Thread by @meghanncuniff

It’s Friday in California, and I’m here at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana for the 11th day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s wire fraud trial. I’ll be posting updates on this thread so stay tuned. ⚖️🧵⚖️

First up, Judge Selna is considering Avenatti's motion for mistrial or to strike the testimony of nine witnesses. (Motion here: drive.google.com/file/d/12xX2Ft…) Prosecutors opposition: drive.google.com/file/d/1sTHFJy…
Avenatti filed his reply to the opposition last night:

This is all about the Jencks Act disclosure fights we've been hearing about, and Avenatti is arguing now that the notes that haven't been disclosed are crucial, and releasing only summaries doesn't suffice. Avenatti wants more stuff given to Judge Selna for review.

Avenatti also raises concerns about potential Brady material, saying if a witness changes statements meeting to meeting, "that's another reason we're entitled to know what happened in those interviews." bit.ly/3fCCPtj

AUSA Brett Sagel notes how many times Avenatti just said ‘if’ and says “that proves the point that this is all speculation to the defendant.”
“He’s wildly speculating about what’s going on,” Sagel tells the judge.

Sagel describes the @USAO_LosAngeles process for interview note disclosure. Each new point of info is listed in memo.
“He gets, time and time again, whatever the meeting is, and what happens at the meeting, and he knows that," Sagel said.

The judge is pressing Sagel a bit about specific info we've heard about, like Judy Regnier's possible other text messages.

"We're not aware of any text messages from Judy Regnier other than the ones the court has now seen, scheduling related" Sagel says, referring to the stuff recently submitted to the judge for in-camera review.

Judge Selna is asking Sagel to go back and look for emails related to testimony, just so they can be sure. Avenatti is saying he's entitled to prosecutors' communications with the DOJ's internal "taint team" that searched servers for attorney-client privilege material etc.

So Selna is having prosecutors contact the DOJ "taint team" to have them check for potential relevant material, too. Avenatti now wants the lead agent to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury that he never texted Regnier (the paralegal).

Judge emphasizes Jencks Act says statements are releasable if they're relevant to testimony. Avenatti is saying what could Regnier be talking about with investigators other than her testimony? Selna calls for a declaration from the investigator about his texts with Regnier.

Judge Selna says he'll "be guided by further information," but, "putting those matters aside for a second, I deny the motion" for a mistrial. He says the mere fact of communication is not sufficient threshold for an in-camera hearing.

Judge Selna references his in-camera review the other day of emails and interview notes etc. He says there was nothing relevant in there at all. "In other words, three dry holes. An oil company term for drilling a well that doesn't come in."

This mistrial stuff is what Avenatti would call a "nothing burger", here’s biggest out-of-jury thing going on right now. Selna asked for briefs on “whether compensation by a joint tortfeasor is a defense to wire fraud,” and the USA filed theirs last night. bit.ly/37lKise

This is a big deal. Selna told Avenatti this morning: “This issue affects not only the relevance of evidence but also the final instruction.” A big warning about a possibly really bad jury instruction for defense, and not the words of a judge about to grant a mistrial.

Again, here's a Google Drive link to prosecutors' filing. Avenatti is filing his brief early next week. bit.ly/37lKise

One other big thing from this morning - the stuff about the martini invitation and Avenatti not taking a phone call from Barela?
Sagel told Judge Selna: “Mr. Avenatti was in jail that night, that’s why he wasn’t on the phone call.”
This is Avenatti’s domestic violence arrest.

Prosecutors agreed not to mention arrest, but Sagel says Avenatti keeps inserting it himself, and prosecutors might need to clarify the true circumstances of Barela’s invitation.
“Mr. Barela was actually being a good person saying, ‘You should hold your head up’…” Sagel said.

Sagel said he may need to clarify in Barela’s re-direct, “Why are you asking him out to a martini, that’s why he wasn’t on the phone call” etc. But Judge Selna says no, not for now.

“Let’s leave it where it is,” Judge Selna says. “I think going into that is going to be more prejudicial than probative.”

OK now we're finally getting into testimony in front of the jury, about 15 minutes later than usual. Avenatti is continuing his cross-examination of ex-client Greg Barela.

On the way out yesterday, I heard AUSA Sagel remark to AUSA Wyman, “the defendant *is* on the stand” and they’re not sure if he’s gotten to cross yet.
This is a long-standing complaint - by representing himself the way he is, Avenatti is testifying from the lectern.

Avenatti is asking Barela about texts. Texts between Barela and Avenatti, and Barela and John Arden, a lawyer w/ Avenatti's now-bankrupt and receiver-controlled firm. Avenatti says Barela had to have texted about relevant topics with others, too, but those haven't been disclosed.

Avenatti has a document displayed on the overhead, and asks a preamble/question.
"You would agree that it is important that, because of the seriousness of this matter that we be precise and clear, you would agree with that?"
"I do," Barela answers.

Avenatti getting technical, asks Barela if he can explain why the document (which apparently is a collection of his texts( has some MMS messages before Dec. 28, 2018, but not SMS messages. Barela doesn't know.

"Mr. Barela, did you ever tell anyone that you did not get a fully executed copy of this agreement back and did not even think to get a copy back?" Avenatti asks.
"I don't recall," Barela answers.

"You don't recall saying that? I don't understand when you say you don't recall?" Avenatti asks
"I don't recall ever having that conversation," Barela answers.
Avenatti refreshes his recollection, Barela acknowledges he did say that.

"Was that true when you told the government agents that in March of 2019?" Avenatti asks.
"Yes," Barela answers.
"You stand behind it, right?" Avenatti asks.
"Yes," Barela answers.

"The same way you stand behind all your other statements to the jury on direct and cross so far?" Avenatti asks.
Selna sustains Sagel's objection for argumentative, other reasons

Avenatti asks "isn't it true" Barela told feds he didn't get a copy of settlement, when "in truth you had been given a fully-executed copy" in September 2014?
Court reporter reads the question back aloud after confusion.
"It appears to be correct," Barela answers.

Avenatti calls Barela out for saying in direct he had an 11th grade education when he told the feds "in fact you had a high school diploma" from Wilson High School in Long Beach (@LBWilsonHigh).
Avenatti shows him interview memo from USA that says that.

Avenatti gets Barela to acknowledge he doesn't have a high school diploma. Says it's unlikely feds said he said that when he didn't, but he doesn't recall saying that.
Judge Selna not enthralled by this high school talk.
"Let's move on to another subject," the judge says.

Like he did w/ Gardner, Avenatti is asking Barela to calculate exactly how much he think he's owed from settlement. Barela clarifies he wants him to calculate.
"That's exactly what I want you to do. And if you need a calculator, I think we can probably get you one," Avenatti says

"I'd love a calculator," Barela says.
The clerk is giving Barela her phone.
"Does your phone have those missing text messages?" Avenatti asks.
Kind of shockingly, no one even says anything after he says that.

"Mr. Barela, has the government ever asked you to perform a similar calculation like this?" Avenatti asks.
"Uh, no," Barela answers.

Barela's math sheet is up on the overhead now.
"What is $960,000?" Avenatti asks.
"60 percent of $1.6 million," Barela answers.
Then there's $200k or so in costs (I didn't get exact figure). Avenatti says you don't know actual costs, do you? Barela says no.

Barela says he'd need to review wire slips. Avenatti says so this is a guesstimate? Yes, Barela says.
Now Avenatti pulls out the agreement and is highlight the 40 percent fee recovery. (Barela of course acknowledged that in his calculation by giving himself 60 percent)

There's a stray $300k that's an issue.
Final settlement was $1.9 million, with $1.6 million first and $300k later.
Barela got the $300k, but he didn't get the $1.6 million
"Sir what is 40 percent of $1 million nine hundred thousand?" Avenatti asks.

Barela says he'd have to guess, Avenatti says no be precise, but uh oh: the clerk's phone locked, so Barela can't access the calculator.
The clerk walks over and unlocks her phone for him.

Barela punches in the numbers. 40 percent of 1.9 million is $760k.
Avenatti asks if Barela has knowledge of the experts Avenatti had to hire for his case. Yes, some.
Avenatti asks if Barela remembers saying it was a long fight, and there were a lot of video depositions.

"In the last two years, have you ever asked the government, 'hey have you guys figured out what the costs were on my case?'" Avenatti asks.
"I have not," Barela answers.

Avenatti says Barela repeatedly has said the $1.6 million was his money.
"The entirely of it was not your money, was it? Yes or no?" Avenatti asks.
"No," Barela answers.

So if someone says Barela had $1.6 million stolen from, "that would be neither clear, not concise, would it?" Avenatti asks.
"Correct," Barela answers.

"Did anyone ever tell you or communicate to you that you were failing to properly communicate with me about any legal matter?" Avenatti asks.
"No," Barela answers.

Avenatti asks isn't it true in January 2019 I told you you'd failed to properly communicate with your firm regarding the matter in San Diego? (felony fraud conviction)
But Selna keeps sustaining Sagel's hearsay objections. Avenatti has tried this question several times now.

But Avenatti is able to finally land it. Selna overrules hearsay objection for:"Did you come to understand there was a complaint of you not properly communicating....?" Avenatti says it goes to state of mind.
"No," Barela answers. More hearsay objections after that, though.

Barela had to sign something authorizing Avenatti's withdrawal as lawyer in San Diego case. Doesn't recall if it took a week for him to sign it.
So Avenatti, as he does *a lot*, gets permission to approach the witness and hands Barela a document to refresh his recollection.

It works - Barela acknowledges it did take him a week to sign. Now we're on a 15-minute break.

I see and appreciate those clamoring for a layout of the courtroom. Unfortunately, photography in federal court is strictly prohibited. THAT IS, unless you’re the engineering firm that worked on the $120 million building...

Then you can post as many photos on your website as you want, apparently. (I see you, @miyamotointl)
So let’s share them with the people!
The firm's spiffy website (miyamotointernational.com) has this great courtroom shot. It's the mirror image of Judge Selna's courtroom.

In this pic, the jury box and witness stand are on the right, where as in Selna's courtroom, they are on the left.
Prosecutors sit on the left, but the table is facing the judge so they don't have their backs to the jury.
Avenatti and his counsel are at the table on the right.

The jury sits in the box on the left side, and some sit in the pews on the left. ("JURORS ONLY THIS SIDE")
I sit on the right side, as do other members of the public.
I hope this helps you all envision the true scene in the courtroom! (Thank you, @miyamotointl.)

There was some discussion about Avenatti’s subpoena tactics a couple minutes ago.
Sagel wants a witness list and is questioning Avenatti’s subpoena tactics.
Barela’s wife was going to sit in court for his testimony, but she had to leave after Avenatti subpoenaed her.

“If he’s truly going to call her, that’s his prerogative” but he should have clear reason for it.
Avenatti says, “You honor, I don’t think I’m under any obligation to provide a witness list" yet.
“We’re not abusing the subpoena power of the court.”

There’s still an outstanding issue regarding Avenatti’s subpoenas of the SDNY agents.
Selna agreed to reinstate subpoenas for California agents, but he’s awaiting more info from Avenatti before deciding on SDNY ones.

Selna says no Avenatti witness list needed "at this point."
He wants the interview notes regarding SDNY by the end of the day so he can consider those subpoenas. “It may be 5:30ish if that’s OK,” Avenatti says.
Selna reluctantly agrees, through clenched teeth.

Jury is back and Avenatti is continuing cross of his ex-client Greg Barela. He asks if Barela has his calculation sheet still with him, and he does. Asks him to sign and date it. Avenatti turns to questions Sagel asked in direct about his fundraising efforts for Barela's venture,

In July 2018, I attempted to raise some money for you, for your business, from a Mr. Josh Viner, do you recall that?" Yes.
"Who's Mr. Josh Viner?" Avenatti asks.
"Founder of wags, the dog walking service," Barela answers.

Avenatti had represented Viner in legal issues. He talked to Viner about investing with Barela, but Viner ultimately chose not to.
Now Avenatti is asking about Barela asking him to get involved "in a venture in Mexico."

"I was dealing with Carlos Slim, the cell phone industry and the credit card company that was across the border," Barela answers."
"Who's Carlos Slim?" Avenatti asks. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Sl…)
"He owns the largest telecom in South America," Barela answers.

"He's one of the world's wealthiest individuals, correct?" Avenatti asks.
"Yes," Barela answers. And Barela wanted Avenatti to communicate with Slim, and travel to Mexico.

Avenatti asks about Rick Armstrong. He's a CPA who Barela worked with.
Avenatti's work with Barela involved communicating with Armstrong, too, just as it did Slim. Avenatti focused on a meeting he and Barela had with Armstrong.

We're hearing about what we heard yesterday: Barela's San Diego conviction involved a no-contact order with a key business associate.
Avenatti says the meeting with himself, Barela and Armstrong was to discuss giving the guy an employment agreement.

Avenatti emphasizes Barela "had been ordered not have any business contact with" the guy but was basically trying to get around the court order.
Barela is denying this.

Avenatti says Barela wanted the guy (his name is Steve Ross) to be a VP at QuixSupply venture he was pursuing.
"And at the time, you knew exactly what you had been prohibited from doing by the judge in San Diego," Avenatti said in a low, slow voice.
"It's true," Barela answers.

"Isn't true" I told you Steve Ross couldn't be involved in Quix Supply at all? Avenatti asks.
Barela says yes.
And yes, Barela says it was because of the San Diego judge's no-contact order for Barela regarding Ross.

Now Avenatti asks about Barela wanting him to get involved with a bank down in Mexico.
"I believe so." So Avenatti is approaching to refresh his recollection. (If I had a nickel for every time he's done that today, I'd probably have at least 60 cents or so.)

Avenatti abandons the refresh effort, though, and just asks another question.
It's about the Carlos Slim's Grupo Carso, and Barela's attempts to get investments in his QuixSupply venture. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupo_Car…
Now we're back to another recollection refresh attempt.

Now we're seeing more texts as Avenatti tries to refute testimony that Barela's compliments were about his work trying to get the settlement money.
And we get a very needed reminder that, in the midst of all this, Avenatti actually started a PAC and raised money through it.

Barela texts Avenatti: "I'm praying for you. May God bless you and give you strength. Do what is right for mankind...Love Michael as a brother. Fight PAC." (opensecrets.org/political-acti…)
Avenatti: "That had nothing to do with pursuing" the settlement money, did it?
"No" Barela answers

"Did you ever tell the government that Ms. Regnier managed my law office and the staff reported to her?" Avenatti asks
"I don't recall," Barela answers.
We all know what happens next. Another recollection refresh attempt. It works. Barela acknowledges he said that.

Barela also acknowledges he said Regnier handlings the banking and wire transfers.
Now Avenatti is back to that conference room meeting, and he's taking issue with Barela's description of what Regnier did.
But Barela says Avenatti is misstating what he said.

Asked what happened during meeting, Barela says Regnier came in with agreement and reached around Barela to give it to Avenatti for review, who then gave it to Barela.
Avenatti calls it "this alleged reach around" and says Barela didn't mention it to feds. "Correct," Barela says

Avenatti turns to bank records. Did government ever ask Barela for records from a specific time period (I think it was 2016 to 2019). Barela says he would assume they i that.
"Why would you assume that?" Avenatti asks.
Selna sustains Sagel's objection for speculation, relevance.

Onto the mediation in Colorado that led to Barela's settlement.
Avenatti says Barela said in direct it was a three-day mediation, but Barela says he didn't say that. So here we go with the recollection refresh attempt. Avenatti at defense table getting document now.

Avenatti really searching, so Sagel asks for a 403 objection and Avenatti be asked to move on. Selna overrules, and Avenatti is back at the lectern, empty handed. So, so much for that recollection refresh attempt.
Avenatti asks more questions about the mediation.

"What was or is Old Castle?" Avenatti asks.
One of the largest cement manufacturers in the world. "Based in Ireland," Barela answers.

Avenatti asks if Barela remembers efforts to intervene in a lawsuit in Atlanta between Brock USA (that's the opposing party in the settlement Avenatti is accused of stealing) and Old Castle.
Yes, he remembers.

Because it was in federal court in Atlanta, Avenatti says they had to hire lawyers in Georgia to represent Barela. This is part of his defense that there were so many costs and fees that drained the settlements.

"Here's my last question," Avenatti says. "I'm going to call witnesses" about the phone call Barela says happened in which John Arden, Ahmed Ibrahim and Evan Jenness hung up on.
"Would you like to change any of your testimony, sir, that you gave to this jury about that call?"

Judge Selna overrules Sagel's objection for speculation, argumentative.
"I would not, and I look forward to it," Barela answers.
Sagel at the lectern for re-direct now.

Sagel asks Barela if the agreement he received in 2017 from Avenatti had signatures on it. "No, it didn't," Barela answers. (I think questions earlier today about 2014 were wrong, it should have been 2017)
Did defendant ever give you a document with dates other than March?
No.

This is in response to Avenatti hammering Barela in cross about telling feds he didn't get a copy of the full settlement agreement, when he actually did.
Sagel is trying to show that the agreement Barela got wasn't complete. (No signatures.)

March 15, 2019. Barela tells feds Avenatti provided "partial agreement without the signature pages."
"And at all times, you've always said that defendant provided you with a partial settlement agreement in September 2017?" Sagel asks.
"That is correct," Barela answers.

Regarding Aveantti asking Barela if he agreed Avenatti could bring in outside attorneys pursuant to the fee agreement, Sagel focuses a paragraph from the agreement. Asks if the contract says Avenatti can use the settlement money for his coffee business.
Barela: "Of course not."

And now we're on the lunch break. Back at 1:30 p.m.

As the tweets above show, Avenatti is giving us a preview of his defense case, which could be underway by the end of next week. It will be interesting to see if Evan Jenness does take the stand as Avenatti tries to refute Barela's accounting of that phone call.

Some of you may recognize Jenness' name - Tom Girardi hired her as his criminal defense attorney after a federal judge in Chicago questioned him about the missing $2 million Lion Air crash settlement. This @abronstadlaw story has some details: bit.ly/2UP2wj7

Oh - here’s a key Evan Jenness connection to Michael Avenatti. Jenness was Avenatti’s lawyer, too. (Thanks to the texting tipster who just reminded me of this. You know who you are.) vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/m…

Prosecutors are going to read a transcript into the record later, and AUSA Alex Wyman is warning Selna the transcript includes a question about whether "GB Auto does anything other than car racing."

Prosecutors have had to redact the racing and other lifestyle references from financial documents per Judge Selna's order, and Selna just told Wyman not to read the line about GB Auto.

Wyman was of course VERY polite and respectful, but he also dropped a line that shows how much he disagrees with the judge's order. He said the racing reference in financial documents was included because "it's a direct use of victim's funds." But still, redaction order stands.

AUSA Brett Sagel is up for re-direct with ex-Avenatti client Greg Barela. He's asking how many times Avenatti texted him about the settlement money. Zero!
Sagel just grabbed Avenatti's flip board and moved it over the lectern with him. Says it already has a zero written on it.

Sagel asked how many of the 700 text messages involved Avenatti going over settlement terms and payment schedule. Zero.
Now Sagel plays off Avenatti's cross by bring up all Avenatti asking Barela if he gave wrong answers in direct.

"Were your answers wrong you when stated you never received your portion of your settlement money from the defendant?" Sagel asks.
No. Sagel repeats this question style - were your answers wrong when you stated the defendant never gave you an accounting?

Sagel asks about costs and fees and who's responsibility it was to calculate those.
"Why don't you know what the actual costs were in the case?"
"Because I never received an accounting," Barela answers.
"Defendant never provided that to you? Sagel asks.
"No," Barela answers.

Sagel talks us back to some of paralegal Judy Regnier's testimony by asking if Barela knew about her transactions. During the mediation in Colorado, she actually sent Avenatti a cost breakdown of Barela's case. Barela never saw it.

"When defendant provided you these advances, did that keep you from learning that the actual $1.6 million had already been paid?" Sagel asks.
Selna overrules Avenatti's speculation objection.
Barela says yes.

Sagel asks if Barela knows if any of the costs Avenatti has asked about were actually paid by his settlement. No.
Regarding the calculations Barela did on the stand to determine how much he's still owed, "How much of that money has defendant paid you?"
"Zero," Barela answers.

"Same number right behind me?" Sagel asks, referring to Avenatti's flip board.
Yes.

Sagel starts playing off Avenatti's cross about how things need to be "clear and precise."
"What clear and precise statement did defendant provide you on how much you were entitled to based on an accounting under this settlement agreement?"
"None," Barela answers.

"What clear and precise statement did defendant provide you for why you were not getting any money under the settlement agreement?" Sagel asks.
None.

Sagel references Avenatti asking Barela if entire $1.6 million was Barela's.
"Was the $1.6 million entirely defendant's?" Sagel asks.
"Absolutely not," Barela answers.
Sagel references Avenatti asking about Barela's bank records.

"If anybody looked at your bank records, how much of the $1.6 million settlement money will be found in your bank records?" Sagel asks.
Selna overrules Avenatti's speculation objection.
Barela: "Zero."
"Same number?" Sagel asks, referring to flip board.
Barela: "Same number."

"No further questions," Sagel says.
That was a pretty powerful use of that flip board!
Avenatti at the lectern for re-cross now.

Avenatti is again focusing on all the costs and fees he says were associated with Barela's mediation.
He asks if Barela thought the Colorado mediation was free. No, he didn't.
There's also an arbitration Avenatti is asking about. He's differentiating between the two.

Avenatti asks about Barela's testimony to Sagel that he got 60 percent of $300k but he had to pay new lawyers to get it. Despite settlement Avenatti negotiated "you were charged by some lawyer $120,000 in order to get those payments, is that correct?"
"Yes," Barela answers

Avenatti asks if Brock USA (opposing party in settlement), "Did Brock fight you on paying that?"
No, lawyer who helped him wasn't working for free.
"Has that guy been charged criminally?" Avenatti asks.
"Of course not," Barela answers.
"Exactly. Nothing further," Avenatti says.

Judge Selna is now reading a statement of facts into the record that both defense and prosecution have stipulated to. It's about the settlement negotiation process for Barela's case.
Initial payment was $1.6 million, followed by three payments of $100,000. Details like that.

This is basically a long list of all the payments Avenatti sent Barela.
One thing from Sagel re-direct earlier: He asked Barela if Avenatti ever told him clients are entitled to their settlement money immediately...

...which refers to the bankruptcy hearing testimony we heard from Avenatti the other day, in which he says exactly that.
That recording being played really stood out to me as a bad moment for the defense, and Sagel reminded jurors of it well just then.

Now another AUSA is here to read a transcript of Avenatti's testimony in his law firm's bankruptcy proceedings. This is about the coffee venture, and how Avenatti's lawsuit involving a cemetery several years ago. (Explained in this @finneganLAT story: lat.ms/3fF8uu6)

In transcript, Avenatti says he got $21 or $23 million from cemetery settlement and shared fees with Florida attorney Ed Ricci, and with himself, and maybe an objector or two to the class settlement. "I think that's it."

We're also hearing from a transcript in a judgment debtor's exam related to Avenatti's divorce.
In this one, he refuses to tell the examiner which banks his client trust accounts are with and says it's not his money.

Now we're hearing from a debtor exam I went to. March 15, 2019. Andrew Stolper questioned Avenatti about payments related to coffee venture, and about Geoff Johnson's payments. Avenatti is asked if his firm is obligated to pay Johnson monthly.
"To the best of my knowledge, no."

This was an exam in LA Superior Court over $4.85 million Avenatti personally owes ex-partner Jason Frank.
The next week, there was a separate exam in federal four for $10 million Avenatti's bankrupt firm owes Frank.
We're hearing from that transcript now.

In this transcript, Avenatti says Barela actually owes his law firm money.
"Because we did a bunch of work for him and we didn't get paid for it," Avenatti says.

For background: Frank got official judgments against Avenatti over the debt, so he's legally recognized creditor w/ access to Avenatti's financial records.
He and Stolper (ex-AUSA) got all that stuff in prep for these exams, and they basically previewed the criminal indictment.

The reading of these transcripts during Avenatti's trial just underscores how incriminating prosecutors believe his answers were.
Avenatti insists to Stolper several times that the money was handled ethically and in accordance with all laws.

But Stolper keeps pushing. "Who's money was it, Mr. Avenatti?"
I know I have this transcript somewhere; I'll try to dig it out for you all.

Transcript reading is over, and next witness is Long Tram (Michelle Phan's business partner).
But before he comes in, Avenatti has an issue to discuss, so Selna calls a sidebar and the attorneys go into chambers.

All the jurors were chatting among themselves and we were all just sitting around and taking a breath and relaxing and it was pretty OK.
But the sidebar is over, and the attorneys and Judge Selna are back in court. Time to get back to work.

AUSA Alex Wyman is at the lectern for his direct exam of Long Tram, who just took the stand. He lives in Los Angeles, and he is a COO of Divinium Labs. That's cosmetic star Michelle Phan's company. (The Phan portion of the Avenatti show is starting, FYI everyone.)

Tram handled business for Phan such as selecting law firms.
When he needed a lawyer for he and Phan's problems with @IPSY, he reached out to Filippo Marchino.
"Filippo's been a longtime friend, he used to be a client at an old job I had when I lived in Texas," Tram says.

Tram identifies Avenatti after Avenatti stands at the defense table.
"Suit. Blue tie," Tram says.
Tram thought Avenatti handled mergers and acquisitions.
"And that was based on your discussions with the defendant?" Wyman asks.

Tram answers yes, but it's as Judge Selna sustains Avenatti's objection for leading.
We're seeing a Feb. 9, 2017 email. Subject line is @ISPY.
Tram reads aloud. It details Phan's situation with ISPY. Tram hired Eagan Avenatti and reviewed the agreement, suggested changes.

Fee agreement is 7.5 percent.
Tram says Avenatti proposed 10 percent and Tram proposed 5 percent "and we met in the middle."
Wyman has the red-lined agreement displayed on the overhead.

There was a paragraph in the agreement about costs, but the entire graf was struck from the agreement because it's a contingency agreement and the 7.5 percent covered everything.
Tram says he discussed this deletion with Avenatti, and Avenatti agreed to it.

Wyman told Selna he's about to get into another exhibit, so the judge calls the 15-minute afternoon break.

We're back, and Wyman is continuing his direct exam of Long Tram, Michelle Phan's business partner.
We're seeing emails between Tram and Avenatti about fee agreement.
"Did you and Ms. Phan ever sign another agreement on attorney fees with the defendant or his law firm?"
"No."

Wyman asks if stricken paragraph about expenses and costs appears anywhere in agreement.
Tram says he doesn't think so, so Wyman has him look through it to confirm.
Tram confirms that no, it's not in there.
After they signed agreement, Avenatti started negotiating with @IPSY.

Avenatti was brokering an exit deal for Long Tram and Michelle Phan (who I know I've called Pham in earlier trial tweets, forgive me). It involved a common stock repurchasing agreement, dated Sept. 17, 2017.

Tram got his own common stock repurchasing agreement, too. Wyman has it displayed on the overhead. It's dated Sept. 17, 2017, too.
"Is that the same date as Michelle Phan's agreement?" Wyman asks.
"Yes," Tram answers.

Both agreements have same payment dates.
"Based on your understanding, did @ISPY make those five payments?" Wyman asks
"Yes," Tram answers
Tram had payments sent to Eagan Avenatti's client trust. Wyman asks why.
"I was told that that's just how it would be. Michael suggested it"

We're seeing the wire transfer transactions listed on the overhead.
"What did you understand these five payments to represent? Wyman asked.
"These were the payments made based on the agreement we had with @ISPY," Tram answers.

Wyman is going over the payments. One is for $27 million. (That's a lot of money.) That was Phan's payment.
2nd payment is $950k or so.
3rd payment is for Phan's sister for $475k.
4th payment is $8.1 million for Phan.
5th payment from @ISPY is $147k is from Tram.

Total $37 million. Tram gives the exact number.
Wyman is writing on his flip board, and I'm remembering the USA has their own flip board with them today, so Sagel was using his own flip board during his direct and re-direct, not Avenatti's re: my earlier tweets about that.

Tram says Avenatti was due 7.5 percent from that total, and nothing more.
Tram says they paid it in full upon the first payment. He calculates the exact number and Wyman writes it on the USA's flip board.
$2,787,650.87

We're seeing the check displayed on the overhead.
Also, I'm realizing I was mistyping the company name in early tweets. It's @IPSY, not ISPY.

We're seeing an email paralegal Judy Regnier sent Avenatti that Avenatti forwarded to Tram that said "see below. Judy confirmed a wire transfer hit Michelle's account."
Then @IPSY reached out to Tram about making the other payments earlier than scheduled. CFO emails Tram.

Tram is reading aloud now the email from @IPSY's chief financial officer.
"The funds will be wired to you next week. Can you please confirm your bank account information below," the email said.

Tram forwarded the email to Avenatti. He said he wanted the money treated the same way tax wise.
Some confusing details, but Tram says under his "broad understanding" and Wyman asks, "and that broad understanding, where did it come from?"
"Michael Avenatti," Tram answers.

Wyman asks if, based on agreement, did you think defendant was entitled to costs associated with second payment?
No. He'd already been paid his full 7.5 percent fee when first payment came in.

It's spring 2018. Wyman asks if Tram was in contact with Avenatti's old attorney cohort Filippo Marchino. Yes, and now we're seeing texts that Tram is reading aloud. Marchino says let me know when @IPSY payments come in and we'll take care of it quickly.

Tram's understanding was 'we' meant Marchino and Avenatti.
Other texts show Tram directing money from the 2nd payment to be deposited into Phan and his accounts.
"Did you and Ms. Phan receive your second payments from @IPSY that day?" via defendant.
No, they didn't.

The next day, Tram texted Marchino, "Morning sunshine" and asks about the wires. Marchino says he'll ask Avenatti.
Now Tram has eight pages of texts between himself and Avenatti. He flips through and confirms they're fair and accurate. It's exhibit 278, and it's now in evidence.

Avenatti objects but Selna overrules.
Prosecutors have complained about Avenatti objecting to all evidence exhibits, and it reminds me of other judges I've covered who won't put anything before the jury if they haven't reviewed it yet, in part to avoid fights like this

Tram asks Avenatti to use his private plane for a birthday party in San Francisco.
"When he told you you could use his plane, did he tell you he was going to charge you for it?" Wyman asks.
No, he didn't.

In a text about the plane, Avenatti says he's in New York but will be back next day and will deal with wire transfer. Tram said Avenatti said he had to be at the bank in person.

More texts from Tram to Avenatti asking for the wire. Wyman asks: "During any of these conversations, did he ever tell you he was entitled to" any of Michele Phan's second payment money?
"No," Tram answers.

Avenatti messages Tram: "Morning. I've asked Judy to get you what u need." (It was finally blown up on the screen big enough for me to actually read it, so I can tell the you's v. u's etc.)

One thing that strikes me is what a formidable opponent Tram was for Avenatti. He wasn't going to get duped for months and months, and the payment agreement didn't give a lot of room for Avenatti to string him a long.

We were getting into those two transactions we heard about from Judy Regnier and Filippo Marchino. Avenatti said he was sending them two $4 million transfers. But he sent $4 million and $100k instead. Now we're done for the day.

With the jury gone, Wyman asks for guidance on Selna's morning order regarding a declaration from lead investigator about texts that could qualify as releasable as Avenatti contends. A few qs, back and forth.
"Let's put it this way: Just put in a declaration, please," Selna says

Avenatti raises issue with government expert witness John Drum, which has been briefed, including in this oppo from Avenatti: drive.google.com/file/d/1PigeXQ… Avenatti wanted a Daubert hearing, which is to assess validity of an expert.

But Judge Selna says his "preliminary thought is that i've heard nothing during the trial" that warrants a Daubert hearing.
Avenatti has a few points to make, says "It'd probably be best if we filed something."
"It'd certainly be helpful," the judge said.

I'm in the hallway finishing up, and Avenatti and Dean Steward just walked by me going to the elevators. Avenatti had one thing to say: "Evan Jenness."
(See earlier tweets about her being a defense witness.)

So that's it for today, and for the week. Thanks for following along.
Remember: No trial on Monday. Check back Tuesday about 8:30 a.m. for another thread.

😻 What a treat. A Justice spotting again outside the courthouse today. She must’ve heard she’s gaining fans on Twitter.

Here's Avenatti's brief supporting his bid to reinstate the subpoenas for the New York federal investigators. The actual notes he includes for Judge Selna are sealed, but he gives a general description in this filing I posted to Google Drive: bit.ly/3yz4McT

@threadreaderapp Unroll, please. Thank you!