Thread by @innercitypress

OK - it's US v. Avenatti, Day 8, now the closing arguments in the Stormy Daniels case. Inner City Press covered the charging conference innercitypress.com/sdnytrial15ave… and will live tweet the summations and legal instructions, thread below

https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1487467879683526662

Judge Furman: Welcome back, jurors. Now you know Mr. Avenatti was a part of these events, so he will inevitably refer to himself in his closing. But he is not testifying. The government may proceed.
AUSA: "The defendant was a lawyer who stole from his own client."

AUSA: He told lies to try to cover it all up. Lies he told to try to get away with it. But he failed. His lies caught up with him. At this trial, the truth came out. Defendant's lies were exposed. He committed fraud and ID theft.

AUSA: Ms. Daniels signed a book contract, which agreed to pay Ms. Daniels $800,000 in four installments. The first went fine. But the second, the defendant stole. She asked, Where's my money? So he called Mr. Macias and asked to get a loan & got one [from Geragos]

AUSA: Defendant spent the money on his ex-wife, his girlfriend, car payments... But he got tangled in his own web of lies. That is why we are here. Look at this exhibit: Ms. Daniels complained - she didn't know that the defendant had taken her money.

AUSA: You know that the second payment had been made on time, but defendant was keeping her on the dark. Then came the third payment, and more lies. October 2, 2018, the book was published. The defendant invested a new lie. GX 35

AUSA: He invented a new lie - that the payment was dependent on her doing publicity. But that was the fourth payment Now GX 37: on October 26, 2018 Ms. Daniel wrote, the publisher owes me money. He wrote back, Agreed. That was false.

AUSA: Defendant didn't say, I took the money because we agreed. Or, I took the money because I earned it. He said, Let me check. What was he going to check - the empty bank account he stole from? GX 302E

AUSA: Now defendant switched from his "let me check" lie to his "publicity requirement" lie. The third book payment was paid early, it was not held up waiting for a letter about publicity. GX58: On Feb 12, 2019, Ms. Daniels wrote, Did you speak to publisher?

AUSA: The defendant told Mr. Janklow that Ms. Daniels had money problems, pay her the 3d payment early. But he planned to steal it. He kept them from speaking to each other. Mr. Janklow said, He asked I have all conversations particularly about money through him.

AUSA: Here is a text message: "Dude, she just called me again... She is a client, I have obligations to her." Why would the defendant not let Mr. Janklow speak with his own client? To not get caught. GX31: Ms. Daniels complains, Mr. Janklow has not called me

AUSA: Then there's the fake letter he used to trick Mr. Janklow. GX 210. He told Mr. Janklow to send the money to a bank account that he controlled. But Mr. Janklow wanted instructions from her. He texted, "We need something from Stormy."

AUSA: So here is GX 213, the fake letter, with copy and paste signature. The defendant didn't ask for Ms. Daniels submission. Ms. Daniels told you she never had anyone sign her contracts.

AUSA: Then there is the lawyer's duty to serve his or her client. Violation of these, without more, does not constitute wire fraud. But you will hear Judge Furman's instructions. I expect he will instruct you that a lawyer must promptly provide info to client

AUSA: Think back to Ms. Regnier's testimony. Defendant and his law firm were broke. They were evicted. She said payments and payroll were late. No party at the Montage in December 2018.

AUSA: Then Mr. Janklow sent Ms. Daniels proof of defendant's schemes and it became to unravel...
There are two charges here: Wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. There is overwhelming proof, of intent to trick Mr. Janklow to send her money to him

AUSA: The fake letter makes out aggravated identity theft. Mr. Avenatti's defenses are just distractions. There's the "everyone is lying or crazy" defense. There's the "I deserved it" defense. He suggests he was entitled to Ms. Daniels money. That doesn't matter.

AUSA: His work doesn't provide any excuse for his fraud. And did Ms. Daniels have some unusual experiences? Sure. But what she's said has been backed up by dozens of messages.

AUSA: The defendant is guilty.
Judge Furman: Let's take a short break before Mr. Avenatti's closing. Jurors, do not discuss the case.
Story coming on InnerCityPress.com & patreon.com/MatthewRussell…

[With jurors out of room]
Avenatti: I'm going to request a curative instruction about what the AUSA said about the bar rules --
Judge Furman: The request is denied. See you in 5 minutes.

They're back.
Avenatti: When I was a teenager, my father sold hotdogs in a ballpark --
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Sustained.
Avenatti: This is a fight for credibility.

Avenatti: Look at Exhibit R50. Mr. Janklow wrote, I can't believe you're still remotely sane. He had just gotten a communications from Ms. Daniels. I had not told them not to communicate. What the government told you is false.

Avenatti: Mr. Janklow sent this directly to Ms. Daniels, no involvement by me. Perhaps you could overlook one or two text messages that the US just forgot. But there's more. R60. Mr. Janklow, on Dec 2, 2018: Stormy WhatsApp-ed me this. Oh please God no.

Avenatti: Mr. Janklow said Ms. Daniels should "face her own bullsh*t." Now let's talk a moment about Ms. Daniels. Some of you may admire her. I understand that. The evidence shows that I did too, for a long time, that I put it all on the line for her.

Avenatti: But when a person walks into this courtroom, this hallowed ground, they have to tell the truth. She was less than honest with all 18 of you. It's not admirable. Alot of people don't like attorneys. The thing about it, thought, when you need 1, you need 1

Avenatti: Ms. Daniels was about to embark on a fight with the President of the US, the most powerful person on the planet. And the evidence shows I took that on. But I didn't agree to do it for free. Attorney's cost money.

Avenatti: Why would I give up my right to this money, and then steal it? No one would do that. If I was so desperate for money, why would I give up my right to the money? It makes no sense.

Avenatti: This should result in me being found not guilty. Unless you can answer those two questions. I submit there is no logical answer because it doesn't make sense. Let me be clear; Michael Avenatti never committed these crimes.
[No third person?]

Avenatti: There is insufficient evidence to show that Michael Avenatti had a scheme to defraud Ms. Daniels, or even intended to harm Stormy Daniels, or sent an unauthorized or false letter to Luke Janklow in order to get the money for himself.

Avenatti: Good faith is a complete defense to a charge of wire fraud... I don't have to prove that I had a good faith belief, though I believe the evidence shows I did. The government must prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt. They have not done that.

Avenatti: When you go back into that deliberation room, look at the fee agreement, if if you can find where it says I was working for free, or for a total of $100. You won't find it.

Avenatti: Paragraph 3, client's duty to be truthful, to cooperate with attorney, to abide by this agreement and to pay bills for reasonably incurred costs on time. So, I wasn't working for free. I wasn't agreeing to adopt Ms. Daniels.

Avenatti: Under the contract I was to get $100 and our hourly and out of pocket costs and, if I assisted Ms. Daniels on a book contract I was to receive a reasonable percentage. The US has not even argued what a reasonable percentage out be. It's not zero.

Avenatti: Ms. Daniels said, You're very entitled. Then she said this more important word: Yes. She understood I was entitled to be paid from the book deal.

Avenatti: Ms. Daniels doesn't know what the contract says... There was the law suit against the strip club in Florida. Against a horse trader in Texas. It wasn't done for free.

Avenatti: In the ten years before she met me, Ms. Daniels had made no progress in getting her a book deal. I did that - I was instrumental in that. The US wants you to think everyone else had a right to be paid other than Michael Avenatti. That is ludicrous.

Avenatti: Look at the bank statements. March 28, for $20,000. We weren't obligated to pay these security costs. But we paid them - and we expected to be repaid.

Avenatti: The security costs were Ms. Daniels' responsibilities. She was ultimately responsible to pay or reimburse my firm. Exhibit 2 discusses some of the costs but not all. It shows thousands of hours on Ms. Daniels' account.

Avenatti: I'm not the one who suggested two 24 hours security guards. That's what Ms. Daniels wants. She wanted an entourage. I guess there's nothing wrong with that. But it's wrong to expect someone else to pay for it.

Avenatti: Ms. Regnier said to find out how much Ms. Daniels owned us, you'd have to look at Quickbooks, bank statements - and TABs. Why didn't the government show you that?
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Sustained. Move on.

Avenatti: Instead, the US called a witness to give you a small portion of the story. GX 702, the agent testified under examination by his colleagues he said the costs had nothing to do with Ms. Daniels --
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Sustained.

Avenatti: The US is trying to convince you that me and my firm were not entitled to get paid what we were due. But we had good faith. Ms. Daniels even to this day can't testify to what payments she received or did not receive. She was asked about Mr. Cohen's pod

Avenatti: She was asked and said, She got the first two payments. But on the podcast she said I intercepted the fourth payment. Then she didn't deny saying it. Then about Sept 2021 on Cohen's podcast, she said she couldn't remember. Perfect memory?

Avenatti: Her testimony has been a moving target, entirely inconsistent. She was asked - and I submit this destroys the US' case - she agreed I had authority over the trust accounts.

Avenatti: When you look at 302E, three of the payments into the trust account came from Janklow and Associates. She said I had complete authority over them.

Avenatti: And then you get to the big lie. I asked Ms. Daniels if she ever told me her bank account was closed. His Honor stepped in to clarify things, asking Ms. Daniels if she told me the account was closed. No. His Honor's questions.

Avenatti: ST12. July 19, 2018. I was discussing with Ms. Daniels that her husband had just cleaned out her bank account and fled with her daughter, according to the evidence.
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Overruled.

Avenatti: She was asked if the bank couldn't just remove him from the account. She replied, "No, so closed it." Ms. Daniels lied on the stand. I asked for the money because the other account was closed. There was nowhere else to send it. She tried to hide the money

Avenatti: So this is not aggravated identity theft. Ms. Daniels' false testimony results in a not guilty verdict for me. By the way, you won't find any of these items on the US' timeline. They don't want you to focus on the whole story.

Avenatti: The AUSA said Ms. Daniels has some unusual beliefs. Her testimony shows she is not credible. It is unfortunate. She claims to have the ability to talk to the dead. And a doll who plays the piano and calls her mommy. She made up having a mass in her head

Avenatti: Does this sound like someone the US should be using as their star witness in a criminal trial?
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Furman: Sustained.
Avenatti: Can you rely on this person? I submit that the answer is No.

Avenatti: Where is Denver Nicks?
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Jury, I'll be instructing you later.
Avenatti: The texts show I could have communicated better with Ms. Daniels. "I accept responsibility for that."
AUSA: Objection!
Judge: Sustained. Jury, disregard.

Avenatti: Failing to communicate is not a crime. His Honor will instruct you I am presumed innocent until you reach a final conclusion. This is a bedrock of our society, for 100s of years.

Avenatti: I conclude with this. I'm Italian, I like Italian food -
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Furman: Sustained.
Avenatti: The dish the US is trying to feed you has a giant cockroach in the middle of the dish. Would you eat it or send it back? Send it back.

Avenatti: Find me not guilty. That is exactly what I am.
Judge Furman: Thank you, Mr. Avenatti. Jurors, you may now have your lunch.
(Cockroach and hotdog) story coming on InnerCityPress.com and patreon.com/MatthewRussell…

[With jury gone]
Judge Furman: I gave a number of curative instructions. But Mr. Avenatti still brought up TABs, implying the US had access to the info. It raises a question whether another instruction is needed.
AUSA: We were going to raise that.

[They're back]
AUSA: After reflection, we're not requesting any further curative instruction.
Avenatti: Is there a time estimate on the rebuttal?
AUSA: I expect it is will be shorter than defendant's summation.

Judge Furman: Let me give you an update. We're waiting on a couple of the jurors.
Avenatti: Your Honor, may I run to the bathroom?
Judge Furman: You may.

Now: "Jury entering!"
Judge: We'll hear the government's rebuttal.
AUSA 2: The defendant's argument in this case do not make sense. He talked about security guards and legal fees, things that don't matter in this case. This case is not complicated.

AUSA: The truth is, that man took someone else's money. He switched the bank account without telling her, supposedly to help her. But he spent it.

AUSA: But he has a different argument as to the 3d payment - he claims he was entitled to it.
Avenatti: Objection, your Honor!
Judge Furman: Overruled.
AUSA: He mentioned a "big lie." He says he was authorized to spend her money, and maybe get it back in time

AUSA: What he did was have his assistant cut Ms. Daniels' signature from one document and paste it into another. Ask yourself, Why was Ms. Daniels telling the defendant she hasn't been paid if she knew he had taken it for her.

AUSA: There are rules that apply to trust accounts. Judge Furman is going to explain that to you. The rules are --
Avenatti: Objection!
Judge Furman: Overruled.

AUSA: When you think about good faith, ask yourself, was it good faith when the defendant repeatedly lied to Ms. Daniels? Was it good faith to get her book agent to not respond to her?

AUSA: This is like if you catch your girlfriend or your spouse cheating on you --
Avenatti: Objection!
Judge Furman: Overruled.
AUSA: You catch them with text messages and they says, Uh, I'll look into it.

AUSA: Mr. Avenatti did get paid - from the crowd funded legal defense fund. He even sent the numbers to Ms. Daniels. One of the costs is $300,000 for security - but here it says it was paid for out of the CrowdJustice fund

[Whatever the figure on security]
AUSA: It was paid out of the CrowdJustice money, as was Mr. Avenatti's work... Mr. Avenatti went after Ms. Daniels for five hours.
Avenatti: Objection!
Judge Furman: Overruled.

AUSA: Ms. Daniels can believe whatever she wants, she still doesn't deserve to be stolen from. And what is she lying about that is not in a WhatsApp message? Mr. Avenatti heaped insults on her. But Ms. Daniels was stolen from by her own attorney.

AUSA: I am going to wrap up. You got back, look at the exhibits and you'll see what happened. One suggestion. The defendant essentially said, I'm entitled to take the money. Go back and ask: If Avenatti thought the money was his, then why did he lie about?

AUSA: Ask yourself, Why did he lie? Thank you.
Avenatti: I request a sidebar.
Judge Furman: No. Ladies and gentlemen, my staff will distribute to you copies of my jury instruction.

Judge Furman will now be reading out his jury charge. For now, this morning's installment in the hybrid story on Genocide Games in Stormy Times, an ongoing project: innercitypress.com/literary8genoc…

Update: Judge Furman still in general instructions: "It is not unusual for a witness to have a lawyer of his or her own." The weight you give is up to you.
Thread will continue.

Update II: Judge Furman continues: "the government does not need to show that the scheme actually succeeded... the failure to disclose information may also be part of the scheme, if there was a professional duty." Thread will continue

Update III: Now Judge Furman is telling the jurors to go the deliberation room and choose the foreperson - and start.

Judge Furman: Ladies and gentleman, we've reached a stage I don't like. Jurors 13-18, you are not fully excused. We may contact you. You may not discuss the case.

Judge Furman: Jurors 1-12, please stay with us. You should plan to stay until 5 pm today, unless you reach a verdict by then. If not, come back tomorrow morning.
[Jurors leave]
Avenatti: I move for a mistrial on multiple grounds.

Avenatti: The AUSA used an analogy me cheating on my spouse.
Judge Furman: Motion's denied as frivolous.

Judge Furman: The AUSA did come close, implying you had to present evidence. You don't. But I issued a curative instruction.

Judge Furman: I don't think the AUSA said you were cheating on your spouse. The problem was that you began with your statement about your father selling hotdogs. There's no evidence of that in the record. Nobody cares. It's testimony.

Judge Furman: Now, I'd ask that at least one representative on each side stay in the court room. We often get notes early, if only for pens. If we continue tomorrow, stay within minutes. So I may see you this afternoon or tomorrow. Adjourned.
Updates coming

Update: 4:47 pm, still nothing back from jury. Prosecutors sitting at their table, Avenatti pacing around the courtroom.