Search court records - party Cristina Arguedas, page 7

No. 878 ORDER denying 784 Motion to Sever Defendant as to Joye Vaught (7)

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 878 (D.Ariz. Feb. 10, 2020)

Motion to SeverDenied

To be sure, Defendant points to select statements made by her codefendants, but none is a confession directly implicating her culpability in this case.

Cite Document

Analyze

No. 840 ORDER: Defendants Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on Section 23 of the Communications Decency ...

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 840 (D.Ariz. Jan. 8, 2020)

Motion to Dismiss IndictmentDenied

Alternatively, Defendants claim the Travel Act, as applied by the Superseding Indictment, fails to give adequate notice of criminality, meriting dismissal of all counts as void for vagueness.

“Whether wisely or not,” Congress “made the legislative judgment to effectively immunize providers of computer services from civil liability in tort with respect to materials disseminated by them but created by others.” Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp.

for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 2008) (“To appreciate the limited role of § 230(a)(1), remember that ‘internet content providers’ may be liable for contributory infringement if their system is designed to help people steal music or other material in copyright.”); Anthony v. Yahoo, Inc., 421 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1262-63 (N.D. Cal.

There is no reason to conduct an evidentiary hearing”); United States v. Nukida, 8 F.3d 665, 670 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[t]he proper procedure for raising [a] challenge to the sufficiency of the government’s evidence [is] ... not a pretrial motion to dismiss.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Recycling a previous argument, Defendants argue they lacked fair and reasonable warning that their conduct to assist publication of known prostitution ads could violate the Travel Act.

Cite Document

Analyze