It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stormy Daniels' lawyer: Cohen was paid $500K by Putin-tied company after election

page: 15
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Avenatti can disclose this information just as any journalist can and is not obligated to say where he got it from

It’s called the first amendment that protects the press




posted on May, 9 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Would it not be wise to wait to get specifics before we make absolute statements about his guilt?

My assessment of his guilt is not contingent on the source being SARs. It is based on the fact that he published personal confidential information, which he had no legal right to even possess, illegally on not just Michael Cohen, but on others with the same name who are not connected to Trump.

It doesn't matter if he got the information from little green men from Saturn.


No. It does not.

Legally they are. You are trying to argue morality while I am arguing legality. Please keep up.


Your feelings or emotions are not necessarily indicative of what is true.

They seem accurate enough in this case.


What evidence do you have with proper sources?

Statements openly made and admitted to on Twitter, along with official verification from AT&T, Columbus Nova, and others listed on Twitter.


Again, you are coming from a place of ignorance

So you don't believe Avernatti revealed Cohen's financial data, then? Interesting position.

Does that make Avernatti a liar for lying about having what he published and about publishing it?


cannot state that someone is guilty without all the facts being laid out. As of now, the list you have may be completely true, but we will not know without more context.

Ah, so you DO believe Avernatti lied. OK, good to know.

That means there is zero evidence on Cohen, since all those accusations cannot be believed.


What you posted is not information. It is accusation.

So I am accusing Cohen of posting information on Twitter. OK, good to know.

How's that dog doing? Still not hunting? Still going "moooo"?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
What an absolute sh*tshow this guy is...


Avenatti Accuses The Wrong Michael Cohens Of Making ‘Fraudulent’ Payments


Michael Avenatti, porn star Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, released a seven-page dossier on Tuesday containing a list of payments purportedly made to Michael Cohen, the lawyer for President Donald Trump.

But there is one problem with the document: two of the allegedly “fraudulent” payments were made to men named Michael Cohen who have no affiliation with Trump.

Avenatti’s report includes a section listing “possible fraudulent and illegal financial transactions” involving Trump’s lawyer. One of the payments is a $4,250 wire transfer from a Malaysian company, Actuarial Partners, to a bank in Toronto.

The other is a $980 transfer from a Kenyan bank to Bank Hapoalim — the largest bank in Israel.

Zainal Kassim, a representative for Actuarial Partners, told The Daily Caller News Foundation Avenatti’s report is a case of mistaken identity. He forwarded an email the falsely accused Michael Cohen sent to Avenatti requesting the lawyer “correct this error forthwith and make it known publicly” there is no connection to Trump’s Michael Cohen.


click link for full article...



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Whoa! Wait a sec! $4250 and $980 are well below the $10k SAR threshold! Is there a different threshold for foreign payments?

Because if not, the information did not come from SARs... it couldn't come from a single bank... The IRS likely wouldn't have information that detailed... is there a database somewhere of financial data we don't know about?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcathdra

Whoa! Wait a sec! $4250 and $980 are well below the $10k SAR threshold! Is there a different threshold for foreign payments?

Because if not, the information did not come from SARs... it couldn't come from a single bank... The IRS likely wouldn't have information that detailed... is there a database somewhere of financial data we don't know about?

TheRedneck


Absent a bank official providing the information the only other way I am aware of is through a subpoena / warrant.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think you missed my point... why would a bank even file a SAR for a $980 deposit? And if a SAR was not created, Avenatti could not have gotten the information from the Treasury, because they do not monitor all bank account activity.

I think it is highly unlikely he hacked a bank because he got the wrong guy in at least two instances.

Same thing with getting the info from Mueller/SDNY.

So where did this information come from? Apparently either something I haven't thought of, or that I had no idea existed...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Come on. Speculate.
Go for it.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't even have enough information to speculate.

Is there a different threshold level for foreign payments maybe?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I don't even have enough information to speculate.
Huh. More information gives you less room to speculate. Imagine that.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
A bar complaint has been filed in California by a lawyer from Washington state.

Apparently Stormy's lawyer doesnt like paying taxes.

Bar complaint ***PDF/HTML***



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah. It's been pointed out a few times. Here's an article from a month ago.
www.seattletimes.com...



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Hmmmmm


Treasury watchdog probing how Stormy Daniels lawyer got Cohen's bank records

The Treasury Department’s inspector general is investigating how Stormy Daniels’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, obtained confidential banking records concerning a company controlled by President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

The inspector general’s counsel, Rich Delmar, told The Hill that the office is looking into allegations that federally mandated reports filed about Cohen’s banking transactions were “improperly disseminated.”

News of the Treasury investigation, which is focused on the release of Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks that hosted accounts for Cohen, was first reported Wednesday by The Washington Post.

Delmar told The Hill that the Treasury probe is based on a New York Times report from Tuesday that revealed that a shell company set up by Cohen received more than $1 million from an American company linked to a Russian oligarch and several corporations with business before the













BUSTED: Treasury Dept. Inspector General Opens Federal Probe of how Stormy Daniels’ Lawyer got Cohen’s bank Intel

The Treasury Department’s inspector general is investigating how Stormy Daniels’s lawyer Michael Avenatti obtained confidential banking records concerning a company controlled by President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen.

The inspector general’s counsel, Rich Delmar, said that the office is looking into allegations that Suspicious Activity Reports filed about Cohen’s banking transactions were “improperly disseminated,” according to the Post.

Avenatti on Tuesday went public with detailed claims about Cohen’s banking history, including allegations that he received $500,000 from a company controlled by a Russian oligarch in the months following the 2016 presidential election.

Avenatti refused to reveal his source for this information and said investigators should reveal the Suspicious Activity Reports filed on Cohen’s account.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:14 AM
link   



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Speculation still requires some information.

I mean, yeah, I could act like some on ATS and go off half cocked, something like...

 


OMG! That means there's a secret database of financial files on our banking! Probably in the Federal Reserve! That's why the banks want us in a cashless society, so they can monitor our every purchase! No one use credit cards! Pay with cash or you'll all be slaves to the Illuminati when Planet X gets here!

 


But, that's not my style (and it doesn't even make sense). Sorry to disappoint.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You left out the maritime law and birth certificate capitalization thing.
Also income tax is voluntary so you don't have to pay.

Ah. The good old days. Now all we have is crooked politicians and lawyers.


edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Jesus Christ people.

It's CALLED a "Third Party Subpoena"

FFS...



A party to a lawsuit wants information from that company, and the party’s counsel decides to issue a subpoena to obtain it. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (and analogous state-court rules) authorizes a party’s attorney to issue a subpoena without involving the court, thereby allowing the party to command the company to allow the inspection of property, produce documents, and/or provide testimony (at a hearing, deposition, or trial).

priorilegal.com

IANAL, but this LIKELY the most plausible way Michael Avenatti obtained the info.

You guys HONESTLY think he's gonna sink his case by breaking the LAW?

Jesus... SMDH. The ignorance here is astounding.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland
I didn't think that Avenatti was that stupid.

So a bank, for instance, could object to such a subpoena, in which case it would go to court for a protective order. Or the bank could just say, "the hell with it, here you go?"

What about this:

Seeks Disclosure of Protected Information: If the subpoena seeks information that is protected by privilege or other legally-recognized exception to compelled disclosure, the court must quash or modify the subpoena “if no exception or waiver applies[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii).


Or does United States v. Miller apply in terms of what Avenatti has acquired?
supreme.justia.com...
edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Knowing Cohen, he probably used JACKSON HEWITT at Walmart to do his taxes.

Avenatti could subpoena them, as they're NOT a bank. They might have financial info.

What I'm saying...

Banks aren't the ONLY people who might have financial INFO.




posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

Avenatti's Executive Summary lists specific bank transactions.


Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-446.

(a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not respondent's private papers. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-441.

(b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities. The Act's recordkeeping requirements do not alter . these considerations so as to create a protectable Fourth Amendment interest of a bank depositor in the bank's records of his account. Pp. 441-443.

(c) Issuance of a subpoena to a third party does not violate a defendant's rights, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21, 416 U. S. 53. Pp. 425 U. S. 444-445.

Page 425 U. S. 436

(d) Access to bank records under the Act is to be controlled by "existing legal process." That does not mean that greater judicial scrutiny, equivalent to that required for a search warrant, is necessary when a subpoena is used to obtain a depositor's bank records. Pp. 425 U. S. 445-446.
supreme.justia.com...

I'm not a lawyer, but it seem that the sanctity of bank records is not all it's claimed to be by some. According to the 1976 Supreme Court (6-3).

Thanks for that 3rd party thing. Gave me a scent to follow. I didn't think Avenatti was stupid. Didn't make sense.

edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yup.


A LOT of people have this idea that the law works "the way I THINK it should!"...which is USUALLY based off stuff they see on TV.

"That's illegal!...Wait, it's not?! Well...well...IT SHOULD BE!"

The real world isn't "Law & Order: SVU" or Perry Mason. Or even CSI: Miami.

To those people?

That's not how this works...that's not how any of this works...

Now IRS tax details?...Well, that's a WHOLE OTHER can o' worms. I mean, just ask our POTUS about his...LMFAO


edit on 10-5-2018 by DanteGaland because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join