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

3739381.1

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT SUBMISSION OF TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) tbienert@bmkattorneys.com 

Whitney Z. Bernstein (admitted pro hac vice) wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com 

BIENERT KATZMAN, PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

San Clemente, CA 92673

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) pcambria@lglaw.com 

Erin McCampbell (admitted pro hac vice) emccampbell@lglaw.com 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

[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. 

CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT SUBMISSION 

OF PROPOSED STATEMENT OF 

THE CASE, VERDICT FORM, AND 

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Assigned to Hon. Susan M. Brnovich, Courtroom 506

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 196
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

3739381.1

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT SUBMISSION OF TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice) glincenberg@birdmarella.com 

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice) aneuman@birdmarella.com 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice) gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832) 

 bf@federlawpa.com 

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218)

 david@deisenbergplc.com 

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 237-5076

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla 

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181) 

 joy.bertrand@gmail.com 

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Telephone: (602)374-5321

Facsimile: (480)361-4694

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 196
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

3739381.1 1

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT SUBMISSION OF TRIAL DOCUMENTS

Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, John Brunst, Scott Spear, Andrew Padilla, 

and Joye Vaught (“Defendants”) hereby submit their Proposed Statement of the Case, 

Proposed Verdict Form, and Proposed Jury Instructions. As to the statement of the case and 

verdict form, the defense submits revised versions of the government’s proposed documents. 

Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the government’s proposed Joint Statement of the Case 

with Defendants’ redlined edits. Attached as Exhibit B is a clean copy of Defendants’ 

Proposed Statement of the Case. Attached as Exhibit C is a copy of the government’s 

proposed Verdict Form with Defendants’ redlined edits. Attached as Exhibit D is a clean 

copy of the Defendants’ Proposed Verdict Form. The government indicated that it does not 

believe “it would be beneficial to exchange further drafts” of these documents and that “it 

would be appropriate for both sides to simply file their versions ahead of the final pretrial 

conference.” Exh. E (7/28/21 e-mail correspondence between A. Stone and W. Bernstein). 

As to the jury instructions, given how far apart the parties are with respect to the 

instructions, Defendants have not redlined the government’s proposed instructions. Attached 

as Exhibit F is a copy of Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions. This prosecution of first 

impression charges Defendants with a novel, unprecedented theory of culpability that has 

never been put to any jury. Defendants must know the legal instructions that will guide the 

jurors to competently present their defense, deliver opening arguments, and cross examine the 

government’s witnesses. Unsurprisingly, Defendants and the government have dramatically 

different views of the jury instructions the Court should give. Because of this, and because of 

the importance of a jury charge conference prior to opening arguments and the government’s 

case-in-chief, Defendants request that the Court set aside sufficient time to address the jury 

instructions ahead of trial.

Defendants have been ready to file their proposed jury instructions, but have been 

waiting for the government to meet and confer. The parties previously agreed on a schedule 

to exchange proposed instructions. Under the agreed-upon schedule, Defendants were to 

provide their proposed instructions to the government by June 15, 2021, the parties would 

continue to meet and confer, and the government would file any joint documents on July 26, 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 3 of 196
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

3739381.1 2

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT SUBMISSION OF TRIAL DOCUMENTS

2021. Exh. E. Defendants adhered to this schedule. However, as of this filing, the 

government still has not responded to Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions. Id. It also 

has not committed to a date certain on which it will provide the defense with its comments to 

Defendants’ proposed jury instructions. Id. 

Because the trial is rapidly approaching, and so that the Court has ample time to 

consider the parties’ proposed jury instructions, Defendants have attached their Proposed Jury 

Instructions to this submission and respectfully request sufficient time for a hearing before 

August 23, 2021, to discuss their proposed instructions.

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

(October 2020) § II (C) (3), Gary S. Lincenberg 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.

DATED: August 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Bienert | Katzman PC

By: /s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin

DATED: August 5, 2021 Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

By: /s/ Gary S. Lincenberg

Gary S. Lincenberg

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 4 of 196
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

3739381.1 3

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT SUBMISSION OF TRIAL DOCUMENTS

DATED: August 5, 2021 Paul J. Cambria

Erin McCampbell

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria

Paul J. Cambria

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

DATED: August 5, 2021 Feder Law Office, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce S. Feder

Bruce S. Feder

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

DATED: August 5, 2021 The Law Office of David Eisenberg, PLC

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

DATED: August 5, 2021 Joy Bertrand Esq. LLC

By: /s/ Joy Malby Bertrand

Joy Malby Bertrand 

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 5 of 196
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 6 of 196
3739462.1 - 1 -

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

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov) Assistant U.S. Attorneys

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

JOHN J. KUCERA (Cal. Bar No. 274184, john.kucera@usdoj.gov) Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1200

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone (213) 894-3391

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKI 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone (202) 616-2807 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 7 of 196
3739462.1 - 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

The parties submit the following Joint Statement of the Case and respectfully 

request the following be read to the jury in lieu of the Superseding Indictment:

This is a criminal case brought by the United States government. On July 25, 2018, 

a federal grand jury returned a 100-count superseding indictment charging six defendants:

Michael Lacey, James (Jim) Larkin, John “Jed” Brunst, Scott Spear, Andrew Padilla and 

Joye Vaught are charged with all or some of the following charges: (1) conspiracy to 

commit violations of the Travel Act by promoting or facilitating the promotion of 

prostitution; (2) violations of the Travel Act; (3) conspiracy to commit money laundering; 

(4) concealment money laundering; (5) international promotional money laundering; (6) 

transactional money laundering; and (7) international concealment money 

launderingvarious crimes related to their alleged roles in the creation, ownership,

development, and management of the website www.backpage.comwww. Backpage.com. 

Each defendant has pleaded not guilty to all charges and is presumed innocent. The United 

States has the burden of proving an individual guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The Superseding Indictment alleges that Backpage.com was an online classified

advertising website. The government alleges that the defendants, in their various roles 

related to the website, agreed to and did knowingly and intentionally facilitated specific 

business enterprises involving prostitution offenses. The defendants deny these 

allegations.

The government alleges that the defendants also agreed to and did engage in various 

financial transactions designed to conceal or promote the conduct at Backpage.com that 

the government alleges was criminal. The defendants deny these allegations. that was 

well known for being the internet’s leading source of prostitution advertisements, including 

child sex trafficking. Backpage had markets in nearly every major city in the United States 

where prostitutes, pimps and traffickers could pay to post advertisements on 

www.backpage.com. The postings were thinly veiled solicitations for sex for money. 

Backpage derived the overwhelming majority of its revenue from these ads. These 

practices enabled Backpage to earn over $500 million in prostitution-related revenue 

during its fourteen years of existence.

Formatted: Default

Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default

Paragraph Font

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 8 of 196
3739462.1 - 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

Backpage was created in 2004 by defendants Michael Lacey (who at times held 

approximately a 45% ownership interest in Backpage), James Larkin (who at times held 

approximately a 43% ownership interest in Backpage), and a third individual, Carl Ferrer. 

Defendant Spear (who at times held approximately a 4% ownership interest in Backpage) 

served as Executive Vice President of one of Backpage’s parent companies. Defendant

Brunst (who at times held approximately a 4% ownership interest in Backpage) served as 

the Chief Financial Officer of Backpage. Defendants Padilla and Vaught served as 

Backpage’s Operation Manager and Assistant Operations Manager, respectively. Between 

2004 through 2015, Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin oversaw the website’s policy and strategic 

direction. In or around April 2015, Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Spear, and Brunst claimed 

to sell their interest in Backpage. However, they retained a significant financial interest 

and operational control over the website after the sale. They also continued to receive 

millions of dollars from Backpage. 

Michael Lacey is charged in the superseding indictment with Count 1, Conspiracy 

to Violate the Travel Act; Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act by Facilitating 

Prostitution; Counts 53-62, Concealment Money Laundering; Counts 63-68, International 

Promotional Money Laundering; Counts 69-70, 81, 83-84, 86, 88-92, and 94-99, 

Transactional Money Laundering; and Count 100, International Concealment Money 

Laundering. 

James Larkin is charged in the superseding indictment with Count 1, Conspiracy to 

Violate the Travel Act; Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act by Facilitating 

Prostitution; Count 52, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering; Counts 53-62, 

Concealment Money Laundering; Counts 63-68, International Promotional Money 

Laundering; and Counts 80 and 87, Transactional Money Laundering.

Scott Spear is charged in the superseding indictment with Count 1, Conspiracy to 

Violate the Travel Act; Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act by Facilitating 

Prostitution; Count 52, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering; Counts 53-62, 

Concealment Money Laundering; Counts 63-68, International Promotional Money 

Laundering; and Counts 71-78, 85 and 93, Transactional Money Laundering. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 9 of 196
3739462.1 - 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

John “Jed” Brunst is charged in the superseding indictment with Count 1, 

Conspiracy to Violate the Travel Act; Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act by 

Facilitating Prostitution; Count 52, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering; Counts 53-

62, Concealment Money Laundering; Counts 63-68, International Promotional Money 

Laundering; and Counts 69-70, 78-84, and 86-93, Transactional Money Laundering. 

Andrew Padilla and Joye Vaught are charged in the superseding indictment with 

Count 1, Conspiracy to Violate the Travel Act; and Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel 

Act. 

The United States alleges the Defendants were aware that the vast majority of the 

“adult” and “escort” ads appearing on Backpage were actually prostitution ads and took 

steps to intentionally promote and facilitate that illegal activity. During Backpage’s early 

years, the company’s employees were trained to identify prostitutes who were posting ads 

on rival websites and to create free ads on Backpage for them in an attempt to recruit the 

prostitutes’ future business. These affirmative content-creation efforts were described 

internally as “content aggregation” or the “Dallas Plan,” and was vital to Backpage’s early 

growth and success. 

The United States alleges that Backpage employed other business strategies 

specifically designed to promote and facilitate prostitution. For example, for several years, 

Backpage had a reciprocal link agreement with The Erotic Review (“TER”). TER was a 

website where customers could post explicit “reviews” of their encounters with prostitutes, 

including descriptions of prices charged for particular sex acts. Backpage paid thousands 

of dollars to TER in return for assistance in getting TER’s customer base to start using 

Backpage. 

In addition to creating prostitution-related content, the United States alleges that 

Backpage utilized a variety of strategies to conceal the true nature of the ads being posted 

on its website. At times, Backpage employed computerized filters and human moderators 

to edit or block ads that explicitly offered sexual services for a fee. Internal company 

emails suggest, that despite these editing practices, Defendants were well aware that the 

overwhelming majority of the website’s ads still involved prostitution.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 10 of 196
3739462.1 - 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

Asthe years passed, Backpage received increased criticism from anti-sex trafficking 

organizations, child advocacy groups like the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children (NCMEC), and the state attorneys general due to the number of ads featuring 

child sex trafficking. Publicly, Backpage sought to create the perception that it was 

diligently attempting to prevent the publication of such ads while declining – for financial 

reasons – to take necessary steps to address the problem. 

The United States alleges that the vast majority of Backpage’s revenue represented 

the proceeds of illegal activity. In fact, by 2015, the major credit card companies stopped 

processing payments for Backpage and some banks closed Backpage’s accounts out of 

concern they were being used for illegal purposes. In response, the United States alleges 

Defendants began to pursue an array of money laundering strategies. For example, 

Defendants instructed customers to send checks or money orders to a post office box, 

deposited the payments into bank accounts held in the names of entities with no apparent 

connection to Backpage, and then gave customers “credits” on Backpage to purchase new 

ads. Defendants also wired Backpage’s proceeds to bank accounts in foreign countries and 

redistributed the funds to Defendants as compensation or redeposited the funds in bank 

accounts held in the United States. 

In or around April 2015, Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Spear, and Brunst appeared to 

sell their ownership interests in Backpage and several related entities for around $600 

million to various Dutch entities. In reality, the Dutch entities were controlled by 

Backpage’s Chief Executive Officer Carl Ferrer, who “borrowed” approximately $600 

million from entities controlled by the four Defendants to finance the purchase. As a result 

of this financial arrangement, Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Spear, and Brunst retained 

significant financial interest and operational control of Backpage after the transactions 

were completed. 

In January 2017, after conducting a lengthy investigation, the United States Senate 

Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations issued a 50-page report entitled 

“Backpage.com’s Knowing Facilitating of Online Sex Trafficking.” In response to this 

report, Backpage claimed to shut down the “adult” section of its website. However, all that 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 11 of 196
3739462.1 - 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

meant was that the prostitution ads migrated to other sections of the website, where they 

remained until the website was shut down by federal law enforcement authorities in April 

2018. 

While thousands, if not millions of women were sexually exploited and sold for sex 

on Backpage, for purposes of the Superseding Indictment, the United States has identified 

17 specific victims who posted, or had posted on their behalf, ads offering sexual services 

for money. Of the 17 victims, five were children at the time their ads were posted on 

Backpage. 

Respectfully submitted this _____ day of ___________, 2020.

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

s/ Kevin M. Rapp

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

JOHN J. KUCERA

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKI 

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 12 of 196
3739462.1 - 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on _____________,_____, 2020. I electronically transmitted 

the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered 

their appearance as counsel of record.

s/ ____________________

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 13 of 196
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 14 of 196
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

3739462.3

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) tbienert@bmkattorneys.com 

Whitney Z. Bernstein (admitted pro hac vice) wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com 

BIENERT KATZMAN, PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

San Clemente, CA 92673

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) pcambria@lglaw.com 

Erin McCampbell (admitted pro hac vice) emccampbell@lglaw.com 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

[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. 

CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-SMB

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE 

CASE

Assigned to Hon. Susan M. Brnovich, 

Courtroom 506

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 15 of 196
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

3739462.3 2

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice) glincenberg@birdmarella.com 

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice) aneuman@birdmarella.com 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice) gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832) 

 bf@federlawpa.com

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218)

 david@deisenbergplc.com 

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 237-5076

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla 

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181) 

 joy.bertrand@gmail.com 

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Telephone: (602)374-5321

Facsimile: (480)361-4694

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 16 of 196
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

3739462.3 3

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a criminal case brought by the United States government. Michael Lacey, James 

(Jim) Larkin, John “Jed” Brunst, Scott Spear, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught are charged 

with various crimes related to their alleged roles in the creation, ownership, development, and 

management of the website Backpage.com. Each defendant has pleaded not guilty to all 

charges and is presumed innocent. The United States has the burden of proving an individual 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Backpage.com was an online classified advertising website. The government alleges 

that the defendants, in their various roles related to the website, agreed to and did knowingly 

and intentionally facilitate specific business enterprises involving prostitution offenses. The 

defendants deny these allegations. 

The government alleges that the defendants also agreed to and did engage in various 

financial transactions designed to conceal or promote the conduct at Backpage.com that the 

government alleges was criminal. The defendants deny these allegations. 

Michael Lacey is charged in the superseding indictment with Count 1, Conspiracy to 

Violate the Travel Act; Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act by Facilitating Prostitution;

Counts 53-62, Concealment Money Laundering; Counts 63-68, International Promotional 

Money Laundering; Counts 69-70, 81, 83-84, 86, 88-92, and 94-99, Transactional Money 

Laundering; and Count 100, International Concealment Money Laundering. 

James Larkin is charged in the superseding indictment with Count 1, Conspiracy to 

Violate the Travel Act; Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act by Facilitating Prostitution; 

Count 52, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering; Counts 53-62, Concealment Money 

Laundering; Counts 63-68, International Promotional Money Laundering; and Counts 80 and 

87, Transactional Money Laundering. 

Scott Spear is charged in the superseding indictment with Count 1, Conspiracy to 

Violate the Travel Act; Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act by Facilitating Prostitution; 

Count 52, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering; Counts 53-62, Concealment Money 

Laundering; Counts 63-68, International Promotional Money Laundering; and Counts 71-78, 

85 and 93, Transactional Money Laundering. 

John “Jed” Brunst is charged in the superseding indictment with Count 1, Conspiracy 

to Violate the Travel Act; Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act by Facilitating 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 17 of 196
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

3739462.3 4

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Prostitution; Count 52, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering; Counts 53-62, 

Concealment Money Laundering; Counts 63-68, International Promotional Money 

Laundering; and Counts 69-70, 78-84, and 86-93, Transactional Money Laundering. 

Andrew Padilla and Joye Vaught are charged in the superseding indictment with 

Count 1, Conspiracy to Violate the Travel Act; and Counts 2-51, Violations of the Travel Act. 

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

(October 2020) § II (C) (3), Gary S. Lincenberg 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.

DATED: August 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

Bienert | Katzman PC

By: /s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin

DATED: August 5, 2021 Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

By: /s/ Gary S. Lincenberg

Gary S. Lincenberg

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

DATED: August 5, 2021 Paul J. Cambria

Erin McCampbell

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria

Paul J. Cambria

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 18 of 196
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

3739462.3 5

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

DATED: August 5, 2021 Feder Law Office, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce S. Feder

Bruce S. Feder

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

DATED: August 5, 2021 The Law Office of David Eisenberg, PLC

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

DATED: August 5, 2021 Joy Bertrand Esq. LLC

By: /s/ Joy Malby Bertrand

Joy Malby Bertrand 

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 19 of 196
EXHIBIT C

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 20 of 196
3739464.1

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

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov)

JOHN J. KUCERA (Cal. Bar No. 274184, john.kucera@usdoj.gov) Assistant U.S. Attorneys

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKI 

Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone (202) 616-2807 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

1. Michael Lacey,

2. James Larkin, 

3. Scott Spear, 

4. John “Jed” Brunst, 

6. Andrew Padilla, 

7. Joye Vaught, 

 

Defendants.

CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

VERDICT FORM

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 21 of 196
3739464.1 - 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

We, the Jury, find the defendants, Michael Lacey, James Larkin, Scott Spear, John 

“Jed” Brunst, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught, as to the charges of the Indictment:

CONSPIRACY

18 U.S.C. § 371

COUNT 1

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Travel Act – Facilitate Prostitution

18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A)

COUNTS 2-51

Count 2: Concerning an ad published on Sept. 10, 2013

Date Description 

Sept. 10, 2013 Publish ad depicting Victim 5 entitled “Get freaky 

Tuesday . . Come spend ur day with us – 19,” with 

accompanying text “Doin incalls and outcalls”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Formatted Table

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 22 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 3: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 27, 2014

Date Description 

Jan. 27, 2014 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 4: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 29, 2014

Date Description 

Jan. 29, 2014 Publish ad depicting Victim 8 entitled “Puerto Rican 

mami in walpole area INCALLS – 19” after deleting one 

picture from the originally – submitted ad

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 23 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 5: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2014

Date Description 

Jan. 31, 2014 Publish ad depicting Victim 8 entitled “Exotic latina, 

south portland area, ready to play, INCALLS, 30 min 

specials!!! – 19” after deleting one picture from 

originally submitted ad

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 6: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 6, 2014

Date Description 

Feb. 6, 2014 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “75 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

• r Formatted-Table

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 24 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 7: Concerning an ad published on Apr. 20, 2014

Date Description 

Apr. 20, 2014 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 8: Concerning an ad published on May 7, 2014

Date Description 

May 7, 2014 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY 

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 25 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 9: Concerning an ad published on May 31, 2014

Date Description 

May 31, 2014 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 10: Concerning an ad published on July 1, 2014

Date Description 

July 1, 2014 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 26 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 11: Concerning an ad published on Aug. 19, 2014

Date Description 

Aug. 19, 2014 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 12: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 23, 2014

Date Description 

Nov. 23, 2014 Publish ad depicting Victim 10 entitled “New in Town 

Super Hot Skinny Mixed Cuban Girl With Long Black 

Hair – 18” after deleting picture from originallysubmitted ad

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 27 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 13: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 29, 2015

Date Description 

Jan 29, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 12 entitled “New in Town 

Sexy Dark Asian Bombshell with Nice & Tight {Booty} 

– 23” after deleting one picture from the originallysubmitted ad

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 14: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2015

Date Description 

Jan. 31, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 10 entitled “NEW IN 

TOWN sexy sweet European mixed Cuban California 

girl – 21” 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY 

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 28 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 15: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2015

Date Description 

Jan. 31, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 12 entitled “New in Town 

Sexy Dark Asian mixed Bombshell – 23” after deleting 

one picture from the originally-submitted ad

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 16: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 4, 2015

Date Description 

Feb. 4, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 11 entitled “Upscale 

Independent BRUNETTE BOMBSHELL 5-Star Fantasy 

– 26,” after deleting pictures from originally-submitted 

ad

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY 

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 29 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 17: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 18, 2015

Date Description 

Feb. 18, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 11 entitled “Alexis Foxx the 

HOTTEST in town!!!!! – 26” after deleting six pictures 

from the originally-submitted ad

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 18: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 26, 2015

Date Description 

Feb. 26, 2015 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 30 of 196
3739464.1 - 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

Count 19: Concerning an ad published on May 18, 2015

Date Description 

May 18, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 15 entitled “GORGEOUS 

ebony PLAYMATE Perfect Curves...Skills to make ur 

TOES CURL – 19,” after removing one picture of the 

originally-submitted ad, with accompanying text “you 

agree... you are not affiliated with any law enforcement 

agency” and “Incalls & Outcall!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 20: Concerning an ad published on May 19, 2015

Date Description 

May 19, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 15 entitled “Hot & Driping 

Submissive Ebony Playmates – 20,” after removing one 

picture of the originally-submitted ad, with 

accompanying text “you agree ... you are not affiliated 

with any law enforcement agency” and “We’re ready to 

please and accommodate all of your needs and wants!! 

With a mouth that’ll ROCK your [] and a [picture of cat] 

that’ll leave you purring for more”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 31 of 196
3739464.1 - 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

Count 21: Concerning an ad published on July 1, 2015

Date Description 

July 1, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 17 entitled “AbSoLuTeLy 

AmAZiNg CoMe PLaY WiTh Me #1 MoST WaNtEd 

SwEeT SEXii PlAymate – 20” with accompanying text 

“By contacting me you agree that you are not affiliated 

with any form of law enforcement,” PERFECT & Will 

satisfy your every need,” and “IN/CALLS – ONLY”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 22: Concerning an ad published on July 2, 2015

Date Description 

July 2, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 17 entitled “SeXy!! Exotic 

playmate Call me! The girl you NEED to See! – 20,” 

with accompanying text “I DO NOT OFFER 40$, 50$, 

60$ SPECIAILS” and “IN/CALLS – ONLY”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 32 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 23: Concerning an ad published on Aug. 13, 2015

Date Description 

Aug. 13, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 13 entitled “Young SEXY 

PUERTO RICAN – 19,” which accompanying text “I do 

half hour sessions that vary in donation prices, 80 for 

head, 120 for hooking up without head and 150 for 

hooking up with head”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 24: Concerning an ad published on Aug. 15, 2015

Date Description 

Aug. 15, 2015 Publish ad depicting Victim 16 entitled “Outcalls Now 

Freaky Curvy Caramel Lady OUTCALLS NOW – 23” 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 33 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Count 25: Concerning an ad published on Sept. 13, 2015

Date Description 

Sept. 13, 2015 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 26: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 28, 2015

Date Description 

Nov. 28, 2015 Publish ad involving P.R. entitled “50 Red R*O*S*E*S 

S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS OUT!!!!!”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 34 of 196
3739464.1 - 15 - 

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 

Count 27: Concerning an ad published on Apr. 21, 2016

Date Description 

Apr. 21, 2016 Publish ad entitled “Finally!! PSE & GFE – Kimber Rae 

and MIA Marie Together BOOK NOW”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 28: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 3, 2016

Date Description 

Nov. 3, 2016 Publish ad entitled “GFEE New – 18”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 35 of 196
3739464.1 - 16 - 

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 

Count 29: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 11, 2016

Date Description 

Nov. 11, 2016 Publish ad entitled “Mind blowing Tiffany, Incall in 

Taunton – 37,” with accompanying text “Soft GFE ... Im 

real and reviewed”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 30: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 14, 2016

Date Description 

Nov. 14, 2016 Publish ad entitled “Top Model 2016 Special ‘Best 

Looking Young Asian’ ... -22,” with accompanying text 

“Sexy Asian Girl Incall Service” and “GFE”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 36 of 196
3739464.1 - 17 -

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

Count 31: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 14, 2016

Date Description 

Nov. 14, 2016 Publish ad entitled “Sometimes It’s All About The 

Journey, And The Destination.....Erectile Dysfunctional 

G F E Provider – 44,” with accompanying text “You can 

find a few current reviews at T3R xxxxxx#” and “I have 

been EROS authenticated” 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 32: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 19, 2016

Date Description 

Nov. 19, 2016 Publish ad entitled “The True (G)irl (F)riend 

(E)xperience Visiting November 27th Sunday ~ PREBOOKING SPECIAIL ~ - 100,” with accompanying text 

“Let’s blur restrictions between financial transaction & 

Romantic Connection”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 37 of 196
3739464.1 - 18 - 

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 

Count 33: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 24, 2016

Date Description 

Nov. 24, 2016 Publish ad entitled “Top Asian Grand Opening 100% 

Young 100% Sexy ... - 23,” with accompanying text 

“BEST INCALL IN TOWN!” and “GFE”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 34: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 26, 2016

Date Description 

Nov. 26, 2016 Publish ad entitled “I LOVE MEN!! I’m a GFE. OutCall 

and Incall with exception on the Incall!! – 42”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 38 of 196
3739464.1 - 19 - 

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 

Count 35: Concerning an ad published on Dec. 20, 2016

Date Description 

Dec. 20, 2016 Publish ad entitled “OMG Sexy Sensual 36DD-24-36 

Stacked College Coed With The Best Mouth Ever! 

BOOK NOW! -24,” with accompanying text “I do ALL 

the things YOU Wish Your Wife Did!!” and “(G).(F).(E) 

30 min/$180”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 36: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 15, 2017

Date Description 

Jan. 15, 2017 Publish ad entitled “Real & Reviewed Girlfriend 

Theonesweet.weebly.com – 30,” with accompanying text 

“250 G F E”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 39 of 196
3739464.1 - 20 - 

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 

Count 37: Concerning an ad published on Apr. 4, 2017

Date Description 

Apr. 4, 2017 Publish ad entitled “KISSING & GFE KOREAN GIRLS 

– 20”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY 

Count 38: Concerning an ad published on Apr. 11, 2017

Date Description 

Apr. 11, 2017 Publish ad entitled “Pettit Sexy #Corey# 4407239339 –

39,” with accompanying text “complete GFE 

experience”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY 

1=-- I1=-- --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 40 of 196
3739464.1 - 21 - 

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 

Count 39: Concerning an ad published on July 3, 2017

Date Description 

July 3, 2017 Publish ad entitled “WANNA HANG OUT NOW 

UpScale New In Town! Call ME now for an 

unforgettable visit – 20,” with accompanying text “100% 

GFE with 100% no Pimps”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 40: Concerning an ad published on July 15, 2017

Date Description 

July 15, 2017 Publish ad entitled “Ready for some fun daddy? This is 

your chance too have a amazing time – 21,” with 

accompanying text “Slim body, nice tits, freaky, GFE”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 41 of 196
3739464.1 - 22 - 

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 

Count 41: Concerning an ad published on July 15, 2017

Date Description 

July 15, 2017 Publish ad entitled “New in town BiGBubble Booty 

SWEETLiPS HOT BODY – 24,” with “GFE” in 

accompanying text

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 42: Concerning an ad published on July 21, 2017

Date Description 

July 21, 2017 Publish ad entitled “Pettit Sexy #Corey# 4407239339 –

30,” with accompanying text “complete GFE 

experience”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 42 of 196
3739464.1 - 23 - 

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 

Count 43: Concerning an ad published on July 23, 2017

Date Description 

July 23, 2017 Publish ad entitled “ASIAN GODDESS young – 20,” 

with accompanying text “100% Discreet service” and 

“#GFE”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 44: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 26, 2018

Date Description 

Jan. 26, 2018 Publish ad entitled “GFE Service Available! Private 

Encounters w/ Pampering Beauty”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 43 of 196
3739464.1 - 24 - 

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 

Count 45: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2018

Date Description 

Jan. 30, 2018 Publish ad entitled “241 & white plans area Carfun 

Perfect Treat Available No Rush,” with “Sweet Sexy 

GFE” in accompanying text

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 46: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 30, 2018

Date Description 

Jan. 30, 2018 Publish ad entitled “GFE REAL HOT Sweet DREAM 

AMAZING BEST RELAX”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 44 of 196
3739464.1 - 25 - 

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 

Count 47: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 30, 2018

Date Description 

Jan. 30, 2018 Publish ad entitled “Tall, Slim & Sexy Luxe Goddess * 

NARCISA * Sensual Body Rub + Fetish Sessions,” with 

accompanying text “gfe Hh:$160 H: $220”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY 

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 48: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2018

Date Description 

Jan. 31, 2018 Publish ad entitled “Exotic Asian Beauty,” with 

accompanying text “I am an independent GFE with 

excellent massage skills”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 45 of 196
3739464.1 - 26 - 

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 

Count 49: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 1, 2018

Date Description 

Feb. 1, 2018 Publish ad entitled “Nuru (Best GFE ever) incall only”

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 50: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 6, 2018

Date Description 

Feb. 6, 2018 Publish ad entitled “Tuesday with Ashleigh. Available 

now,” with “GFE” in accompanying text

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 46 of 196
3739464.1 - 27 - 

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 

Count 51: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 6, 2018

Date Description 

Feb. 6, 2018 Publish ad entitled “GFE Kisskisspop 100% real Photo 

Choice 9Asian girl Nurunude” 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Conspiracy To Commit Money Laundering 

18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)

COUNT 52 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 47 of 196
3739464.1 - 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 

Concealment Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) 

COUNT 53-62 

Count 53: A transaction occurring on May 18, 2016

Date Amount Description 

May 18, 2016 $1,476,505.00 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 54: A transaction occurring on May 18, 2016

Date Amount Description 

May 18, 2016 $264,438.00 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

1=-----

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 48 of 196
3739464.1 - 29 - 

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 

Count 55: A transaction occurring on May 31, 2016

Date Amount Description 

May 31, 2016 $3,171,675.80 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 56: A transaction occurring on May 31, 2016

Date Amount Description 

May 31, 2016 $432,961.87 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 49 of 196
3739464.1 - 30 - 

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 

Count 57: A transaction occurring on June 20, 2016

Date Amount Description 

June 20, 2016 $842,878.00 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 58: A transaction occurring on June 30, 2016

Date Amount Description 

June 30, 2016 $3,076,147.75 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 50 of 196
3739464.1 - 31 - 

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 

Count 59: A transaction occurring on July 27, 2016

Date Amount Description 

July 27, 2016 $3,252,681.62 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 60: A transaction occurring on July 27, 2016

Date Amount Description 

July 27, 2016 $438,818.86 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 51 of 196
3739464.1 - 32 - 

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 

Count 61: A transaction occurring on Aug. 16, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Aug. 16, 2016 $804,250.00 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 62: A transaction occurring on Aug. 31, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Aug. 31, 2016 $3,171,264.42 Website Technologies (x2008) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 52 of 196
3739464.1 - 33 - 

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 

International Promotional Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) 

COUNT 63-68 

Count 63: A transaction occurring on Mar. 4, 2014

Date Amount Description 

Mar. 4, 2014 $6,450.00 U.S. Bank (x1165) to S.B. (web developer 

in India)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 64: A transaction occurring on Aug. 5, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Aug. 5, 2016 $5,005,732.86 Ad Tech B.V. (Netherlands) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=-----

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 53 of 196
3739464.1 - 34 - 

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 

Count 65: A transaction occurring on Sept. 22, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Sept. 22, 2016 $2,916,955.00 Ad Tech B.V. (Netherlands) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 66: A transaction occurring on Oct. 3, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Oct. 3, 2016 $354,050.84 Ad Tech B.V. (Netherlands) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 54 of 196
3739464.1 - 35 - 

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 

Count 67: A transaction occurring on Nov. 2, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Nov. 2, 2016 $2,726,170.00 Ad Tech B.V. (Netherlands) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 68: A transaction occurring on Nov. 15, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Nov. 15, 2016 $351.403.54 Ad Tech B.V. (Netherlands) to Cereus 

Properties (x6211) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY 

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 55 of 196
3739464.1 - 36 - 

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 

Transactional Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1957(a)

COUNT 69-99 

Count 69: A transaction occurring on Aug. 21, 2013

Date Amount Description 

Aug. 21, 2013 $30,000.00 Bank of America (x1793) to Stewart Title 

(partial payment for Sedona property) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 70: A transaction occurring on Sept. 13, 2013

Date Amount Description 

Sept. 13, 2013 $62,491.47 Bank of America (x1793) to Stewart Title 

(partial payment for Sedona property) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 71: A transaction occurring on June 11, 2014

Date Amount Description 

June 11, 2014 $300,000.00 National Bank of Arizona (x0178) to 

Spear Family Trust 

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 56 of 196
3739464.1 - 37 - 

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 

Count 72: A transaction occurring on June 20, 2014

Date Amount Description 

June 20, 2014 $200,000.00 National Bank of Arizona (x0178) to TD 

Ameritrade 

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 73: A transaction occurring on Nov. 4, 2014

Date Amount Description 

Nov. 4, 2014 $1,000,000.00 National Bank of Arizona (x0178) to TD 

Ameritrade

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 74: A transaction occurring on May 15, 2015

Date Amount Description 

May 14, 2015 $250,000.00 National Bank of Arizona (x0178) to 

Lincoln National Life

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 75: A transaction occurring on May 25, 2015

Date Amount Description 

May 26, 2015 $50,000.00 National Bank of Arizona (x0178) to 

Industrial Property Trust 

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY 

1=-----

1=--

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 57 of 196
3739464.1 - 38 - 

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 

Count 76: A transaction occurring on Nov. 3, 2015

Date Amount Description 

Nov. 3, 2015 $300,000.00 National Bank of Arizona (x0178) to Ally 

Bank 

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 77: A transaction occurring on Dec. 1, 2015

Date Amount Description 

Dec. 1, 2015 $200,000.00 National Bank of Arizona (x0178) to 

Wells Fargo

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 78: A transaction occurring on Jan. 11, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Jan. 11, 2016 $133,045.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to National 

Bank of Arizona (x0178) 

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=-----

1=--

I==------

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 58 of 196
3739464.1 - 39 - 

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 

Count 79: A transaction occurring on Jan. 26, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Jan. 26, 2016 $101,974.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Wells Fargo 

(x4891)

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 80: A transaction occurring on Feb. 3, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Feb. 3, 2016 $1,507,944.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Charles 

Schwab

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 81: A transaction occurring on Mar. 1, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Mar. 1, 2016 $1,692,020.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Bank of 

America (x5554)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=-----

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 59 of 196
3739464.1 - 40 - 

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 

Count 82: A transaction occurring on Apr. 1, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Apr. 1, 2016 $220,944.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Wells Fargo 

(x4891) 

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 83: A transaction occurring on June 27, 2016

Date Amount Description 

June 27, 2016 $397,500.00 Arizona Bank & Trust (x1793) to Fidelity 

Title (partial payment for San Francisco 

property) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 84: A transaction occurring on July 20, 2016

Date Amount Description 

July 20, 2016 $12,859,152.57 Arizona Bank & Trust (x1793) to Fidelity 

Title (partial payment for San Francisco 

property) 

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 85: A transaction occurring on July 22, 2016

Date Amount Description 

July 22, 2016 $50,000.00 National Bank of Arizona (x0178) to 

Strategic Storage Trust II

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=-----

1=--

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 60 of 196
3739464.1 - 41 - 

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 

Count 86: A transaction occurring on Aug. 2, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Aug. 2, 2016 $16,243.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Wells Fargo 

(x0495)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 87: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Oct. 6, 2016 $1,206,356.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Charles 

Schwab (x4693)

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 88: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Oct. 6, 2016 $268,016.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Arizona 

Bank & Trust (x1967)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=-----

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 61 of 196
3739464.1 - 42 - 

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 

Count 89: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Oct. 6, 2016 $268,016.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Arizona 

Bank & Trust (x1972)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 90: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Oct. 6, 2016 $268,016.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Arizona 

Bank & Trust (x1986)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 91: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Oct. 6, 2016 $268,016.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Arizona 

Bank & Trust (x1991)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=-----

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 62 of 196
3739464.1 - 43 - 

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 

Count 92: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Oct. 6, 2016 $268,016.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to Arizona 

Bank & Trust (x2014)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 93: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Oct. 6, 2016 $141,444.00 Cereus Properties (x6211) to National 

Bank of Arizona (x0178)

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 94: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Dec. 29, 2016 $3,300,000.00 Arizona Bank & Trust/Dubuque Bank & 

Trust to Johnson Bank (x9992)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 63 of 196
3739464.1 - 44 - 

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 

Count 95: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Dec. 29, 2016 $3,300,000.00 Arizona Bank & Trust/Dubuque Bank & 

Trust to Johnson Bank (x9992)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 96: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Dec. 29, 2016 $3,300,000.00 Arizona Bank & Trust/Dubuque Bank & 

Trust to Johnson Bank (x9992)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 97: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Dec. 29, 2016 $3,300,000.00 Arizona Bank & Trust/Dubuque Bank & 

Trust to Johnson Bank (x9992)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 98: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Date Amount Description 

Dec. 29, 2016 $3,300,000.00 Arizona Bank & Trust/Dubuque Bank & 

Trust to Johnson Bank (x9992)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

1=--

1=-----

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 64 of 196
3739464.1 - 45 - 

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 

Count 99: A transaction occurring on Jan. 3, 2017

Date Amount Description 

Jan. 3, 2017 $16,500,000.00 Johnson Bank (x9992) to Primus Trust 

Co./K&H Bank (Hungary)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

International Concealment Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) 

COUNT 100 

Count 100: A transaction occurring on Jan. 3, 2017

Date Amount Description 

Jan. 3, 2017 $16,500,000.00 Johnson Bank (x9992) to Primus Trust 

Co./K&H Bank (Hungary)

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

 

DATE FOREPERSON 

1=--

1=--

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 65 of 196
EXHIBIT D

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 66 of 196
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

3739464.3

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) tbienert@bmkattorneys.com 

Whitney Z. Bernstein (admitted pro hac vice) wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com 

BIENERT KATZMAN, PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

San Clemente, CA 92673

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) pcambria@lglaw.com 

Erin McCampbell (admitted pro hac vice) emccampbell@lglaw.com 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

[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. 

CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-SMB

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Assigned to Hon. Susan M. Brnovich, 

Courtroom 506

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 67 of 196
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

3739464.3 2

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice) glincenberg@birdmarella.com 

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice) aneuman@birdmarella.com 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice) gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832) 

 bf@federlawpa.com 

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218)

 david@deisenbergplc.com 

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 237-5076

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla 

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181) 

 joy.bertrand@gmail.com 

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Telephone: (602)374-5321

Facsimile: (480)361-4694

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 68 of 196
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

3739464.3 1

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

We, the Jury, find the Defendants, Michael Lacey, James Larkin, Scott Spear, John 

“Jed” Brunst, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught, as to the charges of the Indictment: 

CONSPIRACY

18 U.S.C. § 371

COUNT 1

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Travel Act – Facilitate Prostitution

18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A)

COUNTS 2-51

Count 2: Concerning an ad published on Sept. 10, 2013

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 3: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 27, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 69 of 196
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

3739464.3 2

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 4: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 29, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 5: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 6: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 6, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 70 of 196
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

3739464.3 3

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 7: Concerning an ad published on Apr. 20, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 8: Concerning an ad published on May 7, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 9: Concerning an ad published on May 31, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 71 of 196
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

3739464.3 4

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 10: Concerning an ad published on July 1, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 11: Concerning an ad published on Aug. 19, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 12: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 23, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 72 of 196
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

3739464.3 5

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 13: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 29, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 14: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 15: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 73 of 196
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

3739464.3 6

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 16: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 4, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 17: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 18, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 18: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 26, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 74 of 196
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

3739464.3 7

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 19: Concerning an ad published on May 18, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 20: Concerning an ad published on May 19, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 21: Concerning an ad published on July 1, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 75 of 196
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

3739464.3 8

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 22: Concerning an ad published on July 2, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 23: Concerning an ad published on Aug. 13, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 24: Concerning an ad published on Aug. 15, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 76 of 196
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

3739464.3 9

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 25: Concerning an ad published on Sept. 13, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 26: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 28, 2015

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 27: Concerning an ad published on Apr. 21, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 77 of 196
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

3739464.3 10

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 28: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 3, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 29: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 11, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 30: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 14, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 78 of 196
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

3739464.3 11

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 31: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 14, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 32: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 19, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 33: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 24, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 79 of 196
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

3739464.3 12

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 34: Concerning an ad published on Nov. 26, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 35: Concerning an ad published on Dec. 20, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 36: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 15, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 80 of 196
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

3739464.3 13

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 37: Concerning an ad published on Apr. 4, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 38: Concerning an ad published on Apr. 11, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 39: Concerning an ad published on July 3, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 81 of 196
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

3739464.3 14

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 40: Concerning an ad published on July 15, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 41: Concerning an ad published on July 15, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 42: Concerning an ad published on July 21, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 82 of 196
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

3739464.3 15

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 43: Concerning an ad published on July 23, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 44: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 26, 2018

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 45: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2018

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 83 of 196
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

3739464.3 16

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 46: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 30, 2018

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 47: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 30, 2018

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 48: Concerning an ad published on Jan. 31, 2018

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 84 of 196
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

3739464.3 17

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 49: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 1, 2018

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 50: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 6, 2018

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 51: Concerning an ad published on Feb. 6, 2018

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Andrew Padilla ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Joye Vaught ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 85 of 196
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

3739464.3 18

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)

COUNT 52

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Concealment Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)

COUNT 53-62

Count 53: A transaction occurring on May 18, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 54: A transaction occurring on May 18, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 55: A transaction occurring on May 31, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 86 of 196
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

3739464.3 19

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 56: A transaction occurring on May 31, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 57: A transaction occurring on June 20, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 58: A transaction occurring on June 30, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 59: A transaction occurring on July 27, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 87 of 196
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

3739464.3 20

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 60: A transaction occurring on July 27, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 61: A transaction occurring on Aug. 16, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 62: A transaction occurring on Aug. 31, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

International Promotional Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) 

COUNT 63-68

Count 63: A transaction occurring on Mar. 4, 2014

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 88 of 196
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

3739464.3 21

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 64: A transaction occurring on Aug. 5, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 65: A transaction occurring on Sept. 22, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 66: A transaction occurring on Oct. 3, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 67: A transaction occurring on Nov. 2, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 89 of 196
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

3739464.3 22

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 68: A transaction occurring on Nov. 15, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Transactional Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1957(a)

COUNT 69-99

Count 69: A transaction occurring on Aug. 21, 2013

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 70: A transaction occurring on Sept. 13, 2013

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 71: A transaction occurring on June 11, 2014

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 72: A transaction occurring on June 20, 2014

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 73: A transaction occurring on Nov. 4, 2014

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 90 of 196
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

3739464.3 23

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 74: A transaction occurring on May 15, 2015

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 75: A transaction occurring on May 25, 2015

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 76: A transaction occurring on Nov. 3, 2015

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 77: A transaction occurring on Dec. 1, 2015

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 78: A transaction occurring on Jan. 11, 2016

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 79: A transaction occurring on Jan. 26, 2016

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 80: A transaction occurring on Feb. 3, 2016

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 91 of 196
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

3739464.3 24

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 81: A transaction occurring on Mar. 1, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 82: A transaction occurring on Apr. 1, 2016

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 83: A transaction occurring on June 27, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 84: A transaction occurring on July 20, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 85: A transaction occurring on July 22, 2016

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 86: A transaction occurring on Aug. 2, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 87: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

James Larkin ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 92 of 196
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

3739464.3 25

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 88: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 89: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 90: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 91: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 92: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 93: A transaction occurring on Oct. 6, 2016

Scott Spear ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

John “Jed” Brunst ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 94: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 93 of 196
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

3739464.3 26

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Count 95: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 96: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 97: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 98: A transaction occurring on Dec. 29, 2016

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

Count 99: A transaction occurring on Jan. 3, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

International Concealment Money Laundering

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)

COUNT 100

Count 100: A transaction occurring on Jan. 3, 2017

Michael Lacey ________ GUILTY _________ NOT GUILTY

 

DATE FOREPERSON

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 94 of 196
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

3739464.3 27

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

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

(October 2020) § II (C) (3), Gary S. Lincenberg 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.

DATED: August 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

Bienert | Katzman PC

By: /s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin

DATED: August 5, 2021 Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

By: /s/ Gary S. Lincenberg

Gary S. Lincenberg

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

DATED: August 5, 2021 Paul J. Cambria

Erin McCampbell

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria

Paul J. Cambria

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

DATED: August 5, 2021 Feder Law Office, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce S. Feder

Bruce S. Feder

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 95 of 196
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

3739464.3 28

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

DATED: August 5, 2021 The Law Office of David Eisenberg, PLC

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

DATED: August 5, 2021 Joy Bertrand Esq. LLC

By: /s/ Joy Malby Bertrand

Joy Malby Bertrand 

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 96 of 196
EXHIBIT E

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 97 of 196
From: Stone, Andrew (USAAZ)

To: Whitney Bernstein; Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ); Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg; Ariel A. Neuman; Paul Cambria; Erin McCampbell Paris; Bruce Feder; David Eisenberg; Joy

Bertrand; Thomas H. Bienert; Toni Thomas; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ); Jones, Reginald (CRM); Perlmeter,

Margaret (USAAZ); Boyle, Daniel (USACAC)

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 11:00:35 AM

Whitney,

We are responding to your 16 case specific instructions. We are examining the changes you made to

the model instructions we proposed and determining whether we agree with your proposed

changes. And, because it’s been over a year since we drafted the instructions, we are revisiting

some of our original instructions. It’s a time consuming task and because your instructions were

sent to us two months before trial during our busiest trial preparation period, it’s taking us longer

than it would have if you had sent them earlier.

We will do our best to send you our response and revisions in advance of August 9.

Thanks,

Andy

From: Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bklwlaw.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:37 PM

To: Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <AStone1@usa.doj.gov>; Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>;

Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bklwlaw.com>; Toni Thomas <tthomas@bklwlaw.com>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ)

<PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>; Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter,

Margaret (USAAZ) <MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Thanks, Andy. We’ll get our draft statement of the case and verdict form filed. The July 26

submission date was proposed by you – we simply agreed (see the below emails) – and we adhered

to that agreed upon modified schedule. We want to discuss all of these documents, and especially

the jury instructions, with the Court at the August 9 hearing, so we want them submitted well in

advance. What type of update is the government planning to send us, and by when will the

government send it? 

Thanks,

Whitney

Whitney Z. Bernstein | Partner

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 98 of 196
Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP

Website | vCard | Profile

From: Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 3:59 PM

To: Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bklwlaw.com>; Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov>;

Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bklwlaw.com>; Toni Thomas <tthomas@bklwlaw.com>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ)

<Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>; Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter,

Margaret (USAAZ) <Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC)

<Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Whitney,

Thanks for the email.

We’ve reviewed Defendants’ drafts of these documents. With respect to the proposed statement of

the case, we don’t believe it would be beneficial to exchange further drafts. We think it would be

appropriate for both sides to simply file their versions ahead of the final pretrial conference to

permit the Court to make its determination.

With respect to the verdict form, again we think the parties are too far apart to exchange any further

drafts. We proposed simply filing our different versions and Judge Brnovich can make a ruling.

We are still evaluating the jury instructions. As a reminder, we sent our draft to you in June 2020.

As you note below, you didn’t send us your response for 12 months. Accordingly, we plan on

continuing to work on these instructions and will send you another update when we have completed

them. We anticipate being able to submit these to the Court before the final pretrial conference in

two weeks.

Thanks,

Andy

From: Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bklwlaw.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 3:47 PM

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>; Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>;

Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <AStone1@usa.doj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 99 of 196
<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bklwlaw.com>; Toni Thomas <tthomas@bklwlaw.com>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ)

<PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>; Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter,

Margaret (USAAZ) <MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Hi Kevin, Andy, Peter, Peggy, Reggie, & Dan:

We sent you our draft jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the case on June 15. We

asked to meet and confer further if necessary to create the parties’ joint submission. The

government has not contacted the defense once in the past six weeks to discuss these documents.

Accordingly, we understand that the government is amenable to using the drafts that we sent six

weeks ago (reattached here for easy reference). We are glad to be able to streamline these issues

for the Court. As discussed in the lengthy thread below, the joint submission was supposed to have

been made yesterday. Did the government submit these? We did not receive a copy, so please

send.

Thank you,

Whitney

Whitney Z. Bernstein | Partner

Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP

Website | vCard | Profile

From: Whitney Bernstein 

Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 9:20 PM

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov>; Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>;

Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bklwlaw.com>; Toni Thomas <tthomas@bklwlaw.com>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ)

<Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>; Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter,

Margaret (USAAZ) <Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC)

<Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Hi Kevin, Andy, Peter, Peggy, Reggie, & Dan:

Attached are the defense’s redlines to the government’s proposed statement of the case and verdict

form. Also attached are defendants’ proposed jury instructions, as redlining would not have been of

much value. This document replicates the tables that the government had in its proposed

instructions, but does not repeat any of the ST instructions in the body of this document. We look

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 100 of 196
forward to continuing to meet and confer with the government on these documents, though we

may ultimately have to file different versions.

Finally, we would like the Court to take up these documents at the final pretrial conference on July

16, and hope we can work together to submit everything well in advance of that hearing.

Thank you,

Whitney

Whitney Z. Bernstein | Partner

Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP

Website | vCard | Profile

From: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 4:51 PM

To: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>; Stone, Andrew (USAAZ)

<Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bklwlaw.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bklwlaw.com>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ)

<Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>; Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter,

Margaret (USAAZ) <Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC)

<Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Gopi,

I notice a modest error in my previous email. The two extra business days for comments to trial

documents would be 15 June as recommended in your email. Thanks.

Kevin

From: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) 

Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 4:34 PM

To: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>; Stone, Andrew (USAAZ)

<AStone1@usa.doj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Kozinets,

Peter (USAAZ) <PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>; Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>;

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 101 of 196
Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ) <MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC)

<DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Gopi,

Thanks for the email. Andy is not available until this Friday. You should, however, continue to contact

him directly prior to and during trial as he will be a point of contact for issues involving Defendant

Brunst. The other defendants have been advised of a specific AUSA they should contact with

various issues.

With respect to the jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the case we have no

objection to two extra business days (15 July) to submit comments.

We welcome a discussion with the court regarding when final exhibit and witness lists should be

exchanged.

We are well-aware of all of the Court’s orders on motions in limine in this case and intend to adhere

to them. And we’re sure you intend to do the same.

As for early disclosure of the witnesses, we would be unable to agree to your proposal due to both

the uncertainty of travel schedules, last minute changes in witness order and the length of crossexamination. However, we intend to propose a reciprocal agreement that the parties will provide

notice to the opposing counsel forty-eight hours in advance of the witness the party intends to call.

Importantly, it will also include an agreement that the parties advise opposing counsel of what

exhibits the party intends to ,admit (48 hours in advance) each day the witness testifies. This

process has been used in similar lengthy and complex cases tried in this District to avoid delays

during trial. The agreement would include that opposing counsel advise the court before the

witness testifies what the specific objection is to an exhibit(s). Lastly, we are also willing to discuss

whether the defense would be interested in exchanging disks with all exhibits on the final lists

shortly before trial so the parties may load the exhibits into the trial presentation platform they

intend to use during trial.

All the best,

Kevin M. Rapp| Assistant U.S. Attorney

Financial Crimes Section

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of the United States Attorney

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004

602.514.7609, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 102 of 196
From: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 3:11 PM

To: Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <AStone1@usa.doj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Rapp,

Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>; Jones,

Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Andy,

With respect the jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the case, the defense is willing to

compromise and provide the government with comments by June 15th. Please let us know if that

date works on your end, or whether you still intend to raise the issue with the Court.

As for the exhibit and witness lists, this entire back-and-forth started with the government noting

that it needed additional time to provide its final lists. That the government has provided “working”

copies of its lists in the past – lists that change each time they are provided to us – is not a substitute

for a final list. The defense should not be forced to guess what the government’s final lists will look

like, and then respond to the government’s final lists with one week’s notice. We welcome a

discussion with the Court on this issue. 

Further, with respect to the government’s witness and exhibit lists, please confirm that the

government’s June 9th disclosures will take into account the Court’s orders on the parties’ motions

in limine, including, for example, the Court’s orders limiting the government’s anticipated expert

testimony regarding sex trafficking and testimony from those individuals who were the subject of

advertisements on Backpage.com.

Lastly, in advance of the June 7th status conference, we seek the government’s agreement during

trial to disclose each Wednesday the subsequent week’s anticipated slate of witnesses. Please let us

know if you’re amenable to this arrangement; if not we’ll raise with the Court.

Gopi

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Principal

T: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110

E: gkp@birdmarella.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 103 of 196
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

www.BirdMarella.com

From: Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 3:00 PM

To: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Rapp,

Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>;

Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Gopi,

We think our original dates are more appropriate. We believe 12 months is more than sufficient

time to turn around comments to the jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the case.

Please send us your comments by June 1, 2021. If not, we will raise this issue with the Court on June

7, and ask for an order that you disclose them by no later than Friday, June 11.

Also, we have been sending you working drafts of our exhibit and witness lists since January 2020.

There’s no reason why you can’t provide us with final lists by August 2. We will raise this issue with

the Court on June 7 as well.

Thanks,

Andy

From: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 9:45 AM

To: Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <AStone1@usa.doj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Rapp,

Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>; Jones,

Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 104 of 196
Andy –

We’re generally fine with the schedule you propose with a few exceptions. Defendants agree to

disclose a list of witnesses and exhibits by August 9, which will afford the defense two weeks to

review and respond to the government’s lists. Our August 9th lists are also subject to change as we

are still developing our strategies, and the evidence the defense decides to put on, if any, will

depend on the evidence the government presents in its weeks-long case-in-chief.

As for the joint submission of the jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the case, we are

fine with the July 26th date you propose. But in light of your proposal to push out the submission

date for those documents by over a month, we see no need to provide you with comments on those

documents by next week. We will provide you with our comments to those documents by July 7h,

which should afford the parties ample time to meet and confer in advance of a joint submission.

Under the Court’s prior scheduling order (Dkt. 900), there was a nine-day turnaround between the

Defendants’ comments on those documents and the joint submission of those documents to the

Court -- a nearly three-week window to meet and confer ought to be sufficient.

Gopi

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Principal

T: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110

E: gkp@birdmarella.com

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

www.BirdMarella.com

From: Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 5:14 PM

To: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Rapp,

Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>;

Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 105 of 196
Gopi,

I write to clarify some of the deadlines that are discussed below.

First, while the government will disclose updated exhibit and witness lists by June 9 – those will likely

not be our final lists. On June 9, we will still be 2.5 months away from trial and while we continue to

prep witnesses we may very well add exhibits. In previous Orders (Docs. 1031 and 1068 attached),

the Court required the government to disclose its final exhibit and witness lists about one month

before trial. In Doc. 1031, the Court scheduled the government’s deadline for disclosing the final

exhibit and witness lists to coincide with the final pretrial conference—Dec. 14, 2020 when trial was

scheduled for January 12, 2021. In Doc. 1068, the final pretrial conference was scheduled for March

22, 2021 (when trial was scheduled for April 12), and the government’s final exhibit and witness lists,

along with the joint submission of the jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the case,

were due one week before on March 15. In both instances, Defendants’ disclosure of final exhibit

and witness lists were due one week later.

We think this arrangement makes good sense this time around too.

Second, we do not agree to submit the proposed jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of

the case on June 9. You won’t be sending us your comments to those drafts until June 1. We sent

them to you last June. We will not be submitting these documents to the Court less than ten days

after receiving your comments and proposed changes, after you’ve had the documents for nearly

one year.

To remain consistent with previous orders, we propose July 26, 2021, for the government’s final

exhibit and witness lists, along with the joint submission of the jury instructions, verdict form, and

statement of the case. Defendants’ final exhibit and witness lists would be due the next week –

August 2, 2021.

Please let us know if you’re amenable to these dates. If not, we can raise it with the Court at the

status conference on June 7.

Thanks,

Andy

Andrew C. Stone

Assistant United States Attorney

District of Arizona

602-514-7635

Andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

From: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 11:22 AM

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>;

Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones@CRM.USDOJ.GOV>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 106 of 196
<MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <AStone1@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel

(USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Thanks Kevin. That works on our end.

Gopi

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Principal

T: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110

E: gkp@birdmarella.com

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

www.BirdMarella.com

From: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 10:07 AM

To: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ)

<Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>; Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter,

Margaret (USAAZ) <Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Stone, Andrew (USAAZ)

<Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Gopi,

Hope all is well. We suggest a modest extension of the dates you propose to June 9th for the

final exhibit and witness list,

Parties’ joint submission of proposed jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the case.

That would extend the deadline for Defendant’s final exhibit and witness an additional two

days to June 30th . Let me know if that is acceptable.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 107 of 196
All the best,

Kevin M. Rapp| Assistant U.S. Attorney

Financial Crimes Section

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of the United States Attorney

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004

602.514.7609, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

From: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:58 AM

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>;

Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones@CRM.USDOJ.GOV>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) <AStone1@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel

(USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Kevin – I’m following up on the below. In light of the trial continuance, we propose the following

pre-trial schedule:

Deadline for the government to disclose final exhibit and witness list: June 7, 2021

Parties’ joint submission of proposed jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the

case: June 7, 2021

Deadline for defendants to disclose exhibit and witness list: June 28, 2021

Gopi

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Principal

T: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110

E: gkp@birdmarella.com

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

www.BirdMarella.com

• 

• 

• 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 108 of 196
From: Gopi K. Panchapakesan 

Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 11:29 AM

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ)

<Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>; Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter,

Margaret (USAAZ) <Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Stone, Andrew (USAAZ)

<Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Cc: Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Ariel A. Neuman

<aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris

<emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; David Eisenberg

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; Joy Bertrand <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>; Tom Bienert

<tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Kevin – in light of the fact that the government agrees the trial date should be moved, we’re not

planning on sending comments this week regarding your draft verdict form and jury instructions. 

Gopi

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Principal

T: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110

E: gkp@birdmarella.com

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

www.BirdMarella.com

From: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 10:36 AM

To: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Sure.

From: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com> 

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 10:19 AM

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin

McCampbell Paris <emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bienertkatzman.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Ariel A.

Neuman <aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Feder

Law <fl@federlawpa.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; 'david@deisenbergplc.com'

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; joy.bertrand_gmail.com <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 109 of 196
Cc: Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones@CRM.USDOJ.GOV>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>; Stone, Andrew

(USAAZ) <AStone1@usa.doj.gov>; Kucera, John (USACAC) <jkucera@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel

(USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Kevin –

Given the Court’s recent order continuing the trial date and related pre-trial deadlines, we plan on

providing you with comments to the draft jury instructions and verdict form by February 5, 2021.

Regards,

Gopi

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Principal

T: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110

E: gkp@birdmarella.com

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

www.BirdMarella.com

From: Gopi K. Panchapakesan 

Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 3:12 PM

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin

McCampbell Paris <emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bienertkatzman.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Ariel A.

Neuman <aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Feder

Law <fl@federlawpa.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; 'david@deisenbergplc.com'

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; joy.bertrand_gmail.com <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>

Cc: Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>; Stone,

Andrew (USAAZ) <Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov>; Kucera, John (USACAC) <John.Kucera@usdoj.gov>;

Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Kevin – November 2nd is fine.

Gopi

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 110 of 196
Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Principal

T: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110

E: gkp@birdmarella.com

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

www.BirdMarella.com

From: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 8:55 AM

To: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin

McCampbell Paris <emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bienertkatzman.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Ariel A.

Neuman <aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Feder

Law <fl@federlawpa.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; 'david@deisenbergplc.com'

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; joy.bertrand_gmail.com <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>

Cc: Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>; Stone,

Andrew (USAAZ) <Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov>; Kucera, John (USACAC) <John.Kucera@usdoj.gov>;

Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Gopi:

Thanks for the email and hope all is well with you. We are struggling to understand why responses to

our trial documents would be delayed until December 7th--nearly one month before the

commencement of trial. The defense will have had the documents for five months. We propose that

you provide comments by November 2nd. Accordingly, if you file some type of a request for an

extension please note our objection and, if need be, we will file a separate objection. Thanks.

Best,

Kevin M. Rapp| Assistant U.S. Attorney

Financial Crimes and Public Integrity Section

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of the United States Attorney

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004

602.514.7609, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 111 of 196
From: Gopi K. Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 3:42 PM

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov>; Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin

McCampbell Paris <emccampbell@lglaw.com>; Thomas H. Bienert

<tbienert@bienertkatzman.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Ariel A.

Neuman <aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Feder

Law <fl@federlawpa.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; 'david@deisenbergplc.com'

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; joy.bertrand_gmail.com <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>

Cc: Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones@CRM.USDOJ.GOV>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>; Stone, Andrew

(USAAZ) <AStone1@usa.doj.gov>; Kucera, John (USACAC) <jkucera@usa.doj.gov>; Boyle, Daniel

(USACAC) <DBoyle@usa.doj.gov>

Subject: RE: Trial Documents

Kevin,

Hope you’re doing well. In light of the Court’s Order continuing the trial date and resetting certain

pre-trial deadlines, we propose that Defendants provide comments to the government regarding the

documents attached to your email below by December 7 (two weeks before joint submission of the

documents is due to the Court). To the extent necessary, we can prepare a stipulation reflecting this

revised deadline.

Gopi

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Principal

T: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110

E: gkp@birdmarella.com

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

www.BirdMarella.com

From: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov> 

Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 4:54 PM

To: Paul Cambria <pcambria@lglaw.com>; Erin McCampbell Paris <emccampbell@lglaw.com>;

Thomas H. Bienert <tbienert@bienertkatzman.com>; Whitney Bernstein

<wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; Ariel A. Neuman <aneuman@birdmarella.com>; Gopi K.

Panchapakesan <gkp@birdmarella.com>; Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Feder

Law <fl@federlawpa.com>; Bruce Feder <bf@federlawpa.com>; 'david@deisenbergplc.com'

<david@deisenbergplc.com>; joy.bertrand_gmail.com <joy.bertrand@gmail.com>

Cc: Jones, Reginald (CRM) <Reginald.Jones4@usdoj.gov>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ)

<Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov>; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ) <Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov>; Stone,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 112 of 196
Andrew (USAAZ) <Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov>; Kucera, John (USACAC) <John.Kucera@usdoj.gov>;

Boyle, Daniel (USACAC) <Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov>

Subject: Trial Documents

Counsel:

I hope all is well. Please find the United States’ proposed draft jury instructions, statement of the

case and verdict form. We believe that the Jury Questionnaire is sufficiently comprehensive that

separate voir dire questions are not necessary. Please review and let us know if you any objections

and we can raise them with the Court prior to trial.

All the best,

Kevin M. Rapp| Assistant U.S. Attorney

Financial Crimes and Public Integrity Section

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of the United States Attorney

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004

602.514.7609, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 113 of 196
EXHIBIT F

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 114 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 1 

 1. Preliminary Instructions 

1.1 Duty of Jury 

1.2 The Charge – Presumption of Innocence 

1.3 What Is Evidence 

1.4 What Is Not Evidence 

1.5 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence 

1.6 Ruling on Objections 

1.7 Credibility of Witnesses 

1.8 Conduct of the Jury 

1.9 No Transcript Available to Jury 

1.10 Taking Notes 

1.11 Outline of Trial 

1.13 Separate Consideration for Each Defendant 

1.16 Bench Conferences and Recesses 

 2. Instructions In the Course Of Trial 

2.1 Cautionary Instructions 

2.2 Stipulated Testimony [if necessary] 

2.3 Stipulations of Fact [if necessary] 

2.12 Evidence for Limited Purpose [if necessary] 

3. Instructions At End of Case 

3.1 Duties of Jury to Find Facts and Follow Law 

3.2 Charge Against Defendants Not Evidence – Presumption of Innocence – 

Burden of Proof 

3.3 Defendant’s Decision Not to Testify [if necessary] 

3.4 Defendant’s Decision to Testify [if necessary] 

3.5 Reasonable Doubt – Defined 

3.6 What Is Evidence 

3.7 What Is Not Evidence 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 115 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 2 

3.8 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence 

3.9 Credibility of Witnesses 

3.10 Activities Not Charged 

3.13 Separate Consideration of Multiple Counts—Multiple Defendants 

3.18 On or About—Defined 

 4. Consideration Of Particular Evidence 

4.9 Testimony of Witnesses Involving Special Circumstances—Immunity, 

Benefits, Accomplice, Plea 

4.14 Opinion Evidence, Expert Witness 

4.15 Dual Role Testimony 

4.16 Charts and Summaries Not Admitted into Evidence [if necessary] 

4.17 Charts and Summaries Admitted into Evidence [if necessary] 

5. Responsibility 

5.7 Knowingly – Defined 

5.8 Deliberate Ignorance 

7. Jury Deliberations 

7.1 Duty to Deliberate 

7.2 Consideration of Evidence – Conduct of the Jury 

7.3 Use of Notes 

7.4 Jury Consideration of Punishment 

7.5 Verdict Form 

7.6 Communication with Court 

8. Offenses Under Title 18

8.20 Conspiracy—Elements (Count 1) 

8.22 Multiple Conspiracies 

8.23 Conspiracy—Knowledge of and Associated with Other Conspirators 

8.144 Travel Act—Interstate or Foreign Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises 

8.25 Conspiracy—Liability for Travel Act Violations Committed by CoCase 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 116 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 3 

Conspirator (Pinkerton Charge) 

8.20 Conspiracy—Elements (Count 52) 

8.147 Laundering Monetary Instruments 

8.25 Conspiracy—Liability for Concealment Money Laundering Violations 

Committed by Co-Conspirator (Pinkerton Charge) 

8.148 Transporting Funds to Promote Unlawful Activity 

8.25 Conspiracy—Liability for International Promotional Money Laundering 

Violations Committed by Co-Conspirator (Pinkerton Charge) 

8.150 Money Laundering 

8.149 Transporting Monetary Instruments for the Purpose of Laundering 

8. Case Specific Instructions

Defendant’s Good Faith 

Defense Theory of the Case 

First Amendment Protection—Protected Free Speech 

First Amendment Protection—Websites Hosting Third-Party Ads 

First Amendment Protection— “Adult” Services Are Legal 

First Amendment Protection—Examples of Legal “Adult” Services 

First Amendment Protection—Website Has the Right to Exercise Editorial Control 

and Judgment 

First Amendment Protection—Offensive and Sexual Speech 

First Amendment Protection—Speech Presumed Protected 

First Amendment Protection—Ads Presumed Protected 

First Amendment Protection—Coded Advertisement Language 

First Amendment Protection—Government Cannot Punish Legal Speech to 

Suppress Illegal Speech 

First Amendment Protection—Protected Publication of Third-Party Speech 

First Amendment Protection—No Requirement to Shut Down 

First Amendment Protection—No Requirement to Investigate 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 117 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 4 

First Amendment Protection—Publication Does Not Create Criminal Culpability 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 118 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 5 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

1.2 THE CHARGE—PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE 

This is a criminal case brought by the United States government. The government 

charges the defendants with conspiracy, violations of the Travel Act, and money 

laundering. The charges against the defendants are contained in the indictment. The 

indictment simply describes the charges the government brings against the defendants. The 

indictment is not evidence and does not prove anything. 

Each defendant has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and is presumed innocent 

unless the government proves that defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, 

each defendant has the right to remain silent and never has to prove innocence or present 

any evidence. 

In order to help you follow the evidence, I will now give you a brief summary of 

the elements of the crimes that the government must prove to make its case against each 

defendant: 

Count 1 is conspiracy—the three elements of conspiracy are as follows:

 First, beginning in or around 2004, and ending on or about April 2018, there was an 

agreement between two or more persons to commit a violation of the Travel Act by 

promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed, as 

charged in Count 1 of the indictment; 

 Second, that defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one 

of its illegal objects and with the specific intent of helping promote, or facilitate the 

promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise in 

violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed; and 

Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act on or 

after March 28, 2013, for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. Without at least one 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 119 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 6 

defendant’s overt act to specifically promote, or facilitate the promotion of, prostitution 

offenses committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State 

in which they are committed, you cannot find a conspiracy. 

Counts 2-51 are Travel Act counts—the two elements to support a Travel Act 

conviction are as follows: 

First, that defendant used the mail or any facility in interstate commerce with the 

specific intent to promote, or facilitate the promotion of, the prostitution offenses 

committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State in which 

they were committed, as alleged in each Count; and 

Second, after doing so, that defendant performed an act to promote, or facilitate the 

promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise 

associated with that particular ad specified in each Count. 

Further, you also may find a defendant guilty of violating the Travel Act as charged 

in Counts 2-51 of the indictment if the government has proved each of the following 

elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

First, a person named in Count 1 of the indictment committed the crime of violating 

the Travel Act by promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, prostitution offenses 

committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State in which 

they are committed; 

Second, the person named in Count 1 was a member of the conspiracy as charged 

in Count 1 of the indictment; 

Third, the person named in Count 1 committed the crime of promoting, or 

facilitating the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a business enterprise in 

furtherance of the conspiracy; 

Fourth, the defendant was a member of the same conspiracy at the time the offenses 

charged in Counts 2-51 were committed; 

Fifth, the offense fell within the scope of the unlawful agreement and could 

reasonably have been foreseen to be a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 120 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 7 

agreement. 

Count 52 is conspiracy to commit money laundering—the three elements of money 

laundering conspiracy are as follows: 

First, beginning in or around 2004, and ending on or about April 2018, there was an 

agreement between two or more persons to commit concealment money laundering in 

violation of Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), international promotional money laundering in 

violation of Section 1956(a)(2)(A), transactional money laundering in violation of Section 

1957(a), and international concealment money laundering in violation of Section 

1956(a)(2)(B)(i); and 

Second, a defendant became a member of the conspiracy to commit concealment, 

international promotional, transactional, and international concealment money laundering 

knowing of at least one of its illegal objects and with the specific intent to help commit one 

or more of the substantive money laundering offenses charged (whose elements are listed 

below); and 

Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act on or 

after March 28, 2013, for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy to commit 

concealment, international promotional, transactional, and international concealment 

money laundering. 

Counts 53-62 are concealment money laundering—the three elements of 

concealment money laundering are as follows: 

First, the defendant conducted a financial transaction involving property that 

represented the proceeds of the knowing and willful promotion, or facilitation of the 

promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A), specifically (i) a business enterprise involved in at 

least one of the fifty advertisements that is the subject of Counts 2 – 51 and (ii) a business 

enterprise for which you found that Defendant guilty of promoting or facilitating the 

promotion of; 

Second, the defendant knew that the property represented the proceeds of some form 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 121 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 8 

of unlawful activity; and 

Third, the defendant knew that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to 

conceal and disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of 

the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity. 

Counts 63-68 are international promotional money laundering—the two elements 

of international promotional money laundering are as follows: 

First, the defendant transported money from a place in the United States to or 

through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through 

a place outside the United States; and 

Second, the defendant acted with the intent to promote, or facilitate the promotion 

of, a particular business enterprise involving prostitution offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1952(a)(3)(A), specifically (i) a business enterprise involved in at least one of the fifty 

advertisements that is the subject of Counts 2 – 51 and (ii) a business enterprise for which 

you found that defendant guilty of promoting or facilitating the promotion of. 

Counts 69-99 are transactional money laundering—the five elements of 

transactional money laundering are as follows: 

First, the defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a monetary 

transaction; 

Second, the defendant knew the specific transaction charged in the indictment 

involved specific criminally derived property; 

Third, the property had a value greater than $10,000; 

Fourth, the property was, in fact, derived from the knowing and willful promotion, 

or facilitation of the promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A), specifically (i) a business 

enterprise involved in at least one of the fifty advertisements that is the subject of Counts 

2 – 51 and (ii) a business enterprise for which you found that Defendant guilty of promoting 

or facilitating the promotion of; and 

Fifth, the transaction occurred in the United States. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 122 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 9 

Count 100 is international concealment money laundering—the three elements of 

international concealment money laundering are as follows: 

First, the defendant transported money from a place in the United States to or 

through a place outside the United States; 

Second, the defendant knew that the money represented the proceeds of the knowing 

and willful promotion, or facilitation of the promotion of, the prostitution offenses 

committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A), 

specifically (i) a business enterprise involved in at least one of the fifty advertisements that 

is the subject of Counts 2 – 51 and (ii) a business enterprise for which you found that 

defendant guilty of promoting or facilitating the promotion of; and 

Third, the defendant knew the transportation was designed in whole or in part to 

conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of 

the knowing and willful promotion, or facilitation of the promotion of, the prostitution 

offenses committed by a business enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A). 

Supporting Authorities 

See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB,

Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted 

for facilitating the amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating 

(via publishing ads) on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related 

businesses, or other groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see United 

States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of 

December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying 

the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate 

case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and 

whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 123 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 10 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

1.13 SEPARATE CONSIDERATION FOR EACH DEFENDANT

Although the defendants are being tried together, you must give separate 

consideration to each defendant. In doing so, you must determine which evidence in the 

case applies to each defendant, disregarding any evidence admitted solely against some 

other defendant[s]. The fact that you may find one of the defendants guilty or not guilty 

should not control your verdict as to any other defendant. 

Only the defendants are on trial. Backpage.com is not on trial. You must evaluate 

the evidence as to each individual defendant, and not as to Backpage.com or any other 

person. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 1.13 (online versions of 

May 25, 2021); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHXSMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the key things in my 

reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. Backpage was 

prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is about these 

individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as facilitating 

illegal activity.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 124 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 11 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

2.1 CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTIONS

At the End of Each Day of the Case: 

As I indicated before this trial started, you as jurors will decide this case based solely 

on the evidence presented in this courtroom. This means that, after you leave here for the 

night, you must not conduct any independent research about this case, the matters in the 

case, the legal issues in the case, or the individuals or other entities involved in the case. 

This is important for the same reasons that jurors have long been instructed to limit their 

exposure to traditional forms of media information such as television and newspapers. You 

also must not communicate with anyone, in any way, about this case. And you must ignore 

any information about the case that you might see while browsing the internet or your 

social media feeds. 

At the Beginning of Each Day of the Case: 

As I reminded you yesterday and continue to emphasize to you today, it is important 

that you decide this case based solely on the evidence and the law presented here. So you 

must not learn any additional information about the case from sources outside the 

courtroom. To ensure fairness to all parties in this trial, I will now ask each of you whether 

you have learned about or shared any information about this case outside of this courtroom, 

even if it was accidental. 

[ALTERNATIVE 1 (in open court): if you think that you might have done so, please let 

me know now by raising your hand. [Wait for a show of hands]. I see no raised hands; 

however, if you would prefer to talk to the court privately in response to this question, 

please notify a member of the court’s staff at the next break. Thank you for your careful 

adherence to my instructions.] 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 125 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 12 

[ALTERNATIVE 2 (during voir dire with each juror, individually): Have you learned 

about or shared any information about this case outside of this courtroom? . . . Thank you 

for your careful adherence to my instructions.] 

Supporting Authorities 

 Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 2.1 (online versions of 

May 25, 2021).

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 126 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 13 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

3.2 CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT NOT EVIDENCE— 

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE—BURDEN OF PROOF 

I instruct you that you must presume each defendant to be innocent of the crimes 

charged. The indictment is not evidence. Each defendant has pleaded not guilty to the 

charges. Each defendant is presumed to be innocent unless the government proves him or 

her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants do not have to testify or present any 

evidence. The defendants do not have to prove innocence. Thus, each defendant, although 

accused of crimes in the indictment, begins the trial with a “clean slate”—with no evidence 

against him or her. 

The indictment, as you already know, is not evidence of any kind. The defendants 

are, of course, not on trial for any act or crime not contained in the indictment. The law 

permits nothing but legal evidence presented before the jury in court to be considered in 

support of any charge against a defendant. The presumption of innocence alone, therefore, 

is sufficient to acquit each defendant. 

The government has the burden of proving every element of each charge beyond a 

reasonable doubt for each defendant. The burden is always upon the prosecution to prove 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to a defendant for the law never 

imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or 

producing any evidence. The defendant is not even obligated to produce any evidence by 

cross-examining the witnesses for the government. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 3.2 (2021); 1A Fed. Jury 

Prac. & Instr. § 12:10 (6th ed.), 1A Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. § 12:10 (6th ed.). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 127 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 14 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

3.5 REASONABLE DOUBT—DEFINED 

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced a 

defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible 

doubt. 

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense—the kind of 

doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act—and is not based purely on 

speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or 

from lack of evidence. 

Unless the government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant has 

committed each and every element of the offenses charged in the indictment, and that a 

defendant acted with criminal intend and lacked good faith, you must find that defendant 

not guilty of the offenses. If you view the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting 

either of two conclusions—one of innocence, the other of guilt—the jury must, of course, 

adopt the conclusion of innocence.

Supporting Authorities 

 Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 3.5 (2021); 1A Fed. Jury 

Prac. & Instr. § 12:10 (6th ed.), 1A Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. § 12:10 (6th ed.). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 128 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 15 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

3.13 SEPARATE CONSIDERATION OF MULTIPLE COUNTS—MULTIPLE 

DEFENDANTS

A separate crime is charged against one or more of the defendants in each count. 

The charges have been joined for trial. You must decide the case of each defendant on each 

crime charged against that defendant separately. Your verdict on any count as to any 

defendant should not control your verdict on any other count or as to any other defendant. 

All the instructions apply to each defendant and to each count unless a specific 

instruction states that it applies only to a specific defendant or count. 

Only the defendants are on trial. Backpage.com is not on trial. You must evaluate 

the evidence as to each individual defendant, not as to Backpage.com or any other person. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 3.13 (2021); see United 

States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 

(Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the 

amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) 

on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other 

groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al.

(D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing 

(“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is 

not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a 

separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and whether they had specific 

knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 129 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 16 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

4.16 CHARTS AND SUMMARIES NOT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

During the trial, certain charts and summaries were shown to you in order to help 

explain the evidence in the case. These charts and summaries were not admitted into 

evidence and will not go into the jury room with you. They are not themselves evidence 

or proof of any facts. If they do not correctly reflect the facts or figures shown by the 

evidence in the case, you should disregard these charts and summaries and determine the 

facts from the underlying evidence. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 4.16 (2021). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 130 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 17 

DEFENSE OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT PROPOSED INSTRUCTION 5.7 

Government Proposed Instruction 5.7 KNOWINGLY—DEFINED

An act is done knowingly if the defendant is aware of the act, and does not act or 

fail to act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. The government is not required to prove 

that a defendant knew that his or her acts or omissions were unlawful. You may consider 

evidence of each defendant’s words, acts, or omissions, along with all the other evidence, 

in deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly. 

 

DEFENSE OBJECTION

The Travel Act and money laundering charges are specific intent crimes. Therefore, 

it would be reversible error to provide a “Knowingly” instruction here. See United States 

v. Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 449 (9th Cir. 1974) (Travel Act violation is a 

specific intent crime); United States v. Gallo, 782 F.2d 1191, 1194 (4th Cir. 1986) (same); 

United States v. James, 210 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2000) (same); see Ninth Circuit 

Model Criminal Jury Instructions at 8.146 cmt. (“Because it is a specific intent crime, it is 

reversible error to give Instruction 5.7 (Knowingly–Defined) in a money laundering case.”) 

(citing United States v. Stein, 37 F.3d 1407, 1410 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Turman, 

122 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

See Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions at 8.146 cmt. (“Because it is a 

specific intent crime, it is reversible error to give Instruction 5.7 (Knowingly–Defined) in 

a money laundering case.”) Defendants propose a specific intent instruction to accurately 

advise the jury of the required mens rea for the charged offenses. See United States v. 

Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order 

denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the amorphous 

notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty 

distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other groups were 

involved in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 131 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 18 

No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one 

of the key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about 

Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. 

This case is about these individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of 

these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 132 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 19 

DEFENSE OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT PROPOSED INSTRUCTION 5.8 

Government Proposed Instruction 5.8 DELIBERATE IGNORANCE 

You may find that the defendant acted knowingly if you find beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the defendant: 

1. was aware of a high probability that the vast majority of the “adult” and “escort” 

ads appearing on Backpage.com were actually ads for prostitution, and 

2. deliberately avoided learning the truth. 

You may not find such knowledge, however, if you find that the defendant actually 

believed that the vast majority of the “adult” and “escort” ads appearing on Backpage.com 

were not ads for prostitution, or if you find that the defendant was simply negligent, 

careless, or foolish. 

DEFENSE OBJECTION

The government’s proposed Jewell instruction, one that typically is used in drug 

smuggling cases, is inappropriate here. See Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions 

at 5.8 (providing the example of a defendant being aware of a high probability that “drugs 

were in the defendant’s automobile”); United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 698 (9th Cir. 

1976) (involving drugs sealed in a secret compartment of a car). Here, the Travel Act and 

money laundering charges are specific intent crimes. Therefore, it would be reversible 

error to provide a “Deliberate Ignorance” instruction to the jurors here. See Jewell, 532 

F.2d at 700-701 (such an instruction is only appropriate where the underlying crime 

requires mere knowledge); see United States v. Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 449 

(9th Cir. 1974) (holding that the violation of the Travel Act is a specific intent crime and 

that “[t]he presumption that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his 

actions is insufficient in this context to establish intent to facilitate criminal activity.”); 

United States v. Gallo, 782 F.2d 1191, 1194 (4th Cir. 1986) (same); United States v. James, 

210 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2000) (same); see Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 133 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 20 

Instructions at 8.146 cmt. (“Because it is a specific intent crime, it is reversible error to 

give Instruction 5.7 (Knowingly–Defined) in a money laundering case.”) (citing United 

States v. Stein, 37 F.3d 1407, 1410 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Turman, 122 F.3d 

1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

Further, such an instruction is only appropriate “if the jury rejects the government’s 

case as to actual knowledge.” United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913, 922 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(“In deciding whether to give a willful blindness instruction, in addition to an actual 

knowledge instruction, the district court must determine whether the jury could rationally 

find willful blindness even though it has rejected the government's evidence of actual 

knowledge. If so, the court may also give a Jewell instruction.”). And 

“[e]ven if the factual predicates of the instruction are present, the district judge has 

discretion to refuse it.” Id. 

Further, even if such an instruction were appropriate, whether a given Defendant 

“was aware of a high probability that the vast majority of the ‘adult’ and ‘escort’ ads 

appearing on Backpage.com were actually ads for prostitution” is not a substitute for the 

government having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each Defendant specifically 

intended to facilitate the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise 

through the publication of fifty advertisements at issue. See United States v. Lacey, et al.

(D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion 

to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of 

‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct 

occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other groups were involved 

in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-

CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the 

key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. 

Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is 

about these individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 134 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 21 

facilitating illegal activity.”). Willful blindness therefore cannot meet the elements of the 

offenses. 

 The government’s proposed Jewell instruction also is inconsistent with the First 

Amendment. The government’s proposed instruction would suggest that the jury can use 

the publication of presumptively protected and lawful speech as the factual basis for a 

finding that defendants intended to violate the law. The government proposes to instruct 

the jury that defendants were obligated to assume that presumptively protected and lawful 

speech was unprotected speech and to censor that speech. The First Amendment prohibits 

this. 

Finally, even if a Jewell instruction was appropriate in this case, the government’s 

proposed instruction ignores the language of Jewell restricting the instruction to 

circumstances where a defendant’s ignorance “was solely and entirely a result of . . . a 

conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth.” United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 704 

(9th Cir. 1976). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 135 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 22 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

6.10 MERE PRESENCE 

 Mere presence at the scene of a crime or mere knowledge that a crime is being 

committed is not sufficient to establish that a defendant committed the crime of violating 

the Travel Act by promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, prostitution offenses 

committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State in which 

they are committed or the crime of money laundering. The defendant must be a participant 

and not merely a knowing spectator. The defendant’s presence may be considered by the 

jury along with other evidence in the case. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 6.10, 8.144 (2021) 

(modified to reflect charges); Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States, 334 F. 

Supp. 3d 185, 199-201 (D.D.C. 2018), rev’d. 948 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020); see United 

States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 

(Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the 

amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) 

on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other 

groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al.

(D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing 

(“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is 

not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a 

separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and whether they had specific 

knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 136 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 23 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.20 CONSPIRACY—ELEMENTS 

(Conspiracy to Violate the Travel Act – Elements) 

 The defendants are charged in Count 1 of the indictment with conspiring to violate 

the Travel Act in violation of Section 1952(a)(3)(A) of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

In order for a defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each 

of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt for that defendant: 

 First, beginning in or around 2004, and ending on or about April 2018, there was an 

agreement between two or more persons to commit a violation of the Travel Act by 

promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed, as 

charged in Count 1 of the indictment; 

 Second, that defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one 

of its illegal objects and with the specific intent of helping promote, or facilitate the 

promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise in 

violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed; and 

 Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act on or 

after March 28, 2013, for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. Without at least one 

defendant’s overt act to specifically promote, or facilitate the promotion of, prostitution 

offenses committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State 

in which they are committed, you cannot find a conspiracy. 

What Is a Conspiracy, and How Does One Become a Member? 

 A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement of two or more 

persons to commit one or more crimes. The crime of conspiracy is the agreement to do 

something unlawful; it does not matter whether the crime agreed upon was committed. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 137 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 24 

 For a conspiracy to have existed, it is not necessary that the conspirators made a 

formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy. It is not enough, 

however, that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar 

ways, or perhaps helped one another. You must find that there was a plan to commit at 

least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an illegal object of the conspiracy with 

all of you agreeing as to the particular crime, i.e., the publication of a specific ad in 

violation of the Travel Act, which the conspirators agreed to commit. 

 One becomes a member of a conspiracy by willfully participating in the unlawful 

plan with the intent to advance or further some illegal object or purpose of the conspiracy, 

even though the person does not have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. 

Furthermore, one who willfully joins an existing conspiracy is as responsible for it as the 

originators. On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to 

act in a way which furthers some illegal object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not 

thereby become a conspirator. Similarly, a person does not become a conspirator merely 

by associating with one or more persons who are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that 

a conspiracy exists. To become a co-conspirator a person must have an intention and 

agreement to accomplish the same, specific criminal objective as his or her co-conspirators. 

 An overt act does not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of 

a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the unlawful conspiracy. The 

government is not required to prove that a Defendant personally did one of the overt acts. 

 Proof of an underlying substantive crime does not, without more, prove the 

existence of a conspiracy to commit that crime. 

What Is “Travel Act—Facilitate Prostitution”? 

 The elements of the Travel Act are not satisfied if a defendant merely did an act that 

promoted, or facilitated the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise. The elements are not satisfied unless a defendant specifically intended 

his or her act to facilitate the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 138 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 25 

enterprise. 

The government cannot meet its burden to prove that a defendant had the specific 

intent to participate in and further the prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise associated with the ad by proving: 

 the defendant had after-the-fact knowledge that some or even many people 

who advertised on Backpage.com engaged in prostitution offenses or that 

some or even many past ads on Backpage.com related to unlawful activity; 

 the defendant knew Backpage.com might facilitate prostitution in the 

abstract; 

 the defendant was indifferent to the actions of the purchasers of classified 

ads on Backpage.com; or 

 the defendant knew that a particular advertiser might, at times, engage in 

prostitution offenses. 

Rather, to satisfy the specific intent requirements of the Travel Act, the government must 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for each Count, that each defendant in some significant 

manner associated himself or herself with a particular business enterprise associated with 

the ad charged in that Count with the intent to promote, or facilitate the promotion of, the 

prostitution offenses committed by that business enterprise. As such, to find a defendant 

guilty of conspiring to violate the Travel Act, you must find that the government proved 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant joined a conspiracy with the specific intent 

to associate himself or herself with a particular criminal venture for the purpose of 

advancing its prostitution offenses. A defendant cannot intend to promote or facilitate a 

business enterprise he or she does not know exists. 

Unanimity Requirements 

 For a defendant to be found guilty of Count 1 (Conspiracy to Violate the Travel 

Act), you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant joined in a plan to commit 

at least one illegal object of the alleged conspiracy – specifically intending to promote, or 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 139 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 26 

facilitate the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a particular business 

enterprise upon which you all agree. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 7.9, 8.20, 8.144 (2021); 

Barry Tarlow, Defense of a Federal Conspiracy Prosecution, 4 J.Crim.Defense 183, 201-

02 (1978) (explaining that the object of the conspiracy must be unlawful); United States v. 

Lennick, 18 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Proof of the underlying substantive crime, 

however, does not, without more, prove the existence of a conspiracy.”); United States v. 

Lapier, 796 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to give specific unanimity instruction was 

plain error because half of jury could have found defendant guilty of joining one conspiracy 

while other half of jury could have found defendant guilty of joining second conspiracy); 

United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 (1976) (willfulness is the “intentional violation 

of a known legal duty”). 

 In Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States, the government argued that for 

prosecutions under the Travel Act, the prosecutor must prove “not simply that the 

defendant was aware of a potential result of the criminal offense, but instead that the 

defendant intended to ‘explicitly further[]’ a specified unlawful act.” 334 F. Supp. 3d 185, 

199-201 (D.D.C. 2018), rev’d. 948 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court agreed with the 

government and held that the law applies only to “specific unlawful acts with respect to a 

particular individual, not the broad subject-matter of prostitution.” Id. Most recently, in 

defending the district court decision in that case, DOJ repeated its position that in a 

prosecution under the Travel Act, the government must allege that the Defendant acted to 

intentionally promote or facilitate a “specific, unlawful instance of prostitution.” Brief for 

the United States in Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, No. 18-5298 (D.C. Cir. 

Apr. 15, 2019) (Doc. No. 1782997) at 21-22. 

 To prove a conspiracy charge, the government must prove the “requisite intent for 

the substantive crime.” United States v. Kaplan, 836 F.3d 1199, 1212 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 140 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 27 

 See also United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHXSMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not 

indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for 

facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitutionrelated businesses, or other groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see 

United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of 

December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying 

the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate 

case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and 

whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

 United States v. James, 210 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2000) (“The elements of a 

Travel Act charge are: 1) that the defendant traveled in interstate commerce on or about 

the time, and between the places, charged in the indictment; 2) that the defendant engaged 

in that travel with the specific intent to promote, manage, establish or carry on an unlawful 

activity, as defined; and 3) that the defendant thereafter knowingly and willfully committed 

an act to promote, manage, establish or carry on such unlawful activity.”); United States v. 

Hagmann, 950 F.2d 175, 182 (5th Cir. 1991) (“The essential elements of the Travel Act . . 

. are: (i) travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or use of the mail (or any facility) in 

interstate or foreign commerce; (ii) with the specific intent to promote, manage, establish, 

or carry on—or distribute the proceeds of—unlawful activity; and (iii) knowing and willful 

commission of an act in furtherance of that intent subsequent to the act of travel.”) 

(emphasis in original); United States v. Echeverri-Jaramillo, 777 F.2d 933, 937 (4th Cir. 

1985) (“in order to prove such a violation, under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) it must be shown that 

1) the defendant traveled in interstate commerce on or about the time and between the 

places noted in the indictment; 2) that the defendant engaged in such travel with the specific 

intent to promote, manage, establish or carry on an unlawful activity and that 3) the 

defendant did thereafter knowingly and willfully commit an act to promote, manage, 

establish or carry on such an unlawful activity.”); United States v. Stagman, 446 F.2d 489, 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 141 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 28 

491 (6th Cir. 1971) (“the majority of the Courts of Appeals which have directly addressed 

this question . . . have stated that knowing and wilful [sic] intent to violate state laws is an 

element of the crime proscribed by the Travel Act”) (citing decisions of the 4th, 7th, 8th, 

and 9th Circuits). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 142 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 29 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.22 MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES 

(Count 1 – Multiple Conspiracies) 

 Count 1 of the indictment alleges a single conspiracy to commit a violation of the 

Travel Act by promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed 

by a particular business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State in which they are 

committed. You must decide whether the single conspiracy to violate the Travel Act as 

charged in Count 1 of the indictment existed, and, if it did, who at least some of its members 

were. If you find that the single conspiracy to violate the Travel Act charged in Count 1 

did not exist, then you must return a not guilty verdict, even though you may find that some 

other conspiracy existed. For example, if you find that Count 1 concerns two or more 

conspiracies, you must find each defendant not guilty of the single conspiracy alleged in 

Count 1. Similarly, if you find that any defendant was not a member of the conspiracy to 

violate the Travel Act charged in Count 1, then you must find that defendant not guilty, 

even though that Defendant may have been a member of some other conspiracy. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.22 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHXSMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not 

indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for 

facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitutionrelated businesses, or other groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see 

United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of 

December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying 

the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 143 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 30 

case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and 

whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 144 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 31 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

(Conspiracy – Willfulness Defined) 

To find a defendant guilty of conspiracy as charged in the indictment, you must be 

satisfied that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 

knowingly and willfully entered into the conspiracy, that is, that the defendant agreed to 

take part in the conspiracy with knowledge of its unlawful purpose and in furtherance of 

its unlawful objective. You must also find that the government has proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with criminal intent and lacked good faith. If the 

defendant carried out his or her actions in good faith, there was no criminal intent. While 

the term “good faith” has no precise definition, it encompasses, among other things, a belief 

or opinion honestly held and an absence of malice or ill will. To act willfully means to act 

with knowledge that one’s conduct is unlawful and with the intent to do something the law 

forbids, that is to say with the specific purpose to disobey or disregard the law. 

Supporting Authorities 

 United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 (1976) (willfulness is the “intentional 

violation of a known legal duty”); see 1A Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. § 19:06 (6th ed.), 1A 

Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. § 19:06 (6th ed.); United States v. Stagman, 446 F.2d 489, 491 (6th 

Cir. 1971) (“the majority of the Courts of Appeals which have directly addressed this 

question . . . have stated that knowing and wilful [sic] intent to violate state laws is an 

element of the crime proscribed by the Travel Act”) (citing decisions of the 4th, 7th, 8th, 

and 9th Circuits). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 145 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 32 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.23 CONSPIRACY – KNOWLEDGE OF AND ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER 

CONSPIRATORS 

(Conspiracy – Knowledge Of and Association With Other Conspirators) 

 A conspiracy may continue for a long period of time and may include the 

performance of many transactions. It is not necessary that all members of the conspiracy 

join it at the same time, and one may become a member of a conspiracy without full 

knowledge of all the details of the unlawful scheme or the names, identities, or locations 

of all of the other members. 

 Even though a defendant did not directly conspire with every other defendant or 

every other conspirator in the overall scheme, that defendant has, in effect, agreed to 

participate in the conspiracy if the government proves each of the following beyond a 

reasonable doubt: 

 First, that a defendant directly conspired with one or more conspirators to carry out 

at least one of the illegal objects of the conspiracy by specifically intending to promote, or 

facilitate the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a particular business 

enterprise upon which you all agree; 

 Second, that a defendant knew or had reason to know that other conspirators were 

involved with those with whom the defendant directly conspired; and 

 Third, that a defendant had reason to believe that whatever benefits he or she might 

get from the conspiracy were probably dependent upon the success of the entire enterprise. 

 It is not a defense that a person’s participation in a conspiracy was minor or for a 

short period of time. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.23 (2021). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 146 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 33 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.144 TRAVEL ACT—INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN TRAVEL 

IN AID OF RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE 

(18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)) 

(Counts 2-51 – Travel Act) 

 Each defendant is charged in Counts 2-51 of the indictment with violating Section 

1952(a)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for a defendant to be found 

guilty of those charges, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond 

a reasonable doubt for that defendant as to each charge: 

First, that defendant used the mail or any facility in interstate commerce with the 

specific intent to promote, or facilitate the promotion of, the prostitution offenses 

committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State in which 

they were committed, as alleged in each Count; and 

Second, after doing so, that defendant performed an act to promote, or facilitate the 

promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise 

associated with that particular ad specified in each Count. 

The elements of the Travel Act are not satisfied if a defendant merely did an act that 

promoted, or facilitated the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise. The elements of the Travel Act are only established if the government 

proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly and willfully intended his or 

her act to facilitate the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise 

associated with that ad. 

The government cannot meet its burden to prove that a defendant had the specific 

intent to participate in and further the prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise associated with the ad by proving: 

 the defendant had after-the-fact knowledge that some or even many people 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 147 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 34 

who advertised on Backpage.com engaged in prostitution offenses or that 

some or even many past ads on Backpage.com related to unlawful activity; 

 the defendant knew Backpage.com might facilitate prostitution in the 

abstract; 

 the defendant was indifferent to the actions of the purchasers of classified 

ads on Backpage.com; or 

 the defendant knew that a particular advertiser might, at times, engage in 

prostitution offenses. 

Rather, to satisfy the specific intent requirements of the Travel Act, the government must 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for each Count, that each defendant in some significant 

manner associated himself or herself with a particular business enterprise associated with 

the ad charged in that Count with the intent to promote, or facilitate the promotion of, the 

prostitution offenses committed by that business enterprise. 

The existence of a “business enterprise” is an element of this crime and, unless the 

government has proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a “business 

enterprise” as to each count, you must return a verdict of not guilty. A defendant cannot 

intend to promote or facilitate a business enterprise he or she does not know exists. The 

government also must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act each defendant 

performed in furtherance of the business enterprise was done with the specific intent to 

facilitate each element of the underlying state crime. 

First Amendment Application 

In addition to the requirements of the Travel Act, under the First Amendment, the 

jury cannot find a defendant guilty of a crime based on the publication of a presumptively 

protected third-party classified ad, unless the government proves beyond a reasonable 

doubt that: 

(i) the defendant had actual knowledge of the particular ad, and 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 148 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 35 

(ii) the defendant had actual knowledge that the particular ad related to unlawful 

activity, and 

(iii) the defendant personally took an action causing the particular ad to be 

published on, or to continue to be published on, Backpage.com with the aim of 

furthering the illegal activity. 

It is not enough for the government to show that a defendant knew that some adult 

ads might lead to others committing crimes. If this is all the government demonstrates, 

you must find the defendant not guilty. In order to find the defendant guilty, the 

government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant specifically intended 

that the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprises be committed. 

Specific intent is defined in the following instruction. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.144 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment); Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States, 334 F. Supp. 3d 185, 199-

201 (D.D.C. 2018), rev’d. 948 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (where the United States took the 

position that for prosecutions under the Travel Act, the government must prove “not simply 

that the defendant was aware of a potential result of the criminal offense, but instead that 

the defendant intended to ‘explicitly further[]’ a specified unlawful act.”). 

See Backpage.com v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 234 (7th Cir. 2015) (“‘[A]n intermediary 

. . . 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?’ Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2003) . . . Backpage is an 

intermediary between the advertisers of adult services and visitors to Backpage’s 

website.”); In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 651 (7th Cir. 2003) (“A retailer 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 149 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 36 

of slinky dresses is not guilty of aiding and abetting prostitution even if he knows that some 

of his customers are prostitutes....”). 

United States v Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 450 fn. 8 (9th Cir. 1974) (“The 

presumption that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions is 

insufficient in this context to establish intent to facilitate criminal activity. It is as likely as 

not that a vendor similar to the defendants in this proceeding is totally indifferent to the 

actions of his purchaser.”) 

 See United States v. Rundo, 990 F.3d 709, 719-720 (9th Cir. 2021) (“’the intent to 

engage in one of the prohibited acts is a personal prerequisite to punishment under [the 

Anti-Riot Act] . . . Simply put, knowing that some might choose to become violent is not 

at all the same as intending that they do so.”). 

 Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1281 (W.D. Wash. 2012) 

(“The third-party publication of offers to engage in illegal transactions does not fall within 

‘well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech’ that fall outside of First Amendment 

protection.”) (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942)). 

 See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB,

Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted 

for facilitating the amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating 

(via publishing ads) on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related 

businesses, or other groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see United 

States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of 

December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying 

the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate 

case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and 

whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

 United States v. Jones, 909 F.2d 533, 539 (D.C.Cir.1990) (a proper Travel Act jury 

instruction “would inform the jury that the defendant must have performed or attempted to 

perform an act in furtherance of the business, with the intent that each element of the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 150 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 37 

underlying state crime be completed”); Deptula v. Attorney General of U.S., 642 Fed. 

Appx. 184 (3rd Cir. 2016) (“to obtain a Travel Act conviction, the government must prove 

. . . that the defendant had the specific intent to facilitate each element of the relevant 

offense.”); United States v. Bertman, 686 F.2d 772, 774 (9th Cir. 1982) (“When the 

unlawful activity charged in the indictment is the violation of state law, the commission of 

or the intent to commit such a violation is an element of the federal offense.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 151 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 38 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

SPECIFIC INTENT 

The crimes charged in this case are serious crimes which require proof of specific 

intent before the defendant can be convicted. Specific intent, as the terms implies, means 

more than a general intent to commit the act. To establish specific intent, the government 

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly did an act which the 

law forbids, purposely and intending to violate the law. Such intent may be determined 

from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. An act or a failure to act is 

knowingly done if done voluntarily and intentionally, not because of mistake or accident, 

or other innocent reason. 

Supporting Authorities 

 United States v. Seymour, 576 F.2d 1345, 1347 (9th Cir. 1978) (verbatim quote); 

see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 

946 at 13 (Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for 

facilitating the amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via 

publishing ads) on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related 

businesses, or other groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see United 

States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of 

December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying 

the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate 

case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and 

whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 152 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 39 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.25 CONSPIRACY—LIABILITY FOR TRAVEL ACT VIOLATIONS

COMMITTED BY CO-CONSPIRATOR (PINKERTON CHARGE)

(Co-Conspirator Liability) 

Each member of a conspiracy is responsible for the actions of the other conspirators 

performed during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. If one member of a 

conspiracy commits a crime in furtherance of a conspiracy, the other members have also, 

under the law, committed that crime. 

Therefore, you may find a defendant guilty of a violation of the Travel Act under 

Section 1952(a)(3)(A) of Title 18 of the United States Code as charged in Counts 2-51 of 

the indictment if the government has proved each of the following elements beyond a 

reasonable doubt: 

First, a person named in Count 1 of the indictment committed the crime of violating 

the Travel Act by promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, prostitution offenses 

committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of the laws of the State in which 

they are committed; 

Second, the person named in Count 1 was a member of the conspiracy as charged 

in Count 1 of the indictment; 

Third, the person named in Count 1 committed the crime of promoting, or 

facilitating the promotion of, prostitution offenses committed by a business enterprise in 

furtherance of the conspiracy; 

Fourth, the defendant was a member of the same conspiracy at the time the offenses 

charged in Counts 2-51 were committed; 

Fifth, the offense fell within the scope of the unlawful agreement and could 

reasonably have been foreseen to be a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful 

agreement. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 153 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 40 

To prove a conspiracy, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the 

requisite intent to commit the substantive crime, here the promotion, or the facilitation of 

the promotion, of prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise in 

violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed. The elements of the Travel 

Act are not satisfied if a defendant merely did an act that promoted, or facilitated the 

promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise. The 

elements of the Travel Act are only established if the government proves beyond a 

reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly and willfully intended his or her act to 

facilitate the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise associated 

with that ad. 

The government cannot meet its burden to prove that a defendant had the specific 

intent to participate in and further the prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise associated with the ad by proving: 

 the defendant had after-the-fact knowledge that some or even many people 

who advertised on Backpage.com engaged in prostitution offenses or that 

some or even many past ads on Backpage.com related to unlawful activity; 

 the defendant knew Backpage.com might facilitate prostitution in the 

abstract; 

 the defendant was indifferent to the actions of the purchasers of classified 

ads on Backpage.com; or 

 the defendant knew that a particular advertiser might, at times, engage in 

prostitution offenses. 

Rather, to satisfy the specific intent requirements of the Travel Act, the government must 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for each Count, that each defendant in some significant 

manner associated himself or herself with a particular business enterprise associated with 

the ad charged in that Count with the intent to promote, or facilitate the promotion of, the 

prostitution offenses committed by that business enterprise. As such, to find a defendant 

guilty of conspiring to violate the Travel Act, you must find that the government proved 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 154 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 41 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant joined a conspiracy with the specific intent 

to associate himself or herself with a business enterprise for the purpose of advancing the 

prostitution offenses committed by that business enterprise. 

The existence of a “business enterprise” is an element of this crime and, unless the 

government has proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a “business 

enterprise” as to each count, you must return a verdict of not guilty. A defendant cannot 

intend to promote or facilitate a business enterprise he or she does not know exists. The 

government also must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act each defendant 

performed in furtherance of the business enterprise was done with the specific intent to 

facilitate each element of the underlying state crime. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.25 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment). 

 To prove a conspiracy charge, the government must prove the “requisite intent for 

the substantive crime.” United States v. Kaplan, 836 F.3d 1199, 1212 (9th Cir. 2016). A 

violation of the Travel Act is a specific intent crime. In Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. 

United States, the government argued that for prosecutions under the Travel Act, the 

prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt “not simply that the defendant was aware 

of a potential result of the criminal offense, but instead that the defendant intended to 

‘explicitly further[]’ a specified unlawful act.” 334 F. Supp. 3d 185, 199-201 (D.D.C. 

2018), rev’d. 948 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court agreed with the government and 

held that the law applies only to “specific unlawful acts with respect to a particular 

individual, not the broad subject-matter of prostitution.” Id. Most recently, in defending 

the district court decision in that case, DOJ repeated its position that, in a prosecution under 

the Travel Act, the government must allege that the Defendant acted to intentionally 

promote or facilitate a “specific, unlawful instance of prostitution.” Brief for the United 

States in Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, No. 18-5298 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 15, 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 155 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 42 

2019) (Doc. No. 1782997) at 21-22. 

See also Backpage.com v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 234 (7th Cir. 2015) (“‘[A]n 

intermediary . . . 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?’ Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2003) . . . 

Backpage is an intermediary between the advertisers of adult services and visitors to 

Backpage’s website.”); In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 651 (7th Cir. 2003) 

(“A retailer of slinky dresses is not guilty of aiding and abetting prostitution even if he 

knows that some of his customers are prostitutes....”). 

United States v Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 450 fn. 8 (9th Cir. 1974) (“The 

presumption that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions is 

insufficient in this context to establish intent to facilitate criminal activity. It is as likely as 

not that a vendor similar to the defendants in this proceeding is totally indifferent to the 

actions of his purchaser.”). 

 See United States v. Rundo, 990 F.3d 709, 719-720 (9th Cir. 2021) (“’the intent to 

engage in one of the prohibited acts is a personal prerequisite to punishment under [the 

Anti-Riot Act] . . . Simply put, knowing that some might choose to become violent is not 

at all the same as intending that they do so.”). 

 Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1281 (W.D. Wash. 2012) 

(“The third-party publication of offers to engage in illegal transactions does not fall within 

‘well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech’ that fall outside of First Amendment 

protection.”) (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942)). 

 See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB,

Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted 

for facilitating the amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating 

(via publishing ads) on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 156 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 43 

businesses, or other groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see United 

States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of 

December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying 

the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate 

case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and 

whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”). 

United States v. Jones, 909 F.2d 533, 539 (D.C.Cir.1990) (a proper Travel Act jury 

instruction “would inform the jury that the defendant must have performed or attempted to 

perform an act in furtherance of the business, with the intent that each element of the 

underlying state crime be completed”); Deptula v. Attorney General of U.S., 642 Fed. 

Appx. 184 (3rd Cir. 2016) (“to obtain a Travel Act conviction, the government must prove 

. . . that the defendant had the specific intent to facilitate each element of the relevant 

offense.”); United States v. Bertman, 686 F.2d 772, 774 (9th Cir. 1982) (“When the 

unlawful activity charged in the indictment is the violation of state law, the commission of 

or the intent to commit such a violation is an element of the federal offense.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 157 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 44 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.20 CONSPIRACY—ELEMENTS 

(Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering – Elements) 

Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Spear, and Brunst are charged in Count 52 of the 

indictment with conspiring to commit money laundering in violation of Section 1956(h) of 

Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for a Defendant to be found guilty of that 

charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable 

doubt for that Defendant: 

First, beginning in or around 2004, and ending on or about April 2018, there was an 

agreement between two or more persons to commit concealment money laundering in 

violation of Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), international promotional money laundering in 

violation of Section 1956(a)(2)(A), transactional money laundering in violation of Section 

1957(a), and international concealment money laundering in violation of Section 

1956(a)(2)(B)(i); and 

Second, a Defendant became a member of the conspiracy to commit concealment, 

international promotional, transactional, and international concealment money laundering 

knowing of at least one of its illegal objects and with the specific intent to help commit one 

or more of the substantive money laundering offenses charged (whose elements are listed 

below); and 

Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act on or 

after March 28, 2013, for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy to commit 

concealment, international promotional, transactional, and international concealment 

money laundering. 

What Is a Conspiracy, and How Does One Become a Member? 

 A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement of two or more 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 158 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 45 

persons to commit one or more crimes. The crime of conspiracy is the agreement to do 

something unlawful; it does not matter whether the crime agreed upon was committed. 

 For a conspiracy to have existed, it is not necessary that the conspirators made a 

formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy. It is not enough, 

however, that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar 

ways, or perhaps helped one another. You must find that there was a plan to commit at 

least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an illegal object of the conspiracy with 

all of you agreeing as to the particular crime – i.e., concealment, international promotional, 

transactional, and international concealment money laundering – which the conspirators 

agreed to commit. 

 One becomes a member of a conspiracy by willfully participating in the unlawful 

plan with the intent to advance or further some illegal object or purpose of the conspiracy, 

even though the person does not have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. 

Furthermore, one who willfully joins an existing conspiracy is as responsible for it as the 

originators. On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to 

act in a way which furthers some illegal object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not 

thereby become a conspirator. Similarly, a person does not become a conspirator merely 

by associating with one or more persons who are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that 

a conspiracy exists. To become a co-conspirator a person must have an intention and 

agreement to accomplish the same, specific criminal objective as his or her co-conspirators. 

 An overt act does not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of 

a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the unlawful conspiracy. The 

government is not required to prove that a Defendant personally did one of the overt acts. 

 Proof of an underlying substantive crime does not, without more, prove the 

existence of a conspiracy to commit that crime. 

Unanimity Requirements 

 For a Defendant to be found guilty of Count 52 (Conspiracy to Commit Money 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 159 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 46 

Laundering), you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a plan to commit at 

least one illegal object of the alleged conspiracy – specifically intending to commit 

concealment money laundering, international promotion money laundering, transactional 

money laundering, and international concealment money laundering – with all of you 

agreeing beyond a reasonable doubt as to which illegal object – which specific act(s) of 

concealment money laundering, international promotion money laundering, transactional 

money laundering, and international concealment money laundering – and all of you 

agreeing beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knowingly and willfully joined the 

conspiracy to accomplish such object(s). 

Supporting Authorities 

Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions 8.20, 8.147, 8.148, 8.150, 

8.149 (2021) (modified to reflect criminal objects charged in Count 52); Barry Tarlow, 

Defense of a Federal Conspiracy Prosecution, 4 J.Crim.Defense 183, 201-02 (1978) 

(explaining that the object of the conspiracy must be unlawful); United States v. Lennick, 

18 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Proof of the underlying substantive crime, however, 

does not, without more, prove the existence of a conspiracy.”); United States v. Lapier, 796 

F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to give specific unanimity instruction was plain error 

because half of jury could have found defendant guilty of joining one conspiracy while 

other half of jury could have found defendant guilty of joining second conspiracy); United 

States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 (1976) (willfulness is the “intentional violation of a 

known legal duty”). 

Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997) (the government must prove a 

defendant agreed to pursue the “same criminal objective” as his or her coconspirators); 

United States v. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 1996) (“mere association with 

members of a conspiracy or knowledge of the conspiracy, ‘without an intention and 

agreement to accomplish a specific illegal objective, is not sufficient to make one a 

conspirator’”); United States v. Merino, 846 F.Appx. 494, 495 (9th Cir. 2021) (same).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 160 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 47 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.147 LAUNDERING MONETARY INSTRUMENTS 

(Counts 53-62—Concealment Money Laundering) 

Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Spear, and Brunst are charged in Counts 53-62 of the 

indictment with Concealment Money Laundering in violation of Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) 

of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for a defendant to be found guilty of that 

charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable 

doubt: 

First, the defendant conducted a financial transaction involving property that 

represented the proceeds of the knowing and willful promotion, or facilitation of the 

promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A), specifically (i) a business enterprise involved in at 

least one of the fifty advertisements that is the subject of Counts 2 – 51 and (ii) a business 

enterprise for which you found that defendant guilty of promoting or facilitating the 

promotion of; 

Second, the defendant knew that the property represented the proceeds of some form 

of unlawful activity; and 

Third, the defendant knew that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to 

conceal and disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of 

the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity. 

A financial transaction is a transaction involving the movement of funds by wire or 

other means that affects interstate or foreign commerce in any way. 

The phrase “knew that the property represented the proceeds of some form of 

unlawful activity” means that the defendant knew that the property involved in the 

transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of 

activity that constitutes a felony. I instruct you that knowingly and willfully promoting, or 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 161 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 48 

facilitating the promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed by any business 

enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A) is a felony. 

Supporting Authorities

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.147 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment). As this Court previously held, the “specified unlawful activity” (“SUA”) here 

is not the general facilitation or promotion of “any business enterprise involving 

prostitution offenses” in violation of the Travel Act. See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. 

Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to 

dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of 

‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct 

occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other groups were involved 

in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-

CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the 

key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. 

Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is 

about these individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as 

facilitating illegal activity.”). Therefore, the SUA referenced in each of the proposed jury 

instructions regarding the Indictment’s money laundering charges must reference the “fifty 

distinct” advertisements at issue in Counts 2 - 51. Id. 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 162 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 49 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.148 TRANSPORTING FUNDS TO PROMOTE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY 

(Counts 63-68—International Promotional Money Laundering) 

Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Spear, and Brunst are charged in Counts 63-68 of the 

indictment with transporting funds to promote unlawful activity in violation of Section 

1956(a)(2)(A) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for a defendant to be found 

guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a 

reasonable doubt: 

First, the defendant transported money from a place in the United States to or 

through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through 

a place outside the United States; and 

Second, the defendant acted with the intent to promote, or facilitate the promotion 

of, the prostitution offenses committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A), specifically (i) a business enterprise involved in at least one of 

the fifty advertisements that is the subject of Counts 2 – 51 and (ii) a business enterprise 

for which you found that defendant guilty of promoting or facilitating the promotion of. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.147 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment). As this Court previously held, the “specified unlawful activity” (“SUA”) here 

is not the general facilitation or promotion of “any business enterprise involving 

prostitution offenses” in violation of the Travel Act. See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. 

Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to 

dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of 

‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct 

occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other groups were involved 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 163 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 50 

in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-

CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the 

key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. 

Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is 

about these individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as 

facilitating illegal activity.”). Therefore, the SUA referenced in each of the proposed jury 

instructions regarding the Indictment’s money laundering charges must reference the “fifty 

distinct” advertisements at issue in Counts 2 - 51. Id. 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 164 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 51 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.150 MONEY LAUNDERING 

(Transactional Money Laundering) 

Defendant Lacey is charged in Counts 69-70, 81, 83-84, 86, 88-92, and 94-99; 

Defendant Larkin is charged in Counts 80 and 87; Defendant Spear is charged in Counts 

71-78, 85, and 93; and Defendant Brunst is charged in Counts 69-70, 78-84, and 86-93, of 

the indictment with money laundering in violation of Section 1957 of Title 18 of the United 

States Code. In order for a defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government 

must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

First, the defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a monetary 

transaction; 

Second, the defendant knew the specific transaction charged in the indictment 

involved specific criminally derived property; 

Third, the property had a value greater than $10,000; 

Fourth, the property was, in fact, derived from the knowing and willful promotion, 

or facilitation of the promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed by a particular 

business enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A), specifically (i) a business 

enterprise involved in at least one of the fifty advertisements that is the subject of Counts 

2 – 51 and (ii) a business enterprise for which you found that Defendant guilty of promoting 

or facilitating the promotion of; and 

Fifth, the transaction occurred in the United States. 

The term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or 

exchange, in or affecting interstate commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument by, 

through, or to a financial institution. 

The term “financial institution” means an insured bank, commercial bank, or credit 

union. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 165 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 52 

The term “criminally derived property” means any property constituting, or derived 

from, the proceeds of a criminal offense. The government must prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the defendant knew that the property involved in the monetary transaction 

constituted, or was derived from, proceeds obtained by some criminal offense. The statute 

only encompasses transactions in which a defendant first knowingly obtains “criminally 

derived property,” and then engages in a monetary transaction with that property. 

 The government does not have to prove that the defendant knew the precise nature 

of that criminal offense, or knew the property involved in the transaction represented the 

proceeds of promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, the prostitution offenses committed 

by a particular business enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A). But the 

government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the specific 

transaction charged in the indictment involved specific criminally derived property—it is 

not enough that the defendant knew the proceeds derived from advertisements for 

prostitution offenses. 

Although the government must prove that more than $10,000 of the property at issue 

was criminally derived, the government does not have to prove that all of the property at 

issue was criminally derived. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.150 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment). As this Court previously held, the “specified unlawful activity” (“SUA”) here 

is not the general facilitation or promotion of “any business enterprise involving 

prostitution offenses” in violation of the Travel Act. See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. 

Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to 

dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of 

‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct 

occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other groups were involved 

in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 166 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 53 

CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the 

key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. 

Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is 

about these individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as 

facilitating illegal activity.”). Therefore, the SUA referenced in each of the proposed jury 

instructions regarding the Indictment’s money laundering charges must reference the “fifty 

distinct” advertisements at issue in Counts 2 - 51. Id. 

See United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir. 1994) (government 

agreeing to vacate conviction and not disputing that “the language of the statute only 

encompasses transactions in which a defendant first obtains ‘criminally derived property,’ 

and then engages in a monetary transaction with that property.”); United States v. Johnson, 

971 F.2d 562, 570 (10th Cir. 1992) (reversing conviction, noting that “Section 

1957 appears to be drafted to proscribe certain transactions in proceeds that have already 

been obtained by an individual from an underlying criminal offense.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 167 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 54 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.149 TRANSPORTING MONETARY INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSES 

OF LAUNDERING 

(Count 100 – International Concealment Money Laundering) 

Defendant Lacey is charged in Count 100 of the indictment with transporting money 

for the purpose of laundering in violation of Section 1956(a)(2)(B) of Title 18 of the United 

States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government 

must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

First, the defendant transported money from a place in the United States to or 

through a place outside the United States; 

Second, the defendant knew that the money represented the proceeds of the knowing 

and willful promotion, or facilitation of the promotion of, the prostitution offenses 

committed by a particular business enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A), 

specifically (i) a business enterprise involved in at least one of the fifty advertisements that 

is the subject of Counts 2 – 51 and (ii) a business enterprise for which you found that 

defendant guilty of promoting or facilitating the promotion of; and 

Third, the defendant knew the transportation was designed in whole or in part to 

conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of 

the knowing and willful promotion, or facilitation of the promotion of, the prostitution 

offenses committed by any business enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A). 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.149 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment). As this Court previously held, the “specified unlawful activity” (“SUA”) here 

is not the general facilitation or promotion of “any business enterprise involving 

prostitution offenses” in violation of the Travel Act. See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 168 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 55 

Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to 

dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of 

‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct 

occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other groups were involved 

in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-

CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the 

key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. 

Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is 

about these individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as 

facilitating illegal activity.”). Therefore, the SUA referenced in each of the proposed jury 

instructions regarding the Indictment’s money laundering charges must reference the “fifty 

distinct” advertisements at issue in Counts 2 - 51. Id. 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 169 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 56 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.22 MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES 

(Count 52 – Multiple Conspiracies) 

 Count 52 of the indictment alleges a single conspiracy to commit concealment 

money laundering in violation of Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), international promotional 

money laundering in violation of Section 1956(a)(2)(A), transactional money laundering 

in violation of Section 1957(a), and international concealment money laundering in 

violation of Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). You must decide whether the single conspiracy to 

commit concealment, international promotional, transactional, and international 

concealment money laundering as charged in Count 52 of the indictment existed, and, if it 

did, who at least some of its members were. If you find that the single conspiracy to commit 

concealment, international promotional, transactional, and international concealment 

money laundering as charged in Count 52 of the indictment did not exist, then you must 

return a not guilty verdict, even though you may find that some other conspiracy existed. 

For example, if you find that Count 52 concerns two or more conspiracies, you must find 

the Defendants not guilty of the single conspiracy alleged in Count 52. Similarly, if you 

find that any Defendant was not a member of the conspiracy to commit concealment, 

international promotional, transactional, and international concealment money laundering 

as charged in Count 52, then you must find that Defendant not guilty, even though that 

Defendant may have been a member of some other conspiracy. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.22 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 170 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 57 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.25 CONSPIRACY—LIABILITY FOR CONCEALMENT MONEY 

LAUNDERING VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY CO-CONSPIRATOR 

(PINKERTON CHARGE)

(Co-Conspirator Liability) 

Each member of a conspiracy is responsible for the actions of the other conspirators 

performed during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. If one member of a 

conspiracy commits a crime in furtherance of a conspiracy, the other members have also, 

under the law, committed that crime. 

Therefore, you may find a Defendant guilty of a committing concealment money 

laundering in violation of Section 1956(a)(1)(B) of Title 18 of the United States Code as 

charged in Counts 53-62 of the indictment if the government has proved each of the 

following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

First, a person named in Count 52 of the indictment committed the crime of 

concealment money laundering as alleged in Counts 53-62; 

Second, the person was a member of the conspiracy as charged in Count 52 of the 

indictment; 

Third, the person committed the crime of concealment money laundering in 

furtherance of the conspiracy; 

Fourth, the Defendant was a member of the same conspiracy at the time the offenses 

charged in Counts 53-62 were committed; 

Fifth, the offense fell within the scope of the unlawful agreement and could 

reasonably have been foreseen to be a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful 

agreement. 

 To prove a conspiracy, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the 

requisite intent to commit the substantive crime, here concealment money laundering. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 171 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 58 

Concealment money laundering is a specific intent crime. See the Specific Intent jury 

instruction. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.25 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment). As this Court previously held, the “specified unlawful activity” (“SUA”) here 

is not the general facilitation or promotion of “any business enterprise involving 

prostitution offenses” in violation of the Travel Act. See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. 

Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to 

dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of 

‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct 

occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other groups were involved 

in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-

CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the 

key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. 

Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is 

about these individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as 

facilitating illegal activity.”). Therefore, the SUA referenced in each of the proposed jury 

instructions regarding the Indictment’s money laundering charges must reference the “fifty 

distinct” advertisements at issue in Counts 2 - 51. Id. 

 To prove a conspiracy charge, the government must prove the “requisite intent for 

the substantive crime.” United States v. Kaplan, 836 F.3d 1199, 1212 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Concealment money laundering is a specific intent crime. 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 172 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 59 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

8.25 CONSPIRACY—LIABILITY FOR INTERNATIONAL PROMOTIONAL 

MONEY LAUNDERING VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY CO-CONSPIRATOR 

(PINKERTON CHARGE)

(Co-Conspirator Liability) 

Each member of a conspiracy is responsible for the actions of the other conspirators 

performed during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. If one member of a 

conspiracy commits a crime in furtherance of a conspiracy, the other members have also, 

under the law, committed that crime. 

Therefore, you may find a Defendant guilty of a committing international 

promotional money laundering in violation of Section 1956(a)(2)(A) of Title 18 of the 

United States Code as charged in Counts 63-68 of the indictment if the government has 

proved each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

First, a person named in Count 52 of the indictment committed the crime of 

international promotional money laundering as alleged in Counts 63-68; 

Second, the person was a member of the conspiracy as charged in Count 52 of the 

indictment; 

Third, the person committed the crime of international promotional money 

laundering in furtherance of the conspiracy; 

Fourth, the Defendant was a member of the same conspiracy at the time the offenses 

charged in Counts 63-68 were committed; 

Fifth, the offense fell within the scope of the unlawful agreement and could 

reasonably have been foreseen to be a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful 

agreement. 

 To prove a conspiracy, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the 

requisite intent to commit the substantive crime, here international promotional money 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 173 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 60 

laundering. International promotional money laundering is a specific intent crime. See the 

Specific Intent jury instruction. 

Supporting Authorities 

 Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 8.25 (2021) (modified to reflect the charges in the 

indictment). As this Court previously held, the “specified unlawful activity” (“SUA”) here 

is not the general facilitation or promotion of “any business enterprise involving 

prostitution offenses” in violation of the Travel Act. See United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. 

Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to 

dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of 

‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct 

occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or other groups were involved 

in the business of prostitution.”); see United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-

CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the 

key things in my reason for denying the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. 

Backpage was prosecuted in a separate case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is 

about these individual defendants and whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as 

facilitating illegal activity.”). Therefore, the SUA referenced in each of the proposed jury 

instructions regarding the Indictment’s money laundering charges must reference the “fifty 

distinct” advertisements at issue in Counts 2 - 51. Id. 

 To prove a conspiracy charge, the government must prove the “requisite intent for 

the substantive crime.” United States v. Kaplan, 836 F.3d 1199, 1212 (9th Cir. 2016). 

International promotional money laundering is a specific intent crime. 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 174 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 61 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANT’S GOOD FAITH 

 

 The government has the burden to prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a 

defendant acted with criminal intent and lacked good faith. The burden of 

proving good faith does not rest with a defendant because a defendant does not have any 

obligation to prove anything in this case. If the government fails to meet its burden to 

prove a defendant lacked good faith, its failure to do so is a complete and absolute defense 

to the charges in this case and you must return a not guilty verdict. 

If a defendant carried out his or her actions in good faith, there was no criminal 

intent. 

 A person who acts, or causes another person to act, on a belief or an opinion honestly 

held is not punishable under the charges in the indictment merely because the belief or 

opinion turns out to be inaccurate, incorrect, or wrong. An honest mistake in judgment or 

an honest error in management does not rise to the level of criminal conduct. 

 While the term “good faith” has no precise definition, it encompasses, among other 

things, a belief or opinion honestly held and an absence of malice or ill will. 

 If the evidence in the case leaves the jury with a reasonable doubt as to whether a 

defendant acted with criminal intent and lacked good faith, the jury must acquit that 

defendant. 

Supporting Authorities 

See 1A Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. § 19:06 (6th ed.), 1A Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. § 19:06 

(6th ed.). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 175 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 62 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENSE THEORY OF THE CASE 

Defendants intend to request instructions on the defense’s theories of the case. 

Defendants reserve their right to submit that request at the close of the trial. 

Supporting Authorities 

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 30; United States v. Cortes, 757 F.3d 850, 857 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(“A criminal defendant is entitled to jury instructions related to a defense theory so long as 

there is any foundation in the evidence and the instruction is supported by law.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Burt, 410 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A 

defendant is entitled to instructions relating to a defense theory for which there is any 

foundation in the evidence, even though the evidence may be weak, insufficient, 

inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.”). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 176 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 63 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—PROTECTED FREE SPEECH 

 Advertisements are legally protected speech under the First Amendment to the 

United States Constitution. A website’s hosting of a third-party’s advertisement on the 

internet is also protected under the First Amendment, including the publication of 

suggestive advertisements that might relate to either legal or illegal activity. 

 

Supporting Authorities 

 Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 

561, (1980) (“The First Amendment . . . protects commercial speech from unwarranted 

governmental regulation. . . . Even when advertising communicates only an incomplete 

version of the relevant facts, the First Amendment presumes that some accurate 

information is better than no information at all.”); Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868-70 

(1997) (“[O]ur cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First amendment scrutiny 

that should be applied to [the Internet].”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 177 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 64 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—WEBSITES HOSTING THIRD-PARTY 

ADS 

A website’s hosting of a third-party’s ad is presumptively protected and therefore 

legal, unless the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 

(i) the defendant had actual knowledge of the particular ad, and 

(ii) the defendant had actual knowledge that the particular ad’s content was in fact 

for unlawful activity, and 

(iii) the defendant personally took an action causing the particular ad to be published, or 

to continue to be published, specifically intending to further illegal activity. 

Supporting Authorities 

 See Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1281 (W.D. Wash. 

2012) (“The third-party publication of offers to engage in illegal transactions does not fall 

within ‘well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech’ that fall outside of First 

Amendment protection.”) (quoting Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 

571–572 (1942)); United States v Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 450 fn. 8 (9th Cir. 

1974) (“The presumption that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his 

actions is insufficient in this context to establish intent to facilitate criminal activity. It is 

as likely as not that a vendor similar to the defendants in this proceeding is totally 

indifferent to the actions of his purchaser.”); See United States v. Rundo, 990 F.3d 709, 

719-720 (9th Cir. 2021) (“’the intent to engage in one of the prohibited acts is a personal 

prerequisite to punishment under [the Act] . . . Simply put, knowing that some might choose 

to become violent is not at all the same as intending that they do so.”). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 178 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 65 

See also United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHXSMB, Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not 

indicted for facilitating the amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for 

facilitating (via publishing ads) on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitutionrelated businesses, or other groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”); see 

United States v. Lacey, et al. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB, Transcript of 

December 4, 2020 Hearing (“And I think one of the key things in my reason for denying 

the recusal is that this case is not about Backpage. Backpage was prosecuted in a separate 

case, entered a plea in a separate case. This case is about these individual defendants and 

whether they had specific knowledge of these ads as facilitating illegal activity.”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 179 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 66 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—“ADULT” SERVICES ARE LEGAL 

The phrase ‘adult,’ even in conjunction with ‘services,’ is not unlawful in itself nor 

does it necessarily call for unlawful content. 

Supporting Authorities 

Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961, 968 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (verbatim quote). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 180 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 67 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—EXAMPLES OF LEGAL “ADULT” 

SERVICES 

Advertisements for escort services, strippers, massage services, dominatrix, and 

dating are presumptively legal and constitutionally protected speech, because escorting, 

stripping, providing massage or dominatrix services, and dating all are legal activities. 

Supporting Authorities 

See Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F.Supp.2d 961, 968 (N.D. Ill.2009) (Sheriff Dart 

“is simply wrong when he insists that [craigslist’s adult services category and related 

subcategories] are all synonyms for illegal sexual services;” craiglist’s “adult services” 

section “is not unlawful in itself nor does it necessarily call for unlawful content”);

Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 234 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 46 

(2016) (rejecting sheriff’s presumption that ads on Backpage.com were illegal: 

Backpage.com was “an avenue of expression of ideas and opinions” protected by the First 

Amendment, including its “classified ads for ‘adult’ service;” “Fetishism? Phone sex? 

Performances by striptease artists? (Vulgar is not violent.) One ad in the category ‘dom 

& fetish’ is for the services of a ‘professional dominatrix’—a woman who is paid to whip 

or otherwise humiliate a customer in order to arouse him sexually. It’s not obvious that 

such conduct endangers women or children or violates any laws, including laws against 

prostitution. The district judge remarked ‘that the majority of the advertisements [in 

Backpage’s adult section] are for sex’—but a majority is not all, and not all advertisements 

for sex are advertisements for illegal sex.”) (internal citations omitted); Backpage.com, 

LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1281-82 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (rejecting similar 

presumption of state AG defending law targeting Backpage and noting the “third-party 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 181 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 68 

publication of offers to engage in illegal transactions does not fall within [the] ‘welldefined and narrowly limited classes of speech’ that fall outside of First Amendment 

protection.” (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942)); 

Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d 805, 833-34 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (rejecting 

state’s argument that escort ads on Backpage.com were unprotected speech); 

Backpage.com, LLC v. Hoffman, 2013 WL 4502097, at *9-11 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2013) 

(same); M.A. ex rel. P.K v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 

1049-50 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (rejecting similar presumption in dismissing plaintiff’s civil 

claims based on 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1595, and 2255); People v Ferrer, 2016 WL 7237305, at 

*9 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2016) (dismissing state’s pimping charges against Larkin and 

Lacey; noting that the only “whiff of illegality” in the AG’s complaint improperly 

“require[ed] the presumption that illegal content was contained in the ads,” yet the 

website’s actions in posting the ads “would not be illegal”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 182 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 69 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—WEBSITE HAS THE RIGHT TO 

EXERCISE EDITORIAL CONTROL AND JUDGMENT 

The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing a website that 

exercises “editorial control and judgment,” including decisions about whether to allow, 

block, or edit third-party content. 

Federal law also protects online providers and encourages them to engage in the 

editorial practices of monitoring, limiting, and/or editing user-submitted content to 

“maintain the robust nature of Internet communication, and ... keep government 

interference in the medium to a minimum.” 

Supporting Authorities 

Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974); Washington Post 

v. McManus, 355 F. Supp. 3d 272, 300 (D. Md. 2019) (enjoining Maryland statute that 

required social media and news websites to self-publish information about political ads, 

holding that the statute infringed editorial judgments; “This respect for a publisher’s right 

to exercise ‘editorial control and judgment’ ... applies with equal force to outlets that 

publish content on the Internet”) (quoting Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 258), aff’d., 944 F.3d 506 

(4th Cir. 2019); e-ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2017 WL 2210029, at *4 

(M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2017) (“A search engine is akin to a publisher, whose judgments about 

what to publish and what not to publish are absolutely protected by the First Amendment”; 

holding that “Google’s actions in ... determining whether certain websites are contrary to 

Google’s guidelines and thereby subject to removal are the same as decisions by a 

newspaper editor regarding which content to publish, which article belongs on the front 

page, and which article is unworthy of publication. The First Amendment protects these 

decisions, whether they are fair or unfair, or motivated by profit or altruism.”); Zhang v. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 183 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 70 

Baidu.com Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“a ‘search engine’s editorial 

judgment is much like many other familiar editorial judgments,’ such as the newspaper 

editor’s judgment of which wire-service stories to run and where to place them in the 

newspaper”); Langdon v. Google, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 622, 629-630 (D. Del. 2007) (First 

Amendment protects decisions about placement, ranking, or rejection of online 

advertisements); Search King, Inc. v. Google Tech., Inc., 2003 WL 21464568 *4 (W.D. 

Okla. 2003) (“Google’s PageRanks are entitled to ‘full constitutional protection.’”). 

Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2003) (“‘Section 230 was enacted, 

in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication, and accordingly, to keep 

government interference in the medium to a minimum.’ Making interactive computer 

services and their users liable for the speech of third parties would severely restrict the 

information available on the Internet.”) (internal citations omitted); Doe v. Kik Interactive, 

Inc., 482 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1247 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (“‘Section 230, though . . . was enacted 

to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep 

government interference in the medium to a minimum.’ Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 

53, 63 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2761, 206 L. Ed. 2d 936 

(2020) (quotations omitted). ‘Indeed, Congress stated in Section 230 that ‘[i]t is the policy 

of the United States – (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other 

interactive computer services and other interactive media; [and] (2) to preserve the vibrant 

and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive 

computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.’’ Id. (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 

230(b)(1)-(2)).”). See Bennett v. Google, Inc., 2017 WL 2692607, at *2 (D.D.C. June 21, 

2017) (“holding Google liable for establishing standards and guidelines would ultimately 

create a powerful disincentive for service providers to establish any standards or ever 

decide to remove objectionable content, which the CDA was enacted to prevent”), aff’d 

sub nom., Bennett v. Google, LLC, 882 F.3d 1163 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 184 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 71 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—OFFENSIVE AND SEXUAL SPEECH

The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech because 

some find it offensive. The First Amendment also prohibits the government from 

restricting adult sexual expression that is indecent, but not obscene. 

Supporting Authorities 

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 245 (2002) (“It is also well established 

that speech may not be prohibited because it concerns subjects offending our sensibilities. 

. . . In evaluating the free speech rights of adults, we have made it perfectly clear that 

‘[s]exual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First 

Amendment’”) (citing Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 185 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 72 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—SPEECH PRESUMED 

PROTECTED 

The Constitution does not permit the jury to presume that speech is unprotected 

merely because it resembles unprotected speech. The jury must presume that speech is 

protected. 

The government always has the burden to prove that particular instances of speech 

are not protected by the First Amendment. 

Supporting Authorities 

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 255 (2002) (“Protected speech does 

not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter.”); United States v. Playboy 

Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 (2000) (“When the Government restricts speech, the 

Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.”); id. at 818 

(“When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of nonpersuasion 

... must rest with the Government, not with the citizen.”). 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 186 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 73 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—ADS PRESUMED PROTECTED 

A website’s publication of a classified ad posted by a third party is protected under 

the First Amendment unless the transaction proposed in the ad necessarily would be an 

illegal act (like an ad proposing a sale of cocaine, which always is illegal). Where the 

legality of a transaction proposed in an ad depends on circumstances outside the content of 

the ad, a website’s publication of the ad is protected by the First Amendment. 

The jury cannot conclude from coded language or implicit offers in a classified ad 

that an ad necessarily proposes an illegal act. Coded language or implicit offers mean that 

the legality of a transaction proposed in an ad will depend on circumstances outside the 

content of the ad. 

The classified ads charged in Counts 2 – 22 and 24 – 51 do not necessarily propose 

unlawful acts and the legality of the transactions proposed in those ads depends on 

circumstances outside the content of those ads. Therefore, Backpage.com’s publication of 

those 49 ads was protected by the First Amendment. 

 A website’s publication of classified ads protected by the First Amendment does 

not become unprotected merely because some, or even many, third-parties use the ads 

hosted on the website to facilitate their own illegal conduct. 

Supporting Authorities 

Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808, 822 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting Arizona’s 

proposed “novel extension of Central Hudson’s legality requirement, which has 

traditionally focused on the content of affected speech—i.e., whether the speech proposes 

an illegal transaction—instead of whether the speech is associated with unlawful activity”) 

(emphasis added).

 

-

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 187 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 74 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—CODED ADVERTISEMENT 

LANGUAGE 

Coded language in an ad does not mean the ad is for an illegal activity. For example, 

where a website publishes an escort advertisement, posted by a third-party, using coded 

language implying the advertisement is for prostitution, the advertisement may, in fact, just 

be for legal escort services. 

Supporting Authorities 

See Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1279 (W.D. Wash. 

2012) (“The pimp that publishes the advertisement certainly ‘knows’ whether his offer is 

for sex, whether explicitly or implicitly. However, what does it mean for the website 

operator to “know” that an advertisement “implicitly” offers sex? In Washington, ‘a person 

acts knowingly or with knowledge when . . . he or she has information which would lead a 

reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described 

by a statute defining an offense.’ Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.08.010(b)(ii). 

However, where an online service provider publishes advertisements that employ coded 

language, a reasonable person could believe that facts exist that do not in fact exist: an 

advertisement for escort services may be just that. Similarly, Defendants contend that 

‘offer’ is used ‘to make clear that a transaction does not have to be consummated for SB 

6251 to apply.’ However, if the offer is implicit, how can a third party ascertain that which 

is being offered before the transaction is consummated?”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 188 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 75 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—GOVERNMENT CANNOT PUNISH 

LEGAL SPEECH TO SUPPRESS ILLEGAL SPEECH 

The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting or punishing legal 

speech in an effort to eliminate illegal speech. The possible harm to society from 

permitting illegal speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that legal 

speech will be suppressed. 

The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing a defendant based 

on that defendant’s or Backpage.com’s refusal to cease publishing adult services or dating 

ads, even if eliminating all adult-oriented ads would have reduced the number of ads 

relating to illegal conduct on the website. 

Supporting Authorities 

Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1738 (2017) (“as a general rule, 

the Government ‘may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful 

speech’”); Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 255 (2002) (“The government 

may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 189 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 76 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—PROTECTED PUBLICATION OF 

THIRD-PARTY SPEECH 

Under the First Amendment, the jury cannot find a defendant guilty of a crime based 

on a website’s publication of a third-party classified ad, unless the government proves 

beyond a reasonable doubt that: 

(i) the defendant had actual knowledge of the particular ad, and 

(ii) the defendant had actual knowledge that the particular ad related to unlawful 

activity, and 

(iii) the defendant personally took an action causing the particular ad to be 

published on, or to continue to be published on, Backpage.com with the aim of 

furthering the illegal activity. 

Supporting Authorities 

See Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1959); Mishkin v. New York, 383 

U.S. 502, 511 (1966) (“The Constitution requires proof of scienter to avoid the hazard of 

self-censorship of constitutionally protected material . . .”); Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 

709 F.3d 808, 822 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting Arizona’s proposed “novel extension of 

Central Hudson’s legality requirement, which has traditionally focused on the content of 

affected speech—i.e., whether the speech proposes an illegal transaction—instead of 

whether the speech is associated with unlawful activity”) (emphasis added); 

Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d 805, 830 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (the First 

Amendment burden imposed by self-censorship is magnified on the Internet, because 

“websites ... will bear an impossible burden to review all of their millions of postings or, 

more likely, shut down their adult services section entirely.”).

 

-

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 190 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 77 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—NO REQUIREMENT TO SHUT DOWN 

The First Amendment prohibits the government from requiring a website hosting 

third-party ads to shut down its adult section, even if doing so could have reduced the 

number of ads relating to illegal conduct. 

Supporting Authorities 

Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1738 (2017) (“as a general rule, 

the Government ‘may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful 

speech’”); Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 255 (2002) (“The government 

may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.”).

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 191 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 78 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—NO REQUIREMENT TO 

INVESTIGATE 

An internet provider is not required to investigate or learn what its users are doing 

and whether anyone is hurt as a result. 

Supporting Authorities 

Doe v. GTE Corp, 347 F.3d 655, 661 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Plaintiffs do not cite any case 

in any jurisdiction holding that a service provider must take reasonable care to prevent 

injury to third parties. Consider the Postal Service or Federal Express, which sell 

transportation services that could be used to carry harmful articles. As far as we can 

discover, no court has held such a carrier liable for failure to detect and remove harmful 

items from shipments. . . . Similarly, telephone companies are free to sell phone lines to 

entities such as [the wrongdoer], without endeavoring to find out what use the customers 

make of the service. See, e.g., Anderson v. New York Telephone Co., 35 N.Y.2d 746, 361 

N.Y.S.2d 913, 320 N.E.2d 647 (1974) (no liability for phone company that furnished 

service to someone who used the connection to play a defamatory recording to all callers). 

. . . Landlord, phone company, delivery service, and web host all could learn, at some cost, 

what [wrongdoer] was doing with the services and who was potentially injured as a result; 

but state law does not require these providers to learn, or to act as Good Samaritans if they 

do. The common law rarely requires people to protect strangers, or for that matter 

acquaintances or employees. See generally Stockberger v. United States, 332 F.3d 479 (7th 

Cir. 2003).”) 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 192 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 79 

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—PUBLICATION DOES NOT CREATE 

CRIMINAL CULPABILITY 

A defendant’s operation of a website does not in and of itself provide culpable 

assistance to a wrongdoer; to prove a defendant guilty of assisting a criminal, the 

government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a desire to 

promote the wrongful venture’s success. 

Supporting Authorities 

Doe v. GTE Corp, 347 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2003) (evaluating internet service 

provider’s liability under section 230 where wrongdoer posted surreptitiously obtained 

photos of naked college athletes: “GTE’s activity does not satisfy the ordinary 

understanding of culpable assistance to a wrongdoer, which requires a desire to promote 

the wrongful venture’s success. See generally United States v. Pino-Perez, 870 F.2d 1230 

(7th Cir. 1989) (en banc). 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? GTE does not want to encourage the 

surreptitious interception of oral communications, nor did it profit from the sale of the 

tapes. It does profit from the sale of server space and bandwidth, but these are lawful 

commodities whose uses overwhelmingly are socially productive. That web hosting 

services likewise may be used to carry out illegal activities does not justify condemning 

their provision whenever a given customer turns out to be crooked. [The wrongdoer] did 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 193 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions 

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 80 

not demand a quantity or type of service that is specialized to unlawful activities, nor do 

plaintiffs allege that the bandwidth or other services required were themselves tipoffs so 

that GTE, like the seller of sugar to a bootlegger, must have known that the customer had 

no legitimate use for the service. Just as the telephone company is not liable as an aider 

and abettor for tapes or narcotics sold by phone, and the Postal Service is not liable for 

tapes sold (and delivered) by mail, so a web host cannot be classified as an aider and abettor 

of criminal activities conducted through access to the Internet.”). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 194 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 81

COURT’S INSTRUCTION NO. ____

DEFENDANTS’ JOINTLY PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. ____

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION—PUBLICATION DOES NOT CREATE 

CRIMINAL CULPABILITY

A defendant’s operation of a website does not in and of itself provide culpable 

assistance to a wrongdoer; to prove a defendant guilty of assisting a criminal, the 

government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a desire to 

promote the wrongful venture’s success. 

Supporting Authorities

Doe v. GTE Corp, 347 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2003) (evaluating internet service 

provider’s liability under section 230 where wrongdoer posted surreptitiously obtained 

photos of naked college athletes: “GTE’s activity does not satisfy the ordinary 

understanding of culpable assistance to a wrongdoer, which requires a desire to promote 

the wrongful venture’s success. See generally United States v. Pino-Perez, 870 F.2d 1230 

(7th Cir. 1989) (en banc). 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? GTE does not want to encourage the 

surreptitious interception of oral communications, nor did it profit from the sale of the 

tapes. It does profit from the sale of server space and bandwidth, but these are lawful 

commodities whose uses overwhelmingly are socially productive. That web hosting 

services likewise may be used to carry out illegal activities does not justify condemning 

their provision whenever a given customer turns out to be crooked. [The wrongdoer] did 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 195 of 196
Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions

US v. Lacey, et al., 18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB 82

not demand a quantity or type of service that is specialized to unlawful activities, nor do 

plaintiffs allege that the bandwidth or other services required were themselves tipoffs so 

that GTE, like the seller of sugar to a bootlegger, must have known that the customer had 

no legitimate use for the service. Just as the telephone company is not liable as an aider 

and abettor for tapes or narcotics sold by phone, and the Postal Service is not liable for 

tapes sold (and delivered) by mail, so a web host cannot be classified as an aider and abettor 

of criminal activities conducted through access to the Internet.”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1199 Filed 08/05/21 Page 196 of 196