Academia

Turley and Avenatti To Appear At GW Event

Today I will have the pleasure of joining my former student Michael Avenatti for an event moderated by Dean Blake D. Morant.  The event at 3-4 pm is open to the public (though pre-registration guarantees a spot) at the Jack Morton theater at 805 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052. The event is being co-sponsored by the law school and the School of Media & Public Affairs.

Avenatti came to GW after earning his B.A. in political science from the University of Pennsylvania.  He was in my torts class as a first-year law student and then worked with me on national security issues, including constitutional issues relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He graduated Order of the Coif.

Avenatti later established the Michael J. Avenatti Award for Excellence in Pre-Trial and Trial Advocacy, an annual award given to a member of the graduating Juris Doctor class who demonstrates excellence in pre-trial and trial advocacy.

Avenatti worked at O’Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles, California and represented singer Christina Aguilera as well as clients like the musical group The Eagles.

He later joined Greene Broillet & Wheeler, and continued high-profile cases with Paris Hilton.  He was counsel in a prior case involving Donald Trump involving the show The Apprentice as well as a $40 million embezzlement lawsuit involving KPMG.  He then founded in 2007 Eagan Avenatti, LLP with offices in Newport Beach, Los Angeles and San Francisco, California. He won a $454 million verdict after a jury trial in Federal Court in Los Angeles in a fraud case against Kimberly-Clark and Halyard Health, as well as a $80.5 million class-action settlement against Service Corporation International.  He also secured a $41 million jury verdict against KPMG, and a $39 million malicious prosecution settlement.  In 2015, Avenatti secured a verdict against the National Football League following a two-week jury trial in Federal District Court in Dallas, Texas after cross-examining Jerry Jones at trial.

Despite his legendary career, his most famous case began in March 2018 when Avenatti filed a lawsuit on behalf of adult film actress Stormy Daniels seeking to invalidate a 2016 “hush” agreement regarding an alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2008.

There will be an opportunity for the audience to ask questions.

There will be light refreshments after the event.

 

 

123 thoughts on “Turley and Avenatti To Appear At GW Event”

  1. Avenatti’s 15 minutes are done. This prostitue had it coming

    ”The law firm of Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti was hit with a $10-million judgment Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court after he broke his promise to pay $2 million to a former colleague.

    Judge Catherine Bauer of U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Santa Ana ordered the Eagan Avenatti law firm to pay the $10 million to Jason Frank, a lawyer who used to work at the Newport Beach firm.

    “At this point, that’s what’s appropriate,” Bauer said at a brief hearing.

    To settle his law firm’s bankruptcy, Avenatti had personally guaranteed that the $2 million would be paid to Frank last week, but both he and his firm failed to turn over the money.

    At the hearing, the U.S. Justice Department revealed that Avenatti has also defaulted on just over $440,000 in back taxes, penalties and interest that he had personally promised to pay the Internal Revenue Service under another bankruptcy settlement for his law firm.”

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-bankruptcy-20180522-story.html

  3. I think avenatti is noncompliant with the rules of professional conduct concerning publicity

    1. I think Trump is noncompliant with the rules of decent behavior.

      /Users/Billwild/Documents/Screen Shot 2018-04-07 at 6.50.28 PM.png

    2. what rule/s exactly are you speaking of so those of us not in the know can cogitate them. personally i thing he has integrity and has said nothing unethical. but hey, i am a nurse practitioner and midwife. and i know the medical industrialized system LIES w publicity and abuses newborns and birthing women.

  4. Lawyers do a large category of lawyer things. One chore which the rest of the public assumes that all persons with law degrees can do is the jury trial. To win a jury trial a lawyer must convince a jury. To do so is to be a likeable person. The dorks in the photos on the blog here will not appeal to a jury panel of 36 which gets picked down to 12 and 2 alternates. No. They do not. In fact the dork representing the broad is such a dork that he will be negative. He will have to overcome his appearance and demeanor. Then he will have to promote the cause of the hooker who is no longer a looker. Avenatti is a person without papers or a WOP. WOPs have a way to go to convince a jury to be on their side in a criminal or civil case. I would not hire him if I was a hooker who is no longer a looker.

    1. Ummm…”overcome his appearance”!!! I beg to differ. Michael Avenatti is not only super smart and articulate, he’s a contender for sexiest man alive. He would have a jury eating out of his hand.

    2. A billion dollars worth of Avenatti jury verdicts (to date) refute your opinion. You also fail to give juries credit, where you suggest that looks are the criteria for outcomes. Facts matter in a courtroom, opinions on social media aren’t admissible.

    4. WOP is, as I’m sure you know, a slur against people of Italian heritage. What the hell is wrong with you?

  6. Unless Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) will also be there, I’m going to skip this Jack Morton theater event.

  7. Mike is a great lawyer and should be cheered by the country as I believe it will ultimately be his actions that bring the Trump regime crashing down as it so richly deserves. That’s quite an impressive scalp to add to his collection of legal trophies.

    3. Avenatti is a dork. He’s a dork all the way. I bet he smokes tobacco.. Went in dumb, come out dumb too.

  8. CV Brown – I would posit that there cannot be a male Gloria Allred. Half of Gloria’s influence comes from having boobs and vagina.

      1. mespo – I would agree that Michael Moore has boobs and IS a pussy, but he lacks a vagina. 😉

          1. mespo – what goes on between him and his wife in the privacy of their home is on them. 😉

  11. Turley’s promotion of co-appearance with slimeball Avenatti marks the Jump-the-shark moment for this blog. I thought this was a somewhat interesting and thought-provoking blog until now. Bye.

    1. Thanks, I’ll take your spot.

      Can’t pass up this opportunity to watch Michael Avenatti take down Donny “The Chump”…

  12. Seth Rich’s family asked for privacy.
    The ignoble Hannity assumes that when he asks for privacy, he should get it?

    1. Their privacy is not being invaded by Hannity and they’re calling attention to themselves with public complaints and lawsuits.

      That murder was very odd. It’s only natural people ask questions about it.

    2. Hannity’s lowest moment in a career consisting completely of low moments.

      Beware! Plenty of conspiracy theory aficionados around here,

      some of which believe any nonsense they see on Youtube…

  13. It’s sort of disconcerting that you can acquire an eight or nine-digit net worth from practicing law. Shouldn’t be that way.

    1. At least there are opposing attorneys in court.
      Bemoaning high law salaries? Let’s start a list (1) million dollar venture philanthropic grants to professors
      (2) lobbyists getting rich from consumer dollars, given to them by businessmen (3) Congressional members making a killing while in office

  14. I am trying to come to grips with the idea of Avenatti graduating “Order of the Coif.” Hairdressing school or law school? In any event, Avenatti’s pate is about as hairless as can be. No combovers for him!

    1. I like Avenatti’s semi-bald look …a lot better than Donald Trump’s endless Brillcream hairdressing look !!

      1. Avenutti needs to wear some glasses and grow a circle beard (mustache and goatee) to help to give him the appearance of being a legitimate, thoughtful attorney, instead of an escapee from a mental asylum.

  15. I had no idea lawyers boisterously representing admitted lying hookers against elected leaders was cause for celebration at GW warranting a public spectacle. When do the bread and circuses begin and will preregistration guarantee me a seat with blood spatter? The end of civilization is fascinating.

    1. Stormy has admitted to basically lying once. But what if the elected leader lies all the time, 24/7? Does getting elected nullify all offenses?

      1. Jay s:

        No lying is lying and we’ve come to expect a certain amount from politicians to lubricate their policies. No one lies 24/7 so the hyperbole really doesn’t hold up. The difference between the two is that we’re wedded to one for four years. The other is a buxom distraction to the first one and shouldn’t be tolerated while the former is in office, the SCOTUS’ hasty decision notwithstanding.

        1. “The difference between the two is that we’re wedded to one for four years.”
          My hope is that God will give him one cheeseburger too many, and that he won’t last that long. Impeachment would be good, too, but that seems less and less likely.

          I have wondered though: If Trump got impeached and convicted, would he actually vacate the office? He might just barricade himself in the WH and say “come get me.”

          1. My hope is that God will give him one cheeseburger too many, and that he won’t last that long.

            I see you wish Barron well.

            Impeachment would be good, too, but that seems less and less likely.

            Policies you don’t care for are not ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. Hard to persuade partisan Democrats and red haze twits of that, but remains true.

            1. Melania should take Baron to another country. Da porn King embarrassed him on an hourly basis. Poor kid probably gets teased about his Pops nasty romps.

    2. That would be “admitted lying hookers against former debauched lying paramour Presidents”.

      FIFY

    4. Right wing loons like you always fascinate me. Facts matter to you only insofar as they are convenient to your position. All others are dismissed out of hand. The reality is Donald Trump is a man of little or no character who has led a life of depraved self indulgence, he is mentally unstable and has no impulse control. His incompetence is startling and dangerous to the life not just of our country but to the world. And despite the obvious reality that he is the client of the “hooker” you look down your nose at that doesn’t bother you. You, like most right wing loons, need serious therapy.

      1. When you look in the mirror, just who do you see?

        That aside the ‘startlingly incompetent’ man ran a business with 22,000 employees and $9.5 bn in annual revenue. Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower are the only men who’ve occupied the office in living memory whose accomplishments put them in Trump’s league. If you wish to be an advocate for personal dignity in public life, we’re going to have to see a pdf of a signed letter to the editor of your local paper calling for Bill Clinton’s resignation in 1998.

        1. Trump’s acomplishments. Laughing out loud. He is owned by Putin and a bunch of porno stars.

          1. Yes, Trump’s accomplishments. They don’t disappear just because you elect to play an adolescent.

        2. Today’s your lucky day Nutchacha!

          You really seem like an intelligent chap, and a swell guy to boot.

          I’ve got a parcel of prime acreage right in the center of Manhattan, and I’m gonna make you a deal of a lifetime.

          You interested…? PM me if so

      2. Yeah, and everybody you don’t like is Hitler! My God, but you are one puerile twit! Somebody must have put you thru some pretty severe toilet training when you were a tot.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      3. “Right wing loons like you always fascinate me. Facts matter to you only insofar as they are convenient to your position. All others are dismissed out of hand. The reality is Donald Trump is a man of little or no character who has led a life of depraved self indulgence, he is mentally unstable and has no impulse control. His incompetence is startling and dangerous to the life not just of our country but to the world. ”
        ****************

        Diligently searching for just one inconvenient fact (or any fact at all) in your opinion-laden criticism of me for using facts to bolster my argument. Query: do you know the difference between a fact (she’s a hooker) and your rather unlettered opinions (“right-wing loon, little or no character, depraved self-indulgence, mentally unstable, no impulse control, incompetence and dangerous”)?

        1. Yes. I am back to working on a Comey Irish Poem. I was outside with Snagglepuss on a leash, and smoking my pipe. I also started this new book called, Lives of a Bengal Lancer, by Francis Yeats-Brown published in 1930. I got 50 pages into it, and it is fascinating. But nothing like the movie. Which I also ordered. Anyway, it is an autobiography and apparently it is still being read and published. I got a first edition for peanuts.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

  17. Slimeball Avenatti is Achilles heel to Turley’s otherwise good character. Nowhere in this post does Turley mention that Avenatti is his former student and intern which presumably explains Turley’s hesitation to criticize Avenatti’s self-promoting and ethically questionable tactics.

    1. Bill Martin said, “Nowhere in this post does Turley mention that Avenatti is his former student and intern

      Turley wrote, “Today I will have the pleasure of joining my former student Michael Avenatti . . . Avenatti came to GW after earning his B.A. in political science from the University of Pennsylvania. He was in my torts class as a first-year law student and then worked with me on national security issues, including constitutional issues relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He graduated Order of the Coif.”

      1. Dear Late: You finally got me. I was so used to Turley not disclosing. Now what about Avenetti’s slimeball tactics and Turley’s avoidance of criticism of such?

        1. I’m not out to get you, Bill Martin. Meanwhile, I’m not up to date on Avenatti’s alleged slimeball tactics. There’s a link just below posted by you-know-who. And that’s all I’m allowed to say anymore about you-know-who.

          1. Ya gotta meet T rump and Cohen on their level to beat em. Michele Obama was wrong about goin high against these T rump thugs

      2. Avenatti is one crackerjack lawyer. He outsmarts T rump. and his bozos at every turn. Soon Avenatti will have a chair in his name at da GWU.

    2. I thought that Comey was the “slimeball” per D.J. Trump. Or is this the new universal insult?

      1. Yes. The use of the word “slimeball” was meant to be both ironic and an accurate characterization of Ms. Davis’ attorney.

          1. Jay S – you do not have to be of upright and moral character to be a lawyer. 🙂

  18. As impressive as the list of Avenatti accomplishments detailed in this promotional advertisement of JT’s are, that list is nothing compared with the remarkable accomplishments Turley failed to mention:

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/before-stormy-daniels-her-attorney-faced-allegations-of-dubious-business-dealings/

    It amazes me how one article currently up rightfully condemns James Comey, his book, and his book tour for what they are, and at the same time there’s this article, which only provides half of Avenatti’s resume. If Turley had treated the Comey-book article the way Avenatti is treated in this article, we’d all be praising James Comey as the righteous defender of justice that Comey (and virtually nobody else) thinks he is, and Comey’s book would be described as the greatest thing since canned beer.

    1. William Bayer – canned beer always had a ‘tinny’ taste to it, until they switched to aluminum. Sliced bread was the great breakthrough. 🙂

      1. Still don’t like beer in a can… although I had the first one I actually liked last summer (I actually on drink about one beer a week… I like it too much to keep around…)

        1. slohrss29 – if it makes you feel any better, beer is a food product and they used to advertise it as such before Prohibition.

      2. Yes, we’ve had the canned beer discussion before. I agree, but use the expression in memory of my algebra teacher who used it. Were I to use my own expression, I’d probably say “greatest thing since beef jerky.”

          1. I’m also not a fan of beef jerky. The intent is comedic, not biographical.

    2. @William Bayer April 18, 2018 at 4:59 AM
      “As impressive as the list of Avenatti accomplishments detailed in this promotional advertisement of JT’s are, that list is nothing compared with the remarkable accomplishments Turley failed to mention:
      https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/before-stormy-daniels-her-attorney-faced-allegations-of-dubious-business-dealings/”

      Damn. If only half of those allegations are true, Avenatti makes Michael Cohen look like Clarence Darrow.

      1. Even makes Stormy look like Clarence Darrow and a nun rolled into one.

  19. Amazing his client made the White House so STORMY. I hope it results in radical changes in our government and that it resurrect decency and the law.

    1. Yeah, there’s nothing like using an aging porn queen that demanded money for silence (aka extortion), took the money, and then refused to remain silent as a vehicle to “resurrect decency and the law.”

        1. Seems unlikely. But thanks for replying, because I’d be interested in whether a lawyers opinion about extortion (if you’d care to offer one) matches my own. Ohio law defines extortion as might apply to Stormy’s conduct as follows:

          Ohio Revised Code 2905.11 Extortion.

          (A) No person, with purpose to obtain any valuable thing or valuable benefit or to induce another to do an unlawful act, shall do any of the following: ***

          (5) Expose or threaten to expose any matter tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to damage any person’s personal or business repute ***”

          Am I hallucinating or do those elements of extortion not perfectly describe what Stormy did by showing up just before the election for the apparent purpose of shaking down Trump related to an alleged affair that had happened years ago?

            1. But the threat to expose the affair to induce payment in exchange for silence preceded the litigation.
              The litigation came into play after the threat with intent to obtain money, so my interpretation is that subsequent litigation — by which I assume you mean the nondisclosure agreement — would not negate the conduct that gave rise to the litigation.

              1. I think the law would approve a settlement of a civil claim by Cohen and Stormy without imposing a criminal component to it. Granted it’s seedy stuff but likely not criminal. For that you need two big guys, a quivering shopkeeper and a black limo parked out front..

                1. I really appreciate the feedback — and I’m not intending to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear understanding of the law (the sort of thing I often come to this website looking for from Turley but rarely get these days) — but settling civil claims usually involves pending litigation, and doesn’t usually precede litigation, although that does happens, too.

                  The difference, in my mind, would be that a civil claim is usually settled to avoid litigation or for the purpose of offering compensation for injuries or damages already incurred by the person requesting payment.

                  In this instance the payment wasn’t intended by either party to avoid having to file litigation or compensate anyone for injury or damages that had been incurred (unless Stormy had made some claim of injury or damage from her affair with Trump which I haven’t heard about). The payment was made purely for the purpose of not having matter exposed which it seems like Stormy was threatening to expose. I can’t imagine any other reason she would have showed up just before the election — a classic October surprise.

                  And now Cohen is being investigated concerning the circumstance of the payment, which even if unlawful resulted directly from the threatened disclosure. That is, even if Cohen violated the law in some way to make the payment, that would be part of the Ohio statute regarding “induce another to do an unlawful act.”

                  I get your analogy with a protection racket/quivering shopkeeper — but that’s just how powerless people get subjected to extortion. It would certainly take on another guise when a billionaire/presidential candidate gets extorted.

                  Anyway, like I said, I don’t mean to argue about it, so you don’t have to reply unless you want to. I appreciate the information you’ve provided so far. Even if you don’t reply, maybe my brain will understand what you’ve already said on its own after a period of digestion.

                  1. You’re not argumentative. That’s what other posters do around here with profanity and silly hyperbole. I’m off to court now but I’ll address your questions later this afternoon.

                  2. William Bayer:

                    You are right that extortion involves threatening to expose some unfavorable fact or assertion about someone to obtain money. The issue turns on who did the threatening and what was their intent at that time. Crime requires mens rea or knowledge that what you are doing or about to do is wrongful. Thus, if I throw a baseball and it hits you, my crime depends on my intent. if I was throwing it to my son and it sailed over his head hitting you that’s not criminal intent; If I throw it at you intending to hit you, well that’s battery. Here we don’t know if Stormy made it known that she has a salacious story to tell to a magazine and Cohen headed that off by the NDA and the payment therefore or if Stormy said, “Hey Cohen, I’ve got a lie to tell and I won’t do it if you give me 130 large.” The former is prudent politics, the latter is extortion. It hinges on the intent or mens rea of the actor.

                    1. I get that — but again, not to be argumentative — what other purpose would there be for making it known that she has a salacious story to tell a magazine? If she wasn’t implying that she wanted a payoff to keep silent, she simply would have gone to the magazine and sold her story.
                      I can’t see anything BUT mens rea. Perhaps she didn’t know that extortion is against the law, but that’s not the same thing as lack of criminal intent. If it were, people would rob banks and get off just by saying that they didn’t know bank robbery is illegal.
                      So I guess, for me, it hinges on whether there’s some reason I’m not imagining to approach Trump or Cohen or whoever she contacted to casually mention that she had a story to sell a magazine. What other reason would there be to do that other than to get money to not tell the story?

                    2. She might just want to hurt him politically or to publicize herself. If she doesn’t ask for money from him, its not criminal.

                    3. OK — and thanks — but it doesn’t seem like we’re getting anywhere with this. If she wanted publicity or wanted to hurt Trump politically, again I’d think she’d just go straight to the media and tell her story. And she could have even sold her story. CNN would’ve paid for it. Lots of websites would have paid her. But maybe not anything like $130,000.
                      I still don’t see a reason to contact Trump or his people except looking to be paid off. And working backwards, she DID take money and agree to keep quiet — so either way I look at it, forwards or backwards, I keep getting only the one answer: She contacted Trump for the purpose of getting money, and the only reason anyone affiliated with Trump would give her money is to not spread her salacious story — aka extortion.
                      Thanks for helping. I guess I’m just missing something. But if I were the police, I’d be questioning her under a 100 watt bulb until I sweated it out of her. And if I were the FBI, I’d have raided her attorney’s files, not Trump’s attorney’s files.

                    5. There. That seems very close to the missing link to figuring out whether it’s criminal or not.
                      How did Cohen know that she went to the tabloids? If she went to the tabloids and then contacted Cohen, there’s the possibility that she was finding out how much the story was worth, to see if Trump would be willing to pay more.
                      OR — if she went to the tabloids, what did she tell them? Why didn’t they run with her story?
                      Seems like that bit of information of yours is VERY close to the heart of the situation, but there’s still a gram of matter missing.
                      Thanks for that info, because I literally had no clue how the payoff began, and this gets me much closer. Still not there, but much closer.

                    6. OK — maybe the light bulb just went off in my sleepy brain. Perhaps Stormy went to the tabloids, and when she tried to tell them her story, they contacted Trump’s people to verify it before running it or paying her for it.
                      If that’s the case, then maybe she is off the hook for extortion. That’s starting to make sense. It’s still a pretty sleazy operation, but that wouldn’t be criminal extortion.
                      Thanks, mespo

                    8. It’s the only thing I’ve come up with so far that would account for Stormy being in contact with Trump’s people without having intended to extort payment for silence — and it was your information about Cohen having contacted her, not her contacting him, that connected the final dots, once I realized that her story would sound far fetched to a media outlet to the point where they’d literally have to contact the Trump organization to try to verify it before either publishing it or paying her for it.
                      I think that’s it.

      2. Are you saying that Story shook DJT down for money, in exchange for silence? From everything I have read, the impetus for the hush money came from DJT and Cohen.

          1. Jay S – I find hitting the monitor teaches spell check a severe lesson. 😉

          2. Sounds more like a Freudian Skip sort of thing. Because her bullsh*t is just a “story” IMHO. Maybe she can steal a march on that other pornie, and do a book, “How To Lie Like A Pornstar!”

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

        2. So your saying that just before election day — just before election day — Trump sought out a woman he’s alleged to have had an affair with years earlier and offered her money to stay silent concerning something she hadn’t threatened to reveal all through the primaries and most of the presidential campaign?
          Doesn’t that seem more than a little improbable? If he’d intended on his own volition to pay her to keep silent, doesn’t it make more sense that he wouldn’t have waited until just before election day?

          1. I believe that Stormy was just another loose end that The Fixer needed to fix, pre-election. Probably on a checklist as, “pay off all the broads.”

            1. And yet there are others who’ve since come forward (as there always are whenever some woman makes allegations) — so you’re saying that Trump just left paying off the porn queen till the last minute, when she’d be the one with the leverage over precisely how much money she’s settle for.

              What you’re saying makes NO sense. None. It’s something only an anti-Trump person would pretend to believe.

              1. @William Bayer April 18, 2018 at 9:38 AM
                “And yet there are others who’ve since come forward (as there always are whenever some woman makes allegations) — so you’re saying that Trump just left paying off the porn queen till the last minute, when she’d be the one with the leverage over precisely how much money she’s [sic] settle for.

                “What you’re saying makes NO sense. None. It’s something only an anti-Trump person would pretend to believe.”

                I have to agree. It makes almost as little sense as that Syria’s Assad would deploy chemical weapons against Syrian civilians when his troops were clearly winning the war against the USG-funded insurgency and would have everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain by doing so.

                For an on-the-ground report by a well known journalist regarding what did happen, see:

                “Famed War Reporter Robert Fisk Reaches Syrian ‘Chemical Attack’ Site, Concludes ‘They Were Not Gassed’ ”
                https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-17/famed-war-reporter-robert-fisk-reaches-syrian-chemical-attack-site-concludes-they

    2. I can’t believe I’m actually agreeing with you for once. Hopefully it will never happen again.

Comments are closed.