See David, supra, at *61 n. 32 (2008 amendments not retroactive to § 1595); see id., at *64 n. 33 (nor retroactive concerning § 1589); and see id., at *80 n. 38 (nor retroactive concerning § 1590). Cf. Ditullio v. Boehm, 662 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (deciding that § 1595 did not apply retroactively to encompass conduct that occurred prior to the statute’s original creation in 2003 despite plaintiff’s continuing violation argument).

In 2008, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1596 to provide that the criminal statutes apply where the alleged offender is a U.S. national. At least one court has held that this provision applies retroactively and permits claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 based on extraterritorial conduct even if that conduct occurred prior to 2008. Adhikari, 697 F. Supp. 2d at 683-84.

Furthermore, while Defendants’ initial conversion of Plaintiff’s passport took place in 2005, the conversion would be ongoing until the passport was returned and Defendants do not allege that they ever returned Plaintiff’s passport. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 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 -6- MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS DM_US:22990350_1 CONCLUSION 18 U.S.C § 1595(a) explicitly provides private causes of action for Plaintiff’s Second and Third claims and a 10-year statute of limitations. Defendants’ own actions prevented Plaintiff from bringing her Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action until she was rescued, thus tolling the applicable statute of limitations until July 2008.

Pro se defendant Crisologo Damian was also contacted regarding this motion and he indicated that he had no objection. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court permit it to intervene in this action and that this Court stay the civil proceedings, including any discovery, pending the completion of the trial in the criminal case, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1595, and as an exercise of the Court’s discretion in the interests of justice. -10- Case 1:10-cv-00772-MSK -MJW Document 38 Filed 10/08/10 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 12 Respectfully Submitted, JOHN F. WALSH United States Attorney s/William G. Pharo William G. Pharo Assistant United States Attorney 1225 17 Street, Suite 700th Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-454-0100 FAX: 303-454-0404 E-mail: william.pharo@usdoj.gov -11- Case 1:10-cv-00772-MSK -MJW Document 38 Filed 10/08/10 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 8th day of October, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO INTERVENE AND TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: jcrodriguez@colegalserv.org jlee@colegalserv.org co2linda@aol.com lwj@omhdlaw.com

1 As discussed in "Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Michael J. Babb's Motion to Deny Jury Trial Demand," although Mr. Babb appears to dispute Plaintiff's ability to seek attorneys' fees and costs in this action, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs are recoverable in these circumstances pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Case 1:13-cv-02699-WSD Document 20 Filed 10/30/13 Page 6 of 8 - 7 - III. CONCLUSION

B. The Complaint Does Not Allege A Basis For Extraterritorial Jurisdiction For Civil Actions Under The TVPRA The civil remedy provision of the TVPRA, provides: (a) An individual who is a victim of a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter) in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys fees. (18 U.S.C. §1595(a) [emphasis added].) §1595 thus requires an “underlying violation” of one of the TVPRA’s criminal provisions.

To the extent Plaintiffs argue Section 230 does not apply because they are not suing Backpage.com as a publisher, that is not true (as discussed), and in any event, this circular logic would render subsection 230(e)(3) meaningless.6 C. Plaintiffs’ “Business Practices Claims” Are Deficient. Even if Plaintiffs could evade Section 230, their so-called “Business Practices Claims” (under 18 U.S.C. § 1595, M.G.L. c. 265, § 52(d), and M.G.L c. 93A) are wholly deficient, and the theory they now advance underscores fatal constitutional problems of their case.7 Civil claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 or M.G.L. c. 265, § 51(d) require proving all the elements of a predicate crime. See Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742, 755 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (18 U.S.C. § 2255 requires showing defendant committed underlying crime).

Plaintiffs’ federal sex trafficking claims allege that Defendants are liable under TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. 1595; SAC ¶ 109-11, and Defendants concede that the TVPRA is a federal criminal statute. Accordingly, for purposes of section 230(e)(1), the only remaining question is whether a private lawsuit, brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1595, seeking civil damages for a defendant’s underlying violations of the TVPRA constitutes “enforcement” of the TVPRA. The answer to this question is “yes,” precluding Defendants’ immunity argument.

A. OVERVIEW The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (hereafter “treaty” or “Optional Protocol”) is judicially enforceable in U.S. Courts because the treaty creates primary rights for individuals, Case: 4:10-cv-01740-TCM Doc. #: 33 Filed: 01/24/11 Page: 13 of 30 PageID #: 149 14 and Sections 18 U.S.C. 1595 and U.S.C. 2255 (Private Action Statutes) provide a remedial mechanism that authorize private suits to enforce those primary rights in the courts. The two distinct issues which are often conflated are: (1) whether treaties grant primary rights to individuals, and (2) whether domestic law provides a remedial mechanism to enforce those rights in courts.

18 U.S.C. § 1590. As 9 Plaintiffs note that they are entitled to attorneys’ fees for TVPA pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorneys’ fees for RICO and state law claims.