SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Feb 1 – 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 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 February
1, Judge Jesse M. Furman held
the charging conference from 1
to 4 pm, after which Inner
City Press asked
Avenatti about the possibility
of remand to jail, video here.
Inner City Press live tweeted,
thread here:
US v. Avenatti
trial Day 7 begins with Judge
Furman reading out the rulings
he alluded to in short
text-only orders last night.
Jury enters.
Judge Furman: It is my
understanding, Mr. Avenatti,
that you intend to rest your
case. Is that correct?
Avenatti: Yes it is, Your
Honor.
Judge
Furman: The evidence is
closed. I'm going to dismiss
you for the day. Don't hold it
against either side. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Judge Furman:
Jurors, you now have heard all
evidence in the case. We'll
see you tomorrow and hopefully
get a full day in. All rise!
Jurors leave. Judge Furman:
Let me give you a few more
rulings. If anything, Mr.
Avenatti was to blame for the
delay... Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Sometimes-CJA
lawyer Richard Palma is told
he can go; "Mr. Avenatti is
not calling your client." AUSA
says closing will be 1 1/2
hours. Avenatti: "Two hours,
Your Honor." Judge Furman:
That will be the maximum. I
will not hesitate to cut you
off. Judge Furman: We'll
reconvene later for the charge
conference.
OK - Judge
Furman takes the bench at 1:23
pm, having made more changes
to the draft jury-charge.
Judge Furman: Let me give my
general reactions to Mr.
Avenatti's submission. This
morning he made four requests.
The first one, I'm not going
to give that instruction Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
[Inner City Press
has put Judge Furman's draft
jury charge in US v. Avenatti
on its DocumentCloud, here,
it may help follow along with
this charging conference ·
Judge Furman: The
government does bear the
burden of proving Mr.
Avenatti's intent. They can
get up and say that under
California law you can't just
take the money. The nuance
being, I don't think he can
argue he had good faith, but
he can say the US hasn't shown
Judge Furman: Mr.
Avenatti's presentation of the
defense theory of the case is
legally and factually wrong
but I have proposed a change,
to page 20. [From 21: US must
"prove fraudulent intent and
the consequent lack of good
faith beyond a reasonable
doubt." Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
AUSA: One
proposal we have, on page 26
about attorneys fees - take
out a paragraph so defendant
is precluded from arguing that
he could have brought an
action for the money. There is
no evidence in the record that
he did. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: So you're saying Mr.
Avenatti should be precluded
from making any quantum meruit
argument? AUSA: Indeed, your
Honor. He could, I suppose,
say he worked hard. But he
can't say it entitled to him
to money. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: I am very very
concerned that Mr. Avenatti in
closing doesn't testify,
without being cross examined.
I'm inclined to have him refer
to himself in the third person
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
AUSA: Yes, our
concern is Mr. Avenatti in
closing saying "I believe" or
"I maintain." Avenatti: I
object to being required to
refer to myself in the third
person. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
Referring to myself in the
third person could be viewed
as arrogance by the jury [!]
Judge Furman: I would tell
them I ordered you. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
Under California law, there is
no need to get client
authorization each time you
take money out of the trust
account. Judge Furman: Ms.
Daniels is not instructing the
jury on the law. You should be
discussing the specifics of my
change.
Judge Furman: Did
you send Ms. Daniels a bill,
yes or no? Avenatti: It
depends how you define bill.
Judge Furman: Is there any
evidence in the record that
you sent Ms. Daniels a bill?
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge Furman: You
are not going to get up and
say Michael Avenatti, or I,
whatever it will be,
subjectively believed X.
Avenatti: You're negating the
good faith defense. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
The defendant objects to any
further highlighting of pro-se
status. Judge Furman: I like
your use of the third person,
Mr. Avenatti. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: I'd
prefer, rather than you
telling the jury that a
criminal defendant has the
right to represent himself,
you tell them, "Mister
Avenatti has has a right"
Judge Furman: I'm not going to
do that. But I will not remind
them you were initially
represented Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: I don't
think it's correct to tell the
jury that it's not unusual for
witnesses to have lawyers
Judge Furman: I'm going to
leave it as it is. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: I
ask for the inclusion of the
following words, "knew of such
information" and "defendant
was under" Judge Furman: Isn't
that point already made? I
don't think it's ambiguous.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Federal Defender
Dalack: We'd like you to say,
clearly, you cannot hold it
against the defendant that he
did not testify. Judge Furman:
I see what you mean, but I
think since I address it
twice, they will understand.
Dalack: Thank you your Honor.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Avenatti:
Page 21, line 11, I propose
the first sentence say direct
proof of intent is not
required. Judge Furman.
Denied. Next? Avenatti: I
cannot state too strongly how
much I object to this
language, which provides jury
with the court's view of the
case. Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Judge
Furman: I have done my best to
come up with an instruction,
using California law, Judge
Gardephe's work - but you'll
need to be more specific.
You've made your record.
Judge Furman:
Just to be clear, Mr.
Avenatti, you haven't objected
to anything from page 28 on,
nor to the verdict sheet. And
also to be clear, on quantum
meruit, I do not expect to
hear those words tomorrow.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: I
had intended to refer to the
court's instructions in my
closing, with a PowerPoint.
I've never had an issue, I
don't want to run afoul of
your Honor on this. Or on
anything else... I don't think
anyone here will think I am
the one to instruct the jury
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: Should Mr. Avenatti be
required to refer to himself
in the third person? AUSA:
There is no authority saying
you can't order it, your
Honor. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
I'd rather use the first
person. If I run afoul, I'll
pay a price. Judge Furman: I
might say, 3d person going
forward. Avenatti: Can I say,
Ms. Daniels and I entered into
a contract? But not, "I
believe I was entitled to the
money." Judge Furman: Yes.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: Someone approached my
law clerk and asked what time
the jury begins tomorrow. We
asked for their business card
and it said New York COUNTY
jury. It's strange. Avenatti:
Michael Avenatti will be in
state court, but I will be
here.
Judge
Furman: You can go. See you
tomorrow. All rise!
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
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
,
