1

United States District Court

2:18-cr-00422-DJH, September 15, 2023 (Ferrer excerpt) AMENDED

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

_______________ 

United States of America, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

vs. )

 ) 2:18-cr-00422-DJH 

Michael Lacey, et al., )

 ) 

 Defendants. )

 ) September 15, 2023 

 ) 

__________________________________ )

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, JUDGE

REPORTER'S AMENDED EXCERPTED TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

(Testimony of CARL FERRER)

JURY TRIAL DAY 7

Official Court Reporter: 

Elaine Cropper, RDR, CRR, CCP

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

401 West Washington Street, SPC 35 

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151 

elaine_cropper@azd.uscourts.gov 

Proceedings Reported by Stenographic Court Reporter

Transcript Prepared by Computer-Aided Transcription

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 1 of 111
 2

United States District Court

2:18-cr-00422-DJH, September 15, 2023 (Ferrer excerpt) AMENDED

I N D E X

TESTIMONY

WITNESS Direct Cross Redirect Recross 

Government's Witnesses 

CARL FERRER 7

E X H I B I T S

Number Ident Rec'd 

73 Email from Ferrer to Hyer and Padilla, 19 20

11/17/2010 

605 Email from Spear to H Nigam, re 30 30

Polaris Project feedback, 10/18/2010, 

616a Redacted version of Exh 616 11 13

630 Email from H Nigam, “Interview 36 37

Request”, 12/30/2010, 

633 45

637 Emails between Spear, Lacey and 45 46

Ferrer, on Lyon Ads and NCMEC 

Reporting, 01/22/2011, 

638 Emails between Lacey and Ferrer on 50 50

NCMEC Reporting, 01/22/2011, 

641 Google Analytics report showing 66 66

referral traffic for Backpage.com for 

the month ended 01/31/2011, 

643 Issue log for “Deep cleaning strip 25 26

out”, 12/02/2010 to 02/07/2011, 

644 Emails between H Nigam and Ferrer, 69 70

“Backpage?”, 02/14/2011, 

645 Emails between Ferrer and Padilla, 72 72

“delete whole ad terms (draft)”, 

02/16/2011, 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 2 of 111
 3

United States District Court

2:18-cr-00422-DJH, September 15, 2023 (Ferrer excerpt) AMENDED

E X H I B I T S (Continued)

Number Ident Rec'd 

646 Email from Vaught, “Edit Lock Out”, 74 76

02/18/2011, 

647 Email from Padilla “another term bites 78 84

the dust”, 02/18/2011, 

647a 84

647b 84

647c 84

647d 84

647e 84

648 PowerPoint presentation, “Backpage.com 86

and Litle & Co. Business Review”, 

02/24/2011, 

684a 97

1021 Emails from Spear and Larkin, “meeting 8 8

tomorrow” 10/13/2010, 

1052b1 Clip from Exhibit 1052 60 62

1062 Email from Ferrer, “cnn demand 54 55

letter”, 01/24/2011, 

1062a Attachment, Ad titled “New BooTy in 56 57

ToWn”, 

1611 Email from Myles to Spear, Ferrer, 34 35

“introduction”, 12/08/2010, 

1612b Email from Ferrer to Spear, “Fwd: 88 88

stricter guidelines for nudity – 

January 2011”, 01/17/2011, 

2038 Email sent by Brunst, “response letter 64

to cnn”, 02/01/2011, 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 3 of 111
 4

United States District Court

2:18-cr-00422-DJH, September 15, 2023 (Ferrer excerpt) AMENDED

MISCELLANEOUS NOTATIONS

Item Page 

 Motion for Mistrial 107

 Judge's ruling 108

RECESSES

 Page Line 

(Recess at 10:40; resume at 11:03.) 53 13

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 4 of 111
 5

United States District Court

2:18-cr-00422-DJH, September 15, 2023 (Ferrer excerpt) AMENDED

A P P E A R A N C E S 

For the Government: 

 KEVIN M. RAPP, ESQ.

PETER S. KOZINETS, ESQ.

ANDREW C. STONE, ESQ.

MARGARET WU PERLMETER, ESQ.

 U.S. Attorney's Office

 40 N, Central Ave., Ste. 1800 

 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 

 kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

AUSTIN M. BERRY, ESQ.

U.S. Department of Justice 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

1301 New York Ave., NW, 11th Fl. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

austin.berry2@usdoj.gov 

For the Defendant Michael Lacey: 

 PAUL J. CAMBRIA, JR., ESQ.

 Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria, L.L.P.

 42 Delaware Ave., Ste. 120

 Buffdalo, NY 14202

 pcambria@lglaw.com

 

For the Defendant Scott Spear: 

 BRUCE S. FEDER, ESQ.

 Feder Law Office, P.A.

 2390 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 160

 Phoenix, AZ 85016

 bf@federlawpa.com

 ERIC W. KESSLER, ESQ.

 Kessler Law Office

 6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 210 

 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 

eric.kesslerlaw@gmail.com 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 5 of 111
 6

United States District Court

2:18-cr-00422-DJH, September 15, 2023 (Ferrer excerpt) AMENDED

A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued) 

For the Defendant John Brunst: 

 GARY S. LINCENBERG, ESQ.

 Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks 

Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

 1875 Century Park E. Ste. 2300

 Los Angeles, CA 90067

glincenberg@birdmarella.com 

For the Defendant Andrew Padilla: 

 DAVID S. EISENBERG, ESQ.

 David Eisenberg, P.C.

 3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155

 Phoenix, AZ 85012

david@deisenbergplc.com 

For the Defendant Joye Vaught: 

 JOY MALBY BERTRAND, ESQ.

 Joy Bertrand, Esq., L.L.C.

 P.O. Box 2734

 Scottsdale, AZ 85252-2734

 joy@joybertrandlaw.com 

 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 6 of 111
 7

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

P R O C E E D I N G 

(The following excerpt was separately transcribed.)

(CARL FERRER, a witness herein, was previously duly

sworn or affirmed.)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Good morning, Mr. Ferrer.

A. Good morning, Mr. Rapp.

Q. When we left last evening, we had gone through the

postings for this individual by the name of Pamela Robinson.

A. Yes.

Q. So just one last question. In your exchanges with Pamela

Robinson, what was your intent?

A. We wanted her to just follow the rules, try to post again

and then stop emailing us in support. She was just relentless

over the years, just violating the rules, we would let her back

in, violate the rules again, block her from editing her ad. So

the strategy was very much like we had done with all of the

other advertisers in Female Escort sections. They would get a

pass. They wouldn't be banned if they posted ads violating the

rules. They would get to try again.

Q. All right. Now in the latter part of 2010 did you

continue to receive pressure from outside agencies regarding

Backpage.com?

A. Yes. 09:20:06

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:18:36

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:18:47

11

12

13

14

15 09:19:11

16

17

18

19

20 09:19:37

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 7 of 111
 8

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. I'm showing you for your eyes only United States 1021? Do

you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And is this an email from Mr. Larkin to Mr. Spear?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And were you copied on it?

A. Yes, I am copied.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 1021.

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: Overruled. It may be admitted.

(Exhibit Number 1021 was admitted into evidence.)

MR. RAPP: And request permission to publish.

THE COURT: It may be published.

MR. RAPP: Thank you.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. During this time period, were you meeting with Mr. Larkin

and Mr. Spear?

A. Yes.

Q. What does Mr. Larkin tell Mr. Spear in this email? Can

you read that for the jury? 

A. Jim Larkin writes, "Scott: As I mentioned this afternoon

I would like to sit down with you and Carl when you guys

coalesce your thoughts on how we are going to change up

Backpage.com rules for posters to gain these hypocritical AG's

'blessing'." 09:21:26

 1 09:20:07

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:20:25

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:20:38

11

12

13

14

15 09:20:51

16

17

18

19

20 09:21:04

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 8 of 111
 9

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. Let me just stop you there. What did you take that to

mean from Mr. Larkin?

A. We're wondering what additional cosmetic changes we're

going to need to do in order to get the AGs to stop sending us

letters to take down the site -- take down the escort site.

Q. And then what else does he say there?

A. "We need to take a deep breath before we throw the baby

out with the bathwater and take our time to consider all of our

options. Thanks Larkin."

Q. So I believe you have testified previously to that

statement. But what did you take that to mean, take a deep

breath before we throw the baby out with the bathwater? What

did you take that to mean with Mr. Larkin?

A. We had the meeting and it was communicated that we need to

push back with some of these recommendations and the changes

for the posting rules and the content.

Q. Why did you want to push back?

A. Because we don't want to kill the business. Revenue is

exceeding expectations. We're not going to keep putting in

these changes if it impacts the revenue, if it hurts our

advertisers in the Female Escort section.

Q. All right. Now, following this email did you and

Mr. Spear have occasion to meet regarding this directive from

Mr. Larkin?

A. We did. 09:23:31

 1 09:21:32

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:21:51

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:22:15

11

12

13

14

15 09:22:41

16

17

18

19

20 09:23:02

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 9 of 111
 10

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. And during those meetings, did you discuss any type of

strategy to implement Mr. Larkin, as the owner, his directive

in this email?

A. Yes. I discussed the tools and we came to an agreement on

some of the tools and how they would work and not throw the

baby out with the bathwater.

Q. Can you give us an example of how you would go about doing

that to implement this objective of not throwing the baby out

with the bathwater?

A. I explained the success we were having with the global

filter in terms of banning certain terms and that users being

alerted to the banned term and then making adjustments in their

postings and continuing to post. I also communicated the use

of strip out, how we could just simply strip out the term

shortly after the posting goes live, and that we were not

blocking, banning ads that were posting prostitution ads. We

weren't blocking the users. We didn't block their email

address. We didn't block their credit card. We let them try

to post again following the posting rules giving users time to

adjust.

Q. Was there any discussion about just shutting down the

Adult section?

A. No.

Q. All right. We looked at an email I believe yesterday and

I can pull it up if you need to but do you remember the email 09:25:10

 1 09:23:32

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:23:47

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:24:06

11

12

13

14

15 09:24:28

16

17

18

19

20 09:24:54

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 10 of 111
 11

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

from Litle?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And 2010, in the latter part of 2010 did you still have

concerns about your banking relationships?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Did you have any concerns about banking?

MS. BERTRAND: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What concerns, if any, did you have in the latter part of

2010?

A. We were concerned that we could lose our merchant account

with Litle.

Q. Why was that a concern?

A. Because there were numerous media events, negative

coverage on Backpage's -- there were numerous prostitution

arrests and stings.

Q. Let's look at 616a. Do you see that on your screen?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is this an email from Scott Spear?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And who is the email to?

A. He's emailing an employee at BMO, Bank of Montreal. 09:26:39

 1 09:25:13

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:25:36

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:25:42

11

12

13

14

15 09:25:49

16

17

18

19

20 09:26:09

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 11 of 111
 12

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. All right. And who is copied on this email?

A. Jed Brunst.

Q. And did you know whether or not Backpage had any type of a

banking relationship with BMO during this time period?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is BMO?

A. BMO is the treasury bank for the company. It's where the

checks from Litle would be deposited or the wire transfers.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 616a.

MR. LINCENBERG: Objection. No objection to 616 but

we certainly object to 616a which is an incomplete version of

the email correspondence.

MR. FEDER: Also same objections.

THE COURT: Is 616 the unredacted version, Mr. Rapp?

MR. RAPP: It is.

THE COURT: And I guess let me inquire if you can

answer, is there a reason that you're not introducing 616 as

opposed to 616a?

MR. RAPP: Because the redacted version is hearsay.

THE COURT: Oh. I see. Okay.

MR. LINCENBERG: 616a, the redacted version, is

admissible because it's not hearsay. It's not offered for the

truth. 616a is the response to the initial email. It's out of

context without the initial email.

THE COURT: Well, he's permitted to introduce and 09:28:22

 1 09:26:48

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:27:02

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:27:26

11

12

13

14

15 09:27:44

16

17

18

19

20 09:28:04

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 12 of 111
 13

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

bring that in and you can discuss it in your examination of the

witness.

All right. Go forward. Overruled.

MR. RAPP: And so admitting 616a and request

permission to publish.

THE COURT: Yes. It may be published.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: And it's admitted.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Exhibit Number 616a was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. What is Mr. Spear telling this individual from

BMO bank? Can you read what he says?

A. Scott Spear writes, "Mary Lee, No problem. Here it is in

a nutshell:

"We suspended the following categories in personals:

Women seeking men, NSA, ("No Strings Attached") and Missed

Connections. In addition we eliminated all images from the

Adult jobs category in the Adult Services Section."

Q. Let me stop you there. What do you take that to mean,

what Mr. Spear, with Mr. Brunst copied on this, is telling the

representatives from BMO?

MR. FEDER: Same.

MS. BERTRAND: Calls for speculation.

MR. LINCENBERG: And I object. It just highlights

all of the hearsay and now out of context without the preceding 09:30:02

 1 09:28:25

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:28:41

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:29:01

11

12

13

14

15 09:29:25

16

17

18

19

20 09:29:44

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 13 of 111
 14

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

email.

MR. RAPP: May I be heard on that?

THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection. He

can answer as to what he took that to mean.

THE WITNESS: So we -- Scott Spear, Jim Larkin, and

myself, we had decided to shut down some categories, Women

Seeking Men, No Strings Attached, Missed Connections, because

we needed to appear like we were doing something in our user

safety PR campaign and so this is an example of it. We're

communicating with the bank that we've shut down these

categories and we've created the impression that we're shutting

down Adult categories. But in fact, there are no -- there's

very, very little revenue in these categories. So the whole

thing is a sham. Female Escort, Body Rubs, that's the bulk of

the revenue and the ad count and page views and we did not shut

down those categories.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object to

the narrative and move to strike. It's beyond what was asked

in the question.

THE COURT: I'm going to overrule.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What does Mr. Spear tell the individual at BMO bank, with

Mr. Brunst copied on this email, what does he say in the next

paragraph?

A. "We plan on bringing the Women Seeking Men category back 09:31:42

 1 09:30:05

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:30:25

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:30:53

11

12

13

14

15 09:31:15

16

17

18

19

20 09:31:30

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 14 of 111
 15

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

by the first of the year. At that time all posts in that

category will have a charge associated with them. In addition

all posts in that category will be moderated (reviewed) by

staffers before they go live to ensure that they comply with

our Terms of Use."

Q. Let me stop you there. What did you take that to mean,

what Mr. Spear was communicating to her about the moderation

practice?

MR. FEDER: Same. Relevance, 403.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FEDER: I'm sorry. 106, too.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

THE WITNESS: We bring back the Women Seeking Men

category which has little or no content. We're going to also

moderate those ads and we're going to charge a fee.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Well, is it your testimony that there was little or no

content in that category?

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Mr. Rapp?

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. If you know, why was there no content in that category or

little? 09:33:08

 1 09:31:47

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:32:05

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:32:24

11

12

13

14

15 09:32:35

16

17

18

19

20 09:32:59

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 15 of 111
 16

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

MS. BERTRAND: Leading. Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

You can ask him if he knows and then follow up.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Do you know?

A. Yes, I know.

Q. Why?

A. Because I'm very much aware of the revenue by each

category daily, weekly, monthly, and annually.

Q. All right. And did you -- knowing that, did you come to

some opinion as to why there was little to no content in those

categories?

A. The page view traffic, Johns were looking mainly in Female

Escorts so that's where prostitutes would post their ads. Now,

some wanted to save money and would post in the Personal

categories but not very many. Not only that, we were trying to

keep prostitutes out of Personals, one of Scott Spear's

directives, so that no hourly rates should be charged in that

category.

Q. All right. And this last sentence of that second full

paragraph?

A. "This is the same operating standard we have set for all

the categories in the Adult section."

Q. What did you take that to mean?

MR. FEDER: Same. 09:34:38

 1 09:33:11

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:33:17

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:33:34

11

12

13

14

15 09:33:57

16

17

18

19

20 09:34:20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 16 of 111
 17

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: We're charging in all categories of the

Adult section and we are moderating by staffers.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And can you read the next paragraph? 

A. "We do not plan to bring back either NSA or Missed

Connections. Both categories were full of inappropriate

content, spam, and scams and we feel its not in the site's best

interest or our users interests to keep these categories."

Q. What did you take that statement to mean, that paragraph

to mean?

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Once again, it's a sham. It gives the

impression that we're shutting down these problematic

categories. But these categories have little or no content.

They are really -- they are just easy to just say, okay, we'll

shut down that category. But they don't have any volume to

them.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And quickly, can you just explain, for the jury's

edification, what NSA or Missed Connections, what would that

category involve?

A. So No Strings Attached was a category that Backpage had to

try to compete with Craiglist's Casual Encounters. It's sort 09:36:02

 1 09:34:39

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:34:56

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:35:17

11

12

13

14

15 09:35:28

16

17

18

19

20 09:35:48

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 17 of 111
 18

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

of supposed to be dating where it's -- let's just say dating,

that -- it's the opposite of match.com. And Missed

Connections, that's kind of an old-fashioned category that used

to appear in the newspapers that if you saw somebody in a

grocery store and you wanted to post again that "I saw you but

I forgot to get your number." So in these categories, rarely

were there postings.

Q. All right. And even on the rare postings, did you charge

in those categories?

A. I don't believe we charged in Missed Connections or NSA.

Q. And then with the paragraph starting "All images," can you

read that paragraph?

A. "All images have been or are being removed from Adult

jobs. We will keep that standard in place going forward as we

finish our review of the category. We found that many images

were inappropriate and unnecessary for this section and will

limit it to text only posting in the future. This will be

complete in the next few weeks."

Q. All right. And what did you take that to mean?

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Once again, we're doing nothing. It

sounds like we're doing something but we're just removing

images from a category that really shouldn't have images. This

is a text-heavy category where you would say I have jobs at 09:37:57

 1 09:36:06

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:36:36

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:37:00

11

12

13

14

15 09:37:21

16

17

18

19

20 09:37:44

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 18 of 111
 19

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

these strip clubs or that these, you know, come be at this --

make porn videos. But often prostitutes would post there. So

by eliminating images, we will eliminate any kind of

prostitution ads appearing there.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. In 2010, did you tell your bank that you had this

relationship with The Erotic Review?

A. We did not.

Q. Why didn't you do that?

A. Well, it would be a good way to lose a bank account.

Q. Why do you believe it would be a good way to lose a bank

account?

A. We wouldn't share our marketing activities with financial

institutions. It's -- it's -- well, it's more than -- it just

wouldn't be self-serving. It would be bad for business.

Q. All right. Did you believe that you would lose your

banking if you disclosed those strategies?

A. Yes.

MR. RAPP: All right. Let's look at, for the

witness's eyes only, Exhibit 73.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Is this an email from you to Andrew Padilla and Dan Hyer?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. All right. And do you recall this email?

A. Yes, I do. 09:39:57

 1 09:38:02

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:38:23

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:38:41

11

12

13

14

15 09:39:04

16

17

18

19

20 09:39:28

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 19 of 111
 20

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. And is this in November of 2010?

A. Yes it is.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 73.

THE COURT: 73 is admitted.

MR. RAPP: And publish.

THE COURT: And publish.

(Exhibit Number 73 was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. Can you just in general terms, can you tell

the jury what the subject of this email is?

A. I'm providing Andrew Padilla and Dan Hyer a summary of the

changes that we're going to implement in terms of content from

the meetings that I'm having with Scott Spear, Jim Larkin, in

Building B.

Q. All right. Can you read the message that you're giving to

Mr. Padilla here starting at the top?

A. "The consensus is that we took a big step in the right

direction. The content looks great. Our goal is to tame the

content down even further while keeping good content users.

Police be ready to discuss tomorrow.

"Items to I agree to implement.

"1, more banned terms.

"a. 'xxx' - strip it out as even a partial term b,

wet - strip out as a whole term c, Lolita - ban or strip out

(it is code for under aged girl d, pregnant - strip out term." 09:41:36

 1 09:39:58

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:40:10

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:40:22

11

12

13

14

15 09:40:48

16

17

18

19

20 09:41:10

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 20 of 111
 21

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Number two, "Remove ads changes. Pregnant ads.

"3, Pricing. They agree 30 minutes can be in massage

ads (body rubs)."

Q. Let me just stop you there. Was this a new change?

A. Yes. This is backtracking. We're going backwards on some

moderation standards. We had been at an hour. Now we're going

to go back to 30 minutes in body rubs.

Q. And do you know what the reason is for that?

A. Yes. It just wasn't a practical solution for the body

rubs category especially. Many, many users were putting in a

menu of pricing suggestive of one hour, 30 minutes, you know,

or 15 minutes. They are doing it anyway. So we might as well

let them use 30 minutes.

Q. Okay. And then go on?

A. "I said we can not separate massage into separate queues

(but maybe I should)" -- excuse me I read that wrong. "I said

we can not separate massage into separate queues (but maybe I

should). But it is bad policy to have 30 minutes in escorts."

Q. Let me stop you. Why was it bad policy?

A. It defeats that plausible deniability of companionship.

Q. Can you explain that plausible deniability of

companionship, what does that mean?

A. If time was less than one hour, then it sounded more like

a prostitution ad instead of escort companion ad.

Q. All right. And when you say a plausible deniability on 09:43:47

 1 09:41:44

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:42:04

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:42:30

11

12

13

14

15 09:42:54

16

17

18

19

20 09:43:18

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 21 of 111
 22

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

this companionship, was this companionship, was that a claim

that Backpage was trying to make to outside entities?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading and compound

question.

MR. LINCENBERG: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained as to both.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Let's go on. Pick up where you left.

A. "They think pricing numbers by themselves should be left

alone. $80/$120/$240. 120/240.

"They just want quickees, 15 minutes, and 30 minutes.

I need a list of examples to get approved by scott."

Q. Let me just stop you there. Is this -- who is Scott?

A. Scott Spear.

Q. And at this time, any changes in terms of terms, did it

have to be approved by Mr. Spear?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you go on? 

A. "I should make the API a priority with Cybertipline.

"We can come up with a FAQ for users posting in

adult."

Q. Let me stop you there. FAQ means?

A. Frequently asked questions.

Q. Why would you come up with frequently asked questions or

posters in the Adult section, why would you do that? 09:45:36

 1 09:43:51

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:44:09

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:44:24

11

12

13

14

15 09:44:50

16

17

18

19

20 09:45:15

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 22 of 111
 23

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. The posting rules and the allowable content standards are

just continually changing. It's chaotic for users and

unpredictable and many complaints in -- sent to support at

Backpage.com.

Q. And so why would you try to answer their frequently asked

questions?

A. So that users would -- posting in the Family Escorts

category would self-censor.

Q. And what do you mean by self-censor?

A. That they wouldn't have to contact Support; that they

could read and see these terms are allowed, these terms are not

allowed and then they could creates their ad accordingly.

Q. All right. And then the next.

A. "We should include time date stamp on admin objects for

subpoenas."

Q. All right. The next one?

A. "Move to 500 characters max. (ASAP)".

Q. Why did you have to do that ASAP?

A. We really found that the longer the ad, the more likely a

prostitute might use terms that were not allowed in the Female

Escorts category and we had discussions about whether we should

even create a drop-down menu with choices on the posting form

but something Scott Spear wanted to do to help with the

plausible deniability. But instead of doing that, we decided

to start with just not allowing the ads to be so long. 09:47:29

 1 09:45:39

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:45:56

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:46:13

11

12

13

14

15 09:46:48

16

17

18

19

20 09:47:05

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 23 of 111
 24

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. All right. And then number eight?

A. "Ban nipples (dec 1).

"Almost all ads have breasts covered."

Q. All right. And who was making that change?

A. Big change, Scott Spear.

Q. And then, finally, number nine?

A. "Kill TER links in ads on Jan 1 - But allow users to put

is TER IDs (just no live links)."

Q. Why were you doing that?

A. We had a lot of pressure from the Attorneys General and

other NGOs to remove the links to the prostitution review site

The Erotic Review and we had just delayed it as long as we

possibly could. And so on January 1 we'll kill those links,

meaning we'll just run a script through every single ad and

we'll just strip it out, but we're going to still allow users

to put in the six-digit number and some abbreviation to TER so

that it might say TER and then the "check out my reviews TER"

and then the ID. That way we don't completely destroy the

relationship with The Erotic Review.

Q. Do you know how somebody looking at a posting that if it

no longer had the link in it, do you know how they would be

able to find the person posted in that ad on The Erotic Review?

MR. CAMBRIA: Calls for speculation.

THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Who said speculation?

MS. BERTRAND: Mr. Cambria did and I was going to 09:49:52

 1 09:47:34

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:47:51

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:48:27

11

12

13

14

15 09:48:57

16

17

18

19

20 09:49:25

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 24 of 111
 25

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

join.

THE COURT: I think just sustained because it's a

compound question. You asked two separate questions. So you

may reask one question, have the witness answer if he can.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. How would somebody looking at an ad find a poster on The

Erotic Review just with the ID in the ad?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Calls for speculation. In

fact I think it's the same question.

THE COURT: Well, overruled based on the witness's

prior testimony about his knowledge.

THE WITNESS: The ad says highly reviewed and then

the ID number. Possibly it also has TER. For Johns they know

that's The Erotic Review. They take that ID number, they go to

The Erotic Review. They search by ID number. They find the

prostitution review. So it's a little couple of extra steps

for the consumer of the prostitution ads; but they are very

much aware that when it says "highly reviewed" and then an ID

number that The Erotic Review is the place to go.

MR. RAPP: All right. Let's look at 643.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Can you identify this email?

A. Yes. This is a task that is scheduled in Mantis for the

developers.

Q. And when did this -- when did -- are you giving direction 09:51:30

 1 09:49:55

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:50:10

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:50:23

11

12

13

14

15 09:50:46

16

17

18

19

20 09:51:08

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 25 of 111
 26

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

on this task?

A. I reported the task and assigned the task.

Q. All right. And did this take place in February of 2011?

A. Yes, it does.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 643.

THE COURT: It may be admitted and published.

(Exhibit Number 643 was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And so just going down here, can you just read what you're

asking them to do?

A. "Deep cleaning strip out.

"Description: Remove the terms below from every old

ad in the database.

"Restrict removal of terms to these categories:

FemaleEscorts, MaleEscorts, Bodyrubs, Domination,

TranssexualEscorts.

"Deep clean tripped out terms: 1/2 hour, 1/2 hr, 15

min, 15 minute, 15/mins, 15min," with no space, "15minute,"

with no space, "30 min, 30/mins, 30," no space, "min, 3B-& 1J."

Q. And the last one?

A. "@N@L". It's code for anal.

Q. Oh. All right. Why are you doing this?

A. We are going to sanitize the site, especially the old ads.

These terms are blocked but they are in old ads in the

database. And if they just move the ad at the top, it won't go 09:53:35

 1 09:51:34

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:51:47

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:52:06

11

12

13

14

15 09:52:24

16

17

18

19

20 09:53:09

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 26 of 111
 27

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

through the moderation queue. So we're constantly having ads

go live that violate the posting rules because the ad text was

created months prior. So this deep cleaning will sanitize the

site and the content and otherwise we would have to do it

manually and there's just a million ads that can't be done

manually.

Q. What's causing you to do this?

A. We're continuing to be under pressure from media,

Government organizations, non-Government organizations and

we're also prepping for I believe a meeting with NCMEC.

Q. And what I've highlighted, what does that mean?

A. Yeah. When I read it, I can't remember, it's code for

something and we didn't like it. I really can't remember what

it is.

Q. Okay. Fair enough. Let's just go on to a couple of other

pages in 643 and is it fair to say that on 643, page two, is

this a long list of terms?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And in the interest of time, what are all of these terms

indicative of?

A. These terms, most of these terms are indicative of a sex

act.

Q. All right. And then going to 643-3, same?

A. Yes, the same.

Q. And indeed just to highlight a couple. These three at the 09:55:35

 1 09:53:38

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:54:01

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:54:28

11

12

13

14

15 09:54:52

16

17

18

19

20 09:55:17

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 27 of 111
 28

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

top, can you tell us what those are?

A. "GFE, girl friend experience, girlfriend experience."

Q. And then going to 643, page four, who else was involved in

this project?

A. The developers and Andrew Padilla.

Q. And are you telling him who is giving you directions here

on this?

MR. EISENBERG: Objection, Your Honor. It's leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Well, can you just read where I've highlighted?

A. I write, "The reason why this is important is 'links to

other ads by this user' will often have bad content. So, Scott

Spear wants me to kill links 'to other ads by this user' but

our users love it.

"So, best to do the deep cleaning and not kill a

valuable feature."

Q. All right. And down here, is this a statement by

Mr. Padilla?

A. Yes.

Q. What is he saying?

A. "I've attached an updated list of terms sets for strip

out."

Q. And then what does he say down here?

A. "Yes. All of those terms are already set as Strip Term 09:57:26

 1 09:55:44

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:56:08

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:56:28

11

12

13

14

15 09:56:49

16

17

18

19

20 09:57:16

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 28 of 111
 29

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

From Ad filters."

Q. Now, I believe you just testified that you were doing this

in anticipation of some type of meeting. Do you know what that

involved?

A. Let me just one second. You know, it's either a meeting

or we're cleaning it up for a major media event.

Q. All right. And at this time, are you aware of some type

of media event.

A. This -- this may be where CNN is in touch with us and may

be publishing an investigation.

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, I move to strike because

the witness does not have an actual knowledge to answer that

question.

MS. BERTRAND: Join. The witness is speculating per

his own words.

MR. RAPP: Maybe I can clear this up.

THE COURT: Well, I'll overrule it because -- well,

let me just -- I'll overrule the objection but, Mr. Rapp, just

lay some foundation, please.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. At this point, had you received emails from CNN?

A. Yes, we have.

Q. And was that a concern to you?

A. Very much a concern.

Q. How about to the ownership? 09:59:10

 1 09:57:33

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:57:56

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 09:58:20

11

12

13

14

15 09:58:40

16

17

18

19

20 09:58:59

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 29 of 111
 30

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. They were involved in the contact from CNN and in

preparation to deal with it.

Q. All right. And so let me just show you 605. Do you

recognize this email? It's a two-page email -- well, there's

not much on page two, is there. Do you recognize this email?

Are you copied on this email?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Is this -- does this email also include Mr. Lacey?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And Mr. Spear?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the subject matter of this meeting or the subject

matter rather of this email a meeting with Polaris?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. RAPP: And move to admit Exhibit 605.

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: Overruled. It may be admitted.

(Exhibit Number 605 was admitted into evidence.)

MR. RAPP: And publish.

THE COURT: It may be published.

MR. RAPP: Thank you.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. So, first of all, did you come to learn what Polaris was?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What is Polaris? 10:00:50

 1 09:59:15

 2

 3

 4

 5 09:59:44

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:00:10

11

12

13

14

15 10:00:30

16

17

18

19

20 10:00:41

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 30 of 111
 31

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Polaris is an anti-human trafficking organization.

Q. Was there some kind of a meeting with Polaris at some

point in 2011?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Was that meeting, do you know how that meeting was

arranged?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can you tell the jury how that was arranged?

A. Our user safety consultant Hemanshu Nigam set up meetings

for us in Washington, D.C., with non-Government organizations.

One of them was Polaris.

Q. And in this email below, can you read what Mr. Nigam is

telling you, Mr. Spear, and Mr. Lacey?

A. "I received a call from Brad Myles, CEO of the Polaris

Project. You will recall that Polaris project is one of the

NGOs that had harsh criticism for Craigslist. Myles said that

he thought BP was taking the right steps but didn't understand

why the escort category was not placed under review especially

since that was the place where most of the prostituting of

women and children was taking place by violent pimps. He said

the NGO community was aligned on their belief about this and

that they will be stating to the press their concern. I

explained what BP was doing in the escort area to clean out the

illegal ads. He said he looked in Washington, DC, where he is

and easily found many illegal ads. I stressed the need for a 10:02:52

 1 10:00:53

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:01:14

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:01:34

11

12

13

14

15 10:02:05

16

17

18

19

20 10:02:26

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 31 of 111
 32

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

national task force to which he agreed the NGO community would

like to participate in, so that the industry could better

understand how to spot the illegal activity and set best

practice standards.

"I don't know if they have spoken to any reporters

but it is something to be aware of -- the question of why other

sections were closed but not the escorts area will be publicly

raised by the NGO and AG community."

Q. Let me just stop you there. What is he referring to

there?

A. Well, this is the sham where he shut down some Personal

categories but did not shut down where the -- the female

escorts categories and the other categories like Body Rubs,

Transsexuals, Escorts.

Q. And then what does he say in the next paragraph.

A. "I know we are working quickly to clean up escorts, but we

may need a stronger response to media and NGOs if they call

than just that. Perhaps we can reactively announce that you

are engaged in discussions with third party vendors who can

work 24/7 to make sure this area stays legit in addition to the

already triple resources you are putting on it."

Q. That last sentence, what did you take that to mean?

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Did somebody say something?

MR. FEDER: Same. Sorry. 10:04:41

 1 10:02:57

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:03:16

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:03:34

11

12

13

14

15 10:03:53

16

17

18

19

20 10:04:14

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 32 of 111
 33

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: He wants -- Hemu Nigam wants the

company to hire a vendor that he's recommending in Florida to

do moderation in addition to the vendor that we already have,

third-party vendor we already have doing moderation.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. And how would that help rid the Female Escort

section of prostitution, if you know?

A. It would not. It might remove some problematic words but

it's not going to eliminate prostitution ads.

Q. And is this what Mr. Nigam has in this paragraph, is this

forwarded up to Mr. Lacey and Mr. Spear?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And then does Mr. Spear say anything in

response? What does he say in response to Mr. Nigam?

A. "Hemu. Absolutely and true. We need to get your

Florida-India connection hooked up with Carl as soon as

possible. The quicker the better to get that train moving."

Q. Did that ever happen?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. You hired a Florida-based moderation vendor?

A. My supervisor wanted me to hire them so we hired them,

even though they didn't have equipment and they seemed to be

pretty disorganized. I went ahead and moved forward.

Q. Do you remember what the name of that Florida-based vendor 10:06:41

 1 10:04:42

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:04:59

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:05:23

11

12

13

14

15 10:05:55

16

17

18

19

20 10:06:18

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 33 of 111
 34

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

is?

A. I would have to see the email to recall the name.

Q. That's fine. Did they remain conducting moderation for

Backpage?

A. For a little while but once Hemu was put on a back shelf,

we terminated our agreement with the Florida moderation

company.

Q. What do you mean by Hemu put -- I heard shelf but I didn't

get the first part of that?

A. It was put on a back shelf.

Q. Put on a back shelf. What do you mean by that?

A. We no longer were going to take his advice. That would

happen sometime after the NCMEC meetings that went so terribly.

Q. Okay. Looking at 1611 for your eyes only, do you recall

this email?

A. I do.

Q. And is this a -- let's see. it's a two-page email. Is the

subject matter of this email a meeting with Polaris?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading. 

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What's the subject matter of this email?

A. An introduction and conversation with Polaris. We're

setting up meetings.

Q. All right. And is Mr. Spear on this email? 10:08:16

 1 10:06:48

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:06:59

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:07:16

11

12

13

14

15 10:07:44

16

17

18

19

20 10:08:02

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 34 of 111
 35

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Yes, he is.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 1611.

MR. FEDER: Same. Same.

THE COURT: Overruled.

It may be admitted.

(Exhibit Number 1611 was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. And on your recollection, who within Backpage

is sort of taking the lead on, if there is somebody taking the

lead on, setting up this meeting with Polaris?

A. Scott Spear.

Q. And what does Mr. Spear -- let's go to page two. What

does Mr. Myles say to Mr. Spear on December 6, 2010?

A. "Dear Scott, Thank you for your email, and for Carl's as

well. Thanks also to Hemu for the introduction. I'm sorry for

the delay in responding, as I've been out on a bit of travel

and am backed up on email correspondence. If we were to try

and schedule a phone call first, the following are some times

on Wednesday, 12/8 when I'm available this week."

Q. All right. Let me just stop you there. Do you recall if

there is a phone call with Mr. Myles relating to a meeting with

them?

A. I don't recall the phone call.

Q. But in any event, does Mr. Spear respond to Mr. Myles?

A. Yes. 10:10:08

 1 10:08:20

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:08:26

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:08:38

11

12

13

14

15 10:09:14

16

17

18

19

20 10:09:37

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 35 of 111
 36

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. Okay. And then going to page one, is there ultimately a

meeting set up with Polaris in 2011?

A. Yes, there is.

Q. Okay. And is there also a meeting set up with this

organization that we have been referring to called NCMEC?

A. Yes. The meeting for NCMEC in the morning, Polaris in the

afternoon.

Q. All right. And who -- with respect to NCMEC, did NCMEC

want to meet with Backpage or did Backpage want to meet with

NCMEC? Who wanted to meet with whom?

A. I was the opinion Backpage wanted to meet with NCMEC

because we spent so much time preparing a PowerPoint to show

NCMEC.

Q. All right. And that PowerPoint, did you also, during the

meeting for Polaris, did you show Polaris that same PowerPoint

if you recall? 

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Let's go on to another area here. Let me show you

630 for the witness's eyes only.

Do you recognize this email that has Mr. Spear and

Mr. Lacey on it?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And do you recognize sort of the subject matter of this

email?

A. It's an interview request. 10:12:22

 1 10:10:09

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:10:40

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:11:03

11

12

13

14

15 10:11:27

16

17

18

19

20 10:12:07

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 36 of 111
 37

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. Okay. And let's go to page two. Do you recognize this

Backpage posting that was provided to you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How is it that you recognize this Backpage posting?

A. Because either I or my staff found this posting after we

were alerted to it with the CNN broadcast.

Q. All right.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 633.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection.

THE COURT: Was this 630 or 633?

MR. RAPP: I'm sorry, 630.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Hearsay.

MR. CAMBRIA: I agree. Crawford.

THE COURT: Overruled.

630 may be admitted and published.

(Exhibit Number 630 was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. Let's just start -- all right. Let's just

start up here. Can you read what Mr. Nigam is telling

Mr. Spear and Mr. Lacey?

A. "Hi, all. After Carl and Simrin's review, and Jamie's and

my final editing to make it PR friendly, we have created the

final backgrounder document. As we discussed on the call

today, please send the below email and attached PDF document to 10:14:23

 1 10:12:24

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:12:48

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:13:07

11

12

13

14

15 10:13:22

16

17

18

19

20 10:13:55

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 37 of 111
 38

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Amber Lyon at 12noon Phoenix/2 p.m." eastern time.

Q. All right. And this reference to the Backpage safety and

security backgrounder, can you explain to the jury what that is

a reference to?

A. That's a summary of our changes that we're making on the

site that we've already made or plan to make. And it really is

just a sham.

Q. Okay. Why is the security backgrounder a sham in your

view?

A. Because it's full of all of this general user safety

security information. It's just a PR fluff piece and then

we're shutting down categories that have little or no content.

It's just meant to -- it's another example of a slow dance

document. We're doing something here. We're getting better

but we're really not doing anything. 

Q. All right. And are there occasions where you provide this

security backgrounder to various organizations.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: We are going to -- I know that the

Backpage safety and security backgrounder, it's used with

multiple organizations anytime there's a negative media event

and it's used with banks and processors. It really is an

important document that we use in the company.

\\\

 1 10:14:26

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:14:50

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:15:14

11

12

13

14

15 10:15:40

16

17

18

19

20 10:16:00

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 38 of 111
 39

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Okay. Did the safety and security backgrounder, did it

contain any reference to the relationship you had with The

Erotic Review?

A. No.

Q. Did it include any reference to the relationship you had

with super posters?

A. It did not.

Q. Did it detail your aggregation efforts early on in the

inception of Backpage?

A. It did not.

Q. Why didn't it?

A. Would not be the narrative that we were striving for which

was kind of -- it would be too much of a disclosure. It would

make it look like we had been very active in creating an

enterprise that would logically inherit the prostitution ads

from Craigslist.

MR. RAPP: All right. Could I have that published

again? This is 630.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And so what does Hemu -- Mr. Nigam, what does he tell

Mr. Lacey and Mr. Spear about Amber Lyon's efforts to speak

with somebody at Backpage? What does he tell Mr. Lacey and

Mr. Spear here? Can you read that?

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, this is a 10:18:06

 1 10:16:25

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:16:38

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:16:58

11

12

13

14

15 10:17:17

16

17

18

19

20 10:17:44

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 39 of 111
 40

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

mischaracterization. There's several people listed on this.

This isn't an exclusive to Lacey and Spear.

THE COURT: Well, I'll sustain, Mr. Rapp. I guess

you can read all or have Mr. Ferrer read all of the people who

are on the email.

MR. RAPP: All right.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Who else is Mr. Nigam telling about this contact by Amber

Lyon.

A. Jim Larkin, Steve Suskin, Scott Spear, Michael Lacey, and

Jamie Schumacher.

Q. And what is Mr. Larkin's role at the time with Backpage?

A. He's the CEO.

Q. And does he have an ownership interest?

A. Yes. He's majority owner.

Q. And Mr. Spear is -- what's his ownership interest in

Backpage?

A. He's a minority owner.

Q. And how about Mr. Lacey?

A. He's the majority owner, too, I think he has the most

ownership.

Q. And we talk about Jamie Schumacher, I believe earlier in

your testimony, but just to remind the jury, why is she copied

on this? 

A. She's a PR employee associated with Hemanshu Nigam. 10:19:27

 1 10:18:07

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:18:21

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:18:33

11

12

13

14

15 10:18:54

16

17

18

19

20 10:19:12

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 40 of 111
 41

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. What does Hemu tell these individuals?

MR. CAMBRIA: Mr. Suskin?

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Okay. Steve Suskin, who is that?

A. Steve Suskin is in-house counsel, Village Voice Media.

Q. So can you read what Mr. Nigam is telling them about Amber

Lyon's efforts to speak with somebody?

A. "Hi all, this is actually the third time she has reached

out and each time we have declined the request through Steve.

In the last reach out related to the lawsuit and prosecution of

the pimp in St. Louis, we provided a basic statement which

resulted in minor coverage of the Backpage.com side of the

story and a major focus on the pimp getting a lean sentence in

a plea deal.

"It looks like she's planning to run another story.

This time, we think it is best to respond with our statement

below and also point the reporter to the backgrounder that we

have attached so that she can have more substance to utilize

that positions Backpage.com in the best light.

"Please review the backgrounder and let us know if

you have any questions so we can edit prior to Steve sending

it."

Q. Did you come to learn that Amber Lyon wanted to interview

somebody at Backpage? Did you receive any information on that?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Compound question. 10:21:21

 1 10:19:39

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:19:46

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:20:14

11

12

13

14

15 10:20:34

16

17

18

19

20 10:20:55

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 41 of 111
 42

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

THE COURT: Sustained. Just ask one question, Mr.

Rapp.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Did you learn that Amber Lyon wanted to interview somebody

at Backpage?

A. Yes. She emailed us with that request.

Q. And did you agree to conduct an interview with her in your

capacity?

A. It's way over my pay grade and I'm not going to do it.

Q. Do you know who agreed to sit for an interview with

Ms. Lion in anticipation of this is story she was doing?

A. No one agreed.

Q. Mr. Lacey didn't agree?

A. No, he did not.

Q. Mr. Spear didn't agree?

A. No, he did not.

Q. Did the clear and convincing financial officer,

Mr. Brunst, did he agree?

A. No, he did not.

Q. Now, let me show you 633 for your eyes only.

Do you recognize this posting?

A. I do.

Q. How is it, sir, that you recognize this posting?

A. Because I either found this posting myself or I asked

staff to find it and they gave it to me. It's a posting that 10:22:48

 1 10:21:22

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:21:30

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:21:47

11

12

13

14

15 10:22:06

16

17

18

19

20 10:22:25

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 42 of 111
 43

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

came out of the Backpage database of an ad that was posted by

CNN, Amber Lyon.

Q. All right. And how do you know that? How do you know

that she posted this?

A. We could see the ad on screen and she mentioned the name

Winter and we did a search in the city that she had posted in

and we were able to locate the ad.

Q. When you say you saw the posting on screen, what are you

talking about?

A. I thought during the video she talked about where she was

posting the ad and what she was putting in her video.

Q. All right. So did you -- did you do this at some point

after -- well, did she broadcast a story on Backpage?

A. Yes. She -- well, I'm sorry.

Q. Did CNN do a story on Backpage?

A. Yes. They broadcast a story. I know I watched the story

and others in the company.

Q. How do you know that others in the company watched it?

A. Because we were -- we, Scott Spear, myself, Jim Larkin, we

were unhappy with the broadcast.

Q. Did you have conversations with Mr. Spear and Mr. Larkin

about the broadcast?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the nature of the discussion that you and

Mr. Spear and Mr. Larkin had regarding the broadcast? 10:24:35

 1 10:22:50

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:23:04

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:23:36

11

12

13

14

15 10:23:55

16

17

18

19

20 10:24:14

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 43 of 111
 44

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Well, a couple --

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Discussion one with Scott Spear is we

discussed how much traffic went up when it was broadcast on

CNN. We had record traffic. The story on CNN was the

equivalent to a Super Bowl commercial.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. You --

MR. FEDER: Move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. You and Mr. Spear had this conversation after the

broadcast?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you know that the traffic had increased after the

broadcast of this CNN story on Backpage?

A. Google Analytics.

Q. All right. Well, just getting back here before I get too

far afield, 633 -- 

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 633.

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: Overruled. 

MS. BERTRAND: Relevance and Crawford v. Washington

confrontation. 10:25:42

 1 10:24:42

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:24:53

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:25:10

11

12

13

14

15 10:25:16

16

17

18

19

20 10:25:31

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 44 of 111
 45

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

THE COURT: Overruled as previously discussed, 401,

and it may be admitted and it may be published.

(Exhibit Number 633 was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. We got a little bit far from this. Can you just explain

to the jury what this posting is?

A. This is an administrative view of a posting that appeared

on Backpage.com in the Memphis market. It's the administrative

view because it has all of these other fields where we capture

user information like email address, what they paid -- how much

they paid, their name, phone number.

Q. All right. And so there's an email like -- what is the

email down here?

A. The email address was courtneyamber44@gmail.com.

Q. And let's just go to the second page. And there's some

information here. What type of information is this is here

(Indicating)?

A. Well, what we see is the IP address. We see some

moderation links and then there's the invoice where this ad

costs $5.

Q. All right.

MR. RAPP: Now let's go to 637.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And do you recognize this email? Let me go to the second

page. Do you see that? 10:27:33

 1 10:25:43

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:26:04

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:26:25

11

12

13

14

15 10:26:51

16

17

18

19

20 10:27:16

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 45 of 111
 46

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Yes.

Q. Are you on this email? Let me go to the first page so you

know if you are or not.

Do you see that?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And is this related to -- is this related to the Amber

Lyon story?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And is Mr. Lacey on this?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. And is Mr. Spear on this? Email?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 637.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be admitted.

(Exhibit Number 637 was admitted into evidence.)

THE COURT: And published.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Let's just go to the second page. Starting with this down

here in January, what is Mr. Lacey telling Scott Spear?

A. "Will you send to Jensen Andy and me a few sentences that

describe how we forward to Ernie Allen questionable ads for his

review. Lacey."

Q. All right. What did you take that to mean? Can you

explain that? 10:28:56

 1 10:27:36

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:27:44

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:28:05

11

12

13

14

15 10:28:15

16

17

18

19

20 10:28:36

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 46 of 111
 47

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. He's asking Scott Spear to describe how we're sending

cybertip reports of ads we suspect being underage to the

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC.

Q. All right. And then let's go to the first page and do you

join this conversation down here? Did Scott Spear write

something to you down here?

A. Yes. Scott Spear wants me to write the description

without a lot of tech talk he tells me.

Q. All right. And then do you respond to Mr. Spear? What do

you say to Mr. Spear about how that process works?

A. "A senior BP staff member can click a link while in Admin

View called report this ad to NCMEC. A four-color PDF is

automatically emailed to the posting of NCMEC. It includes an

IP, email address, comments from our staff, an FAQ explaining

data and how to contact us. NCMEC then emails us acknowledging

receipt of the report."

Q. All right. And then do you send an email to Mr. Spear and

Mr. Lacey regarding this explanation of the Amber Lyon posting

that we just looked at in 633?

A. I do, I send an explanation answering Lacey's questions.

Q. All right. What do you tell Mr. Lacey and Mr. Spear?

A. "We would not have reported Amber's ads to NCMEC. we make

reports when the following happens. A user reports it, i.e., I

saw this girl and she is not 18. Or size this pic and I think

she is too young. We aggressively ask users to report child 10:31:33

 1 10:28:57

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:29:28

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:29:57

11

12

13

14

15 10:30:25

16

17

18

19

20 10:31:08

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 47 of 111
 48

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

exploitation. We get several reports a day.

"Our moderators will see pics where the pic might be

too young or the text is suggestive of child exploitation.

"Once a report goes to NCMEC, they vet it and send it

to local law enforcement. I think they look to make sure it is

possible exploitation: Pic too young, text saying things like

"1st time" wrote United States Code, fresh, first timer, et

cetera.

The NCMEC people have been quite helpful."

Q. Just asking you about this (Indicating), why would you not

have reported the posting that you found on Amber Lyon, why

would you not have reported that to NCMEC?

A. Her ad doesn't feature any text suggestive of someone

underage and the image that's attached is a young person in a

swim suit but it's really impossible for a moderator to know

the age of the person.

Q. How would a moderator, based on your experience, how would

they know the age?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. He just stated they

wouldn't be able to.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. What does Mr. Lacey, when you gave this

response to -- what did Mr. Lacey ask for you -- when you gave

this detailed response about what you would do with Amber 10:33:33

 1 10:31:38

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:31:57

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:32:18

11

12

13

14

15 10:32:54

16

17

18

19

20 10:33:10

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 48 of 111
 49

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Lyon's ads?

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, the exhibit speaks for

itself.

MR. RAPP: Well, can you just read it?

MR. CAMBRIA: I thought he did.

MR. RAPP: No, he did not read this part.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Mr. Rapp, you may move forward.

MR. RAPP: Do you mean overruled?

THE COURT: Well --

MR. RAPP: Can he read this?

THE COURT: Yes. He can read this. I'm sustaining

the objection but you can move forward with the exhibit.

MR. RAPP: I see.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Can you just read what Mr. Lacey -- I'm sorry for the

confusion.

Can you read what Mr. Lacey wrote you?

A. "Michael Lacey wrote," Carl, why would we isolate this ad?

What would NCMEC do with this ad? What do they look for, what

is being guarded against? Lacey."

MS. BERTRAND: Your Honor, I'm going to move to be

a -- I'm going to object and move to strike and ask that the

Court instruct the witness not to add his editorial comment

through this tone. 10:34:38

 1 10:33:35

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:33:42

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:33:52

11

12

13

14

15 10:34:00

16

17

18

19

20 10:34:18

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 49 of 111
 50

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I missed the last part.

MS. BERTRAND: That the Court instruct the witness

not to editorialize what's being written here through this

tone.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let me just add the exhibit

is admitted and he may read from the exhibit when asked to do

so.

Mr. Rapp, continue.

MR. RAPP: Thank you.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Let's look at Exhibit 638 for the witness's eyes only. Is

this an email exchange between you and Mr. Lacey?

A. Yes.

Q. And is Scott Spear also on it?

A. Yes.

Q. And is this sort of a continuation of the discussion that

you're having with him?

A. It is.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 638.

THE COURT: It may be admitted.

(Exhibit Number 638 was admitted into evidence.)

THE COURT: And published.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What does Mr. Lacey -- is he asking you some questions

here? 10:36:01

 1 10:34:41

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:34:52

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:35:09

11

12

13

14

15 10:35:34

16

17

18

19

20 10:35:45

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 50 of 111
 51

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Yes, he is.

Q. What questions is he asking?

A. "Do you have guidelines our people use?

"Did you get guidelines from them about what theyd

like to see?

"Do you have guidelines from them about what they do?

"What you've described is very vague. Do they have a

database, for example, of runaways? Lacey."

Q. All right. And what do you respond to Mr. Lacey and

Mr. Spear?

A. "Our guide lines are vague but at least easy to remember:

"if she looks under 18, report it. If in doubt,

report it. We get a couple of manager's opinions on pics we

are not clear about.

"Hemu gave us a dozen code words of under aged users.

Perhaps I'll learn more when at NCMEC."

Q. Let me just stop you there. Are you referring to some

type of a future meeting here that you had with NCMEC?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And if you could go on.

A. "Roughly, we reported 30 ads to NCMEC out of 300,000 adult

ads in the past 30 days."

Q. Let me stop you there. Where are the 300,000 adult ads

being posted?

A. Predominantly in the U.S., in the Female Escorts category. 10:37:41

 1 10:36:01

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:36:12

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:36:39

11

12

13

14

15 10:37:04

16

17

18

19

20 10:37:20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 51 of 111
 52

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. All right. And then what else do you tell him about

regarding databases?

A. Regarding databases, "They have a hash list of porn pics

and list of child porn URL sites to ban. Nothing on 

runaways . . . yet."

Q. Okay. Now let's go on to 1062a.

THE COURT: Mr. Rapp, I think at this point we're at

a good time to take our morning break. And we'll take

approximately 20 minutes, members of the jury. Again, I ask

for you to think about whether or not you would be able to

continue on this afternoon beyond the noon hour, roughly 12:30,

12:45. If you would let Lilliana know that during your break.

And, again, I remind you of the admonition not to discuss or

come to any conclusions at this juncture in the trial. Just

simply enjoy your break.

Please all rise for the jury.

(Jury departs at 10:39.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

Let me just inquire of the Government, did you have

an opportunity to review that exhibit and whether its

operational? It is working?

MR. RAPP: I'm sorry, judge, I didn't hear what you

said.

THE COURT: The exhibit, is it operational?

MR. RAPP: The video? 10:39:50

 1 10:37:46

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:38:05

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:38:38

11

12

13

14

15 10:39:01

16

17

18

19

20 10:39:39

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 52 of 111
 53

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. RAPP: Yes.

THE COURT: Can you go ahead and run that now?

MR. BERRY: I think the problem is we're waiting on

your IT folks. My system is working but the sound system is

not working.

THE COURT: All right. IT is on the way.

MR. BERRY: If you would like Your Honor, it's a

short clip. I think it will go over email. I'm not 100

percent but I could possibly email it to chambers.

MR. FEDER: We would like to see it as well.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(Recess at 10:40; resume at 11:03.)

(Court was called to order by the courtroom deputy.)

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

jurors indicate that they can go only to 12:30 and so we will

not take a break. We'll push forward until 12:30 and then

we'll recess for the weekend.

MR. RAPP: What a shame.

THE COURT: All rise for the jury.

(Jury enters at 11:05.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

The record will reflect the presence of the jury, the

parties are present, and the witness is on the stand.

Mr. Rapp, you may continue. 11:05:38

 1 10:39:52

 2

 3

 4

 5 10:40:02

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 10:40:16

11

12

13

14

15 11:03:53

16

17

18

19

20 11:04:59

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 53 of 111
 54

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

MR. RAPP: Thank you, Your Honor.

Madam Clerk, I'm showing the witness Exhibit 1062.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Do you see that, sir, on your screen?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is that an email from you to Mr. Lacey and Mr. Spear?

A. Yes.

Q. And what's the subject of this?

A. Regarding CNN Demand Letter, privileged and confidential.

Q. All right.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit Exhibit 1062 and publish.

THE COURT: Well, I think just clarify who it's to.

My sense is you misstated that. There's a to and a cc line.

MR. RAPP: Okay. Fair enough.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Who is -- who is this -- the email from you to? Who is it

to?

A. The email is from me and it's to Bill Jensen and it's

copied to Jim Larkin, Michael Lacey, Andy VanDeVoorde, Steve

Suskin and Scott Spear.

Q. All right. And why are you copying Mr. Lacey and

Mr. Spear?

A. Because you this has information to do with the CNN

investigation's video that published.

Q. All right. And is this email sent after the broadcast? 11:07:24

 1 11:05:40

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:05:59

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:06:31

11

12

13

14

15 11:06:49

16

17

18

19

20 11:07:07

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 54 of 111
 55

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Yes. It's sent after the broadcast.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit Exhibit 1062.

THE COURT: Yes. It may be admitted and published.

(Exhibit Number 1062 was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Can you just read this for identification of the email?

A. "When Amber posted her ad on backpage she held a copy of

the same ad text Selena had in her ad. I attached the ad. It

was a in DC. Amber said Selena face was posted in Las Vegas a

couple of months ago. Was Selena posted in one or two cities?

We are re-checking all subpoenas in Las Vegas and now

Washington DC for a match."

Q. What do you mean by this? What are you informing

Mr. Spear and Mr. Lacey of?

A. The -- they have asked me to do research to try to find

the CNN details.

Q. Who has asked you to do research?

A. Scott Spear, Jim Larkin. This is kind of the Seal Team 6.

Whenever there's a media event, we just start having what

events --

MR. CAMBRIA: Objection. Not responsive. Ask that

it be struck.

THE COURT: Yes. The jurors will disregard the

statement after the answer "Scott Spear, Jim Larkin."

\\\

 1 11:07:30

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:07:44

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:08:23

11

12

13

14

15 11:08:46

16

17

18

19

20 11:09:06

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 55 of 111
 56

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And then you actually did say something about you made a

reference to Seal Team 6. What did you mean by that?

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, that's what was struck.

MR. RAPP: Now I'm asking him about it.

THE COURT: It was struck but Mr. Rapp is entitled to

ask the question if he can answer.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Can you answer that?

A. Yes, I can answer it.

Q. All right. What does the reference to Seal Team 6 mean?

A. Seal Team 6 is how Jim Larkin would describe our staff's

ability to research where ads were posted and if they posted in

other places and then we would provide that kind of detail and

so Seal Team 6 is enabled here with the Selena ad posted in DC.

Q. All right. And then looking at 1062a, is this the

attachment and is this a two-page posting?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And so is this the attachment that you were providing

Mr. Spear and Mr. Lacey?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 1062a.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be admitted.

MS. BERTRAND: The defense objects as to hearsay and 11:10:55

 1 11:09:27

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:09:38

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:09:47

11

12

13

14

15 11:10:11

16

17

18

19

20 11:10:43

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 56 of 111
 57

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Crawford.

THE COURT: Overruled. It may be admitted and

published.

(Exhibit Number 1062a was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Is this the posting that you found?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And in some respect, does this match the posting that was

provided by Amber Lyon?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. So I now have on screen, which has been admitted for the

record, 633. This is the Amber Lyon posting and this is the

one that you found. And did they have the same -- basically

the same terms in it?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection, Your Honor. One of them is

redacted so we can't tell if the terms are the same or not.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. What was the objection?

MS. BERTRAND: One of the exhibits, the one on the

left side of the screen, has redacted pieces from it, so we

can't tell whether or not the two are equivalent.

THE COURT: Well, I'll overrule -- I'll overrule the

objection. Mr. Rapp can probe into the areas that are

unredacted with regard to this witness, if he can testify to

them.

\\\

 1 11:10:58

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:11:02

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:11:28

11

12

13

14

15 11:12:01

16

17

18

19

20 11:12:19

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 57 of 111
 58

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Okay. And so you recognize at all when comparing the

Amber Lyon posting and then the one that is -- that you

referenced as Selena in the email to Mr. Lacey and Mr. Spear,

did you see some similarities between the postings?

A. Yes, the title New BooTy in ToWn is identical. And the ad

text, including the phone number, "My name is Winter and I

would love to meet new people," is also identical.

Q. All right. And just so we're clear on this, the one on my

left, is this the posting that is identified as Selena in the

email to Mr. Spear and Mr. Lacey?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this posting also -- or the subject of this posting

also on the broadcast that you watched?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. So just to connect the dots, you had received an email

back sometime back in 2010 and let me show you 1185a, this is

the first page of 1185a and not subject to redactions and I

would ask that this be published. This was previously

admitted.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be published.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And the posting that we just looked at, was this the

posting that was referenced by this Steve Turnham in this email

that you received? 11:14:55

 1 11:12:40

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:13:01

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:13:33

11

12

13

14

15 11:13:55

16

17

18

19

20 11:14:35

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 58 of 111
 59

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did you watch the Amber Lyon broadcast?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall more or less how long the broadcast was?

A. I am not sure. Half an hour.

Q. All right. And during that broadcast, did she give an

example of posting her ad and what would happen after posting

her ad?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Hearsay, Crawford. Sixth

Amendment.

THE COURT: I'll sustain as to the form of the

question.

It is a leading question, Mr. Rapp. Please ask

non-leading questions.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What did Amber Lyon do with her posting that was presented

in the broadcast?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BERTRAND: Crawford.

THE WITNESS: Amber Lyon, she posted an ad on

Backpage and then she has her phone just start ringing off the

hook.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. Did you watch the broadcast back when it was 11:16:10

 1 11:14:57

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:15:16

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:15:41

11

12

13

14

15 11:15:49

16

17

18

19

20 11:15:57

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 59 of 111
 60

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

first broadcast?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it just broadcast one time?

A. No. It was rebroadcasted.

Q. Was there any effort whatsoever by Backpage to prevent the

rebroadcast of the Amber Lyon story?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What did Backpage do after it was broadcast the first

time?

A. We sent CNN a tortious interference, some kind of -- a

cease and desist letter to stop the rebroadcast.

Q. When you say "we," if you know, who do you mean by that?

A. I said "we," I meant the company but what I mean is the

owners. This is Michael Lacey, Scott Spear, Jed Brunst.

Q. And you watched the broadcast but in preparation for your

testimony today, have you watched the broadcast in preparation

for your testimony?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Have you watched the portion of that broadcast that

Ms. Lyon had posted her ad?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. All right. And is that contained in 1052b1?

Have you watched this exhibit? 11:18:10

 1 11:16:22

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:16:41

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:16:52

11

12

13

14

15 11:17:13

16

17

18

19

20 11:17:40

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 60 of 111
 61

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. I didn't know what you mean by 1052b1. 

THE COURT: Neither did I, Mr. Rapp.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Is that in Exhibit 1052b1?

A. Yes, I believe that's the video file.

Q. All right.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit that and publish it for the

jury.

THE COURT: Let me just ask, Mr. Rapp, I don't think

you asked this witness when this was -- you asked him if he saw

it. When he saw it, the first time when he saw it the second

time. I think there's a lack of foundation in terms of when

this actually occurred.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. When did you actually watch the broadcast?

A. I've watched the first broadcast, it was early January

2011 and then, despite our best efforts, CNN rebroadcast it and

I believe that would have been several weeks later.

Q. All right.

MR. RAPP: Move to Exhibit Number 1052b1.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Relevance, 403, hearsay

and Crawford v. Washington and the Sixth Amendment.

THE COURT: Overruled as to each of the objections as

previously noted.

It may be admitted. 11:19:38

 1 11:18:11

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:18:23

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:18:34

11

12

13

14

15 11:18:55

16

17

18

19

20 11:19:22

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 61 of 111
 62

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

(Exhibit Number 1052b1 was admitted into evidence.)

THE COURT: And published. I guess before you

publish it, Mr. Rapp, why don't you ask a question if there is

one.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Have you seen this?

A. Yes, I've seen the video.

Q. All right.

(Video played.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. And does it go on like that? Does she receive

a number of calls?

A. Yes, a number of calls.

Q. All right. And also on the site, also on this broadcast,

is there any reference to the relationship Backpage had to The

Erotic Review?

A. No.

Q. Is there any reference to the relationship that Backpage

has with super posters?

A. There is not.

Q. Any comments about Backpage's aggregation efforts?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Relevance as to what a

company discloses to the press.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, there's no disclosure of our 11:22:24

 1 11:19:39

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:19:56

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:21:30

11

12

13

14

15 11:21:52

16

17

18

19

20 11:22:06

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 62 of 111
 63

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

aggregation activities or any of our prostitution marketing

activities.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Just looping back to this video, when she receives these

calls in the video, do you hear the other side of the call?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection, hearsay.

THE WITNESS: I think so, yes.

MS. BERTRAND: Hearsay upon hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. He can testify as to what he

recalled seeing and hearing on the video.

THE WITNESS: Yes, you can hear the Johns.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What are they asking for, if anything?

A. They are talking about having sex with her.

Q. Now, I believe that you testified that a letter was sent

after the first broadcast.

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the purpose of the letter?

A. The purpose was to have CNN stop the rebroadcast. That

was the first purpose.

Q. All right. Did you see the letter?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you have any involvement in its drafting?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was the letter that was sent to CNN, was it an accurate 11:23:53

 1 11:22:28

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:22:43

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:22:57

11

12

13

14

15 11:23:20

16

17

18

19

20 11:23:38

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 63 of 111
 64

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

description of page's business model?

A. No, it was not.

Q. Why wasn't it?

A. It didn't provide anything about your prostitution

marketing activities and it also provided a number of

misleading deceptive statistics and it had that sham of user

safety backgrounder document.

Q. The one we talked about previously?

A. Yes.

Q. Did it disclose the relationship with The Erotic Review?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Did it disclose the relationship Backpage had with the

super posters?

MS. BERTRAND: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: It did not.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Did it disclose aggregation?

A. No.

Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 2038 for your eyes only. Do you

see 2038 on your screen?

A. Yes, I do. 11:25:24

 1 11:23:57

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:24:16

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:24:40

11

12

13

14

15 11:24:49

16

17

18

19

20 11:24:58

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 64 of 111
 65

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. Do you recognize the email in this email? Do you

recognize who -- do you recognize the email down here

(Indicating)?

A. Yes, I do.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object.

Vague from reviewing it in preparation for trial with Mr. Rapp

or back in 2011. Vague as to time. He's not on this email.

THE COURT: Lay some foundation as to how -- if he

provides the exhibit, how he recognizes it.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. My question is, how do you recognize the email contained

on this exhibit?

A. Because I'm very familiar with

jedbrunst@villagevoicemedia.com email address.

Q. All right. And in this email, is he forwarding something?

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, I object. That's not

foundation, simply saying he recognizes an email address.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Is this an email that Mr. Brunst sent from his

villagevoicemedia.com email?

MR. LINCENBERG: Same objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. RAPP: I'll come back to this but may I be heard

on this? 11:27:06

 1 11:25:37

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:26:02

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:26:22

11

12

13

14

15 11:26:33

16

17

18

19

20 11:26:49

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 65 of 111
 66

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

THE COURT: You can be heard after 12:30.

MR. RAPP: Okay.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Let's look at 641. Do you see that on your screen?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is this?

A. This is a referral traffic report once again from Google

Analytics.

Q. And for what month is it?

A. It's for the month of January 2011.

Q. Does it refer to the previous email traffic similar to the

previous Google Analytics reports we've seen?

A. Yes, it does.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 641.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Hearsay, lack of

foundation, lack of authentication.

THE COURT: Overruled.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: And it's admitted?

(Exhibit Number 641 was admitted into evidence.)

THE COURT: It's admitted, yes, and it may be

published.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. So why is January of 2011, what happened in that month?

A. This is the month the CNN investigation's video was

broadcast. 11:28:41

 1 11:27:06

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:27:26

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:27:40

11

12

13

14

15 11:28:05

16

17

18

19

20 11:28:16

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 66 of 111
 67

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. All right. And does this report detail the referral

traffic from certain websites?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What does the report say?

A. It details the referral traffic coming from the top 17

sites.

Q. All right. Can you speak to the top three sites?

A. Top three sites, TER.com had 722,087. So that's the

number of users that came from The Erotic Review for the month

of January. Followed by two other prostitution review sites,

eccie, and ussexguide.

So the top three referring sites are prostitution

review sites.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Lack of foundation. Move

to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. How do you know these are prostitution review sites?

A. Because I've been on the sites and I've seen the reviews.

Q. And you've testified regarding The Erotic Review, which is

here, but what about the other two sites?

A. What's the question?

Q. Well, what about these other two sites? How do you know 11:30:12

 1 11:28:42

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:28:52

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:29:07

11

12

13

14

15 11:29:42

16

17

18

19

20 11:29:48

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 67 of 111
 68

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

these are prostitution review sites?

A. Eccae.net is a prostitution ad site and review site. It

was strongest in the Dallas, Houston area.

Ussexguide.info, we've seen referrals coming from

them and when you go online, it has ads and it has Johns

putting links to Backpage ads.

Q. Compared to the previous months, was there an increase in

referral traffic around the time that there was the CNN

broadcast?

A. Yes. Traffic continues to increase significantly.

Q. All right. Looking at 643.

Let me go back here to 2038. This is for the

witness's eyes only. We just talked about this but I want to

ask you some additional questions here. How frequently did you

email during the time period from 2004 to January or February

of 2011 with Jed Brunst?

A. I had emailed him a number of times.

Q. Can you give us an estimate?

A. Reports, questions, not as many times as Scott Spear,

required a lot of maintenance. But Jed Brunst, I would email

him. I would also see him in office because I was over in

Building B a lot.

Q. All right. And do you recognize this email address for

Mr. Brunst as the email address that you emailed him back and

forth a number of times from 2004 to 2011? 11:32:40

 1 11:30:15

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:30:36

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:31:03

11

12

13

14

15 11:31:51

16

17

18

19

20 11:32:21

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 68 of 111
 69

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Yes. I recognize it.

Q. This is his email address?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 2038.

MR. LINCENBERG: Same objection. We went through

this, Your Honor. No foundation. He's just saying what his

email address is.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. RAPP: Judge, I would site doc --

MR. LINCENBERG: Well, we're happy to argue this

after 12:30 as the Court had indicated.

THE COURT: We'll reserve that time to discuss it.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Okay. I now want to show you Exhibit 644. Okay, do you

see that on your screen, sir?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And would you agree that this is a two-page email?

A. Yes.

Q. And is this an email -- is the subject of this email some

type of an article?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let him look at the email and

he can tell you what he recognizes about the email, what it's

about.

\\\

 1 11:32:47

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:33:00

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:33:17

11

12

13

14

15 11:34:16

16

17

18

19

20 11:34:36

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 69 of 111
 70

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. Do you see that? Do you recognize it?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And who is on this email at the top here?

A. It's from Hemu, Hemanshu Nigam, and it's to myself, copied

is Jamie Schumacher, Scott Spear, Simrin Hooper, and Steve

Suskin.

Q. All right. And do you have, sir, an independent

recollection of this email?

A. Yes.

MR. RAPP: All right. Move to admit 644.

MR. FEDER: Same.

THE COURT: It may be admitted.

(Exhibit Number 644 was admitted into evidence.)

MR. RAPP: And published.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be published.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And then starting here, can you read what this person,

Jamie Schumacher, says to Hemu Nigam?

A. Jamie writes, "We should make sure this didn't happen via"

Backpage. And then there's a link below to cnn.com article.

Q. And what's the nature of the article?

A. Arizona CEO child prostitution.

Q. And what does Simrin -- what is Simrin saying in this

article above? 11:36:38

 1 11:34:49

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:35:03

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:35:27

11

12

13

14

15 11:35:37

16

17

18

19

20 11:36:02

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 70 of 111
 71

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. "Theres an article below related to a child prostitution

arrest in Phoenix. We wanted to confirm the arrested man did

not find the minor via backpage.

"Can you please call the Phoenix Police Department

and ask to speak to Sgt. Steve Martos and let him know you saw

the article and if there's any Backpage involvement or use

involved in the case, and that y'all would like to help if

there was any involvement. The number is: Non-Emergency

602-262-6151. It may have been conducted in a chat room or

something totally unrelated to BP, but we just want to check.

"Thanks, let me know what happens. Simrin."

Q. All right. And let's go to the first page. So was that

email that you just read, was that actually to you?

A. It is, yes.

Q. And then what does Mr. Nigam say to you?

A. Hemu Nigam writes, "Hi, Carl. Just checking to see if you

found any connection. Thanks, Hemu."

Q. And then what do you tell Hemu with Mr. Spear copied on

the email? What do you say.

A. I write, "There's so much interest in this story I sent to

Spear and Suskin. I think Lacey will want Steve to call."

Q. And then what, finally, what does Mr. Nigam say to you?

A. "Steve was reaching out to -- "reaching out to Sgt. Martos

and hopefully that will help."

Q. All right. You actually say something here because at the 11:38:50

 1 11:36:42

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:36:58

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:37:24

11

12

13

14

15 11:37:56

16

17

18

19

20 11:38:19

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 71 of 111
 72

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

time, are you even in Phoenix?

A. Yes. And there's a delay. I'm just not checking on my

email all the time because I'm busy.

Q. All right. Now, going forward, at some point do you --

this is just a yes-or-no question -- do you determine whether

or not this arrest had anything to do with Backpage down the

road?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. We'll come back to that.

Now going to 645, this is for the witness's eyes

only. Is this an email exchange between you and Mr. Padilla?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Is this a two-page email exchange, with some information

on the next page?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. All right. So -- and is this in February of 2011?

A. Yes.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit and publish 645.

THE COURT: It may be admitted and published.

(Exhibit Number 645 was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Down here, what are you telling Mr. Padilla?

A. I write, "Hey Andrew, I told Scott the list was coming

soon. I add GFE and PSE at his request."

Q. Let me stop you there. What did you mean by that? 11:40:40

 1 11:38:53

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:39:14

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:39:31

11

12

13

14

15 11:39:58

16

17

18

19

20 11:40:17

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 72 of 111
 73

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. The subject line is the "delete whole ad terms" so it's a

list of terms.

Q. All right. But what did you mean by -- well, this added

GFE and PSE at his request, what did you mean by that?

A. Scott Spear wanted GFE and PSEs in the list Delete Whole

Ad.

Q. Do you know why?

A. Because they are suggestive of prostitution.

Q. And then what else do you say to Mr. Padilla?

A. "Do you think we should remove the following because they

are not prostitution terms (they are really" just "bad taste ):

Daddy, lactating."

Q. All right. And does Mr. Padilla give you a response?

A. Yes, he does.

Q. Can you read his response?

A. Andrew Padilla writes, "I think 'daddy' is about context.

It's another nail in the coffin of an ad that's probably

already got a lot wrong with it. But if it's just someone

saying, "who's your daddy?", it's completely innocuous. It's

safe to take it off this list and we can continue to strip it

and/or handle it on a per add basis. The final solution for

this should be an alert sent to the global monitor and not a

strip out.

"'lactating' is a little trickier. It implies some

exchange of bodily fluids which kills our 'companionship' 11:42:16

 1 11:40:42

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:40:56

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:41:16

11

12

13

14

15 11:41:35

16

17

18

19

20 11:41:55

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 73 of 111
 74

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

argument."

Q. Let me stop you there. What did you take that to mean?

A. We know we're in the prostitution business and if we can

make things less obvious prostitution, then that is better.

And one way to do it is use the words "escort," companion," 

just these -- how do I describe this? This is our defense to

continue to stay in the prostitution business. These ads are

companionship ads.

Q. Were they?

A. No.

Q. What else does he say?

A. "but i don't think we've ever really gotten in trouble for

it. We got in trouble for pregos and not all of the lactaters

are necessarily pregnant. I can live with the bodily fluids

angle, it's fetishy and pushes the edge at a time when we're

losing our edge. We should continue to strip it and only

delete the ad when it's clearly also a prego ad."

Q. All right. And now moving on to Exhibit 646 for your eyes

only.

Let me go back for a minute to 645 that's already

admitted. What did you take him to mean if you could publish

it where it's highlighted there where it says "we're losing our

edge," what did you take that to mean?

A. The site is becoming tamer, more sanitized and by losing

our edge, it's not that same wild, wild west experience it used 11:45:01

 1 11:42:20

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:42:37

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:43:02

11

12

13

14

15 11:43:20

16

17

18

19

20 11:44:20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 74 of 111
 75

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

to be.

Q. All right. And was there any concern about losing our

edge?

A. Yes.

Q. What's the concern?

A. We are competing with other sites and we have aggressive

budgets to grow this business and the best way to grow this

business is to have edgy content in the Adult section.

Q. Now, I'm showing you United States 646. Do you see that

email?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Are you on this email?

A. I am not.

Q. Do you recognize the sender of the email?

A. Recognize the -- excuse me?

Q. The person who the email is from?

A. Yes.

Q. And who is that?

A. Joye Vaught.

Q. And who is she sending the email to?

A. She's sending the email to Adam Padilla, Allen Romero,

Amanda Thatcher, Andrew Gilchrist, and Angel and there's a dot,

dot, dot which means it's probably -- well, there's more email

addresses. Her just not being displayed.

Q. And who is copied on this? 11:46:39

 1 11:45:06

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:45:19

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:45:52

11

12

13

14

15 11:46:03

16

17

18

19

20 11:46:13

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 75 of 111
 76

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. Andrew Padilla.

Q. And do you also recognize that as his internal email?

A. Certainly his name.

Q. All right. And have you reviewed this email in

preparation for your testimony?

A. I have.

Q. Do you understand the context of this email?

A. Yes, I do very much so.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit Number 646.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Hearsay. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

It may be admitted.

(Exhibit Number 646 was admitted into evidence.)

MR. RAPP: And published, please. Thanks.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. So can you read this?

A. Andrew writes --

Q. No. Not Andrew.

A. Oh. Yes. Sorry. Getting to be lunchtime.

From Joye Vaught. "Hi. We are giving the users a

clean slate regarding editing rights. Any ad that has

previously been locked out from editing, will have those rights

restored.

"This time around we should go easy on certain types 11:47:58

 1 11:46:41

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:46:59

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:47:11

11

12

13

14

15 11:47:25

16

17

18

19

20 11:47:36

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 76 of 111
 77

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

of violations. We should reserve locking ads to instances

where there is a clear offer of sex-for-money or graphic images

of sex acts/blatantly exposed genitalia.

"For instance: Blank pricing, '69' in the age field,

breasts covered by hands or arms and thongs riding a little too

low should not be treated the same as offers for blowjobs, anal

and graphic images of sex acts. In other words we should

research locking ads for the worst offenders.

"If you aren't sure what this means, please ask me or

Andrew."

Q. Do you know why, in your capacity, in your role, that

she's telling the moderators to ask her or Andrew?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. In your capacity, in your position at Backpage, do you

know why she's asking the moderators to ask her or Andrew?

MR. EISENBERG: Calls for a conclusion. Speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BERTRAND: Join.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Because they are the supervisors.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And apart from this email at this time period, are you

locking ads for users?

A. We have been locking a lot of ads and that means to

prevent them from editing their texts after it was approved for

moderation, getting a lot of complaints in support to unlock 11:49:49

 1 11:48:02

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:48:19

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:48:40

11

12

13

14

15 11:49:03

16

17

18

19

20 11:49:23

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 77 of 111
 78

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

their ads, so we're just going to do kind of a fresh start for

everyone.

Q. All right. And when she says, "We should reserve locking

ads for the worst offenders," aside from this email, what do

you understand that to mean in your position?

A. Well, the worst offenders are those that just can't seem

to stop posting sex act pics and using extreme graphics sex for

money language in their ad texts.

Q. All right. Now, we had shown you an exhibit from 2010

where you were going to kill the links to The Erotic Review.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. I'm now showing you 647. Do you see that, this email?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you recognize this email?

A. Yes.

Q. You're not on this email?

A. I am not.

Q. But do you recall this email being sent out?

A. Yes.

Q. And does this email come from Andrew Padilla?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And is it related to The Erotic Review links?

A. Yes.

Q. And is there -- do you see there where it says 11:51:33

 1 11:49:52

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:50:10

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:50:37

11

12

13

14

15 11:50:56

16

17

18

19

20 11:51:17

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 78 of 111
 79

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

attachments?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you familiar at the time with the attachments

that were sent out with this email?

A. I was.

Q. And have you reviewed both the email and the attachments

in preparation for your testimony?

A. I have.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 647 and 647a through e.

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, excuse me. No objection

to 647. But he hasn't really identified a through e. They

haven't been brought up on the monitor.

THE COURT: Yes. Let's lay some foundation for

a through e.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. Here is a. Can you identify this?

A. Yes.

Q. You've seen it before?

A. I have.

Q. 647b?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. 647c?

A. I have also seen this.

Q. 647d?

A. Yes. 11:52:43

 1 11:51:41

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:51:50

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:52:05

11

12

13

14

15 11:52:22

16

17

18

19

20 11:52:31

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 79 of 111
 80

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. And 647e?

A. Yes.

Q. And the contents of both the email found in 647 and the

attachments, did you have some role at all in sort of the

changes that are being made with regard to The Erotic Review

that are contained within those exhibits?

MR. EISENBERG: Objection, Your Honor.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading, compound

question.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. Mr. Eisenberg was speaking,

Ms. Bertrand.

MS. BERTRAND: Sorry.

THE COURT: Mr. Eisenberg?

MR. EISENBERG: Yes, Your Honor. Well, first of all,

it's unclear to me whether the witness said he recognizes back

when it came out or he recognizes it because it was shown to

him by the Government in preparation for this case. In other

words, was that the first time he saw it? And that's what I'm

concerned with, not only with the underlying 647 but a through,

I think, did or e. That's number one. Number two, it isn't

clear to me how he would recognize this 647. He just says he

recognizes it. There hasn't been any indication as to how he

does. 

THE COURT: Well, the jurors will rely on their own

memory about his testimony regarding the recollection of the 11:54:13

 1 11:52:43

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:53:04

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:53:15

11

12

13

14

15 11:53:23

16

17

18

19

20 11:53:50

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 80 of 111
 81

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

email and its content. But with regard to a through e,

Mr. Rapp, I think further foundation should be laid in a very

clear and concise manner with regard to how this witness knows

what these a through e items are.

One moment, please.

Ms. Bertrand you wanted to raise an objection.

MS. BERTRAND: And I apologize, Your Honor. I got

ahead of myself. It was a leading question. It was a compound

question.

THE COURT: And so if you can -- I will sustain that

objection as well, Mr. Rapp. So if you can lay some specific

further foundation as to each of the a through e exhibits, then

I think you won't run into those objections.

MR. RAPP: Very well.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Sir, how do you recognize a through e?

A. Andrew Padilla is implementing a change in policy

regarding the display of --

MR. EISENBERG: Objection. It's not responsive.

THE COURT: Well, sustained.

MR. RAPP: He's explaining how he knows about it.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Well, how do you know about these attachments to 647? How

do you know about them?

A. There's a policy change and he's to implement it. 11:55:31

 1 11:54:16

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:54:38

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:54:48

11

12

13

14

15 11:55:05

16

17

18

19

20 11:55:18

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 81 of 111
 82

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. Did you have discussions with Mr. Padilla about

implementing this policy change with respect to The Erotic

Review?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How many times did you have discussions with him about it?

A. A couple of times.

Q. Did you discuss what you were going to allow and disallow

with regard to The Erotic Review?

MR. EISENBERG: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. RAPP: It's not leading.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Tell us what your discussions are with regard to this.

A. It's a big change for us to -- first we remove the links

and now we're under pressure to just remove any mention to The

Erotic Review. So we're trying to walk that line between not

making The Erotic Review mad at the site by completely

eliminating it and still have some kind of review ID available

to the user.

So Andrew Padilla and I discussed the best strategy

and I had it approved by Scott Spear that we will do this. We

will still leave the number. We'll get rid of the name The

Erotic Review.com and we may even get rid of TER but we're year

going to leave the ID number.

So this is, you know, one of the gradual steps that 11:57:02

 1 11:55:34

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:55:43

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:56:05

11

12

13

14

15 11:56:16

16

17

18

19

20 11:56:40

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 82 of 111
 83

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

we were taking.

MR. EISENBERG: Objection, Your Honor. The question

was how does he know. Now he's going into a narrative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Did you have a discussion about how this change was going

to be communicated with the moderation staff?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that discussion with Mr. Padilla?

A. That discussion is how we're going to allow IDs still to

appear without having The Erotic Review mentioned.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Nonresponsive. Move to

strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And as a result, was Mr. Padilla tasked with communicating

this change to the moderation staff gentleman?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that change contained within 647, a through e?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit and publish.

MS. BERTRAND: Your Honor, objection as to the

exhibit. Hearsay being offered for the truth of the matter

asserted.

THE COURT: Overruled. 11:58:05

 1 11:57:07

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:57:16

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:57:25

11

12

13

14

15 11:57:40

16

17

18

19

20 11:57:54

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 83 of 111
 84

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A through e may be admitted along with 647.

(Exhibit Numbers 647 and 647a through 647e were

admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. Going back to 647 --

MR. RAPP: And request permission?

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What does -- first of all, who are all of these people

here if you know?

A. They are the moderators in Phoenix, Arizona.

Q. All right. And then who is copied on this email?

A. Joye Vaught.

Q. And do you know why Joye Vaught is copied on this email as

opposed to up here with the moderation staff?

A. She's second in command of the department, Moderation

Department.

Q. All right. What does Mr.-- can you read the email that

Mr. Padilla sends to the moderation staff?

A. "All: We've been filtering out the terms 'TER' and 'The

Erotic Review' along with links to theeroticreview.com since

January of this year but our Internet safety experts have

suggested we take a more aggressive approach.

"Effective immediately, any variation of, or

reference to, TER is banned. If you find it in an ad, remove 11:59:39

 1 11:58:09

 2

 3

 4

 5 11:58:19

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 11:58:36

11

12

13

14

15 11:58:58

16

17

18

19

20 11:59:19

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 84 of 111
 85

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

the phrase and update the ad but do not lock the ad from

editing for this violation alone. If the review ID number is

attached to the reference (TER #8675309), remove the ID number

along with the TER reference.

"If you find a string of numbers without a direct

reference to TER, it's allowed.

"Examples: #123456.

"Well Reviewed #666666.

"Google my reviews #12011201.

"An easy way to weed out a good chunk of these

references is to do a search for 'TER' on the city page.

You'll get some false positives but it should point you in the

right direction. Non-adult spammers will sometimes use hidden

keywords like 'block bus ter video' and the search will see the

tail-end of 'bus ter'. To avoid this" --

Q. Can we just stop for a minute? Can you just explain what

that means?

A. I hope I can.

MR. EISENBERG: Objection, Your Honor. The witness

just said that he may not have knowledge with respect to the

answer to this question.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection with regard to

the question.

MR. RAPP: Never mind.

\\\

 1 11:59:43

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:00:08

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:00:32

11

12

13

14

15 12:00:54

16

17

18

19

20 12:01:13

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 85 of 111
 86

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Let's go on to the next sentence. What does that say?

A. "To avoid this, you can start your search after you've

navigated to the Adult section of the city.

"I'm attaching 4 example screenshots of what is not

allowed (circled in red) and 1 example screenshot of what is

okay (circled in green).

"If you have any questions, please ask me or Joye.

Thanks."

Q. Okay. And now looking at 647a, can you explain the

circled green, what is this in reference to?

A. So this is an ID number, 117125, it's reviews.

Q. All right. And is this allowed or disallowed going

forward?

A. What's this attachment name?

Q. And this is attachment a.

A. Did it have a name in the email address?

Q. Let me see.

A. I just want to make sure I'm accurate.

You can see the names, good, bad, bad, bad.

Q. All right. Is this what you're looking for?

A. This helps right here. "I'm attaching four example screen

shots of what is not allowed circled in red and one example

screenshot of what is okay circled in green."

Q. And then looking at 648. 12:03:33

 1 12:01:34

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:01:51

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:02:10

11

12

13

14

15 12:02:34

16

17

18

19

20 12:03:07

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 86 of 111
 87

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. So this is okay?

Q. All right. And then going forward, did you become aware

of postings that just had a six-digit ID number in them?

A. Yes, many.

Q. And this one actually has can you see what the site is

here?

A. The ussexguide3.info.

Q. Did you -- in addition to TER, did you allow other review

sites' IDs?

A. We did.

Q. And are you familiar with usasexguide3?

A. It's one of the top referrers and this is probably a

redirect URL.

Q. All right. Going to 647b, allowed or disallowed?

A. This is disallowed because it has TER.

Q. All right. And going forward, did you observe in postings

misspellings of TER?

A. Yes.

Q. And were they allowed?

A. We wouldn't actively hunt them down.

Q. All right. And then going to -- well, so let me ask you,

when you found one of these ads that had this that you were

going to disallow, what would you do with the ad?

A. We are taking outside TER ID and the review number, but

we're not removing the ad and we're not blocking the user from 12:05:45

 1 12:03:34

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:03:54

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:04:19

11

12

13

14

15 12:04:46

16

17

18

19

20 12:05:07

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 87 of 111
 88

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

any future postings.

Q. All right. And then 647. Allowed or disallowed? 647c?

A. Disallowed?

Q. 647, did?

A. Disallowed.

Q. And finally, 647e, disallowed or allowed?

A. Disallowed.

Q. All right. Now let's look at, for the witness's eyes

only, 1612b. And this is a two-page document.

Is this an email exchange involving Andrew Padilla?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Who does this email exchange involve?

A. Andrew Padilla and members of the Moderation Department

and I'm also receiving it and Scott Spear.

Q. All right. And does this -- do you know what the subject

of this email is?

A. Stricter guidelines for nudity, January 2011.

MR. RAPP: All right. Move to admit 1612b.

THE COURT: Yes. It may be admitted.

(Exhibit Number 1612b was admitted into evidence.)

MR. RAPP: And publish, please.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. So let's go to the second page. So what does Mr. Padilla 12:07:57

 1 12:05:49

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:06:13

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:07:06

11

12

13

14

15 12:07:22

16

17

18

19

20 12:07:45

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 88 of 111
 89

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

tell the moderation staff here?

A. "Backpage will be increasing the restrictions on images in

adult categories effective immediately.

"The latest changes apply specifically to bare

breasts, butt cleavage and sheer clothing.

"Moving forward, breasts must be covered with

clothing. Not hands, not articles, not glittery hearts, not

fuzzed out, not pixelized, not covered in soap suds or towels

or pillows or hair or pasties. If it's an image of an escort

with her back completely to the camera, it's okay. Otherwise,

clothes are the only acceptable form of cover up.

"Thongs are still acceptable for bottoms but they

must be worn as they were intended to be worn. Not a little

bit below the crack, not half way down. All the way up or it

gets removed. The old rule supersedes this if genitalia is

otherwise exposed, (that is, if a thong is being worn properly

but anything is visible or bulging out of the crotch, it's

still a violation.)

"Sheer clothing is still allowed as long as the

coloration of the nipples, areola or genitalia is not visible.

Mesh or netting with visible nipples, areola or genitalia is a

violation. If the coloration around the anus is visible

through sheer clothing or around the thong, it's a violation.

This will also apply to wet, transparent clothing. For

example, a white t-shirt with visibly erect nipples is okay; a 12:09:59

 1 12:08:15

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:08:39

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:09:00

11

12

13

14

15 12:09:20

16

17

18

19

20 12:09:39

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 89 of 111
 90

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

wet white t-shirt with visible coloration of the nipples and

areola is not. But a wet black t-shirt is okay because

coloration will not be apparent.

"As always, you should only be redacting content and

not deleting the entire ad when you find these violations.

These violations are completely" --

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Let me stop you there, Mr. Ferrer. Why is that the case

that you redacting the content and not deleting the entire ad

when you find the violations that he details above?

A. We're not deleting the entire ad because --

THE COURT: One second. I want to make sure.

Are you okay back there?

PANEL MEMBER: Oh, yes.

THE COURT: All right.

You can move forward, Mr. Rapp.

MR. RAPP: Thank you.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Why were you not deleting the entire ad and you're just

redacting the content?

A. The standards are continually changing. This is a huge

change. I mean, there's no way we're going to delete tens of

thousands of ads. So we're very customer service friendly.

We're simply going to take out the images that don't meet the

new standard. This will be good for revenue. 12:11:22

 1 12:10:05

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:10:20

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:10:35

11

12

13

14

15 12:10:52

16

17

18

19

20 12:10:59

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 90 of 111
 91

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. All right. And then what is the next sentence he says?

A. "These violations are completely different from ads for

illegal services. Nudity violations will always be a part of

this business and we shouldn't treat our users unfairly because

the company's standard for propriety is constantly changing."

Q. Let me just stop you there. What did you mean by those

last two. These violations are completely different from ads

for illegal services and then the next sentence, what did you

take that to mean?

A. Nudity, bare breasts, it's different than a sex act for a

particular dollar amount. One is just way too obvious

prostitution and those are the ads that will be deleted.

Q. All right. And then the last two sentences?

A. "If however you run into ads that endanger a minor in any

way, Community Remove the ad and send the ad url to Joye.

Thanks. Andrew Padilla."

Q. And then what does Andrew say in this above email to the

moderation staff?

A. Andrew writes, "As an extra measure of customer service,

don't lock ads from editing if users are only violating the new

rules. We'll give users a month or so to adjust. Thanks."

Q. And what did you take that to mean?

A. Andrew is implementing the company mandate, the directive.

You know, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make

these changes in a graduated fashion. We're not going to lose 12:13:38

 1 12:11:26

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:11:43

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:12:02

11

12

13

14

15 12:12:37

16

17

18

19

20 12:13:13

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 91 of 111
 92

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

revenue over moderation changes.

Q. And who does he copy on this email?

A. He copies Joye Vaught and blind copies myself.

Q. And why is he copying Joye Vaught?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. If he knows.

THE WITNESS: She's second in command of the

Moderation Department.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. And then in this case do you send this Andrew's summary to

anybody?

A. I do.

Q. Who do you send it to?

A. I send it to Scott Spear.

Q. And then why do you send it to Scott Spear?

A. Because he's the one originating the standard and I want

to make sure that we're not missing anything.

Q. First of all, we are now into 2011; right?

A. Yes.

Q. If you know, how are the alternative newspapers doing in

2011?

A. They continue to struggle.

Q. When you say "they continue to struggle," what do you mean

by that?

A. Well, they are not exceeding revenue from the years prior. 12:15:21

 1 12:13:46

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:14:07

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:14:16

11

12

13

14

15 12:14:36

16

17

18

19

20 12:15:07

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 92 of 111
 93

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

They are in a gradual decline.

Q. Well, we looked at the Google Analytics for January for

Backpage but in terms of revenue, how is Backpage doing in

terms revenue?

A. We're hitting record revenue, new highs month over month

with the exception of February because there's only 28 days in

February. But once you get through February, each month we're

beating the month prior.

Q. All right. And do you observe the volume of postings

increasing?

A. Significant increase.

Q. All right. We talked about -- we looked at some emails

about exchanges with Mr. Spear and Mr. Myles about having a

meeting at this organization by the name of Polaris. Do you

remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. And I believe your testimony was that you also had a

meeting with NCMEC, the National Center of Exploited and

Missing Children?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And when did those meetings take place? Do you know?

A. Spring of 2011.

Q. Were you asked to do anything in advance of those two

meetings? In preparation of those two meetings, anything?

A. I was asked to help create the PowerPoint for those two 12:16:57

 1 12:15:24

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:15:41

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:16:03

11

12

13

14

15 12:16:27

16

17

18

19

20 12:16:41

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 93 of 111
 94

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

meetings and then I would be going to Washington, D.C., to

present -- to run the PowerPoint.

Q. All right. And who did you get direction on to put

together the PowerPoint?

A. Scott Spear, Jim Larkin.

Q. All right. And did you actually create some type of

PowerPoint?

A. We did. Our user safety experts were also involved,

Hemanshu Nigam.

Q. And anybody else?

A. I think that's it.

Q. Did the PowerPoint, before it was presented to NCMEC and

Polaris, did it have to be approved by anybody?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. This PowerPoint is going to be approved by the owners

before we present it. This is an extremely important event.

Q. Why is this an extremely important event?

A. We set up this meeting with NCMEC to hopefully get their

buy-in that we could be almost a partner, that we could just

send them NCMEC reports and show that we've made some changes

and get their buy-in.

Q. All right. Do you travel to Washington, D.C.?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you go to this office NCMEC? 12:18:24

 1 12:17:00

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:17:14

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:17:27

11

12

13

14

15 12:17:46

16

17

18

19

20 12:18:03

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 94 of 111
 95

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

A. We do. I do, along with others from the company.

Q. And where is the office located?

A. Somewhere in Washington, DC. I took a taxi.

Q. Okay. You took a taxi.

When you get to NCMEC, where do you go?

A. We went to their conference room and set up for the

PowerPoint presentation.

Q. And was that something you were focused on?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Who do you meet with from NCMEC? Do you

remember who was there?

A. Ernie Allen was there. He's the CEO of NCMEC. And John

Shehan I believe, also one of the more high-level employees at

NCMEC, and several other NCMEC employees.

Q. And while you were there, were you given anything by

Mr. Allen? Let me show you Government's 684a. I'll put that

on your screen. So just take a look at that.

THE COURT: Mr. Rapp, can you ask the witness when

this happened?

MR. RAPP: When what happened?

THE COURT: This meeting?

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Did you not testify it was in the spring of 2011?

A. I said spring of 2011. No snow on the ground.

Q. Okay. But would this email in 684a, can you take a look 12:20:21

 1 12:18:27

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:18:42

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:19:02

11

12

13

14

15 12:19:36

16

17

18

19

20 12:20:09

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 95 of 111
 96

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

at that?

A. Yes.

Q. And does this email have anything to do with the meeting

that you had?

A. Yes. I believe this email was sent the day after the

NCMEC meeting.

Q. All right. Okay. And were there some attachments -- let

me just show you some attachments to the email. Do you

recognize the attachments to 684a?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And can you explain again what is contained in 684,

the attachments? How did you come into possession of those?

A. We received these attachments from NCMEC and they

demonstrated a -- the postings they had made on the site.

Q. Okay. And when you were given those, did you do anything

the next day with those in any respect?

A. I did. It was the Seal Team 6 effort again to figure out

what the posting was and what happened.

Q. Okay. And can you explain how you went about locating the

postings and then what you did afterwards?

A. We used NCMEC's copy and the information they provided on

the postings that they had made and then we did searches on the

database to try to find those postings and then we did a

step-by-step analysis to what happened to those postings.

Q. All right. And those postings are all contained in the 12:22:22

 1 12:20:29

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:20:43

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:21:05

11

12

13

14

15 12:21:33

16

17

18

19

20 12:21:56

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 96 of 111
 97

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

attachments to this email?

A. Yes.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 684a and the attachments.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Hearsay, 401, 403.

MR. CAMBRIA: And foundation.

MS. BERTRAND: And foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled as previously noted 401. It

may be admitted and published.

(Exhibit Number 684a was admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. And so what are you telling Mr. Spear and some

others in this email?

MR. CAMBRIA: What's the number?

A. "NCMEC posted 8 under aged pics. We have not found all of

them.

"We did find the national ad. Posted in all cities

for $2997.45 by" they included the phone number.

"The ad link is below. It appears live but is

actually ghosted:" There's a link to the ad in Phoenix

FemaleEscorts/ready-for-some-fun-18 with the ad ID 12833625.

"Ad history: Original posting date, Friday, February

25, 2011 at 12:55 PM.

"Moderated (Tier 1) Approved by at47 at 2011-02-25

12:56:35. A review of the post shows the moderator followed

our guidelines. It is likely our Tier 2 moderators" -- "it is 12:24:15

 1 12:22:25

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:22:38

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:22:57

11

12

13

14

15 12:23:20

16

17

18

19

20 12:23:41

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 97 of 111
 98

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

likely our Tier 2 moderators would have also approved it.

"A fraud alert email was triggered on the post at

February 25, 2011 at 12:56:46 PM.

"The ad was ghosted by staff as suspected fraud on

February 25, 2011 at 12:58 P.M. The ad was live less than 2

minutes. NCMEC reports 30 phone calls. This is possible.

"The credit card was not settled and the invoice

marked as fraud by our accounting staff (bp1) on Friday,

February 25, 2011 at 1:04 P.M.

"Policy change recommendation" --

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Let me just stop you. Why are you giving a policy change

recommendation to Mr. Spear and also to Mr. Larkin?

A. Because they approve the policies.

Q. And what is the recommendation that you make?

A. "It would be good to have also included a NCMEC report in

the process above. We should report underaged pics whether

they are scammers or real ad posters. In other words, report

to NCMEC much more aggressively (blurred or not blurred) pics

that could be underaged."

"I asked Andrew to move forward on this task."

Q. And why are you asking Andrew to move forward on this

task?

A. Because he and Joye managed the cybertip reports. Those

NCMEC reports are done by the staff in his department. 12:26:01

 1 12:24:20

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:24:38

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:25:06

11

12

13

14

15 12:25:20

16

17

18

19

20 12:25:42

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 98 of 111
 99

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Q. All right. And then looking at 684a, is this one of the

documents that Mr. Allen provided you?

A. Yes.

MR. RAPP: Move to admit 684a.

THE COURT: It has been admitted.

MR. RAPP: Oh, I'm sorry.

The whole thing is 684a.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. So can you tell us, do you recall Mr. Allen providing you

these documents?

A. Yes. He put them up on screen during the PowerPoint and

we received handouts.

Q. All right. And what if anything, did he tell you while

you were at NCMEC about these?

MR. CAMBRIA: Object to hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: He said our image safeguards were

ineffective and, look, we have proof.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. All right. And let's go on to the next page. Did he say

that they had posted these ads?

MR. EISENBERG: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. What did he say about how these ads ended up on Backpage, 12:27:32

 1 12:26:07

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:26:31

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:26:48

11

12

13

14

15 12:27:06

16

17

18

19

20 12:27:16

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 99 of 111
 100

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

if anything?

A. He said he had posted those ads and that I wasn't able to

find the ads for the ones that were on the previous slide, but

I did find this ad or I should say Seal Team 6 and the company

found this ad.

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Nonresponsive. Move to

strike.

THE COURT: I'll strike the last portion of the

testimony after -- well, where he said, "I did find this ad."

So that part of the testimony is stricken. 

But, Mr. Rapp, you have about two minutes more. I

promised the jury I would release them at 12:30.

MR. RAPP: I understand and I won't stand in their

way.

BY MR. RAPP: 

Q. Can you just read what is on this the exhibit here? What

did they tell you about this particular posting?

A. "For $3,000, Backpage.com Allowed Us to Advertise.

"Ad took less than 5 minutes to post across hundreds

of cities.

"Ad image was posted online instantaneously.

"All personal information about the poster was

fabricated.

"All credit card information was anonymous.

"Ad received over 30 calls within 7 minutes of being 12:29:03

 1 12:27:37

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:27:49

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:28:14

11

12

13

14

15 12:28:29

16

17

18

19

20 12:28:52

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 100 of 111
 101

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

placed."

Q. And then going on to the next one, what does this -- what

did this, the information that Mr. Allen was conveying to you

about this ad?

A. "One Ad, One City, One Day...40 Men Call to Pay for Sex

With Her.

"We received an average of 40 calls per ad in a

24-hour period for each of the ads we placed.

"Calls came in within minutes of posting; faster than

we could answer.

"After explicitly and unambiguously informing the

caller that the female was underage, about half of the men

continued to express an interest in paying for sex with her."

Q. And is this one, is this the actual posting?

A. Well, this is one of them. This is the national ad

posting that I found, the one posted in multiple cities.

Q. And when Mr. Allen gave you this, was Mr. Lacey in the

room at NCMEC with you?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

MR. RAPP: Judge, I would be going on to another

area.

THE COURT: All right.

With that, members of the jury, we will conclude for

the week. I do, again, ask you to remember the admonition 12:30:30

 1 12:29:07

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:29:18

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:29:36

11

12

13

14

15 12:30:01

16

17

18

19

20 12:30:18

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 101 of 111
 102

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

especially over the weekend. Do not be tempted to research any

subject matter, anything that has been discussed, any of the

parties in the case, any of the information about the witness

who has been on the stand testifying. Try to avoid any news

articles that may appear. And it's helpful if you simply just

keep it out of your mind. Don't come to any conclusions.

Again we are very early on in the case as you know. Just

simply try to enjoy the weekend. Hopefully we'll be under 100

degrees finally.

And so with that, please all rise for the jury.

(Jury departs at 12:31.)

THE COURT: Mr. Ferrer, you may step down. Again,

those who are present in courtroom I would ask to remain for a

few minutes so that the jurors can leave uninterrupted.

MS. BERTRAND: Your Honor, before we break for the

day --

THE COURT: Let me tell you what I need to address

with the parties and then I'll let you go, Ms. Bertrand.

I'm going to tell you, Mr. Rapp, that the issue that

I had with Exhibit -- I think the 2038, is the email, the

one -- I'm sorry, a couple-lined email document. The email --

the question you asked was only as to the email address and the

email addresses are not indicative of Backpage.com employees.

I understand that the one email address to is to The Village

Voice. But beyond that, I don't know how you can have 12:33:04

 1 12:30:36

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:30:58

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:31:15

11

12

13

14

15 12:31:58

16

17

18

19

20 12:32:17

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 102 of 111
 103

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

Mr. Ferrer say that he is familiar with this email, because

he's nowhere on the posting. And, again, it doesn't appear to

me that he can actually authenticate it because it doesn't look

like those individuals are Backpage.com email users.

And so -- and I guess you need to explain to me, is

there a part two of this email that you are hoping to get in?

Because I think the testimony leading up to this was some sort

of responsive -- some sort of response to the CNN documentary.

And Mr. Ferrer did say that he participated in some

of that crafting of that response but I don't know how the two

interrelate. So the objection by Mr. Lincenberg was well-taken

in my view.

MR. RAPP: Okay. I think I can connect this up and

I'll do it when we come back. 2037 is on screen. This is from

Mr. Larkin to Jed Brunst.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. How does that relate to

2038?

MR. RAPP: I'm explaining that.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. RAPP: So Jim Larkin is sending to Jed Brunst and

then copying Carl Ferrer and Scott Spear this CNN letter from

David Vigilante and then in -- to David Vigilante and that is

the -- that's the letter that is sent to Vigilante that

Vigilante sends a response that is the subject of 85 that we're

going to provide redactions. And then what I can do when we 12:35:03

 1 12:33:08

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:33:29

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:33:58

11

12

13

14

15 12:34:22

16

17

18

19

20 12:34:30

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 103 of 111
 104

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

come back is, I can put a little bit more context on this one

because now Mr. Brunst is sending the response letter to CNN to

some of the investors in "The Village Voice."

THE COURT: Well, lay some foundation and just on

that point, you're going to have to go back to the old school

way of laying that foundation. Otherwise, you're going to

continue to draw those objections. I mean, I think it's just

quite simple, Mr. Rapp. Just go back to the old ways that we

used to do thing. Do you recognize the exhibit? How do you

recognize it? Do you remember the content of it, blah, blah,

blah, you know. Otherwise, you're going to draw the objection

from Ms. Bertrand as she's entitled to do.

MR. RAPP: Very well.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, I was just going to

comment with regard to 2038.

THE COURT: What was that?

MR. LINCENBERG: You were asking Mr. Rapp about 2038.

And I think the point he's missing -- put 2037 aside. That's a

different exhibit -- is 2038 is an email that Mr. Ferrer has

never seen.

THE COURT: I know and that's contactually the point

I made.

MR. LINCENBERG: But what he's trying to do is lay a

foundation by pointing to recognition of an email but he can't

testify to something he's never seen. 12:36:41

 1 12:35:09

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:35:34

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:35:55

11

12

13

14

15 12:36:11

16

17

18

19

20 12:36:30

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 104 of 111
 105

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

THE COURT: And that's exactly the point I made.

MR. LINCENBERG: It is and I'm speaking out because I

think it's also what's happening with other exhibits where --

THE COURT: Give me a specific example.

MR. LINCENBERG: Well, I think part of the example

was whatever the number was 847, a through 3, some of those, or

647 where -- what Mr. Ferrer is doing is, he's basically saying

I discussed -- I think in that case it was I discussed with

Mr. Padilla this general topic. And then he comes back and a

through e relate to that topic. But it's pretty clear that he

didn't see those ads at the time. And I think it's an end run

that the Government is playing to try to get him as if he has

firsthand knowledge in his speaking to those ads. And I think

that's where some of the others' objections lie, is that

there's an end run around foundation and his ability to testify

to these documents.

THE COURT: Well, just lay the foundation as to each

exhibit and I'll point this out. Mr. Ferrer, early on and they

did repeatedly because of objections, he has laid sufficient

foundation for his role in the company, multiple roles. His

interaction, his knowledge of TER, the marketing research he

has to do and so I just make that observation that there is

sufficient information in the record, testimony and his

background and his knowledge in terms of his awareness. So

just in a general sense. I just make that observation. 12:38:31

 1 12:36:44

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:36:59

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:37:21

11

12

13

14

15 12:37:43

16

17

18

19

20 12:38:05

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 105 of 111
 106

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

So unless you want him to continue to testify about

this role in a day-to-day way, I think there's sufficient

foundation as to his experience and knowledge. And I'm glad no

one is asking him about what do you mean by prostitution? I

don't think we necessarily need to hear him again testify about

his knowledge of what prostitution is or what a sex act is.

But that's the observation I make.

And I do encourage you, Mr. Rapp, to just go back to

the way that you were all trained, we were all trained in trial

practice, go back to the old school way of laying foundation

for each exhibit, and I don't think we'll have all of those

objections related to foundation that we've had.

And so Ms. Bertrand?

MS. BERTRAND: Thank you, Your Honor. At this time I

renew the defense's motion for a mistrial based on this

morning's presentation which was the bulk of it about child sex

trafficking, child sex trafficking investigations, some stings,

like NCMEC ran a sting and Phoenix police ran a sting. And I

am predicting this is going to be the bulk of this case and I

would estimate and I'm going to have my office work on this. I

would estimate that fully 25 percent to 33 percent of the

exhibits that have come in so far relate not to just plain old

prostitution but something involving crimes against children.

And that is exactly what the defense has been saying is going

to be the danger with this case and the Government's approach 12:40:20

 1 12:38:35

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:38:55

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:39:16

11

12

13

14

15 12:39:35

16

17

18

19

20 12:40:01

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 106 of 111
 107

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

to it. So I'm renewing our motion for mistrial at this time.

THE COURT: And do you wish to respond, Mr. Rapp?

MR. RAPP: Well, of course child sex trafficking and

child prostitution is a subset of prostitution and each exhibit

that is being demonstrated or being exhibited is tethered to

each one of these defendants in some fashion or another and so,

therefore, they are highly relevant and demonstrate that they

are put on notice that prostitution is on the website. Yes, it

just happens to be child prostitution but the Court has already

ruled on that.

MS. BERTRAND: And the Court ruled in the last trial

that the Government overstepped the amount of license the Court

was giving the Government to prove up its case and it's not as

if this is the only way the Government can prove up a

prostitution case. This is deliberate on the part of the

Government and it is out of bounds on 403 even if it is

relevant.

THE COURT: Well, the Court has ruled exhaustively on

this issue and it is the Court's prior ruling that the evidence

has to be tethered to one of the defendants and the substantive

counts in the indictment. But by my review, we're only in I

think day three and a half of this witness's testimony and by

my review of the exhibits that have come in so far, I think

today is the only day that I've seen any real photographs or

pictures of exhibits related to underaged individuals, not 12:42:02

 1 12:40:22

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:40:41

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:41:01

11

12

13

14

15 12:41:17

16

17

18

19

20 12:41:34

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 107 of 111
 108

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

children per se, teens and older.

And so at this juncture, I don't think there's

sufficient reason to declare a mistrial. I don't think the

Government has pushed the envelope that far yet.

And, again, I will monitor it, ensure the Government

adheres to the Court's ruling in terms of tethering those

exhibits to the particular defendants and their awareness of it

and the substantive counts in the indictment. But the motion

for a mistrial is -- I'm going to deny that motion.

All right. With that we stand in recess and, again,

I think Lilliana has worked out a system where on a daily basis

she'll make sure that she and you are all on the same page with

regard to the exhibits that have been received into evidence. 

And with that we will stand in recess --

MR. RAPP: Judge, just one brief. This kind of got

away from me as we were talking about the emails but the under

1212, as long as Mr. Ferrer can identify the email address, the

email is authentic.

THE COURT: Well, I think the ruling really had to do

with his role in Backpage and the Backpage email addresses in

terms of authentication. But there's an email that has a bunch

of people that are not Backpage employees and in the course of

his work -- I mean, I think that's the problem here. And your

line of questioning, Mr. Rapp, really was, do you recognize the

address? What is the address? And that was it. I mean, it's 12:44:04

 1 12:42:07

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:42:31

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:42:56

11

12

13

14

15 12:43:14

16

17

18

19

20 12:43:34

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 108 of 111
 109

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

not do you recognize the email and the content of the email?

MR. RAPP: I just have to authenticate the email

under 1212 and this is the email he's exchanged with Mr. Brunst

frequently, The Village Voice email, it comes in. He's now

authenticated it. Now, can he give his opinion as to the

contents? No. But the email itself comes in and from there,

he can't -- he can't talk about it. But 1212 is pretty clear

and Judge Brnovich's order is pretty clear on what we have to

do to authenticate an email. I'll tell you, it would be very

difficult to do a white collar case if he had to identify all

of the other peoples' emails. He just has to identify

Mr. Brunst's email.

THE COURT: But it's this document in particular that

I'm concerned about because there's really no content there.

It's a one-page email. So in any event, I'll look at the order

again; but I think the way that you draw drew out the

testimony, it's problematic. I mean, you have to lay that

foundation, Mr. Rapp, and if you want to review the transcript.

Okay. All right. We'll stand in recess and you can

make a record -- I don't want a repeat of the same argument,

Mr. Lincenberg; okay?

MR. LINCENBERG: It's not repeating anything. That's

okay.

THE COURT: Okay. What's the new matter?

MR. LINCENBERG: It's simply that part of the point 12:45:36

 1 12:44:06

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:44:25

 6

 7

 8

 9

10 12:44:50

11

12

13

14

15 12:45:05

16

17

18

19

20 12:45:25

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 109 of 111
 110

United States District Court

CARL FERRER - Direct 

is that there's an email between two people at Goldman Sachs.

So he's pointing out an earlier email on the chain which is

essentially what he's trying to do with I think it's 1037.

1038 is emails between two different people at Goldman Sachs.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(Whereupon, these proceedings recessed at 12:46 p.m.)

* * * * * 

 1 12:45:37

 2

 3

 4

 5 12:46:10

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 110 of 111
 111

United States District Court

C E R T I F I C A T E 

I, ELAINE M. CROPPER, 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, and to the best of

my ability.

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 15th day of

September, 2023.

s/Elaine M. Cropper 

_________________________________ 

 Elaine M. Cropper, RDR, CRR, CCP 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1808 Filed 09/18/23 Page 111 of 111