SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Jan 31 – Michael Avenatti's
financial affidavit to get a
publicly paid lawyer for his
Stormy Daniels case, which
Inner City Press formally
sought to have unsealed for
eleven months, were on July
27, 2021 ordered unsealed. Order.
Podcast here.
Aug 13 podcast here.
On the
weekend before trial there's
was a request to delay it, on
COVID policy and
Constitutional grounds. It was
denied.
The trial
started on the morning of
January 24. Inner City Press
live tweet here.
It continued in the afternoon,
with Stormy Daniels' literary
agency Lucas Janklow being
cross examined about being
introduced to Michael Avenatti
at a hotel bar, by Anderson
Cooper. Inner City Press live
tweeted, thread here;
stream here,
video here
On the
morning of January 31,
Avenatti did two final cross
examinations then was asked
about his own case. Inner City
Press live tweeted, thread here.
In the afternoon
of January 31, after the jury
was sent home early, most of
Avenatti's proposed witnesses
were rejected. He said he does
not intend to testify. And it
appears closing arguments will
be on February 2. Inner City
Press live tweeted here:
OK they're back.
Judge Furman:
Let's talk about exhibits
AUSA: I don't
understand what "run like a
banshee" means, I don't see
why it should come in. [It's
about Macias' text to Avenatti
that came up during his
testimony]
Avenatti: I don't
think there's any debate this
text came from Mr. Macias
Judge Furman calls lunch
break, says he'll bring jury
back for a bit after that and
then send them home for the
day while they argue what (if
anything?) the defense case
will look like.
They're
back. Judge Furman tells the
jury the defense is under no
obligation to present a
defense, but... Avenatti: The
defense introduces a
stipulation on the admission
into evidence, communications
between Michael Avenatti and
Sean Macias. Judge Furman:
Admitted Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: Jurors, we're going to
get you go for the day. It's
like a school day with early
dismissal. We'll pick up
tomorrow. [Jurors leave] Judge
Furman: Let's take up the
proposed witnesses. If I allow
them, they'll be here tomorrow
or they'll not testify. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Judge Furman: On
Mr. Loupe, Mr. Avenatti
proffers he's witnessed Ms.
Daniels' loss of memory and
capacity. AUSA: Mr.
Loupe is not a doctor. And we
have no idea where these
allegation are coming from.
Avenatti: They're from
interviews. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: Does he say she
doesn't remember what happened
in a trance? Because she
didn't appear to be in a
trance on the witness stand.
So it could be a side show.
Avenatti: It's not just in a
trance. Judge Furman: If Mr.
Loupe is here tomorrow he may
testify Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: I do believe the issue
of any memory lost is
relevant. It's not my job to
exclude a witness because
they're testimony may be
lacking in credibility. That
is what cross examination is
for.
Avenatti: I
wasn't running Skadden Arps -
it was a small firm, so the
testimony of Carlos Colorado
would be relevant - unless the
word "reasonable" is read out
of the contract. Judge
Furman: The contact says $100.
This other is an unenforceable
agreement to agree Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: I am going to quash
the subpoena to Mr. Barrale,
it's a side show. Avenatti: If
Mr. Karbley doesn't testify,
could we call Mr. Barrale as a
witness? Judge Furman: No. My
ruling stands. Let's talk
about Mr. Janklow. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: I
want to re-call Mr. Janklow
because the government claims
there was no real discussion
of going after St. Martin's
about payments. But there was.
And Mr. Janklow in November
2018 wrote that Ms. Daniels
sabotaged the book. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: Mr. Avenatti, you have
a tendency to throw spaghetti
at the wall and see what
sticks. This seems probably
irrelevant altogether. It's a
distraction. Avenatti: We
haven't been able to establish
we were going to threaten
litigation. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge Furman:
While up here on the bench,
I've received a motion to
quash from Mr. Marshack. I'll
try to have copies printed out
for the parties and will
docket it in due course.
[For now, the most recent
motion to quash if from
Barrale] Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge Furman:
What about Mr. [Denver] Nicks?
AUSA: He might have relevant
information, but we don't know
Mr. Avenatti's intentions so
we are not prepared to move at
this time. Judge Furman: Let's
see. If he appears tomorrow we
can take it up. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
For me to re-call Mr. Janklow,
there would be no prejudice to
the government. Judge Furman:
Mr. Janklow has moved to quash
your subpoena. So the
government is not the only one
asserting prejudice. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
AUSA: If Mr.
Avenatti were to raise it on
appeal, let the record reflect
that the defense cross of Mr.
Janklow, at 2 1/2 hours was
longer than the direct.
Avenatti: I was informed the
direct was longer, if not, I
was wrong. Judge Furman: You
are wrong.
Judge Furman: Mr.
Avenatti, I said I'd be back
on the bench at 3 and I am. So
let's turn to quantum meruit.
Having graduated from GW law
school or wherever it was, if
he thought he was entitled to
take the fee, I suppose he
could say that if he
testifies. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: But what role might
quantum meruit have in this
case? Your submission simply
tell me what the concept is,
not how it might apply. Will
you testify?
Avenatti: I
haven't decided yet.
Judge Furman: If
you do testify, it shouldn't
be about case law. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: The
case the court had set it, a
defendant could never get a
good faith instruction until
they testify. Judge Furman:
You've made your record. The
fact that you were up to date
with your CLE requirements
clearly did not assure
following or knowing the law
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: Let's turn to the Nike
conviction. Mr. Avenatti, do
you wish to be heard?
Avenatti: For the court's
information, I currently do
not intend to testify. Judge
Furman: We should still
address because if you do, it
could be tomorrow. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: If I
were cross examined about the
California allegations, I'd
need access to that data, and
witnesses from California. It
should be excluded under 403
grounds. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: If a
subpoena is not quashed but
the witness does not come, I
should not be prejudiced --
Judge Furman: At least one of
your witnesses could not enter
the courthouse. It will be
depend on the efforts you
make. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: Once
they are served with a
subpoena, I don't have to do
anything any more. And Mr.
Dalack wants to make a record
on something. Dalack: I tried
to get partial compliance with
a subpoena until January 16,
no communications since.
Judge Furman: It
seems to me that if Mr.
Avenatti does not testify, the
defense will rest tomorrow.
We'd do the charging
conference then closings on
Wednesday.
Judge
Furman: So I will see you
tomorrow morning. Adjourned.
On January
30, the US wrote in on quantum
meruit, and invited Avenatti
to testify: "Although the
defendant is wrong that he was
entitled to take Ms. Daniels’s
book payment under the
law of quantum meruit, a
mistaken belief about his
legal rights could support a
good faith defense. The
Government is required to
prove that the defendant had
the requisite mens rea,
including that he acted with a
wrongful purpose. (See Letter
Mot. on Willfulness, Dkt. No.
311). Good faith is a
“complete defense to charges
of wire fraud.” United States
v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131,
139 (2d Cir. 2006). The
defendant therefore should be
permitted to testify about his
purported belief that
quantum meruit permitted him
to take Ms. Daniels’s money to
support an argument that
he acted in good faith. 3 The
Court should carefully
circumscribe the defendant’s
testimony, however, and
provide an appropriate
instruction both at the time
of the testimony and in the
jury charge regarding
the correct law, so as
to avoid confusing and
misleading the jury. First,
while the defendant may
describe the bases for his
beliefs at a very high level,
he should not be permitted to
offer documentary
evidence, delve deeply into
legal theory that may confuse
the jury and usurp the
Court’s role." Full letter on
DocumentCloud here.
On January 25,
the cross examination of
Janklow continued, then an
SDNY Special Agent and
Avenatti law firm staffer. But
in the middle, Federal
Defenders said Avenatti may
want to fire them and
represent himself. Judge
Furman said, Not so fast.
Inner City Press live tweeted
it, thread here
In the
afternoon of January 25,
Avenatti confirmed he wants to
represent himself and Judge
Furman granted it. He will
cross examine Stormy Daniels,
then. Inner City Press live
tweeted it, thread here
and below.
On the morning of
January 26, podcast here,
Avenatti cross examined
Regnier than an FBI agent.
Inner City Press live tweeted,
thread here.
On the
afternoon of January 26
Avenatti cross examined Sean
Macias who hooked him up with
Garagos, before those two
double teamed Nike. Inner City
Press live tweeted it, thread
here.
On the
morning of January 27, after
the end of Macias and another
SDNY witness, Stormy Daniels
took the stand to begin direct
examination. Inner City Press
live tweeted it here.
On the
afternoon, at the end,
Avenatti began his cross
examination. Inner City Press
live tweeted the afternoon, here.
On January 29,
Avenatti's cross examination
continued, to two videos,
thread here.
In the afternoon
Avenatti got into, or tried to
get into, Trump; afterward
Inner City Press asked
him about the case - and
the Supreme Court. Thread here.
Judge
Furman released his juror
questions, asking each side to
respond by January 19 at 10
am. The questions include:
"Based on anything that you
have read, seen, or heard
about Mr. Avenatti, have
you formed any opinions
about Mr. Avenatti that might
make it difficult for you to
be a fair and impartial
juror in this case? 10.
Would you have any trouble
following my instructions to
put anything you may
have read, seen, or
heard about Mr. Avenatti out
of your mind and decide this
case based only on the
evidence presented at
trial? 11. Do you or
does any member of your family
or a close friend personally
know or have past or
present dealings with the
alleged victim in this case,
Ms. Clifford (also known
as “Stormy Daniels”), or
with any of her family
members?...
"Do you know or
have you heard of any of the
following people or entities,
which include the
lawyers in this case, people
who may testify at the trial,
and other names that may
be mentioned during the
course of the trial? •
Pamela Baez • Elizabeth Beier
• Thomas Bolus • Clark
Brewster • Christine Carlin •
Michaela Catando (also known
as Kayla Paige) • Dmitri
Chitov • Dwayne Crawford •
Jennifer Donovan • Anna Finkel
• Mark Geragos • Jack
Guiragosian • Holtzbrinck
Publishers • Luke Janklow •
Janklow & Nesbit
Associates • Geoffrey Johnson
• Global Baristas • Sean
Macias • Macmillan Publishers
• Susan McClaran • Benjamin
Meiselas • Travis Miller •
Mareli Miniutti • Erik Nathan
• Denver Nicks • Kevin Carr
O’Leary • David Padilla •
Brandon Parraway • Pro Tech
Security and Automation • Judy
Regnier • Sally Richardson •
Security and Automation LLC •
St. Martin’s Press • Enrique
Santos • Jessica Volchko •
Juliet Vicari • Donald Vilfer
25. Are you familiar with
anyone else present in the
courtroom, including your
fellow jurors, all Court
personnel, and myself?"
On October 14
Judge Furman held a proceeding
in the Stormy Daniels case and
Inner City Press live tweeted
it here
and podcast here
On August 10
Avenatti's Federal Defenders
filed a copy of the affidavit
with multiple redactions. The
form refers on nearly every
question to an attachment,
which is blacked out in absurd
ways. It reads, for example,
"I own stock in two closely
held companies that may have
value: (a) [REDACTED] located
in [REDACTED]
and (b) [REDACTED]
located in [REDACTED]...
I technically
still have an
interest in a
private
aircraft
(model:
HondaJet 420)
that was
seized by the
IRS and is
still in their
possession.
This interest
is held
through a
single-purpose
entity named [REDACTED],"
and so forth.
Inner
City
Press
published the
redacted
affidavit on
its
DocumentCloud
here
and asked,
Will the Court
be accepting
this?
On
August 11, the
correct answer
was: No. "MEMO
ENDORSEMENT as
to Michael
Avenatti (1)
on [139]
LETTER MOTION
re: [139]
LETTER MOTION
addressed to
Judge Jesse M.
Furman from
Robert Baum,
Tamara Giwa
& Andrew
Dalack dated
August 10,
2021 re:
Letter Motion
In Response to
Court's Order
to File
Financial
Affidavit.
ENDORSEMENT:
The Court is
unpersuaded
that privacy
interests
justify
redacting the
names and
locations of
the corporate
entities in
Paragraphs 14,
15, and 17 of
ECF No.
139-1."
After hours on
August 12,
some
redactions
were removed:
Avenatti's owned
a plane
through
Passport 420
LLC; an
unnamed
"non-family-member
acquaintance"
paid a
NY-based
attorney in
the Nike case,
whose name is
redacted.
Unredacted:
Avenatti owns
stock in
Tyrian Systems
(aka Seek
Thermal) of
Santa Barbara,
CA and
Centurion
Holdings I,
LLC of St.
Louis
Missouri."
Not
so fast. Inner
City Press
research in
the hours
after the
removal of the
improper
redactions found
that Centurion
Holdings I,
LLC is based
in Arnold,
Missouri - and
"received a
PPP loan of
$60,477 in
May, 2020."
That's the
Paycheck
Protection
Program; the
funds came
through the
Central Bank
of St. Louis.
Bigger,
the aka: "Seek
Thermal, Inc
of 6300
Hollister Ave
in Goleta,
California received
a
Coronavirus-related
PPP loan from
the SBA of
$1,365,062.00
in April,
2020." We'll
have more on
this.
Watch
this site.
On August
27, Inner City Press filed a
formal request that documents
in the case not be sealed,
full filing on Patreon here.
On
November 12, Inner City Press
made a third filing with Judge
Furman, on a decision
to unseal issued earlier in
the day by SDNY Judge J. Paul
Oetken after Inner City Press
filed to similarly unseal Lev
Parnas' co-defendant David
Correia's financial infor: "we
again ask, why should lower
income and less high profile
defendants in the SDNY -- and
now David Correia -- have
their financial information so
disclosed while Avenatti's
information is sealed in its
entirety? The documents at
issue should not be sealed and
should be made available."
On August
28, 2020 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 July
27, 2021, Judge Furman four
times citing Inner City Press
ordered
Avenatti's affidavits
unsealed: "Avenatti filed a
letter brief arguing that the
Initial Financial Affidavit
should remain under seal. ECF
No. 80 (“Def.’s Mem.”).
Thereafter, the Court received
submissions from Inner City
Press, a media outlet that
intervened to seek disclosure
of the Financial Affidavits,
ECF Nos. 85, 90, 99... The
Defendant initially argued
that the Government lacked
standing “to assert any right
on behalf of the public to
access Mr. Avenatti’s sworn
financial statements.” Def.’s
Mem. 7 n.1 (citing United
States v. Hickey, 185 F.3d
1064 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Subsequently, however, the
Court granted leave to Inner
City Press to be heard on the
Defendant’s motion, ECF No.
85, which indisputably does
have standing to assert such
rights." Full order here,
filings due August 10. Watch
this site.
This case is US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374
(Furman).
***
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
,
