It’s the 2nd day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s Stormy Daniels trial in Manhattan, and book agent Luke Janklow of @JanklowNesbit is to take the stand again at 9. We saw a ton of messages yesterday between Janklow and Avenatti that highlighted how smitten Janklow was with him. 
Avenatti instructed Janklow not to discuss money with Stormy, and he obeyed for months and months, running all her correspondence by Avenatti and ignoring her at his request.
Janklow even testified he asked Avenatti’s permission to call Stormy on the eve of book publication to congratulate her like he does all his clients. He wasn’t asked what Avenatti said, but he was asked if he ended up congratulating Stormy, and he said he doesn’t think he did.
This is in the midst of all these messages from Janklow disparaging people and chumming up with Avenatti, all the way through 2018 and into 2019. He was just totally taken by Avenatti, after being introduced to him by his longtime friend @andersoncooper.
That is, until Stormy and her friend Denver Nicks (one of the “fucking diluted clowns” Janklow was just so sorry Avenatti had to deal with) were messaging him so much he started to get uneasy about it and told Avenatti he’d never treated clients like this. bit.ly/32unlUO
Then in Feb 2019 Stormy told Janklow Avenatti wasn’t her lawyer anymore & to stop discussing her business with him. Cross is about highlighting Janklow’s problems w/ Stormy. Andrew Dalack, who’s representing Avenatti w/ Robert Baum and Tamara Giwa, said he has 30-40 minutes left.
We may hear from Avenatti’s old lawyer Sean Macias later. (Remember: no electronics in the courthouse so no live tweeting from me. Any live tweets you see are from court-credentialed media in the press room listening to a live feed. They are not in the courtroom.)
Here’s book agent Luke Janklow of @JanklowNesbit arriving at the Moynihan courthouse in New York City with his @SkaddenArps lawyers for the rest of his testimony today in his old friend Michael Avenatti’s Stormy Daniels trial.
Michael Avenatti just tired to fire his counsel and take over his own representation in the Stormy Daniels trial just now. Judge Furman wouldn’t let him because the trial has already started.
This is after his public defenders tried to employ the same aggressive tactics Avenatti did in his California trial but came up short. Ex paralegal Judy Regnier is about to testify remotely, but public defender Robert Baum asked Furman for a break to talk to Avenatti.
Baum told Furman “a serious issue has arisen regarding our continued representation” of Avenatti and they need to talk. But Judge Furman was not having it. “I’m not doing it right now.” Avenatti stood up but Furman told him, “Mr. Avenatti, please have a seat.”
Baum spoke up and said Avenatti had a right to represent himself, but Furman said it after the jury is sworn in and trial has started. Said they’ll take this up during the 45-minute break, but the ex-paralegal is ready to testify and Furman doesn’t want to waste her time.
So we’re going to hear more about this later today. Furman said the cross of Regnier won’t start for a while, it’s just direct now, so Avenatti isn’t prejudiced.
Now I gotta head back in so turning off phone and checking it with security. Check back later for updates!
Ok, we’re on a break for another 23 minutes (it’s a tight ship around here), which Judge Furman said is adequate time for Avenatti to talk to his counsel about his desire to go pro se. But the judge point blank said if a request is made, he’s not going to grant it.
Furman urged Avenatti and his public defenders to “have a serious discussion” and said he is mindful of Avenatti’s 6th Amendment right, but that right is “sharply curtailed” once trial begins. “Long story short, I’m not going to allow the request if one is made,” the judge said.
Judge Furman wants to know by the end of the break if Avenatti is going to request to go pro se. If he does make the request, Furman said they’ll take it up at the end of the day. (Given what else the judge said, that translates to ‘I’ll reject it at the end of the day.’)
It’s definitely a different world here than what Avenatti got with his trial in Orange County last summer. He’s obviously trying to get his public defenders to employ the same aggressive tactics that prosecutors say drip with bad faith, and it hasn’t worked out very well today.
So Judge Furman did a complete 180 over the break and now appears ready to let Avenatti represent himself. Avenatti described a breakdown between him and counsel, including over the scope of the cross of his paralegal that’s coming up today.
Avenatti also mentioned that Furman has said a couple things about his counsel filing things late. But it’s mostly Judy’s cross he said is driving it. Furman is going through the same type of questions Judge Selna asked Avenatti when he went pro se in California.
I heard public defender Robert Baum whisper to someone in the audience that Avenatti is going pro se and that “this was always coming.” I ducked out when it became obvious Furman was going to approve so I could update here but am headed back in now to hear the rest of it.
They’re finished, with Avenatti estimating another 45 minutes of cross for Regnier, ex-paralegal. She’s testifying remotely from the West Coast so that means she’ll have to be ready for testimony at 6 a.m. her time. Judge Furman apologized for that, “but such is life,” he said.
Furman said with 4 minutes to go that he wanted to go up until 3 pm. Avenatti soon told him, “Now is a good breaking point. You can use the 2 minutes against me.” And Judge Furman ice-cold refused! Nope, keep going, the judge said, and it’s actually 3 mins. #welcometoNewYork
Requisite Avenatti media scrum video. “I’m not in the business of comparing federal judges,”He tells me. (That’s my job.)
The questions during these “follow him as he walks” scrums are always pretty asinine, and today sure didn’t steer from that.
One big difference in Judge Furman’s court compared to other courts I’ve covered: He doesn’t make the attorneys state a reason for their objections. Followers of my coverage of the California trial saw a lot about the Federal Rules of Evidence because of all the 401, 403 talk.
But not here. I’ve never heard Furman ask a reason for objection, he just sustains or overrules. So every time Furman sustains an objection to Avenatti’s question, Avenatti just re-asks question in a different form. If they stated reasons for objections it could speed that along.
Re: Avenatti’s pro se move today. As his lawyer Robert Baum said this was always expected. Avenatti wasn’t enjoying the benefits of the aggressive tactics he employed in CA, but it’s also possible he just wanted to wait and go pro se until after Luke Janklow got off the stand.
Avenatti can do real well on cross against the younger lawyers who used to work with him, and his ex office workers, but Janklow is a towering presence. He’s 6-foot-6, sharp tongued and a total “Manhattan is the only place in the U.S.” metro culture power player guy.
Avenatti trying to cross him really would have been something, and I don't think Avenatti wanted anything to do with it. The next witness was real quick testimony from the federal agent who arrested him in 2019, then came Judy Regnier and soon, Avenatti's pro se move.
My favorite Janklow quote today was when Avenatti's lawyer Andrew Dalack (at the time, now he's standby counsel) asked Janklow about a phrase he used, "asinine publishing bullshit," and Janklow clarified: "It's a colloquialism."
We saw a bit more evidence today of how infatuated Janklow (of @JanklowNesbit) was with Avenatti back in 2018, including an email he sent Avenatti about Stormy's book contract that ended, "Please advise Mr. Darrow." Yes, Janklow was referring to Clarence Darrow.
One noticeable thing in Dalack's cross of Janklow today was it shifted more to "Avenatti did a lot of great work for Stormy and on this contract" rather than yesterday's "Stormy was really hard to work with." But it ended up kind of a disaster for Dalack.
Because Furman cut him off. After warnings to move on to new questioning lines, then telling him he had only three questions left, the judge finally pulled the plug on the cross of Janklow and told Dalack to sit down.
Then Dalack tried to a pull a "Avenatti in California trial" and refuse to let Janklow be excused as a witness, so they can recall him on defense. And Furman shut him down on that, too. But is that Dalack's fault? Or is Furman just different than Judge Selna?
"I don't want to hear you. The witness is excused," Furman said. Furman later told Dalack he didn't ask a single relevant question in his entire cross of Janklow this morning, and said he could have cut him off sooner. "You failed to take the hint. That on you," the judge said.
^^^ that should be, "that's on you" of course. One big issue was time. When Dalack explained to Furman the questions he had wanted to still ask of Janklow, it was obviously longer than his 45-minute estimate. (Furman told he cut him off at "minute 43.")
Avenatti had probably implored him to slow it down, because that's Avenatti's entire game plan when he questions witnesses. Very slow. Very step by step, part by part. His first question to Regnier, so first thing said before the jury, was "Who is Luke Janklow?"
Followed by 'who is' questions for people involved in the book contract, followed by questions about whether she knew any of them, which of course she didnt. Long line of questioning about how she had no involvement in book contract, with questions about each step of the process.
But Furman started shutting him down on questions about @Tabs3software, including, pretty crucially, his questions about whether Regnier was asked by investigators to look for Tabs. Those types of questions were fundamental to Avenatti getting that mistrial in California.
For background on that, read this trial article from back in August. If the California mistrial had a slogan, it'd be "WHAT IS TABS?" bit.ly/2W3ffQ1
(Avenatti did say good afternoon to Regnier before he asked her who Janklow was, for record.) When he started asking her about case expenses etc., this is what I wrote in my notebook in anticipation. I never got to put quote marks around it, though.
Avenatti did say "called Tabs. Tabs, right? T-A-B-S?" after Regnier mentioned the firm billing software, which btw is on Twitter. @Tabs3Software. But Furman started sustaining objections, and he refused Avenatti's request for a sidebar. So the Tabs talk didn't last long.
Another Furman shutdown: Avenatti showed Regnier a printout of an article by me (!) for the @LADailyJournal's Top Verdicts issue, back in February 2018, about the firm's big Kimberly-Clark verdict. (That case coverage is how I met Avenatti, just after the April 2017 verdict.)
Just before he filed the Stormy lawsuit against President Trump, "the firm had been honored, right?" Avenatti asked Regnier. She wasn't quite sure what he meant, so he showed her "defense exhibit A," the print out of my article. (They have to pay for those reprints.)
"There was a write up in the legal newspaper called the Daily Journal, which is the legal newspaper in Los angles, and the firm had been honored for receiving the single largest verdict," Avenatti's question to Regnier began.
He asked if she recalled Daily Journal had listed other verdicts, too, but Avenatti's verdict was the No. 1. But he then moved to enter the exhibit into evidence, and Judge Furman simply said: "Denied." And that was that. No immortalized byline for me in the SDNY case files.
Here’s Andrew Dalack leaving court today, carrying with him a University of Michigan hat. He keeps that hat on the defense table in back of Avenatti, and it reminds me of another big Michigan fan: Avenatti’s arch-nemesis in California, @USAO_LosAngeles prosecutor Brett Sagel.
That’s according to this 2007 @ocregister article on Sagel: bit.ly/32vIgqv I’m sure he’d be glad to know there was a little piece of the @UMich Wolverines in court today.
Here’s something we could hear about tomorrow when Avenatti asks Furman for a break so he can participate (although maybe not because I can’t imagine Furman would allow it): California bankruptcy judge hearing on trustee’s motion to comply with SDNY and Avenatti defense subpoenas
Regarding that Daily Journal exhibit Furman rejected - if he had admitted it, I wonder if prosecutors could try to enter into evidence this Daily Journal article from the next year, in which the @gibsondunn team that gutted Avenatti’s verdict was honored. bit.ly/34bJ8RP
The prosecutors in Avenatti’s Nike case, who include current trial prosecutors Matthew Podolsky and Robert Sobelman, just filed this advising Judge Gardephe of Judge Furman’s ruling that the Central District of CA and Southern District of NY aren’t the same prosecution team.
This is in relation to the issue I wrote about here, where Judge Gardephe is reviewing the California trial record regarding the Tabs financial data. bit.ly/3F9xfZb
For what it’s worth, a source who knows this saga well told me Judge Furman’s ruling is spot on because the Avenatti prosecutors in @SDNYnews and @USAO_LosAngeles truly aren’t one unit. “They actually hate each other’s guts,” source said.
Still, personal animosity between the prosecutors may not factor in much if this issue comes up on appeal, which it very well could in the 2nd Circuit opening brief due next month in Avenatti’s Nike extortion conviction appeal.
Prosecutors just filed this motion to limit Avenatti’s cross-exam of Stormy because “appears the defendant intends to delve into multiple topics during the cross-examination of Ms. Daniels that have no bearing on the issues at this trial.” bit.ly/3u5MSiJ
Prosecutors said today it’s very unlikely they’ll get to Stormy’s testimony tomorrow. Which would make Thursday the very likely day for her to take the stand.
Avenatti’s lawyer in Nike filed his own letter to Judge Gardephe regarding Furman’s ruling on New York and California prosecutors not being one unit, saying it actually supports a new trial because Avenatti didn’t have the CA case financial info during Nike like he does now.
Here’s background on Avenatti’s request to Gardephe for indicative ruling to 2nd Circuit re: Nike conviction. It comes as he’s cooperating in a lawsuit in CA against Mark Geragos, which btw was scheduled for status conference yesterday. Wonder how it went. bit.ly/3Hpbsyt
@threadreaderapp Unroll, please. Thank you! 🚀
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
