Thread by @meghanncuniff

It’s Friday the 13th, and it’s also the 15th day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s wire fraud trial. How will these two forces collide? Find out by following this thread for live updates from the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, California, where I am currently on scene.
⚖️🧵⚖️

Everyone is in court awaiting Judge Selna, who probably is still recovering from having to watch all 19 minutes of that video Avenatti made of my tweets. (I posted it to YouTube here: bit.ly/3AFhGXn) I imagine we'll be hearing about this this morning.

Alright, first up Selna is addressing Avenatti's filings about about the witness with COVID. He agrees if she doesn't have symptoms, she can't testify as the CDC guidelines allowed. AUSA Brett Sagel is not disagreeing. They're going to contact her on Sunday to see how she is.

Avenatti wants to "note something for the record, because I think it's important." He says they subpoenaed witness, but instead of responding, she contacted prosecutors, and now she's talking to them about whether she'll respond to the defense subpoenas.

Avenatti doens't like the contact, says "This is rather bizarre to me. I don't understand it. I don't know why we're proceeding through Mr. Sagel and the government"
Selna: "Sir, the issue before the court" is on bringing witness 1 in. "Do you have any comments on that?"

No, so Selna says we'll see how the witness is feeling on Monday and proceed accordingly.

Selna asks Avenatti for his response to USA's opposition to his mistrial motion. Avenatti says prosecutors originally "led your honor to commit reversible error" regarding the subpoenas, which he corrected by reinstating the subpoenas after he quashed them.

Avenatti basically says Sagel withheld key case law that governed the subpoenas, then after he "led the court astray purposely" he let the subpoenaed agents stay in the courtroom. "He knew he'd gotten away with one, and then he took advantage of it."

Selna agrees if prosecutors were aware of contrary authority it would have been good to bring that forward, but he's still denying the mistrial motion. He again references USA v. Robertson, which says cross exam is the remedy for witnesses hearing testimony etc. under rule 615.

Selna just got the most pumped up I've maybe ever heard him in this trial when Avenatti dissed USA v. Robertson as unclear. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
"Oh I don't agree with that," the judge said. "I don't think Robertson could be clearer about what the remedy is."

Selna is still considering Avenatti's motion to strike Alexis Gardner's testimony because she said she read my trial tweets. Judge says the question is "how many of those did Ms. Gardner actually see?"
"But I appreciate the expansible record as to what was out there," Selna says

AUSA Alex Wyman confirms that today's witness, expert witness, @analysisgroup founder and @OhioState Buckeye John Drum is the prosecution's last witness.
Avenatti just asked where the tabs data are for his @Quickbook records, which has been an ongoing complaint from him in trial.

AUSA Brett Sagel again says that anything they have, they've provided to Avenatti. Goes through history of Avenatti's request for his law firm data, and his lack of mention of any tabs data. Avenatti has been given access to his servers and could have gotten the info then.

Sagel says they even said if there's something specific Avenatti wants, they can address it, and he didn't say anything about the tabs data. Selna just said Avenatti could have subpoenaed the trustee on his bankruptcy case about this.

Avenatti stands up: "Your honor, there's been a number of representations just made to this court that are not accurate, and I'm going to explain why."

Avenatti says government had an obligation to produce the tabs database. He's consistently asked for all financial data, and it hasn't been produced. Paralegal Judy Regnier testified that she made government aware of the tabs data multiple times, but they still didn't produce it.

Avenatti is saying his access to servers was limited, and prosecutors opposed his access to more. He says he's going to file brief about this. Says Selna asked prosecutors if they've fulfilled disclosure requires, and they said yes.

Selna: "I was told yes on multiple occasions."
Avenatti: "And your honor, that was not true."
Selna says go ahead and file something over the weekend. He also reiterates that prosecutors have said they don't have access to this, but Avenatti says government is part of same team.

While we're waiting for the jury, check out my new @lawdotcom article on the trial. bit.ly/3xLyWZ4

"Good morning, Mr. Drum." And with that, AUSA Alex Wyman resumes his direct exam of @analysisgroup founder John Drum, a paid expert witness. We're getting back to where we were yesterday afternoon, with Drum talking about the calculations he did using Avenatti's law firm records.

Drum calculated expenses for Avenatti client Geoff Johnson, and what he was owed. He also determined none of $4 million settlement that went into his client trust account w/ Avenatti actually made it to him. Avenatti used other $ to give him small payments and pay living expense

Wyman has a bubble chart displayed on the overhead, which Drum made tracking transfers out of Johnson's account. Green, yellow and orange bubbles. (Or is that fuchsia?)
Next chart: Activities of EA trust account after receiving Johnson's settlement.

Chart tracks the account getting Geoff Johnson's $4 million deposit in 2015, then as of July 6, 2015, "this account had a balance of zero," Drum says.

Wyman asks if, between the time the money went in January 2015 to it being drained in July, "Are there any transfers to Mr. Johnson in this chart?"
"No, there are not," Drum answers.

We see a list of expenses paid for Johnson such as $5500 a month for his care center.
"In this seven-page chart of account activity, are there any payments to Geoffrey Johnson directly?" Wyman asks.
"No," Drum answers.

Drum says he's aware Avenatti sent periodic payments to Geoff Johnson, which sets the foundation for Wyman brining in another chart.

"This chart shows a graphic depiction of the payments that were made to Geoffrey Johnson," Drum says. (I can see some @uoregon colors up there, which is a nice counter to Drum's status as a Buckeye. c.c. @anthonywarren)

Some of @MichellePhan's money is included in this chart, which Drum says is because "payments to Geoffrey Johnson can be traced to" Phan's departure package with @IPSY.

Another chart, this one a bar chart with blue, yellow and red. It shows how Avenatti also used money from his Tully's Coffee venture aka Global Baristas to pay Johnson. "At least a portion of the $1900 is traceable to the Global Baristas account," Drum says of one payment.

Now we're seeing a three-page chart with blue bars that tracks @MichellePhan's money from @IPSY. Again, like he did with his Tully's Coffee account, Avenatti also used Phan's money for Johnson's $1,900 monthly payments. The payments never came from Johnson's actual settlement.

Now we're hearing about Hassan Whiteside's $2.75 million payment to Alexis Gardner. Drum calculated the attorney fees at $990k. Gardner was owed $1.75 million after costs, Drum says. None of the money deposited into her account actually went to her though, Drum says.

Next chart is titled "Tracing of Alexis Gardner's 1st settlement payment." Questions introducing these charts and info include stuff like, "It looks like there are three arrows going from that bubble, is that right?"

We're seeing withdraws Avenatti made that we've already heard all about, such as Avenatti sending $2.5 million from Gardner to Filippo Marchino's X-Law Group, which was used to buy a jet. But Drum is really tying it all together.

Drum offers this compelling synopsis of his work: "The yellow and orange bubbles are client trust accounts, and the arrows represent flows of money. On the righthand side we have a green bubble for Alexis Gardner, and it shows she received payments from four different accounts."

Another chart: "GB account funds used to make a payment to Alexis Gardner on Jan. 16, 2018" GB is Global Baristas aka the Tully's Coffee venture. We're seeing some pink now, along with blue bars.

Next chart: "GB account funds used to make a payment to Alexis Gardner on Feb. (I didn't get exact date) 2018"

After that, a chart about @MichellePhan's stock repayment money from @IPSY. This is where Avenatti got the $34,000 he had his paralegal send Alexis Gardner after she was really pressing him about her financial problems.

Now we're getting into Greg Barela's charts. Drum lists the initial $1.6 million settlement payment in January 2018. "I reviewed bank records that showed a deposit of that amount into the client trust account," Drum says.

Wyman goes over those records with Drum. Then Drum goes to the legal fees he calculated in Barela's case, and the expenses. $181k in expenses and $760k in fees. Drum determined Barela was $659k of the $1.6 million. But he got nothing.

Wyman asks what the legal fees percentage was based on. Drum says total settlement amount, plus the additional $300,000 that would be paid later. So it was 40 percent of $1.9 million.

Wyman: "Starting with the arrow going down to the bottom, what does that show?"
Drum: "That shows between Jan. 10 and March 14, almost $500k was withdrawn form the client trust fund account of the GB and EA accounts," referring to the coffee and law firm accounts.

Exhibit 442 - a new chart titled "Payments to Greg Barela"
Wyman: "To the right of the dash line, what do these bubbles show?"
Drum: "Those show two other client trust accounts, and the arrows are payments to Greg Barela."
Payments to Barela came from @MichellePhan's @IPSY money.

Wyman asks Drum, based on his analysis of bank records, how much of Barela's settlement did Barela receive?
"Zero dollars," Drum answers.

Now a chart about the @IPSY payments for @MichellePhan, Long Tran and Phan's sister-in-law. Drum calculated Avenatti's fees at $2.7 million, which is the figure we've heard before. 7.5 percent of $37 million. Phan testified yesterday he got it all in the first payment.

And now we're on a 15-minute break.

While we’re on the break, check out my new trial story for @lawdotcom:

“An Armored SUV, '@60Minutes' and @CNN: Avenatti's Defense Draws on His Time in the Spotlight” bit.ly/3xLyWZ4

We are back, and AUSA Alex Wyman is continuing his direct exam of expert witness John Drum of @analysisgroup. More chart talk.
We're seeing transfers to Avenatti's law firm bankruptcy counsel, which we heard a lot about from the actual lawyer the other day.

Avenatti is starting to object under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, but Judge Selna is overruling him. law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule…
law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule…

Another chart: "Activities of EA Trust Account 4613 after receiving a portion of the second repurchasing payment" aka @MichellePhan's money.
The day $3 million deposited, $2.8 million is withdrawn to pay Avenatti's bankruptcy firm SulmeyerKupetz.

11 days later, SulmeyerKupetz paid the IRS $1.5 million, as we heard from lawyer Mark Horoupian in his testimony. (By this time, @IRS_CI was already looking into Avenatti based on criminal referral from civil tax investigation regarding Avenatti's Global Barista coffee venture.)

An exciting piece of testimony emerges from the boredom that is this chart talk: Wyman describes the chart as a "spider web."
Drum goes with it.
"The spider web reflects various accounts..."

Wyman: Other than Phan, Tran and Phan's sister in law, "did any of the other clients, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Barela or Ms Gardner receive a penny of their settlements?"
Drum: "No, that's why there are no arrows that go from those trust accounts across the dotted line."

With that, Wyman has no further questions. Avenatti at the lectern now for cross-examination.

"Mr Drum, good morning. You and I have never communicated before, correct?" Avenatti asks.
Correct. Avenatti asks what CPA stands for, then asks about exam requirements.
"Isn't it true that you barely passed that exam?" Avenatti asks.
"I don't believe that's true," Drum answers.

Avenatti says he has impeachment material. Asks if
Drum took test in 2008, got a score of 77 on regulation part of four-part exam. The minimal score was 75 in order to pass. Selna is sustaining Wyman's objections.

Avenatti tries several times about the minimal score, then moves to what was that part of the test actually about. Isn't it true the exam deals with regulations of accountants, "including legal and ethical requirements."
"I don't know that that's true," Drum says.

"I don't recall with specificity" what that portion of the exam dealt with Avenatti asks if he disputes it, and Drum says no he has no basis to dispute.
Avenatti says, "switching topics" and asks Drum how long he's been working on this case. Since late 2018.

Drum says he first met with prosecutors on Monday. "Everything else was done by phone and email?" Avenatti asks.
"That's correct," Drum answers.
Avenatti asks how he knew the matter concerned California.
"That was my understanding from my discussions with counsel," Drum answers.

"Are you licensed in the state of California has an accountant, sir?" Avenatti asks.
"No, I'm not," Drum answers.
"What is the California Board of Accountancy @CBANews)?" Avenatti asks.
"I don't know," Drum says.

Avenatti asks Drum if he knows it's a criminal misdemeanor to practice accountancy in California without license, but Wyman objects, says it calls for a legal conclusion, and Judge Selna sustains.

Avenatti asks if Drum has made any attempt in the last 2 1/2 years as he worked this case "to become licensed as an accountant in California?"
"No, I have not," Drum answers.

This is Drum's first time testifying in a criminal matter. He says "I don't believe so" when Avenatti asks if he'd ever before done accounting work for any pending criminal cases.

Avenatti asks how he was retained for the case. Drum says government contacted his colleague at @analysisgroup, and colleague Chris Borek though Drum would be a good fit for the work given his background and expertise."

Avenatti asks if Borek worked on the case. "Chris was involved tangentially throughout the matter," Drum answers. Avenatti asks about the engagement letter between Drum and the U.S. Attorney's Office. When has he reviewed it? Multiple times throughout the engagement.

Avenatti: "Have you approved the engagement letter?"
Drum: "I'm not quite sure what you mean."
Avenatti: "Is there anything in the engagement letter that you disagree with?"
Drum: "I don't think so."

Avenatti asks about details of engagement letter. Drum's hourly rate is $495.
"Did you ever tell anyone that you thought that was too little or too much?" Avenatti asks.
"No, I don't have any control over my hourly rate," Drum says. (Borek is senior to him at @analysisgroup.)

Avenatti is asking about Drum's correspondence with prosecutors throughout his work. Drum says he can't give a reliable estimate about their communications, but agrees it's safe to say it was a lot. Avenatti asks about his billing methods. Drum says it was monthly.

"Who reviewed the bills over the last 2 1/2 years to ensure they were accurate?" Avenatti asks.
"I did," Drum answers.
Bills detailed how much time was spent, general tasks performed.

Drum says there were some months with no bills because he didn't perform any services.
"Before taking the stand, did anyone ever ask you to gather the bills?" Avenatti asks.
"No," Drum answers.

"What were you asked to do in connection with this case and who asked you to do it?" Avenatti asks.
Selna overrules Wyman's objection for vague.
Drum says he tracked client account money and traced payments to clients. Avenatti asks for a sidebar, but Selna says no.

"The request related to Jencks, but i'll ask my next question," Avenatti says, indicating he believes he's eliciting testimony about stuff the government has failed to properly disclose to him.

Avenatti is going over info Drum analyzed. Initial database he got wasn't prepared by a bank, it was prepared by government.
"The government informed you at the time that the government had prepared this database, is that correct?" Avenatti asks.
That's correct," Drum answers

Avenatti: "Have you now told the jury everything you reviewed in connection with this case?
Drum: "Everything that I recall."
Avenatti: "What is tabs?"
Drum: "I understand tabs is a term used to describe the spreadsheets that Judy Regnier emailed." Says he reviewed those, too.

Avenatti walks over to his flip board and brings it over to the lectern. He writes something, then asks Drum about it, says it the word TABS with a circle around it. Tells Drum that Tabs aren't spreadsheets, it's software firm used to track costs.

"Did you ever say I want to see the software database Tabs?" Avenatti asks.
"No I did not," Drum answers.

Avenatti asks if he has any idea what Tabs tracked, and Drum says no. Avenatti asks if, while he was getting paid $600+k for this case, did he ever try to figure it out? Drum says no.

Avenatti says that, unlike other witnesses, Drum can review trial testimony because he's an expert witness. "You understood that, correct?" Avenatti asks.
"I don't think I understood that," Drum answers.
Says he didn't ask to review testimony, including Regnier's.

"Who knows more about how expenses and costs were tracked at the law firm, in your estimation - you or Judy Regnier?" Avenatti asks.
Selna overrules Wyman's speculation objection.
'"I would suspect Judy knows more than I do," Drum answers.

Avenatti asks if he's aware Regnier testified that in order to calculate case costs, Tabs must be considered.
"And despite your firm being paid over $600k, you never asked, did you?" Avenatti asks.
"I never asked what?" Drum says.

Avenatti: "You never asked what data would have to be received in order to properly figure out what a client was owed, did you?"
Drum: "I asked for information about client-related expenses, I did."
But he never got the Tabs data.

Avenatti asks if Drum tried to talk to any clients, names each. No, he didn't.
"And you never asked to speak with me or communicate with me did you?"
"No," Drum answers.
"Or Mr Steward or Ms. Cummings Cefali, correct?" Avenatti asks, referring to standby counsel.

Avenatti says Drum has "no idea" what Regnier has said about the accounting at the law firm.
"That's correct," Drum answers.

Regarding clients, "you have no idea what any of them have told the government or the jury, am I correct about that?"
"That's correct," Drum answers.
So you have no idea what they testified to about what they were owed?
Selna sustains Wyman's asked-and-answered objection.

Drum says he's read press accounts of witness testimony.
"Is that on social media?" Avenatti asks.
"No, it was on regular media," Drum answers.

other than that, you have no idea what clients claim they're due? Avenatti asks.
Drum: "Other than what I've seen in the, uh, I don't have any information about what they have stated in court."
"Did you ever ask for any information you were not provided?"
"I don't believe so."

Avenatti asks about rates for others at @analysisgroup. "Is it $50 an hour or $1,000 an hour?"
Drum says he'd guess between $300 and $500.
"If we had the bills, that would tell us?" Avenatt asks.
"Yes," Drum answers.

Avenatti is asking about an @analysisgroup employee who's been working closely with Drum. (Avenatti doesn't say, but this must be the employee he's subpoenaed as his own witness.)

Drum says the employee (Evan Carter) was "heavily involved in helping me prepare for this testimony."
"Including getting down in the nitty gritty?" Avenatti asks.
Drums says perhaps. Avenatti says Drum usually helps others prepare for testimony, but this time Carter helped him.

Carter is based in Denver, but she was in Southern California helping Drum prepare.
Avenatti asks Drum if he's aware they've been trying to serve her with a subpoena, but Selna sustains Wyman's objection.

Avenatti asks Drum if he did mock cross-examinations to prepare, and he says yes. And just as I was wondering this, Avenatti asked it: "Who played me?"
"Evan Carter," Drum answers.
Avenatti was delighted.
"So, so far, did she do a good job?" he asks.

Wyman: "Objection, relevance."
Avenatti: "I’ll ask another question. When did you do your cross examinations when Evan Carrer played me?"
Wyman objects for relevance again, but Selna overrules.
"This week and last week," Drum answers.

Jury gets to leave early for lunch. Now Avenatti is complaining about prosecutors not disclosing everything re: Drum's work.
"This is a very serious matter, and it continues to arise," Avenatti tells Selna.

Says given what happened with emails from previous witness (see USA filing last night), Avenatti says "I think it's pretty clear that this was in absolute bad faith, and I want the materials, and I want them now."

Wyman detailed the disclosures they've made and emphasized Drum is an expert witness. "We've complied with our discovery obligations for Mr. Drum."
Avenatti said he knows of no case law that says Jencks and Brady don't apply to expert witnesses.

Avenatti responded with a lot more for Judge Selna about what he didn't get, then said, "I'm speechless, and as you know, that's rare. But I'm speechless."
Selna kept with his trademark expressionless stare.
"We'll be in recess," the judge says.

So now it's time for lunch. Don't miss my new trial story for @lawdotcom, online now. bit.ly/3xLyWZ4

That trial down the hall w/ Judge Staton just ended with the jury acquitting the neurosurgeon of all counts in the alleged kickback scheme. I was in there for verdict and it was heavy to see the defendant collapse into sobs of relief when he realized he’d been fully acquitted.

I'm back in Selna's court and they're talking about Avenatti's Jencks complaints about correspondence etc from John Drum. Prosecutors have stuff for the judge to review in camera. (I missed most of discussion because I was watching that verdict down the hall, but no decision yet)

OK, jury is back and Avenatti is continuing his cross of @analysisgroup expert witness John Drum. Avenatti is asking Drum about the mock cross exams he did with his colleague. Was anyone else there? No. Were prosecutors privy to them? No.

Drum says prosecutors told him some possible cross questions about fees. Avenatti incredulous that no other topic was discussed. Drum recalls some details of Monday meeting w/ Wyman, Sagel, Agent James Kim and Drum's colleague Evan Carter (who played Avenatti in the mock cross).

Avenatti asking about Drum's communications with government, and Drum says, "There's an automatic system that deletes emails."
"After how long?" Avenatti asks.
"After 30 days," Drum answers.
"In your software program, you don't have the ability to suspend that deletion function?"

"I do have that ability," Drum answers.
Drum says it's not exactly true that all emails delete after 30 days; he can save some.
Avenatti: "Did anyone ever advise you that you shouldn't be deleting emails during the pendency of a federal criminal matter?"
Drum: "I don't think so"

Avenatti: "What are work papers?"
"Work papers are a written record of an analysis, typically associated with an audit function."
But not reserved only for audits.
Avenatti: "Does your firm have any work papers that were prepared in connection with your work in this casa?"

Drum says yes. When Avenatti asks where they are, Drum says @analysisgroup servers. Avenatti asks if he brought them with him to California for his testimony in this case. No, he didn't.

Avenatti: "Has there ever been an instance where you prepared another expert to testify and that expert has brought with him and her notebooks full of their work papers?"
Drum: "No, I don't think I've seen that."

Avenatti: "How voluminous are your work papers for your engagement in connection with this case?"
Drum: "It's tough to estimate."
Avenatti: "5 pages, 1,000 pages?"
Drum: "Closer to a few hundred."

Avenatti asks what Drum did to prepare before he took the stand yesterday. Drum says he reviewed papers, spoke to colleague Evan Carter and the prosecutors.
"Sir, have you ever heard the phrase 'garbage in, garbage out'?" Avenatti asks.
"I've heard that phrase," Drum answers.

"What do you understand the phrase 'garbage in garbage out' to mean?" Avenatti asks.
Drum explains. Basically, if inputs are unreliable, outputs could be unreliable.
"I always aim for my work to be spot on 100 percent correct," Drum replies to another question.

Avenatti is asking Drum if he understood you "close was not good enough" in this very serious criminal matter.
"I always aim to be as accurate as possible," Drum answers.
"Yeah, my question is a little different," Avenatti says.

"You understand in this very serious criminal matter, close is not good enough?" Avenatti asks. This back and forth continues as Drum keeps saying he strives to be 100 percent correct in all his work.

Avenatti is really getting into the Tabs v. @Quickbooks stuff with Drum when Judge Selna interjects from the bench: "Mr. Avenatti, hold your voice down." Avenatti obeys the order.

Avenatti told Drum to just answer his questions, and as Wyman was standing to object as argumentative, Judge Selna told Avenatti: "Sir, just ask questions."

Avenatti got Drum to acknowledge he didn't know Tabs existed. "We already established that you assumed @Quickbooks was accurate?"
Drum says he "relied on Quickbooks as it was given to me."

Avenatti: "Sir, what if an expense was incurred but it was not input in Quickbooks or on the spreadsheet. Would your analysis reflect that?"
Drum: "It would not."

Avenatti asks Drum if he tried to find out about other legal work that may have been done for the clients.
"No, that was not in the scope of my assignment."
"Who determined the scope? Avenatti asks.
Government did.

"So you understood you couldn't even make inquiry about that topic, because it was outside the scope?" Avenatti asks.
"No, I didn't think so," Drum answers.

Avenatti brings up a chart that Wyman went over in his direct. Asks Drum if the total would be wrong if it doesn't include all expenses etc.
"That's how the math works, yes," Drum answers.
"Pretty simple, right?" Avenatti asks.
"Yes," Drum answers.

Avenatti is asking Drum about a $250k transfer that's one of the 10 transfers underlying his 10 wire fraud charges. He asks Drum where the $250k came from before it was transferred. Drum identifies the client trust account: EA 2851 (we've been hearing those account names all day)

Feb. 10, 2015. $15k transferred. "From which account to which account?" Avenatti asks.
Drum says the account, then says it went into Avenatti's @BankofAmerica account. We're hearing a lot of this. Avenatti asking about specific entries and what supports them.

Avenatti: "You don't know whether that was the final cost amount or not, do you?"
Drum: "I don't know whether that was the final cost amount."

Avenatti references a $100k payment.
"So are you able to tell the jury that any of that $50k came from money stolen from Geoffrey Johnson?"
"The $100k? No, I can't say."

Avenatti references the $250k transaction, which Drum said came from $1.6 million (which would be Barela's settlement) I'm missing a few details, but Avenatti asks Drum: "Do you have any idea why they charged me with a federal crime over that payment?"

Judge Selna sustains Wyman's argumentative objection.

Remember, I wrote an article for @lawdotcom on Monday that looks at the legal threshold for Avenatti's wire fraud charges, and it includes a screenshot of the chart with the 10 transactions we're hearing so much about today. bit.ly/3CA9VEa

"Did Mr. Johnson receive any monies from Eagan Avenatti before Jan. 29, 2015 as an advance on his settlement, yes or no?" Avenatti asks.
"I don't recall," Drum answers.

"If he received advances before his settlement, this statement that he received no monies would be wrong wouldn't it?" Avenatti asks.
"No, I don't think that's right," Drum answers.

^^^There was more to that line of questioning, but it didn't go far. Avenatti know asking Drum if he knew who owned Eagan Avenatti. Avenatti says it was him 100 percent.
"Did you understand that I owed any money in AVenatti and Associates" to law partners?
"No, I'm not aware."

Avenatti is saying it's not unusual for a sole proprietor to expense stuff like he did.
Drum: "As long as it's accounted for properly, it's up to the sole proprietor."

Avenatti asks Drum if he ever looked at client banking records to see what money was received. No, he didn't. Did he ever ask to? No.
"You only used what the government gave you?" Avenatti asks.
"I used the information that was provided to me by the government, yes," Drum answers

In the midst of all this, a federal judge in Delaware just dismissed Avenatti's defamation lawsuit against @FoxNews: bit.ly/3jTuJOf
"...most of its statements were substantially true." (hat tip: @baumlegal)

And we're on the 15-minute afternoon break.

20 minutes later, the 15-minute break is over.
"Ladies and gentleman, this is the toughest hour of the week," Selna tells the dutiful jury. Says feel free to stand up and stretch.

Avenatti is back at the lectern finishing his cross-examination of prosecution expert witness John Drum. He's going over the info Drum used to do his analysis and make the charts Wyman entered as evidence during direct exam.

"I accepted them as they were provided to me," Drum says of the information government provided him.
Avenatti asks if he agrees that if the case expenses are wrong, then his calculations are wrong.
"That's how the math works, yes," Drum answers.
"Pretty simple," Avenatti says.

Avenatti is making use of his flip board. I can't see what he's written on it, but he's saying Drum hasn't accounted for any advances or other legal work related to Avenatti's cases.

We're hearing a lot more about Tabs as Avenatti reminds the jury that Drum hadn't heard of it before day.
Avenatti: "Did you ever Google it?"
Drum: "I don't believe I did."

Avenatti: "And you never attempted to buy the software either, did you?"
Drum: "No I never attempted to buy the software."

"Whose idea was to put this in red on the bottom of the charts? Was that your idea or the government's idea?" Avenatti asks.
Drum says he doesn't know.

A few moments of silence interrupted by a coughing juror who soon gets a needed cough drop from the clerk. Now back to Avenatti asking Drum about his calculations and what he didn't include.

"I want to ask you about Delano's Coffee. Because we've hard a lot about Delano's Coffee," Avenatti says. (Not all that much, really.)
Ok," Drum says.
Avenatti: "So let's talk about Delano's Coffee."

And no, he doesn't mean Tully's Coffee/Global Baristas. Delano's has come up in testimony because Avenatti used client money to pay Delano's in association with his Tully's venture.

Wyman asked Drum about Delano's payment in direct. Avenatti is establishing that while the money came out of client Barela's settlement, Avenatti's firm was due enough from that settlement that the Delano's payment was covered. It wasn't from Barela's portion of the $1.6 million.

"Are you aware of any evidence that Mr. Barela was entitle to monies net of the fees and costs, and that this Delano's Coffee payment came from those monies?" Avenatti asks.
"At this point, that distinction can't be made, because it's just the $1.6M in the account," Drum answers.

$659,203. Again, that's how much Drum calculated that Barela was owed after fees and costs.
Avenatti turns to the $617k payment to Florida attorney Ed Ricci. Asks if he's aware if that payment came out of Barela's portion.
"I don't think that's a meaningful distinction to make"

Oh by the way, it's Dillano's Coffee not Delano's as I tweeted above. (A quick search of my voluminous notes turned up an email I sent Dillano's lawyer back in January asking about the bankruptcy trustee trying to claw back $49k Avenatti sent them.)

Avenatti asks if Drum ever consulted a lawyer when analyzing fee agreements. No, he talked to the government. Avenatti references 7.5 percent, which is the fee agreement with @MichellePhan that has *never* been refuted.

"And they said 'yes John, use the 7.5 percent'?" Avenatti asks.
"They agreed with that application," Drum answers.

Avenatti says something like, and we're not talking about a guess, we're talking about a serious criminal case, and Judge Selna interjects: "We're talking about asking a question" and tells Avenatti to quit the commentary.

Avenatti is asking if any clients received money after the initial settlement was paid. "I'm not talking about which accounts, I'm talking about received money.
Drum agrees clients received money, and Avenatti says, "Nothing further, your honor."

Wyman is at the lectern for re-direct. He asks Drum if Avenatti provided hm with any examples of actual costs or fees that weren't calculated. No, he didn't.
"He just provided you with a hypothetical?" Wyman asks, referring to $100k example.
Drum: "That was a hypothetical, yes."

Wyman is showing that Drum's calculations may have actually been a little TOO generous to Avenatti.
"Did you give him credit for those costs that you weren't able to verify?" Wyman asks.
"Yes," Drum answers.

Wyman is going over charts that Avenatti asked Drum about in cross, including one with payment to lawyer Ed Ricci. Wyman goes over a few payments and asks about the account they came from.
"Is that an attorney-client trust account?" Wyman asks.
"Yes," Drum answers.

Wyman addresses Avenatti's cross about Drum's interpretation of legal fees being incorrect by pointing out that Avenatti withdrew the precise amount of the fee that Drum ID'd. (So Avenatti's calculation at least at one point matched Drum's.)

Avenatti at the lectern for re-cross, and his first question is if Drum's position is that the law firm wasn't entitled to deduct its costs and fees from the settlement.
"That's not my position," Drum says.

Avenatti is back on the 7.5 percent fee for @MichellePhan's @IPSY detail, which has NEVER been disputed.
Drum: "I'm sorry, what is IPSY?"
Avenatti: "I'm sorry, did you just ask me what is IPSY?"

Drums confirms he doesn't know, and Avenatti see it as a smoking gun.
"No further questions," Avenatti says.

And with that, prosecutors have rested their case. the jury has left, and Avenatti says he's making a Rule 29 dismissal motion, which is absolutely standard. Judge Selna is going to take it up Tuesday at 8 a.m.

Avenatti tells Selna his release conditions expire next week, and asks for him to extend until Sept. 15, which is his report date for his 30-month sentence in the New York Nike extortion case. Apparently it's not set that Avenatti is going to Sheridan, Oregon.

"I'm waiting for my designation. I expect to have it probably within the next week," Avenatti says.
Sagel tells Selna to only extend release conditions through the end of trial. Selna does it until Sept. 3.

Avenatti says attorney Evan Jenness will testify Tuesday. She represented him in his domestic violence arrest, so "we're going to have to figure out some fencing or parameters" so prosecutors don't bring up the arrest. Selna tells him that's his job.

"You structure your direct such so that the topic's not opened," Selna said.
Avenatti said Jenness' testimony "will be very brief." She's going to discuss "this claim by Barela" about a phone call we heard about in Barela's testimony. (Jenness is currently Tom Girardi's lawyer.)

Selna asks Avenatti for an estimate for his case in chief. "I'd like to be able to tell the jury something on Tuesday," Selna says.
Avenatti says 2-3 days, done by end of Thursday.

Sagel says "there's a good chance" that much of the testimony Avenatti tries to elicit will be inappropriate, referencing Drum's coworker at @analysisgroup that Avenatti subpoenaed.
Selna tells Avenatti: "You better have enough witnesses to fill up the day, Mr. Avenatti."

And with that, we're done for today. Thanks for following along. I'll post new filings as they come in this weekend, and check back Tuesday about 8 a.m. for another thread. 👍

!!! Both cats in one window sill! The original Justice on the right, and her long-haired companion on the left. 😻😻

@threadreaderapp Unroll, please. Thank you! 🚀