Inner City Press





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



These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis
,



Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

CONTRIBUTE

(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro

BloggingHeads.tv
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka

VoA: NYCLU

FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"
 

 

 


Community
Reinvestment

Bank Beat

Freedom of Information
 

How to Contact Us



In Stormy Daniels Trial Avenatti Is Called A Liar In US Closing As Request for Curative Instruction Denied

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Song Radio
BBC - Decrypt - Podcast - Order Affidavit

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 2 – 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 the morning of February 2, the US Attorney's Office gave its closing, calling Avenatti a liar. Inner City Press did a vlog, here, then live tweeted it, thread here:

Judge Furman: Welcome back, jurors. Now you know Mr. Avenatti was a part of these events, so he will inevitably refer to himself in his closing. But he is not testifying. The government may proceed.

AUSA: "The defendant was a lawyer who stole from his own client." Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

AUSA: He told lies to try to cover it all up. Lies he told to try to get away with it. But he failed. His lies caught up with him. At this trial, the truth came out. Defendant's lies were exposed. He committed fraud and ID theft. Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

AUSA: Ms. Daniels signed a book contract, which agreed to pay Ms. Daniels $800,000 in four installments. The first went fine. But the second, the defendant stole. She asked, Where's my money? So he called Mr. Macias and asked to get a loan & got one [from Geragos]

AUSA: Defendant spent the money on his ex-wife, his girlfriend, car payments... But he got tangled in his own web of lies. That is why we are here. Look at this exhibit: Ms. Daniels complained - she didn't know that the defendant had taken her money. Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

AUSA: You know that the second payment had been made on time, but defendant was keeping her on the dark. Then came the third payment, and more lies. October 2, 2018, the book was published. The defendant invested a new lie. GX 35 Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

AUSA: He invented a new lie - that the payment was dependent on her doing publicity. But that was the fourth payment Now GX 37: on October 26, 2018 Ms. Daniel wrote, the publisher owes me money. He wrote back, Agreed. That was false.

AUSA: Defendant didn't say, I took the money because we agreed. Or, I took the money because I earned it. He said, Let me check. What was he going to check - the empty bank account he stole from? GX 302E Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

 AUSA: Now defendant switched from his "let me check" lie to his "publicity requirement" lie. The third book payment was paid early, it was not held up waiting for a letter about publicity. GX58: On Feb 12, 2019, Ms. Daniels wrote, Did you speak to publisher? Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

AUSA: The defendant told Mr. Janklow that Ms. Daniels had money problems, pay her the 3d payment early. But he planned to steal it. He kept them from speaking to each other. Mr. Janklow said, He asked I have all conversations particularly about money through him. Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

 AUSA: Here is a text message: "Dude, she just called me again... She is a client, I have obligations to her." Why would the defendant not let Mr. Janklow speak with his own client? To not get caught. GX31: Ms. Daniels complains, Mr. Janklow has not called me Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

 AUSA: Then there's the fake letter he used to trick Mr. Janklow. GX 210. He told Mr. Janklow to send the money to a bank account that he controlled. But Mr. Janklow wanted instructions from her. He texted, "We need something from Stormy." Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

AUSA: So here is GX 213, the fake letter, with copy and paste signature. The defendant didn't ask for Ms. Daniels submission. Ms. Daniels told you she never had anyone sign her contracts.

AUSA: Then there is the lawyer's duty to serve his or her client. Violation of these, without more, does not constitute wire fraud. But you will hear Judge Furman's instructions. I expect he will instruct you that a lawyer must promptly provide info to client Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

AUSA: Think back to Ms. Regnier's testimony. Defendant and his law firm were broke. They were evicted. She said payments and payroll were late. No party at the Montage in December 2018. Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

AUSA: Then Mr. Janklow sent Ms. Daniels proof of defendant's schemes and it became to unravel... There are two charges here: Wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. There is overwhelming proof, of intent to trick Mr. Janklow to send her money to him Inner City Press @innercitypress ·

 AUSA: The fake letter makes out aggravated identity theft. Mr. Avenatti's defenses are just distractions. There's the "everyone is lying or crazy" defense. There's the "I deserved it" defense. He suggests he was entitled to Ms. Daniels money. That doesn't matter.

AUSA: His work doesn't provide any excuse for his fraud. And did Ms. Daniels have some unusual experiences? Sure. But what she's said has been backed up by dozens of messages. Inner City Press @innercitypress

AUSA: The defendant is guilty. Judge Furman: Let's take a short break before Mr. Avenatti's closing. Jurors, do not discuss the case.

 [With jurors out of room]

Avenatti: I'm going to request a curative instruction about what the AUSA said about the bar rules --

Judge Furman: The request is denied. See you in 5 minutes.

 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.

More Foley Square Follies to follow [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

 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.

Watch this site - and this Inner City Press song:


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.

Avenatti-Watch a/k/a Foley Square Follies. here.

more stream here, video 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

SDNY

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).

sdny

***

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