1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY 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 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

pcambria@lglaw.com 

Janey Henze Cook (AZ 022496) 

HENZE COOK MURPHY PLLC 

722 E. Osborn Road, Suite 120 

Phoenix, Arizona 85014 

Telephone: (602) 956-1730 

Facsimile: (602) 956-1220 

janey@henzecookmurphy.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB 

DEFENDANT MICHAEL LACEY’S 

MOTION TO AMEND HIS 

CONDITIONS OF PRETRIAL 

RELEASE AND MOTION FOR 

EXPEDITED RELIEF 

(Expedited oral argument requested) 

Defendant Michael Lacey, by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby moves 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) & (3) for an order amending his conditions of pretrial release 

as set forth in the Court’s April 13, 2018 Order (Doc. 67). As discussed in greater detail below, 

the condition of release requiring continued electronic monitoring is not the least restrictive 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 1 of 14
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

condition that will reasonably ensure his presence at trial and the safety of the community. 

Further, electronic monitoring prevents Mr. Lacey from engaging in the form of exercise that he 

has relied upon his entire life—swimming—to ameliorate the effects of a heart condition, 

maintain physical fitness, and alleviate stress. In light of the fact that Mr. Lacey will be taking a 

trip on March 27, 2019 with his wife, which was approved by pretrial services, and during which 

he would greatly appreciate the ability to swim and step on the beach, Mr. Lacey requests that 

this Court hear this Motion on an expedited basis. 

This Motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Court’s 

file, and any evidence or argument presented at the hearing on this matter. This is Mr. Lacey’s 

first motion to amend his conditions of pretrial release. 

U.S. Pretrial Services has no objection to the removal of Mr. Lacey’s electronic 

monitoring anklet; however, counsel for defendant and counsel for the government have been 

unable to resolve this issue without bringing the instant Motion. 

Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) may occur as a result of this Motion or 

of an order based thereon. 

 Dated: March 19, 2019 LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 

/s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

 Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

 Erin McCampbell Paris 

 Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

 

 HENZE COOK MURPHY PLLC 

 

 /s/ Janey Henze Cook

 Janey Henze Cook 

 Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 2 of 14
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

As set forth in greater detail below, defendant Michael Lacey moves to amend the order 

setting his conditions of supervised release (Doc. 67) to strike the condition requiring electronic 

monitoring. Further, he seeks an order allowing substitution of one of the assets pledged as part 

of his conditions of pretrial release. 

BACKGROUND 

I. Mr. Lacey is a 70-year-old, long-term resident of Arizona, with deep ties to this 

District.

 Mr. Lacey is an honored journalist who has been an active member of the Arizona 

community for fifty-three years. In 1966, Mr. Lacey moved to Arizona to attend Arizona State 

University. In 1970, Mr. Lacey co-founded an alternative newspaper originally called the 

Arizona Times and subsequently renamed the Phoenix New Times. The newspaper became and 

has remained a prominent voice for free speech and journalism in Arizona for forty-nine years. 

In addition to founding the Phoenix New Times, Mr. Lacey and his partners acquired sixteen 

other newspapers, forming a nationwide conglomerate which they operated under Village Voice 

Media Holdings, LLC (“VVMH”). Collectively, the newspapers, which provided their 

publications free of charge, had more than 1.8 million readers. Because the newspapers did not 

require subscriptions, the publication of classified advertisements evolved as a key part of the 

revenue supporting the newspapers. 

Mr. Lacey, who served as the editor-in-chief of the newspapers, oversaw investigative 

journalism covering a broad array of topics. During his tenure, the newspapers won hundreds 

of awards, including the Pulitzer Prize. Indeed, Mr. Lacey has been honored numerous times 

for his excellence in journalism.1

 

 

1

 Mr. Lacey won the 2011 Clarion Award from the Association for Women in 

Communications for his story about a diabetic woman who died in jail custody. See 

Michael Lacey, What’s Mom Worth?: When a Woman Became Deathly Ill in Sheriff Joe 

Arpaio’s Jail, Guards and Nurse Ignored Her Agony, PHOENIX NEW TIMES (Dec. 9, 

2010), http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-mom-worth-when-a-womanCase 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 3 of 14
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In addition to his commitment to providing free access to trail-blazing journalism, Mr. 

Lacey has been very generous to the Arizona community. For example, from 2014-2017, Mr. 

Lacey and his co-defendant James Larkin donated $3.75 million dollars to various non-profit 

organizations that assist immigrants and refugees.2

 Mr. Lacey has also donated to various nonprofit organizations including those focused on encouraging minorities to vote. Further, Mr. 

Lacey (through VVMH), created paid digital fellowships for minority journalists in conjunction 

with the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State 

University (and the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University). These programs 

were instrumental in providing aspiring minority journalists with a jump start on their careers. 

These are just examples of the many philanthropic activities in which Mr. Lacey has participated. 

 

became-deathly-ill-in-sheriff-joe-arpaios-jail-guards-and-nurses-ignored-her-agony6446744. Mr. Lacey was awarded the 2010 Best in the West journalism competition award 

for Immigration and Minority Affairs Reporting (along with Stephen Lemons and Paul 

Rubins of the New Times) for a series concerning immigration enforcement tactics of the 

Maricopa County Sheriffs County sheriff’s office. See Michael Lacey, Are Your Papers 

In Order?, Phoenix New Times (March. 12, 2009), 

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/are-your-papers-in-order-6426683. He led a 

VVM series called Amongst Us, deploying reporters across the country to report stories of 

the travails and contributions of Latinos, which won the 2011 James Aronson Award for 

Social Justice Journalism. See http://brie.hunter.cuny.edu/aronson/?page _id=1169. Mr. 

Lacey has also received the Valley of the Sun Society of Professional Journalists’ 

President’s Award, and has been honored by the Arizona chapters of the American Civil 

Liberties Union and the NAACP. 

2

   These funds represent the settlement that Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin obtained after 

filing a successful Civil Rights Act suit against former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio 

for their wrongful arrests. The events that led to this lawsuit are indicative of Mr. Lacey’s 

commitment to vindication of his constitutional rights and defending himself against bogus 

criminal charges. Beginning in 2004, the Phoenix New Times published a series of articles 

critical of Sheriff Arpaio. These articles led to the arrests of Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin in 

the dead of night, see David Carr, A Knock in the Night in Phoenix, New York Times (May 

12, 2008), http://nytimes.com/2008/05/12/business/media/12carr.html; however, all of the 

charges against them were promptly dismissed. Subsequently, they filed the civil action, 

and prevailed with an en banc victory in the Ninth Circuit, in which the Court recognized 

that “[i]t is hard to conceive of a more direct assault on the First Amendment than public 

officials ordering the immediate arrests of their critics.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 

F.3d 896, 917 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 4 of 14
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. Lacey has significant personal ties to Arizona and the United States. Mr. Lacey is 

newly married to a long-term resident of Arizona and he and his wife reside in Arizona. He 

owns numerous properties in Arizona, including his primary residence, where he has resided 

since 2005. Additionally, he owns several properties in the State of California.3

 He has two 

sons who live in California, a brother who lives in Kansas, and a sister who lives in New York. 

He has always and continues to maintain strong relationships with his children and siblings. 

II. The charges pending against Mr. Lacey. 

 On March 28, 2018, a grand jury sitting in this District indicted Mr. Lacey and his codefendants for allegedly conspiring to violate the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1952), as well 

as violations of the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. §1952), and the money laundering statutes (18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1956, 1957). (See Indict., Doc. 3.) On July 25, 2018, the government obtained a superseding 

indictment, which is the operative indictment in this case. (See Super. Indict., Doc. 230.) The 

superseding indictment included the original charges, as well as additional charges under the 

Travel Act and money laundering statutes. (See id.) 

 The charges stem from defendants’ former ownership of the website 

www.backpage.com, which provided an online platform for third-party users to post classified 

advertisements (“Backpage”). In 2004, VVMH launched its online classified advertisement 

platform, Backpage, which allowed third-parties to create and post advertisements under a 

variety of topics, including, but not limited to, real estate, jobs, rentals, as well as adult topics 

such as dating, massage, domination, and escorts. In 2015, defendants sold their interests in 

Backpage to its long-time chief executive officer, Carl Ferrer, through a seller-financed loan. 

Entities controlled by Mr. Ferrer operated Backpage until it was seized and shut down by the 

government on April 6, 2018 as part of its seizures in the related cases United States v. Ferrer, 

18-CR-464, and United States v. Backpage, 18-CR-465. The government’s novel theory for 

 

3 As discussed in greater detail below, due to the government’s pretrial seizures, Mr. 

Lacey is in the process of stipulating to the interlocutory sale of two properties in San 

Francisco, California. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 5 of 14
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prosecuting Backpage, Mr. Ferrer, and the defendants in this action is that, by providing a 

platform for third-parties to create and post advertisements for adult services, defendants are 

criminally liable for any conduct of those third parties. As set forth in greater detail in other 

filings before this Court incorporated herein by reference (see Joint Repl. to Resp. to Mot. to 

Dismiss, Doc. 494 at 10-24), the government’s theory is deeply flawed and fails to take into 

account the myriad judicial opinions recognizing Backpage as “an avenue of expression of ideas 

and opinions” protected by the First Amendment, including its “classified ads for ‘adult’ 

services.” Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 231 (7th Cir. 2015).4

 

 Additionally, prior to issuance of the indictment in this case, the Attorney General of the 

State of California filed a criminal complaint against Messrs. Lacey, Larkin, and Ferrer, charging 

 

4

 This is just one example of very clear judicial recognition that Backpage’s

activities relating to “adult” advertisements are constitutionally protected. There are 

many others, and no cases to the contrary. For example, in Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 

665 (7th Cir. 2003), the Seventh Circuit wrote: 

A web host, like a delivery service or phone company, is an 

intermediary and normally is indifferent to the content of what 

it transmits. Even entities that know the information’s content 

do not become liable for the sponsor’s deeds. Does a 

newspaper that carries an advertisement for “escort services” 

or “massage parlors” aid and abet the crime of prostitution, if 

it turns out that some (or many) of the advertisers make money 

from that activity? How about Verizon, which furnishes 

pagers and cell phones to drug dealers and thus facilitates their 

business? 

Id. at 669; see Backpage.com LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1282 (W.D. Wash. 

2012) (“The Court finds it unlikely that Defendants would be able to prove that all online 

advertisements for escort services are ads for prostitution. Thus, a website that contains 

a section for postings for escort services that chooses to either shut down that section or 

require age verification will likely chill protected speech in the course of doing so” 

(emphasis in original)); see also Backpage.com LLC v. Hoffman, 2013 WL 4502097 at *8 

(D.N.J. 2013) (enjoining statute and rejecting the argument “that the Act does not regulate 

speech protected by the First Amendment because it only prohibits the advertisement of 

an illegal transaction”); Backpage.com LLC v. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d 805 (M.D. 

Tenn. 2013) (enjoining statute).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 6 of 14
7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

them with one count of conspiracy and nine counts of pimping. Much like this case, the State 

sought to hold defendants liable for the conduct of third parties based on their ownership interests 

in Backpage. Mr. Lacey self-surrendered in California upon the filing of the criminal charges 

against him. Critically, on December 9, 2016, the court granted defendants’ demurrer, 

dismissing all counts and recognizing that “providing a forum for online publishing is a 

recognized legal purpose.” People v. Ferrer, No. 16FE019224 (Sup. Ct. Sacramento Cnty. Dec. 

9, 2016), slip op. at 13. On December 23, 2016, the Attorney General filed a new criminal 

complaint against Messrs. Lacey, Larkin, and Ferrer, re-charging them with the same pimping 

counts in addition to money laundering counts. On August 23, 2017, the court granted 

defendants’ demurrer and dismissed all counts relating to pimping and all money laundering 

counts involving funds allegedly derived from payments by users to post advertisements on 

Backpage. See People v. Ferrer, No. 16FE024013 (Sup. Ct. Sacramento Cnty. Aug. 23, 2017). 

The only counts that survived demurrer were the money laundering counts based on allegations 

that Backpage committed bank fraud or wire fraud for use of descriptors on users’ credit card 

bills that the state alleged were deceptive. On March 5, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the 

remaining charges for gross governmental misconduct and/or to suppress evidence. The court 

is scheduled to hear argument on that motion on June 7, 2019. 

Throughout the California proceedings, Mr. Lacey has been released on bail without the 

requirement of use of an electronic monitoring anklet or other forms of monitoring. Notably, 

while on release, and long after he was aware of the grand jury investigation in this District that 

ultimately led to the instant charges, the court in California returned his passport to allow him to 

travel to Mexico for a vacation with his wife. Mr. Lacey was in Mexico for eighteen days and 

returned as planned. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 7 of 14
8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. The current conditions of pretrial release were more restrictive than necessary and 

should be revisited. 

More than one year prior to Mr. Lacey’s arrest, his attorneys had been in contact with the 

prosecutors on this case. In the event of the issuance of an indictment, Mr. Lacey offered to selfsurrender, as he had been allowed to do in a case pending in the State of California.5

 

On April 6, 2018, the day before Mr. Lacey and his wife had planned to host family and 

friends at their home for their wedding reception, the government executed a warrant for his 

arrest. Pretrial services indicated that, based on its extensive investigation of Mr. Lacey’s 

personal history, familial and community ties, and finances, as well as a thorough assessment of 

the crimes charged, release on his own recognizance with certain specified conditions was 

merited. The government took a different position, and the parties appeared for a detention 

hearing. At the detention hearing, the parties indicated that they had reached an agreement which 

included certain conditions of release and the posting of a $1,000,000 surety bond and two 

property bonds. (See Am. Min. Entry, Doc. 62.) Mr. Lacey was detained until April 13, 2018, 

when he was able to secure his property bonds with certain properties. (See Min. Entry, Doc. 

65.) In addition to posting the bonds, the Order Setting Conditions of Release (“Order”) 

specified that Mr. Lacey must: (1) not travel outside of Maricopa County without express prior 

Court or Pretrial Services permission; (2) avoid all direct or indirect contact with co-defendants 

about Backpage-related matters outside the presence of counsel; (3) report as directed to Pretrial 

Services; (4) refrain from use and possession of controlled substances; (5) submit to random 

urine drug testing; (6) surrender all travel documents; and (7) maintain weekly contact with 

defense counsel. (Order, Doc. 67.) 

Mr. Lacey has been monitored by Pretrial Services for almost one year, during which he 

fully complied with his pretrial release conditions. At this time, his Pretrial Services officer, the 

 5

 Notably, during the time between commencement of the grand jury investigation 

and issuance of the indictment in this case, Mr. Lacey frequently traveled outside the District, 

including to international destinations, for weeks at a time, returning after each trip. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 8 of 14
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

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

person in the best position to opine on his risk of flight and danger to public safety, has indicated 

that he does not oppose the removal of Mr. Lacey’s electronic monitoring anklet. 

IV. The condition requiring use of an electronic monitoring anklet prohibits Mr. Lacey 

from swimming, which he relies upon to maintain health and alleviate stress. 

 Mr. Lacey is 70 years old. Prior to his arrest, he regularly swam to maintain his health, 

manage his weight, and alleviate stress. This discipline is the one form of exercise to which he 

has been able to successfully commit. He has been unable to swim since his arrest because he 

is required to wear an electronic monitoring anklet. The instant motion is based primarily on his 

desire to regain the ability to swim, which is very important given his personal and family history 

of a heart condition, as recognized by his physician. (See Mar. 8, 2019 Ltr. from Dr. Fred S. 

Markham, M.D., attached hereto as Ex. A.) 

Additionally, Mr. Lacey will be taking a trip to Hawaii on March 27, 2019, which was 

approved by Pretrial Services. Mr. Lacey was able to purchase this trip using previously 

accumulated airline miles which would expire if he did not use them. Because this trip is 

imminent, Mr. Lacey respectfully requests an expedited determination on the instant Motion. 

Critically, Mr. Lacey would avoid pools and the ocean if wearing his anklet; however, if 

exposure to sand or a splash from a swimmer made contact with the anklet, or if the anklet simply 

malfunctioned, he would need to immediately return to this District to report to Pretrial Services. 

Recognizing that the technology of the anklet is not perfect, counsel fears that, if Mr. Lacey has 

a problem, he will need to purchase an expensive airline ticket with funds not miles, which he 

cannot afford. 

ARGUMENT 

Based on all of the above and the opinion of Mr. Lacey’s Pretrial Services officer, 

electronic monitoring is not a necessary condition to ensure his presence at trial or public safety. 

For that reason, Mr. Lacey respectfully requests that this Court amend the Order to strike the 

condition requiring the continued use of an electronic monitoring anklet. This Court is 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 9 of 14
10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

empowered to “at any time[,] amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of 

release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3). Further, conditions of release must be the “least restrictive” 

conditions necessary to “reasonably assure” the defendant’s appearance and the community’s 

safety.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The requirement that the conditions “reasonably assure” 

appearance and safety do not require a guarantee of safety or non-flight. See United States v. 

Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086, 1092 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gentry, 455 F. Supp. 2d 

1018, 1032 (D. Ariz. 2006). In making a determination on the appropriateness of the conditions 

of release, courts must consider: the defendant’s history and characteristics; danger to the 

community; and nature of the offense and weight of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). 

I. Mr. Lacey’s history and characteristics weigh in favor of amending the Order to 

omit the condition requiring continued use of an electronic monitoring anklet.

 Mr. Lacey’s history and characteristics weigh in favor of removal of the anklet because 

he presents no risk of flight. He is 70 years old and has resided in this District since 1966. He 

has strong familial ties to this District and owns numerous properties in this District, in addition 

to properties in California. 

Mr. Lacey has not hid his whereabouts from the prosecutors in this case. Mr. Lacey’s 

attorneys were in contact with the prosecutors in this case prior to his arrest and offered to selfsurrender, just as he had in the case pending in California. After learning of the grand jury 

investigation in this District, but prior to his arrest, he regularly traveled outside this District, 

including to international destinations for weeks at a time. Indeed, the court in California 

returned his passport to allow him to take an eighteen-day trip to Mexico while charges were 

pending against him in that State. Because he was not required to wear an electronic monitoring 

anklet as part of his conditions of release in that case, he traveled to Mexico without one and he 

returned as planned. Then, after his arrest in this case, he has fully complied with his conditions 

of release. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 10 of 14
11 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The most important factor for this Court’s analysis is the position of Mr. Lacey’s Pretrial 

Services officer, who has monitored Mr. Lacey for nearly a year. His officer does not oppose 

removal of the anklet. This factor, along, weighs heavily in favor of removal of the anklet. 

Further, Mr. Lacey is not someone to shy away from a legal battle. He has a welldocumented history of bringing affirmative litigation to vindicate his constitutional rights. See, 

e.g., McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1282. He has fought and beat vindictive criminal charges. 

See Lacey, 693 F.3d at 917. Further, he has mounted a vigorous and successful defense to the 

case pending in California, which involves similar theories of culpability. See People v. Ferrer, 

No. 16FE019224 (Sup. Ct. Sacramento Cnty. Dec. 9, 2016); People v. Ferrer, No. 16FE024013 

(Sup. Ct. Sacramento Cnty. Aug. 23, 2017). This background demonstrates that he is someone 

who fully litigates cases to their conclusion, not someone who runs or backs down or is pressured 

into relenting. He will appear for his trial to mount a vigorous defense. 

 The government does not necessarily disagree with the assessment of Pretrial Services; 

however, the government has pointed to a foreign trust with assets of approximately $16.5 

million that purportedly renders Mr. Lacey a risk of flight. The government’s concern is 

unfounded. Mr. Lacey has surrendered his passport. Further, the trust was formed for the benefit 

of his sons in accordance with all federal tax laws, including the filing of a Report of Foreign 

Bank and Financial Accounts fully disclosing this trust to the Internal Revenue Service. 

Additionally, the trust has been subjected to the government’s pretrial seizures. Indeed, this asset 

is subject to four different forms of pretrial restraint. The government named it in both forfeiture 

counts in the superseding indictment. (See Doc. 230 at 65, 80.) In the Central District of 

California, the government sought a pretrial seizure warrant under docket 18-MJ-997, which 

remains subject to sealing, and then filed a civil forfeiture action under docket 18-CV-8565. 

Finally, the government has pursued administrative forfeiture of the asset through the United 

States Postal Inspection Service and has assigned the trust Asset I.D. Number 19-USP-000268. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 11 of 14
12 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. The removal of Mr. Lacey’s anklet does not increase the risk of danger to the 

community.

 This factor is a non-issue for this Court. Mr. Lacey presents no risk of danger to public 

safety. In the past, the government claimed that Mr. Lacey presented a threat to public safety to 

the extent that he exerted any continued control over Backpage, notwithstanding the fact that 

Backpage was sold to Mr. Ferrer in 2015. The government’s characterization of Mr. Lacey’s 

control over Backpage after the sale to Mr. Ferrer is unfounded; and the website is no longer 

operational. Mr. Lacey cannot exert control over a website that (a) was seized by the government 

on April 6, 2018, and has been in the government’s control since then and (b) has not operated 

since April 6, 2018. See www.backpage.com. For this reason, removal of Mr. Lacey’s anklet 

presents no risk of danger to the community. Again, the person in the best position to make a 

determination about risk to public safety, Mr. Lacey’s Pretrial Services officer, does not oppose 

the removal of his anklet. 

III. The government’s case is infirm. 

 The government’s theory is flawed at every step. As set forth in greater detail in the Joint 

Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 494 at 10-24), and incorporated herein by 

reference, the government’s case fails to take into consideration the law regarding protected First 

Amendment activities, and fails to plead the requisite heightened mens rea, among other errors. 

Due to these critical shortcomings, the strength of the government’s case does not weigh in favor 

of continue use of the anklet. Indeed, Mr. Lacey maintains that this case is highly defensible and 

will litigate his defenses in future submissions to this Court. 

IV. Mr. Lacey requests modification of the property pledged as part of his conditions 

of pretrial release. 

Additionally, due to the pretrial seizures in this case, Mr. Lacey is unable to maintain 

each of his properties and pay the requisite taxes. As a result, Mr. Lacey is currently 

working with the Government to stipulate for the interlocutory sale of two residences, one 

located at 2755 Fillmore Street San Francisco, CA 94123, and the other located at 1100 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 12 of 14
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

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Union #700 San Francisco, CA 94109. The property located on Union Street is currently 

pledged as security for Mr. Lacey’s release in this matter. (See Doc. 67.) 

Mr. Lacey hereby moves to modify his release conditions in this case to allow for 

the interlocutory sale of the Union property. Per an agreement with the government, the 

net proceeds from the sale would be wired to the United States Marshall’s Service. Because 

the property serves as collateral for his release in the instant matter, Mr. Lacey hereby 

moves for a modification of his release conditions to allow for the net proceeds from that 

sale to serve as substitute collateral securing his release. The Government does not oppose 

modification of the release condition to allow for the interlocutory sale and replacement of 

the security with the net proceeds from the sale. The parties contemplate filing stipulations 

for interlocutory sales in the Central District of California shortly. 

CONCLUSION 

 In light of the foregoing, Mr. Lacey respectfully requests that this Court amend the 

Order to remove the condition requiring use of an electronic monitoring anklet. Further, Mr. 

Lacey requests that this Court allow him to substitute one of the properties pledged as part of 

the conditions of his pretrial release to be replaced with funds to be held by the United States 

Marshals Service upon interlocutory sale of that property, which is not opposed by the 

government. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of March, 2019, 

 /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

 LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

 /s/ Janey Henze Cook

 HENZE COOK MURPHY PLLC 

 Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 13 of 14
14 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On March 19, 2019, a PDF version 

of this document was filed with 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

System for filing and for Transmittal 

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the 

Following CM/ECF registrants: 

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

John Kucera, john.kucera@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Patrick Reid, Patrick.Reid@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Amanda Wick, Amanda.Wick@usdoj.gov 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503 Filed 03/19/19 Page 14 of 14