1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

pcambria@lglaw.com 

emccampbell@lglaw.com 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

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 

RESPONSE TO THE UNITED 

STATES’ NOTICE OF RETRIAL 

(Oral argument requested) 

 Defendant Michael Lacey, by and through his undersigned counsel, files the instant response 

to the United States Notice of Retrial (Doc. 2035). 

 The procedural posture of this case is critical to the setting of the date for the retrial. On 

November 15, 2023, at the conclusion of the second trial in this case, the jury found co-Defendants 

Joye Vaught and Andrew Padilla not guilty on all counts, co-Defendants Scott Spear and John 

Brunst guilty on some counts and not guilty on others, and Michael Lacey not guilty on one money 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2038 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 3
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

laundering count, guilty on one money laundering count, and reached no verdict on the remaining 

84 counts. The parties engaged in extensive post-verdict briefing. At this time, the Rule 29 Motions 

for Acquittal, Rule 33 Motion for a New Trial, and Jencks Motion filed by Defendants Lacey, Spear, 

and Brunst are pending before the Court. Depending on this Court’s rulings, any retrial could 

involve some or all of the remaining Defendants on some or all of the counts of the Superseding 

Indictment. Thus, this Court’s decisions on the outstanding motions may greatly impact the length 

and scope of the retrial. 

However, to the extent that the pending motions are denied, co-Defendants Brunst and 

Spear would proceed to sentencing and then to appeal where they would raise numerous appellate 

issues, any one of which could have a significant impact on retrial of Lacey’s outstanding 84 counts. 

These issues include, among other things, the application of the First Amendment to this case, 

including the propriety of the First Amendment jury instruction, the standard for culpability for 

publication of third-party speech under the Travel Act, including the standard for aiding and abetting 

liability, invasion of privilege, failure to disclose Brady and Jencks material, the prohibition on 

presentation of non-privileged attorney letters, and the prohibition on presentation of publicly 

available Congressional testimony, pleadings in other litigation, press releases, and more on mens 

rea and good faith. As a matter of efficiency for the court, the parties, the witnesses, and the jury, 

Lacey respectfully requests that this Court hold his retrial in abeyance until the Ninth Circuit has the 

opportunity to address the appellate issues that are common to all three remaining Defendants 

which would be raised on appeal by co-Defendants Brunst and Spear. Otherwise, Lacey faces the 

very real prospect of a third trial, and then after a ruling from the Ninth Circuit, a fourth trial, possibly 

with co-Defendants Brunst and Spear. 

Regardless of how this Court rules on the outstanding motions, Lacey needs some time to 

obtain funds to retain the undersigned counsel – his counsel of choice – for a third trial because 

there is no retainer agreement in place for a third trial. Lacey intends to file a Monsanto motion in 

the Central District of California as expeditiously as possible. Undersigned counsel is Lacey’s 

counsel of choice. The government seized Lacey’s assets more than six years ago – including assets 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2038 Filed 01/26/24 Page 2 of 3
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

that had nothing to do with Backpage and could have been used for Lacey’s defense – and has 

already had two trials in this matter. Lacey needs to pursue Monsanto in order to retain me for the 

third trial. There is no retainer agreement in place at this time for a third trial. 

Finally, in order to have sufficient time to obtain funds to retain the undersigned as counsel 

for the third trial, Lacey waives any Speedy Trial Act rights, to the extent that the time is not tolled 

by virtue of the pending Rule 29 and 33 motions. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of January, 2024, 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Erin McCampbell Paris 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

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

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

On January 26, 2024, 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 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

Daniel Boyle, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Austin Maxwell Berry, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2038 Filed 01/26/24 Page 3 of 3