Fri Jun 15, 2018, 09:28 AM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
Cohen files for restraining order against AvenattiThis amusing filing popped up on the docket in the Stormy Daniels case this morning. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250.60.0.pdf The current status of that case is that Avenatti's motion to lift the stay is fully briefed for hearing on June 22. So, for light entertainment, Cohen decided to go with this. Of note is the extended excerpt from the transcript before Judge Wood in the SDNY proceeding involving the Cohen search warrants: 11 Judge Kimba Wood, who is presiding over Mr. Cohen’s action in the Southern 12 District of New York relating to materials seized during FBI raids of his home, office 13 and hotel room (the “Cohen SDNY Action”), already came to this conclusion when 14 she recently admonished Mr. Avenatti in connection with his failed attempt to be 15 admitted pro hac vice in the Cohen SDNY Action: 16 I’ve a different view from you [Avenatti], from the one you have 17 expressed earlier as to what it is that would subject you to the standards 18 for professional responsibility in this court. 19 In my view, this matter, which is a potential precursor to a criminal 20 trial if charges are filed against Mr. Cohen, I believe that once you are 21 participating in this proceeding, you are subject to the New York Code of 22 Responsibility 3.6 and the local rule for the Southern District of New York 23 23.1. That means that you would have to stop doing some things you have 24 been doing. If you participate here, you would not be able to declare your 25 opinion as to Mr. Cohen’s guilt, which you did; you would not be able to 26 give publicity to documents that are not public. It would change your 27 conduct. That is my only possible role in doing what Mr. Cohen’s lawyers 28 want, which is, to essentially stop in its tracks your publicity tour on TV 1 and elsewhere. And I say “publicity tour” not in a derogatory sense. You 2 are entitled to publicity so long as – that is, I can’t stop you, unless you are 3 participating in this matter before me. 4 So I either want you to participate or not be in the matter at all. I 5 don’t want you to have some existence in limbo, where you are free to 6 denigrate Mr. Cohen and I believe potentially deprive him of a fair trial by 7 tainting a jury pool. I know a jury, if there is one, is way down the road, 8 and memories certainly may fade, but this conduct is inimicable to giving 9 Mr. Cohen eventually a fair trial.
|
3 replies, 717 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
jberryhill | Jun 2018 | OP |
Crutchez_CuiBono | Jun 2018 | #1 | |
jberryhill | Jun 2018 | #2 | |
Crutchez_CuiBono | Jun 2018 | #3 |
Response to jberryhill (Original post)
Fri Jun 15, 2018, 09:30 AM
Crutchez_CuiBono (7,725 posts)
1. Professional responsibility....
that's a two way street. What a joke.
|
Response to Crutchez_CuiBono (Reply #1)
Fri Jun 15, 2018, 10:50 AM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
2. No, it's not a two way street
There is not some exception to one's own responsibilities premised on "if the other guy is a scumbag". |
Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)
Fri Jun 15, 2018, 10:51 AM
Crutchez_CuiBono (7,725 posts)
3. Yeah
I get it. It's just how honor works. Ethics being closely tied to honor.
|