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, June 11 – 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.

 Now on June 11 Avenatti, under fire for allegedly using Internet-connected computer while on release, wants his SDNY case moved to California: "This motion seeks the Rule 21 transfer of this case to the Central District of California so that it may be consolidated and tried together under Rule 13 with the pending case, United States v. Avenatti, No. 19- 061-JVS (Selna, J.) (“CDCA case”). As previously argued, the cases are “of the same or similar character” and, as alleged, “constitute parts of a common scheme or plan” under Rule 8(a). And the alleged net loss in this case is only about $150,000, a number dwarfed by the alleged $9 million loss amount in the CDCA case and well below typical SDNY USAO guidelines for prosecution. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no compelling reason to proceed with two separate trials on two different coasts. The conservation of judicial and juror resources, as well as the protection of the public from exposure to SARS-CoV-2, are paramount. This case should be transferred to the Central District of California where it can be tried alongside the similar claims presented in that case.

 II. ARGUMENT Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(b) provides for the transfer of a criminal proceeding to other districts “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.” Rule 21(b) motion is vested in the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 966 (2d Cir. 1990). The test to be applied to a Rule 21(b) motion to transfer was set out in Platt v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240, 243–44 (1964). In Platt, the Supreme Court articulated factors that the courts must consider when determining whether to transfer a case. Id. These factors include: 1) the location of the defendant; 2) location of possible witnesses; 3) location of the events at issue; 4) location of documents and records; 5) disruption of defendant’s business; 6) expense to the parties; 7) location of counsel; 8) relative accessibility of place of trial; 9) docket condition of the district courts involved; and 10) any other special elements that might affect transfer. Id. In Mr. Avenatti’s prior motion to transfer, he set out why the Platt factors favor the transfer of this case to the Central District of California. See Dkt. 19-1. This motion incorporates those arguments, and renews the motion because the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on judicial resources and the safety of participants in the judicial process present an even stronger case under Platt for transferring the case to the CDCA."

   Avenatti still facing a sentencing in New York. On May 18, after conviction and release amid Coronavirus, this: "CONSENT LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from Scott Srebnick and Danya Perry dated May 18, 2020 re: Adjournment of Sentencing Date (seeking adjournment until early-mid August 2020). Document filed by Michael Avenatti. (Srebnick, Scott)." And this, Inner City Press interview with ESPN Louisville about the failure to hold Nike to account, here.

 On June 7, the Justice Department used Microsoft Word meta-data to argue Avenatti has impermissibly used the computer of his custodian to access the internet, including about SDNY: "On May 28, 2020, defendant filed a Supplement to Status Report. (CR 165.) Defendant’s Supplement attached another news article from the internet and an expert report that had been electronically filed in the Southern District of New York. (CR 165.) The metadata for the Adobe PDF file that was submitted through the Court’s CM/ECF system (CR 165) shows that the “Author” of the document was defendant’s third-party custodian, “JAY MANHEIMER,” and that the document was created using Microsoft Word and a Mac computer."

  Now on June 10, Avenatti's lawyer has asked for clarification / amendment of a court order for the searching of the Manheimer computer, to exclude attorney-client privileged information. We'll have more on this.

  Back on February 4, after a day of cross examination and re-direct of Gary Franklin's adviser Jeffrey Auerbach, AUSA Sobelman after the jury left complained to Judge Paul G. Gardephe, "The defendant is extremely loud," referring to his remonstrating on which Inner City Press reported yesterday.

  Judge Gardephe said, I haven't heard anything. But this is an issue that came up before. I will ask Mr. Avenatti's lawyers to speak to him. I'll have to pay more attention to the defense table. We can't have the jury hearing exchanges between Mr. Avenatti and his attorney. I'll have to intervene."

And then Avenatti spoke up for himself: "I'll be conscious of my voice. I have a lot at stake, everyone knows that." Inner City Press tweet of that here; day's thread here.

   Inner City Press will continue to cover the trial, as much as possible. Today's afternoon radio here. More of Patreon here.

  On February 3, Gary Franklin's pro bono consultant Jeffrey Auerbach took the stand. Inner City Press was in the courtroom's second row when Assistant US Attorney Robert Sobelman walked Auerbach through testimony about Avenatti saying he was headed to New York on a red-eye to get $1 million for Gary Franklin.

  As Auerbach gave his opinion, Avenatti vigorously shook his head, with hair on the sides above the ears. He took notes that apparently went into the cross examination, to which Sobelman repeatedly objected. Finally Judge Gardephe said, You are objecting to a document you the prosecutors put into the record. Again the payments to Deandre Ayton, mother and handler Melvin McDonalnd, to Bol Bol and to Shaun Manning Brandon McCoy came up. People wanted to know more but there are limits. More on Patreon here.

  On January 31 Inner City Press published the March 25, 2019 draft settlement agreements, with dollar figure left blank, here on Scribed and on Patreon for download here, as well as the more than one hour video of Avenatti's and Mark Geragos' meeting with Nike's outside counsel, Scott Wilson of Boies Schiller, here.

  Inner City Press has also published three audio records of Wilson's conversations on March 20, 2019 with Geragos, and Avenatti, saying "I'm not f*cking around." Audio I, II and III. More including transcripts on Patreon here.

  We will have more on this, here and on Patreon.

   Inner City Press live-tweeted the start of the proceedings, here, and since and will have more. More on Patreon here. The case is US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-373 (Gardephe).

***

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