Michael Avenatti

Post Reply
User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20655
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#101

Post by TollandRCR » Fri May 18, 2018 12:07 pm

Has Mr. Mueller even hinted that he is concerned about Avenatti's antics? I would prefer to believe that Mue!ler is in such a strong position that no one can hurt him, except the president.


“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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#102

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 18, 2018 12:43 pm

TollandRCR wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 12:07 pm
Has Mr. Mueller even hinted that he is concerned about Avenatti's antics? I would prefer to believe that Mue!ler is in such a strong position that no one can hurt him, except the president.
Mueller doesn't talk. Clearly Avenatti's release of the Cohen SAR, which Avenatti did simply to keep his face on TV, didn't help. And it has conflated the Stormy Daniels scandal with a scandal that is much more serious. Russia's attack on America is a lot more important than Trump's sex with a porn actress and his subsequent action to pay her off.



User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#103

Post by Res Ipsa » Fri May 18, 2018 1:31 pm

TollandRCR wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 12:07 pm
Has Mr. Mueller even hinted that he is concerned about Avenatti's antics?
Please point me to the last several public statements by Mueller about anything.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20655
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#104

Post by TollandRCR » Fri May 18, 2018 1:50 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 12:43 pm

...Russia's attack on America is a lot more important than Trump's sex with a porn actress and his subsequent action to pay her off.
Agreed. Avenatti would be out of his league working on Russian sabotage. Risque matters are more his speed.


“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
TollandRCR
Posts: 20655
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#105

Post by TollandRCR » Fri May 18, 2018 1:52 pm

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 1:31 pm
TollandRCR wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 12:07 pm
Has Mr. Mueller even hinted that he is concerned about Avenatti's antics?
Please point me to the last several public statements by Mueller about anything.
That is true, and I suppose Mueller has to remain silent. DoJ could speak, however.


“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
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#106

Post by Res Ipsa » Fri May 18, 2018 2:01 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 9:06 am
Avenatti said he is vetting the names of two more women who signed NDA's with Trump. Does anyone care to guess the name of the attorney who represented them? I know whom I would guess.
Peter Gleason, as per footnote here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 3.52.0.pdf

Mr. Avenatti is at a loss as to why Mr. Gleason would have filed pleadings with the Court
attacking him. Mr. Avenatti has absolutely no prior experience with Mr. Gleason. Indeed, Mr.
Avenatti first called Mr. Gleason days ago to discuss his prior letter to the Court and was
promised a call back by Mr. Gleason. He has yet to receive any such return call.


There's a funny little catfight going on between the surprisingly weird Peter Gleason and Avenatti.

But IMHO the skinny on Avenatti's "vetting two more women" statement was that he was prompted by the Gleason letter to follow up with Gleason to see if he could get two more publicity vehicles clients, and Gleason told him to FO. Avenatti is selling more woof tickets.

The "Memorandum of Law" which Gleason submitted in support of his letter is.... sad. But I'll post in the Cohen thread.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20655
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#107

Post by TollandRCR » Fri May 18, 2018 5:07 pm

As I think about it further, I realize that it would be undesirable for DoJ to be telling attorneys to back off a case. That probably means that professional norms are first enforced by the individual attorney and maybe then by bar associations. Avenatti's hunger for the limelight gets in the way of these professional norms.


“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
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#108

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Fri May 18, 2018 7:05 pm

TollandRCR wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 5:07 pm
Avenatti's hunger for the limelight gets in the way of these professional norms.
Pretty sure trump issued an EO outlawing professional norms over a year ago.



User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#109

Post by Jim » Fri May 18, 2018 7:10 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 7:05 pm
TollandRCR wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 5:07 pm
Avenatti's hunger for the limelight gets in the way of these professional norms.
Pretty sure trump issued an EO outlawing professional norms over a year ago.
A year? Pubs gave up professional norms years ago. This is just the product.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#110

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 18, 2018 7:16 pm

On the Cohen thread I have posted the opposition of Cohen's lawyers to Avenatti's pro hac vice application and Avenatti's pathetic, cringewothy reply affidavit. I attach them here as well.

Avenatti's pro hac application should be denied. He also should face discipline in New York and California. (Query whether he can be disciplined in New York without being admitted there.)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7075
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Michael Avenatti

#111

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Fri May 18, 2018 7:31 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 7:16 pm
On the Cohen thread I have posted the opposition of Cohen's lawyers to Avenatti's pro hac vice application and Avenatti's pathetic, cringewothy reply affidavit. I attach them here as well.

Avenatti's pro hac application should be denied. He also should face discipline in New York and California. (Query whether he can be disciplined in New York without being admitted there.)
Well written brief by Cohen's lawyers.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#112

Post by woodworker » Fri May 18, 2018 8:21 pm

Well, mostly to be contrarian and partly because my back hurts and the doctor just told me I have kidney stones (good thing I already have prescriptions for norco and morphine), I am going to predict Avenatti is granted PHV. That doesn't change my feeling that he is an obnoxious, full of himself braggart and jackass.


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#113

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 18, 2018 8:36 pm

woodworker wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 8:21 pm
Well, mostly to be contrarian and partly because my back hurts and the doctor just told me I have kidney stones (good thing I already have prescriptions for norco and morphine), I am going to predict Avenatti is granted PHV. That doesn't change my feeling that he is an obnoxious, full of himself braggart and jackass.
I will disagree. With the PHV prediction.

(I'm cheating. I still have the TARDIS and already know what happens.)



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24530
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#114

Post by bob » Fri May 18, 2018 9:01 pm

woodworker wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 8:21 pm
I am going to predict Avenatti is granted PHV. That doesn't change my feeling that he is an obnoxious, full of himself braggart and jackass.
I tend to agree: although the district court is granted some discretion with respect to PHV applications, I don't think Avenatti's behavior (and character) so falls into the standard when determining whether to grant.

(There's also the very real possibility that Avenatti's client's interests are not implicated by the seized materials, such that her intervention may not be required. That would moot the application.)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

SLQ
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#115

Post by SLQ » Fri May 18, 2018 9:22 pm

woodworker wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 8:21 pm
Well, mostly to be contrarian and partly because my back hurts and the doctor just told me I have kidney stones (good thing I already have prescriptions for norco and morphine), I am going to predict Avenatti is granted PHV. That doesn't change my feeling that he is an obnoxious, full of himself braggart and jackass.
I agree.



SLQ
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#116

Post by SLQ » Fri May 18, 2018 9:25 pm

bob wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:01 pm
woodworker wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 8:21 pm
I am going to predict Avenatti is granted PHV. That doesn't change my feeling that he is an obnoxious, full of himself braggart and jackass.
I tend to agree: although the district court is granted some discretion with respect to PHV applications, I don't think Avenatti's behavior (and character) so falls into the standard when determining whether to grant.

(There's also the very real possibility that Avenatti's client's interests are not implicated by the seized materials, such that her intervention may not be required. That would moot the application.)
He already said hat Cohen corresponded with Keith Davidson and Davidson likely shared stormy-client privileged information. The special master will know, if so. (Leaving the auto-correct for “attorney”. Ha.)



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9402
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#117

Post by Mikedunford » Fri May 18, 2018 9:38 pm

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 7:31 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 7:16 pm
On the Cohen thread I have posted the opposition of Cohen's lawyers to Avenatti's pro hac vice application and Avenatti's pathetic, cringewothy reply affidavit. I attach them here as well.

Avenatti's pro hac application should be denied. He also should face discipline in New York and California. (Query whether he can be disciplined in New York without being admitted there.)
Well written brief by Cohen's lawyers.
It's a well-written brief, but I wonder if they might have overplayed their hand by going after his fitness to practice with such force.

IMO, the simplest reason to deny Avenetti's pro hac application is that his presence in the case is not required and will not further the interests of justice.

His motion to intervene is currently being held in abeyance, and (IMO) there's little reason for that motion to be granted.

He cannot plausibly allege that his client had an attorney-client relationship with Cohen, so there's no reason for him to be involved in the fight over privilege. To whatever extent that Davidson's Clifford's prior lawyer might have disclosed confidential information to Cohen, the disclosures were most likely in the course of negotiations (or, at least, there don't seem to be clear allegations that they weren't), so the disclosures were presumptively permissible under the Model Rules. So there's no real basis to try an claw anything back. And notes, etc made by Cohen are presumptively Cohen's work product for Cohen's client, not something that Daniels has an independent interest in.

He is not currently in discovery in his California case, and it's far from clear that he will ever enter discovery in that case. Even if discovery commences, we know (from transcripts) that the FBI was giving copies of the seized materials to Cohen for review, so there's no compelling reason that SDNY would have to be involved in discovery in the California case.

And absent intervention, there's no reason for Avenetti's presence in the case. So, at least to me, it would seem that there's no compelling reason to grant the (in abeyance) motion to intervene, and little reason that the PHV shouldn't either also be held in abeyance or denied without prejudice until such time as the court is ready to hear argument on the motion to intervene.

But instead of arguing that, Cohen's people have gone after Avenetti - they've elected to go the full pissing contest route. And in the process they've definitely overplayed:
The California Bar Association, of which Mr. Avenatti is a member, acknowledged in an April 18, 2018 letter that it is currently investigating a complaint regarding Mr. Avenatti’s alleged lack of fitness to practice law in the state. See Brooke Singman, Michael Avenatti being investigated by California State Bar, Fox News (May 17, 2018), available at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... e-bar.html. This Court’s Local Rules provide that an applicant for pro hac vice admission to the Court certify “whether there are any disciplinary proceedings presently against the applicant and (d) the facts and circumstances surrounding any affirmative responses[.]” S.D.N.Y. Local
Civ. R. 1.3(c) (emphasis added). In Mr. Avenatti’s affidavit filed with this Court dated May 13, 2018, he stated “[t]here are currently no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any State or Federal Court.” ECF 46-1, at 3. Mr. Avenatti has not explained why he failed to disclose the California Bar’s pending investigation into his conduct. Accordingly, his submission does not comply with the requirements in the Court’s Local Rules.


That's a chickenshit argument, especially when you look at the key phrase from the cited Fox article: "'The complaint against attorney Michael J. Avenatti has been reviewed and forwarded to the Enforcement Unit for further investigation and prosecution, if warranted," said the letter from the state bar..." That's not a pending disciplinary proceeding; claiming otherwise is at best disingenuous.

And all of the conduct that they're screaming about is extrajudicial. And there's been a lot of discussion in recent years regarding the tension between disciplining attorneys for extrajudicial statements and protecting the First Amendment rights of lawyers.

So I'm not sure that Judge Wood is going to be a lot happier with Cohen's response than she is with Avenatti.

Edit: Fixed a name. Lost track of who's who. Really need a scorecard.


"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
Mikedunford
Posts: 9402
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#118

Post by Mikedunford » Fri May 18, 2018 9:47 pm

SLQ wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:25 pm
He already said hat Cohen corresponded with Keith Davidson and Davidson likely shared stormy-client privileged information. The special master will know, if so. (Leaving the auto-correct for “attorney”. Ha.)
Davidson might have shared confidential information. But the Model Rules permit attorneys to disclose confidential information when "disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation." (Model Rule 1.6(a)). And attorneys have a lot of discretion in determining what's needed to carry out the representation. Absent a wrongful disclosure, I'm not sure what interest Clifford would have in protecting the information from being exposed to law enforcement. Particularly when she's the one who has been claiming that the resulting agreement was marred by illegality.


"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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#119

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 18, 2018 10:05 pm

Avenatti has created a circus and his goal is clearly to prejudice Cohen. I do have a bias against Avenatti, for reasons I've previously disclosed, so perhaps that bias is affecting my decision. But I found the opposition to be tough but fair. A lot more fair than Avenatti has been with any person named Michael Cohen.

I also agree Avenatti's presence is not needed or useful in this case.

Let's see what Judge Wood does. She could pick unfitness/circus, or unnecessary, or both, or grant the PHV application. I'm hoping she finds Avenatti unfit because that should either shut him the fuck up or make him less likely to appear on cable TV 24/7.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7178
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Michael Avenatti

#120

Post by RoadScholar » Fri May 18, 2018 10:21 pm

“Impliedly” is a word? :eek2:


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9402
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#121

Post by Mikedunford » Fri May 18, 2018 10:22 pm

Avenatti has created a circus and his goal is to prejudice Cohen. But I sat through an hour of mandatory ethics CLE a few months ago that went into excruciating detail on how reluctant courts have become to interfere with extrajudicial statements, at least in the absence of things like clear, knowing falsehoods.

And I have a feeling that few judges are impressed by pissing contests, or things that look like pissing contests. And, at least to me, making the primary focus of a PHV opposition the character and fitness of opposing counsel kind of looks like a pissing contest, even though there are clearly reasons to take that approach. (If Avenatti had GIL's prior track record, the fitness approach would be easier to justify.)

If I was the law clerk, I'd advise the judge to hold the PHV in abeyance alongside the motion to intervene. And I wouldn't be sad if the judge decided to issue a few benchslaps in the process. But I'm definitely not going to make any predictions on what will happen.


"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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Michael Avenatti

#122

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri May 18, 2018 10:40 pm

Except Michael Avenatti is not "opposing counsel." He's an appendage to the case.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9402
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#123

Post by Mikedunford » Fri May 18, 2018 10:46 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 10:40 pm
Except Michael Avenatti is not "opposing counsel." He's an appendage to the case.
A fair point. But, unfortunately, not one that Cohen's counsel elected to make in their brief.


"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.

boots
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Michael Avenatti

#124

Post by boots » Sat May 19, 2018 12:12 am

Another crazy lawyer from Orange County? Sheesh. I thought we'd reached our quota when I read about the DA candidate with a suspended law license. :eek2:



Jcolvin2
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: Michael Avenatti

#125

Post by Jcolvin2 » Sat May 19, 2018 12:23 am

Cal Bar Ltr to Nold re Investigation of Avenatti

Nold Complaint to Cal Bar re Avenatti

I bought lattes at Tully's almost daily for years. I understand the final paychecks to the workers at Tully's (many of whom I had known for months or years) bounced.



Post Reply

Return to “The Resistance”