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 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

Gary S. Lincenberg (CA Bar No. 123058, admitted pro hac vice)

Ariel A. Neuman (CA Bar No. 241594, admitted pro hac vice)

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (CA Bar No. 279856, admitted pro hac vice)

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW PC

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

glincenberg@birdmarella.com

aneuman@birdmarella.com

gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

Attorneys for John Brunst

Additional counsel listed on next page

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-DJH

DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY 

OBJECTIONS TO THE 

GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED 

EXHIBITS TO BE ADMITTED 

THROUGH CARL FERRER 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 11
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

Eric Kessler (AZ Bar No. 009158) 

KESSLER LAW GROUP

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210

Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Telephone: (480) 644-0093

eric@kesslerlawgroup.com

Attorney for Scott Spear

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832)

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

Attorney for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218)

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 237-5076

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273

david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181)

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Telephone: (602)374-5321

Facsimile: (480)361-4694

joy.bertrand@gmail.com

Attorney for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 2 of 11
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

Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, submit the following

preliminary objections to the government’s proposed list of exhibits to be admitted through 

Carl Ferrer. Given that the government seeks to introduce about 400 exhibits through Mr. 

Ferrer, during the course of Mr. Ferrer’s examination, Defendants intend to submit briefing 

to address various categories of exhibits that the Court should decline to admit. The instant 

brief concerns: (1) e-mails and other exhibits as to which Ferrer plainly lacks foundation and 

(2) exhibits that have been redacted in a prejudicial manner. 

Defendants will raise specific objections in person to each tranche of Ferrer exhibits as 

the Court takes those up, including at today’s conference with the Court. Defendants also 

reserve the right to further object to any Ferrer exhibits as they are offered at trial. This brief, 

however, is intended to provide an overview to the Court regarding certain issues that infect 

certain groups of the 400 or so exhibits the government intends to admit through Ferrer. 

I. EXHIBITS ON WHICH FERRER IS NOT COPIED SHOULD NOT BE 

ADMITTED THROUGH HIM.

 The government proposes to introduce numerous documents through Ferrer, even 

though he will be unable to provide any foundation whatsoever for admission. For example, 

Exhibit 1911b is an email between Michael Lacey and his ex-wife, Kathleen Ferris. Ferrer was

not a recipient of this email communication between these former spouses. Equally dubious

is the government’s request to admit Exhibit 1 through Ferrer. Exhibit 1 is a series of email 

communications between Michael Lacey and his trusts and estates counsel, John Becker. They 

discuss the formation of the foreign trust that is the subject of Count 100, but Ferrer was not 

a recipient of this email and there was no discussion whatsoever of Backpage. There is no 

basis for Ferrer to have any foundational information to admit these personal 

communications. This obvious overreach is not limited to these exhibits. See also, e.g., Exhs.

500, 1047, 2038, 2040, 2042, 2043. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 3 of 11
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

II. EXHIBITS CONTAINING PREJUDICIAL REDACTIONS SHOULD BE 

EXCLUDED. 

In several instances, the government has taken a previously disclosed exhibit and 

redacted it in a prejudicial way, marking the redacted version with an “a” (or “b” or “c”) after 

the exhibit number. Under the rule of completeness (FRE 106), “when one party has made 

use of a portion of a document, such that misunderstanding or distortion can be averted only 

through presentation of another portion, the material required for completeness is ipso facto

relevant and therefore admissible under Rules 401 and 402.” Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 

U.S. 153, 172 (1988). Such is the case as to the below examples, which are not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather are emblematic of the government’s questionable approach to the 

redaction of its exhibits. 

A. Exhibit 140a (redacted version of January 5, 2011 letter from Auburn 

Theological Seminary).

Exhibit 140a is a redacted version of a January 5, 2011, letter from Auburn Theological 

Seminary (the unredacted letter is Exhibit 140). The Seminary describes itself on its website

as “one of the oldest religious institutions in the US.”1 In its opening statement, the 

government said it will attempt to introduce this letter – among others – to demonstrate that 

Defendants purportedly were on “notice” that adult ads posted by third parties on 

Backpage.com were associated with prostitution or other illegal activity. The government has, 

however, redacted the letter in a prejudicial manner.

For example, the government redacts half of the first and second pages of the letter. 

That portion of the letter says, “We are coming at this from a different perspective – not as 

lawyers, government officials, or NGOs, but as moral and religious leaders who have a calling 

and responsibility to protect our children.” Exh. 140 at 1. The letter goes on to indicate that 

“As a Christian, for me personally, my commitment to this issue has a Biblical basis,” citing 

scripture (“It forecasts the coming of a Messiah who would be sent to ‘bring good news to the 

oppressed’. . . .”). As discussed below, the reason this letter did not put Backpage (and 

 

1 https://auburnseminary.org/about/

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 4 of 11
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

Defendants) on notice of anything relevant to this case is precisely because of the portions the 

government impermissibly redacts – Auburn’s position was admittedly grounded in religion 

and morality, not the law. 

Indeed, the redacted version of the exhibit is even more prejudicial to the defense. 

The Court need only observe that the government redacts the use of the word “moral” 

throughout the letter, seemingly in an attempt to comply with Judge Brnovich’s prior order. 

Dkt. 1159 at 3. The absurdity of these redactions is evident from the below example (found 

on the bottom of p. 4 of the exhibit, DOJ-BP000052548):

Exhibit 140a (redacted): “The latter in particular we fined morally objectionable. By 

continuing to operate Backpage.com’s adult section, you are sending a message that a storied 

American brand like the Village Voice is thumbing its nose at basic moral precepts . . . . 

Morally, the case is clear. If your company could do anything more to help stop sex trafficking 

of minors, a heinous crime that robs girls and boys of their childhood and perhaps even their 

adulthood, it should be done immediately. Just because the problem is hard to solve doesn’t 

mean that you are morally free to profit from a site, on which, despite your implementation 

of safety standards, children may be trafficked. There is very little moral wiggle room . . . .”

Exhibit 140 (unredacted): “The latter in particular we find morally objectionable. By 

continuing to operate Backpage.com’s adult section, you are sending a message that a storied 

American brand like the Village Voice is thumbing its nose at basic moral precepts . . . . 

Morally, the case is clear. If your company could do anything more to help stop sex trafficking 

of minors, a heinous crime that robs girls and boys of their childhood and perhaps even their 

adulthood, it should be done immediately. Just because the problem is hard to solve doesn’t 

mean that you are morally free to profit from a site, on which, despite your implementation 

of safety standards, children may be trafficked. There is very little moral wiggle room . . . .”

Previously, Defendants moved in limine to preclude the government from admitting 

any evidence premised on religious or moral views, as such views are irrelevant to the issue of 

whether the Defendants have violated the law. Dkt. 907. Judge Brnovich ruled that the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 5 of 11
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

Seminary letter was “highly prejudicial,” but could be “redacted to take out the inflammatory 

language about the clergy’s motivation and the moral opinion about Backpage.com.” Dkt. 

1159 at 3. But that remedy was never requested by the Defendants. More importantly, Judge 

Brnovich ruled in a vacuum and never saw the government’s proposed redacted exhibit, which 

only renders the exhibit more prejudicial. 

In any event, this Court should preclude admission of Exhibit 140a for several reasons. 

First, none of the evidence concerning the religious and moral views of religious leaders is 

relevant to whether the Defendants conspired to or facilitated any Travel Act violations 

because it did not put them on “notice” of any Travel Act violations (i.e., specific instances of 

business enterprises being involved in prostitution offenses). Second, use of this exhibit is a 

highly improper invitation for members of the jury to judge Defendants based on religious 

grounds, rather than based on the law. 

But, if this “highly prejudicial” exhibit is admitted, it must be admitted in full other 

than redactions unrelated to religious and moral views,2 under the rule of completeness. 

B. Exhibit 616a (redacted version of November 12, 2010 email from Scott 

Spear to Mary Lee Latta and John Brunst)

This email reflects communications between Mr. Spear and Mary Lee Latta, a 

representative of the Bank of Montreal (“BMO”), with whom Backpage and certain of its 

parent companies banked. Those emails, however, both were in response to an October 18, 

2010, email from James Larkin to Thomas McGraw and Ms. Latta at BMO, yet the 

government has redacted Mr. Larkin’s original email from the exhibit. Mr. Larkin’s email is 

necessary to provide context for Ms. Latta’s subsequent email to Mr. Spear and Mr. Spear’s

reply. The exhibit should not be admitted without Mr. Larkin’s email. 

There is no legitimate reason for the government’s redactions. In the original e-mail 

from Mr. Larkin (found in Exhibit 616), he informed BMO that Craigslist shut down its adult 

 

2

 The government’s redactions of portions of the letter that concern murders or the 

age of certain individuals advertised on the site are proper pursuant to the Court’s orders on 

the parties’ motions in limine. Dkts. 908, 920.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 6 of 11
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

section “under pressure” from state attorneys general and that in the aftermath of Craigslist’s 

actions, Backpage had (1) “engaged an internet security and user safety firm . . . to direct us 

on changes that need to be made to the site,” (2) “entered discussions with [Connecticut 

Attorney General] Blumenthal’s office on changes that he thinks need to be made to the site,” 

and (3) “cleaned up the most egregious portions of the site.” Exh. 616 at 3. Larkin further 

represented to BMO that “we are clearly lawful in our operations here and this is a political 

dance.”3 Id. 

The redactions eliminate necessary context from an exhibit, including exculpatory 

information, namely Mr. Larkin’s contemporaneous view (shared by Defendants) that 

Backpage was cooperating with law enforcement and complying with the law, a view that he 

was communicating to a financial institution with whom Backpage did business. If so-called 

“notice” evidence is to come in on the part of the government, then evidence regarding the 

corresponding state of mind of Defendants and Backpage must come in as well, in part to 

combat the notion that Defendants deceived financial institutions, a claim that was advanced 

by the government during its opening statement. Further, the government’s opening – which 

attributed the influx of adult advertisements on Backpage to Craigslist’s shutting down of its 

adult section – directly puts at issue how Backpage responded to Craigslist’s actions, as 

reflected in the redacted portion of Exhibit 616a.

C. Exhibit 1827a (redacted version of January 31, 2012 email from Michael Lacey 

to Scott Tobias and others).

Here, the government has redacted the vast majority of the e-mail correspondence

reflected in the exhibit. This email chain begins with Scott Tobias, who was the President and 

 

3 Although the subject of Mr. Larkin’s email said “Attorney Client Privileged,” the email 

plainly was not privileged. Mr. Larkin’s email was sent to two representatives of BMO, 

which provided banking services to Backpage and its affiliates, and merely was copied to 

Backpage’s in-house counsel. The government also does not appear to contend that it 

redacted the e-mail because of privilege, as the government produced the complete 

unredacted email in discovery (necessarily after review by the prosecution team), and the 

complete unredacted email has been included on the government’s exhibit list since before the 

first trial. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 7 of 11
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

CEO of Village Voice Media Holdings, which owned all the company’s newspapers and 

Backpage.com, informing the newspaper’s advertising staff of an article in the Denver Post 

relating to ads on Backpage. Among other things, he explains to the advertising staff:

Village Voice Media spends millions of dollars policing the site 

to stop illegal activity and to try to protect young children from 

exploitation.

Village Voice Media is a first responder, we work hand in hand 

with local law enforcement, the FBI and the National Center for 

Exploited and Missing Children (NCMEC). We turn over 

suspicious ads to these groups and are the first to respond, often 

responding in 24 hrs to subpoenas or request[s] for info regarding 

missing kids. Our mission is to save kids in distress.

We are on the right side of this issue. These ads that run on 

Backpage ALSO run on Google, Twiter [sic], Facebook and in 

the Yellow Pages. These entities often take weeks if not months 

to cooperate with law enforcement.

If Backpage were to exit this business it will only get worse. And 

there is NO guarantee that another organization would dedicate 

as much resource[s] or dollars to fighting these issues as we do.

(Ex. 1827 at p. 2.)

As reflected in Exhibit 1827a, the government has redacted the entire email from 

Tobias, when the email only potentially required minor edits to omit references to child sex 

trafficking. This email was then forwarded to, among others, Lacey. Lacey’s response (which 

is also heavily redacted) demonstrates his contemporaneous understanding of Backpage’s 

cooperation with law enforcement and the basis for why he, in good faith, believed that 

Backpage was operating lawfully even though he learned, after the fact, of various people’s

misuse of the website. For example, under point number one in his email, which is redacted 

by the government, he documents his understanding that the National Association of 

Attorneys General in its ongoing communications with Backpage did not “identif[y] law 

breaking” by Backpage. Exh. 1827 at p. 1. Under point two, also redacted, he explains that 

he believes it is “a big lie that craig got out of adult,” which directly counters the government’s 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 8 of 11
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

narrative that Craigslist completely shut down the adult section of its website. Id. While the 

government properly redacts certain references to “Detroit,” i.e., certain murders linked to 

Backpage advertisers that the Court previously ruled are inadmissible (Dkt. 920), it once again 

over-redacts exculpatory information that provides necessary context to the e-mail and 

demonstrates Lacey’s state of mind. 

D. Exhibit 933a (redacted version of September 22, 2010 e-mail from Scott Spear 

to Carl Ferrer).

 There is no basis for the government to redact the e-mail that appears at the bottom 

of the chain, specifically what appears to be a draft e-mail from Mr. Ferrer to Detective 

Fitzgerald of the Montgomery County Policy Department in response to an inquiry from the 

detective. As reflected in Exhibit 933 (which is unredacted), in the redacted portion of the 

e-mail, Ferrer sets forth the extensive work Backpage was undertaking at the time to ferret 

out content on the website associated with illegal conduct, including hiring additional staff 

and working with law enforcement. See Exh. 933 This is yet another example of an exhibit 

where the government has selectively redacted exculpatory information, as well as 

information highly relevant to Defendants’ (and Ferrer’s) belief that Backpage was operating 

in compliance with the law. 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 9 of 11
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

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the above, the Court should scrutinize and ultimately preclude exhibits 

where (1) Mr. Ferrer clearly lacks foundation and (2) the government has selectively and 

inconsistently applied redactions, redactions which will obscure for the jury the entire 

contents of emails and prejudice the defense. There are several other instances of redacted 

exhibits (see, e.g., Exh. 1895c; the unredacted version of the exhibit can be found at Exh. 

588); this brief is merely intended to preview for the Court issues that it will need to address 

throughout Mr. Ferrer’s testimony. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of September, 2023, 

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

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (Jan. 

2020) § II (C) (3), Paul J. Cambria hereby attests that all other signatories listed, and on whose behalf this 

filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized its filing.

Gary S. Lincenberg

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

By: /s/ Gary Lincenberg 

Gary Lincenberg

Attorneys for John Brunst

Eric W. Kessler

KESSLER LAW OFFICE

By: /s/ Eric W. Kessler 

Eric W. Kessler

Attorneys for Scott Spear

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 10 of 11
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

Bruce Feder

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce Feder 

Bruce Feder

Attorneys for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.

By: /s/ David Eisenberg 

David Eisenberg

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

 Joy Bertrand

JOY BERTRAND, ESQ.

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand 

Joy Bertrand

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

On September 6, 2023, 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 to the CM/ECF registrants who have 

entered their appearance as counsel of record

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1758 Filed 09/06/23 Page 11 of 11