It’s time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Michael Avenatti’s response to the opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice in the Southern District of New York — amongst many, many other issues!
We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Lived Through The 1980s segment (formerly: Andrew Was Wrong), that segues into an update on the Panmunjom Declaration discussed in Episode 173.
After that, it’s time to go yodeling, where we break down Paul Manafort’s other criminal trial, Michael Avenatti’s ethical responsibilities regarding SARs, Donald Trump’s financial disclosures, and (sadly) much, much more.
Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #76 regarding the admissibility of witness testimony. If you’d like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show Notes & Links
- Here is the text of the Panmunjom Declaration we first discussed in Episode 173.
- You can read Judge Jackson’s ruling denying Manafort’s Motion to Dismiss, and also Avenatti’s Response to Michael Cohen’s Opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice.
- The primary case relied upon by Avenatti in his response is In re JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 799 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2015), which is directly on point.
- We’ve also uploaded a copy of Trump’s 2018 Financial Disclosures, which admits the Cohen payment.
- Finally, we highly recommend Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker reporting regarding the Cohen SARs.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
And email us at email@example.com