SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISCLOSE 

GRAND JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON PROSTITUTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

pcambria@lglaw.com 

emccampbell@lglaw.com 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

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

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

BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS, PLC 

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

San Clemente, California 92673 

Telephone: (949) 369-3700 

Facsimile: (949)369-3701 

tbienert@bklwlaw.com 

wbernstein@bklwlaw.com 

Attorneys for James Larkin 

Additional counsel listed on next page 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 Defendants. 

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB 

DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO 

MOTION TO DISCLOSE GRAND JURY

INSTRUCTIONS ON PROSTITUTION

(Oral argument requested) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1181 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 6
ii 

SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISCLOSE 

GRAND JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON PROSTITUTION 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW PC 

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561 

Telephone: (310) 201-2100 

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 

glincenberg@birdmarella.com 

aneuman@birdmarella.com 

gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com 

Attorneys for John Brunst 

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832) 

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA 

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

bf@federlawpa.com 

Attorney for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218) 

DAVID EISENBERG PLC 

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 237-5076 

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273 

david@deisenbergplc.com 

Attorney for Andrew Padilla 

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181) 

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC 

P.O. Box 2734 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252 

Telephone: (602)374-5321 

Facsimile: (480)361-4694 

joy.bertrand@gmail.com 

Attorney for Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1181 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, John Brunst, Scott Spear, Andrew Padilla, and 

Joye Vaught (“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, file the instant supplement 

to Defendants’ Motion to Disclose Grand Jury Instructions on Prostitution (“Motion”). (See Doc. 

1171.) In the Motion, Defendants asked this Court for an order requiring the government to 

disclose any and all instructions on the law concerning the definition of prostitution as well as any 

and all instructions concerning escort services. (See Doc. 1171 at 1, 7.) As an alternative, Defendants 

asked this Court to conduct in camera review of those instructions “to determine whether the grand 

jury was instructed in a manner that respected the Defendants’ Due Process rights.” (Id. at 7.) In 

the context of this case, that would mean the government’s instructions included the appropriate 

definition(s) of the term “prostitution” and that the government did not suggest or state to the grand 

jury that “escort services” or other legal adult services are unlawful throughout the country and are 

synonymous with “prostitution services.”1

 On July 15, 2021, this Court issued an order denying Defendants’ request for disclosure of 

the instructions to Defendants; but not addressing the alternative remedy that Defendants requested 

– the Court’s in camera review of the instructions on the law concerning the definition of the term 

“prostitution” and whether the term “escort services,” which are unquestionably lawful, were 

equated with unlawful prostitution services. (See Doc. 1179.) Critically, the Court should already have 

the instructions defining the terms “prostitution services” and “escort services” because the Court 

ordered the government to disclose “any and all” instructions to the Court concerning the Travel 

Act for in camera review. (See Doc. 879.) Assuming the government fully complied with that order, 

this Court would be in possession of all instructions necessary to conduct in camera review of this 

1

 As government counsel recently stated, concerning “escort” services: 

[Y]ou know, it’s really prostitution services. I think escort is sort of a 

misnomer. So we would – we would ask that it’s – because it suggests 

that escort services is somewhat legal. And, as we know, it’s only

legal in a very a small county in Nevada, so it’s really prostitution 

services is really right [sic]. 

(Doc. 1171-1 at 15 (emphasis added).) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1181 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 6
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

important issue impacting the Defendants’ First and Fifth Amendment rights. The government 

should be ordered to disclose whether its prior submission of grand jury instructions included any 

and all instructions concerning the Travel Act charges, including definition(s) of the terms 

“prostitution services” and any statements regarding the legality or illegality of “escort services.” The 

Court’s in camera review, as an alternative to disclosure to the Defendants, in no way implicates grand 

jury secrecy concerns. 

 For all these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court conduct in camera

review of the instructions of law as they concern any definitions given for the terms “prostitution 

services” or “escort services,” as well as to maintain the instructions as part of the official record for 

this case as well as any other portions of the grand jury proceedings previously provided to the 

Court. Further, in light of the numerous issues that Defendants have raised with respect to the 

grand jury proceedings in this case, Defendants request that this Court order the government to 

transcribe or to maintain the ability to transcribe the full grand jury transcripts for the official record 

in this case. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of July, 2021, 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Erin E. McCampbell 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

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

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (May 2018) 

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

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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1181 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 6
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS, PLC 

 By: /s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein 

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

Attorneys for James Larkin 

Gary S. Lincenberg 

Ariel A. Neuman 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 

By: /s/ Ariel A. Neuman 

Ariel A. Neuman 

Attorneys for John Brunst 

Bruce Feder 

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A. 

By: /s/ Bruce Feder 

Bruce Feder 

Attorneys for Scott Spear 

David Eisenberg 

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C. 

By: /s/ David Eisenberg 

David Eisenberg 

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla 

 Joy Bertrand 

JOY BERTRAND, ESQ. 

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand 

Joy Bertrand 

Attorneys for Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1181 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 6
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On July 19 2021, a PDF version 

of this document was filed with 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

System for filing and for Transmittal 

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the 

Following CM/ECF registrants: 

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Daniel Boyle, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1181 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 6