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 12, 2023

8:48 a.m.

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, JUDGE

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

JURY TRIAL - DAY 17

(A.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 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 123
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.

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 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 2 of 123
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 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 3 of 123
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 63

Proceedings Outside the Presence of the Jury 121

WITNESSES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: PAGE

Mickey Hansen

Direct Examination (Cont'd) by Mr. Kozinets 17

Cross-Examination by Mr. Panchapakesan 19

Redirect Examination by Mr. Kozinets 66

Anya Beck

Direct Examination by Mr. Rapp 72

Cross-Examination by Mr. Feder 89

Cross-Examination by Mr. Eisenberg 118

Redirect Examination by Mr. Rapp 120

EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION REC'D

462 Email from Ferrer to Snedden re American

Express, 01/27/2015

DOJ-BP-0004927330-DOJ-BP-0004927331

41

1602 Recreation of ad with Object ID 56338699

posted by Victim #13

(User ID 55827398) 08/15/2015,

USAO-BP-0033030 -USAO-BP-0033034

89

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 4 of 123
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

08:48:25

08:49:04

08:49:50

08:50:27

08:51:03

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

P R O C E E D I N G S

(Proceedings reconvene at 8:48 a.m.)

(Jury not present at 8:48 a.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

We are waiting for one juror to arrive, but we'll use

the time to go over the matters that were raised yesterday and

last week.

And last evening I had an opportunity to review the

transcript of Mr. Luria. And with respect to the renewed

motion for a mistrial, the -- he -- in response to a question

about why this meeting of the Union Theological Society

occurred in 2011, he answered that they gathered a group of

faith leaders who were outraged over sex trafficking occurring

on the site, specifically the prostitution of children. And he

continued to use the -- the phrase "child prostitution" as

the -- as the majority of his testimony related to their trying

to shut down the site because they believed it had child

prostitution ads on them.

And, again, in considering the prior orders of the

Court, it has been clearly laid out that child prostitution is

permitted to be gone into in testimony here. And I think,

though, that the most repetitive phrase by defense counsel,

which was only iterated once by this witness, was that -- the

inflammatory statement about what happened after the meeting

occurred, that they started going to businesses who were

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 5 of 123
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

08:51:34

08:52:07

08:52:29

08:52:56

08:53:35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

putting their advertisements on Village Voice Media or

Backpage. And, in addition to that, they laid shoes at the

door -- children's shoes at the door of Village Voice Media in

New York. That seemed to have been the predominant concern of

defense counsel.

And, in my review -- again, I -- I do believe that in

some ways this witness put forth his -- his own -- and it was

very clear in his statements to Mr. Cambria that he was putting

forward his own beliefs and the beliefs of his prior employer

at the time. Not necessarily responsive 100 percent of the

time, volunteering -- volunteering many, many comments that

were not necessary.

But, in any event, I think the jurors could glean for

themselves the character of the witness and what his motives

were for testifying, and so on and so forth. But I also

believe that this witness -- during his examination, there were

areas gone into by defense counsel about the assistance of

Mr. Larkin and Lacey and Backpage to law enforcement. They

also pulled out questions related to, what about Facebook, what

about TikTok, and bringing those matters forward as well.

And, in addition to that, the numerous exhibits that

are now in evidence. Some were put in evidence en mass that

relate to law enforcement being very congratulatory about

helping with identifying children who've been trafficked,

juveniles who've been put up for prostitution, and so on.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 6 of 123
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

08:54:06

08:54:48

08:55:09

08:55:51

08:56:19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

And so I think on balance at this point there is no

necessity to declare a mistrial. And so that's my ruling

there.

Now, let me just say a word about the 412 objections.

I had an opportunity to have some research and looked at a

little bit more closely the -- the rule. While it's not

crystal clear, I have found Circuit precedent that permits the

government to make such an objection in these types of cases.

And, for example, in the Ninth Circuit, there have been

rulings. I looked at the -- there's the United States vs.

Haines decision, United States vs. Lockhart decision that

concludes, at least in sex trafficking prosecutions, that

victims' prior convictions or -- or acts of prostitution is

inadmissible.

And so, in that regard, though, these individuals --

or excuse me. The cases don't necessarily speak to Travel Act

violations for purposes of the case. The rule is designed to

shield individual victims, or those who have been victimized in

any sexual way here, whether they were solicited by -- as in

this instance, of this witness, pimps or -- or johns, as she

testified, then she qualifies as a victim.

And so under that umbrella, therefore, the 412

objection is appropriate. And so defense counsel are not

permitted to go into those prior sexual acts or conduct of

victims.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 7 of 123
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

08:56:44

08:57:20

08:57:39

08:58:12

08:58:47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

Let me quickly try to give you my ruling on the

objections that were lodged last week or requests to renew an

objection and for the Court to reconsider its ruling.

I don't find any of the exhibits that were identified

by the defendants squarely fit within the curative measure of

Rule 106. The precedent provides that initially omitted parts

of a writing ought to be considered in fairness, which means

when one party has made use of a portion of a document such

that misunderstanding or distortion can be averted only through

presentation of another portion, the material required for

completeness -- for completeness is admissible. And that's the

Beach Aircraft Corp. case that was cited by, I think, both

sides.

So there has to be a prerequisite to trigger Rule 106,

and that is prejudicial misimpressions. And if the completed

statement would not serve to correct a misleading impression in

the edited statement, then the rule does not apply.

So first address Exhibit 616a, which is the email

correspondence between BMO. And the government introduced this

exhibit to show that Mr. Brunst and others were aware of

questions raised by BMO about Backpage's activities. And

Exhibit 616a is the redacted -- was redacted to show an email

from Mr. Spear to BMO in which Mr. Brunst was copied regarding

BMO's questions of which Backpage categories were suspended and

which would be reinstated.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 8 of 123
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

08:59:14

08:59:36

09:00:05

09:00:35

09:01:03

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Exhibit 616 is the completed unredacted version, and

that includes an additional email that was written by

Mr. Larkin to BMO describing other moderation steps by Backpage

in response to concerns by States Attorney General.

And the defendants here have not sufficiently

identified how Mr. Spear's responding to BMO's question of

which categories were suspended and which were reinstated

creates any misimpression that is taken out of context.

And I think it's the defendants' -- defendants'

position that the redaction leaves a false impression that

Mr. Brunst was aware this site was being used for an illegal

purpose. But the redacted email does not mention any illegal

activity. It only outlines moderation actions.

And so the redaction does not distort the initial

exhibit, and so the rule, in my view, does not apply.

And then I don't recall that the defense ever even

attempted to admit Exhibit 616 on cross-examination. So my

ruling will stand with regard to those exhibits.

Let me now turn to Exhibit 836a, which is the email

correspondence between the Wall Street Journal and the

defendants. The government introduced this exhibit, which is

redacted, to show the reporter's question to Ms. McDougall

about the presence of The Erotic Review on Backpage. And the

complete unredacted version includes greater email content or

comments that was -- that were made by Ms. McDougall. And here

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 9 of 123
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

09:01:25

09:01:51

09:02:23

09:03:00

09:03:25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

I think it's, from what I understand the defendants' arguments,

that they -- that I should have permitted them to ask

Mr. Ferrer about his reaction to Ms. McDougall's redacted

comments because she was cc'ed on the email thread.

But, again, here defendants have not stated how

introducing the completed exhibit is needed to correct any

misleading impression from the redacted version, which is the

reporter's question about the presence of The Erotic Review on

Backpage. And the rule does not require the introduction of an

unedited writing or statement just because an adverse party has

introduced an edited version. And that was cited in the

briefing that is the Vajellos case.

And so here because there has been no showing that the

redacted exhibits would create a -- or cure a misimpression,

the Court is not inclined to revisit its ruling there.

Let me turn to, now, the Exhibits 52, 119, and 902,

which were the Attorney General letters. And here the

defendants argue that the Court improperly precluded admission

of the corresponding respondents to those initial letters

because the AG letters directly reference the response letters;

and, therefore, the government put those response letters at

issue. But that's not the standard under Rule 106. 106

allows, again, introduction of parts of a writing when

necessary to avert misunderstanding or distortion created by

another writing. And nowhere in the -- in the filing have

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 10 of 123
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

09:03:52

09:04:22

09:04:52

09:05:18

09:05:50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

defendants identified any specific statements in those AG

letters that are misleading or distorting, nor do they explain

fully how the responsive letters would correct that

misunderstanding. And so I decline to revisit my ruling there.

Let me briefly turn to the attorney-client privilege

issues of Mr. Ferrer. I did review the motion at Document 1822

to bar the government from asserting the attorney-client

privilege on behalf of Mr. Ferrer. I'll only address this

issue as to Mr. Ferrer and no other pending witness. We can

cross that bridge if it's necessary.

As Mr. Ferrer's counsel, Mr. Baum in his notice

pointed out, and as the government also notes, in these types

of circumstances when a witness is on the stand and being

examined, the government can raise this issue. In fact,

it's -- it's important to let people know if they are shielded

by an attorney-client privilege. Someone's got to let them

know that they have that right. And so here, in an abundance

of caution, because his counsel was present, I permitted him to

be present here to assert the right on behalf of the client.

So the motion is granted in part, just from the

previous testimony and permitting his counsel to be present to

make him aware that he has the privilege. And should he be

recalled, I will permit the same. But, again, if there's a

witness on the stand who has an attorney-client privilege and

there's an area that's being gone into by any side, I would

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 11 of 123
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

09:06:16

09:06:48

09:07:20

09:07:45

09:08:09

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

expect someone to let them know that they have the privilege

and that they should not answer any other questions until they

consult with counsel. And so that's how that will proceed.

Now I want to address these Exhibits GL-CF-36 and 37.

I here, too, also read the government's response and

Mr. Ferrer's counsel at Steptoe & Johnson, Mr. Baum, his

notice, and I am troubled by Mr. Baum's statements that the

email, which transmits this Exhibit GL-CF-36 which transmits

this Document 37, was sent a month before his purported joint

defense agreement was signed; that is, that the email appears

to be sent on May -- in May of 2017, and his joint defense

agreement was signed in June of 2017. And that email is what

transmitted the document. So it's difficult for the Court to

see how any attorney-client communication is covered before the

JDA was executed.

Now, I also remain troubled because I have not heard a

clear explanation as to how the defense came into possession of

this document, which, again, clearly looks like a draft, a

working draft, redline strike-outs, modifications to language,

back and forth between Mr. Ferrer and his counsel.

It does not appear that it came from Mr. Ferrer. It

was first described to the Court as offered as part of a

Court's -- this Court's docket as an attachment to a filing.

The Court looked into that; could not find it as cited to by

defense counsel. And then it was described as filed in another

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 12 of 123
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

09:08:36

09:09:03

09:09:20

09:09:40

09:10:06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

docket. But it is not a final writing. It's not signed. It

has no seal, Court seal or docket entry number affixed to it.

So I'm -- I'm troubled by that. And it appears to be a work in

progress. And so whether or not the exhibit contain

impeachment material at this juncture is not my primary

concern. My concern is it appears to be attorney-client

protected documentation. And so I'm not going to revisit my

ruling with regard to that.

And so with that, let's check on the jury and have

them in.

MR. FEDER: Judge, there was a notice of joinder that

talked about CDA 230 and this Court's rulings that appear to be

well beyond the Court's prior orders about what can be brought

into in regard to those -- to that law.

THE COURT: Well, yes. Thank you for reminding me

about that, Mr. Feder.

I looked at that joint filing, and I'm not inclined to

change my ruling. There are two orders on this issue. The two

orders, I think, stand for themselves. They're clear. And

the -- going forward, I just ask you to keep that in mind.

And the reason -- and, Mr. Feder, you can react in any

way that you want, out of frustration or what have you, but the

reason that I issued the admonishment to counsel, we -- was

because you specifically asked the witness about a definition

as it is defined by the Communications Decency Act,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 13 of 123
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

09:10:36

09:10:50

09:10:59

09:11:19

09:11:28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

Section 230. And that is what I sustained the objection to.

It is not permitted because it is not relevant to the case.

So you can try to see if there's other relevance to

other issues or questions that you wish to ask, and we can go

from there.

MR. FEDER: Judge, I wasn't reacting to your ruling.

I was trying not to talk over you, which is what you pointed

out yesterday. So I was just -- so the record's clear, but --

THE COURT: You were speaking with your hands. Okay.

That's fine.

MR. FEDER: My hands have a mind --

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. FEDER: They have a mind of their own.

The question that's in -- in -- at issue is I -- the

question was, I started to talk about Section 230. There was

no question before it. It was just by itself. The government

objected, and the Court sustained the objection, meaning the

mere mention of CDA 230 was sustained.

And -- and the two orders do not -- your -- your

Court -- the Court's two orders do not say that, not --

THE COURT: It doesn't say that the CDA Section 230 is

irrelevant?

MR. FEDER: It says --

THE COURT: This is not about that case.

MR. FEDER: You can't use it to -- you claim -- you

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 14 of 123
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

09:11:45

09:12:08

09:12:35

09:13:00

09:13:11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

can't claim that it immunizes the activity. That's what it

says.

THE COURT: I don't believe that's what it says. And

we can bat around what your interpretation of what I think

is -- are two clear orders and many oral admonishments, and

I -- I -- I will let you scour the record to build up your case

that I'm not clear. And you can do that. And I will

reconsider whether or not there are other parameters that I

must lay in order to get there.

Mr. Panchapakesan is standing, which reminds me I have

the final issue regarding his two exhibits.

I will permit you to examine the witness related to

the exhibits, and we will see how it goes with regard to the

first email, if you can lay foundation. I'm not inclined to

let you introduce the Sheriff Dart letter because of the -- the

other content that's included in there. So you can inquire

about it. If he has a recollection or if you can lay some

foundation for that, then we'll see how that goes.

All right. Anything further from either party?

MR. RAPP: Not from -- not from the United States.

MS. BERTRAND: Your Honor, I have one matter.

THE COURT: Can it wait for the break, or do I need to

rule on it now?

MS. BERTRAND: It's not an emergency. It's just about

an upcoming witness.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 15 of 123
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

09:13:30

09:13:42

09:14:02

09:14:17

09:14:59

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

THE COURT: Oh, all right. And we received a late

notice from the government as well that you have

supplemented -- included two more witnesses that you were --

originally were not going to call but have now decided to call.

MR. RAPP: Well, I don't know that we never -- we

never said we weren't going to call them. We just -- we're

just -- our pace is going faster than we anticipated --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. RAPP: -- and we either tell this Court we've run

out of witnesses or we have somebody waiting.

THE COURT: And that would be a bad thing, so --

MR. RAPP: Well, we -- we -- we -- we agree. So we

have a witness that's coming in today. We have not notified --

we -- we were not within the -- or outside of the 72 hours, but

this is a witness that they can't really be prejudiced by.

This is a witness that testified in the previous trial. Her

exhibits came into evidence already. The witness -- the

witness is well known to them. So in an abundance of caution,

we brought that witness in.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MS. BERTRAND: And that's what I wanted to raise. So

we can talk about that on a break.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let's have the jury in.

All rise for the jury.

(Jury present at 9:14 a.m.)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 16 of 123
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

09:16:07

09:16:28

09:16:58

09:17:21

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

THE COURT: Okay. Please be seated.

And thank you, members of the jury, for your patience.

As happens from time to time, there are, again, those matters

that we have to resolve and take the time to do so in a careful

way. I'm surprised I don't see a sea of red, but

congratulations to us all. And, in particular, my courtroom

deputy, whose family members were at the game. She is working

overtime now.

And so we have the witness on the stand.

And, Mr. Kozinets, you may continue.

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you, Your Honor.

(MICKEY HANSEN, a witness herein, was previously duly sworn

or affirmed.)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And good morning, Mr. Hansen.

Yesterday you mentioned that when you reached out to

get additional information from Mr. Ferrer, he shared with you

certain information about controls and operations at Backpage.

A. Yes.

Q. Did he include within that information -- or disclosure to

you any information about Backpage's years-long relationship

with The Erotic Review?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Lacks foundation.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Can you say that again?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 17 of 123
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

09:17:29

09:17:52

09:18:07

09:18:36

09:18:48

MICKEY HANSEN - DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

THE COURT: Well --

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that again?

MR. KOZINETS: Is there an objection?

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Was there an objection?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: I said it lacks foundation.

THE COURT: Well, I think he can answer if -- well,

I'll sustain the objection.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Did Mr. Ferrer tell you about any of Backpage's marketing

efforts regarding prostitution advertisements?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Same objection.

MR. FEDER: Also relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, he didn't use any marketing

information. It was more on the controls as they review ad

submissions.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Okay. Did Mr. Ferrer disclose to you any information about

how Backpage had enhanced its website to make it easier to shop

for prostitutes?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading.

MR. FEDER: Also relevance.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Lacks foundation as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 18 of 123
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

09:19:11

09:19:28

09:19:37

09:19:47

09:19:59

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

MR. KOZINETS: Okay. I pass the witness.

THE COURT: Mr. Panchapakesan?

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Good morning, sir.

A. Good morning.

Q. My name's Gopi Panchapakesan. I represent Jeff Brunst.

Now, on direct exam you testified to a number of

discussions you had with Carl Ferrer in the 2014-2015 time

period.

Do you recall that?

A. Correct.

Q. And those discussions also included a man by the name of

Trent Voigt; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you understood Trent Voigt to be the CEO of Jetpay?

A. Correct.

Q. And was Jetpay an AMEX business partner?

A. They are.

Q. And they're a payment processor; is that right?

A. They are.

Q. And a payment processor, is that sort of a -- a middleman

between the merchant and AMEX? Is that fair?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, during these discussions in late 2014, early 2015, do

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 19 of 123
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

09:20:15

09:20:48

09:21:03

09:21:15

09:21:31

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

you ever recall my client, Mr. Brunst, being part of those

discussions?

A. No, I do not.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: If you could please show the

witness Exhibit 475, which is in evidence. And request to

publish.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, Mr. Hansen, you recall testifying on direct exam about

this merchant guide from 2015; right?

A. I do.

Q. Okay. So why don't we take a look at page 14 of the

document, Section 3.2.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: And if you could kind of blow up

just that top, that very top paragraph.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Okay. And, Mr. Hansen, could you read that, that

paragraph.

A. Sure. It's in the treatment of American Express brand.

It says, "American Express has built a brand that is

synonymous with trust, integrity, security, quality, and

customer service. We work diligently to uphold our reputation

and restrict merchants from engaging in activities that would

harm our business or brand."

Q. And so, Mr. Hansen, you understood that American Express's

reputation and brand were factors that AMEX might consider in

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 20 of 123
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

09:21:44

09:21:57

09:22:08

09:22:19

09:22:30

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

its merchant termination decision; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. In fact, those are factors that American Express considered

in eventually terminating Backpage; correct?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Now can we go to page 16,

Section 3.3.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, you recall testifying yesterday about this list of --

of prohibited uses of AMEX cards; right?

A. Correct.

Q. So let's take a look at -- it's been blown up -- this first

bullet that says, "Adult digital content."

Do you see that?

A. Yep.

Q. Now, and that's -- that's a prohibited use of the card.

Someone cannot use an AMEX card to buy adult content online;

right?

A. Correct.

Q. Does that refer -- does that include online pornography,

for example?

A. Correct.

Q. And that would include adult ads?

A. If they were selling that content, then, yes.

Q. So -- so if someone was selling an ad for an escort or a

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 21 of 123
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

09:22:48

09:23:07

09:23:11

09:23:16

09:23:27

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

stripper online, they couldn't use the AMEX card to -- to pay

for that; right?

A. The escort service, because that's not illegal, then that

would be allowed. But if there was implications or inferences

that it was more than that, then it would not be.

Q. I see. So -- so your testimony is that if -- if there's an

advertisement and it's not a sex-for-money advertisement, is it

your testimony that an AMEX card could be used to buy that ad?

A. We could --

MR. KOZINETS: Objection.

I'm sorry.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Under your rules in 2015 --

THE COURT: Wait.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. -- it could --

THE COURT: Let -- there's an objection.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

THE COURT: What's the objection?

MR. KOZINETS: Just misstates prior testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes. If it was not illegal and we

didn't view it as a risk to our brand, then, yes.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. And so that second part, "risk to brand," that's not a

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 22 of 123
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

09:23:43

09:23:54

09:24:14

09:24:25

09:24:38

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23

question of legality or illegality? That's a reputational

concern; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, why don't we go to the fourth bullet point. Okay.

And that talks about payday loans.

What's a payday loan, if you know?

A. I'm sorry. Repeat your question.

Q. Sure. There's a reference here to payday loans. What's a

payday loan, if you know?

A. Payday loans, because we -- actually, many of those look

like they're more predatory lending, and so we prohibit that.

Q. And so that's another example of something that may not be

illegal, but AMEX views it as a risk to its brand?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. Then why don't we go to the ninth bullet point.

Okay.

And do you see that reference is gambling?

A. I --

Q. So -- so if I wanted to go to Vegas and buy chips at a

blackjack table using my AMEX card, I couldn't do that under

these rules; right?

A. You could not at that time, yep.

Q. And if I wanted to at this time go buy a Powerball ticket

using an AMEX card, I couldn't do that either; right?

A. Correct.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 23 of 123
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

09:24:47

09:25:03

09:25:11

09:25:23

09:25:35

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

Q. And that's despite the fact that it's legal to buy a

lottery ticket; right?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Now, let's go to the last bullet

point. It says, "Other items of which we notify."

Yeah.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Right. Now, I -- I believe you testified yesterday that

this is sort of a catch-all bullet that deals with -- I think

your words were risk to the brand; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you were referring to something called reputational

risk. Is that fair?

A. Correct.

Q. And, as you understand that, reputational risk means

negative reputation that can result to American Express's brand

from being associated with a certain product or service. Is

that fair?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, if we go to the last bullet at the bottom of the page,

it says, "Merchants must not use the card to verify a

customer's age."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. So is it true that in 2015 AMEX had a policy that a

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 24 of 123
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

09:25:53

09:26:06

09:26:22

09:26:43

09:27:02

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25

merchant could not use an AMEX credit card from a customer to

verify that customer's age; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So in 2015, if Backpage wanted to use an

advertiser's credit card to verify their age, under your rules,

they couldn't do that; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, ultimately in July 2015, AMEX completely cuts ties

with Backpage; right?

A. We have.

Q. Meaning that an AMEX card cannot be used to buy any ad on

Backpage even if it was a non-adult ad; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. Now, isn't it true, sir, that Backpage's adult

ads were not a violation, per se, of the merchant guide?

A. I'm sorry. They weren't in violation of which?

Q. Sure. Let me -- isn't it true that Backpage's adult ads

were not a, per se, violation of the merchant guide?

A. They -- they were because we were on the reputational risk

because we were being -- we had questions, lots of them, if we

were linked to what that could infer. And so that's why we

reached out to -- requested cancellation originally.

Q. Now, sir, you recall that you were interviewed by the

prosecutors in this case?

Do you recall that?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 25 of 123
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

09:27:09

09:27:14

09:27:35

09:27:43

09:28:03

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

26

A. Yep.

Q. And I think you had counsel with you from American -- from

American Express; is that right?

A. Yeah.

Q. Yes?

A. Yes. Sorry. Sorry.

Q. And you sought to tell the truth during that interview;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, isn't it true that during that interview you told the

government that with respect to American Express's merchant

guide, Backpage's adult ads were not a violation, per se?

Didn't you tell them that?

A. There -- outside of the reputational risk, there was not

a -- that they were doing anything illegal, if that's what your

question is.

Q. Okay.

A. Yes.

Q. So your testimony, then, is that the reason that AMEX

cancelled Backpage was because of reputational risk, not

because of illegality. Is that fair?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, getting back to this discussion about payment

processing, in your role at American Express, I think you said

you do global acquisitions. You manage relationships with

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 26 of 123
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

09:28:18

09:28:32

09:28:47

09:28:59

09:29:13

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

27

third-party partners, like Jetpay, who acquire merchants; is

that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And in the Backpage context, that third-party partner was

Jetpay; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And so in the onboarding process for a merchant like

Backpage, would -- would Backpage submit an application to

Jetpay? Is that how it works?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And then Jetpay would have the initial responsibility of

vetting Backpage; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And so Jetpay would initially have to confirm that the

merchant, Backpage, is not in a prohibited industry like we

just saw; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And, again, prohibited industry's not synonymous

with illegality. It can refer to a number of things that are

perfectly legal; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And I take it that when Backpage first became an AMEX

merchant, is it true that Jetpay did not make a determination

that Backpage was in a prohibited industry; right?

A. Correct.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 27 of 123
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

09:29:31

09:29:43

09:30:04

09:30:13

09:30:29

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28

Q. In fact, isn't it true that American Express at that time

had numerous merchant accounts with Jetpay?

A. We did.

Q. So it's not like Backpage was the only game in town.

Jetpay had helped you acquire other merchants; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And so you in your role had relied previously with other

merchants on -- on what Jetpay was telling you; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, as part of the onboarding process of a merchant,

American Express at the outsite -- outset might also verify a

merchant's suitability; is that right?

A. We could, yes. We retain that right.

Q. And, again, suitability and legality are -- are not the

same thing; right?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Suitability could also refer to something like

reputational risk, like we talked about; right?

A. It could, yes.

Q. And do you know if when Backpage first became an American

Express merchant, do you know if AMEX conducted a -- a

suitability review?

A. We -- if they had a direct relationship with us, we would

go through our standard risk review, which is underwriting. We

validate that they're in the right industry that they claim to

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 28 of 123
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

09:30:43

09:30:52

09:31:10

09:31:23

09:31:31

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

29

be and that they have the financial wherewith.

Q. And do you know if that happened, if AMEX did that with

Backpage?

A. If we had a direct relationship, yes. For this particular

case, through Jetpay, Jetpay would be responsible for

conducting that.

Q. Okay. And so in this -- in this instance, Jetpay did the

suitability review, and you relied on that review?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, you talked a bit about something called the Merchant

Evaluation Cancellation Committee.

Do you recall that?

A. I did.

Q. And so just sort of taking a step back, there may be any

number of reasons why AMEX terminates a merchant; right?

A. Correct.

Q. One of those could be excessive charge-backs, for example?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's where too many folks are disputing credit card

charges and getting refunds; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Another could be reputational risk we talked about?

A. Yes.

Q. Another could be if -- if there's negative publicity around

a merchant, AMEX might just say, you know, we don't want to

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 29 of 123
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

09:31:46

09:32:00

09:32:13

09:32:19

09:32:39

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

30

deal with this merchant. Is that fair?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. Now, the Merchant Evaluation Cancellation

Committee, I mean, you testified this is an internal committee

at AMEX that in the 2014-2015 time period was meeting regularly

to discuss cancelling potential merchants; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And going forward I might refer to it as the committee, and

you'll know what I'm saying?

A. Okay.

Q. Now, this committee, is it comprised of various department

heads or vice presidents across AMEX?

A. It is.

Q. And during the 2014 to 2015 time period, you attended these

meetings; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Backpage was a topic of discussion at the meetings;

right?

A. They were.

Q. And, in fact, at these meetings you would often be the one

presenting material regarding Backpage; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, in late 2014, so I'm talking like December 2014, isn't

it true that amongst the committee members within this

committee that there was a disagreement about how to proceed

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 30 of 123
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

09:32:53

09:33:12

09:33:24

09:33:32

///

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

31

with Backpage? Isn't that true?

A. There were some who -- who wanted to cancel right away, and

others were more open to if there was a solution to block the

adult section only.

Q. Now, isn't it true that in 2014, and this time period, you

understood that Backpage's revenue came from selling ad space;

is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. In other words, you understood Backpage was not receiving

revenue from a commercial transaction that might later happen

between a buyer and a seller; right?

A. We were not aware of that.

MR. KOZINETS: Objection.

THE WITNESS: It was an advertising --

MR. KOZINETS: Well --

THE WITNESS: -- merchant.

THE COURT: Was there -- I thought I heard an

objection.

Is your microphone on, Mr. Kozinets?

MR. KOZINETS: Sorry. It is, yes.

I was going to say objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll sustain the

objection.

And you can ask a new question, Mr. Panchapakesan.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 31 of 123
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

09:34:02

09:34:20

09:34:29

09:34:42

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

32

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Well, through this process of reviewing the Backpage

site -- well, let me step back.

You said you reviewed the Backpage site in 2014-2015;

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were familiar with the site through your

discussions with Mr. Ferrer and Mr. Voigt of Jetpay; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And did you have an understanding based on that that

Backpage was not receiving money from any commercial

transaction between an advertiser and a buyer?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: He can ask -- answer if he had an

understanding.

THE WITNESS: I didn't. I -- my understanding was

that the revenue came through advertising.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Meaning someone pays a fee to post an ad?

A. Right.

Q. That's your understanding?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now -- now, in fairness, at these committee

meetings, you know, some folks in the committee had concerns

about the effect of Backpage on -- on American Express's brand;

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 32 of 123
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

09:34:55

09:35:07

09:35:14

09:35:22

09:35:52

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

33

right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, in 2014-2015, there were minutes kept of these

committee meetings; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And so I take it that there was a -- a scribe who would

have taken down notes from the meetings; right?

A. I'm sorry. That there was a what?

Q. A scribe, or someone taking down notes --

A. Yes.

Q. -- from the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And the minutes would reflect who had attended the

meetings; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And they would reflect the deliberations in the meetings?

A. Yes.

Q. And they would reflect if there was any vote taken in terms

of how to proceed; right?

A. Yes.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Let me show the -- for the

witness's eyes only Exhibit 6026.

It's not on my screen, but I'm not sure if it's on his

screen.

THE COURT: It is on his screen.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 33 of 123
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

09:36:53

09:37:08

09:37:21

09:37:30

09:37:46

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

34

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: It should be on yours. Is the

monitor on?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: It's all right. Let me see if I

can deal without the screen potentially. Oh.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, Mr. Hansen, are these meeting minutes for a

December 12th, 2014, meeting of the AMEX Merchant Evaluation

Cancellation Committee?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And if you look at -- I think we have to go down a bit to

the next table, to ad hoc attendance.

And you're listed there as being in attendance at this

meeting; right?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. And then if you look at the top, sort of the

gray portion, it indicates there was a -- a scribe at the

meeting.

Do you see that?

A. Correct.

Q. And I assume that's the person who would have taken

the minutes from the meeting?

A. Correct.

Q. And based on your attendance at these meetings in

2014-2015, it was a regular practice for American Express to

maintain these types of minutes; right?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 34 of 123
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

09:38:00

09:38:08

09:38:25

09:38:42

09:38:59

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

35

A. Correct.

Q. Now, if you look at the agenda on page 2, that top table,

there's a reference to Backpage under point 2.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And so Backpage was discussed at this committing meeting?

A. Correct.

Q. And you were the presenter, it looks like, on that issue?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And then if you look at pages 3 to 4 of the exhibit,

this reflects the deliberations of the committee regarding

Backpage; right?

A. Correct.

Q. If you look at page 5, that reflects a vote of the

committee at this meeting; correct?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: I move to admit Exhibit 6026.

It's a business record under 803(b).

MR. KOZINETS: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. The

document contains an amalgamation of statements by a number of

people. Those are all out-of-court statements. And

particularly if this is being offered for truth, it's classic

hearsay.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: It's a business record.

It's minutes of a regularly conducted meeting. It's a classic

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 35 of 123
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

09:39:08

09:39:28

09:39:49

09:40:15

09:40:29

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

36

business record.

MR. KOZINETS: It --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. KOZINETS: It contains -- I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Well, I guess the question, though, is

what the other content is. I see some redactions. There's

other content with respect to other business decisions. I'm

not entirely clear what the other content is.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Well, the redactions are for

privilege by AMEX's counsel. Those are the redactions. And --

THE COURT: Scroll to the prior page.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Sure. And it's not being offered

for the truth. It's being offered to show there were

deliberations, there was a meeting, there was a vote.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: May I ask questions about it or --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: All right. So if you could go to

page 3 of the exhibit, bullet point 4. It's for the witness's

eyes only.

Yeah, if you would.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. And so -- so you were making a report to the -- to the

committee about Backpage; right?

A. Correct.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 36 of 123
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

09:40:42

09:41:00

09:41:14

09:41:34

///

///

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

37

Q. And so -- and I believe you testified to this on direct,

but you related to the committee that Mr. Ferrer, the CEO of

Backpage, had reached out to you; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you related to the committee that Mr. Ferrer

represented that Backpage was working with law enforcement;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you related to the committee that Mr. Ferrer

represented Backpage, had a comprehensive set of controls; is

that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, why don't we go to -- to bullet point 7 on that

same page.

Now, isn't it true that -- that during this time frame

Jetpay, your business partner, represented to you that in their

view Backpage had been very open with them?

A. That's what they said, yes.

Q. And do you ever recall a time when Backpage or Jetpay

invited you to visit Backpage's offices?

A. They did.

Q. Okay. And do you know if that ever happened?

A. No, we did not go.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 37 of 123
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

09:42:07

09:42:27

09:42:46

09:43:03

09:43:24

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

38

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: And if you go to bullet point 8 on

the same document. If you'd just blow that up for the witness,

the eighth bullet point.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, again, and I believe you testified to this on direct,

Jetpay and Mr. Ferrer represented to you that law enforcement

had encouraged them to keep the adult section open.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes, that is what they said. Yeah.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Okay. Now if we can turn to

page 4 of the document, bullet point 5.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Okay. Now, does this refresh your recollection that you

conveyed to the -- to the committee that you understood where

Backpage's revenue was coming from, that it was coming from

selling ad space?

A. This is what I was informed in conversations with -- with

Mr. Ferrer and -- and Mr. Voigt, yes.

Q. And isn't it true that you relayed that information to the

committee to give some of the other folks in the committee at

this time comfort about Backpage?

A. I was giving them the background so they understood all the

facts.

Q. And -- and by "all the facts," you're referring to the fact

that Backpage gets paid through selling ad space, not through

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 38 of 123
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

09:43:34

09:43:53

09:44:01

09:44:16

09:44:37

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

39

some other transaction; right?

A. I was sharing the -- the information that I was given on

this particular merchant.

Q. From Jetpay and Mr. Ferrer?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Now, if you'd go to bullet point 6

on that same page.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. It's a reference to someone called Oguz.

Do you know who Oguz is?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was he a committee member at the --

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was he a V -- a vice president dealing with -- with

risk?

A. He is. He's a vice president in our risk organization.

Q. Now, isn't it true that during this committee meeting he

expressed a concern about singling out Backpage?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Well, stepping back, during your deliberations at this

committee meeting, was there any disagreement about whether or

not AMEX would be singling out Backpage?

A. There was conversation about whether we should cancel them

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 39 of 123
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

09:44:58

09:45:23

09:45:34

09:45:53

09:46:04

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

40

or not, yes.

Q. And part of that was out of a concern that AMEX might be

singling out Backpage versus a newspaper, for example?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Well, he can answer the question if he has

an opinion about that or has familiarity with it.

THE WITNESS: Other than we wanted to make sure that

we were looking at it and considering all of the facts with it.

And so there was a comparison of is it similar to a newspaper

who does ads, and what action would we take.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. And -- and that comparison was made by some of the folks at

the committee; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, if you look at the last page, page 5, there was a vote

taken at -- at this committee meeting, right, regarding

Backpage?

A. Correct.

Q. And it was a -- there were, it looks like, five committee

members who voted?

A. Correct.

Q. And the vote was split, it -- on Backpage. It was 3 to 2;

right?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Okay. You can take that down.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 40 of 123
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

09:46:30

09:46:50

09:47:01

09:47:11

09:47:29

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

41

Thank you.

Now I'm going to -- I'm going to show for the

witness's eyes only Exhibit -- Government Exhibit 462.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Sir, do you recognize this as a -- a -- a January 27th,

2015, email between yourself, Mr. Ferrer, and Mr. Voigt?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is in this time period where you were having

discussions with Ferrer and Voigt about what to do about

Backpage going forward; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And fair to say this is sort of a -- a -- a lead-up to some

of the emails that Mr. Kozinets showed you yesterday a

couple months later; right?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Okay. I move for the admission of

Government Exhibit 462.

MR. KOZINETS: No objection.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be admitted and published.

(Exhibit 462 admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. If you take a look at this email, this is a communication

from Mr. Ferrer to you and others at AMEX, January 2015; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And if you take a look at that top portion there,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 41 of 123
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

09:47:50

09:48:04

09:48:18

09:48:26

09:48:41

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

42

Mr. Ferrer, he says, "Mickey, Craigslist and Backpage are the

same except for," and then he says, "Craig is much stronger in

private party items for sale. Craig allows hard core porn and

sex acts."

Do you see that?

A. I do see that.

Q. So Mr. Ferrer's position with respect to -- to AMEX was at

this time he thought Craigslist's content was in some sense

worse than Backpage's; right?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Speculation. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Well, in looking at this email, did you have an

understanding that Ferrer's view was Craigslist allowed

hard-core porn and sex acts?

A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat --

Q. Sure.

A. -- the question again?

Q. Sure. In looking at this email, did you have an

understanding that Mr. Ferrer was representing that Craigslist

allowed hard-core porn and sex acts at the time?

A. That's what he stated in the email.

Q. And then he lists a bunch of links, and it says, "Porn

NSFW."

Do you understand NSFW to mean not safe for work?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 42 of 123
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

09:48:53

09:49:08

09:49:21

09:49:34

09:49:47

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

43

A. I do not -- I don't -- I don't know all that.

Q. Fair enough.

Did you -- did you click on these Craigslist links

after you received the email?

A. I think -- I believe -- if I recall, I potentially did

some, but not all of them.

Q. Okay. And so you clicked on them, and -- and did it appear

that -- that these were pornographic-type ads with hard-core

sex acts?

A. I'm sorry. I don't recall. It's a long time ago.

Q. But sitting here today, you have no reason to dispute that

that's what these ads were for; right?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Now, if you go to the -- it's literally the third

paragraph where he says, "We are asking for a level playing

field."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. So you understood that Mr. Ferrer felt like Backpage was

not on a level playing field with Craigslist vis-a-vis AMEX;

right?

A. He stated that, yes.

Q. All right. Now, at this time, in January 2015, could

someone use an AMEX card on Craigslist?

A. I believe you could.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 43 of 123
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

09:50:00

09:50:14

09:50:23

09:50:31

09:51:00

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

44

Q. And, as we sit here today, can American Express cards be

used on Craigslist?

A. They can.

Q. Now, if you look at the fourth paragraph of this email, it

starts, "Losing AMEX."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. So you understood Mr. Ferrer to be representing to you that

losing the ability to have AMEX cards would hurt Backpage in

the jobs and automotive category.

Do you see that?

A. Correct. Yes.

Q. And then at the end of that paragraph, he says, "This is a

great opportunity for us."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And so Ferrer was representing to you that Backpage may

start charging in those sections; right?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: And please place before the

witness Exhibit 466, which is in evidence. And request to

publish. Thank you.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, this was an email you looked at yesterday, an

April 22nd, 2015, email between you and Mr. Ferrer; right?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 44 of 123
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

09:51:10

09:51:24

09:51:35

09:51:56

09:52:10

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

45

A. Yes.

Q. Now, there's a reference in this top portion to -- to

Univision.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. So you understood Ferrer to be saying that one of

Backpage's partners was Univision; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understand Univision to be a Spanish or a Latin

media company; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And he's asking you that -- he's asking you not to

cancel the AMEX cards because it might affect Univision, for

example; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, there's a screenshot that's attached to this, which

is -- which is 466a.

I don't know that we have to show that, but isn't it

true that in 2015, AMEX tested the Backpage site by attempting

to use an AMEX card to buy an adult ad; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And -- and you confirmed that an AMEX card couldn't be used

for that purpose; correct?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: You can take that down. Thank

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 45 of 123
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

09:52:28

09:52:41

09:52:51

09:53:04

09:53:13

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

46

you.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. So you testified yesterday that you became aware in

July 2015 that AMEX credit cards could be used to purchase

something called credits on the Backpage site; right?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. Now, isn't it true that you became aware of

that fact because a -- a sheriff had raised that issue with

AMEX?

A. It was -- I believe it was, but it was an external party

had reached out to us and asked that question, if we were aware

of it.

Q. And that external party was a law enforcement official;

right?

A. They were.

Q. And do you understand that to be someone called

Sheriff Dart?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Foundation and hearsay as

to this line of, you know, questions.

THE COURT: Well, he can answer the question if he

understood it to be someone by that name.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall the -- the name of the

sheriff.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Okay. Well, do you understand that AMEX had a back and

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 46 of 123
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

09:53:32

09:53:37

09:53:50

09:53:54

09:54:16

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

47

forth with that sheriff's office during this time period?

MR. KOZINETS: Foundation.

THE WITNESS: What do you mean by "back and forth"?

Sorry.

MR. KOZINETS: That's okay.

THE COURT. Yes.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: I can rephrase.

THE COURT: Yes, please rephrase.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Do you understand that during this time period, after the

sheriff made AMEX aware of the issue, do you recall if AMEX and

the sheriff's office traded information with each other?

A. I was not involved in that --

MR. KOZINETS: Objection.

THE WITNESS: -- so I don't --

MR. KOZINETS: Sorry.

THE WITNESS: -- know that information.

THE COURT: Overruled.

And his answer will -- will stand. He said he didn't

know that.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, at this time, July 2015, did you have an understanding

that the sheriff had also sent letters to other credit card

companies like Visa and MasterCard?

MR. KOZINETS: Foundation.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 47 of 123
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

09:54:25

09:54:36

09:54:46

09:54:55

09:55:32

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

48

THE WITNESS: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Well, I mean, it's really a yes or no.

Did -- did you do -- do you have any recollection of

that?

MR. KOZINETS: Same.

THE COURT: He can answer that question.

THE WITNESS: I didn't -- I wasn't aware of it at that

time.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

So you -- you said "at that time."

Did -- at some point did you become aware of that?

A. Sorry. No. They did that.

Q. So you --

A. They just made us aware of -- that you could purchase

credits with that. I wasn't aware of if they were contacting

other entities.

Q. And sitting here today, that's not something you're --

you're familiar with?

A. No.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Okay. Can I place before the

witness Exhibit 6234 for his eyes only.

Now, if you'd go to the very end of this email chain,

bottom of page 3. All right.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 48 of 123
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

09:55:47

09:55:58

09:56:18

09:56:35

09:56:56

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

49

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, there's a name there, Molly Faust.

Was she part of the cancellation committee?

A. She -- she is. She was, yes.

Q. And what -- do you know what her role at AMEX was at the

time?

A. Sorry?

Q. Do you know what her role at AMEX was at the time?

A. She was our communication -- external communication, public

communication.

Q. And what about Marina Norville? Do you know who that is?

A. I do not recall that name. I don't remember her.

Q. But Molly Faust was in charge of communications, so she

would have dealt with communications with external third

parties; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now, do you recognize these two emails here as -- as

American Express email accounts, the aexp.com?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you look at this email, does this appear to be a

communication from a sheriff's office to American Express

about -- about some credit card issues?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Okay. Well, if you'd go to -- if

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 49 of 123
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

09:57:26

09:57:41

09:57:53

09:58:23

09:58:45

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

50

you'd go to the second page of this email, middle of the page.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. And you see there's a -- there's a communication from a --

a sheriff's office to AMEX.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, given your awareness that a sheriff brought this

credit issue to your attention, does this appear to be a

communication from that sheriff's office flagging for

Backpage -- excuse me -- flagging for American Express that

credits could be used on Backpage?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KOZINETS: Foundation.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Well, let me -- let me go about it this way then: This

sheriff, after you became -- he made you aware that AMEX cards

could be used to buy credits on Backpage, fair to say that that

month AMEX stopped allowing its cards to be used for any

purpose on -- on the Backpage website; right?

A. During that month we did, because we'd reached out to see

if there was a way to stop using AMEX on credits for that --

for the adult section.

Q. And it postdates this July 7th email we looked at right --

A. Right.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 50 of 123
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

09:59:00

09:59:37

09:59:51

10:00:03

10:00:25

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

51

Q. -- that decision?

Okay. And at some point did that sheriff stop making

contact with AMEX? Do you know?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Relevance. Hearsay.

Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, Mr. Hansen, why don't we take a look at Exhibit 474,

which is in evidence.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: And request to publish.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, if you look, there's a second email there from -- from

Mr. Ferrer to you dated July 20th, 2015.

Do you see that?

Now, there's a reference here to -- it says, "We'd

still like your counsel to meet with our counsel."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know if that meeting ever occurred?

A. I don't -- I believe it did not.

Q. Okay. And if you'd go to the -- to the top email.

Now, at the bottom of that, you note that Backpage

requested a topic of discussion before this potential meeting.

Do you see that?

A. Correct.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 51 of 123
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

10:00:41

10:00:53

10:01:11

10:01:21

10:01:29

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

52

Q. And do you know if -- if Ferrer ever communicated with you

what the topics of discussion would be?

A. No. The -- they never were shared.

Q. In connection with this potential meeting, did Ferrer ever

share with you that -- that he thought Backpage's conduct

was -- was First Amendment protected?

Did he ever say that?

MR. KOZINETS: Foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, do you believe that Mr. Ferrer did his best to comply

with your request during this time period?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Speculation. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. I'm asking you. So you dealt with Mr. Ferrer for about --

it looks like half a year; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were dealing with him on issues concerning the

Backpage website; right?

A. (No audible response.)

Q. Yes?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were dealing with this issue of credits; right?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 52 of 123
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

10:01:46

10:02:00

10:02:09

10:02:19

///

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

53

A. We did not deal with credit until, like you said, in this

time frame where we were made aware of that. They never came

up before.

Q. So in this time frame on this issue of credits, since you

were dealing with him --

A. Yes.

Q. -- do you believe that Mr. Ferrer did his best to comply

with -- with your requests?

A. On credits, because we requested that you block AMEX for

using the credits at that time, and the answer was that they

could not.

Q. Right. And so my -- my question is, in connection with

this credits issue --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- since you dealt with him, do you believe Ferrer did his

best to comply with your requests?

MR. KOZINETS: Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, if Ferrer ever testified under oath that in his view

he did his best to comply with your requests, would that be

truthful?

MR. KOZINETS: Hearsay.

THE WITNESS: I'll sustain.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 53 of 123
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

10:02:48

10:03:11

10:03:24

10:03:44

10:03:54

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

54

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. So sitting here today as -- as the person who was dealing

with all this from December 2014 to mid-2015, you have no view

as to whether Ferrer and Backpage were -- were complying with

your -- your requests?

MR. KOZINETS: Relevance. Foundation.

THE COURT: Well, I think, Mr. Panchapakesan, you have

to identify what the meaning of "request" is. There were

several that were made. And I think the question is confusing.

It's compound. And so I'll sustain the objection.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. So let's take it piece by piece then.

THE COURT: And there's a foundational issue here as

well as to what Mr. Ferrer was or was not doing, so that's the

reason for my sustaining the objections.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Well, let's take it piece by piece then.

On this credits issue, meaning the use of American

Express cards to purchase credits, you're familiar with what

I'm talking about; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. That's an issue that came to your attention. You

then raised it with Mr. Ferrer directly; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And then Mr. Ferrer had a response; correct?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 54 of 123
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

10:04:08

10:04:27

10:04:48

10:05:09

10:05:16

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

55

A. He did.

Q. Okay. And you considered and evaluated that response;

right?

A. We did, yes.

Q. Okay. And I'm just talking about this specific interaction

on credits.

In that context, did you, in your view, since you were

dealing with him, did you believe that Mr. Ferrer was -- was

doing his best to comply with what you'd asked him to do?

MR. KOZINETS: Speculation. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Did you have any reaction to Mr. Ferrer's actions in

response to your requests on -- on this credits issue?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled. He can answer if he had any

action -- reaction.

THE WITNESS: Well, when I -- we had asked him if they

could remove credits, and he said he would look into it and

then came back and said that he couldn't.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. That he could not?

A. Could not.

Q. Okay. And did you think he was being truthful?

A. In that view --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 55 of 123
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

10:05:25

10:05:35

10:06:03

10:06:22

10:06:35

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

56

MR. KOZINETS: Sorry. Speculation. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Did you have any view as to his response, any reaction to

his response that he couldn't do it?

MR. KOZINETS: Asked and answered.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: That's --

THE COURT: Overruled. He can answer if he can.

THE WITNESS: Yes. When he said he couldn't, then

that -- we took that as the fact that he would not be able to

remove AMEX for credits.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Okay. Now, you testified that you are a VP of Global

Acquisitions Capabilities. So I take it that -- now, you

testified that you're VP of Global Acquisition Capabilities, so

I take it you're -- you're dealing with global merchants in

that respect?

A. Global partners.

Q. Okay. And in dealing with global partners, in your

experience, AMEX also has global merchants. Is that accurate?

A. We do have global merchants.

Q. Okay. And so the jury understands, "merchant" meaning a

business selling something; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And I would assume AMEX has hundreds, if not

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 56 of 123
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

10:06:55

10:07:08

10:07:29

10:07:49

10:07:59

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

57

hundreds of thousands of global merchants; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And so just because a business is abroad, that's not

a reason for AMEX to deny use of their cards; right?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: He can answer if he knows. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: We have merchant rules, and they -- they

can vary from region to region.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. But you can have a merchant abroad. That's not in and of

itself a violation of your policies; right?

A. Right. We have merchants in many -- many countries.

Q. And you're also aware, since you are the VP of Global

Acquisition Capabilities, AMEX itself as a company has its own

affiliated, and the company's and subsidiary's abroad; right?

A. We may. I don't know all of the -- all of the workings in

those relationships.

Q. But you're generally aware that American Express within its

corporate structure has foreign affiliates, foreign

subsidiaries, that sort of thing; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And some of these affiliates/subsidiaries, they

might be in the Netherlands or the U.K. Is that fair?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with an AMEX-affiliated company in

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 57 of 123
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

10:08:11

10:08:24

10:08:46

10:08:59

10:09:13

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

58

the United Kingdom called Interactive Transaction Solutions,

Limited?

Have you heard of that before?

A. I have not.

Q. Okay. Do you have any idea what that company does?

A. No.

Q. But you are aware that on occasion AMEX has to set up local

companies abroad to do business there; right? You're aware of

that?

MR. KOZINETS: Yeah. Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now -- now, turning back to your discussions with

Mr. Ferrer to just be more precise about this, you -- you set

forth certain conditions for Mr. Ferrer and Backpage to comply

with; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you -- you personally conveyed what those conditions

were to Mr. Ferrer; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And so my question is, in your view, did Mr. Ferrer

do his best to comply with those conditions that you set forth

for him?

MR. KOZINETS: So objection. Asked and answered.

Speculation. Foundation.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 58 of 123
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

10:09:19

10:09:35

10:09:48

10:09:56

10:10:11

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

59

THE COURT: Yes. Sustained. It's been asked and

answered.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Okay.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, during the 2015-2015 time period, I believe you

testified that you reviewed some of the ads on Backpage;

correct?

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

Q. Sure. During the 2014-2015 time period, you testified on

direct you reviewed some of the ads on Backpage; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And I believe your direct testimony was you thought the

ads, quote, "could insinuate other services besides dating."

Do you recall that testimony from yesterday?

A. Correct.

Q. You also testified you had concerns that the ads, quote,

"implied prostitution."

Do you recall that testimony?

A. Correct.

Q. So, in other words, when you were looking at these ads, you

obviously -- you didn't contact an advertiser on an ad to see

if it was for prostitution; right?

A. Correct.

Q. You looked at the ad and -- and you took a guess, and you

thought, okay, this -- maybe this is for prostitution; maybe

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 59 of 123
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

10:10:23

10:10:34

10:10:57

10:11:05

10:11:25

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

60

it's not; right?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Form. And just misstates

prior testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Okay.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. When you looked at those ads that you said implied

prostitution, you did not know for a fact whether they were for

prostitution; correct?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. You used the word "implied." The opposite of that would be

express; right?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: What's -- I'm sorry? Re- -- rephrase.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Sure.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Yesterday you -- you said you had concerns with ads, quote,

"being implied prostitution."

That was your testimony; right?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: I'm trying to lay some foundation.

THE COURT: I -- well, I think he can answer the

question as to -- as it was stated, that yesterday you said you

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 60 of 123
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

10:11:44

10:12:00

10:12:15

10:12:33

10:12:44

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

61

had concerns with ads, quote, "being implied prostitution."

He can answer it yes or no if he said that.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Okay. And so I take it, just to kind of paint a picture,

you -- in 2014, you pull up the Backpage website. You look at

several ads; is that right?

A. We did as a committee.

Q. Okay. And you did personally; right?

A. Yep.

Q. And when you said that you thought the ads implied

prostitution, that's because you didn't think that they

explicitly or expressly were for prostitution; right?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Now, in reviewing the ads on the site in 2014-2015, isn't

it true you believed that Backpage looked like the back of

small weeklies?

Isn't that something you thought?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And by "weeklies," you were referring to weekly

newspapers; right?

A. Correct. That was the reference, yes.

Q. Okay. And so the jury understands, these are old-school

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 61 of 123
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

10:12:56

10:13:08

10:13:16

10:13:28

10:13:45

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

62

newspapers that might have adult ads in the back page of the

newspaper; right?

That's what you meant?

MR. KOZINETS: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. PANCHAPAKESAN:

Q. Okay. Well, when you used the term "weeklies," what did

you mean?

A. It was a -- where you can buy and sell things. Ads.

Q. Classified ads?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. In -- in hard paper copy?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's what you thought the website looked like; right?

A. Correct.

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Well, members of the jury, although you

did come in later, we have been here since about a quarter to

the hour, so I think it's appropriate to give counsel and the

court staff the break. We'll adhere to the schedule as I

promised yesterday. We'll be on our morning recess until

10:35. And so just remember the admonition and be prepared to

come in at that time.

Please all rise for the jury.

(Jury not present at 10:13 a.m.)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 62 of 123
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

10:14:30

10:14:59

10:15:15

10:15:31

10:15:45

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

63

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

Ms. Bertrand, wanted to raise an issue relating to a

witness?

MS. BERTRAND: Yes. Thank you.

As the Court noted, I believe the government noted, we

received notice last night that the government is adding

witnesses to its line-up for this week. And those notices are

less than 24 hours, apparently not to mention 72 hours. And

the -- and the assertion from the government was that, well, I

mean, this person's testified before. They already know.

That's not -- that doesn't mean we've had fair notice

regarding this witness. And this is a witness that I would

proffer to the Court they had to have made arrangements with

regarding her travel. On information and belief, I believe

she's speaking at a conference in Arkansas this weekend. It

would be surprising if she just suddenly was able to drop in

and help.

So we would object to the calling of Jessika Svengard

this week as lacking notice. We rely on the government. We

trust the government when it tells us these are the witnesses

it's going to call. And much like the issue we had with the

She- -- Shehan's last week, you know --

THE COURT: Ms. Bertrand, let me --

MS. BERTRAND: Okay.

THE COURT: -- stop you there.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 63 of 123
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

10:16:04

10:16:20

10:16:43

10:17:00

10:17:21

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

64

I don't think it's appropriate to cast dispersions or

motive to -- or ill motive to any party. I wouldn't permit the

government to do that to any one on the defense side. I'm not

going to permit you to do that. This -- the other witnesses

that had to travel out of state, we resolved that issue.

MS. BERTRAND: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Here my understanding of the government's

notice was because of their feeling of the accelerated nature

of the witnesses that appeared yesterday. And so I'm certain

that they probably didn't want to have the Court be very upset

with them if they didn't have notices on -- witnesses on

standby and that we had to release the jury early for that

purpose. So that's the way that I took that notice to mean.

So with regard to that, I am concerned that at least

with these two added witnesses that may be called today or

tomorrow, again, we're half day tomorrow --

MS. BERTRAND: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: -- that at the very least that they have

been provided exhibits to be used with those witnesses. They

are entitled to at least know what exhibits are going to be

used for those witnesses.

And I also am concerned that the prior trial was two

years ago. And so it's not fair to assume defense is prepared

to go forward on a cross-examination of someone that they

obviously haven't heard from, they don't know what the direct

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 64 of 123
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

10:17:47

10:18:07

10:34:29

10:35:14

10:35:21

MICKEY HANSEN - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

65

testimony's going to be like this time probably, and it should

probably be somewhat different. And so that is concerning.

So -- but I am going to permit it if the other witnesses who

have already been noticed to the defense have testified. So

only on those conditions. If we get to Friday afternoon at the

noon hour and you -- or 10:00 a.m., then I'll permit that. All

right?

MS. BERTRAND: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(Recess from 10:18 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.)

(Jury not present at 10:33 a.m.)

THE COURT: We seem to be missing counsel.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We're missing Mr. Cambria.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the witness in.

Please come to order, counsel.

And who is going to be up next for defense?

MR. EISENBERG: I don't have any questions for this

witness.

THE COURT: Mr. Cambria?

MR. CAMBRIA: No, I have no questions.

THE COURT: Ms. Bertrand?

MS. BERTRAND: None from Ms. Vaught. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Feder?

MR. FEDER: No.

THE COURT: All right. So we're passing back. Okay.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 65 of 123
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

10:36:38

10:37:12

10:37:25

10:37:33

MICKEY HANSEN - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

66

Let's have the witness -- the jury in.

All rise for the jury.

(Jury present at 10:36 a.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

And the record will reflect the presence of the jury.

The witness is on the stand. The defense has passed the

witness back to Mr. Kozinets.

Mr. Kozinets, you may proceed.

MR. KOZINETS: Thank you, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And welcome back, Mr. Hansen.

There was some discussion when Mr. Panchapakesan was

asking you questions about whether AMEX had tested and

confirmed that AMEX cards couldn't be used to buy adult ads on

Backpage.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that -- is that testing that occurred just after AMEX

had reached what it believed to be its agreement with

Backpage --

A. Correct.

Q. -- without limiting the use of the card just to non-adult

purchases?

A. Correct.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 66 of 123
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

10:37:55

10:38:02

10:38:18

10:38:37

10:38:48

MICKEY HANSEN - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

67

Q. And when that testing occurred, AMEX wasn't aware that the

card could still be used to buy credits, which could then be

used to buy adult ads for Backpage?

MR. FEDER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Was there an objection?

MR. FEDER: There was. Leading.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. When that testing occurred, though, this issue of credits

wasn't known to American Express?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. When that testing occurred, had Backpage said anything to

you about their credits system?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading and now hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KOZINETS: Well --

THE COURT: You can rephrase the question.

MR. KOZINETS: Okay.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Was AMEX aware of this kind of --

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Calls for speculation.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 67 of 123
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

10:38:54

10:39:07

10:39:31

10:39:40

10:40:03

MICKEY HANSEN - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

68

THE COURT: Overruled. He hasn't finished his

question.

MS. BERTRAND: Oh, sorry.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Was AMEX aware at the time of this testing of this kind of

credits alternative way of using AMEX on Backpage?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: We were not.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And Backpage had -- had Backpage alerted you to that?

A. They did not.

Q. Okay. You were shown a couple of exhibits that contained

representations about Backpage was doing, like, percentage of

ads from jobs and automotive.

Do you -- do you remember that?

A. I do.

Q. Did you or American Express have any way of verifying those

representations?

A. We do not.

Q. And Mr. Ferrer told you about controls that he represented

Backpage had -- had put in place?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any way of kind of verifying what he was

telling you?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 68 of 123
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

10:40:23

10:40:33

10:41:19

10:41:53

10:42:07

MICKEY HANSEN - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

69

A. We did not.

Q. There was discussion of a Merchant Evaluation Cancellation

Committee meeting that occurred in, I believe, November of

2014.

Do you recall seeing a document about that?

A. Yes.

Q. And there was some discussion of a vote that had taken

place?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you recall what was being voted on at that time?

A. In our initial meeting, it was whether we would continue

our relationship with Backpage.com or to cancel their -- cancel

that relationship.

Q. But then sub- -- but then subsequently at the -- sorry. It

was the December 12th meeting that you were -- you were shown a

document about, at that meeting.

MR. KOZINETS: And may -- may I show this just to the

witness only? It's a -- Exhibit 6026.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be shown to the witness.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And just looking at this document, do you now see what was

voted on at this subsequent December 2014 meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was being voted on?

A. This was to -- to allow us to continue to do business with

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 69 of 123
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

10:42:32

10:42:41

10:43:21

10:43:45

10:44:08

MICKEY HANSEN - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

70

them if they provided -- or they removed AMEX acceptance from

the adult services ad section.

Q. So, in other words, if you voted yes, you'd be voting that

AMEX could continue on, but only if Backpage carved out its

adult section from --

A. Right.

Q. -- AMEX acceptance?

And if you voted no on this, what would that mean?

A. That would mean cancel the relationship.

Q. Okay. And there was a little bit of discussion about the

view at American Express that Backpage ads raised a

reputational risk to the company.

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall stating that was because American Express

didn't want to be associated with these types of ads?

A. That is correct.

Q. And when you started talking to Mr. Ferrer, he shared

articles with you about ads that had been the subject of

criminal investigations and prosecutions that were on Backpage?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: It's outside the scope of cross.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. When you -- the activities and transactions that American

Express did not want to be associated with, were those

reflected in the articles that Mr. Ferrer had shared with you?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 70 of 123
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

10:44:34

10:44:50

10:45:04

10:45:14

10:45:23

MICKEY HANSEN - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

71

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: Same -- same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. Did the concern that you had, the reputational concerns

that you talked about, those were routed in types of activities

that you were aware of were being advertised in these ads?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: That's vague as to ads.

THE COURT: Over- -- overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. KOZINETS:

Q. And your concerns about those ads involved what kinds of

activities?

A. Inferences that it could be prostitution and those type of

activities.

MR. KOZINETS: Okay. Thank you.

No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. May the witness be released

from his subpoena?

Is there any objection by defense?

MR. PANCHAPAKESAN: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. By the government?

All right. Sir, thank you for your testimony. You

are released from your subpoena, and you are free to go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Please call your next witness.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 71 of 123
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

10:46:00

10:46:14

10:46:36

10:46:46

10:46:54

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

72

MR. RAPP: The United States calls Anya Beck.

THE COURT: Ma'am, please come forward and be sworn by

my courtroom deputy.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Here.

THE COURT: Right here. Thank you.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please raise your right hand.

(ANYASTACIA BECK, a witness herein, was duly sworn or

affirmed.)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: If you would step up to the

witness stand. Speak into the microphone, please. Thank you.

THE COURT: Yes, you may proceed.

MR. RAPP: Thank you, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. Ma'am, could you state your full name. Spell your last

name for the record, please.

A. Anyastacia [phonetic] Beck, and B-E-C-K.

Q. Ma'am, where are you from?

A. Los Angeles.

Q. How long have you lived in Los Angeles?

A. About five years.

Q. Did you grow up in Los Angeles?

A. No.

Q. Where did you grow up?

A. Temecula.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 72 of 123
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

10:47:04

10:47:13

10:47:19

10:47:31

10:47:42

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

73

Q. All right. Can you tell the jury where Temecula is.

A. Near San Diego. Southern California --

Q. All right.

A. -- area.

Q. Did you go to high school in Temecula?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Do you have any kids?

A. What?

Q. Do you have any kids?

A. One.

Q. All right. How old?

A. 4.

Q. How old are you?

A. 23.

Q. Ma'am, I want to ask you some questions about Backpage.com.

Are you familiar with that website?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know any of the defendants in this case?

A. No.

Q. Do you know Michael Lacey?

A. No.

Q. Do you know Scott Spear?

A. No.

Q. Do you know the CFO, Jed Brunst?

A. No.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 73 of 123
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

10:47:51

10:48:03

10:48:10

10:48:20

10:48:29

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

74

Q. Do you know Andrew Padilla?

A. No.

Q. Do you know Joye Vaught?

A. No.

Q. Ma'am, how were you introduced to this website,

Backpage.com?

A. Through a man named Reson.

Q. Do you know what year that was?

A. 2015.

THE COURT: Can I just ask, did you say Reson or Drees

or --

THE WITNESS: Reson.

THE COURT: Reson.

MR. RAPP: Reson.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. All right. Just to be clear, this is -- this person named

Reson is somebody you knew?

A. Somebody I had just met --

Q. All right.

A. -- yeah.

Q. And when you were introduced to Backpage.com, were you ever

posted on that website?

A. Yes.

Q. And -- and did that also happen in 2015?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 74 of 123
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

10:48:47

10:49:10

10:49:25

10:49:39

10:50:03

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

75

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to the jury how you were posted on

Backpage.com.

A. Either I would post the ads myself or he would post them.

Q. Can you explain how you would go about posting yourself on

Backpage.com?

A. I would look at the other ads and see what they were saying

and copy and paste different parts of the descriptions and then

post pictures along with it.

Q. All right. When you say you would post pictures along with

it, can you explain how you went about doing that.

A. Either I would take pictures of myself or Reson would take

pictures of me --

Q. All right.

A. -- that I would use.

Q. Okay. What type of device did you use to post?

Do you know what I mean?

A. Phone.

Q. All right. Did you use any other electronic device other

than a phone?

A. No.

Q. When you posted on Backpage, what category was this posted

in?

A. In the dating, I believe, section.

Q. Okay.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 75 of 123
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

10:50:18

10:50:37

10:50:54

10:51:13

10:51:33

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

76

A. The woman -- or, yeah, woman looking for man. Or I can't

remember, actually. It was something like that.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

When you say you were posting on Backpage, can you

explain to the jury what the purpose of posting on Backpage

was.

A. To get customers or to get people to pay for sex.

Q. Okay.

A. Sexual acts.

Q. All right. And can you -- can you tell us how long you --

this went on, posting on Backpage.com back in 2015?

A. A couple months.

Q. Do you know how many times you were posted on Backpage.com?

A. Many times.

Q. When you posted on Backpage.com, were -- was there ever an

occasion where you received some type of a message from

Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Can you explain to us what -- what, if any, message

you received from Backpage.

A. I had received -- I would receive an email saying that my

ad had been rejected and that I needed to change, like, certain

things in order for it to be reposted.

Q. Okay. Can you explain to the jury what it was that you

believe caused your posting or your ad to be rejected.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 76 of 123
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

10:51:54

10:52:08

10:52:28

10:52:50

10:53:14

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

77

MR. FEDER: Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: It was either words that I used, like

specific words, or if a picture was too graphic.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. All right. Ms. Beck, how was the -- was the ad -- did you

have to pay for the ad to post it?

A. No.

Q. All right. Were there instances where you did have to pay

Backpage for any reason?

A. You could -- sometimes we would pay if we wanted to keep

the add at the top, like make it seen by more people.

Q. Okay. Is there a reason why you would want that?

A. To get more hits on the ad.

Q. All right. After you posted -- well, let me ask you this:

When you posted the ad, was there a particular time during the

day that you would post your ad?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Can you explain that to us.

A. The times I would post are -- were around 3:00 in the

morning; around 12:00, like lunchtime, 12:00 p.m.; and around

5:00 or 6:00, when guys would get out of work.

Q. Okay. After you posted the ad, what, if anything,

happened?

A. I would start getting calls and text messages from men.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 77 of 123
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

10:53:32

10:53:49

10:54:10

10:54:32

10:54:43

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

78

Q. Okay. And what, if anything, were these men who called or

texted you, what were they looking for?

MR. FEDER: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: They were looking for sex or something

sexual.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. Okay. Once you received these calls, did you go anywhere?

A. Sometimes.

Q. All right. Can you explain that to us.

A. Either they would come to me in the hotel that I was

staying at or I would go to wherever they wanted to meet at or

took me; their ho- -- a hotel, their house, a car.

Q. Okay. And would you meet with them -- when you met with

them, what, if anything, did you do?

A. Sex or other sexual acts.

Q. Okay. Was this -- was this prostitution?

A. Yes.

Q. After you engaged in these acts, were you paid?

A. Yes.

Q. What, if anything, would you do with the money once you

were paid?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I would give it to Reson.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 78 of 123
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

10:55:03

10:55:14

10:55:33

10:56:04

10:56:19

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

79

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. All right. And what, if anything -- did you observe or

come to learn what Reson would do with the money, Ms. Beck,

once -- once you gave it to him?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection.

MR. FEDER: Relevance.

MS. BERTRAND: Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Oh. He would buy me clothes or outfits

to wear. Get my nails done. He bought a car to drive us

around. Hotel rooms.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. All right. And with regard to the hotel rooms, was that

something that you paid for or he paid for?

A. He paid for them.

Q. All right. Now, were there occasions where you -- were

there occasions where you would meet with some of these men and

you wouldn't engage in sexual acts?

A. Only a couple.

Q. All right. But during the time period that you were

posting on Backpage, how many men did you meet with to have --

A. Many.

Q. -- to engage in sexual acts?

A. Many.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 79 of 123
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

10:56:37

10:56:51

10:57:08

10:57:36

10:57:51

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

80

Q. Were you in a position to observe whether this individual,

Reson that you've referred to, had some other employment,

legitimate employment?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. I can. Were you in a position to observe whether or not

this individual, Reson that you've been talking about, were you

in a position to observe whether or not he had some type of

other employment, some other type of legitimate employment?

A. Not while I was staying with him specifically. But before

I had started staying with him, I know he had worked some odd

jobs.

Q. All right. Now, in preparation for your testimony today,

have you reviewed the ads that you had on Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. I'm showing you what has already been admitted

as United States 218.

Do you see that on your screen, ma'am?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Is this -- is this one of the ads that was posted on

Backpage.com that featured you?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, is the date accurate here? Do you see the date there?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 80 of 123
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

10:58:21

10:58:40

10:58:52

10:59:14

10:59:25

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

81

A. Yes, it's accurate.

Q. And in terms of the -- the terms that are in the headline

here, is that something that you wrote or this person you've

been referring to as Reson wrote?

A. I can't remember specifically if he wrote this ad or I did,

but, regardless, we both would put the same type of wording.

Q. All right. In terms of the age here, is this -- is the age

accurate, that -- when you posted this?

A. I wasn't 19, but I - --

Q. Okay.

A. -- did post that I was 19.

Q. All right. Now, just looking quickly at this, there's some

figures.

Do you see that 80, 120, 150? Do you see that in

there, in your -- in the text?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you -- can you tell the jury what that refers to.

A. The prices that I would charge for the different acts.

Q. Okay. So -- and then there are some acts in the posting.

Can you tell the jury what those acts refer to.

MR. FEDER: Judge, it's not on our screen anymore.

THE COURT: Yes, it's not on the screen.

MR. RAPP: I know it's not on the screen. I'm asking

her questions about it.

THE COURT: Well, you're --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 81 of 123
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

10:59:36

10:59:46

10:59:59

11:00:18

11:00:34

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

82

MR. RAPP: I can put it back up.

THE COURT: I think that would be helpful for the

witness.

MR. RAPP: All right.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. Do you see that there?

A. Yeah.

Q. Can you -- can you explain what those -- what -- what

those -- where the figures are, what those refer to.

A. Like specifically?

Q. Well, let me just ask you generally.

Do these -- do those -- do those figures refer to

sexual acts?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then in terms of the phone number there, was

that your phone number?

A. It was.

Q. Okay. And then just going down here, was this the location

that you were being advertised in?

A. Yes.

Q. Ms. Beck, were there other cities that you were also

advertised in?

A. Yes.

Q. And, matter of fact, down here, are these other ads that

you had or other postings that you had for -- for -- for

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 82 of 123
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

11:00:53

11:01:11

11:01:31

11:01:46

11:02:14

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

83

example, at the bottom, Los Angeles, a different city?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And so are these ads that were other postings on

Backpage.com?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And, ma'am, is this one -- is the image here, is

that one of the images that we were referring to earlier that

was included in your ad?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Going to page 2 of United States 218, are these

also images that were part of your ad?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And going to page 3 that's also in evidence --

A. Yes.

Q. -- is that another one?

I just want to draw your attention down here.

Do you -- do you see this? Do you see this term right

here?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you -- does that mean anything to you?

A. I believe that's where I went -- I would go to when I

wanted to pay to have my ads, like, moved up or -- I can't

remember what else you could do with it, but --

Q. Okay. But is it your testimony that you recall going

somewhere where you -- you would use this -- it references buy

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 83 of 123
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

11:02:30

11:02:53

11:03:07

11:03:14

11:03:25

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

84

credits. You would purchase some type of credits to post your

ad?

MR. FEDER: Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, not to -- not to post my ad. I

didn't have to pay to post it. But to have it, like, stay at

the top or keep it moved up, yes.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. Okay. And when you did that, did -- first, did you use

some type of a credit card or some type of a other form of

payment to buy those credits?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Ms. Beck, was this your credit card?

A. No.

Q. Whose credit card was it?

A. Reson's.

Q. Reson's?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay.

THE COURT: Was that a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. In the text of this -- of your posting that we looked at a

few seconds ago is your name.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 84 of 123
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

11:03:40

11:03:55

11:04:13

11:04:23

11:04:38

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

85

Do you use your real name in the posting?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Is there a reason why?

A. To hide my real identity, I guess.

Q. Okay.

A. And I saw everybody else not using their real name, so ...

Q. Okay. When you say you saw other people not using their

real name, what -- what, if anything, do you mean by that?

THE COURT: Can you move closer to the mic, Mr. Rapp.

MR. RAPP: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: All the other ads that I would copy

from, the girls used names that obviously weren't their real

name. So I just knew that was a part of it.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. Okay. You just testified a few minutes ago about -- so,

just to be clear, when you posted your ad, did you have to pay

anything?

A. No.

Q. All right. And, if I understood your testimony, you -- you

had to pay to -- to move your -- refresh your ad or move it to

the top?

A. Yeah, like to keep it at the top.

Q. All right. And is there a reason why you'd want to keep it

at the top?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 85 of 123
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

11:05:09

11:05:23

11:05:40

11:05:55

11:06:04

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

86

A. To get more people responding for a longer period of time.

Q. Okay. And when you would move it to the top, how -- how

would you pay to move it to the top?

A. Well, I don't really remember the exact process.

Q. Okay. Was this a process that -- that you actually did and

you just can't recall it, or did somebody else do it for you?

A. Reson would do it, but I would be right next to him. But I

don't remember --

Q. Okay.

A. -- what --

Q. All right. Now, in preparation for your testimony, have

you looked at some other postings that were on Backpage.com

that featured the same images that we've looked at today in

United States 218?

A. Yes.

MR. RAPP: Okay. I'm just showing the -- the witness

for her eyes only United States 1602.

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. Do you see that on your screen?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Is -- is -- what is it?

A. An ad.

Q. Okay. Is it -- are you in this ad?

A. Yes.

Q. And is this a different date than United States 2000 --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 86 of 123
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

11:06:18

11:06:37

11:06:50

11:07:05

11:07:16

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

87

218?

Do you want me to go back and take a look at it?

A. Yeah. I don't remember it.

Q. Okay. You didn't memorize it.

Okay. Do you see that?

A. Yes, it's a different date.

Q. Okay. And -- and how many days later is the posting in

2000 -- in 218 for the posting in 160- -- 1602?

A. Two days.

Q. All right. And does this posting also have your -- the

same name that you used in the previous posting?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it have the same age?

I know that you have -- you've testified that the age

was inaccurate, but does it have the same name?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it have some of the same language that we looked at,

for example, about the figures related to sex acts? Does it

have that in there?

A. Yes.

Q. And, importantly, does it have the same phone number?

Do you want me to go back?

A. Yes, it does have the same phone number.

Q. Okay. And does it have the same location?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 87 of 123
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

11:07:37

11:07:50

11:07:56

11:08:03

11:08:14

ANYA BECK - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

88

MR. RAPP: Move to admit United States 1602 and

publish.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Lack of foundation

regarding the second page in particular. If the Court looks at

the top header in red --

THE COURT: Well, if you can lay some foundation just

with respect to that header.

MR. RAPP: Well, she doesn't know anything about the

header.

THE COURT: What was that?

MR. RAPP: She doesn't -- she's not going to be able

to identify it.

THE COURT: This is the second page; right?

MR. RAPP: This is the first page.

THE COURT: Oh.

MS. BERTRAND: Well, I'm looking at that top header.

And if she doesn't have the knowledge to lay a foundation, I

definitely object.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. RAPP: I can remove the top header.

MS. BERTRAND: The top header's telling us what the

problem is.

THE COURT: Well, she's sufficiently identified the

content of the exhibit, so overruled.

MR. RAPP: All right. Move to admit. And just

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 88 of 123
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

11:08:25

11:08:34

11:08:47

11:09:16

11:09:52

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

89

quickly -- we'll just quickly publish it.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be admitted and published.

(Exhibit 1602 admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. Ms. Beck, are these also images?

A. Yes.

Q. And you in the images?

A. Yes.

Q. And --

All right. I don't have anything further. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Cross-examination?

Mr. Cambria?

MR. CAMBRIA: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Feder?

MR. FEDER: Short straw once again.

THE COURT: All right. Please come forward.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning.

Q. Ms. Beck, are you presently employed?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Are you presently employed?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 89 of 123
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

11:10:04

11:10:14

11:10:25

11:10:43

11:10:57

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

90

Q. Doing what?

MR. RAPP: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Specifically, do you have some accounts where you model and

sell clothes and --

MR. RAPP: Objection. Relevance.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. -- wear clothing that's revealing and suggestive?

MR. RAPP: Objection. Relevance. Move to strike.

412.

THE WITNESS: Sustained.

MR. RAPP: Admonish counsel.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. You were asked a number of questions by the prosecutors.

How many times have you met with them?

A. I'm -- I'm not even sure. I mean, this case has gone on

for years, so a handful of times.

Q. One time? Five times? 100 times?

A. I'm not really sure.

Q. Any idea how many hours you've spent with the prosecutors?

A. I couldn't tell you.

Q. How many times have you come to Phoenix to meet with them

before today?

A. I don't think I've ever been to Phoenix before.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 90 of 123
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

11:11:15

11:11:41

11:12:05

11:12:53

11:13:02

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

91

Q. How many times have they come to see you?

A. Maybe twice. I'm not sure.

Q. In Los Angeles? In the Los Angeles area?

A. I'm not -- I don't remember where, because I lived all

over.

Q. Do you know when you first met with them?

A. I don't remember. It's been so many years.

Q. More than five years ago? More than ten years ago?

A. Five years ago.

Q. Okay. And where was that meeting, if you recall?

A. I believe Oklahoma. I don't even know. I'm -- I don't

know. I don't remember where it was.

MR. FEDER: Could the witness be be shown BF-AB-01 for

her eyes only.

MR. RAPP: Could we have a copy of that?

MR. FEDER: I do. It's your MOI.

MR. RAPP: A copy.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Would you take a moment to look at that, please. Tell me

when you're ready.

MR. RAPP: Well -- okay. So this is a two-page

document. She's supposed to read the entirety of this?

MR. FEDER: It's up to her if she wants to familiarize

herself with it.

MR. RAPP: Well --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 91 of 123
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

11:13:08

11:13:23

11:13:30

11:13:47

11:14:01

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

92

THE COURT: Well, give her some time.

You can look up when you're ready, ma'am.

THE WITNESS: I'm ready.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Is this a summary of an interview that you had with some

people from the United States Attorney's Office and the FBI on

January 11 of 2018?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you ever seen this before?

A. No.

Q. In preparing for your testimony, you did not review --

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. -- this?

A. Yeah, I did review this.

Q. Okay. When did you last prepare for your testimony today?

MR. RAPP: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

And I guess just to clarify, Mr. Feder, there's

several dates. There's a date of entry, there's a date

drafted, and there's an investigative date. And you implied

that there was only one date of a meeting. So just want to

make sure that the record's accurate.

MR. FEDER: Okay.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Do you recall if you met with the United States -- well,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 92 of 123
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

11:14:22

11:14:34

11:14:51

11:15:06

11:15:20

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

93

strike that.

Do you recall meeting with Mr. Rapp, who just asked

you some questions, an agent named Amy Fryberger, an agent

named Desirae Tolhurst, and an AUSA Peggy Perlmeter, and

another attorney named Vincent Nappo in or about December of

2017 or January of 2018?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that meeting in San Diego?

A. Yes.

Q. And you met at the federal courthouse in San Diego?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were there with your mother?

A. Yes.

Q. And in looking through this document, have you ever looked

through this document to make sure it was accurate?

MR. RAPP: Okay. I'm going to object. Asked and

answered. And, again, this has already been asked.

THE COURT: Overruled. It wasn't asked as to the

accuracy of it.

And I -- and I think in fairness to the witness she

should have time to look at the entirety of the document if

you're going to pose that question to her.

MR. FEDER: With all due respect, Judge, I did ask her

to look at that and take all the time she wanted, and then the

government objected, and you sustained the objection.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 93 of 123
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

11:15:32

11:15:38

11:15:49

11:16:49

11:16:59

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

94

THE COURT: No. That's not how -- what my memory is.

MR. FEDER: Okay. I'm happy for her to take as much

time as she wants to review this document.

THE COURT: I'm glad you're happy then -- of that.

MR. FEDER: Thank you.

THE COURT: And she's permitted to do so.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Please. Please feel free to.

THE COURT: Take -- take your time. Review the

document.

THE WITNESS: I remember what it says.

MR. FEDER: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. It's okay.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. You mentioned on direct examination -- pardon me -- that

you were not 19 when you first started advertising; true?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall going through the Backpage website when you

were trying to create the ad and place it on Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. And there was a place that said you have to be 18 years of

age, and you have to acknowledge that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did acknowledge that; right?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 94 of 123
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

11:17:06

11:17:21

11:17:41

11:17:52

11:18:06

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

95

Q. Even though you weren't 18 when you did that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that that was untrue; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then further on in that website there were something

called -- there were things called terms of use and posting

rules; right?

A. I don't remember.

Q. So you didn't read it?

A. No.

Q. You don't recall seeing some rules of saying that you can't

be doing anything illegal on this website?

A. I don't -- I don't remember.

Q. And that you can't do anything that's -- that's improper?

A. No.

Q. Basically, you didn't -- you didn't read it; right?

A. I didn't read it.

Q. All you read was you saw that it said you have to be 18.

You checked that box, which wasn't true, and then you went on?

A. I did.

Q. And was Reson with you then?

A. Sometimes he was with me; sometimes he wasn't.

Q. Reson is how old? Or at least how old was he back in --

when you -- when you did these?

A. I believe 24. Around -- around that. Around that age.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 95 of 123
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

11:18:37

11:19:13

11:19:24

11:19:31

11:19:38

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

96

I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. And when you first started placing ads in Backpage,

how long had you known Reson?

A. I had only met him one time before that, months before

that, but I had known him for a couple months before that.

Q. Okay. You -- in -- in either December of 2017 or January

of 2018, when you met with the prosecutors and some FBI agents

in San Diego, you told them that there was one or more

occasions where one of the people that called you on the phone

when you met them you didn't have any kind of sex act; right?

A. Only two times.

Q. And was that -- when you met, had you talked to that person

before?

A. No.

Q. You just showed up?

A. Oh.

Q. I mean, you had to talk to --

A. Well, I was confused.

Q. -- talk to them and tell them where to go; right?

A. I was confused with what you were asking.

Q. That's okay.

A. Yes, I had talked to them before.

Q. And do you remember where you met? Your place or his

place?

A. One was at my hotel room, and one was we met up in public

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 96 of 123
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

11:19:54

11:20:09

11:20:15

11:20:35

11:20:47

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

97

in Hollywood.

Q. And when -- when you talked to set up this meeting with

these -- was it the same person or --

A. Two different people.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Two different people.

Q. Okay. And when you met with the first person and when you

talked to that first person on the phone or by text, was it

understood that you were just going to walk around and talk, or

did --

A. No.

Q. -- that only happen when you met?

A. When we met.

Q. Do you remember what you talked about on the phone or by

text as to what was anticipated to happen?

A. The sex acts that were posted in the ad.

Q. Okay. So your understanding was there was going to be some

kind of sex act. When you met, all he wanted to do was talk

and walk around; right?

A. One of them, yeah.

Q. And that's what you did?

A. Uh-huh. Yes.

Q. Okay. And were you paid the same amount that you were

ordinarily paid for that?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 97 of 123
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

11:21:00

11:21:12

11:21:20

11:21:27

11:21:54

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

98

Q. And then the second time this happened was with a different

person?

A. Yes.

Q. Also responding to an ad?

A. Yes.

Q. Also a phone call or a text that set up what was

anticipated to happen?

A. Yes.

Q. And then when they came out to meet with you, there was

another discussion, and it was decided that you would just

what, walk around and talk?

A. We didn't just walk around and talk.

Q. What did --

A. He --

Q. -- you do?

A. He just gave me a massage.

Q. That's it?

A. Yes.

Q. No sexual aspect to that?

A. No.

Q. Same price?

A. Yes.

Q. You also told them back in either December of 2017 or

January of 2018 that you posted on some other websites; is that

true?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 98 of 123
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

11:22:04

11:22:13

11:22:23

11:22:29

11:22:54

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

99

A. Yes.

Q. What other websites, if you remember?

A. I can't remember. And -- yeah, I can't remember.

Q. Facebook?

A. No.

Q. Craigslist?

MR. RAPP: Well, objection. She said she didn't

remember.

MR. FEDER: Maybe I'll try to refresh her

recollection.

MR. RAPP: That's not how you do it.

THE COURT: Well, I'm going to overrule the objection.

You can go forward, Mr. Feder.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Craigslist?

MR. RAPP: Judge, I'm going to object under 412 as

well.

THE WITNESS: Sustained.

MR. FEDER: I'm sorry? The what?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. FEDER: I didn't hear what the objection was.

THE COURT: Rule 412.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Look at page 2 of the document that's in front of you.

At the bottom paragraph, see where it talks about

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 99 of 123
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

11:23:14

11:24:17

11:26:25

11:26:54

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

100

Craigslist?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not

you posted on another site that was Craigslist?

MR. RAPP: Judge, same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. FEDER: Could the witness be shown BF-AB-02.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Let me know once you've read it.

MR. RAPP: For the record, this document's four pages

long, single spaced.

MR. FEDER: While she's looking, Judge, can we

approach.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Sidebar discussion begins on the record.)

MR. FEDER: Is it the Court's ruling that Rule 412

covers other ads that this woman put up as opposed to a sex

act?

THE COURT: Yes. And --

MR. FEDER: It covers --

THE COURT: And let me direct you to United States vs.

Haines, 918 F.3d 694. It's a 2019 decision which cites to

United States vs. Lockhart, 844 F.3d 501. And essentially that

talks about sex trafficking prosecutions that victim's prior

convictions for prostitution is inadmissible. Although

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 100 of 123
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

11:27:17

11:27:23

11:27:37

11:27:58

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

101

normally those prior convictions are, Rule 412 trumps that.

So, in other words, you can't delve into other prior

postings where she was potentially a victim. And the posting

of Reson in any other place other than Backpage then gets into

her prior sexual conduct.

MR. FEDER: It gets into --

THE COURT: So --

MR. FEDER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: No, no, no.

MR. FEDER: Are you done?

THE COURT: No, no. That's okay.

So -- so that's the basis of my ruling.

I understand it's somewhat convoluted and -- and folks

have a difficulty with regard to Rule 412, but that

unfortunately or fortunately, depending on what position you

take, is the rule as it -- as I understand it applies.

Now, I've not seen it applied in a -- in a Travel Act

situation. But because we're talking about prostitution, money

exchanged for sex acts, it applies. And because there's an

allegation that, at least with regard to this witness and the

prior witness, that they were under the control of someone else

who was posting for them, it also applies in terms of a --

MR. FEDER: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- victim.

MR. RAPP: You only get one attorney.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 101 of 123
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

11:28:29

11:28:37

11:28:46

11:28:56

11:29:15

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

102

THE COURT: So, Mr. Feder, it's your turn now.

MR. FEDER: Nobody's said that she -- she testified

that she doesn't know that she wrote the ad, not Reson, or she

doesn't know if one or both of them --

THE COURT: But the --

MR. FEDER: Let me --

THE COURT: Okay. I won't interrupt you.

MR. FEDER: We've got that deal now; right?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FEDER: Number 1.

Number 2, it's just an ad. It has nothing to do with

whether or not it's a sex -- she's going to have a sex -- you

are blocking me from essentially talking --

MR. CAMBRIA: Prior ads.

MR. FEDER: -- about preliminary -- you know,

preliminary information of what she's been doing. It has

nothing to do with prior conviction, nothing to do with a sex

act.

THE COURT: Well, but it -- but the rule basically is

designed to prevent any victim from that type of embarrassment

or creating an impression of the sexual promiscuity of the

person. That's the intent of the rule. And that is how it's

been applied in the Ninth Circuit. And I don't want to go

against Circuit precedent, so --

MR. CAMBRIA: Huh?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 102 of 123
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

11:29:22

11:29:31

11:29:51

11:30:08

11:30:27

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

103

THE COURT: Yes, that --

MR. CAMBRIA: I'll remember that.

THE COURT: If you can hold me to that, Mr. Cambria.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'll remember that.

THE COURT: All right. So let's continue.

MR. CAMBRIA: But you were just showing prior ads as

opposed to conduct.

MR. FEDER: That's the point.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's what you were trying to do.

MR. RAPP: Well, I would just like to make a point

more for the record is that the witness yesterday was over 18

when she was posting on Backpage or these other ads. This

particular victim was 15 when she was posting either by herself

or with Reson. So I think it changes the calculus a little

bit. So I -- I caution defense attorney not to open that door,

which we've been very careful not to. So --

THE COURT: Well, and I will just say that I had a

second thought about reversing my ruling, Mr. Rapp, in terms of

an objection when Mr. Feder asked about whether she posed or

modeled. I don't think that gets to Rule 412. So -- so he's

permitted some leeway in that avenue, but -- and he was only

talking about her prior work. Did she model, that sort of

thing. And I don't think 412 covers that. She could have

said, yes, I model. I model lingerie.

That isn't a sexual act. So there's a distinction

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 103 of 123
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

11:30:38

11:30:47

11:30:55

11:31:19

11:31:32

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

104

there.

MR. RAPP: What's the relevance of it?

THE COURT: Well, you -- you made multiple layers of

objections and then you threw in 412. I'm just saying for

clarity.

MR. RAPP: I see.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

MR. CAMBRIA: What's -- where is the establishment

here that she's a victim? There's nothing on the --

THE COURT: Mr. --

MR. CAMBRIA: -- on the defense side of this.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cambria, over the lunch hour,

why don't you look up the case that I cited.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'll be glad to.

THE COURT: Okay. And then you can -- you can come

back and ask me that question.

MR. CAMBRIA: But for me --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

(End of sidebar discussion.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Feder, you can continue.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Ms. Beck, have you had an opportunity --

A. Yes.

Q. -- to read through it?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 104 of 123
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

11:31:43

11:32:14

11:33:07

11:33:14

11:33:28

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

105

Thanks.

See the bottom of page 3 where it starts, "Anya said

she was"?

A. Yes.

Q. It names -- I -- did you tell the prosecutors that you

posted on something called Smasher?

MR. RAPP: Objection. Same objection as previously.

412.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. FEDER: Could you pull up 218.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. And I'm sorry. Before we get to 218, in your direct

testimony, you talked about that the money that you made,

whether they be sex acts or not sex acts, was given to Reson;

right?

A. Right.

Q. And that Reson, with that money, bought you clothes and

other things; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Didn't share any of the money with you, though?

A. No.

Q. Paid for hotels?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that where you had your dates with these people, in a

hotel?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 105 of 123
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

11:33:37

11:33:49

11:33:59

11:34:08

11:34:35

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

106

A. Sometimes.

Q. As to places where you -- where the person came to you

instead of you going to them --

A. Yes.

Q. -- was it strictly hotels?

A. Yes.

Q. And the money that was paid -- that was paid to these

hotels was from your performance of -- on these dates, whatever

the acts might be?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you been asked to prosecute any of the hotels that you

were using?

MR. RAPP: Well, objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. RAPP: Foundation.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Did you always go to the same hotel for -- for the time

period that you were -- that you were in this situation?

A. No.

Q. Different hotels in the Los Angeles metropolitan area?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you rent by the hour or the day?

A. The day.

Q. I'm sorry. Where's -- 216. I'm sorry. Wait.

MR. FEDER: Could you bring up 218. Thanks.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 106 of 123
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

11:35:01

11:35:20

11:35:32

11:35:44

11:36:12

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

107

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Is the clothing that you're -- that you're being portrayed

in in these -- in these ads, is that from the -- from the money

that you earned? If you can tell.

A. I can't tell.

Q. I started to ask you when we first started talking what you

were doing today or -- or for employment.

What are you doing for employment today?

MR. RAPP: Objection. Relevance. 412.

THE COURT: Sustained as to relevance.

MR. FEDER: Judge, what I'm going to bring out is that

she's posing in certain ways that are comparable to these

ads --

THE COURT: Well, you're --

MR. FEDER: -- for nonsexual purposes.

THE COURT: I sustained the objection, Mr. Feder.

MR. RAPP: And I move to strike that.

THE COURT: I -- the jury will disregard Mr. Feder's

comment.

And you can ask a new question, Mr. Feder.

MR. FEDER: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Is this a banner ad, Ms. Beck?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. You indicated in your -- your direct testimony that you --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 107 of 123
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

11:36:31

11:36:42

11:37:01

11:37:09

11:37:17

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

108

that was an unpaid ad; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see anywhere on this ad where it says that this is

in the women seeking men category or the dating category versus

the female escorts category?

A. It's in the escorts category.

Q. It's in the escorts category?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And -- and wasn't it your understanding when

you started advertising on Backpage and elsewhere, if you did,

that you had to pay for an escort ad? $2? $4? $5?

A. All the times I posted the ads, I never paid anything. I

didn't even have a debit card.

Q. You -- but you used your friend, Reson's --

A. No.

Q. -- credit card?

A. Not in the beginning, no. I posted from my -- the house I

lived at with my mom.

Q. On your own?

A. Yes.

Q. So you only posted free ads while you were on your own;

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you --

A. Even when I was with Reson.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 108 of 123
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

11:37:34

11:37:50

11:38:11

11:38:25

11:38:39

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

109

Q. I'm sorry. Only with -- only with Reson did you start to

pay for -- to put your ad up at the top?

A. I didn't pay to post the ad even with Reson. Only to put

it to the -- back to the top or to have it stay at the top.

Q. But you never did that on your own when you were posting

for yourself; right?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. And you've only seen two ads.

Do you have any recollection of how many ads you

posted on Backpage?

A. Many. I -- I couldn't even tell you how many.

Q. Okay. And when you put -- you put this free ad on, that

didn't bring many calls; right?

A. It did.

Q. And why put it up at the top?

A. Less work than posting a whole new ad.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. It was less work than posting a whole new ad.

Q. Okay. How did you learn that?

A. Learn what?

Q. Learn that you -- that it would be less work to -- to put

it up at the top?

A. I -- I didn't. I -- I don't know. I don't -- I'm not sure

how to answer that.

Q. You also testified on direct that you saw when you were --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 109 of 123
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

11:38:55

11:39:04

11:39:23

11:40:10

11:40:18

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

110

when you were looking at these other ads trying to learn how

you should create your own ad that people had names, and your

testimony, I believe, was something to the effect of they were

all fake names.

Do you recollect that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you call any of them to know if that was a fake name or

not?

A. No. It was just obvious.

Q. Is Clove -- is using the name Clova that you were using, is

that obvious that's a fake name?

A. No.

Q. What is it about these other names that made you believe

they were fake versus your own?

A. I'm not sure how to answer that.

Q. Okay. That's a good answer.

MR. RAPP: Judge, could we ask that the -- thank you.

MR. FEDER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: I didn't catch it either, but go ahead.

MR. FEDER: I didn't hear. Was there a comment?

THE COURT: No. The -- let's move on. I missed it,

too.

MR. FEDER: Okay.

THE COURT: You and I are in the dark.

MR. FEDER: I guess so.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 110 of 123
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

11:40:43

11:41:12

11:41:25

11:41:43

11:41:50

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

111

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Look at page -- strike that.

When you talked to the prosecutors in December or

November of 2019, did that meeting also take place in Los

Angeles?

A. Yes, it took place in Los Angeles.

Q. And that was attended by you, your mother, a lawyer,

Ms. Tolhurst again, another law enforcement person named

Robinson, Mr. Rapp.

Anybody else that you recall?

A. I don't recall anybody else.

Q. Do you recall if any of these meetings that you had with

the prosecutors were -- was tape-recorded?

A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

Q. Sure. Do you recall if any of these meetings that you had

with the prosecutors in preparation for your testimony was

tape-recorded?

A. Yes, it was -- I can't remember.

Q. Well, you started to say yes, Ms. Beck, so --

A. Well, I --

Q. -- kind of important.

A. I can't really remember if it was tape-recorded. I think

it was, but --

Q. Was it your tape recorder or somebody else's?

A. Not my tape recorder. I'm not even -- I can't even -- I'm

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 111 of 123
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

11:42:08

11:42:32

11:42:49

11:43:19

11:43:23

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

112

not even exactly sure if it was recorded.

Q. Well, when you've been appearing for your testimony, have

you ever listened to a tape-recording of your meetings with

prosecutors in this case?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. Have you ever seen a transcript of the tape-recording?

A. No.

Q. At some point did you change the name that you were using

in your ads from Clova to Desire?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that your decision or somebody else's?

A. Mine.

Q. You thought that would be more attractive?

A. No. It's because I had gotten caught already one time by

my -- by -- I had already gotten caught using that name, so I

went back and used a different name.

Q. Okay. You testified about getting -- in your direct

examination about that you would post ads that would be

rejected, whether words in it or the images that were in it;

right?

A. Right.

Q. And that you received an email --

A. Right.

Q. -- from Backpage.

Do you have that email?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 112 of 123
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

11:43:36

11:43:57

11:44:18

11:44:42

11:45:22

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

113

A. No.

Q. Have you seen that email?

A. Years ago.

Q. It no longer exists; right? To your knowledge.

A. Not that I know of.

Q. But your testimony was that the email said you did this

wrong and you're -- and -- and to correct it, you got to do

that; right?

A. I'm -- I'm not sure if it said exact -- exact change this,

like in those words, but it -- it showed me what I had to do

to, like, repost it and it to be accepted.

Q. It just told you that your ad had been rejected with no

reason; correct?

A. I'm not sure. No. If it didn't tell me what I needed to

do, then how would I know how to change the ad and repost it?

Q. But you've testified that you didn't change your ad, as you

just reposted it so you wouldn't have to do it again.

MR. RAPP: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. FEDER: Could the witness be shown BF-AB-02 again.

THE COURT: That's before her. She has it.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Ms. Beck, look at that document and look at page 3, second

full paragraph. It starts with, "Anya could not recall."

Are you there?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 113 of 123
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

11:45:33

11:45:46

11:46:12

11:46:30

11:46:49

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

114

A. I'm there.

Q. Didn't you tell the prosecutors that you couldn't recall

specific term or terms removed from your ad?

A. Yes.

Q. And that you thought -- that's your word; right?

A. Yes.

Q. -- you received an email with a link to her ad citing terms

or terms that were banned?

A. Yes.

Q. When you say "thought," does that mean for sure that's what

you got or just you kind of remember it?

A. I meant for sure.

Q. And it says you told the prosecutors that you would know

there was something wrong with your ad when you stopped

receiving calls; right?

A. Right.

Q. And then when is it that you testified -- that you were

going to testify that you received this email from Backpage?

MR. RAPP: Objection. Vague and confusing.

THE COURT: Sustained as to the form of the question.

MR. FEDER: Okay.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. When one of your ads would no longer cause you to get

calls, how long after would you say you -- it was you received

an email allegedly from Backpage?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 114 of 123
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

11:47:04

11:47:28

11:47:42

11:47:49

11:48:14

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

115

A. I don't remember how long after. Shortly.

Q. Hour? Day? Week?

MR. RAPP: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. You also told the -- the prosecutors in that same paragraph

we're talking about that you -- you knew if that happened to go

check your email -- her email, your email, to see if something

was wrong with your ad; right?

A. Right.

Q. But you can't tell us where those emails are; right?

MR. RAPP: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No. It's been six years or so.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Have you ever talked about those -- shown those emails to

the prosecutor?

A. No.

Q. Have they ever shown you any emails to that effect?

A. No.

Q. And it's your testimony that the email said Photo Number 2

needs to be -- was -- was bad, so we took it out, or this term

was wrong, as opposed to just saying there's something wrong

with your ad, it's been rejected?

A. I can't remember exactly what it said, but I knew what I

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 115 of 123
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

11:48:39

11:48:47

11:48:55

11:49:01

11:49:13

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

116

needed to change in order for it to be posted.

Q. Or you could experiment to see if it went through; right?

A. Not experiment.

Q. Okay. Look at the next paragraph in that same document.

See where it says, "Anya recalled having photos removed from

her" --

MR. RAPP: Judge?

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. -- "Backpage ads"?

MR. RAPP: This is improper impeachment, if that's

what it is, or it's not refreshing her recollection.

THE COURT: Yes. I think you need to lay some

foundation --

MR. FEDER: Sure.

THE COURT: -- if you're going to use the document to

refresh her recollection.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. You've seen this document before; right?

A. Yes.

Q. You used it with the prosecutors to my right to prepare for

your testimony; right?

A. Yes.

Q. If you had any problems with the accuracy of it, you would

have told them; right?

A. I'm sorry. Problems with what?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 116 of 123
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

11:49:24

11:49:37

11:49:53

11:50:31

11:50:39

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

117

Q. With the accuracy or completeness of this document, you

would have told them; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell them anything that was wrong with it, whether

it's inaccurate or incomplete?

A. No.

Q. Is everything in here correct, as far as you remember?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell them that you recalled having photos removed

from your ads due to nudity?

A. Yes.

Q. At the -- and then when the photo didn't come through on

your ad, you would just change the photo and resubmit; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you went on to tell them that when -- if you used

the word BJ, and then Backpage stopped allowing that term, then

you would just stop using it; right?

A. Yes.

Q. I think you were asked if you know any of the folks to my

left; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know anybody to my right other than when you met

with them to prepare for your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. You do?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 117 of 123
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

11:50:52

11:50:59

11:51:20

11:51:38

11:51:52

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

118

THE COURT: She answered yes.

BY MR. FEDER:

Q. Maybe you -- I think you misunderstand me.

Other than having met with the people in the U.S.

Attorney's Office or law enforcement to prepare for your

testimony --

A. Oh, no.

Q. -- you don't know any of these people --

A. No.

Q. -- right?

Thank you.

MR. FEDER: I think that's all I have. Thanks.

THE COURT: Mr. Rapp?

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, I have --

THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

MR. EISENBERG: Thank you.

THE COURT: My -- my error, Mr. Eisenberg.

MR. EISENBERG: Oh, no. I understand.

May the Exhibit 218 be shown again to the witness.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Good morning, ma'am.

A. Good morning.

Q. Ma'am, if you look up at the top of the -- this exhibit,

which is in evidence, do you see where it says "posted," it

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 118 of 123
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

11:52:02

11:52:13

11:52:24

11:52:36

11:52:49

ANYA BECK - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

119

gives a date?

A. Yes.

Q. And the -- can you read the date?

A. Thursday, August 13th, 2015.

Q. Okay. And then is that about -- to the best of your

recollection, that would be accurate --

A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?

Okay. And the other exhibit that was shown to you

that's in evidence, it was posted a few days -- was it later

than this one?

A. Two days later.

Q. Two days later. Thank you, ma'am.

And if you go down to the bottom of this page, bottom

of page -- I think this is the third page, there's an

inscription there. Starts "Inland Empire."

Right there. Inland Empire, and so on and so forth;

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. I'm not going to ask you to read it except to note

that this was part of what was posted when you posted this ad;

is that correct?

It's on the ad?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. That's all I'm asking.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 119 of 123
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

11:52:59

11:53:10

11:53:21

11:53:34

11:53:42

ANYA BECK - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

120

A. Okay.

MR. EISENBERG: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rapp?

Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I thought I went through all

defense counsel, but is there anyone else?

All right. Mr. Rapp.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. RAPP:

Q. Ms. Beck, I just have one question for you. A couple

questions maybe.

When you were asked on cross-examination about you

misleading Backpage on your age -- do you remember those

questions from defense counsel?

A. Yes.

Q. What, if anything, did Backpage do to verify your actual

age?

A. Nothing.

MR. FEDER: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Nothing.

MR. RAPP: Nothing.

Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. May the witness be excused

from her subpoena?

Any objection from defense?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 120 of 123
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

11:54:04

11:54:30

11:54:51

11:55:30

11:55:42

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

121

All right. Ma'am, you are excused from your subpoena.

We thank you for your testimony. You may step down.

Well, we are at five minutes to noon. Actually, we're

six minutes to noon.

And let me just inform counsel that I've been asked by

our members of the jury if they could have the full hour for

lunch. I have agreed to compromise, and if the jury is

agreeable to stay until 4:15, then -- and I see lots of nodding

heads -- then I will permit an hour for lunch. And so,

actually, an hour and five minutes, I guess.

And so with that, we will again remind the members of

the jury not to come to any conclusions, to continue to keep an

open mind, and not discuss the matters presented so far but

just enjoy the extra added bonus five minutes.

All right. Please all rise for the jury.

(Jury not present at 11:54 a.m.)

THE COURT: And that means that you all have a full

hour for lunch.

And, Mr. Rapp, who is your next witness?

MR. STONE: Your Honor, it's Lin Howard.

MR. FEDER: Who?

MR. STONE: Lin Howard.

MR. EISENBERG: Who will it be after her?

MR. STONE: Eric Murry.

THE COURT: Do you feel that that'll take us through

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 121 of 123
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

11:55:55

11:56:11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

122

the rest of the day?

MR. STONE: We think it's going to be close, Your

Honor. And there will be -- we're going to 4:15 now. There

might be a half hour. It's hard to guess, of course, Your

Honor, but we think there might be a little bit of time at the

end of the day for another witness.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, have that witness prepared to

come in.

And let me -- let me hand over to Mr. Cambria, so he

can do his research over the noon hour, the cases I mentioned.

And we will stand at lunch.

(Proceedings adjourn at 11:56 a.m.)

---oOo---

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 122 of 123
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 11:56:34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

123

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 1922 Filed 10/23/23 Page 123 of 123