1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321

Joseph N. Roth, 025725

Sarah P. Lawson, 036436

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

2929 North Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793

(602) 640-9000

teckstein@omlaw.com

jroth@omlaw.com

slawson@omlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin

Additional counsel on following pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS THE 

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

(Doc. 1587)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY 15873, admitted pro hac vice)

Erin E. McCampbell (NY 4480166, admitted pro hac vice)

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

(716) 849-1333

pcambria@lglaw.com

emccampbell@lglaw.com

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

Bruce S. Feder (AZ 004832)

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

2930 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

Eric Walter Kessler

KESSLER LAW OFFICE

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210

Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

(480) 644-0093

Eric.kesslerlaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for Scott Spear

Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW P.C.

1875 Century Park E., Suite 2300

Los Angeles, California 90067

(310) 201-2100

glincenberg@birdmarella.com

gpanchapakesan.@birdmarella.com

aneuman@birdmarella.com

Attorneys for John Brunst

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

David S. Eisenberg

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

(602) 237-5076

david@eisenbergplc.com

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

Joy Malby Bertrand

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

(480) 656-3919

joyous@mailbag.com

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s June 1, 2023 Order denying 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment. Doc. 1587. The United 

States Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023, decision in United States v. Hansen is binding, 

intervening authority requiring reconsideration of that Order.

1

I. Legal Standard

A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where, among other things, “there is 

an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. 

AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Local R. Civ. P. 7.2(g)(1) 

(listing “new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the court’s] 

attention earlier” as a basis for a motion for reconsideration). United States v. Mendez, 

No. 07-cr-00011 MMM, 2008 WL 2561962, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2008) (“Courts 

have held that motions for reconsideration in criminal cases are governed by the rules 

that govern equivalent motions in civil proceedings.”). 

II. Argument

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss contended that the phrase “promote or facilitate” 

as used in the Travel Act is equivalent to “aid or abet.” Doc. 1557 at 10-13. And like 

any aiding and abetting offense, a violation of the Travel Act requires proof that each 

Defendant knew about and intended to commit each element of the underlying offenses 

and proof of a violation of the underlying state law. Id. at 12-13. See Rosemond v. 

United States, 572 U.S. 65, 76-77 (2014) (“To aid and abet a crime, a defendant must 

not just ‘in some sort associate himself with the venture,’ but also ‘participate in it as 

in something that he wishes to bring about’ and ‘seek by his action to make it 

succeed.’...We have previously found that intent requirement satisfied when a person 

actively participates in a criminal venture with full knowledge of the

1 The Supreme Court released the United States v. Hansen slip opinion on June 23, 2023. 

Although this motion is brought outside the normal 14-day window for a reconsideration 

motion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hansen, issued after the 14-day window, provides 

good cause for the motion. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

circumstances constituting the charged offense . . . . What matters for purposes of 

gauging intent, and so what jury instructions should convey, is that the defendant has 

chosen, with full knowledge, to participate in the illegal scheme . . . .” (emphasis

added)); id. at 81 (holding that the jury must have been instructed that “Rosemond 

needed advance knowledge of [each element of the charged offense]”); see also United 

States v. Encarnacion-Ruiz, 787 F.3d 581, 588 (1st Cir. 2015) (“Under Rosemond, to 

establish the mens rea required to aid and abet a crime, the government must prove that 

the defendant participated with advance knowledge of the elements that constitute the 

charged offense.”). Because the indictment failed to allege both a state of mind 

extending to the specific and entire crimes purportedly facilitated and the commission 

of state law violations, the superseding indictment is deficient on its face. See United 

States v. Cecil, 608 F.2d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1979) (“[T]he fact that an indictment may 

have tracked the language of the statute will not render it valid if it fails to allege an 

essential element of the offense or the minimum facts required to fulfill the purposes of 

indictments.”); see also Doc. 1557 at 14-15.

In denying the motion, the Court ruled that “specific intent to promote or 

facilitate prostitution” is all the indictment is required to allege and that the indictment 

need not “allege the underlying offense has been committed.” Doc. 1587 at 8-9. 

Further, this Court rejected Defendants’ argument that the “intent element go to the 

specific and entire crime charged, as it must in an aiding and abetting charge.” Id. at 

12-13 (quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023, opinion in Hansen requires reconsideration 

of these rulings. The Supreme Court held that “facilitation [is] also called aiding and 

abetting” which is “the provision of assistance to a wrongdoer with the intent to further 

an offense’s commission.” United States v. Hansen, No. 22-179, 2023 WL 4138994, 

at *6 (U.S. June 23, 2023). And liability for aiding and abetting—also known as

facilitation—requires (1) “an intent to bring about a particular unlawful act” and (2) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

“that a wrongful act be carried out.” Id. The Court reached this decision by 

“transplant[ing]” the “old soil” of the traditional mens rea required for aiding and 

abetting to facilitation. Id. at *9 (citing Rosemond, 572 U.S. at 70-71). The Supreme 

Court’s holding in Hansen—that a federal criminal statute’s use of the word 

“facilitation” means “aiding and abetting” and requires proof of the same elements—is 

precisely the argument on which Defendants’ motion to dismiss turned.

Under Hansen’s binding precedent, “facilitation,” as used in the Travel Act, is 

the same as “aiding and abetting” and comes with all the “old soil” of aiding and 

abetting. Accordingly, under Hansen, the indictment must allege that each Defendant 

had the specific intent to commit each element of each of the underlying prostitution 

offenses and that the prostitution offenses Defendants are alleged to have facilitated 

actually were committed. Hansen, 2023 WL 4138994, at *6. Accordingly, Defendants 

seek modification of the Court’s order (at 7-13) addressing the deficiencies in the Travel 

Act counts to hold that the superseding indictment must allege that each Defendant, 

having full and advance knowledge, specifically intended to complete each element of 

each of the underlying state prostitution offenses and that those crimes were 

committed—which the indictment plainly fails to do. See L. R. Civ. P. 7.2(g)(1).

Moreover, in light of Hansen, Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s 

holding that “even if . . . the evidentiary burdens of an aiding and abetting offense 

govern the SI’s Travel Act charges, whether the Government has offered sufficient 

proof of the commission of an offense by another is an issue that goes to the 

Government’s burden at trial.” Doc. 1587 at 11. As recognized in Hansen, it is black 

letter law that “liability for aiding and abetting requires that a wrongful act be carried 

out.” 2023 WL 4138994, at *6. The superseding indictment alleges that some of the 

people who posted the advertisements in Counts 2-51 engaged in prostitution (and 

alleges nothing at all about some of the advertisements, other than citing language from 

the ads that the government claims is suggestive of prostitution). But that is not 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 6 of 9
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 

enough—without an allegation that each Defendant, with full and advance knowledge, 

aided and abetted (i.e., facilitated) the prostitution offenses of specific business 

enterprises and intended that those particular offenses occur, the indictment fails to state 

offenses for facilitation of business enterprises involving prostitution offenses in 

violation of state law. See United States v. Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 449 

(9th Cir. 1974) (affirming dismissal of indictment “because neither the defendants’ 

intention to facilitate nor the defendants’ actual facilitation of unlawful activities in 

Montana were shown”). 

III. Conclusion

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in United State v. Hansen

necessitates reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. 

DATED this 28th day of June, 2023. 

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

By s/ Joseph N. Roth

Timothy J. Eckstein

Joseph N. Roth

Sarah P. Lawson

2929 North Central, 20th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794

Attorneys for James Larkin

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

By s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (w/permission) 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (pro hac vice) 

Erin E. McCampbell (pro hac vice) 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 7 of 9
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

By s/ Bruce S. Feder (w/permission) 

Bruce S. Feder

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

KESSLER LAW OFFICE

By s/ Eric W. Kessler (w/permission) 

Eric W. Kessler

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210

Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

Attorneys for Scott Spear

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,

NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & 

RHOW P.C.

By s/ Gary S. Lincenberg (w/permission) 

Gary S. Lincenberg

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Ariel A. Neuman

1875 Century Park E., Suite 2300

Los Angeles, California 90067

Attorneys for John Brunst

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

By s/ David S. Eisenberg (w/permission) 

David S. Eisenberg

3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 8 of 9
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9 

JOY BERTRAND LAW 

By s/ Joy M. Bertrand (w/permission) 

Joy M. Bertrand

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 9 of 9