Michael Avenatti

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3298
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#576

Post by Jim » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:21 pm

I'm in the way too little info to know camp. Let the chips fall where they may.

batguano
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:50 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#577

Post by batguano » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:22 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:38 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:25 pm

Playing devil's advocate here, because I'm of the I-don't-think-this-was-a-set-up belief. But let's say, hypothetically, that this was a set-up. Let's say that a woman calls 911, says she's been hit by her boyfriend, and the police come and find her screaming on the side walk. They interview her, she shows them her bruises, says Avenatti did it, and says he was her boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend, or whatever. The cops are going to take her at her word, they're going to present that to the magistrate, and get an arrest warrant for suspicion of domestic violence. A person making a complaint like that is enough for probable cause for arrest, even if Avenatti can show later that he's never met this person before in his life. The cops are *not* going to try to determine whether he was, in fact, her boyfriend, or whatever. They'll let that sort of thing get sorted out later.
Exactly this.

We had to (under the law here) arrest a husband one night for domestic violence, even though he arrived at the house after we did (the wife had called him to come over just before she called us to report it) and the huge red mark on her cheek was a perfect, clear imprint of her own very fancy ring. We knew he had not done it but we had no choice but to take him to jail. That may be the only time I ever apologized to a prisoner. It was a misdemeanor arrest so no judges were involved at that point, but the law is very clear about "any visible marks" being cause for mandatory arrest.
I refuse to believe you didn't have discretion to not arrest someone in that circumstance. Or that you didn't have discretion to arrest the false reporting party.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Michael Avenatti

#578

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:51 pm

I believe it. The section of the MS Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with warrantless arrests uses terms like "may arrest" for certain crimes, but says "shall arrest" with respect to domestic violence. The law gives the officer some discretion with respect to whether there is probable cause, but I doubt any cop faced with a situation Sugar Magnolia described would argue there was not probable cause for arrest.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ms/title-99-c ... 9-3-7.html
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

batguano
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:50 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#579

Post by batguano » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:54 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:51 pm
I believe it. The section of the MS Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with warrantless arrests uses terms like "may arrest" for certain crimes, but says "shall arrest" with respect to domestic violence. The law gives the officer some discretion with respect to whether there is probable cause, but I doubt any cop faced with a situation Sugar Magnolia described would argue there was not probable cause for arrest.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ms/title-99-c ... 9-3-7.html
Nothing personal to the person who posted that, but how is there probable cause, if the arrestee was not possibly even there?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26902
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#580

Post by bob » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:56 pm

batguano wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:54 pm
Nothing personal to the person who posted that, but how is there probable cause, if the arrestee was not possibly even there?
"My husband hit me! When I started to the call the police, he fled!" Etc.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10343
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#581

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:02 pm

batguano wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:54 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:51 pm
I believe it. The section of the MS Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with warrantless arrests uses terms like "may arrest" for certain crimes, but says "shall arrest" with respect to domestic violence. The law gives the officer some discretion with respect to whether there is probable cause, but I doubt any cop faced with a situation Sugar Magnolia described would argue there was not probable cause for arrest.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ms/title-99-c ... 9-3-7.html
Nothing personal to the person who posted that, but how is there probable cause, if the arrestee was not possibly even there?
Because it was not within our discretion to arbitrarily decide if he had left and come back, or had just arrived for the first time. Turns out, he had been at work but we had no way to know that, and it wouldn't have mattered if we had. She had "visible marks" and made the accusation against him. The law says he goes to jail for 24 hours. And whether you believe it or not doesn't change the DV law. I find it hard to believe it's illegal to pump your own gas in NJ but that doesn't change their law.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10343
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#582

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:20 pm

And totally unrelated, but coincidental, dispatch just made a city-wide announcement that the jail is closed for all but felony and DV arrests. When they reach capacity, those are the only people transported to jail and the DV arrests are the only misdemeanors accepted.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Michael Avenatti

#583

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:21 pm

batguano wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:54 pm
Nothing personal to the person who posted that, but how is there probable cause, if the arrestee was not possibly even there?
I didn't take it personally. I can certainly see why a person might think there's not probable cause in the scenario Sugar Magnolia described. But I can also see why a cop under those circumstances wouldn't want to have to explain to his or her superior (or a victim's family) that they made a credibility determination about a victim's complaint that turned out to be wrong, and given the probable cause standard (more likely than not), I can see why a cop would take the complainant at her word.

(IAAYCrL)
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7142
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#584

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:01 pm

I assume that part of the legislators' rationale behind the "thou shalt arrest him that be accused of battery in the home" statutes is the knowledge that an arrest or a day or two in jail might cause irritation but can be wound back if the accusation proves to be false, whereas a victim murdered after the cops leave cannot be revived. And in the past, too many police forces had been reluctant to involve themselves in "domestics" and needed to be shaken out of their complacency.

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 3118
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Michael Avenatti

#585

Post by AndyinPA » Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:07 pm

I read somewhere (and it could have been here) that LA changed its system with regard to domestic violence after the OJ stuff to say that someone has to be taken out and arrested. Sorry, I don't have a link and can't remember where I saw it.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12123
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Michael Avenatti

#586

Post by Whatever4 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:50 pm

Perfect headline from Snopes:
Michael Avenatti Was Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges, And Then Things Got Weird
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/11/16/ ... e=facebook
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

boots
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#587

Post by boots » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:58 pm

bob wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:56 pm
batguano wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:54 pm
Nothing personal to the person who posted that, but how is there probable cause, if the arrestee was not possibly even there?
"My husband hit me! When I started to the call the police, he fled!" Etc.
I realize the constitutionality of this has probably already been tested, especially in a litigious state like California. But does anyone know for certain?

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Michael Avenatti

#588

Post by Maybenaut » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:03 am

boots wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:58 pm
bob wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:56 pm
batguano wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:54 pm
Nothing personal to the person who posted that, but how is there probable cause, if the arrestee was not possibly even there?
"My husband hit me! When I started to the call the police, he fled!" Etc.
I realize the constitutionality of this has probably already been tested, especially in a litigious state like California. But does anyone know for certain?
There’s a ton of Supreme Court caselaw on the probable cause standard. It’s an objective standard that looks to the reasonableness of the police conduct. That is, was it reasonable for the police officer, with the information he or she had at the time, to believe it more likely than not that the arrestee had committed the crime? It’s not that high a bar.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26902
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#589

Post by bob » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:11 am

Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

boots
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#590

Post by boots » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:21 am

Maybenaut wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:03 am
boots wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:58 pm
bob wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:56 pm

"My husband hit me! When I started to the call the police, he fled!" Etc.
I realize the constitutionality of this has probably already been tested, especially in a litigious state like California. But does anyone know for certain?
There’s a ton of Supreme Court caselaw on the probable cause standard. It’s an objective standard that looks to the reasonableness of the police conduct. That is, was it reasonable for the police officer, with the information he or she had at the time, to believe it more likely than not that the arrestee had committed the crime? It’s not that high a bar.
Right, but as applied to this scenario with these "must arrest" laws. I find it disturbing.

User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: Michael Avenatti

#591

Post by MN-Skeptic » Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:32 am

Someone here probably remembers better than me, and I'm not doing any research on it, but my recollection is that the laws were changed because of the high number of women who would tell responding police that no, she was fine, don't arrest her husband. Often neighbors were the ones calling, not the wife. So laws were changed to get the abusive husband out of the house, away from the fearful, battered wife. The husband could cool down, get sober. The wife would not be guilty, in the eyes of her husband, for telling the police to drag him away.
MAGA - Morons Are Governing America

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Michael Avenatti

#592

Post by DejaMoo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:43 am

boots wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:58 pm
bob wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:56 pm
batguano wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:54 pm
Nothing personal to the person who posted that, but how is there probable cause, if the arrestee was not possibly even there?
"My husband hit me! When I started to the call the police, he fled!" Etc.
I realize the constitutionality of this has probably already been tested, especially in a litigious state like California. But does anyone know for certain?
We've got a professor of law here who's pursuing charges against the city after having been arrested for alleged rape and stalking. A former girlfriend went to the police with a plausible story; based on her account, they arrested him. He spent three weeks in jail, unable to come up with the (very high) bond, until further investigation discovered that the accuser has quite the history of making unfounded charges against random people. His position is that the accuser's account *and history* should've been looked into before they showed up and arrested him based on nothing but her word.

Interestingly, though his name was plastered all over the media, hers never was - not even when it was discovered that she's a serial liar. Apparently it's seen as a mental illness, so the media is practicing compassion. Her ex-boyfriend is now suing her for defamation.

I was taken in twice when people associated with my workplace made what turned out to be unfounded claims of crimes having been committed against them. The stories were initially plausible, but yeah - as more details came out, it turned out that each alleged victim was seeking attention, for one reason or another.

Based on this, I figured a third possibility in this Avenatti case (beyond A. he did it; B. he was set up) is that a random unhinged person saw and seized an opportunity to get some attention by falsely claiming to have been victimized by him. No conspiracy, just a lone nut. It would explain why there's been so little additional information; if the cops discovered the person wasn't credible, the case just might end up being handled the way it did with the law professor: charges dropped, but no details about the accuser ever being released, except to say he* or she turned out to not be credible.

*One of the rumors is that Avenatti's accuser is not biologically female. I think this might have sprung from Avenatti's strong denial that he's ever struck a woman.
I've heard this bull before.

boots
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#593

Post by boots » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:11 am

That sounds like tranny!

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: Michael Avenatti

#594

Post by TollandRCR » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:03 am

MN-Skeptic wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:32 am
Someone here probably remembers better than me, and I'm not doing any research on it, but my recollection is that the laws were changed because of the high number of women who would tell responding police that no, she was fine, don't arrest her husband. Often neighbors were the ones calling, not the wife. So laws were changed to get the abusive husband out of the house, away from the fearful, battered wife. The husband could cool down, get sober. The wife would not be guilty, in the eyes of her husband, for telling the police to drag him away.
Exactly right. With DoJ support, there were 1990s policing experiments in four cities. Subjects were assigned to the arrest condition or the conventional "John, you have to stop this" condition. Arrests made a huge positive difference. Wives no longer had to weigh their love for the abuser against their fear and pain. An epidemic of abuse began to be tamped down.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28432
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Michael Avenatti

#595

Post by Foggy » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:50 am

boots wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:11 am
That sounds like tranny!
You are a bad, bad person. :rotflmao:

You made me wake up a kitteh from laughing too loud. :fingerwag:

HOWEVER, it says a lot about this incident that Sinclair Broadcasting, which is a large organization with presumably some competent investigative reporters, is asking Avenatti whether the alleged victim is a man or a woman.

Yesterday at this time I wrote that I wanted more facts.

Today there may be, I kid you not, fewer facts available than yesterday.

Which is AWESOME, if you think about it. :smoking:
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12465
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#596

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:34 am

Is that awesome or scary??
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28432
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Michael Avenatti

#597

Post by Foggy » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:44 am

Awesome. After all, if Avenatti has a problem with it, he's still got a voice. Nobody is censoring him. He's just as willing to leave us in the dark as the alleged victim and the LA District Attorney's office. I can't imagine that he doesn't know a ton more than he's telling.

There's probably a sealed indictment, Q style, in our nation's capital for him, and he's being told if he reveals the set-up, he'll get more prison time for treason than for DV assault.

Yeah, that's gotta be it. :boxing:
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15651
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Michael Avenatti

#598

Post by Reality Check » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:30 am

Foggy wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:44 am
Awesome. After all, if Avenatti has a problem with it, he's still got a voice. Nobody is censoring him. He's just as willing to leave us in the dark as the alleged victim and the LA District Attorney's office. I can't imagine that he doesn't know a ton more than he's telling. :snippity:
Maybe he is being a good client and clamming up. :think:
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10428
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#599

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:45 am

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:30 am
Foggy wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:44 am
Awesome. After all, if Avenatti has a problem with it, he's still got a voice. Nobody is censoring him. He's just as willing to leave us in the dark as the alleged victim and the LA District Attorney's office. I can't imagine that he doesn't know a ton more than he's telling. :snippity:
Maybe he is being a good client and clamming up. :think:
:yeah:

As skeptical as I am about Avenatti, I've never questioned whether he has the minimal competence needed to function as a lawyer. Under the circumstances, staying quiet is a good move, and I'm not about to read anything into it.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Michael Avenatti

#600

Post by Turtle » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:14 am

Maybe he and Stormy are working with Q and Trump in a sting to take down the deep state. Now that he's "in" the system, he is perfectly positioned to knock down the first domino.

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”