Thread by @meghanncuniff

Hello from the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, California, where I’m here for the 14th day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s wire fraud trial. Follow this thread for live updates from the courtroom all day. ⚖️🧵⚖️

Judge Selna isn't on the bench yet, but the attorneys are here and they've already addressed a crucial evidentiary question - where that's video Avenatti made of my Twitter coverage? Clerk asked, and it's been manually filed downstairs at the clerk's office.

Here's my tweet from last night about the filing. Clerk told Avenatt's standby counsel that having the video of my tweets manually filed downstairs ensures it gets to the 9th Circuit if case is appealed.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1425587051722797059

Judge Selna took the bench and says they heard back from Juror #4 about the covid scare, and the neighbor's test was negative.
"So we'll proceed with Juror #4. Questions, thoughts?" Selna asked.
Avenatti: "Has Juror #4 been tested, your honor?"
Selna: "I don't know."

Avenatti asks if it would be appropriate to request she be tested, but Selna says: "I'm not prepared to do that. I think each of the jurors is sensitive to the covid issue. If they feel symptoms, I'm sure they'll report to the court."

Clerk says the juror was never near the sick person, it was her child.

Judge Selna addresses last night's renewed motion to strike Alexis Gardner's testimony because she read my tweets. Said he'll review submissions and, "I'm assuming the government will respond to this new motion."

ASUA Brett Sagel says close of business Monday, but Selna says how about noon Monday?
"That's fine, your honor," Selna says.

Now onto Avenatti's issues with his former employee who has covid but he wants her to testify in person. Prosecutors filed a declaration from her; Selna asks if she's vaccinated. "I didn't feel comfortable tasking that question," Sagel says.

Sagel is to get more info about this witness for Selna. Prosecutors also need to reply to Avenatti's filing last night about the agents he wants to call as witnesses having been in court for the first part of trial.

Now Avenatti is arguing he shouldn't have do show any offer of proof to call the New York federal agents to the stand, as prosecutors are asking. Sagel wants Selna to consider this ASAP so agents aren't flying across the country for no reason.

He says prosecutors have fundamental misunderstanding of defendant's right to call witnesses. But Selna says offer of proof is reasonable because "it would appear they don't have much to offer at all." Wants proof offer "so we're not sitting here observing a fishing expedition."

Avenatti is asking Selna about his order, and judge says:
"I don't appreciate you recasting what the court said and, from time to time, not accurately acknowledging what the court said, so if you have any doubt about it, it's in the transcript, sir."

Avenatti says he's trying to determine if he needs to do a proof offer for the California agents who were sitting in the courtroom, as well as the NY agents.
"I'm not trying to recast anything. I'm trying to understand," he tells Judge Selna.

Judge Selna says no, just offers for the NY agents. But he also wants one for Joseph Varani, the DOJ employee from D.C. who testified early in the trial.

But Avenatti says he's already subject to recall, so how can he be required to make an offer of proof? Selna says he'll consider this all once Avenatti submits everything.

Selna suggested clearing the courtroom and Avenatti does his offer for proof now for Varani, after Sagel said he's going to get on a plane today. Avenatti says he's supposed to be his first defense witness tomorrow morning. But they're going to do the offer this afternoon instead

Jury isn't in yet, but the next witness is on the stand: @MichellePhan, the cosmetics empress whose business associated, Long Tran, enlisted Avenatti to help negotiate a break from Phan's company @IPSY.

Wearing a tan pea coat and a white N-95-looking mask, Phan is scrolling through her cell phone as she sits in the witness stand waiting for the proceedings to begin.

As we heard from Long Tran, he and Phan were in a contentious fight with other @IPSY people, and Avenatti brokered a departure deal for them that gave them $37 million. (Prosecutors wrote the amounts on their flip board, which is visible to the courtroom audience right now.)

Uh oh. "Can you go check the message machine? Because I'm still missing one," clerk just poked her head in the courtroom to tell another court employee that. She's out trying to round up the jury to bring them in.

M Phan $27,414,668.32
$8,146,288
L Tran: $984,750
$14,972
P Phan $475,000
TOTAL: $37,168,678.32

^^^ That's what the USA's flip board says re: the Phan deal. And false alarm about the jury: They all just filed in and we're about to get started.

(Btw, describing fashion is not my strong point as a reporter, and I may have misspoke when I described Phan's attire as a "peacoat.")

Regarding the juror with the covid scare, apparently she WAS tested yesterday. Selna just told the jury the test was negative. So we're proceeding, and Phan just took her oath. AUSA Brett Sagel is questioning her for the direct exam.

For her testimony, Phan removes her mask and puts on a clear plastic face shield.
"I'm self employed. I have a company called @emcosmetics."
"How long have you been in the cosmetics industry?" Sagel asks.
"Over 10 years," Phan answers.

"How did you get started?" Sagel asks.
Back in 2007, "I was making makeup tutorials on YouTube" and it took off from there. Phan describes Long Tran as her "righthand business person."
Sagel asks how she knows Avenatti.
"I know of him through Long and that's how I know him."

Phan founded @IPSY, and in 2017 she "was hoping to part ways and exit the company, but also" take @emcosmetics with her. Tran engaged with Avenatti to help.
"It's been so long. I don't remember meeting him in person, but I do remember a lot of phone calls and emails," Phan says.

But apparently they did meet eventually, at Tran's office in SantaMonica. Phan said Avenatti - she calls him "the defendant" - "was was very confident and because of that confidence" she felt confident. "He said it was very easy, so it just made sense to work with him," Phan said

"I trusted in Long to make the most objective decisions working with Michael on just making sure I had a clean exit from the company. And I trusted that Long had my best interests," Phan says just now about the @IPSY negotiations.

Now we're getting into the evidence. Sagel has emails on the overhead, and Phan is flipping through copies of the same emails on the stand. First up is the agreement with Avenatti. He focuses on what he did with Tran: Legal fees and billing services.

We heard this in Tran's testimony: Their deal with Avenatti was a flat fee of 7.5 percent of whatever the total deal was. Phan understood it was 7.5 "and yeah, that was it. It was simple."
"You agreed to that number?" Sagel asks.
"Yes. I believed it was fair," Phan answers.

Sagel asks if they discussed contingency v. hourly. "I remember, I didn't discuss it with him personally, but just speaking to Long, yes," Phan says before Avenatti objects for hearsay and asks Selna to strike her answer. Selna strikes.

Sagel tries again. "You were comfortable choosing a contingency fee rather than an hourly fee, correct?"
"Correct," Phan answers.
Phan says she was looking to get about $30 million out of the deal. Sagel asks if she was stressed out.

"That was actually why I hired him," Phan answers. "I was just very stressed out and ready to leave, and he was very confident he could help."

Sagel asks if Phan was satisfied when she signed the agreement that it would pay her what she wanted from @IPSY. She says yes.
Sagel asks how much she thought she was going to get. Phan says she'd sell off her @IPSY shares and get paid.
Over two time periods? Sagel asks. Yes.

Sagel asks if they discussed with Avenatti how they'd get their money.
"He said the protocol is to send it to him first. He would get the payment. He would take out what he was owed, and then he would send the rest to us," Phan answers.

Sagel asks more specifics, Phan says Avenatti's fee could have come from the two payments, but "We were generous and said just take the percentage, what you're owed, in the first chunk."

Phan got first $27M payment no problem.
"The time you received your first payment, how did you feel about the defendant at that time? Sagel asks.
"I felt - I was relieved. I was happy. I was happy," Phan answers.
"There were no issues?" Sagel asks.
"No issues," Phan answers.

We're seeing emails about the payment logistics, and banking info.
"What was your understanding of whose bank account this was?" Sagel asks.
"It was Michael's," Phan answers.
She forwarded email to Long Tran to deal with.
That's the account where 2nd payment was supposed to go.

"Did defendant say anything about taking any fees out of the 2nd payment?" Sagel asks.
"No," Phan answers.
"How much of the 2nd payment were you expecting to get?" Sagel asks.
"All of it," Phan answers.

"Why were you expecting to get all of it?" Sagel asks.
"The defendant already took his shares form the first payment," Phan answers.
"If defendant was going to take any money from your 2nd payment, would you have expected him to tell you that at that time?" Sagel asks.
"Yes."

Now we're getting into the missing $4 million wire transfer that Avenatti claimed he sent.
"When you didn't receive it immediately, did it cause you any kinds of concern?" Sagel asks.
"Yes. I was starting to feel anxious," Phan answers.

OK so this isn't specifically about the $4 million wire transfer yet - it's about all of the 2nd payment, which was to be a total of $8 million. She did get $4 million of it, but even that was late. Sagel asks if she knows why it was late. No.

"Did there come a time when you were in New York City at the same time as the defendant?" Sagel asks.
"Yes," Phan answers.
Now we're about to see text messages between Phan and Avenatti. 1st message is April 23, 2018. @IPSY has sent the 2nd payment.

Phan reads the beginning aloud. "Michael, it's Michelle." Sagel asks why she ID'd herself to Avenatti.
"I didn't have his number, and he didn't have mine," Phan answers. They realized they were both in NYC, so they decided to meet up.

She was concerned, "but what made that day different was from my memory, Long received his part of the payment, so there is this confidence now in him...and I can engage in having a conversation with him."
Selna denies strike request from Avenatti for unresponsive.

Avenatti replied, "Hi there, just got done @CNN. Do you have time for a dinner?"
Phan replies, "Just wrapped my shoot. I'm at the Standard Rooftop having a celebration for finishing the China event."

(As Phan was reading aloud, her voice sped up when she got into all this fun stuff, and the court reporter had to tell her to slow down.)

Phan didn't ask Avenatti about the money at the event. "I didn't want to bring up the money. I was too scared. I had faith he would honor his word because he sent the the money to Long."
The next day, Phan and Avenatti meet for lunch.

They discussed payment during lunch. Avenatti told Phan he had to actually sign for the wire transfer in person, but "He was so busy flying everywhere, he didn't have time. And just me understanding how it is flying everywhere, I emphasized and I understood, and I believed him."

Sagel gets more details about what Avenatti told her. Why did Tran get his payment but not her? Because it was so large he had to sign for it in person.
"I was reassured by his confidence, that all was OK," Phan says of Avenatti.

During the lunch, "Did defendant already tell you he had spent $4 million of your money?" Sagel asks.
"No," Phan answers.
"Would you have wanted to know that?" Sagel asks.
"Yes," Phan answers.
Sagel asks why, and Phan answers: "Because it's my money."

Sagel asks Phan if Avenatti told her withdrew $3 million of her @IPSY money to pay creditors in his bankruptcy. (We heard about those payments from bankruptcy lawyer Mark Horoupian on Tuesday.)

Sagel asks if the individual she meet at the Standard Rooftop and for lunch the next day, "Is he in court?"
“He’s a person standing up right now wearing a striped tie,” Phan answers.

“Did you ever enter an agreement with the defendant that would allow him to keep $4 million of your money?” Sagel asks.
“No,” Phan answers.
“Was there ever an explanation from defendant of why you did not get your remaining $4 million?” Sagel asks.
“No,” Phan answers.

“Did he ever say to you he was entitled to that $4 million? Sagel asks.
“No,” Phan answers. Phan says her new lawyer "did the best he could to try to get my money back" but she never got it.

Sagel brings up Phan's stress. “When you did not receive your $4 million, how would you describe your situation at that point?”
Phan: “I was absolutely devastated because the defendant was someone I believed to be trustworthy, who upheld the law, who was supposed to protect me."

“I hired him to protect me, and the idea and the fact that he took my money like that, it was almost hard to swallow. But when the reality hit me, I was just, I was utterly shattered,” Phan continues.

“No further questions, your honor,” Sagel tells Judge Selna.
Avenatti at the lectern for cross now, and he starts by asking Phan about her oath to tell the truth, and if she’d like to take back any answers she gave Sagel. She says no.

Avenatti slowly went through Phan testimony about texting him her name because they didn't have each other's phone numbers.
"Isn't it true that 7 months before you and I had texted one another on these exact phone numbers, isn't that true?" Avenatti asks.

Avenatti has December 2017 texts displayed. Phan says it's not a yes or no answer, but she'll give one, and Avenatti snaps that he's withdrawing his question, then tries again. Phan acknowledges 2017 texts but says: "I never saved your number."

We're seeing texts where Phan tells Avenatti of a @nytimes connection.
"Do you recall securing a @nytimes editor for use in you going after @IPSY in 2017, despite your testimony in direct to Mr. Sagel that this whole thing was going to be easy?" Avenatti asks.

Phan says no, but Selna already sustained Sagel's objection. "When I sustain the objection, you don't get to answer," judge tells her.
One more q about @nytimes. "This was so long ago, quite honestly, I don't remember all the nuances and details of my exit with @IPSY," Phan says.

"So you can't answer yes or no, is that right?" Avenatti asks.
"What question?" Phan replies.
"The question we just had read back," Avenatti says.
"Ask it again?" Phan says.
"Can I have it read back?" Avenatti says.
Court reporter re-re-reads q about Phan enlisting @nytimes.

Finally, Avenatti gets his answer about whether Phan wanted to use the @nytimes to go after @ipsy: "No," Phan answers.
Now Avenatti is getting into how she saved and sent her text messages to investigators, and whether she saved everything.

Avenatti is bringing in more text messages between him and Phan.
"Those are text messages that you and I exchanged in 2018, isn't that true, yes or no?" he asks.
"Yes," Phan answers.

Avenatti offers "entirety" of exhibit of texts as evidence. Sagel stood earlier to stipulate to it, and Avenatti snapped at him to let him continue his cross-examination.

Now we're on a 15-minute break.

As Avenatti was leaving the courtroom for the break, I was chatting with @finneganLAT and Avenatti looked at me and said, "Don't leave." So, probably some questions for Phan coming about my tweets. Stay tuned!

Avenatti just asked that Phan be instructed to only answer the question.
"Let's see how it goes," Selna says.
Now Phan is back on the stand and we're awaiting the jury.

Jury is in and Avenatti is back at lectern continuing cross of @MichellePhan. Avenatti asks if the texts in the exhibit are all the texts from 2017 and 2018. She says it's not a yes or no answer but she'll give her honest answer, and Selna tells her to only answer question.

"To the best of my knowledge, yes, but I change my phones so sometime I don't.." Phan says as Avenatti cuts her off and asks Selna to strike everything after yes.
"It will be stricken. Please just answer the question," Selna tells Phan.

Avenatti still asking about the texts. "I don't remember these text messages, no. I don't have them on my phone." Selna strikes everything after no.
"I truthfully don't remember these messages," Phan says.
Avenatti: "My question is do you dispute the accuracy" of the exhibit?

"No," Phan answers. Avenatti offers the exhibit into evidence. Sagel objects for lack of foundation. Selna tells Avenatti to lay it. Avenatti asks Phan if them and Tran used to communicate through group texts. Yes, they did. They did so regarding @IPSY departure.

Avenatti asks about video Tran sent him, Phan says no she didn't ask him to send them. "These are from my Instagram stories," Phan says.
Avenatti: Yes or no, did Phan send video to Tran of her blowing kiss to Michael and thanking him,
"I don't remember sending him any videos."

"Ms. Phan, did you ever create a video on April 12, 2018, in which you blew me a kiss and said 'thank you Michael' with a heart emoji. Yes or no?" Avenatti asks through clenched teeth.
"This was on my stories," Phan begins. Selna strikes at Avenatti's request.

"I simply want an answer to my question," Avenatti tells Phan. Q again.
Phan: "Yes. I created this Instagram story."
Selna agrees to strike everything after yes. "Ms. Phan, listen to the question and answer just the question." She answers yes about the video and Avenatti moves on

Now we're hearing about the @IPSY deal and Phan's @emcosmetics.
Did you get anything else other than those two things? Avenatti asks, referring to money and Em Cosmetics.
"No," Phan answers.

Avenatti is asking her about their agreement. "It wasn't amended in writing, was it? To the best of your knowledge?"
"To the best of my knowledge, Long took care of this," Phan answers.

Avenatti says she answered a lot of questions about the agreement from Sagel, and "I don't recall you saying Long took care of things" in her answers to him.
Sagel objects and Judge Selna says, "The statement will be stricken. Questions, please."

We're still on the agreement. Sounds like Avenatti is saying he was working on the deal before the agreement.
"We had started working on your exit from @IPSY back in February, isn't that true?"
"Long has more of the details on that. The nuances, I can't recall," Phan answers.

"Are you aware that Long Tran has sat in that seat and testified to this jury?" Avenatti asks.
Sagel objects for relevance and Selna sustains. Avenatti still asking about the work he says he did on the
@IPSY
deal before August 2017 agreement. He says work began in February 2017

Avenatti asks about Phan telling Sagel she'd complained to police. She was interviewed by @NewportBeachPD investigator.
"I don't remember the nuances, but I do remember talking to the police," Phan says.
Avenatti asks if she was interviewed by police often. "No, not often."

Nov. 1, 2018. Phan meets with @NewportBeachPD along with her lawyers, Walter Brown and Andrew Kim.
"Are either Mr. Brown or Mr. Kim in the courtroom today?" Avenatti asks.
"I don't see them, no," Phan answers.

Avenatti asks if she didn't receive @IPSY payment immediately because it had to be sent to her Divinium Labs LLC.
Avenatti says he has something to impeach her testimony. It's part of Phan's interview with @NewportBeachPD.

Avenatti: "Isn't it true that contrary to what you just told the jury" she told police she got 1st payment immediately "like the next day."
"I said like the next day *I believe*" Phan says
Avenatti tells her to answer questions, and she says, "I'm just clarifying." Selna strikes

Phan offered: "This even was so traumatic" but Avenatti cut her off: "Please. Please Ms. Phan. Just answer my questions."
He asks if @newportbeachpd meeting was about possible criminal charges.
"They just wanted me to tell my truth, and that's all I did," Phan answers.

Avenatti is asks about details Phan told @NewportBeachPD. Isn't true she told them Long had advised to have the wire sent to Avenatti's account instead of hers?
"I don't recall that," Phan answers.
Avenatti tells her to turn to certain page of interview to refresh recollection.

"I still don't remember that whole conversation, but if that's what I said, then that's what I said, yes," Phan testifies.

Avenatti asks if she told police she "actually really never contact Michael." "Meaning me," Avenatti says.
Phan doesn't recall, so Avenatti again points her to a page of interview to refresh recollection.

Phan says, "I didn't even save your number in my phone." Judge Selna tells her: "Ms. Phan, please do your best to listen to the precise question you're asked and answer that question and only that question."
Phan says yes, she told police she didn't talk to Avenatti much.

Avenatti brings up her telling police that Long Tran handled everything and "just whatever my signature is needed on, we sign."
Sagel objects to this questioning as improper hearsay and impeachment, but Judge Selna overrules.

Regaring the New York afterparty at Rooftop Standard we heard about in direct, Avenatti says Phan told police hat Avenatti learned of the beauty party and asked if he could go. "You told the @NewportBeachPD an entirely different story, didn't you?"

Phan has the transcript of her interview with her, and Avenatti snaps: "Are you reading a transcript? Please put that down."

Avenatti asks if there are any texts that show Avenatti found out about the event and he wanted to go the afterparty. She begins, and he says, "Ms. Phan, something tells me you're not going to answer my question." Then asks basically the same question again.

"No, I'm not aware of any text messages that implied that about this beauty event."
Avenatti asks if she told police he tried to convince her to download Telegram, an app that allows for the deletion of communication.
Phan: "Yes, I remember you telling me about Telegram."

Avenatti tried to get everything after 'yes' stricken, but Judge Selna wouldn't do it.

A good example of Avenatti's slow line of questioning: "So New York is three hours ahead. You gotta add three hours to the times on these text messages, am I right?" Avenatti asks.
"Yes," Phan answers.

Sagel says Avenatti is now publishing Phan's phone number "after we asked for it to be redacted." He blacks it out. Sagel says the same for Phan's Telegram username. Selna orders it redacted. (My eyesight is way too bad to see anything on the overhead, so no risk with me.)

"Because before you got to lunch, you already had @telegram set up, didn't you?" Avenatti asks.
"No, I didn't. I was setting it up right --" Phan answers as Avenatti cuts her off: "Move to strike, your honor, after 'No I didn't."
"It will be stricken," Selna says.

Jury filed out for lunch. Sagel is telling Selna that Phan has 1 pm business, and she thought she'd be off the stand for it because Avenatti said his cross would only be an hour.
"She's going to have to reorganize things. We're going to complete her testimony today," judge says.

Sagel asked if Phan could possibly continue her testimony later in the afternoon, but Selna agreed with Avenatti it needs to resume after lunch with no other witness in between.

Crave lunch crowd today included a few jurors, Judge Carney (who tells me he still hasn’t been subpoenaed by Avenatti) and (pictured left to right) Agent Ryan Roberson, AUSA Alex Wyman and lead investigator Remoun Karlous. And some really loud road construction.

I'm back in court, and Judge Selna just privately heard Avenatti's offer of proof re: Agent Joseph Varani's testimony. Varani is going to testify. "Mr. Avenatti made a very short but adequate offer of proof," Selna says.

Juror #1 sent a note to Judge Selna saying she's having tooth pain and has an appointment this afternoon. So Selna says we're stopping at 3. He asked juror if she can concentrate until then. "I took some pills...I should be fine until then," she says.

Jury is back and Avenatti is at the lectern continuing his cross of @MichellePhan. He's reminding her that before lunch, they were looking at messages about their visit in New York, which we first heard about in AUSA Sagel's direct.

Avenatti going over messages where Phan is telling Avenatti to set up Telegram, and all he needs is his phone number. 90 minutes later, she texted Avenatti and said actually it's not @telegram, it's @signalapp, which is more private.

Avenatti told her he's on Signal and uses it all the time. They swapped account info.
Avenatti asks Phan if government ever asked her for any texts from her Telegram or Signal apps.
"No," Phan answers.

"I notice Mr. Tran out in the hallway during the lunch break. Is he here?" Avenatti asks.
"His family lives here, yes," Phan answers.
"They live here in the courthouse?" Avenatti asks.
"They live pretty close by, yes," Phan answers.

"He's here today, not yesterday, just to make sure I'm OK, mentally," Phan answers.
Judge Selna strikes last part at Avenatti's request.

Avenatti asks if it's true @NewportBeachPD told them they didn't have enough to charge Avenatti with a crime. But Selna is telling him to move onto another line of questioning after repeated sustained objections.

Avenatti: "You weren't satisfied" with Newport Beach police's response, so that's why you contacted Mr. Sagel and federal investigators?
"I honestly don't recall," Phan answers.

Avenatti brings up a civil case Phan filed against him, says she did it after police told her this was a civil issue.
"One of the things that led you to file your civil action is" what police told you that, Avenatti tries to ask, but an annoyed Judge Selna tells him to move on.

Avenatti asks if she remembers she met with feds about her claims on April 1, 2019.
"I don't remember the exact date, but I do remember meeting them, yes," Phan says.
Sagel and the other prosecutor who left for private practice, Julian Andre were there with DOJ investigators.

Avenatti asks Phan if she told federal investigators what @NewportBeachPD told her about this being a civil issue and not a criminal case. She doesn't remember.
"I told them everything to my best knowledge while my memory was fresh, but it's been two years," Phan says.

Avenatti says she doesn't remember Sagel or anyone else asking what she'd learned from the Newport Beach police about them not thinking there was a crime, "do you?"
"No," Phan answers.
"Nothing further," Avenatti says.
Sagel up for re-direct now.

Sagel is asking Phan if she knows where the texts Avenatti showed her came from. Avenatti stands and says "I'll stipulate that she did not provide them." Sagel asks if he'll stipulate to where they came from.
"You want to ask your next question?" Avenatti says.

Sagel mutters something like, "You want to interrupt?"
Avenatti: "Oh, you want to talk about interrupting?"
Judge Selna: "Mr. Avenatti, address me, don't address counsel."
Sagel returns to questioning Phan.

"How many text messages did he send you where he told you where the $4 million went?" Sagel asks.
"None," Phan answers.
"Zero?" Sagel asks. He looks over his shoulder then walks to his trust flip board and turns to the page with a giant 0 written on it and walks it over.

Sagel asks how many texts Avenatti sent explaining why she didn't get her $4 million.
"Zero," Phan says, breaking down.
"Do you need a second, Ms. Phan?" Sagel asks.
"I'm OK," Phan whispers, barely audible.
Sagel ends with more questions about Avenatti never giving Phan her money

Avenatti is at the lectern for re-cross, and he asks Phan if she'd like to take a break. "It's OK," Phan says.
"Your honor, I'd ask for a break," Avenatti says
"Proceed," Judge Selna tells him.
"I'm sorry, your honor?" Avenatti says.
"PRO-CEED," Selna says.

Avenatti: "Ms. Phan, have you ever heard the phrase trust but verify?"
Judge Selna sustains objection for outside the scope. Avenatti ends by trying to ask about Newport Beach police and getting shut down by Judge Selna.

Next witness is IRS Special Agent Geoff/Jeff (??) Clark. He investigates financial crimes.
"It'll be 22 years next month," Clark says.
AUSA Alex Wyman is doing direct.

This is the summary witness prosecutors had to swap out yesterday when we didn't have trial. The agent they were planning to use is vacationing today. Wyman is asking Clark about his review of the wire transfers underlying Avenatti's 10 wire fraud charges.

It's this chart right here, as I screenshotted from the indictment for my @lawdotcom article the other day.

Clark just said something about Global Baristas LLC and I'm just sitting here wondering if @Global_Barista_'s ears are burning.

Wyman is going through the transfers, asking Clark the dates and the beneficiaries. He matches them all up, and it's surprisingly fast. Wyman is already done with his direct. Avenatti at the lectern now for cross-examination.

Avenatti is asking Clark about his lack of involvement in the case. "You did not prepare" the chart correct? No, he didn't.
Who did?
Members of the investigation team.
Who?
Clark says Ryan Roberson, Wyman, others.

Avenatti asks if he saw Roberson today. Yes, and many days before. "Do you have any reason why he wasn't called to testify about the chart he prepared?"
"No, I was called to testify because Agent Bellis could not testify," Clark says, referring to his now-vacationing colleague.

(I'm having fun imagining the large beer Bellis undoubtedly owes Clark for Clark having to testify in Michael Avenatti's wire fraud trial at the last minute so Bellis can go on his vacation.)

"I didn't create the chart," Clark says.
"So the amount of work was zero?" Avenatti asks, after he positions Sagel's flip board with the 0 behind him

Avenatti is going through the chart row by row and asking if they're evidence of a crime. Clark says no for each.
"Total amount of that evidence would be zero, is that correct?"
"I have no knowledge of the source of funds for any of those transactions."

Avenatti wants to strike the exhibit for lack of foundation, but Selna denies. For re-direct, Wyman simply asks Clark is he verified the information in the chart, and Clark says yes.

Avenatti tries a few questions for re-cross like, why didn't you create your own chart, but Selna sustains Wyman's objections and Avenatti sits down. Clark is off the stand now; I wonder how Bellis' vacation is going?

Next witness is Roberto Amenta, who works at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. "I'm a deputy chief investigator," Amenta says. He's been there since November 1993, in his current role for last two years.

In direct exam with AUSA Alex Wyman, Amenta is confirming that the 10 transactions listed in the indictment went through the federal reserve. They're already done and Avenatti is up for cross.

Avenatti asks about Amenta's meetings with prosecutors.
"Did you also have email communication with the government?" Avenatti asks.
"I did," Amenta answers.
Who did he email with? "IRS Special Agent Roberson," he says.
"I don't remember if the AUSA was CC'd," Amenta says.

I missed the exact context, but Avenatti just asked for a sidebar, which Judge Selna swiftly denied.

Avenatti is asking Amenta about his process for determining the transfers actually went through the system as he said in direct. A lot of technical stuff here.
How did he convey info to agents?
"I informed them that these were all fed wire funds transfers," Amenta says.

A few more questions, including about whether the transfers are evidence of crimes, and Amenta and his court-issued face shield are off the stand.

Now we get to hear about a guy the attorneys have been fighting about for a long time: John Drum. The prosecution's expert witness. He's vice president at the Analysis Group. "We perform financial analysis in various settings." analysisgroup.com/experts-and-co…
"

Drum is a Buckeye, and yes, he includes the The when saying Ohio State University. AUSA Alex Wyman is doing direct. He's asking Drum about his background. Drum started @AnalysisGroup in 2011.

Wyman asks Drum about his payment from feds. "We've been approved for approximately $640,000," he says. But that includes work @analysisgroup is doing on other matters for DOJ, not just Avenatti's case.

"Now the records you reviewed, were they voluminous in nature?" Wyman asks.
"They were," Drum answers. Many thousands of pages.
"Did it take a significant amount of time to review these records?" Wyman asks.

Judge Selna overrules Avenatti's leading objection
"Yes, it took a significant amount of time," Drum answers.

We're hearing about Drum's analysis of what Avenatti did with Geoff Johnson's settlement money. Total expenses listed at $386k. Total advances listed at $352k.
"Right below that, do you see a figure for total expenses and advances?" Wyman asks.
"Yes," Clark answers.

We hear the total. $738k or so. Drum is going over more details, but it's approaching 3 and that juror with the toothache as that appointment, so we're stopping here for the day.

With the jury gone, Selna asks Avenatti how he made the video of my tweets. "A video was taken scrolling through the tweets during the relative time period...as opposed to taking up-teen screenshots and then stacking them as an exhibit."

Selna: "Does it purport to pick up any threads during the same period?"
Avenatti: "I'm going to answer that as best I can. I think I understand what your honor is asking."

Avenatti: "So on Twitter, if there is a successive tweet to a prior tweet by the author..they're stacked, then at the end of the day, there's an unroll function, you can send a message ...to an account and ask them to unroll it."

Avenatti tells Selna, "We tired to make it as easy as possible. It wasn't easy to capture, your honor."
Selna asks about the 22k number that's "part of the heading."
"That's the total number of tweets or tweets and replies from that account since inception to the present."

Selna says, "I've made a sampling of that video; it runs approximately 18 minutes."
Avenatti says they'll try another form if the judge wants one.
"We'll try to make it as user friendly as possible," Avenatti says. But Selna is fine with the video. Says he'll review more.

Regarding this Twitter dustup, a lawyer friend I talk to about the trial had this take: "This is between the defendant and the government. It is up to the government to instruct its witnesses not to read anything..."

"...including social media, about the case. They failed to do so; shame on them. (Or they did so, and the witness did not follow the instruction.) ... In fact, you’re the only one doing her job here."

I'm about to pick up a copy of the video Avenatti made of my tweets from the clerk's office, after I give them $32. Apparently it's on a CD, so this should be a fun technological adventure I'm embarking on this afternoon. Stay tuned!

Here we go! I’m pretty sure I know where my CD reader is that I can plug into my iMac when I get home, so we’re very close to this video being fully available to the public. Stay tuned.

Justice was sunbathing in the grass as I left the courthouse, and it reminds me that i realized the cat I photographed the other day is *another* cat. (Long hair!) But we can just call all the courthouse cats Justice and be OK with it, right?

@threadreaderapp Unroll, please. Thank you! 🚀

Ok I’ve uploaded Avenatti’s video of my tweets to YouTube. I can’t imagine anyone will be able to watch it for more than a minute or so, let alone all 19, but I’ve been surprised before.

I was heartened to see my friends at @jdforward get such prominent placement in the opening. @thislouis and @Foodaism are great journalists who you should follow right now.

Thread broke, continues here:

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1425859771471593475

New filing from Avenatti prosecutors re: undisclosed emails from witness Robert Amenta. "It appears that Mr. Amenta removed government counsel from the email chains when communicating with the special agent, which is why government counsel did not identify these emails initially"

Here's the full filing on Google Drive. Avenatti complained to Selna about Jencks Act violations re: Amenta at the end of court today, so we'll be haring more in the morning, I'm sure. bit.ly/3AFlA2q

Prosecutors' opposition to Avenatti's latest mistrial motion is in, and it's on point with what the judge has been saying. "Moreover, the remedy for any Rule 615 violation would be the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses regarding their exposure..." bit.ly/3k7ijTd

Here's an Avenatti filing from earlier, about the witness he wants to call who tested positive for COVID on Aug. 5. "Witness 1 should testify in person during the week of August 16, 2021 unless she experiences worsening symptoms or serious illness." bit.ly/3m73XV8