Judge in Cohen case warns Avenatti to stop 'publicity tour'

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

A federal judge on Wednesday told Michael Avenatti to stop his “publicity tour” if he wants to continue participating in court proceedings against Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, according to multiple reports.

Cohen’s attorneys have asked the federal district court to bar Avenatti from representing Stormy Daniels in the case. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 to prevent her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump.

While Judge Kimba Wood did not rule on Cohen’s request, she did throw a sharp warning to Avenatti, who has become a fixture on cable news networks in recent months.

"I say publicity tour not in a derogatory sense. You’re entitled to publicity, I can’t stop you — unless you’re participating in a matter before me,” Wood said, according to New York Daily News reporter Stephen Brown.

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/389900-judge-in-cohen-case-warns-avenatti-to-stop-publicity-tour

[elleng]

1. ''unless you're participating in a matter before me," Wood said,

according to New York Daily News reporter Stephen Brown.

Wood told Avenatti he can’t give his opinion about the case if she allows him to represent Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

“You cannot declare your opinion as to Mr. Cohen’s guilt, which you did,” she said, according to Brown’s report on Twitter. “You would not be able to give publicity to documents.” '

Interesting.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Sounds like a warning

[Perseus]

3. I have to assume there is a fine line which I hope Avenatti knows where it is

But if the judge wants to put some reigns on Avenatti then she must also do the same on trump and Cohen, although to Cohen's defense, he personally has not gone out in public, but trump and his minions have, so I hope the judge understands there is an indirect effort on Cohen's side to put up a show as well.

[malthaussen]

5. Not much point of trying to rein in the defendant...

... I'm sure Mr Cohen would love to see the case thrown out of court.

-- Mal

[not fooled]

6. Yeah, so when

does Ghouliani get HIS warning to stop yapping all over teevee, grandstanding and attempting to prejudice the case??? (latter points from malthaussen's post below)

[onenote]

8. Is Trump a party in the case before Woods? Has Giuliani entered an appearance as counsel in the case

Judges can rein in parties and lawyers that are before them. But they can't rein in non-parties.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. There isn't a judiciable criminal case yet. There is only an investigation

that hasn't been brought to any court or grand jury. What Giuliani is doing is despicable but it's not illegal.

[Calista241]

10. Being investigated is not the same as being involved in a court case.

As Wood said, Guiliani would also be "entitled to publicity" as long as it doesn't interfere in that specific case.

It was a pretty sharp rebuke to Avenatti.

[malthaussen]

4. The Judge has a good point.

If Mr Avenatti crosses the line into prejudicing the case, the judge is obliged to throw it out. The man has been grandstanding and stirring up the public -- but not, apparently, yet sufficiently for the judge to toss the case. I do hope he heeds the warning -- it's not a good idea to argue with the judge.

-- Mal

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. If his request to be admitted pro hac to the NY bar

and if the judge grants his request to intervene in the Cohen case, he has to abide by NY's attorney rules of professional conduct. Those include a requirement that a lawyer involved in a case may not comment publicly about that case in a way that could prejudice the rights of a party in that case.

So, Avenatti has to choose whether to intervene in the Cohen matter, or to keep going on tv and commenting about it.

I don't get what intervening in Cohen's case does for the Stormy Daniels case, which is a pretty straightforward contracts matter. Just before the election Stormy got paid $130K in exchange for agreeing not to talk about the fact she had sex with Trump some 12 years ago. If she talks she has to pay $1M for each instance as a penalty. She signed the contract using an assumed name, and the other party to the contract, Trump, also used an assumed name, but Trump never signed in any capacity; Cohen signed on his behalf as his attorney. The money was paid out of a bank account owned by a Delaware LLC that Cohen had set up for that purpose, and he took out a home equity loan to pay Stormy, and much later Trump reimbursed him.

There's a whole lot of dodgy stuff in that scenario, but as to Stormy the only issue is whether she is bound by the contract. Maybe it's invalid because it wasn't signed by Trump, or because contains an unconscionably excessive penalty clause, or maybe because she was coerced or signed under duress. It doesn't matter where the money came from because Stormy got the benefit of the bargain - she got paid. Trump got the benefit of the bargain, too - she didn't talk before the election. Maybe the contract should be held unenforceable as against public policy, but the actions of Cohen as Trump's fixer and bag man in areas not relating to this contract don't seem relevant. So I don't get why Avenatti wants to intervene in Cohen's case. What other documents does he need to support Stormy's claim?

[ToxMarz]

11. It wasn't a warning, it is a condition for him to be allowed to participate in the case before her.

It's his choice to decide whether his participation in the case or continuing his media strategy is to his best advantage.

[FakeNoose]

12. So it was just posted that Avenatti has withdrawn from the NY case

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/389915-avenatti-withdraws-motion-to-represent-stormy-daniels-in-cohen-case

This judge doesn't want Avenatti going to the media all day long, which has been effective for Stormy Daniels but it could be prejudicial to this case. More info at the link.

Also a DU post was just added here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142071092
"Avenatti withdraws motion to represent Stormy Daniels in Cohen case."