United States of America,

This matter has been referred to the undersigned for setting of a Frye/Cooper hearing (Doc. 1676).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED setting a Frye/Cooper hearing for August 15, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Fine in courtroom 303.

Defendants must personally appear with their counsel.

The Court finds there is no excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161.

United States of America,

As set forth on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference held on July 27, 2023, IT IS ORDERED that of the four hundred forty-four (444) prospective jurors who completed questionnaires, three hundred twenty (320) are stricken for cause.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that jurors twenty-five (25) and three hundred sixty- six (366) were stricken for cause on August 4, 2023.

The following one hundred twenty- two (122) prospective jurors remain:

1449 1449 1486 1486 1505 1505 1525 1525 1539 1539 1558 1558 1575 1575 1582 1582 1585 1585 1594 1594 1615 1615 1618 1618 1702 1702 1709 1709 1710 1710 1718 1718 1723 1723 1747 1747 1754 1754 1756 1756 1757 1757 1762 1762 1772 1772 1787 1787 1792 1792 1800 1800 1807 1807 1809 1813 1824 1844 1858 1859 1873 Dated this 7th day of August, 2023.

Government makes an oral Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment against Defendant James Larkin only.

Taking into consideration the position of the parties, the Court finds that Defense counsels’ necessity to redistribute work related to trial preparation warrants a continuance.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by Wednesday, August 9, 2023, the Government shall produce its revised witness list and share it with defense counsel.

LATER, OFF THE RECORD: The existing jury pool will be provided with an additional two screening questions on August 8th.

IT IS ORDERED that a Hearing to review the completed Juror Questionnaires shall be held on August 18, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. in the Special Proceedings Courtroom, 2nd Floor, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Diane J Humetewa.

United States of America,

Upon consideration of the United States’ request for a Frye/Cooper Hearing in its Trial Brief (Doc. 1642), and finding good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine for purposes of setting a Frye/Cooper Hearing as soon as practicable at which time the United States may make a record in the presence of Defendants as to the United States’ plea offers.

The Court finds there is no excludable delay.

Dated this 4th day of August, 2023.

In addition to the issues referenced in the Court’s prior Orders (Docs.

1650 & 1654), the parties shall come prepared to discuss the following at the hearing set for Friday, August 4, 2023: 1.

What progress defense counsel has made, if any, to identify a new data housing system and Trial Director “hot seat” person; 2.

Whether the parties are agreeable to a shorter trial; 3.

Whether the parties are willing to shorten the length of the juror questionnaires and if so, which questions they would agree to remove.

The Ninth Circuit expressly rejected the government’s contention that the “presumption that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions” was sufficient “to establish intent to facilitate criminal activity” because it was “as likely as not that a vendor similar to the defendants in this proceeding is totally indifferent to the actions of his purchaser.” Id. at 450 fn.8.

Backpage.com, LLC v. Hoffman, Case No. 13–cv–03952 (DMC)(JAD), 2013 WL 4502097 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2013) (striking down, under First Amendment, state statute criminalizing advertisements “that would appear to a reasonable person to be for the purpose of engaging in what would be a commercial sex act…with a minor” and rejecting state’s claim that the statute “regulates illegal advertisements…not protected by the First Amendment” because, among other things, “[d]escribing criminal conduct as anything that is ‘implicit’ is inherently vague, because it means ‘[n]ot directly expressed [and] existing [only] inferentially’ and ‘fails to clearly mark the boundary between what is permissible and impermissible’”); Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper, 939 F. Supp.

“Sadomasochistic abuse” means flagellation or torture by or on a person who is nude or clad in undergarments or in revealing or bizarre costume or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed.

(18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A)) 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.

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.

As set forth on the record, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Arguing Legality of Ads (Doc. 1592) is DENIED without prejudice, subject to further objection at trial.

IT IS ORDERED that by July 31, 2023, Defendants may file a supplemental motion no longer than seven (7) pages regarding the draft Travel Act jury instructions and specific references to state law.

USA v. Michael Lacey Case Number: CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH Date: July 27, 2023 Page 2 of 2 4:24 p.m. Court reconvenes.

IT IS ORDERED setting a Hearing for August 4, 2023, at 1:00 PM in the Special Proceedings Courtroom, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003.

The Court will take up the statement of the case, permit the parties to make a record on the finalized jury instructions, and address miscellaneous issues related to the trial.

Nonetheless, the Court will withhold ruling on the Motion until the Government lays the proper foundation and explains its relevance.

None of the prior Orders described by Defendants definitively ruled that they could rely upon this argument because so far, no Defendant has waived the attorney/client privilege as it relates to the allegations in the SI.

However, if none of the four factors has been disclosed or produced prior to opening statements, Defendants are precluded from making such early pronouncements.

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law”).

The question before the Supreme Court in Hansen was whether a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully violated First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees.

The court rejected Woodhull’s argument that the terms “promote” and “facilitate” could be interpreted to broadly encompass activities such as generally advocating about prostitution or giving advice to sex workers to protect them from abuse.

In that context, the court found that “promoting prostitution” proscribes “owning, managing, or operating an online platform with the intent to recruit, solicit, or find a place of business for a sex worker—that is, to aid and abet prostitution.” Id.

In short, neither Hansen nor Woodhull changes the law on pleading standards for indictments nor overturns Ninth Circuit precedent that identifies the essential elements of a Travel Act violation.

This matter having been set for a firm Jury Trial on August 8, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., IT IS ORDERED that the completed juror questionnaires will be reviewed at the time of the Final Pretrial Conference set for July 27, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 605, Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona, 85003.

The completed questionnaires will be made available to counsel on a USB flash drive that can be picked up in the Jury Administration Office on July 21, 2023.

Counsel shall bring their copies of the questionnaires to the Final Pretrial Conference.

Counsel are required to return the USB flash drive and all copies of the questionnaires to the Courtroom Deputy no later than the last day of trial.

The Court will rule on any disputed jurors at the Final Pretrial Conference.

Trial in this matter is set to commence on August 8, 2023, and continue through November 3, 2023, with some noted recesses in between those dates.

The trial dates in this matter were set in this case after the Court consulted with counsel on availability and potential conflicts.

Mr. Cambria’s Motion for Relief is over three months past this deadline, and he offers no excuse as to why the Court was not informed of his conflict sooner.

The Court is also not persuaded that Ms. Paris is unable to assume trial responsibilities for two and a half days while Mr. Cambria attends his daughter’s wedding festivities.

1 Mr. Cambria cites to an October 3, 2018, Order granting the Government leave to appear telephonically for a motion hearing as evidence of Ms. Cook’s conflict.

United States of America,

Defendants have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s June 1, 2023, Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 1622).

The Court will order expedited briefing on the Motion.

IT IS ORDERED that the Government shall file its response to the Motion for Reconsideration by July 3, 2023.

Defendants shall have until July 6, 2023, to file a supporting reply brief.

350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 • Fax: 312.589.6378 THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Court confirms its certification for settlement purposes of the following Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All individuals who, in the United States (as reasonably determined by IP address information, or other information furnished by Defendants and Platform Providers), played the Applications on or before Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.”1

The Class Notice and the means of disseminating the same, as prescribed by the Agreement, was appropriate and reasonable and constituted due, Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families, (2) the Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which a Defendant or its parents has a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees, (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Settlement Class, and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons.

Seven class members requested to be excluded pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, and the Court orders that those seven class members are excluded from this settlement: Judith Both, David Deroussis, Whitney Goodman, Margaret Herbst, Maria Zapico, Rita Hockman, and Michael B. Clegg.

Nothing in this order shall prevent the Settlement Administrator from requesting further reimbursement, drawn exclusively from the interest accrued to the common fund, in the event of an unforeseen circumstance.

Nothing in this order shall prevent the Settlement Administrator from requesting further reimbursement, drawn exclusively from the interest accrued to the common fund, in the event of an unforeseen circumstance.

In re Optical Disk Drive, 959 F.3d at 933 (noting that a reduction may be appropriate to prevent a windfall where “the increase in recovery is merely a factor of the size of the class and has no direct relationship to the efforts of counsel.”).

Class Counsel represent that they have incurred significant costs and expenses in connection with prosecuting this action, but have decided to not seek reimbursement of those separately from their ~29.3% fee request.

Both also made substantial personal sacrifices for the benefit of the Class, including the fact that anyone who Googles their names now sees pages of websites talking about their involving in these lawsuits.

Nothing in this order shall prevent the Settlement Administrator from requesting further reimbursement, drawn exclusively from the interest accrued to the common fund, in the event of an unforeseen circumstance.

Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, Scott Spear, John Brunst, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught (“Defendants”) have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 1557).

The Court has clarified, however, that “a person who actively participates in a criminal scheme knowing its extent and character intends that scheme’s commission.” Id. at 77 (citing with approval United States v. Easter, 66 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 1995) (correctly finding that unarmed driver of a getaway car had the requisite intent to aid and abet an armed bank robbery if he “knew” his cohorts would use weapons in carrying out the crime)).

Finally, the Court declines to reconsider its prior rulings and dismiss the SI due to double jeopardy concerns, the independent-standing money laundering counts, or on assumptions that the grand jury was erroneously instructed.

The Court rejects Defendants’ premise that the Travel Act offenses require the Government to allege the elements of aiding and abetting to satisfy Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7.

The Court has also previously rejected this assertion and identified the many specific facts tethering Defendants’ actions to their knowledge that posting the fifty ads would facilitate the business of prostitution.