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


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


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"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

Avenatti in Nike Case Says No Quid Pro Quo More Like Quid Et Quo Urges Dismissal of Count 3

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon, thread video

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Nov 24 – Michael Avenatti in the Nike case against him has moved to dismissed Count Three, honest services wire fraud.

In a November 24 filing his lawyer Scott A. Srebnick argues that "[a]pparently, the “quid” in the Superseding Indictment was the proposed $15-25 million payment from Nike to Mr. Avenatti and the “quo” was Mr. Avenatti granting Nike the right to also pay $1.5 million to Coach Franklin to resolve his potential claims. At best, this is a quid et quo, not a quid pro quo. It defies common sense to view this as a paradigmatic bribe or kickback."

  In the Stormy Daniels case against Avenatti U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Deborah A. Batts aset the trial date for April 21, and excluded time under the Speedy Trials Act through the date. Inner City Press will continue to cover this case, and the (Nike) case before Judge Paul G. Gardephe.

  Back in August Judge Gardephe told Avenatti's lawyer in that case Scott A. Srebnick to "tee up the subpoena issues sooner rather than later." That ball has not, in fact, been put on the tee.

 Srebnick as in his written submissions brought up the Fifth Amendment. Judge Gardephe said raising that to a jury would be a first for him, and that Srebnick faces a uphill battle convincing him. But it seems Srebnick will try. He took up 85% of the speaking time (Inner City Press live tweeted it here), in a courtroom whose gallery was less than half filled. Things have changed.

  Srebnick proposed moving the trial from November to January, then mentioned that AUSA Richenthal has a trial starting on January 21, so why not extend further? More on Patreon here.

 Inner City Press will cover the letters when they come in, and the Rule 17 issues, the Fifth Amendment and Judge Gardephe's and others' SDNY cases. Watch this site.

Back on June 18 when Avenatti phoned in to the prior status conference in the Nike extortion case against him, he said nothing other than confirming he was on the line and has no scheduling conflict for the trial scheduled for November 12.

  Srebnick told Judge Gardephe in June that the trial might have to be delayed because Avenatti's law firm's server has still not been reviewed. He said it is in the possession of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California. 

  SDNY Assistant US Attorney Podolsky said that he has not seen the server, either. Don't these US Attorney's Office, both part of the US Justice Department, work together? Or do they mostly compete?

   Across Pearl Street at the courtroom of SDNY Judge Batts, which Avenatti was to have appeared at 10:30 am, a signed on the door said that the conference has been adjourned until July 23. (Srebnick says it is "to allow for new counsel in that case to enter his appearance and begin reviewing the discovery.") Instead Judge Batts was taking a surreal and halting guilty plea, with Inner City Press the only media in that large courtroom, of Defendant Augustin Zamora-Vega who could not remember where in the SDNY he had transported drugs.

  Avenatti if nothing else knows his way around the system. So beyond the motion schedule -- August 19 for Srebnick, September 19 for Podolsky and Richenthal with an October 3 reply -- whether this trial actually starts the day after Veteran's Day is anybody's guess. See @InnerCityPress and the news @SDNYLIVE.

   Back at his in person arraignment on the Nike extortion charges against him on May 28, Judge Gardephe
asked him about each of the charges, How do you plead?

  "One hundred percent not guilty," Avenatti answered four times, something he expanded slightly on in a question-less press gaggle in Foley Square just after the proceeding. Periscope video here. Alamy photos here.

Judge Gardephe began by disclosing that Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert B. Sobelman had been an intern of his while in law school. Judge Gardephe said this would have no effect. He asked AUSA Matthew Podolsky when the discovery material would begin to be produced.

  As soon as Avenatti's lawyer Scott Srebnick signs a protective order and provides a thumb drive, was the answer. It seems it will be a disk. Judge Gardephe set the next conference for June 18 at noon, an hour an a half after Avenatti and some lawyer are set to appear before SDNY Judge Deborah Batts in the Stormy Daniels case.

Earlier on May 28 before Judge Batts, Avenatti's first move was to have his Miami-based lawyer Srebnick ask to transfer the Daniels case to California.

  The U.S. Attorney for the SDNY's office opposed the request, saying it met none of the Supreme Court's factors for change in venue in the 1964 case Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240.  Attorney Srebnick's motion to make a motion was denied.

[Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Podolsky told Judge Batts he had recently beaten back a similar attempt to delay by bifurcated venue motions. For more, see Patreon, here.]


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]

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 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for