Exhibit P

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1355-17 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 7
Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:13:17 Pacific Daylight Time

Page 1 of 6

Subject: RE: Follow Up - 18cv8240-RGK

Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 5:26:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: Boyle, Daniel (USACAC)

To: Whitney Bernstein

CC: Ramachandran, Seetha, Thomas H. Bienert, Paul John Cambria, Jr , Erin McCampbell Paris, Gary S.

Lincenberg, Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Ariel A. Neuman, Bruce Feder, Daniel J. Quigley

(quigley@djqplc.com), Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ)

WhitneyFollowing up on your request to release approximately $407k in funds seized from account ending ‘4862:

 Aeer further review, the ‘4862 seized funds don’t appear to be implicated by the “clerical error”

issue which led to the March 2020 sipulaion to return funds. That purported error occurred in May of 2017,

but as detailed in the FACMC laying out the government’s theory as to the ‘4862 account, this account

received tainted funds between September and December of 2017 via the WFB ‘9863, and the ‘9863 account

was alleged to be a pass-through account which received funds traceable to an AD Tech BV bank account in

the Netherlands. See FACMC ¶ 154; 156(b) (“Between September 20, 2017 and December 8, 2017, Account

‘9863 transferred approximately $944,729.25 among seven transacions into Account 3 [i.e. the ‘4862

Account].”); 177(d) (“On December 27, 2016, the Netherlands Account transferred $199,970.00 to Account 2,

which account then transferred funds through Account ‘9863 and into Account 3”). While a specific amount is

not alleged in the FACMC in ¶ 154, based on a review of account records, at least one September 2017 check

for approximately $83k (check number 1472) was transferred from the ‘3873 account into the ‘9863 account,

and then on to the ‘4862 account, through the transfers described above. Because the ‘4862 account was

funded in part from the ‘9863 account, we do not agree that the ‘4862 account contained no funds traceable

to Backpage’s operaions. If any of this tracing does not appear factually correct, please let me know. 

 With respect to the prior sipulaion with your client in January 2020, I’ve reviewed that sipulaion

and nowhere did government acknowledge “that the Compass Bank Account ‘4682 contained exclusively

print newspaper proceeds.” In any event, that sipulaion occurred in January of 2020, prior to the filing to

the FACMC in June of 2020, which is the operaive pleading at this ime and includes the above-quoted

allegaions.

 Finally, with respect to Judge Klausner’s order regarding discovery, I believe that it would make sense

to reopen discovery on a limited basis as needed following the resoluion of the criminal case. Because we

currently don’t know how the criminal case will resolve and what (if any) discovery would be necessary in any

remaining civil proceedings, I believe it would be premature to seek relief at this ime. I don’t think the Court

would deny a sipulated moion to reopen discovery once the paries know what the scope of any such

discovery would be.

Regards,

Dan G. Boyle | Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office | Central District of California

1400 United States Courthouse | 312 North Spring Street | Los Angeles, California 90012

T: 213.894.2426| F: 213.894.0141 | daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov

From: Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bklwlaw.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 5:47 PM

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1355-17 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 7
Page 2 of 6

To: Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Cc: Ramachandran, Seetha <SRamachandran@proskauer.com>; Thomas H. Bienert <tbienert@bklwlaw.com>;

Paul John Cambria, Jr <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris <eparis@lglaw.com>; Gary S.

Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com>;

Ariel A. Neuman <aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; Daniel J. Quigley

(quigley@djqplc.com) <quigley@djqplc.com>; Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Follow Up - 18cv8240-RGK

Hi Dan,

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. We clearly disagree with you on the merits of CACD USAO’s

posiion. But to the extent we bring any moions on these three issues, we agree that they should be brought

to Judge Brnovich in either US v. Lacey, et al. or US v. Backpage.com (probably US v. Lacey, et al.). 

To clarify our request for the return of (3) print newspaper proceeds enirely disconnected from

Backpage.com, we are referring to at least Cereus Properies LLC VMG Depository account at Compass Bank

under Account No. ‘4862. We seek the return of this account because these assets are exclusively print

newspaper proceeds. CACD USAO recognized this in the past when it returned funds from one of Mr. Larkin’s

accounts. CACD USAO returned these funds because Mr. Larkin’s account contained only disbursements from

the Compass Bank Account ‘4682, and the government acknowledged that the Compass Bank Account ‘4682

contained exclusively print newspaper proceeds. Under this same theory, we seek the return of at least

$407,686.14 from Account ‘4862. Also under the same theory that print newspaper proceeds disconnected

from Backpage.com should be returned, Mr. Lacey seeks the release of the rest of the funds at issue in his

moion (Docs. 22-24 in 18cv6742).

Hopefully this clears up the third issue. If a phone call would be helpful, we are happy to speak. Please let us

know by end of day on Oct. 4 if CACD USAO will be releasing the print newspaper proceeds enirely

disconnected from Backpage.com.

Thank you again for your consideraion,

Whitney

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Partner | Orange County

Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP

Website | vCard | Profile

From: Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 11:28 AM

To: Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bklwlaw.com>

Cc: Ramachandran, Seetha <SRamachandran@proskauer.com>, Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bklwlaw.com>, Paul John Cambria, Jr <pcambria@lglaw.com>, Erin McCampbell Paris

<eparis@lglaw.com>, Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>, Gopi K. Panchapakesan

<gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com>, Ariel A. Neuman <aneuman@birdmarella.com>, Bruce Feder

<bf@federlawpa.com>, Daniel J. Quigley (quigley@djqplc.com) <quigley@djqplc.com>, Rapp, Kevin

(USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov>

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1355-17 Filed 11/01/21 Page 3 of 7
Page 3 of 6

Subject: RE: Follow Up - 18cv8240-RGK

WhitneyPlease find below our responses to your emails of September 23rd and 24th. As you’ll see, we’re silling

running down your third point, but we’re tried to respond by your requested date.

With respect to your first point, the government’s posiion remains the same as it was when claimants

sought an indefinite stay of the criminal case in April of 2020 based on a purported need for atorney’s

fees (see ECF No. 104, a 6-7): the claimants have not yet atempted to make the required showing

under United States v. Unimex, Inc., 991 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 1993), which the paries and Judge

Klausner appear to agree is the governing law on this issue in this circuit. See ECF No. 106, at 2. While

the paries may disagree about the appropriate showing necessary to obtain a hearing for Monsanto

relief, such a showing is certainly more than atorney argument. If your clients wish to discuss a

briefing schedule in order to seek to make a Unimex showing, please let me know. Alternately, because

certain of the assets you idenified are subject to a pending moion before Judge Brnovich (see D.Az

 Case No. 18-cr-465, ECF No. 45) we would not object if the claimants wish to make an applicaion in

the District of Arizona, as Unimex will apply in either forum, and we can discuss whether such an

applicaion is best brought in case 18-cr-422 or case 18-cr-465.

Separately, to the extent that your clients object that a complaint has not been filed against

certain of these assets (I note that certain assets you menion are already idenified in the

FACMC, such as the $2,412,785.47 found in paragraph 10 of the same), the government

anicipates filing a complaint against those assets by no later than November 8, 2021, and we

can address a schedule for briefing any moions you may be contemplaing.

With respect to your second point, this demand ignores bedrock law on the forfeiture of commingled

criminal assets, and has no merit. The government’s posiion is that, taking all of the allegaions in the

FACMC as true, the claimants are not enitled to the return of any funds.

With respect to your third point, we are reviewing the tracing of this asset and I expect we will be able

to discuss it fully within the next week. To clarify – your email references “Cereus Properies LLC VMG

Depository Account ‘4860” but I’m not aware of any seized assets from a ‘4860 account. We are

working under the assumpion that you were referring to Compass Bank Account '4862, but please let

me know if that’s wrong. While I was not part of the discussions around the prior consent judgment

with your client, the government has been willing to return assets in this case where the defendants

raised meritorious issues with the government’s tracing, and we remain willing to do so now. Your

email does reference the prior consent judgment with claimant Lacey to resolve the so-called “clerical

error” funds, and we are working under the assumpion that same clerical error is the basis of your

concerns with this asset. Please let me know if that is incorrect.

Regards,

Dan G. Boyle | Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office | Central District of California

1400 United States Courthouse | 312 North Spring Street | Los Angeles, California 90012

T: 213.894.2426| F: 213.894.0141 | daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov

From: Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bklwlaw.com> 

Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 12:08 PM

To: Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Cc: Ramachandran, Seetha <SRamachandran@proskauer.com>; Thomas H. Bienert <tbienert@bklwlaw.com>;

Paul John Cambria, Jr <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris <eparis@lglaw.com>; Gary S.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1355-17 Filed 11/01/21 Page 4 of 7
Page 4 of 6

Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com>;

Ariel A. Neuman <aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; Daniel J. Quigley

(quigley@djqplc.com) <quigley@djqplc.com>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Follow Up - 18cv8240-RGK

Hi Dan,

Thank you for speaking on Tuesday. Given the mistrial in the Arizona criminal case and the mulitude of

issues that raises, including the need for addiional liigaion and perhaps a retrial, we need CACD USAO to

return at least some of the funds it has seized. 

To be clear, we believe we are legally enitled to the return of all seized assets, but are now focusing on three

categories for purposes of this conversaion. These three categories include (1) atorney retainer funds,

including those in the pending Magistrate cases, totaling over $16 million, (2) assets owed to Defendants

even assuming arguendo that CACD USAO’s posiion in 18cv8420 is accurate, and (3) print newspaper

proceeds enirely disconnected from Backpage.com.

As to (1) atorney retainer funds, including those in the pending Magistrate cases, totaling over $16 million,

we seek return of:

CASE NO. LAW FIRM FROM WHICH MONEY WAS SEIZED AMOUNT SEIZED

18mj02031 Davis Wright Tremaine 3,713,121.03

18mj02872 Rusing Lopez & Lizardi PLLC 5,279,173.07

18mj02874 Perkins Coie LLP 2,167,704.86

18mj02030 Becker & House PLLC 2,412,785.47

18mj02875 Piccarreta Davis Keenan Fidel PC 10,000.00

18mj02876 Piccarreta Davis Keenan Fidel PC 740,000.00

18mj02880 Keker Van Nest & Peters 500,000.00

18mj02883 Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC 100,000.00

18mj02883 Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC 100,000.00

18mj02878 Karp & Weiss PC 250,000.00

18mj02873 Copeland Franco Screws & Gill 100,000.00

18mj02879 David B. Smith PLLC 10,000.00

18mj02880 McDermot Will & Emery LLP 100,000.00

18mj02880 Prince Lobel Tye LLP 100,000.00

18mj02874 Thompson Coburn LLP 100,000.00

18mj02875 Lawrence G Walters PA 100,000.00

18mj02875 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Field LLP 250,000.00

18mj02877 Scheef & Stone LLP 25,000.00

18mj02875 Wayne B Giampietro LLC 100,000.00

These seizures are an affront to the Sixth Amendment and have, as the government intended, severely

handicapped our ability to defend the criminal case in the District of Arizona. CACD USAO cannot coninue to

hold these seized atorney funds pretrial given the mistrial and ensuing liigaion the government caused last

week in Arizona. 

These seizures are also problemaic because the government has not traced these atorney funds to

demonstrate that the government has the right to hold this money as arguable criminal proceeds for years,

pretrial, amidst various criminal and civil cases brought by the government. Recall that your predecessor at

CACD USAO threatened to seize these law firms’ enire IOLTA accounts if they did not turn over the amount

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1355-17 Filed 11/01/21 Page 5 of 7
Page 5 of 6

CACD USAO sought. Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, for example, wired funds to the government to

comply with this subpoena on November 13, 2018 at 1:34pm PT. The Court in CACD then issued a stay order

nine minutes later at 1:43pm PT. When Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC then tried to recall the funds at

2:00pm PT that day, your predecessor at CACD USAO refused to permit the recall despite the Court’s stay

order. 

Further, the seizures are also impermissible as CACD USAO has never filed a sworn, verified complaint

supporing its belief that it can seize these funds in the nearly three years and couning that the government

has held these atorney funds. 

Accordingly, we seek the return of all atorney funds.

As to (2) assets owed to Defendants even assuming arguendo that CACD USAO’s posiion in 18cv8420 is

accurate, we seek the return of at least $13,633,946.20. CACD USAO has argued that “more than 90 percent

of Backpage’s revenue” “[b]etween 2004 and April 2018” came from Backpage.com’s “adult category,” which

CACD USAO contends generated criminal proceeds subject to forfeiture. See 18cv8420 at Dkt. 108, First

Amended Consolidated Master Verified Complaint, at paragraph 107. While we disagree and know that the

facts and objecive evidence will show this statement is completely inaccurate, for purposes of the funds we

believe must be released at this juncture, we are seeking that which the government has no right to even

under its own theory. The government has seized at least $136,339,462.65 in liquid assets, though the true

number is much higher because (a) this does not include the numerous real properies the government has

seized, (b) most assets have appreciated since the seizures, and (c) we lack the exact amount seized as many

seizures were listed as “any and all funds in the account” and are thus unaccounted for in this total. 

Accordingly, we request the return right now of the 10% the government admits it has no right to hold, which

is conservaively at least $13,633,946.20.

Finally, as to (3) print newspaper proceeds enirely disconnected from Backpage.com, the $407,686.14 seized

in 18mj1863 and paragraph 99 of the First Amended Consolidated Master Verified Complaint (18cv840 at Dkt.

108) from Cereus Properies LLC VMG Depository Account ‘4860 represents proceeds of print newspaper

sales and has no relaion whatsoever to Backpage.com. Acknowledging this, your office previously returned

funds to James Larkin from his Republic Bank of Arizona Account ‘1938 seized in 18cv8420 that contained

disbursements from Cereus Properies LLC VMG Depository Account ‘4860. Because the $407,686.14 funds

in paragraph 99 of Dkt. 108 (formerly 18mj1863) are also proceeds of print newspaper sales and have no

relaion to Backpage.com, CACD USAO should also return this $407,686.14. 

Similarly, as Michael Lacey has previously demonstrated, the funds at issue in the Moion for Release (In re

Any and All Funds Held in Republic Bank of Arizona Accts. x1889, 18-cv-6742 Docs. 22-24), are also

solely newspaper proceeds and should be released in their enirety. Indeed, as CACD USAO has recognized,

assets procured with newspaper money should not be subject to pretrial seizure.

We appreciate your consideraion, and we request your office’s posiion by end of day on Wednesday,

September 29 so that we have ime to pursue this conversaion at DOJ Main if need be. 

Thank you,

Whitney

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Partner | Orange County

Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1355-17 Filed 11/01/21 Page 6 of 7
Page 6 of 6

Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP

Website | vCard | Profile

Los Angeles | 601 W. 5th Street, Suite 720 | Los Angeles, CA 90071 | (213) 528-3400

Orange County | 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 | San Clemente, CA 92673 | (949) 369-3700

The foregoing message is confidential and intended for the designated recipient only. The foregoing information may be protected by

attorney-client and/or work product privileges. Accordingly, if you have received this message in error, please contact BIENERT

KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP immediately, and delete the message without reviewing, copying, or making further use of the

information contained herein.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1355-17 Filed 11/01/21 Page 7 of 7