Thread by @meghanncuniff

I’m here at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, California, for the ninth day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s wire fraud trial. Attorneys are due at 8:15 and the jury gets in at 9. Stay tuned to this thread for updates. ⚖️🧵⚖️

On tap this morning is a fight over Avenatti's plans for his defense case. He's subpoenaed the current lawyer for his former client Geoff Johnson, and the lawyer is asking Judge Selna to throw it out. Here’s the motion to quash: bit.ly/3zXlSBD

Here’s Avenatti’s opposition to the motion to quash, filed yesterday. He wants to expand on what the jury has already heard about Johnson also blaming Avenatti's ex law partners for the missing settlement: bit.ly/2WGb8Jl

First up this morning is an in-camera review of submissions from prosecutors re: the Jencks Act fights over witness statements. So Selna cleared the courtroom of everyone but prosecutors and their DOJ colleagues. Avenatti and his team are down in a conference room now.

We're back in court. Judge Selna says after reviewing emails and more submitted by prosecutors regarding witness Joel Weiner of @KattenLaw, he's concluded "there was no violation of Jencks."

The judge addressed another batch of documents he just reviewed and reached the same conclusion: No disclosure to defense required. He said this batch qualifies as unreleasable under this 2018 9th Circuit case: casetext.com/case/united-st…

Judge Selna is taking up @Callahan_Blaine attorney Drew Harbur's motion to quash now. Harbur is at lectern saying he believes Avenatti is entitled to testimony transcript from his client's (Geoff Johnson) depositions But he believes his oral testimony is "completely unnecessary"

Harbur said he's willing to provide transcripts of Johnson's testimony from his arbitration with Avenatti's ex-partner Michael Eagan (which Johnson earlier testified ended with him getting $1.5 million from Eagan)

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1418317980899823621

Avenatti said any filings from Johnson's attorneys in the proceedings are Johnson's, because his attorneys are his agents. Selna asks if he's going to call his ex partners Scott Sims and others as witnesses.

"We're going to put on a robust defense case, there's no question about that," Avenatti told the judge. He's probably not going to call Jason Frank (who is owed upwards of $15 million) and he hasn't decided about Andrew Stolper.

Avenatti makes a case for the relevancy of the full arbitration proceedings. When Harbur goes to respond, Judge Selna says, "Sounds like a fishing expedition." Harbur took the cue.
"Sounds like a fishing expedition - I'm going to stop my argument there," Harbur told the judge.

Avenatti tells Selna, "If the arbitrator found none of these people liable...that may constitute a finding that I wasn't liable, depending on the scope of the ruling." OK, prosecutors are laughing in their seats and shaking their heads at that one.

Selna quashes subpoena, and everyone stipulates to authenticity of arbitration transcripts Harbur is giving Avenatti, so Harbur is not going to testify. He's asking that docs not be used in other proceedings. (He's got a current lawsuit against Avenatti on behalf of Johnson.)

Selna also addressed Avenatti's latest filing, regarding his subpoena of federal agents based in the Southern District of New York. Judge wants to review material before deciding whether to allow testimony. bit.ly/3lJCf0T

Avenatti wants prosecutors instructed not to talk to these agents, but Selna says, "Sir you can't co-opt them from doing their normal duties." He notes that Avenatti hasn't committed to any witness list. Avenatti not liking that.

Avenatti tells the judge he's not required to advance notice his testimony plans. Selna agrees but says, "but in the context of a subpoena I think you need to show some relevance to have those folks."

But before Avenatti has to show relevance, Selna is going to review prosecutors' interview memos for the agents and determine if anything relevant is possibly there. So Avenatti might not even get a chance to argue relevance.

Alright, jury is seated and AUSA Alex Wyman is continuing his direct exam of Filippo Marchino, currently of the X-Law Group and formerly Avenatti's law partner. Marchino also currently represents Alexis Gardner in civil suits related to her missing settlement and the jet.

Marchino is going over what we've heard about from a previous witness, paralegal Judy Regnier. The two wire transfers for Long Tram, who was asking about his missing money.

Avenatti told Tram there were two transfers for $4 million each. But one was only $100k. Prosecution narrative is Avenatti did the second $100k transaction so he could have two transaction numbers to support his lie to Tram about two $4 million transfers.

We're seeing emails and texts between Marchino and Tram about the transactions. Tram was absolutely committed to tracking these Avenatti payments. It's May 11, 2018. "I've texted Michael, but nothing so far." (Which cable news show was Avenatti on that night?)

"Did the defendant ever explain to you what happened to Michelle Phan's missing $4 million wire transfer?" Wyman asks.
"No," Marchino answers.

A bit later:
"To your knowledge, did Ms. Phan ever receive her missing $4 million wire transfer?" Wyman asks.
Selna overrules Avenatti's foundation objection.
Avenatti is up for cross now. He's going over Marchino's oath to tell the truth.

Marchino has been an attorney for 13 years. Avenatti goes to one of his favorite lines of questioning for his ex law partners.
"Have you ever given an opening statement in a jury trial?"
"I have not," Marchino answers.

"Have you ever given a closing argument in a jury trial?" Avenatti asks.
"I have not," Marchino answers.
"Have you ever cross-examined a witness like I'm doing right now in a jury trial?" Avenatti asks.
"I have," Marchino answers.

"How many witnesses have your cross-examined?" Avenatti asks.
"A handful," Marchino answers.
"And handful, across 13 years?" Avenatti asks.
"Well technically across the last two years, but yes," Marchino answers.

Avenatti goes over the business agreement between his firm and Marchino's firm and emphasizes his firm was paying employee expenses, and that Marchino did not like the administrative aspects of running a law firm.

Avenatti asks him to ID a document that supports his testimony in direct that he was due 50 percent of fees for cases that he brought to Eagan Avenatti. Marchino says he doesn't have one.

Avenatti moves on to Alexis Gardner's mom. How many times did Marchino communicate with her before April 1, 2019? None, Marchino answers. (Avenatti was main communication with mom and Gardner up until his March 2019 arrest.)

Referencing Marchino's direct testimony, Avenatti has a transcript from yesterday on the overhead. He's going over what Marchino said about referring Gardner's case to Avenatti. Asks Marchino to tell jury about first call with Gardner's mom. "It never happened, did it?" he asks.

Right, Marchino says he didn't talk to her until April 2019.
"Ms. Gardner never hired you sir, did she?" Avenatti asks.
"That's not correct, no," Marchino answers.
No communication with either until Avenatti contact him? Marchino says yes.

So if all that's true, how can Marchino say he referred case and is due 50 percent of fees? Marchino answers that Gardner's mother contacted Eagan Avenatti firm based on huge publicity from case Marchino brought. So Marchino was indirectly responsible for Gardner becoming client.

Avenatti has Marchino acknowledge that he doesn't know all the work done on the case, all the people Avenatti talked to and all the expenses he incurred. Avenatti turns back to the case Marchino said got huge publicly. It was a case against @JimCarrey.

“Isn’t it true that you presented falsified lab records in an effort to extort the actor Jim Carrey?” Avenatti asks Marchino.
Wyman objects for foundation, argumentative, etc., and Judge Selna sustains.

“Sir, isn’t it true as a result of that case you were sued for extortion and fraud by Mr. Carey for your conduct in submitting false evidence?” Avenatti asks.
Wyman says “same objection” and Selna sustains.

“Isn’t it true that they attempted to take your bar license for your conduct in connection” with case?
Same objection sustained.
Avenatti asks for a sidebar, but Selna tells him he’s read his memo on the issue, and case law he cited doesn’t apply to the questions he’s asking here

Here's my tweet from the weekend with a link to the filing Judge Selna just referenced.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1421915421544828928

Some background on this Jim Carrey-Filippo Marchino saga: bit.ly/3lxgSQe

"Who is Richard Marshack?" Avenatti asks. He's the trustee in charge of the Eagan Avenatti bankruptcy. (I profiled Marshack's firm for @LADailyJournal a while back, but they don't mention that.)

Avenatti asks about Marshack's lawsuit against Marchino claiming he stole fees that should go to bankrupt firm. Also says Marshack has accused Marchino of submitting false document. Selna sustains objection. Wyman asks for Avenatti to be instructed to move on, but Selna doesn't.

I looked up the bankruptcy saga the other night, and Marchino is currently appealing the rejection of his motion to dismiss. Here's his brief to the U.S. District Court about why the bankruptcy judge erred: bit.ly/3fvtN1e

And here's Marchino's brief: bit.ly/2TWEvWY

Avenatti asked a series of questions about the jet that included, including if he knows what happened to the jet. He says no, he doesn't. (It's with the DOJ and there's a big forfeiture case that's on hold as the criminal proceedings go.)

Avenatti now focused on a $1 million transfer Marchino got that he testified yesterday wasn't related to the settlements and case work at issue in this case. Avenatti trying to call BS on that.

In connection with cases Marchino referred to Avenatti's firm, the firm expended a lot of time, correct? Yes. Avenatti says one of these cases was the Jim Carrey case, correct? "That's correct, yes."
Marchino is aware of the time and expenses associated with that case.

"And how much money was recovered for the fees and the costs spent in connection with the Jim Carrey matter?" Avenatti asks.
Judge Selna overrules AUSA Wyman's objection.
"As I sit here..." Marchino begins
"Let me help you - how about ZERO?...You don't recall zero?" Avenatti asks

"I don't recall the monetary part, but there was no recovery on my behalf."
"And we didn't get anything because of the fraudulent lab records that you caused to be interjected into the case, correct?"
Wyman asks for an instruction to move on; Selna takes a break instead.

During the break, Selna agrees to let Avenatti "go back and ask the Carrey questions." He also gets to ask more about the Marshack lawsuit. Sagel points out Avenatti may be opening the door "because he's involved in that fraud with respect to that allegation."

Avenatti told Selna that Carrey’s lawyer told him Marchino provided falsified lab records. Attorney “said he didn’t believe I had anything to do with it, because he knew me and had known me for a long time, and knew how I practiced law.”

I can see Sagel chuckling, and Avenatti can too, apparently.
“You know, Mr. Sagel, I don’t think your laughing is appropriate. This is a serious criminal case,” Avenatti snaps.
Sagel says something like, yes, it’s the most serious case in the country right now, I don’t disagree.

And now we're on a break until 10:35 a.m.

We're back, and Judge Selna just told the jury Avenatti is going to go back and ask questions about earlier topics. Avenatti goes right for the Jim Carrey lawsuit again. Lawsuit accused Marchino of fraud and extortion, isn't that true?
"Yes, I believe so," Marchino answers.

"And one of the allegations in that claim was that you had made demands upon Mr. Carrey to pay several million dollars to you and your client and if he refused to pay, you were gong to go to the press and accuse him of giving your client STDs even though you knew that was false?"

Marchino tells Avenatti he can't remember exact details but "that sounds familiar."

Avenatti is using @JimCarrey's lawsuit to refresh Marchino's recollection. He asks Marchino to read paragraph aloud. It says woman and her lawyers threatened to publicly accuse Carrey of giving her STDs, and that her lawyer, Marchino, knew these allegations to be false.

Avenatti: Carrey also alleged you and X-Law Group conspired with ex-girlfriend to extort money from Carrey for over a year. Selna soon asks him to move onto another topic. Avenatti asks for one more question, but Selna says move onto another topic.

So Avenatti asks if the government ever asked Marchino about these allegations when he met with them. Marchino says no, they did not.

Marchino confirms he wasn't involved in drafting Avenatti's agreement with Long Tram and @MichellePhan and has no first-hand knowledge of it. "So is it far to say that you have no idea what my intention was in entering into this agreement, is that right?"
"Yes," Marchino answers.

^^fair to say 🙄

Lots of questions right now about @IPSY and @MichellePhan's "very contentious situation."
When asked if it's fair to call it contentious, Marchino says, "To say the least, yes." This is business dealing that led to Avenatti's alleged theft of $4 million he claimed to transfer.

Marchino says yes when asked if he understood the fees on the Phan - Tram - @IPSY saga were going to be in the millions.
"Mr. Marchino, you really weren't involved in the negotiations as they related to the matter?" Avenatti asks.
"I was involved," Marchino answers.

Avenatti asks about Marchino's communications with @ISPY on Phan and Tram's behalf. Which settlement terms did he negotiate?
"By myself? None," Marchino says.
How much experience did he have negotiating exits from companies in very contentious situations?
"Almost none."

Marchino acknowledges Tram and Phan got millions of dollars through Avenatti-led negotiations with @IPSY.
"And your recollection is that pursuant to the negotiated settlement, there was going to be multiple disbursements from @IPSY in order to resolve the dispute, correct?"
Yes.

Avenatti then focuses on Marchino's prior testimony in direct that Tram received his money and texted Marchino a photo of a sports car he'd bought.

We're now hearing about Marchino's work on Alexis Gardner's case, which Avenatti is pushing as minimal to try to counter testimony from Marchino in his direct exam that some of the fees and costs in that case were his own, not Avenatti's.

But now we're off that and back to the Tram and Pham case, with Avenatti asking Marchino about the app he used to text with Tram. Marchino says they were just regular texts. "Well, the fact of the matter is you don't know because these aren't your text messages, are they?"

Marchino acknowledges the texts came from Tram. But he says he believes he gave all his texts to federal investigators. Avenatti asks how, and Marchino describes his screen-shotting process.

Avenatti asks if he used software to preserve the phone contacts. No. Marchino also acknowledges that no one ever asked him to "image" his phone for text messages. (We've heard these questions with other witnesses as Avenatti tries to attack integrity of federal investigation.)

Avenatti asks why no times are listed for the text messages. Marchino doesn't know. Did he ever talk to Tram using @WhatsApp? "I don't believe so," Marchino answers.
What about @signalapp?
"No," Marchino answers.

Avenatti asks if Marchino ever used a spoofing app in 2018 that would make it look like texts he sent were actually from someone else. Marchino says no.
"That's your testimony under oath to this jury, correct?" Avenatti asks.
"Correct."
Avenatti is now writing on his flip chart.

Here's a fun one for people who saw Avenatti all over cable TV in 2018.
"Was it your understanding, sir, that in March of 2018 instead of tending to those other matters I was focused on the details of banking transactions at the law firm?" Avenatti asks.
"No," Marchino answers.

Avenatti went over his work on banking transactions. Now he's asking Marchino about text messages between him and Tram and implying we're not seeing all correspondence. "Do you know if there were any text messages within those 11 days?"
"Same answer, I don't," Marchino answers.

Avenatti goes to another defense he's pushing against his wire fraud charges: He didn't physically make the transfers. He asks Marchino if he understands Judy Regnier sent them, not Avenatti.
"I don't think I had an understanding either way," Marchino answers.

Avenatti describes himself in a question as a “puppet master” for the work he was doing with banks regarding his law firm’s work with Long Tram and Michelle Phan. Now he's asking Marchino "about some text messages Mr. Wyman did not ask you about."

We're on the lunch break now. And there does not appear to be any outside-the-jury argument. So everyone's filing out.

One drawback to all this screenshot sharing while live tweeting: This is my desktop right now. 😳

The teacher isn’t in yet, so the boys are fighting.
Sagel: “Like everything else you claim you don’t have, you have it.”
Avenatti: “Forgive me if I don’t believe you, Mr. Sagel.”
Sagel: “That hurts.”

OK Judge Selna is on the bench and Avenatti is complaining about not getting Jencks and Brady issues related to Filippo Marchino. He wants exhibits. Tells Selna he asked Sagel about it, and he wont get into his response "But suffice to say, it was lacking."

Avenatti is asking for a spreadsheet to use in his cross of Marchino. A lot of discussion about who can find it from DOJ, where the paralegal should look. Avenatti wants it now, but Selna tells him: "It's a little late in the day to be asking for it."

Judge Selna also told Avenatti to stop interrupting. "Rudeness doesn't work in my courtroom. One person speaks, then the other person speaks."

Some @lawdotcom trial coverage for you: This week's edition of What's Next includes a Q & A between @a_lancaster3 in me regarding Avenatti's issues with my Twitter coverage. bit.ly/2WXmucb

Avenatti is continuing his cross of his ex law partner, Filippo Marchino. He asks if Marchino has delayed texts in which Long Tram (Michelle Phan's business partner) was a party. Marchino says no. Also says no when asked about deleting Avenatti texts.

Marchino wasn't at his office when the feds raided it on March 25, 2019, he confirms. Avenatti asked if Marchino took steps to preserve communications with Avenatti on @signalapp.
"There were none, so no," Marchino answers.

Avenatti asks if all his answers in court today have been as truthful as what he told the government during a September 2019 interview. He says yes. Avenatti ends his questioning, but it sounds like it could reopen when he gets that spreadsheet he was asking about earlier.

AUSA Alex Wyman up for re-direct now. 1st question is about the @JimCarrey case, and whether there were any legal findings against Marchino. Marchino says no.
"Did the defendant continue working with you after that?" Wyman asks.
"Yes," Marchino answers.

Wyman asks if Marchino was ever able to locate the second, $4 million wire transfer that Avenatti claimed e sent Long Tram. All the texts we saw between Marchino and Tram wouldn't have been needed if Avenatti had just sent the transfer like he said, Marchino agrees.

On re-cross, Avenatti asks: "After you were sued for fraud and extortion in connection with the Jim Carrey case, you told me that the evidence establishing that the client had been harmed by Mr. Carrey, was legit, didn't you?"
Selna sustains Wyman's objection for beyond the scope

Avenatti complains and says Wyman asked if he still worked with Marchino, and Avenatti wants to show why he did. So Selna tells him to re-word his question.

Avenatti hammers Marchino with a question like, isn't it true that you admitted to doctoring evidence to try to extort money from Carrey.
"Sir, you're not going to pursue this line of questioning any further. Move on" Judge Selna says.

"Your honor, just to be clear you're not letting me get into why I continued to work..."
Selna: "That wan't your question."
Avenatti tries again with something like "isn't it true that one of the reasons I worked with you was because you denied the allegations?"

But Selna keeps sustaining objections, so Avenatti ends his re-cross and sits down.

Next up is Marilyn Sorensen, a bankruptcy analyst with the DOJ's U.S. Trustees' Program. She's been with the office 36 years. AUSA Brett Sagel is asking her about the Eagan Avenatti bankruptcy case. There are two audio recordings of these proceedings.

Avenatti testified in the section 341 hearings for his firm's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. canb.uscourts.gov/faq/general-ba… Jury is now hearing the audio recordings of that testimony.

Avenatti in the recording says something an "ethical obligation in California" that says subsequent attorneys have a duty to inform prior attorneys about the status of the settlement, and can't disburse funds without notifying old counsel.

"Under California law, the client is entitled to their money immediately. Their portion of the monies," Avenatti says in the recording.
Avenatti tells interviewer he doesn't know balance of his client trust account. "I'm sure it's less than $25k."

That was quick. Sagel doens't have anymore clips from the 2017 bankruptcy hearings to play for the jury. Avenatti is at the lectern now for cross-examination.

"What did you do to verify the accuracy of the segments we just listened to?" Avenatti asked.
"It was a lengthy process," Sorensen answers. She gets into the nerdy details. Listened to all recordings in full (six hours), compared them to the copies, some other steps.

"Did you notice that if the question I was asked was not included in what you reviewed?" Avenatti asks.
"I didn't pay particular attention to that...but I heard the objection you just raised, so," Sorensen answers.

"Now, let's talk a moment about bankruptcy," Avenatti says. Sagel raises a "scope issue," saying this is outside scope of cross because she's just a foundational witness. Selna says let him ask the question.
Avenatti asks what a reorganizational bankruptcy is.

"That's versus Chapter 7 where debts are wiped out, right?"
Selna sustains Sagel's objection for scope and relevancy.
"This was a business reorganization bankruptcy, correct?" Avenatti asks.
"That's correct," Sorensen answers.

A few more questions I didn't track, and Sorensen is now off the stand. Next witness is Avenatti's third ex-client turned alleged victim, Greg Barela. Barela is Avenatti's original public accuser. He testified extensively in Avenatti's California State Bar hearing.

Barela works in tech/construction related fields.
"Do you know who Michael Avenatti is?" AUSA Brett Sagel asks.
"I do," Barela answers.
"How do you know who Michael Avenatti is?" Sagel asks.
"He was my lawyer," Barela answers.

Sagel is going over an email Barela got from Avenatti's paralegal Judy Regnier, in 2014 w/ his retainer agreement. Barela reads aloud paragraphs about fees and scope of services. Barela's issue involved an intellectual property fight, and this lawsuit: portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Geo…

Sagel has Barela confirm that the lawsuit above was NOT part of his agreement with Avenatti. The contingency agreement with Avenatti was 40 percent for legal work not part of that case.

"I assumed whenever we got paid he would get 40 percent of the payout," Barela said.
"Is there anywhere in there where you pay defendant for the hours he works on your case?" Sagel asks.
"There is not," Barela answers.

Sagel reads a paragraph that says other legal work isn't included in contact and would be part of a separate agreement. Sagel asks if Barela had any other agreements with Avenatti, and Barela says no.

Barela's case went to mediation in Colorado in 2017, but it wasn't resolved. He though Avenatti was still working to resolve the case. Avenatti told him they were at $1.9 million "and he believed it was a fair settlement and we should accept it," Barela said.

"I was a little disappointed because I definitely thought it was going to be more," Barela said. He confirms he thought Avenatti would get 40 percent for attorney fees. He agreed to the settlement. No we're seeing texts from December 2017 regarding the settlement negotiations.

Sagel asks how much longer from then he got a settlement, and Barela says, "I never got a settlement."
"Good point," Sagel says, and rephrases his question. Barela says he met with Avenatti in his Newport Beach office to go over the agreement.

We're seeing texts between Avenatti and Barela that confirm the meeting took place. In one, Barela tells Avenatti he's in the building, but the 14th floor where Avenatti's office is is locked.
"Did the defendant unlock the door for you? Sagel asks.
"He did," Barela answers.

It was just Avenatti and Barela in the meeting. Sagel is now bringing in a copy of the agreement Avenatti gave Barela that day. It's exhibit 184, and it's now in evidence. (Avenatti objected as hearsay, but Judge Selna overruled.)

Barela said Avenatti told him they were spreading out the last three payments to ensure neither party violated confidentiality. Doing so would bring a $100,000 penalty. Barela said Avenatti told him he'd get somewhere around $1.1 million.

When Barela met with Avenatti, "did he say that the costs and expenses were so high that you would not get any money?" No.
The money wouldn't come in until March (it was January), but Barela said Avenatti told him to take his family on vacation because he can afford it now.

Sagel was asking Barela about the lack of accounting for costs and fees from Avenatti. Now we're on a 15-minute break.

I ran to my car to grab my phone charging cord during the break, and when I got back to the courtroom Avenatti had just served Barela's wife with a subpoena. Meanwhile, Barela's lawyer is here, Steven Bledsoe. larsonllp.com/ourteam-detail…

Bledsoe's Larson LLP firm used to be Larson O'Brien LLP, with none other than @RobertCOBrien as name partner. Avenatti has brought this up before (O'Brien was Trump's national security adviser) outside trial and probably will again in trial.

Selna told Avenatti he noticed in bankruptcy recordings he pronounced his name Ava-NET-i. Selna has been pronouncing it Ava-NAT-i, says he'll pronounce it correctly if Avenatti confirms pronunciation. But Avenatti says the way everyone's been pronouncing it is fine. Ava-NAT-i.

Jury is back and AUSA Brett Sagel is continuing his direct exam of Avenatti's ex client Greg Barela. Barela said Avenatti didn't tell him after he signed the agreement that Avenatti had already gotten $1.6 million.

"...would you have wanted to know that?" Sagel asks.
Barela: "Absolutely."
Sagel: "Why?"
Barela: "Because it's my money."
"Would you have expected your attorney to tell you it was deposited into his account?" But Selna sustains Avenatti's objection for 403 and leading

Sagel goes over texts between Avenatti and Barela, including on March 10, 2018, the date Barela thought was the settlement payday. He didn't get his money that day. Still, Barela was sticking with Avenatti, who was to help him with his plans for a new business.

Sagel asks if Avenatti ever told Barela he wouldn't be getting his settlement money because Avenatti would be taking his fees for the other legal work out of it?
"Of course not," Barela said.

Regarding defense subpoenas, I did see Judge Cormac Carney at Crave during lunch, and he confirmed he has not yet gotten subpoena from Avenatti wanting to grill him about the Broadcom case with Avenatti’s ex law partner turned creditor, Andrew Stolper. But maybe that’s coming.

More between Barela and Avenatti. He says he's worried about the settlement not closing . "I wanted to know where the $1.6 million was," Barela says on the stand.
"I'd been investing into the companies on Michael's advice," Barela said, but he was having troubling paying bills.

^^^Regarding that earlier tweet about subpoena for Judge Carney, of course there's no way that's ever going to happen. But at this point it wouldn't be surprising if Avenatti did try to put him on the stand as a defense witness.

Sagel asks what Avenatti told him he was doing to collect Barela's settlement. Barela says Avenatti spoke with opposing counsel, who said he's not sure why the payment didn't go through.

"There's a lot more text messages from you to the defendant than there is back to you," Sagel says.
When Barela suggested options for collecting money, "Did the defendant tell you there's no option to take because we've already gotten the money?" Sagel asks.
"No," Barela answers

"I'm going to be in big shit in the next 10 days," Barela texted Avenatti.
"I'm referring to all the debt I incurred building the businesses while waiting for the $1.6 million," Barela testifies now.

Another text: "Can I call you tomorrow? I am so worried."
Avenatti responded and said don't worry, we'll figure this out. Sagel asks if he told him he'd already gotten the money. No, he didn't.
(This is late March 2018, and I think we all know what Avenatti was up to then.)

Sagel is asking Barela about an advance Avenatti gave him.
"Did you know at that time he had received the $1.6 million?" Sagel asks.
"No," Barela answers.

Judge Selna overrules an objection and tells Avenatti it is custom in federal court to stand when making an objection. "Your honor, I apologize. I'm just trying not to delay things. I'm aware of the custom, your honor. I'll follow it."

More texts from Barela from March/April 2018, and he's thanking Avenatti for the advance. Says the money is going into the business, and they're so glad to have Avenatti on their team. Avenatti responds, "All good. No worries."

April 4, 2018. Barela texts Avenatti asking to wire any amount. "I feel bad to bother you with as busy as you are," Barela tells Avenatti.
Avenatti replies, "I can probably send a wire tomorrow."
Barela replies, "Thank you, and sorry to trouble you."

Sagel is going over the wire transfer of $60,000 that Avenatti "advanced" Barela.
"Did he tell you this money was coming from Michelle Phan's settlement money?" Sagel asks.
Judge Selna overrules Avenatt's objection for lack of foundation. Barela answers no, he didn't.

Barela profusely thanked Avenatti for advance. Sagel asks why. "Why did you tell him it was a big deal to you?"
"Because it was a big deal to me. It kept my businesses floating and paid my personal bills," Barela answers.
He thought Avenatti was still trying to get his settlement

April 22, 2018. Barela emails Avenatti: "Hi Michael, I know how busy you were last week and figured I'd wait until the weekend to check in."
Any Twitter researchers want to dig out Avenatti's TV appearance schedule and/or @StormyDaniels saga timeline to see what he was up to?

Sagel goes over actions Barela was talking to Avenatti about taking to get the settlement money (this is a lot like the Alexis Gardner stuff.)
Sagel: "Did he ever tell you there are no actions to take?"
Barela: "No."

"Why are you starting off your messages to the defendant with how busy he is?" Sagel asks.
"Well, it was when he was on TV...and he was busy going around, and every time I called I was starting to irate him," Barela answers.

"And how did you know you were irritating him?" Sagel asks.
"Because he would tell me so," Barela answers.

Now we're seeing an email Barela sent Avenatti in May 2018. "Michael I will be quick with my message because I know you have a crazy schedule." This is a good example of how Avenatti's unchecked appearances on cable TV contributed to the alleged fraud here, and the length of it.

Barela is talking about getting another $60,000 advance from Avenatti. May 25, 2018, he got $30,000.
Barela thought it was going to be $60k.
Sagel asks why he only got $30k.
"I'm not sure, Barela says.
Barela says Avenatti told him "he was working on the rest."

We're getting into an email exchange between Barela and Judy Regnier from May 25 (my birthday!), 2018. Barela tells Regnier the advance is greatly appreciated.
"I believed he was advancing money out of his pocket to help me keep things rolling," Barela says.

"Would you have needed these advances to help get everything rolling if you had received your portion of the settlement money on Jan. 17, 2017 when it came in?" Sagel asks.
"No, of course not," Barela answers.
Judge Selna says that's it for the day. Jury just left.

Avenatti raising issue about documents from Barela that Avenatti says didn't come from his files, so he wasn't notified. A little confusing, but don't worry, sounds like we'll get some a brief tonight.
"I'll tell you what, why don't you make a written submission?" Selna says.

Now back to that spreadsheet Avenatti has been asking about for his cross of Marchino. He says he still doesn't have it. "It's certainly possible I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong."
"He is," Sagel said.
Avenatti snaps, "I'd like to speak without being interrupted."

Judge Selna tells Avenatti that Sagel didn't interrupt him. Avenatti disagrees, and he airs another grievance: "I'd like to speak without snickering and laughter by the government, because I don't think it's appropriate."

Sagel says it's not right for Avenatti to spring this spreadsheet stuff on prosecutors so last minute.
"The government can't be expected to spring into action while we're in court because you at the last minute have identified what you believe to be a shortcoming."

Avenatti says let's see if it's been produced. Selna says let's see if the government even has it. So we haven't heard the last of this spreadsheet fight, but Selna is over it for the day. He just left the bench and the clerk is herding the cats out of the courtroom.

Sagel says he's got about two hours left with his direct of Greg Barela, then Long Tram is the next witness. Avenatti's cross will be long enough that Tram isn't needed tomorrow. Selna says we're ending at 3 p.m., for another mystery reason.

So that's it for the day. Thanks for following along, and check back about 8:30 a.m. tomorrow for another thread.

Thread broke, continues here.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1423025476897964036?s=20

Thread broke, continues here:

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1423054719421870080?s=20

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1423067318611972099

@threadreaderapp Please unroll. Thank you!