Thread by @meghanncuniff

It’s the third day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s Stormy Daniels wire fraud and identity theft trial in Manhattan, with Avenatti taking over his own representation yesterday. He’ll be finishing cross of his ex-paralegal starting at 9 am. Follow this thread for updates. ⚖️🧵⚖️

Remember, Avenatti cross-examined the paralegal, Judy Regnier, last summer in his California trial, over the course of a couple days. You can find PDFs of my Twitter threads from her testimony here: bit.ly/3iNTpZf

That exam’s scope was of course much broader than it is in the Stormy case. The California case involves five clients (Geoff Johnson, Alexis Gardner, Greg Barela, @MichellePhan and Long Tram), and also tax and bankruptcy fraud charges that Judge Selna bifurcated.

Avenatti tried to get this Stormy Daniels case transferred from NY to California and combined with the client fraud case. 2019 memo says what I’ve seen in trial this week: the facts of the Stormy case well match the facts of the other client fraud charges. bit.ly/3FZ9689

New York prosecutors opposed, and Judge Deborah Batts rejected the transfer request. Judge Furman ended up with the case after Batts died. (I wonder how Furman feels about that transfer request being denied, and how he’ll feel at end of trial?) bit.ly/3Avz0PS

One thing from yesterday, AUSA Sobelman mentioned Geoff Johnson in his direct of Regnier because Avenatti used some of Stormy’s book money to pay Johnson. That payment would be what California prosecutors call a lulling payment, a key component of the wire fraud scheme.

I believe the question was “Who is Geoff Johnson?” and jurors heard that he was a client of the firm. But they of course heard nothing about the fact that Johnson is hardly a client anymore, he’s actually a charged victim of Avenatti’s in another criminal case.

It’s stuff like that that underscores how the Stormy case really could have been combined with the California case, and goes to the reasons why people tell me there’s deep animosity between the Nee York and California offices over the Avenatti prosecutions.

The jurors here who heard about Avenatti’s payments to Johnson surely have no clue who Johnson is, and how that payment was part of a much larger fraud scheme. The case is purely about this porn star and this supposedly celebrity lawyer who represented her.

Avenatti is to finish his cross-exam of Regnier today, who’s testifying remotely from Arizona. I’m very interested to see what Furman lets him do, and how the judge responds to objections over Avenatti’s questioning tactics.

One thing that hasn’t worked as well for Avenatti in this court is his bids to suppress all mentions of lavish lifestyle and high-purchase spending. That’s limited here like it was in California, but Judge Selna ordered some redactions I know prosecutors there didn't agree with.

But Judge Furman was shooting down Andrew Dalack (Avenatti public defender) when he was raising similar complaints about unredacted stuff in exhibits yesterday.

Another thing to watch is how Avenatti interacts with his now-standby counsel. Yesterday, before trial started and before he went pro se, I say him squaring up Dalack’s shoulders and straightening his tie for him. “There ya go,” Avenatti told him.

One other thing: There’s a hearing today at 11 a.m. PST in in California, regarding subpoenas prosecutors and defense issued to trustee for Avenatti’s bankrupt law firm, including for Tabs data. Avenatti participated in the last hearing, thread here:

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1481755251233284097

I can’t imagine Furman will allow a break in trial so Avenatti can participate, and Avenatti has a bankruptcy lawyer who can handle the hearing. But here’s a reason Avenatti could ask Furman, anyway: Slow it down.

It’s all part of Avenatti’s strategy to slow down the trial, and amplify the significance of what he’s facing and what he’s trying to do. In California, there was almost always something to discuss during the breaks. But let’s see how Judge Furman responds to that approach.

Here’s Avenatti arriving at court today. Media mob.

Ok they’re on a break until 12:15, and just before they left Judge Furman said he believes the jury may be getting the wrong impression about the Tabs data per Avenatti’s cross of his paralegal. Furman said Avenatti has long had access to it but prosecutors haven’t.

Furman said maybe the Tabs and Quickbook data will finally become available for this trial, but as of now, the jury may have the wrong impression about prosecutors’ access to it. Avenatti had kind of an ominous response: “I’ll wait for the Tabs issue to ripen.”

But Avenatti told Furman, “The suggestion that I’ve had access to that data I don’t believe is accurate.” Remember: If the California mistrial had a slogan, it’d be “What is Tabs?” @Tabs3Software

Probably the most inflammatory thing Avenatti said this morning was when he asked Regnier if she remembered the firm paying $100k to suppress a compromising video of Stormy Daniels on the eve of the @60Minutes interview in 2018.

Avenatti was able to get in that the video was from a guy named “Bubba the Love Sponge” (radio host.) Regnier answered that she didn’t recall, so Avenatti asked, “You don’t dispute it, though?” And Judge Furman sustained prosecutor’s objection.

Another thing: Avenatti served Luke Janklow of @JanklowNesbit with subpoena, and his @SkaddenArps lawyers have filed motion to quash. Furman is to take it up at the end of day. (It doesn’t look like the filing is docketed yet.) Prosecutors say Janklow has travel plans tomorrow.