• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Avenatti thread

As I've explained, Avenatti is a defendant in the secret suit but the plaintiff in the application to have the seal lifted.

What do you think you mean by "filed in the [secret] suit"? The secret suit and the ex parte application are distinct entities. In the former Avenatti is a defendant. In the latter he is the plaintiff.

I don't imagine anything will ever shake your belief in that.

No you have not explained it, you made it up and you have been continuing to assert one of the single most ridiculous arguments that I have ever seen.

To tell you how silly this argument is, Avenatti in his ex parte application repeatedly calls himself "defendant" and the other side "plaintiff."

Say, just for more giggles, what is Sarah Bechard in the ex parte application, hmmm?

Say, folks get ready to post all the laughing dogs.

(Dream thread)
 
Last edited:
The laughing dog is all you deserve.

Well I am CERTAIN that everyone likes a good laugh. Why don’t you explain in detail what was wrong with my analysis so that you were reduced to posting a laughing dog.

Get ready to get your sides split folks!
 
Well I am CERTAIN that everyone likes a good laugh. Why don’t you explain in detail what was wrong with my analysis so that you were reduced to posting a laughing dog.

Get ready to get your sides split folks!

Your analysis assumes many facts not in evidence, such as what subject(s) were discussed, whether or not Cohen's attorney approved, and if Cohen was possibly seeking independent legal advice.
 
Well I am CERTAIN that everyone likes a good laugh. Why don’t you explain in detail what was wrong with my analysis so that you were reduced to posting a laughing dog.

Get ready to get your sides split folks!

Well, you're right about the first part; we certainly all like a good laugh. It's the reason we await each pseudo-revelation and innuendo with bated breath.

What's wrong with your analysis, as already mentioned above, is that you and the legal eagles you're citing don't know what was discussed, who initiated the discussion or whether Lanny approved or not.

What's wrong with your analysis is that it's based on nitpicking the finer points of the law and not the intent. The law isn't intended to prevent adults from talking with each other if they so desire. It's to prevent predatory attorneys from making an end-run around opposing attorneys by talking to the principals, who they can con into waiving their rights.

I mean, other than that? Sure, it's a great argument. I just spoke to Giuliani, though, and he says he has a tape of the conversation. "Hey, Thirsty! I was hoping I'd run into you here. Lanny says we ought to compare some notes so we don't get blindsided by the next batch of Tweets from that dickhead."
 
Last edited:
Your analysis assumes many facts not in evidence, such as what subject(s) were discussed, whether or not Cohen's attorney approved, and if Cohen was possibly seeking independent legal advice.

Actually the analysis is based on Avenatti’s own claims, which is that they met coincidentally and discussed among other things Cohen’s relationship with Trump which is directly at issue in at least three suits in which Cohen is a party and Avenatti represents an adverse party.
 
Actually the analysis is based on Avenatti’s own claims, which is that they met coincidentally and discussed among other things Cohen’s relationship with Trump which is directly at issue in at least three suits in which Cohen is a party and Avenatti represents an adverse party.

Yawn! I love it when Trump supporters give us lectures about ethics.

What a joke.
 
Actually the analysis is based on Avenatti’s own claims, which is that they met coincidentally and discussed among other things Cohen’s relationship with Trump which is directly at issue in at least three suits in which Cohen is a party and Avenatti represents an adverse party.

Actually "TBD's analysis" is the parroted opinion of Twitter lawyers who assume facts not in evidence.
 
Actually "TBD's analysis" is the parroted opinion of Twitter lawyers who assume facts not in evidence.

Actually, I saw those posts after I generated my independently developed analysis. It was of course gratifying to see experienced lawyers agreeing with me.

The facts I rely on are set forth in Avenatti’s bragging, and in light of his extremely sketchy ethical history.

So many Avenatti fan bois.
 
Actually, I saw those posts after I generated my independently developed analysis. It was of course gratifying to see experienced lawyers agreeing with me.

The facts I rely on are set forth in Avenatti’s bragging, and in light of his extremely sketchy ethical history.

So many Avenatti fan bois.

:dl:
 
Actually, I saw those posts after I generated my independently developed analysis. It was of course gratifying to see experienced lawyers agreeing with me.

The facts I rely on are set forth in Avenatti’s bragging, and in light of his extremely sketchy ethical history.

So many Avenatti fan bois.

Extremely sketchy ethical history. :dl::dl:


This from a Trump supporter. Never in my life have I encountered a sleazier, more dishonest, unethical creep as Trump. And here is one of his most avid supporters desperately trying to say that Avenatti is the unethical one.

Please please stop, you look like a fool making this argument.
 
Last edited:
As usual, a reality check is needed.

Avenatti:

1. involved in sketchy bankruptcy in Fla.
2. accused of defrauding creditors
3. accused of tax fraud.
4. ethics complain filed against him.
5. bankruptcy court enters 10 million judgment against him.
6. bankruptcy court enters a TRO against him
7. moron brags about talking to a party represented by counsel.
8. Cardinals fan.

total scumbag
 
Trumps does something especially asinine, TBD drags this thread and/or the 'Hilary is Done' thread back to the top of page. Guess it beats having to address the fact you support a man who sold the US out to the Russians...
 
As usual, a reality check is needed.

Avenatti:

1. involved in sketchy bankruptcy in Fla.
2. accused of defrauding creditors
3. accused of tax fraud.
4. ethics complain filed against him.
5. bankruptcy court enters 10 million judgment against him.
6. bankruptcy court enters a TRO against him
7. moron brags about talking to a party represented by counsel.
8. Cardinals fan.

total scumbag


Donald Trump.
has been sued more than 3500 times.
Declared bankruptcy 6 times.
Lied in court or in depositions more than 2 dozen times.
Ran fraudulent charities
Told the American people he never settles lawsuits when in fact has settled at least 100 times.
Ran a fraudulent university cheating hundreds of students.
Committed civil rights violations in housing
Told the American people that he would release his taxes if nominated and never did.
Had affairs with multiple women and paid off porn stars and lied about it.
Accused of sexual assault and rape by almost a dozen women.
Allegedly had Russian Prostitutes put on a golden shower show.
Enriches himself and his family by violating the Emoluments clause.

And Avenatti is the scumbag? Surely ye jest. You're the kind of guy that think your fiends should be free to recklessly abuse the law, but anyone else who comes close to the margins should be strung up.
 
Last edited:
As usual, a reality check is needed.

Avenatti:

1. involved in sketchy bankruptcy in Fla.
2. accused of defrauding creditors
3. accused of tax fraud.
4. ethics complain filed against him.
5. bankruptcy court enters 10 million judgment against him.
6. bankruptcy court enters a TRO against him
7. moron brags about talking to a party represented by counsel.
8. Cardinals fan.

total scumbag

Michael Cohen
1. illegally taped clients without their knowledge
2. scumbag
3. Passed the bar but does not practice law, but "fixing"
4. scumbag
5. friendly with Sean Hannity
6. scumbag
7. colluded with fellow attorney to scam client
8. scumbag
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom