SDNY COURTHOUSE,
June 12 – 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. Avenatti was
convicted, see below.
On June 12, 2022,
Avenatti filed in his
California case that he wants
to plead open: "Defendant
MICHAEL JOHN AVENATTI (“Mr.
Avenatti”) by and through his
advisory counsel of record, H.
Dean Steward, hereby moves and
files the instant (A) Notice
of Intent to Change Plea and
Request Sentencing and (B)
Request for Telephonic or
Video Status Conference. Mr.
Avenatti hereby provides
notice of his intent to change
his plea and plead guilty to
multiple counts in the
Indictment and request
sentencing on those counts.
Mr. Avenatti intends to plead
open." Watch this site.
In the Stormy
Daniels case, the US
Attorney's Office's May 26,
2022 sentencing
memo, recommending 24
months to run consecutive to
Judge Paul G. Gardephe's
sentence in the Nike case,
cited Inner City Press' tweet
of Foley Square Q&A with
Avenatti about his hot dog
anecdote, saying it was
stolen: "The defendant’s
tenuous relationship with the
truth was apparent during
trial, including in
circumstances that seem
gratuitous or even trivial.
For example, the defendant
began his summation by
stating, “When my father was a
teenager, he sold hot dogs at
a ballpark.” (Trial Tr. 1647.)
The Court sustained the
Government’s objection, and
the defendant did not complete
the story. But walking back
from the courthouse that day,
the defendant proceeded to
relate the full story to the
media, explaining how his
father, “Bill,” worked at a
ballpark selling hotdogs, how
his father’s boss instructed
his father to sell broken
hotdogs rather than throw them
out, how “[his] dad said, well
how do we do that if the hot
dog are in pieces,” how his
father’s boss responded that
his father should cover them
in mustard, and how the
Government in this case was
giving the jury the mustard.
See https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1489375868715732997.
In fact,
the defendant’s father,
William John Avenatti, was an
executive for AnheuserBusch.
(PSR ¶ 48.) The tale instead
is one that the defendant’s
standby counsel, who was to
deliver the summation before
the defendant determined to
proceed pro se, has told at
trials in this District about
his own experience selling
hotdogs at Shea Stadium. See,
e.g., United States v. Calix,
No. 13 Cr. 582 (LAP), Trial
Tr. 61 (Sept. 11, 2017). That
is, the defendant appropriated
the story from his attorney,
but, not content to use the
device generically, claimed
falsely to the press—and,
until the sustained objection,
to the jury as well—that the
events had happened to his own
father." Sentencing memo
here.
On May 31,
Avenatti's Federal Defenders
asked for permission that he
wear a suit and dress shirt
and under-shirt (initially the
dress shirt was omitted) - in
any event, Judge Furman denied
the request on June 1.
Inner City Press
covered and live tweeted the
June 2 sentencing, thread here:
OK - now Avenatti
sentencing in Stormy Daniels
case. He is in Courtroom 318
in prison beige.
Next to Avenatti
is Federal Defender Robert
Baum, whose personal "I sold
hot dogs at the ballpark"
story Avenatti repackaged as
his own (or, about this
father) - US sentencing memo
cited Inner City Press video.
Judge Furman:
Just speak into the microphone
Mr. Baum. Federal Defender
Baum introduces his team.
Dalack is not here; others
are.
Judge Furman: I
recently tested negative for
COVID-19 so I'm taking my mask
off, under our rules. I have
reviewed the submissions
Judge Furman: My
understanding is Ms. Daniels'
lawyer will speak, Mr.
Brewster. Any objections,
beyond to the guidelines
calculation? Baum: There is
one more issue, we didn't
raise it because our client
was in transit and we couldn't
speak to him.
Judge Furman: I'm
not required to follow the
sentencing guidelines in the
wake of US v. Booker and its
progeny. But here the range is
65 to 75 months. Mr. Avenatti
argues that he made Ms.
Daniels whole. I find that
argument meritless.
Judge
Furman: The evidence at
trial indicated that Mr.
Avenatti gave the third book
payment to Ms. Daniels to
forestall imminent discovery
of his crime... I reject Mr
Avenatti's argument that the
loss amount was $148,000. That
takes US statement out of
context.
Baum: May I be
heard? Judge Furman: If it's
on the issues I just resolved,
no. But go ahead.
Baum: It's the amount of
money he returned that it is
issue. Their 3d Circuit
decision in Fumo has not been
followed in the 2d.
Now Assistant US
Attorney: When you strip away
the large personalities at
trial and the media aspects,
it's a very personal and sorry
story. Ms. Daniels trusted Mr.
Avenatti deeply, he was
involved in her life in a very
intimate way
AUSA: Ms. Daniels
took pride in her book and the
money meant a good deal to
her. She felt pride. She was
going to buy a home and move
away from her ex husband. So
it was a personal betrayal,
over 8 months.
AUSA: It's
critical in our society that
people can trust their
attorney. But in the Nike case
we saw what Mr. Avenatti did
to his client [Goeff] Johnson.
We think a mandatory minimum
sentence would not be
sufficient.
Judge Furman: Do
you want to speak to the
search condition recommended
by Probation? AUSA: We'll
defer to Probation's wisdom.
Judge Furman: And
not to my wisdom? (Laughs).
Mr. Baum? Baum: Ms. Giwa will
make the 3553(a) presentation.
Judge Furman: I
have a question, What is Mr
Avenatti apologizing for in
his letter to Ms. Daniels? If
it's the same as he said at
trial, it's too little too
late. I understand he intends
to appeal and so doesn't want
to confess to the crimes. But
he gets no credit
First, Baum on
the search condition. Baum:
This language they propose is
for sex offenses. Mr. Avenatti
is not charged with that. As
I'm apt to do, I did the
research. I cited the 2d
Circuit case US v. Myers. They
said they'll carefully
scrutinize such conditions
Federal Defender
Giwa: Here in the court are
friends of Mr. Avenatti. His
family couldn't come due to
being immuno-compromised. But
they are awaiting your
decision. Their support
continues for him. We're
asking for 36 months and one
day.
Giwa: Mr.
Avenatti had a difficult
childhood. He still bears the
scars. He developed an
outstanding work ethics. He
started at 15. He's now 51. He
held jobs as a teenager. He
put himself through law
school, by himself.
Giwa: Mr.
Avenatti fought for the
underdog. He won large
settlements. After a career
like that, the fact that Mr.
Avenatti will never practice
law is really tragic to him.
It is the consequence of what
has happened here.
Giwa: Mr.
Avenatti will never again have
clients. Future harm just
doesn't exist. He is already
incarcerated, and future
incarceration is a certainty.
Judge
Furman: Mr. Avenatti, this is
your opportunity. Avenatti: I
made a series of mistakes...
Avenatti: I
deserve just punishment. I
stand by the sincerity of my
letter to Ms. Daniels. I will
never practice law again. I
will forever be branded a
"disgraced lawyer" and worse.
I may never recover any
semblance of a normal life or
peace. (Sniffles)
Avenatti: Much
has been written about my
conduct. Some true, much
false. [Will he address the
stolen story about selling
hog dogs?]
Avenatti: I
delivered over a billion
dollars in settlements.
Oftentimes I took no fees.
These cases included
representing thousands of
Jewish families whose
relatives were dug up in a
mass grave in California - $85
million settlement to provide
them some peace.
Avenatti: I
represented 1000s of investors
in a $200 million Ponzi
scheme. I represented sexual
abuse victims of RKelly
Avenatti: I
received many awards. This
does not excuse my conduct in
this case. I represented Ms
Daniels because she was an
underdog. I believed we could
take down a sitting American
president who was the single
biggest threat to American
democracy in modern times
Avenatti: There
are only five lawyers in
America today who understood
what representing a client
like that costs. Those who
think I benefited are
mistaken. Also, the conditions
in the MCC - I was in 10
South, reserved for
terrorists. I was next to
them.
Avenatti: During
the first 48 years of my life
I was never arrested. I should
never have been subjected to
the torture of 10 South. I
know I can be loving again.
Thank you, your Honor. Judge
Furman: Thank you. Mr.
Brewster? Brewster: I
represent Ms. Daniels
Brewster:
The prosecutors exposed a
person who was manipulative
and deceitful. Our system
works. I don't know who Mr.
Avenatti says are the five you
could take on Ms. Daniels'
case - but I believe I am one
of them.
Baum objects to
Brewster introjecting himself
into Daniels' statement, and
Judge Furman agrees, says
stick to Ms. Daniels'
statement. Brewster: Avenatti
failed to work on her case in
Texas.
Brewster is
done. Judge Furman: This is a
tragic case, or to use Mr.
Podolsky's words, a sorry
case. There is more to Mr.
Avenatti than this conduct.
His handling of this trial
shows he has legal skills,
despite my taking issue with
some of his conduct.
Judge Furman:
Blind ambition led him to this
conduct, brazenly lying to his
clients and defaming them when
they had the audacity to
challenge him. Still I think a
guidelines sentence would be
excessive.
Judge Furman:
This case will send a message
to lawyers that if you got
astray, you will lose your
liberty. I gave Mr. Avenatti
to elaborate on his acceptance
of responsibility. But he
didn't address it. The letter
is too little, too late.
Judge Furman: A
four year sentence, some but
not all consecutive with the
Nike case sentence, will be
appropriate. Giving Mr.
Avenatti an additional thirty
months is what I am imposing.
You are remanded for 48 months
- 18 concurrent to the Nike
case
Judge Furman:
Also three years of supervised
release and a search condition
for his electronic
communications. You will pay
restitution of $148,000
through the Clerk of this
Court, for payment to Ms.
Daniels. No interest on it,
you cannot afford it.
Judge Furman: The
sentence as stated is imposed.
I hope that the day of further
crimes is over. If you are
convicted in California too, I
hope after that you use your
skills to help your daughters
and son and others. I hope you
don't come back in front of
me.
Baum: We ask for
designation to FCI Sheridan,
in Oregon. But we ask that
this restitution come after
the Nike restitution.
AUSA: Nike asked
that theirs come last. But
Judge Gardephe determined that
wasn't possible. Judge Furman:
How much was that? Baum:
$250,000.
Judge Furman: Any
notice of appeal must be filed
within 14 days. Mr. Baum is in
the final days of 50 years of
a stories career as a Federal
Defender. [Still his personal
Shea Stadium hot
dog story not mentioned
Baum: Can you
order he be returned to
Terminal Island where his
legal papers are?
Judge Furman:
I'll convey it to the Marshals.
We stand adjourned.
Back on March 21,
Avenatti's motions were denied
but sentencing slightly pushed
back: " MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to
Michael Avenatti denying [426]
MOTION to Postpone Sentencing
By 60 Days and Motion for a
Remote Sentencing Proceeding.
ENDORSEMENT: Applications
DENIED, except that sentencing
is RESCHEDULED to June 2,
2022, at 10 a.m. Defense
submissions in connection with
sentencing are due two weeks
prior to the sentencing date;
the Government's submissions
are due one week before the
sentencing date."
Now for the June
2 sentencing, some fast
transport back to California
(while up to four months have
been taken to transfer a
Federal detaining from Florida
to New York via Oklahoma). The
order:
"ORDER as to
Michael Avenatti. Sentencing
in this case is scheduled for
June 2, 2022. See ECF No. 427.
The Court has been advised
that Defendants next trial, in
the United States District
Court for the Central District
of California, is scheduled to
begin in July 2022. Although
the Court previously noted
that it was prepared to
adjourn sentencing to avoid
any conflict with the
California trial, no party has
moved for such an adjournment.
That said, having spoken with
the judge presiding over the
California case, the Court
hereby ORDERS the United
States Marshal Service to
transport Defendant back to
the Central District of
California promptly after
sentencing in this matter, to
arrive no later than June 6,
2022 (Signed by Judge Jesse M.
Furman on 5/19/22)."
As of May 25,
Michael Avenatti is already
listed in the BOP website as
in the MDC in Brooklyn, photo
here. Watch this site.
On March 16 in
Avenatti's California case the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
denied most of his appeal, and
dismissed the rest: " The
district court did not err in
denying Avenatti’s motions to
dismiss on double
jeopardy grounds. To succeed
on this claim, Avenatti was
required to establish
that the prosecution’s conduct
giving rise to the motion was
“intended to ‘goad’
[him] into moving for a
mistrial.” Oregon v. Kennedy,
456 U.S. 667, 676 (1982). But
the district court expressly
found that “[n]o ‘goading’
occurred,” because the data
was withheld by the government
due to mere “inadvertence and
a failure to appreciate
what was there.” Full document
on Inner City Press'
DocumentCloud here.
The Stormy
Danials 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
4 after a jury note
complaining about an emotional
juror who would not
deliberate, Avenatti was found
guilty on both counts. Inner
City Press live tweeted it,
thread here
and below.
On February
16 the Federal Defenders wrote
in seeking to be relieved as
stand-by counsel, citing
conflict, and naming a lawyer
to be appointed, at the public
charge: "We write as standby
counsel for Michael Avenatti
in the above-captioned case to
respectfully request that the
Court assign Mr. Avenatti
counsel from the Criminal
Justice Act (CJA) panel to
represent him moving forward
at sentencing and for the
purpose of any post-trial
motions. We respectfully
submit that assignment of CJA
counsel is warranted because a
conflict of interest exists
with the Federal Defenders of
New York, in part due to Mr.
Avenatti’s statements about
our representation at the time
he sought leave to proceed pro
se. As the Court is aware, Mr.
Avenatti is currently
incarcerated and this
application is made at his
request. Mr. Avenatti submits
that it is impossible for him
to effectively represent
himself in this matter going
forward due to his
incarceration, which
substantially interferes with
his ability to review trial
records, conduct legal
research, collect/assemble
mitigation materials, and
prepare a meaningful
sentencing submission.
Specifically, we have spoken
with Benjamin Silverman, a
member of the CJA panel in the
Southern District of New York
and who represents Mr.
Avenatti for the purposes of
post-trial motions in the
Nike-related matter."
But, ", a
nonfamily-member acquaintance
of Mr. Avenatti paid legal
fees directly to Mr. Silverman
for the purpose of assisting
Mr. Avenatti in perfecting
post-trial motions in the
Nike-related matter. None of
these monies ever belonged to
Mr. Avenatti and the payment
was a purely gratuitous,
one-time payment unrelated to
this case."
On
February 17, Judge Furman
denied without prejudice: "The
motion is DENIED without
prejudice. In view of
Avenatti’s conviction and
detention, the Court is open
to reappointing counsel to
represent him, but — given the
nature of the right involved
(i.e., the Sixth Amendment
right to self-representation)
and given that standby counsel
does not represent him in full
— the Court will not do so
absent a request from Avenatti
himself.1 Moreover, in
the event that Avenatti does
make a request himself, the
Court would be inclined to
reappoint FDNY as counsel
absent a more compelling
showing that there is a
genuine conflict of interest;
the current record certainly
does not support the existence
of such a conflict.2
Finally, in the event that
Avenatti makes a request and
the Court decides that
appointment of new counsel is
appropriate, it will adhere to
the CJA Plan and appoint the
CJA Panel member on duty; it
will not appoint counsel of
Avenatti’s (or FDNY’s)
choosing... The Court
would accept a declaration
signed by Avenatti requesting
appointment of counsel.
Alternatively, the Court is
prepared to hold a
teleconference or
videoconference." Watch this
site.
From February 4:
OK - US v. Avenatti, Day 10 -
there has just been a jury
note, that one juror is
refusing to deliberate or look
at evidence, other 11 jurors
asking for help. Inner City
Press will live tweet, thread
below
Assistant US
Attorney: We should ask the
foreperson to identify the
juror, and consider removing
them. Judge Furman: I'm
thinking of giving an
instruction that deliberation
requires consideration of the
evidence. And if this problem
continues, please ID the juror
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
AUSA: We
should follow the Baker case.
Judge Furman: In that case,
there were three notes before
they were asked to name-names.
We don't know if it is a
refusal to deliberate or a
conscientious decision by her.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
AUSA: Within an
hour of them getting the 300
page transcript, we get this
note. So it seems the juror is
refusing to consider the
transcript. So we think
following Baker it would be
appropriate to conduct an
inquiry here. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Judge Furman: I'm
not sure this is stronger than
the request in Baker. Mr.
Avenatti? Avenatti: I object
to any further instruction to
the jury. I request a
mistrial, now. Avenatti: The
idea that this juror has to
justify her position to the
other jurors is without merit.
The jury is deadlocked. I am
requested a mistrial. [Cites
US v. Samet, 207 F. Supp. 2d
269, Judge McMahon]
Judge
Furman: The application is
denied. We are nowhere near a
mistrial. The note is that the
juror is acting on a feeling,
that it's all emotion, as in
Baker. But I won't yet ask
them to identify the juror. A
more incremental approach is
appropriate Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
AUSA: Let's add,
If a juror continues to refuse
to deliberate, you may provide
me with a further note.
Avenatti: Let's just re-read
them the initial instruction
about deliberation. Judge
Furman: Maybe the 11 want to
acquit - I don't know.
Avenatti: Re-read bias Inner
City Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti:
May I have a moment to confer
with my advisory counsel?
Judge Furman: You may. And by
the way, Samet is F.Supp 2d,
not just F.Supp. And it may be
Day 3, but it amounts to a day
and half. And no deliberations
during lunch due to social
distancing. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti: I
object to mentioning sympathy
and emotion twice. That's
undue emphasis. I propose the
Court use the original charge.
I'll read it -- Judge Furman:
It's in the record, you don't
need to read it. Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Avenatti: The
language of the draft answer
is coercive and threatening.
And I object, there's no need
to bring attention to this
instruction. Judge Furman: I
propose to add that the
defendant has no burden...
Then I'll ask them to return
to the jury room and
deliberate.
AUSA: It
doesn't seem the jury has any
confusion about the burden of
proof. Judge Furman: We're in
sensitive territory Inner City
Press @innercitypress ·
Jury entering!
Judge Furman: We have received
your note... Your verdict must
be based on the evidence... I
ask you to continue
deliberating. If anyone
refuses to deliberate, you are
free to send us another note.
Jury leaves.
With jury
gone, Avenatti says his
interviews (on Foley Square,
including the hotdog
interviews, which Judge Furman
says he has not seen) comply
with the rules. He calls
Stormy Daniels on CNN
outrageous. Thread will
continue. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
OK - drum
roll - Judge Furman has taken
the bench again, and the jury
is entering. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
In US v.
Avenatti: Count 1, wire fraud:
Guilty. Count 2, aggravated ID
theft: Guilty.
We're in
26th floor hallway outside
courtroom. FD Dalack came out,
in Michigan cap, and closed
door. Inner City Press
@innercitypress ·
Avenatti team
came out with evidence cart,
then went back in. Prosecutors
left without comment. Inner
City Press @innercitypress
Court staff peaks
out into hallway, then locks
door. "They can come out, but
they can't go back in."
There's no going back.
Avenatti emerges, says, I am
very disappointed in the
verdict and look forward to a
full adjudication on appeal."
Afterward, Inner
City Press questioned Avenatti
in rain-swept Foley Square, here,
and published the jury
note and verdict
form. Avenatti is set to
surrended by February 7, 5 pm
on the West Coast, and be
sentenced on May 24 at 3:45
pm. We'll be there.
On
February 3, Judge Furman read
a modified Allen charge,
below. Inner City Press live
tweeted it, thread 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.
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
,
