny their motion.

MS. BERTRAND: Your Honor, this is Joy Bertrand. I'd

like to respond to that, if I may?

THE COURT: Reply, you mean?

MS. BERTRAND: I -- yeah. Answer that, yes.

That is -- the government has said that a couple of

times, and it's a misrepresentation of what's required to tie

that type of evidence, to bring that type of evidence in. It

not only must be tied to a defendant, but also a count in the

indictment. And that's clear in that order. I -- I don't have

it immediately in front of me, but I know we've gone back and

forth about that. It's not that it's one or the other. It is

a conjunctive in that order.

One of the defendants and a count in the indictment

and this evidence, other than a meeting with Mr. Lacey, somehow

the -- the government now is going to say it involves leaving

boxes of shoes in front of people's offices isn't tied to a

defendant, but it is certainly not tied to one of the

substantive counts in the indictment.

And that's going to be an ongoing issue with this type

of evidence. They can't tie it to subsequent counts in the

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 146 of 150
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

16:12:34

16:12:57

16:13:24

16:13:51

16:14:05

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

147

indictment.

THE COURT: I'll look at the order, but I don't recall

that specifically. And -- and I will -- I will just say that

Mr. Cambria, in fact, raised it in his cross-examination.

And so I think you've got to be careful on both sides.

And here, too, the orders -- the previous orders of the Court

recognize that child prostitution is a subset of trafficking.

You simply -- because you have people under the age of 18 who

qualify as children.

And so, again, I think that with respect to the

witness's testimony, it did follow the contours of the prior

order, what was permissive -- permissible to come in, without

having all of the inflammatory language of morality, and so on

and so forth.

I was going to suggest offering a limiting

instruction, once again, to remind the jury of this, but I've

been asked a couple of times now by defense to not do so. And

so you've in many ways sort of tied my hands to that because

you think it's prejudicial to your -- your clients.

And so -- but I will review the order for those -- for

that language, Ms. Bertrand, and I'll let you know my ruling

tomorrow.

MR. CAMBRIA: I didn't raise anything about child

por- -- what's that?

THE COURT: I wrote it down in my notes here as you

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 147 of 150
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

16:14:19

16:14:31

16:14:49

16:15:10

16:15:20

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

148

were asking the question about child prostitution.

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah. That came up on direct, Your

Honor, and then I -- you know, you have to deal with it once

it's on direct. But I didn't inject that into the case. I --

I haven't lost it yet. I'm close.

THE COURT: Well, I'll look at the transcript. I

believe I heard it from your lips. And so --

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- I'll review that. Okay.

MR. CAMBRIA: No.

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I know we all

want to go. It's just that on direct, as elicited by counsel

for the government, the witness said that Bishop Robinson --

yes, Robinson was not comfortable with the website because it

had child pornography happening. These -- this is kind of my

characterization -- not characterization of it, my summary of

it. So that occurred on direct. We don't have any option at

that point.

Further on down he talked about putting shoes, talking

about child --

THE COURT: We've already covered that, Mr. Eisenberg.

MR. EISENBERG: Well, Your Honor, it's not correct to

say that it was raised on cross-examination by the defendants,

with -- with due respect. I'm not trying to --

THE COURT: Well, I'm not saying the entirety was

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 148 of 150
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

16:15:36

16:15:45

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

149

raised, but there were portions of Mr. Cambria's

cross-examination where he did raise child prostitution.

I'll look at the transcript again, and I will take

your motion for mistrial under advisement, and I'll give you my

ruling in the morning.

MR. EISENBERG: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. We are adjourned.

Remember, we are starting at 8:45.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(Proceedings conclude at 4:15 p.m.)

---oOo---

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 149 of 150
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 16:16:12

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

150

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, CATHY J. TAYLOR, do hereby certify that I am duly

appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for

the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute

a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of

the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled

cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript

was prepared under my direction and control.

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 23rd day of October,

2023.

/s/Cathy J. Taylor

Cathy J. Taylor, RMR, CRR, CRC

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1921 Filed 10/23/23 Page 150 of 150