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.

 

Feds probing how Stormy lawyer got Cohen’s banking info

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Come on Phage, our oversight committee have to fight tooth and nail to obtain info, which is their job. You suggest it's justified due to the potential for leaks.

Now we have a private entity that obtained information he shouldn't be privied to during an active investigation, which then leaked said information that had records of other Michael Cohen's, and you have no qualms or questions about it?




posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




Avenatti could be barred from the courtroom for these violations.....

Is Avenatti a government authority? Is he an agent of one? Because that's what that excerpt is about.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If bank records are private records, I thought they can’t be disclosed publicly, because they would be subject to a protective order. If the bank records was obtained from SARS (suspicious activity reports) filed by the banks, then this information would be highly confidential. Either way, wouldn't this be a violation of federal law to disclose such information? At the very least, it certainly would be unethical for a lawyer (Avenatti) to disseminate illegally obtained information.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Your link discusses cases which are not applicable here. The exampled cases involve a shipping employee who found contraband inside a shipping container while examining shipping damage. The employee did not act out of malice when he turned in the evidence to the authorities.

In essence, the individuals acted similarly to a police officer in the accidental discovery of evidence and the reasonable suspicion that a crime was occurring. The difference was that a police officer has certain additional restrictions from the courts because of their access to a court; private citizens do not have such unfettered access and therefore are not held to the same standards as the police.

If it could be shown that the individuals were unpacking shipping containers in an ongoing effort to find some sort of charge on the owners of the containers, that is a horse of a different color... green, maybe.


So that means no prosecution? Can you provide examples of precedence for this?

You're better than I am at looking up precedent. Witness your second link:

But if the private citizen acted on behalf of the government, a court will likely suppress the evidence just as if the police had found it. That’s because the “exclusionary rule,” providing that evidence found as a result of an illegal search is inadmissible, is designed to deter government agents—not private citizens—from unlawful snooping.

No one need prove a malicious link back to a government agency or a quid pro quo agreement... the simple fact that the intention of the private citizen, in this case Avenatti, was obviously to assist with prosecution of Cohen to further his case concerning Daniels would likely be sufficient.

As for being unable to prosecute... I did not claim the prosecution would not happen. I claimed that finding a venue that would satisfy the legal requirement that Cohen be convicted by an unbiased jury of his peers would be very difficult under the circumstances. Look at this very thread for proof. It's split more or less evenly between those who want Trump jailed and those who want Avernatti jailed, with a substantial portion on either side ignoring any mention of precedence or actual law. It would require a guilty verdict by 12 of 12 jurists to convict Cohen... it only takes one to block a guilty verdict.

It's as much a matter of practicality as it is a matter of legal precedent. Of course he can be tried... but without all of the evidence, could he be convicted?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I wonder how he got it, yes. It should be an interesting story when we find out.

I don't assume it was through illegal means. I really don't think Avenatti is stupid enough to put himself in that sort of jeopardy. Maybe I'm wrong.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Do you have a theory as to how Avenatti could have obtained SARs reports legally?

I can not think of one.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Avenatti released SAR information to the public,
that is a violation of the Banking Secrecy Act.

You are out of your league here if you think what
he did is lawful, just saying.

ETA: He is also a lawyer who must follow the law
and adhere to ethical conduct. This is way out of line.

Also the person who gave him this information is in
more trouble than he is.


originally posted by: Phage

I don't assume it was through illegal means. I really don't think Avenatti is stupid enough to put himself in that sort of jeopardy. Maybe I'm wrong.


There is no legal way he could have obtained this information.





edit on 9-5-2018 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




the simple fact that the intention of the private citizen, in this case Avenatti, was obviously to assist with prosecution of Cohen to further his case concerning Daniels would likely be sufficient.


I don't see the word "intent" in what you quoted. But it's not so obvious. I think you have that backwards. I think that he found information, while working on his client's case, that he can legally provide.



It's as much a matter of practicality as it is a matter of legal precedent. Of course he can be tried... but without all of the evidence, could he be convicted?
Heh. Then why bother with a trial in any case at all, if the outcome is not guaranteed?



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Phage is correct here. In fact, there have been cases in which police have deliberately enlisted the aid of co- conspirators to obtain he evidence to get around the exclusionary rule. It's a technicality, but it's legal. I can see Mueller running into a big problem getting 67 senators to convict, if this is the strongest evidence though. Without a conviction Mueller will go down as a collosal failure in story.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
TheRedneck

Are say Wikileaks documents admissible in court?



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I wonder how he got it, yes. It should be an interesting story when we find out.

I don't assume it was through illegal means. I really don't think Avenatti is stupid enough to put himself in that sort of jeopardy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Unless Cohen gave him the information, what legal means is there for him to acquire it?



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Avernatti is also looking at potential disbarrment in another case involving 'losing' withheld payroll taxes, reported by a Washington State attorney.

This ain't his first rodeo skirting law...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




Avenatti released SAR information to the public
How do you know this?


Also the person who gave him this information is in
more trouble than he is.
That could be so.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy




I can see Mueller running into a big problem getting 67 senators to convict, if this is the strongest evidence though.

At this point this about neither Mueller or the Senate.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Interesting question.

I would say so, if the person who obtained them were available for questioning about them.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
In fact, there have been cases in which police have deliberately enlisted the aid of co- conspirators to obtain he evidence to get around the exclusionary rule. It's a technicality, but it's legal.


These are not regular banking records, SARS are
suspicious activity reports that are filed by the bank
to The U.S. Treasury. The only way they can be legally
disclosed to anyone is by way of a court order.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That's where you're wrong kiddo. All roads lead to Rome at this point.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I don't see the word "intent" in what you quoted.

Just because a specific word is not used, it does not follow the description of the occurrences do not establish the same.


Then why bother with a trial in any case at all, if the outcome is not guaranteed?

The mighty Phage is using a strawman?


The question is why bother if there is precious little chance that it will succeed, and would likely be overturned even if it did.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah. That's kinda old news.
www.seattletimes.com...



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There doesn't seem to be a place he could receive the type of information he provided especially with the inaccuracies, except a entity of the government. I am under tge impression if that is the case than the government entity matter would/should supersede the ability for the private entity to use the information in a case against them. I don't know if there is a precedent set for this particular incident though.

Even if the information can be used, if his attorney challenges the ability for a fair trial, it may very well be inadmissable to insure that possibility.
edit on 5/9/2018 by TheLead because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join