Thread by @meghanncuniff

OK I’m here at the federal courthouse in Orange County for the fourth day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s trial. Attorneys will be in court about 8:30, and the jury is due at 9. Follow this thread for updates. ⚖️🧵⚖️

YOU GUYS, Jacob Wohl is here. He’s in the hallway outside Judge Selna’s courtroom as we wait for it to open. Avenatti just walked past him. Nothing was said. (c.c.: @JacobWohlReport)

Jacob and Avenatti have a long, Twitter trollish relationship. I first met Jacob at Avenatti’s second judgment debtor exam, the one we’ve heard so much about in trial because it’s when we first learned of the Geoff Johnson settlement.

Avenatti has blamed Jacob for his domestic violence arrest, which apparently prompted Jacob’s interest in Avenatti’s court proceedings. (He showed up at his arraignment, too.) Jacob today is of course suited and slicked hair as ever. (c.c.: @JacobWohlReport)

OK, Judge Selna just took the bench and we are about to get started on "filings over the last several days," Selna says. The tweet is up first.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1419783038016266265

AUSA Brett Sagel said he told Avenatti’s defense before the filing that the account had been tweeting during trial and didn’t appear to be an actual juror. They’ve since pulled tweets about living in New York and New Jersey.

“It’s not new for this individual to be making negative remarks about Mr. Avenatti two weeks before a jury was even picked in this case,” Sagel says. A review “clearly shows they are not a juror in this case.”

Sagel says the most that needs to be done is jurors need to be asked if they've posted anything about the case or read anything about the case. Avenatti has other ideas. He shows Selna another tweet from the same account that says she's here for every day of the trial.

Avenatti notes that the tweet is in response to a tweet by a reporter who's here in court today (me) and they need to find out if account is actually a juror “This is a serious matter we need to get to the bottom of,” Avenatti said. He repeats stuff from his papers.

Judge Selna tells Avenatti he thinks government’s notification of this was sufficient, and he thinks the tweet from the account denying she's a juror, and others, are sufficient. "I'm not going to pursue this any further."

Now onto something that actually matters for trial today: Selna's concerns about malpractice testimony v. actual crime testimony. The judge says he'll sustain objections to questions that focus on whether Avenatti malpracticed and not whether he committed a crime.

AUSA Sagel emphasizes what his filings show: That the social security stuff is relevant to the wire fraud crime because of the underlying false statement about Geoff Johnson's special needs trust. Selna understands; it's the line of questioning in cross that prompted this.

Judge again emphasizes he'll sustain objections to questions that focus on Avenatti's performance as an attorney and not whether he committed a crime. Onto the argument over defense reciprocal discovery.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1419712381345669148

Selna says defense documents that aren’t impeachment material in cross need to be disclosed to prosecutors. He says for one, not ordering that means defendant could shield all defense evidence “by bringing it all into cross examination and never presenting a case in chief.”

Avenatti is telling Selna this order is legally wrong and violates his constitutional rights, and contradicts case law that says documents produced by the government to the defense don't have to be disclosed.

Judge Selna said he made a similar order in another criminal case in which Avenatti's standby counsel Dean Steward was counsel. Avenatti says he's not familiar with that case, and Selna says, "Sir, that's why you have advisory counsel."

Avenatti continues: "This is very unusual, your honor, to prevent a defendant from using the government's own documents on cross examination." (These are documents he got from prosecutors as discovery.)

Selna disagrees and emphasizes Avenatti has had access to these documents not since prosecutors gave them, but since they were created. They’re documents “from your own files.”

Selna makes Avenatti move on from this, and the order is not good for him: He can't bring in documents on cross for non-impeachment if he hasn't told prosecutors about them first.

Now Avenatti is taking issue that prosecutors are calling a witness out of order. Which means no testimony from Avenatti paralegal Judy Regnier this morning. Sagel is saying it's because of a vacation issue with the witness.

Oh - Judge Selna sides with Avenatti on this one and tells prosecutors to put Regnier on first. That caused a bit of a stir with the suits sitting next to me. ("Is Ms. Regnier here?" one asked.) Now we're on a break as they figure this out.

OK the jury is now seated and of course, the first witness today is actually a continuation of Avenatti's cross exam of Tom Goeders from Friday, the real estate agent who worked with Geoff Johnson on the home purchase. (Regnier next, under Selna's order)

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1418686121806946304

As as his been his style, Avenatti very slowly walks Goeders through stuff that some might think could be covered in one question or two. Prosecutors can always object, but Avenatti has a way of making it very incremental and not so much obviously repetitive.

Of course, right after my last tweet, Avenatti repeats a question and gets slammed by Judge Selna. "I caution you, sir, to ask the same question only once," the judge tells Avenatti.

Avenatti ends with asking Goeders whether he prevents feds from accessing other text messages about the loan that show other factors at work than Avenatti, and Goeders says no. He ends with that. AUSA Alex "Double Initials" Wyman is up now.

Whoops, typo above. That should say AUSA Alex C.K. Wyman, not Alex "Double Initials" Wyman. My bad.

Wyman is going over texts between Goeders and Avenatti about special needs trust, which for prosecutors is heart of Goeders' testimony. Wyman says Avenatti spent a lot of time going over Goeders' texts, but Wyman is bringing the focus back to the texts that really matter.

Like with the Social Security employee, Avenatti is trying to dismantle prosecutorial narrative about him being responsible for Johnson's home purchase falling through. But for prosecutors, that's not the point of the witnesses.

The actual criminal charge Avenatti is facing is a wire fraud count that involves making a false statement to perpetuate it. Avenatti's lies to these witnesses about trying to set up a special needs trust for Johnson is that false statement, prosecutors say.

Avenatti on recross asks Goeders that isn’t it true he has “no idea whatsoever” what’s involved in setting up a special needs trust after a settlement with a public entity. Wyman objects as outside the scope for recross, which is only supposed to address issues raised in redirect

Selna sustains, and Avenatti tries again by saying Goeders has “no idea whatsoever” whether any steps were taken in connection with the text messages he just saw to create a special needs trust. Goeders says no. And that’s the end.

Avenatti's former paralegal, Judy Regnier, is on the stand. (It's pronounced Ren-yay.) AUSA Brett Sagel is handling the direct exam. Regnier says she's been unemployed since March 25, 2019. (That's the day her Yorba Linda cul-de-sac home was raided in connection with this case.)

Wearing a black and white patterned blouse, Regnier is going over with Sagel her basic duties at Eagan Avenatti LLP. "We did mainly plaintiff’s work. There were some business cases. There were some personal injury type cases. It kind of was spread out."

Sagel asks about Geoff Johnson. Regnier says he was a client of the law firm. She never met him, but "I worked on his case." Says a lot of the times, toward the end of a case, "Michael would be the only one having contact with the client."

This matches earlier testimony from Eagan Avenatti lawyer Carlos Colorado about Avenatti's increasing role as cases near conclusion, but Avenatti has worked to show during cross that it really isn't unusual for more senior lawyers to take over as cases near trial/ settlement talk

Sagel is introducing emails between Regnier and Avenatti. One goes over all the money Eagan Avenatti has in its three bank accounts. The total? About $43,000. Sagel asks if it all adds up to $43k, Avenatti objects as leading but Selna overrules.

At the same time, Regnier tells Avenatti payroll is $112,000. “The payroll that is due next week, is that more than that’s available in the accounts?” Sagel asks.
“Yes,” Regnier answers.

Sagel asks Regnier to read a line in her email to Avenatti that begins, “Sorry.” In it, she apologizes for sending this to him while he’s on vacation.

“If he was busy prepping for trial, would you have said that?” Sagel asks.
Avenatti: “Objection!” But he doesn’t immediately state a reason, so Judge Selna says, “Yes?”
“Relevance,” Avenatti says.
“Overruled,” Selna says.
Yes, Regnier would have said that.

We heard about Geoff Johnson's $4 million settlement. "I've seen it, I'm not exactly sure when I saw it," Regnier says. And now Sagel is asking about client trust accounts. Regnier going over the basics.

Sagel is walking Regnier through bank records that show the $4 million being deposited, then $1.6 million being transferred out. Where did it go? Sagel asks. "It went to another Eagan Avenatti account," Regnier answers.

Sagel asks Regnier about a $26k transfer. “Yes, that’s Michael’s ex-wife.” Avenatti lodges a standing objection to the line of questioning. (I didn’t get the reason but he stated one earlier; Selna has overruled.) “Sir, make the objections as we go,” the judge tells him.

Avenatti repeats the reasons for his objection: Hearsay, and court's prior motion limine ruling (regarding lifestyle evidence not being admitted). And 403, (which regards cumulative evidence)

Now Regnier is discussing Avenatti's failed Tully's Coffee enterprise, Global Baristas. Regnier sent $250k to the LLC "at Michael's instruction." (This coffee venture is where Avenatti really got into it with the IRS. The CA criminal case started as a tax investigation.)

Sagel asks Regnier about costs and fees. “It’s so that we can show what was expended on the case during the course of the case and the firm can be reimbursed at the end.”

Regnier reads a cost and fees total of $736k. Sagel asks her about about 14 expenditures for approximately $14,000 to $18,000; Regnier says they're for Johnson's care center. (This is Sagel refuting Avenatti's "but the costs and fees were so high!" defense.)

There's also a figure of $200,000 something ($736k I think is fees and the $200k and change figure is costs.) Mercifully, Judge Selna halts this math talk by calling the morning break. We're back in 15 minutes.

Avenatti drops an ominous warning to ASUSA Sagel before we get started again: "Brett, I'd ask that the witness be excused. I'm gong to raise an issue."

Well, that turned out to be nothing. Judy Regnier is back on the stand and Sagel is continuing his direct exam. The $1.6 million taken from Johnson's settlement was the 40 percent contingency fee. Sagel addresses the fees and costs for outside counsel who testified last week.

After those were taken out, Regnier says everything left in the account was due to Mr. Johnson. It was more than $1 million. Sagel asks if she paid that money to Mr. Johnson? No, she didn't.

This is what I've been wanting to hear about - Now Sagel is getting into the lawsuit Johnson's care center filed regarding his back rent. It was against Johnson, Avenatti and Eagan Avenatti LLP for breach of contract, for the nonpayments.

Avenatti is objecting, and Selna is taking issue with the document, too. Avenatti stands up when objecting and adds: "Who do you think paid?" which prompts Selna to say: "Sir, not the time to make factual statements. Do you understand?"
"Yes, sir," Avenatti says.

Not sure quite how we got here, but Sagel got Regnier to say that the amount of money left in Johnson's account actually should have been higher. Now Sagel is asking about Avenatti getting loans from a bank in Mississippi.

Onto the special needs trust.
“Based on your work at Eagan Avenatti, do you know what a special needs trust is?” Sagel asks.
“A little bit. Not a lot, but a little,” Regnier answers.

Sagel brings up a May 6, 2015, email from Regnier to Avenatti in which she says if they can get a special needs trust set up, they can put the money in there and it won't affect Johnson's Social Security benefits. Avenatti replied the same day.

"Let me check into this. Don't do anything for now," Avenatti replies to Regnier. Did Avenatti ever do anything with her regarding a trust after that? No. Was a trust ever created? She's not aware of one, no.

Sagel asks if she made payments to Johnson, and she says yes but never the >$1 million he was due.
"Why were you making payments for his rent and living expenses?"
"That was the agreement Geoff had with Michael. Geoff would contact either myself or Michael when he needed money."

"Who told you that that was the agreement between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Avenatti?" Sagel asks.
"Michael," Regnier answers.
(Remember, the only formal agreement between Johnson and Avenatti was the 40 percent contingency agreement, which jurors have seen.)

Sagel going over how Regnier got Avenatti's permission every time she sent Johnson money. (Which certainly doesn't seem unusual for a paralegal and lawyer, but it fits with prosecutors' narrative about Avenatti's control tactics.)

Now we're hearing a text message Johnson sent Regnier. He asks if he can get the deposit they discussed. So Regnier contacted Avenatti and said Geoff pinged me about money, do you want me to make the deposit tomorrow. Avenatti said yes.

That was an example of the control Avenatti had. Sagel is going over payment checks, asking Regnier about them. He says he's not going to go over all 40 or so checks (I bet Avenatti does it during cross!) but he does a few as examples.

Last question from Sagel kinda hits on how trials are a battle of small details v. the big picture. "Did you ever sign defendant's name without his permission?" seems like a pretty big 'no duh' question. Of course she didn't. But it's part of the big picture control narrative.

I know i've slowed down on the tweets, but you would, too, if you were hearing stuff like "What is an LLC?" "It's a limited liability company." (Regnier created one at Avenatti's request.)

Fortunately I’ve got something to tide us over during lulls in the courtroom action: Photos. Over the weekend I unearthed a bunch of photos from my Avenatti reporting, including this shot from the March 2019 @USAO_LosAngeles press conference announcing Avenatti’s charges .

In the middle is Brett Sagel, the assistant U.S attorney who’s questioning Avenatti’s former paralegal, Judy Regnier, now. Next to him is IRS Agent James Kim (who was at the judgment debtor exam in LA federal court) and at the lectern is now-former U.S. Attorney in LA Nick Hanna.

OK 15 minutes until lunch. Let's see where Sagel is at with Regnier. "Who had authority to send wire transfers out of the Eagan Avenatti accounts?" he asks. "I had authority with Michael's approval. Michael had full authority," Regnier answers.

Regnier says she never did a wire transfer that wasn't directed and authorized by Avenatti. (This touches on a possible Avenatti defense that he didn't physically do the wire transfers at issue in the wire fraud charges.)

Sagel is going over the firm's @QuickBooks account for Geoff Johnson. Regnier says they also tracked costs and expenses in a program she thinks was called Time Slips. Regnier says Avenatti told her to use QuickBooks.

Sagel asks Regnier why cost and expenses were tracked for Johnson three years after his settlement came in. She says it's because they were paying his living expenses. (More defensive offense by prosecutors, trying to thwart Avenatti's "but the costs and fees!" defense.)

It's showing that all the costs and fees Avenatti accrued after settlement were unnecessary and he should have just paid Johnson what he was due from the settlement. Jury just got dismissed until 1:30. Now Avenatti tells Judge Selna he'll be moving for a mistrial.

It's apparently based on documents being entered as evidence that Avenatti says violates Judge Selna's order not to bring in lifestyle evidence, points to transactions for art work etc.

Judge Selna says the fact that Avenatti "is moving money around" is separate from lifestyle evidence, and he notes that he prevented Sagel from asking which car company when Avenatti bought a car. He says we'll finish this discussion at the end of the day. Now it's really lunch🌮

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1420098762580447232

The OC federal courthouse is superior than the LA federal courthouse in that it’s in closer proximity to a lot of lunch spots. Walk around and you never know who you’ll see. Today I saw Judy Regnier and her lawyer, John Barton.

Alright, jury is seated and we're back to AUSA Brett Sagel's direct exam of Michael Avenatti's former paralegal, Judy Regnier. Focus is on client Geoff Johnson and his $4 million settlement, which prosecutors say Avenatti stole.

Sagel was asking Regnier about Johnson's missed rent, In late 2018, Johnson told Regnier he was going to be evicted for missed rent payments. She contacted Avenatti and he said "he can't be fucking bothered with this right now," Regnier just told the jury.

On March 22, 2019, Avenatti called Regnier asking for Johnson's home address in phone number. (That's the day Avenatti's law partner turned creditor, Andrew Stolper, confronted Avenatti about Johnson's missing settlement during the judgment debtor exam in LA federal court.)

Sagel just admitted as evidence the text message Regnier sent Avenatti in response to that phone call. Avenatti objected for hearsay and other stated reasons, but Judge Selna overruled.

Regarding Johnson's case and finances, "He spoke to Geoff about those things not in my presence most of the time...Michael said he would handle things for Geoff Johnson," Regnier said.

Sagel is onto the next alleged client victim, Alexis Garder. Avenatti secured a $2.75 million settlement for her against her ex-boyfriend, NBA player Hassan Whiteside, that prosecutor's say Avenatti embezzled.

Regnier says the X-Law Group law firm, led by former Eagan Avenatti lawyer Filippo Marchino, referred Gardner to Avenatti. Now we're seeing the basics of the case such as the draft settlement agreement and accompanying Avenatti emails.

Now we're getting into testimony about how Avenatti used Gardner's settlement money to buy a jet through his LLC Passport 420, (which, yes, you guessed it, 420 is apparently not just for high school kids, it IS a marijuana reference by Avenatti.)

We heard about Avenatti clients linked to this jet purchase, William Parrish and Tim Fitzgibbons. They've sued Avenatti over this saga, saying he dragged them into years of lawsuits. Read their 2019 complaint on Google Drive here: bit.ly/3x8kdY3

Jan. 25, 2017. An Avenatti account with 43 cents in it gets $2.75 million. Where's that money from?
"That would be the settlement we were just talking about," Regnier answers.
"For Ms. Gardner?" Sagel asks.
"For Ms. Gardner, yes," Regnier answers.

I might have misheard the part about 43 cents, because Sagel just said the client trust account had zero in it before the $2.75 million deposit. "By the next day, how much was in the client trust account?" Sagel asks.
"Zero," Regnier answers.

Sagel asks Regnier why she sent the X-Law Group $2.5 million. "I thought that Alexis Gardner...was a client of both firms." "I didn't anything about it." And she thought the jet was being bought by Passport 420.

Sagel asks Regnier if she wanted to give Gardner a copy of her settlement agreement, would it be hard to do? No. "I would have just verified with Michael that I can send a copy to her and I would have emailed it to her."

Sagel just asked Regnier about Tom Cassaro, which made me realize he's on Twitter (hi Tom!) and so is his employer @TheXLawGroup, though the firm hasn't tweeted since 2015. Jurors are seeing text messages between Cassaro and Regnier.

Cassaro tells Regnier Gardner told him she hasn't received her July money from Avenatti, and her rent is going up. "She said she doesn't want to bother Michael because he's on his way to the White House, but she hopes we can figure this out soon."

After the 'he's on his way to the White House' from Cassaro re: Gardner message, Regnier contacted Avenatti, and he said he'd take care of it. Now we're on a 15-minute break.

After jury left, Avenatti told Judge Selna he wants to clarify his objections. Selna said, “I don’t need any further elaboration,” but Avenatti said, “Just to make a record, your honor. The witness continuously says ‘I would have,’ ‘he would have,’ things of that nature...

"That is not a recollection…She is speculating," Avenatti says. "I’m going to get into this on cross, your honor."
"That’s fine," Selna replies. The judge said jurors can make what they will of statements like 'he would have.' So that's that.

Someone told me to check who's in the overflow room down in 9C today, but when I went down there during the break, it was empty. So I hope they come back!

We're back. Two women who sit near each other in the actual jury box appear to have formed a nice friendship. Jokes and shared smiles as they sat down. (I saw a couple older men jurors form a nice bromance during the Mongols trial in 2018, and it was pretty adorable.)

Sagel is back to his direct exam of Regnier, and he's asking her about the firm's finances and the 2018 bankruptcy. "The firm was not doing well financially," Regnier said. "Sometimes there'd be a lot of money. Other times there was no money."

Regnier talked to Avenatti about finances daily. Why? “Because the firm wasn’t doing well, and we were trying to pay the bills.”
“Michael did not want anyone to know the finances of the business."
“Did he tell you that?”
Leading objection overruled.
“Yes,” Regnier answers.

Sagel asks Regnier about her current condition. She says she had stage 3 breast cancer, and suffers post-traumatic stress disorder. She's talking about the search of her home in March 2019, after Avenatti's arrest in the Nike case in New York.

Sagel moves onto the next client victim: Greg Barela. Barela was the first client to publicly accuse Avenatti of stealing his money.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1417892313053884416

Avenatti's California State Bar hearing in December 2019 and January 2020 focused on Barela's accusations, and Barela testified extensively. He'll definitely be ready for his testimony in this trial.

Regnier says Avenatti directed her to set up an account specifically for Greg Barela’s settlement. On Jan. 5, 2018, she got a $1.6 million wire. It was the Barela settlement. Sagel asks Regnier who Ed Ricci is.

Ed Ricci is a lawyer in Florida who worked with Avenatti, Regnier says. searcylaw.com/attorneys/edwa… He was involved in the Barela case.

Ricci was due some $617k, Regnier says. "Michael instructed me to get a check for Ed from that account," Regnier says. "Did defendant ever ask you to prepare an accounting of Mr. Barela's account?"

Regnier says she may have started one, but she doesn't believe she provided it to Barela. Sagel asks if she ever directly provided an accounting to a client. "I believe I may have at Michael's direction sent an email with an accounting in it and copied Michael."

Here's the scenario: We have 43 minutes left. You are Brett Sagel. Do you do whatever you can to make sure your direct examination goes until 4:30 so Avenatti can't start his cross today? Or do you not worry about that? #chooseyourownadventure

More Global Baristas talk (Without fail, I can always surprise someone by cluing them into the fact that Michael Avenatti owned Tully's Coffee). Regnier detailed a few payments to Global Baristas that were made with the law firm money aka client settlement funds.

All this Global Baristas talk is a good reminder for me to check on the Eagan Avenatti trusteeship, which is a beast of its own downstairs in bankruptcy court. I did a story for @LAmag back in January that looks at what's happening there. bit.ly/3bDURu3

From my @lamag article: "But others target people and businesses whose only transgression may have been accepting money from Avenatti when they weren’t 100 percent sure of its origins." bit.ly/3bDURu3

Notably, the judge who's handling the bankruptcy case, Scott Clarkson, was actually in court on Friday watching the trial. (And by my count, he's the first person to ignore the JURORS ONLY THIS SIDE sign the clerk posted. But he's a judge so he probably thinks he doesn't count.)

Regnier addresses a wire transfer to her for $3,800 from Barela's account. She'd been putting a lot of expense on her credit card, and this was to reimburse her. Now a Feb. 16, 2018 email in which Avenatti forwards a Dec. 27, 2017 email from Filippo Marchino (now of X-Law Group).

Regnier wires X-Law Group some $46k, which she says she did at Avenatti's order. Sagel asks if X-Law or Marchino had anything to do with Barela's settlement. "Not to my understanding," Regnier answers.
"Are there any wires to Gregory Barela?" Sagel asks.
"No," Regnier answers.

Sagel asks Regnier if, given what she knows about client trust accounts, if it concerned her to be pulling money out of client accounts like she was.
Regnier: "It did cause some concern, yes."
Sagel: "Then why did you do it?"
"I was instructed to do it, it was part of my job."

Sagel goes over how quickly Avenatti drained the account then asks, "As of March 14, 2019" had she sent any money to Barela? No. "He did not request that I send any money to Mr. Barela," Regnier said of Avenatti.

Now we're getting into payments Avenatti started making to Barela. One was $30,000. Regnier says she wired it to Barela at Avenatti's request. Sagel asks why she didn't send $60k like Barela asked. Regnier says it's because Avenatti told her to only send $30k.

Now we're seeing a request from Barela for a copy of the settlement agreement. Regnier said she asked Avenatti for permission to send Barela a copy, but Avenatti said no. Does she know why? No, she doesn't. "Let's stop here for the day," Judge Selna says. Yes, let's.

Judge Selna told the jury before they left that he knows they've herd a lot about evidence not being offered for the truth, so he has an anecdote to help them better understand this. And it involves parakeets.

Selna: Suppose your neighbor knocks on door at 2 a.m. and says house is on fire, so you grab your wife, kids "and the parakeets" and get out the back door. Later, you're called to court and asked what the neighbor told you. It's hearsay, but it also explains why you left house.

Now Avenatti is raising issues about prosecutors bringing in evidence of his firm's finances, and about payments. Jurors have seen where the money was going, including to building company and fine art services, race car stuff. Selna says the racing stuff wasn't obvious.

Selna says he'll have the fine art line redacted, and a line from a $60k transaction about villas. Avenatti says he wants it all redacted and wants a mistrial, but Selna doens't seem concerned He's reading from his pre-trial order on Avenatti's lifestyle details now.

Here's my @lawdotcom story on the order Judge Selna read aloud just now. law.com/therecorder/20…

Selna says his order about lifestyle evidence doesn’t address the law firm’s finances. Prosecutors are “entitled to show where the money went. If a particular entry is inflammatory” he’ll have it redacted.

Selna: Government entitled to put on this evidence, “and you’re entitled to address it.” In response to Avenatti, judge said a couple times, “Sir, that’s what cross examination is about.”

Selna says he doesn’t believe anyone has gone out of bounds today, and if he does think they have, he’ll call them on it. “Including yourself advancing factual assertions as part of your questions and in responding to an objection,” Selna tells Avenatti.

Selna suggested prosecutors talk with Avenatti about what should be redacted from firm bank records etc. Sagel said they asked him about this long ago, and he hasn't replied. "It might behoof him to bring this up not when we're in trial, and things can move quicker," Sagel says.

Sagel got Selna's permission to ask leading questions of Regnier to avoid mention of Avenatti's domestic violence arrest. Avenatti adamant he was never charged. Selna says "it's really of no moment to me and no moment to the case," emphasizes they're taking steps to keep it out

More talk that included Selna telling Avenatti: "We're not going to deal with it, sir. That's what cross examination is for." Sagel estimates one more hour of direct with Regnier tomorrow, then all-day cross, so no other witnesses needed tomorrow.

And we're finally done. Check back about 9 a.m. for another thread. Thanks for following along.

@threadreaderapp please unroll