In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Song Radio
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 8 – When after three days of jury selection the trial of Michael Avenatti for allegedly extorting Nike began on January 29, Assistant US Attorney Robert Sobelman told the selected jurors that Avenatti was supposed to look out for the interests of his client, but he did not - he had a weapon, social media.  More on 1st day on Patreon here.

 On August 7 in the Stormy Daniels case, Avenatti had motions heard by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jesse M. Furman. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

 On August 27, Inner City Press filed a formal request that documents in the case not be sealed, full filing on Patreon here.

  On August 28 Judge Furman entered an order: "The Court received the attached communication from Matthew Lee of Inner City Press “seeking leave to be heard and for the unsealing of the CJA Form 23, affidavit, and all associated documents” relating to this litigation. To the extent that Mr. Lee (who is admitted to the bar of the Southern District of New York) seeks leave to be heard, his application is GRANTED. The Court reserves judgment on the question of whether Defendant’s CJA Form 23 and related documents should be unsealed. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2020 New York, New York JESSE M. FURMAN." Docket No. 85, on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud, here.

  On September 2 Federal Defenders, rather than attempt to explain why they routinely divulge and put in the public record the financial information of less high profile and lower income clients, stating in Magistrates Court exactly how much their clients make and where they and even their spouses work, has written in this: "The defense acknowledges that the Court granted Matthew Lee, a representative of “Inner City Press,” leave to be heard on this matter. The defense requests leave to respond to Mr. Lee one week from the timely filing of any substantive brief or letter. For now, it bears emphasizing that the Court’s measures requiring the Federal Defenders to keep an accurate record of the hours spent on Mr. Avenatti’s defense, and also requiring Mr. Avenatti to regularly update the Court on his finances, are sufficient to protect the public fisc and to ensure that funds for court-appointed counsel are being properly spent. Further, “neither the First Amendment nor the common law provides a right of access to financial documents submitted with an initial application to demonstrate a defendant’s eligibility for CJA assistance.” In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174, 191 (1st Cir. 2003). And “even if there were a common law presumption of access, then it would be outweighed here … by [Avenatti’s] countervailing privacy interests” and rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Id."  Full letter on Patreon here. It is UNacceptable -- the public's and press' right of access is not limited to the public fisc, it is based on the FIRST Amendment. 

  Hearing nothing more, but continuing to closely cover all things SDNY, on September 8 Inner City Press filed again: "Re: US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (JMF) - Further on the need to unseal CJA Form 23 and associated documents including affidavit 

Dear Judge Furman:     Pursuant to this Court's August 28, 2020 Order granting leave to be heard, and in response to Federal Defenders' September 2 (footnote) response), this is a further argument for the unsealing of the CJA Form 23, affidavit and all associated documents in US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (JMF).   

  Before citing case law, Inner City Press which closely covers SDNY criminal proceedings notes that just today, before SDNY Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses, the financial situation of defendant Jonathan Smith was fully disclosed on the record.

To obtain CJA counsel it was disclosed that Mr. Smith of The Bronx received $471 a week in unemployment, and pays $150 to $200 a month in child support of each of his three children, and $65 a month for cell phone service. See, US v. Smith, 20-cr-317 (Swain / Moses).    

We again ask, why should lower income and less high profile defendants in the SDNY have their financial information so disclosed while Avenatti's information is sealed in its entirety? 

  Avenatti in his other SDNY case, in which he was convicted by a jury, has requested another adjournment of sentencing, to December.   

While it should not be necessary, we further those the court's discussion in US v. Kodzis, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (S.D. Cal. 2003), including that "[t]he public has an appreciable interest in the criminal proceedings at issue here, where Kodzis requests that counsel be appointed by the Court and paid for by the government... To the extent Kodzis claims that he has insufficient funds to retain private counsel and asks the Court to appoint counsel for him free of charge, such application should be made publicly unless Kodzis can demonstrate a 'real and appreciable' hazard that the statements made by him in the financial affidavit could subject him to criminal liability. Seattle Times, 845 F.2d at 1518.  The information contained in counsel's profferKodzis' current employer and salary, ownership and equity in real property and cars, and current bank account balances, cannot reasonably be considered in any way incriminating. Information such as that already provided by Kodzis' counsel is innocuous, and in no way can be linked to the conduct alleged in the indictment, and if truth be told is likely available to anyone willing to use the internet or conduct a credit check."  

This is even more true in 2020, with regard to defendant Michael Avenatti.     The documents at issue should not be sealed and should be made available.  Please confirm receipt & again docket this timely responsive filing. Thank you. Respectfully submitted,  /s/  Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press."

We'll have more on this, once the situation becomes clearer.

And later the US Attorney's Office said, " in light of the presumption of openness in criminal proceedings and the approach favored by the Second Circuit, the defendant has failed to provide a legally sufficient basis for wholesale and indefinite sealing of the CJA 23 Form and supporting affidavit." Full letter on Patreon here. Now we await Avenatti's / his Federal Defenders' reply. Watch this site.

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for