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

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

2 East Congress Street, Suite 1000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1782

(520) 622-6900

Michael L. Piccarreta 

State Bar No. 003962 

Email: mlp@pd-law.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

 -andKARP & WEISS, P.C. 

3060 N Swan Road

Tucson, AZ 85712 

(520) 325-4200 

Stephen M. Weiss

State Bar No. 002261

Email: sweiss@karpweiss.com

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

v.

6. Andrew Padilla,

 (Counts 1-51)

7. Joye Vaught,

 (Counts 1-51)

 Defendants.

NO. CR-18-00422-06-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS PADILLA’S AND 

VAUGHT’S STATUS REPORT

Defendants Andrew Padilla and Joye Vaught, by and through their attorneys 

undersigned, hereby submit their status report for the status conference scheduled for April 

23, 2019.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 528 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of April, 2019.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

By: /s/ Stephen M. Weiss

Stephen M. Weiss

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught

Status Report

Defendants Andrew Padilla and Joye Vaught hereby provide this status report in 

connection with the status conference scheduled for April 23, 2019.1 The current status of 

the case is that, due to the direct consequences of the government’s intentional actions, 

defendants Padilla and Vaught are indigent and are financially unable to defend this case.

The factual background concerning the government’s unprecedented action in 

seizing attorney trust funds some seven months post-indictment is set forth in detail in the 

motion to dismiss (Doc. 456) and reply (Doc. 507), incorporated herein by reference. To 

briefly recap, at the beginning of the case, the government indicated to counsel for two 

 1 The co-defendants in the case will be submitting a joint status report with information 

pertaining to ongoing issues in the case. Defendants Padilla and Vaught will file joinders to 

that joint status report. The present status report will focus on Padilla’s and Vaught’s Motion 

to Dismiss due to Government Interference with Right to Counsel and Request for 

Disclosure or, in the Alternative, Motion to Withdraw (Docs. 456, 507). The issues relating 

to counsel for Padilla and Vaught need to be decided as soon as possible. The matter is fully 

briefed and awaits oral argument.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 528 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

defendants that it would not be seeking attorney trust funds.2 That information was relayed 

to other co-counsel in the case. Subsequently, the defendants agreed to a proposed case 

management schedule and scheduling order without knowledge or having any reason to 

believe that the government would later deprive them of funds required to defend the case 

and meet the obligations set forth in the schedule.

3 The defendants then began defending the 

case with funds specifically earmarked for their representation and funds to which the 

defendants were entitled by virtue of their years of employment with Backpage.com and 

related entities. The funds were advanced to the attorney trust accounts through normal 

banking channels in the normal course of business.

Seven months after the initial indictment, after vigorous litigation in the case, and a 

few weeks after the government received some adverse rulings as a result of that litigation, 

the government decided to seize the attorney trust funds earmarked for the defense of the 

case. The government further advised counsel for Padilla and Vaught that the funds in their 

trust accounts cannot be used to pay any fees earned or costs incurred after November 2018. 

As a result, there have been no payments to counsel for Padilla and Vaught for work 

performed or costs incurred for five months. This has caused havoc to defense counsel and 

their clients and essentially placed the case in limbo while this collateral issue is being 

resolved. While being without funds, the defendants have had to engage in extensive 

 2 This is consistent with the general practice in this district for cases like this.

3 Subsequently, counsel for Padilla and the government exchanged letters which are already 

part of the record. There was no further communication on this issue until months later, after

the government obtained ex parte seizure warrants.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 528 Filed 04/17/19 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

litigation regarding the government’s seizures and the illegality of the government’s conduct. 

The government has employed a strategy of seeking to delay judicial review on the merits, 

which could provide needed relief to the defendants. This strategy has prejudiced the 

defendants by depriving them of the necessary funds to defend the case. Absent a ruling 

making available some of the illegally-seized funds, counsel is unable to defend the case. 

Despite defense efforts, there has yet to be a ruling from any court on the merits of legality 

of the government’s ex parte seizures. It must be emphasized that the government is 

proceeding on a novel theory of vicarious liability for the publishers of third-party ads and 

novel theories of forfeiture based thereon while refusing to acknowledge the large body of 

First Amendment law that defendants believe is dispositive of these issues.

The seizure of attorney trust accounts in the middle of hotly-contested criminal 

litigation (in a case with serious First Amendment implications) is unprecedented in this 

district (and perhaps elsewhere), at least to undersigned counsels’ memory. The 

government’s conduct has completely disrupted this case and rendered Padilla and Vaught 

indigent.

4 The current status of the case is that the government’s actions have left defendants

without money to defend the case, no funds to pay for work performed since December,

5 no 

money to fund the review of the government’s massive disclosure, no money to retain 

experts, or perform any of the other tasks necessary to prepare for trial, while simultaneously 

 4 Padilla and Vaught have provided the requisite financial information to the Court ex parte

and under seal.

5 Undersigned counsel for Mr. Padilla has undertaken additional matters to offset the seizure 

of the trust funds and to meet the financial obligations of the law firm.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 528 Filed 04/17/19 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

creating collateral issues in other districts that take the time and attention of defense counsel, 

without payment, away from issues surrounding this indictment.

6 Apart from the lack of 

funds, defense counsel have lost five months of time that could have been used directly on 

the substantive issues of the indictment.

This predicament for Padilla, Vaught, and their counsel must be resolved now. 

Accordingly, defendants Padilla and Vaught will be requesting this Court to do one of three 

things: 1) dismiss the indictment due to the government’s improper interference with the 

defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel of choice; 2) order the release of 

funds earmarked for the defense of this case that the government seized; or 3) permit counsel 

for Padilla and Vaught to withdraw and appoint qualified counsel from the federal public 

defender’s office or the Criminal Justice Act panel.7

 6 As noted in detail in the motion to dismiss and reply, the government’s conduct must also 

be viewed in light of all of its other actions adversely impacting defendants’ right to counsel 

of choice and ability to defend the case. (Doc. 456 pp. 10-11, Doc. 507 pp. 6-7).

7 Given the massive volume of discovery in the case (over 10 million pages produced to date, 

with at least 500 TB of server data to review as well), appointed counsel may seek leave of 

the court for a Coordinating Discovery Attorney through the National Litigation Support 

Team.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 528 Filed 04/17/19 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of April, 2019.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

By: /s/ Stephen M. Weiss

Stephen M. Weiss

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of April, 2019, I electronically transmitted 

the foregoing to the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Reginald Jones: Reginald.Jones@usdoj.gov

Peter S. Kozinets: Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov

John Kucera: John.Kucera@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov

Kevin Rapp: Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone: Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov

Thomas Bienert: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Paul Cambria: pcambira@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Revere: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Bruce Feder: bfeder@federlaw.com

James Grant: jimgrant@dwt.com

Michael D. Kimerer, mdk@kimerer.com

Gary Lincenberg: glincenberg@birdmarella.comf

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 528 Filed 04/17/19 Page 6 of 6