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 of Avenatti Jury Said No Consensus So US Proposed 2d Answer Judge Denies

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

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.

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