SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Feb 3 – 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 3 in the afternoon
the jury sent out a second
note, asking for the
transcript of Stormy Daniels'
testimony and a definition of
good faith. After that was
answered, the US late in the
afternoon asked for a second
response. That was denied;
afterward Inner City Press
questioned Avenatti in Foley
Square. Nearly 10 PM, the US
put its request in
writing, citing "o
United States v. Gole, 158
F.3d 166, 168 (2d Cir. 1998)
(collecting cases from
other circuits for the
proposition that “courts have
uniformly held that a
claim-of-right is not a
defense to mail fraud”).
An “honest misstatement is
insufficient to prove
fraudulent intent.” Blake, 558
F. App’x at 130. But the
law prohibits obtaining money
through fraud even if the
perpetrator believes he
is legally entitled to that
money. See id. (evidence
sufficient to support
conviction of individual
who believed himself entitled
to his former wife’s life
insurance and made false
statements on insurance
form); Gole, 158 F.3d at 168
(“While Gole admits that he
intentionally
misrepresented his
income in order to retain
pension overpayments, he
argues that he lacked
fraudulent intent
because he believed that the
NYCFD Pension Bureau
improperly calculated the
Safeguard Amount, and,
under a proper calculation of
the Safeguard Amount, he would
be entitled to the
overpayments”)." Letter here.
Watch this site.
At 7:30 am
on February 4, Avenatti
through his Federal Defender
replied, including "The
Government cites a single,
Connecticut district court
case that is not binding on
this Court to support
its request for a modified
supplemental instruction. Even
so, United States v.
Castelin, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 96591 (D. Conn. 2013) is
distinguishable... Rossomando
remains good law in the Second
Circuit and was not overturned
by Gole." Letter on
DocumentCloud here.
Soon
afterward, Judge Furman denied
the US motion: "ORDER denying
[364] LETTER MOTION Seeking a
Supplemental Jury Instruction
as to Michael Avenatti: The
Court shares the Government's
concern that the jury may not
properly understand the
distinction that the Court has
drawn, indeed focused on,
throughout this case: between
a good faith belief that
Defendant was ultimately
entitled to Ms. Clifford's
money, which is not a valid
defense, and a good faith
belief that the defendant was
entitled to engage in self
help by taking Ms. Clifford's
money when and in the manner
he did, which is a valid
defense. Upon reflection, it
may be that the relevant
phrase used in the
instructions ("entitled to
take the money or property")
does not draw that distinction
as sharply for the jury as it
could have, as it places too
much weight on the words "to
take." That is, the jury could
misconstrue the instruction to
mean that it is a complete
defense if the defendant held
an honest belief that he would
have been entitled to take the
money at the end of the day.
If so, it would be wrong - as
the decisions brought to the
Court's attention by the
Government yesterday make
plain. See United States v.
Blake, 558 F. App'x 129, 130
(2d Cir. 2014) (summary
order); United States v. Gole,
158 F.3d 166, 168 (2d Cir.
1998). That said, the
Government had multiple
opportunities to raise these
issues - before and at the
charge conference and in the
conference held yesterday to
discuss a response to the
jury's second note - and it
failed to do so. The Court is
open to clarifying the issue
if the jury indicates that it
is deadlocked or requests
further clarification on the
issue of good faith. (For that
reason, Defendant should be
prepared - if or when the time
comes - to elaborate on his
conclusory assertion that the
Government's proposed
instruction is "an incorrect
recitation of the law in the
Second Circuit." ECF No.
[366], at 4.) But the Court
will not, without some further
communication from the jury,
provide a clarifying
instruction. SO ORDERED.
(Signed by Judge Jesse M.
Furman on 2/4/2022)."
Earlier on
February 3, Judge Furman read
a modified Allen charge,
below. Inner City Press live
tweeted it, thread here:
Something is
afoot - the lawyers are
gathering in the courtroom;
prosecutors sitting, Avenatti
standing up. Drumroll. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
It's said,
"There's a note." (If so, not
yet the verdict).
Lawyers are
huddled together discussing
it. Judge Furman not yet in
the courtroom. Now Judge
Furman takes the bench.
Judge Furman: The note says,
"We are unable to come to a
consensus on Count 1." Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: I gave a draft
response to my deputy. I'm
going to tell them to keep at
it. AUSA: We are comfortable
with that or a longer
instruction. Avenatti: I
request that the Allen charge
be modified. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge Furman: So
I'll read the instruction to
the jurors and send them back.
[Jury coming up] Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
[If
Avenatti is not guilty of
Count 1, wire fraud, he can't
be convicted of Count 2,
aggravated identity theft,
which has to use wires.
Jury
enters. Judge Furman: We have
received your note. Your
verdict must be unanimous.
Each must decide for him or
herself; you must examine
everyone's point of view.
There is no reason to believe
that another jury would be
more competent. No one should
surrender Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge
Furman: So go continue your
deliberation, in light of
this. Jury exiting.
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.
Then Avenatti gave his
closing; Inner City Press live
tweeted here:
They're back.
Avenatti: When I
was a teenager, my father sold
hotdogs in a ballpark -- AUSA:
Objection. Judge Furman:
Sustained. Avenatti: This is a
fight for credibility. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: Look at
Exhibit R50. Mr. Janklow
wrote, I can't believe you're
still remotely sane. He had
just gotten a communications
from Ms. Daniels. I had not
told them not to communicate.
What the government told you
is false. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: Mr.
Janklow sent this directly to
Ms. Daniels, no involvement by
me. Perhaps you could overlook
one or two text messages that
the US just forgot. But
there's more. R60. Mr.
Janklow, on Dec 2, 2018:
Stormy WhatsApp-ed me this. Oh
please God no.
Avenatti: Mr.
Janklow said Ms. Daniels
should "face her own
bullsh*t." Now let's talk a
moment about Ms. Daniels. Some
of you may admire her. I
understand that. The evidence
shows that I did too, for a
long time, that I put it all
on the line for her. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: But
when a person walks into this
courtroom, this hallowed
ground, they have to tell the
truth. She was less than
honest with all 18 of you.
It's not admirable. Alot of
people don't like attorneys.
The thing about it, thought,
when you need 1, you need 1
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: Ms.
Daniels was about to embark on
a fight with the President of
the US, the most powerful
person on the planet. And the
evidence shows I took that on.
But I didn't agree to do it
for free. Attorney's cost
money. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: Why
would I give up my right to
this money, and then steal it?
No one would do that. If I was
so desperate for money, why
would I give up my right to
the money? It makes no sense.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
This should result in me being
found not guilty. Unless you
can answer those two
questions. I submit there is
no logical answer because it
doesn't make sense. Let me be
clear; Michael Avenatti never
committed these crimes. [No
third person?] Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: There
is insufficient evidence to
show that Michael Avenatti had
a scheme to defraud Ms.
Daniels, or even intended to
harm Stormy Daniels, or sent
an unauthorized or false
letter to Luke Janklow in
order to get the money for
himself.
Avenatti: Good
faith is a complete defense to
a charge of wire fraud... I
don't have to prove that I had
a good faith belief, though I
believe the evidence shows I
did. The government must prove
it, beyond a reasonable doubt.
They have not done that. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: When
you go back into that
deliberation room, look at the
fee agreement, if if you can
find where it says I was
working for free, or for a
total of $100. You won't find
it. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
Paragraph 3, client's duty to
be truthful, to cooperate with
attorney, to abide by this
agreement and to pay bills for
reasonably incurred costs on
time. So, I wasn't working for
free. I wasn't agreeing to
adopt Ms. Daniels. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: Under
the contract I was to get $100
and our hourly and out of
pocket costs and, if I
assisted Ms. Daniels on a book
contract I was to receive a
reasonable percentage. The US
has not even argued what a
reasonable percentage out be.
It's not zero.
Avenatti: Ms.
Daniels said, You're very
entitled. Then she said this
more important word: Yes. She
understood I was entitled to
be paid from the book deal.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
Ms. Daniels doesn't know what
the contract says... There was
the law suit against the strip
club in Florida. Against a
horse trader in Texas. It
wasn't done for free. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
In the ten years before she
met me, Ms. Daniels had made
no progress in getting her a
book deal. I did that - I was
instrumental in that. The US
wants you to think everyone
else had a right to be paid
other than Michael Avenatti.
That is ludicrous. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: Look at
the bank statements. March 28,
for $20,000. We weren't
obligated to pay these
security costs. But we paid
them - and we expected to be
repaid. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: The
security costs were Ms.
Daniels' responsibilities. She
was ultimately responsible to
pay or reimburse my firm.
Exhibit 2 discusses some of
the costs but not all. It
shows thousands of hours on
Ms. Daniels' account. Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
I'm not the one who suggested
two 24 hours security guards.
That's what Ms. Daniels wants.
She wanted an entourage. I
guess there's nothing wrong
with that. But it's wrong to
expect someone else to pay for
it. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
Ms. Regnier said to find out
how much Ms. Daniels owned us,
you'd have to look at
Quickbooks, bank statements -
and TABs. Why didn't the
government show you that?
AUSA:
Objection. Judge
Furman: Sustained. Move on.
Avenatti:
Instead, the US called a
witness to give you a small
portion of the story. GX 702,
the agent testified under
examination by his colleagues
he said the costs had nothing
to do with Ms. Daniels --
AUSA: Objection. Judge Furman:
Sustained. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
The US is trying to convince
you that me and my firm were
not entitled to get paid what
we were due. But we had good
faith. Ms. Daniels even to
this day can't testify to what
payments she received or did
not receive. She was asked
about Mr. Cohen's pod Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
She was asked and said, She
got the first two payments.
But on the podcast she said I
intercepted the fourth
payment. Then she didn't deny
saying it. Then about Sept
2021 on Cohen's podcast, she
said she couldn't remember.
Perfect memory? Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
Her testimony has been a
moving target, entirely
inconsistent. She was asked -
and I submit this destroys the
US' case - she agreed I had
authority over the trust
accounts. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: When
you look at 302E, three of the
payments into the trust
account came from Janklow and
Associates. She said I had
complete authority over them.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: And
then you get to the big lie. I
asked Ms. Daniels if she ever
told me her bank account was
closed. His Honor stepped in
to clarify things, asking Ms.
Daniels if she told me the
account was closed. No. His
Honor's questions. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: ST12.
July 19, 2018. I was
discussing with Ms. Daniels
that her husband had just
cleaned out her bank account
and fled with her daughter,
according to the evidence.
AUSA: Objection. Judge Furman:
Overruled. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
She was asked if the bank
couldn't just remove him from
the account. She replied, "No,
so closed it." Ms. Daniels
lied on the stand. I asked for
the money because the other
account was closed. There was
nowhere else to send it. She
tried to hide the money Inner
City Press @innercitypress · \
Avenatti: So this
is not aggravated identity
theft. Ms. Daniels' false
testimony results in a not
guilty verdict for me. By the
way, you won't find any of
these items on the US'
timeline. They don't want you
to focus on the whole story.
Avenatti: The
AUSA said Ms. Daniels has some
unusual beliefs. Her testimony
shows she is not credible. It
is unfortunate. She
claims to have the ability to
talk to the dead. And a doll
who plays the piano and calls
her mommy. She made up having
a mass in her head Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: Does
this sound like someone the US
should be using as their star
witness in a criminal trial?
AUSA: Objection! Judge Furman:
Sustained. Avenatti: Can
you rely on this person? I
submit that the answer is No.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
Where is Denver Nicks? AUSA:
Objection. Judge Furman: Jury,
I'll be instructing you later.
Avenatti: The texts show I
could have communicated better
with Ms. Daniels. "I accept
responsibility for that."
AUSA: Objection! Judge:
Sustained. Jury, disregard.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Avenatti: Failing
to communicate is not a
crime. His Honor will
instruct you I am presumed
innocent until you reach a
final conclusion. This is a
bedrock of our society, for
100s of years.
Avenatti: I
conclude with this. I'm
Italian, I like Italian food
-
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Furman:
Sustained.
Avenatti: The
dish the US is trying to feed
you has a giant cockroach in
the middle of the dish. Would
you eat it or send it back?
Send it back. Avenatti:
Find me not guilty. That is
exactly what I am. Judge
Furman: Thank you, Mr.
Avenatti. Jurors, you may now
have your lunch.
[With jury
gone]
Judge Furman: I
gave a number of curative
instructions. But Mr. Avenatti
still brought up TABs,
implying the US had access to
the info. It raises a question
whether another instruction is
needed. AUSA: We were going to
raise that.
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.
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
,
