Now Avenatti obtains Michael Cohen's EMAILS

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It's inconvenient to lose your phone contacts – whether through an ordinary mishap or an FBI raid. When longtime Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen lost his, due to the later, he reached out to Keith Davidson, the former attorney to porn star Stormy Daniels, to get back in touch. Daniels' current lawyer, Michael Avenatti, says the email directly rebuts the claim by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that 'of course' Cohen is no longer representing Trump. Avenatti further claims that the email to reestablish contact with Davidson – who helped negotiate a non-disclosure agreement between Cohen, Daniels, and Donald Trump – could show an effort to obstruct justice, though he doesn't say how. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It looks like Muellers investigation is selectively leaking stuff to take off some pressure. Is that how honest investigations are run?
I think it's honestly time to remove the entire FBI and start over, or retask the Marshals. Tommy lee Jones was a badass.
How will anyone trust anyone in the IC after this fiasco?

a reply to: network dude

It looks like Muellers investigation is selectively leaking stuff to take off some pressure.

Actually, it looks like a third party subpoena.

Asked how he obtained it, Avenatti told DailyMail.com: 'I demanded it from Mr. Davidson.'

a reply to: Phage

Again I claim ignorance of the law.

But if I subpoena private communications and get them, can I then just release those messages to the media?

That seems ridiculous

a reply to: Grambler

I don't know.
It's probably safe to assume that Avenatti does. One way or the other.

So, the level crybabyness going on here, I surmise this is a right-wing-anti-left thread.


Am I close?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

I don't know.
It's probably safe to assume that Avenatti does. One way or the other.

Again, I assume nothing regarding the intelligence of a man who released financial records for the wrong Michael Cohens.

Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than me can weigh in.

If a lawyer or plaintiff subpoenas personal emails, are they then allowe to release those emails to the public outside of a court setting?

originally posted by: Jefferton
So, the level crybabyness going on here, I surmise this is a right-wing-anti-left thread.


Am I close?

Nope. Seems to be about a special counsel potentially having his investigation at risk because someone on his team might be leaking information.

Actually.. Where is the contents of the e-mail

Mr avenatti has been proven to be wrong before

Everyone seems to be breaking the law lately and getting away with it. I think maybe we should redo our Judicial system and revoke the licenses of many lawyers and require them to reapply for them and sign affidavits that they will follow some rules. These lawyers are out of control.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Everyone seems to be breaking the law lately and getting away with it. I think maybe we should redo our Judicial system and revoke the licenses of many lawyers and require them to reapply for them and sign affidavits that they will follow some rules. These lawyers are out of control.

Nope
Violation of attorney/client privacy is a violation of law
Disbarred and thrown in the pokey


ETA - I forgot the publicly humiliated part...

a reply to: network dude

I heard that Avenatti is working the Stormy case pro boner so he needs to get some cash somehow since he owes 5 million in back taxes.

Keep in mind this is a civil case, not a criminal case. Under the rules governing civil cases each side is entitled to get a preview of the evidence and arguments that the other side is going to use to make its case and entitled to demand evidence (such as documents) that the other side might have that would support the other side's case. (I hope that sentence is not too convoluted). This process is called "discovery". Discovery is supposed to happen as quickly as possible once both parties have agreed to contest the case--usually within a time frame of a few weeks. When Avenatti says that he demanded the information, I'm pretty sure he means that it was produced in the process of discovery. The parties are only required to produce information through discovery that is not protected by some privilege. My interpretation is that means that the information produced via discovery is, ultimately, publicly releasable.

a reply to: Grambler

a reply to: Gothmog

Violation of attorney/client privacy

Davidson was Cohen's client?
Vice versa?

originally posted by: 1947boomer
Keep in mind this is a civil case, not a criminal case. Under the rules governing civil cases each side is entitled to get a preview of the evidence and arguments that the other side is going to use to make its case and entitled to demand evidence (such as documents) that the other side might have that would support the other side's case. (I hope that sentence is not too convoluted). This process is called "discovery". Discovery is supposed to happen as quickly as possible once both parties have agreed to contest the case--usually within a time frame of a few weeks. When Avenatti says that he demanded the information, I'm pretty sure he means that it was produced in the process of discovery. The parties are only required to produce information through discovery that is not protected by some privilege. My interpretation is that means that the information produced via discovery is, ultimately, publicly releasable.

a reply to: Grambler

The information that is being released by the lawyer has nothing to do with the case. They can't get access to things not related to the case. Now the FBI can get a broader array of information, but a civil suit is only relevant information to the case. This information should never have been made available to that lawyer.

He demanded it from Davidson...

...how did he know it existed to begin with?

My apologies if this has been mentioned before, but has it occurred to anyone that there's not a chance in hell that Stormy could afford Avenatti's legal services? I don't have the figures, but this jackass is one of the highest paid lawyers around.

He was "assigned" this position.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Thanks for the post.

That could make sense for the emails, though I am skeptical how the email released would have relevance to his civil case.

But how would that explain getting financial info on the wrong Michael cohens?

Surely discovery in a civil case wouldn’t turn up financial records on completely unrelated people that just happen to have the same name.

Which leads me to believe the financial records were not obtained through discovery on the civil case.

Which makes me wonder if this lawyer got these emails from the same place that he got those records

a reply to: rickymouse

did anyone produce the e-mail?


still waiting on those 17 agencies to produce evidence of Russian collusion

a reply to: 1947boomer

Another question I have maybe you or someone else could answer

Is there no limit on info that could be obtained in discovery but still couldn’t be released in public because it is private?

For example, if a person is in a civil case a thru discovery photos of them cheating on their wife are given, can those photos be released?

How about embarrassing sexual emails or texts?

It seems that there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy to not make evidence found in discovery public except in the court case.

But I could very well be wrong

a reply to: Grambler

this is wiki so take it for what it is but I'm tired

Wiki

FRCP Rule 26 provides general guidelines to the discovery process, it requires Plaintiff to initiate a conference between the parties to plan the discovery process after the initial complaint had been filed.[4] The parties must confer as soon as practicable — and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b). The parties should attempt to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and submit it to the court within 14 days after the conference. The Discovery Plan must state the parties' proposals on subject of the discovery, limitations on discovery, case management schedule and timing deadlines for each stage of the discovery process, including the end-date of the discovery, dispositive motions and pre-trial order deadlines.

It would seem that Cohen and or his attorney's would have to agree upon what's being summoned in a motion for discovery and I highly doubt any of this would be made available as it's totally irrelevant to the case

in 24 hours we'll know if this is again, total bs like the last dozen reports