Posts Tagged ‘Michael Avenatti’

James A., Ph.D

“Creepy Porn Lawyer”, Michael Avenatti, was arrested on or about November 14, 2018, for felony domestic battery. Although Avenatti denies being either “charged”, or accused of a felony, the LAPD website states both: that Avenatti was not only “charged”, but charged with a class F Felony.

After Avenatti’s release on $50,000 bail, Avenatti accused Jacob Wohl of orchestrating a smear campaign against him. In other words, Avenatti was arrested not because he actually assaulted someone, but because there’s a vast conspiracy between Jacob Wohl and the Los Angeles Police Department (which just happens to be one of the most liberal strongholds in the country).

For the following reasons, this accusation against Wohl is patently absurd.

1. Avenatti’s grounds for this accusation seems to be based on a single tweet made by “Surefire Intelligence” which stated simply, “Surefire strikes again”. It is obvious that the tweet was not an admission to Wohl’s “complicity” in Avenatti’s arrest, but a sentiment that they thought they were  first to circulate the story, which is a common “puffing” tactic used by all news reporting agencies and marketers. Even if Surefire was playing head games with Avenatti, that’s not evidence that Wohl was behind Avenatti’s arrest.

2. The reports which rely heavily on TMZ and AP Network News, who report getting their information from the LAPD, state that the victim reporting the incident had visible injuries. The injuries were serious enough to charge Avenatti with a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. To think Wohl orchestrated the physical, visible bruises on the victim is absurd. Avenatti has attacked TMZ for being part of the “conspiracy” against him as well because it’s owner is friends with President Trump, even though TMZ has quite a plethora of negative anti-Trump articles. However, ironically, Avenatti is silent on the same reporting done by AP, who is clearly not Trump-friendly.

3. Avenatti was arrested for a DOMESTIC battery, which typically indicates the victim and perpetrator were in a close relationship.* This is also supported by the fact that the victim obtained a restraining order (screenshot of relevant portion of the article below) against Avenatti on November 15, 2018. The fact that the victim feared that Avenatti would return not only shows trauma, but also shows that Avenatti and the victim knew each other, and knew each other long enough for there to have been a relationship. For Wohl to have orchestrated this, he would have to have known who Avenatti was dating, and then somehow, convinced the victim to cooperate in a conspiracy to have Avenatti arrested for battery, in addition to being willing to take a punch.

To think that Wohl just schmoozed into this woman’s life and someone convinced a girl he didn’t know to accuse her boyfriend of domestic abuse is just absurd. How did Wohl know who Avenatti was dating? How did Wohl know where they lived?  Note that in all of Avenatti’s public statements, he has not denied knowing the woman, he has not denied having a relationship with the woman, and he has not directly accused the woman or Jacob Wohl of knowing each other.

4. Avenatti is reported to have told the police, “she hit me first”. Avenatti has not denied that he made this statement to police. This statement made in the heat of the incident would be considered in law “res gestae, excited utterance”. These kind of utterances are often the most powerful statements because they reflect what a person is thinking and feeling in the moment without having time to reflect on how they could have or should have responded differently, and before you give your official spin narrative to the media. The fact that Avenatti has claimed he never hit the woman, AT ALL, yet claims that she hit him first based on his excited utterance shows that not only is he lying about hitting her, but is trying to give the impression that even if he did, it would be OK to crush a woman’s face simply because she hit him first.

So much for “believe survivors”, and “believe women”.

The media, and Avenatti’s supporters have pointed to another incident in where they accuse Wohl of orchestrating an attack against Robert Mueller. Even if this were true (and there’s no proof that it is), it is a post hoc ∴ propter hoc fallacy to claim that Wohl is behind the Avenatti arrest based solely on Avenatti’s question-begging premise that Wohl orchestrated a “Mueller smear”.

Thus ultimately, the only grounds so far that Avenatti has put forward in an attempt to substantiate his claim that Jacob Wohl was behind his arrest is a single tweet that is quite ambiguous. This is just sloppy, irresponsible lawyering, and hardly constitutes evidence of a conspiracy.

Unfortunately, California is an activist state. It is where the ACLU goes judge shopping, and where courts have exonerated illegal immigrants in the face of overwhelming evidence of murder, and warned them in advance of impending arrests by ICE. It is highly likely, in my opinion, Avenatti will seek the assistance of the US Senator over Los Angeles, Dianne Feinstein, the senator who was involved in smearing Justice Kavanaugh, who will then put pressure on local LAPD officials and the mayor, and thus it is unlikely Avenatti will face any real consequences, and the victim will not get any real justice. But until the case against Avenatti has been adjudicated, it is absurd to make Jacoh Wohl into a patsy, and direct public ire against him without any evidence whatsoever that Wohl had anything to do with putting Michael Avenatti’s fist into the face of his girlfriend as reported by the LAPD, TMZ, and AP.  All Avenatti is doing at this point is harpooning the public pool of opinion. “Harpooning the jury” is a lawyer tactic where even though a lawyer knows a comment will be objected to and ordered stricken from the record, it nevertheless stews in the minds of the jurors and can often be persuasive in deliberations. It is clear that’s what Avenatti is doing. Even though there’s absolutely no substance to his accusations, he’s employing a common propaganda technique to deflect and project the entire case onto Jacob Wohl. In my opinion, if all this is true, Avenatti should take the advice of Jacob’s father:

*Although it appears that the victim was misidentified at first as Avenatti’s ex-wife, Lisa Avenatti, it is clear that Avenatti was accused of hitting SOMEONE. It would not be difficult for any media to make this kind of mistake given that Avenatti was charged with a domestic battery, and his last known spouse was Lisa Avenatti. However, domestic battery can include a girlfriend. What Avenatti has attempted to do is deny that any person was assaulted at all by laying the entire alleged assault on Lisa, and since Lisa denies being the victim, ergo it follows that no victim exists at all and the event as alleged never happened. Again, bad lawyering and really bad logic.

James A., Ph.D,

Tucker Carlson made headlines the week of November 7-8, 2018, as the domestic terrorist groups, Antifa, Smash Fascism, with Think Progress, surrounded his home, tried to break into his house, threatened him with mail bombs, and terrorized his wife.

But over the weekend, we learned there was another event that precipitated this, which Tucker was trying to keep a low profile on to protect his children. According to a statement by Tucker Carlson, a Leftist confronted his daughter, and called her Tucker’s whore. His daughter returned to their table in tears, and the Leftist was subsequently confronted by Tucker and his son. The restaurant investigated the matter and suspended the Leftist’s membership.

It has been said that it’s not the crime, but the cover up that always seems worse, and in this instance, Creepy Porn Lawyer, Michael Avenatti, takes the cake. In a not-really-surprising twist, Avenatti is representing the Leftist who accosted the Carlson family, and is attempting to spin the narrative, and accuse the Carlson’s of doing exactly what his client did to them. Of course, this isn’t the client’s first rodeo with an establishment like this. Avenatti’s client, Juan Granados, once sued a Virginia Health Club over similar allegations (we’ve also seen similar tactics like this from the LGBT Mafia who target Christian businesses, like cake shops).

Avenatti released the following statement on Twitter, which was preceded by several other tweets (which will all be addressed below), and it is my purpose to challenged every statement made.

First of all, let’s address the elephant in the room. Given that the November attack by Antifa at Tucker’s residence was about his opinion over the Honduran caravan approaching the border, it is beyond ironic that the Leftist accosting his family at the restaurant just happens to be “an immigrant”. What a great way to spin a narrative than by claiming that Tucker’s family conspired to attack an immigrant, giving the impression that his views on FOX about the caravan are actually based on racism. Secondly, are we really supposed to believe that Carlson’s entire family was involved in some vast conspiracy to find a gay Latino at a restaurant to confront him over his immigration status, as opposed to visiting the restaurant to enjoy a meal with family? What’s entirely missing from Avenatti’s narrative is how this conflict arose in the first place if he’s denying that he did what the Carlson’s say he did.

Inappropriate Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

Avenatti attempts to commit a common fallacy of appealing to credentials and authority to bolster his client’s credibility (as he attempted to do with a Kavanaugh accuser, Julie Swetnick). In other words, my client isn’t guilty because he’s an activist in good standing with his activist community. It also begs the question: how do we know he has great character? I would argue, however, that his activism is what makes him more suspect, not a credible witness. Leftists have adopted a win-by-any-means-necessary revolutionary tactic, and seeking out the Carlson family in a restaurant attempting to provoke a confrontation and then use it to create a false narrative in the mainstream media against Carlson is not beyond the type of typical tactics we’ve seen from the Left.

1. Granados claims that he has witnesses that claim he did not call Tucker’s daughter a whore or a cunt. Yet none of those witnesses have provided a statement which as Avenatti well knows, is hearsay. So on point 1, it’s the word of Granados against Tucker and his two children, and other witnesses in a video that Avenatti audaciously claims supports his client.

The obvious question looming here is how the Carlson’s came into contact with Granados in the first place? In a short one minute video posted Avenatti, Avenatti argues for Granados that Tucker told him to “go back where you came from”, yet this would require Tucker to know where he came from. How would Tucker have known that? The video shows nothing of the sort. There are numerous voices shouting, and a lot of profanity exchanged, but what is never said is “go back where you came from”. Avenatti is attempting to “Acosta” the video, make you see something or not see something based on gaslighting. In fact, the video shows that other witnesses support Tucker’s claim. One witness attempting to get Granados to leave says, “you’re going to defend that guy? [uses thumb to point to Granados] Did you see what he did?”.

2. Granados then claims that Tucker’s daughter never returned to her table in tears. How would he know that? Did he follow her back to the table? What made him pay attention to her in the first place if he claims the confrontation never happened? Isn’t it kind of odd that he would be watching her return to a table after a confrontation he says didn’t occur? In denying the description provided by Tucker’s daughter on this point, Granados actually incriminates himself.

3. Granados then asserts that Tucker and his son are/were the aggressors “as shown in the video”. As stated above, the video shows nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the video is taken AFTER the incident described by Tucker Carlson’s statement. This is the equivalent of the older brother punching his little brother in the stomach (remember “The Good Son”!), and then filming his brother’s reaction for the purpose of blaming the victim for being aggressive. The video does nothing to refute what Carlson claims happened before the video was taken. Moreover, it would be even more suspicious if there just happened to be a camera rolling ab initio.

4. Granados alleges that Tucker’s daughter was drinking, and was “underage at 19”. First of all, how does this creep know how old she is? Granted, he could have learned that later, but a statement such as what Avenatti is providing is supposed to recite events AS YOU WERE AWARE OF THEM AT THE TIME, not as you became aware of them later, and Granados is affirming that he knew of her age AT THAT TIME. Was he stalking Tucker’s daughter? Furthermore, Granados never mentions how he knew Tucker’s daughter was drinking an alcoholic beverage. Did he ask the bartender what he served her? Did Avenatti get a statement from the bartender? Is this even true at all? Perhaps the bar was the closest place to get a refill on a soda without having to wait for a waitress. This statement is unproven and slanderous, and frankly, the restaurant should sue Granados for defamation by accusing them of serving alcohol to minors.

It is extraordinary how much Granados seems to know about where Tucker’s daughter sat, what she drank, that she traveled to a bar on several occasions, and whether or not she was crying, all while denying he never had any contact with her that night as described by Tucker. For a person who didn’t know what she was talking about, he sure knows an awful lot about her, and her activities at the restaurant.

__________________________

Now that we’ve disposed of the Granados statement, and the video, let’s move on to Avenatti’s explanatory tweets (I’m going to skip some of the first tweets because they are redundant to what his client argues in his written statement above, and those arguments have already been addressed).

In Tweet 2/3, Avenatti posts, 

2/3 – and battery (on video). You are the aggressor in the video as is your friend. The man at the bar sits there calmly. Numerous witnesses contradict your claim of innocence. Your daughter was drinking underage in a bar with your assistance and knowledge. You were intoxicated.

At first, Avenatti claimed that Tucker’s daughter was “LIKELY” drinking underage. Then he moves to claiming it as an absolute fact that not only was Tucker’s daughter drinking, but that Tucker himself was intoxicated. How does Avenatti know either statement is true, and where are the witnesses and forensic evidence to prove his statements? This is a defamatory claim that the Carlson family should sue Avenatti for.

Secondly, Avenatti claims that “numerous witnesses” contradict Tucker, but then why is he asking for help to find witnesses? If there were numerous witnesses, shouldn’t Avenatti already know who they are and obtained and published their statements? It seems the strategy is to create the narrative first, then search for the elements necessary to prove the crime later. Publicizing only one small part of the story allows activists to come forward claiming they were there, when all of the evidence that Avenatti claims he relies on should’ve been presented before making his claims.

2/2 – We are attempting to locate additional witnesses and to identify those depicted in the video. In particular, we need assistance identifying the balding man that grabs the man seated at the bar. We anticipate charges being filed. Anyone with knowledge, pls contact us.

Finally, Avenatti asks in a tweet,

3/3 – You told the man to “go back where you came from” before the video starts. And if you were so innocent, why didn’t you disclose it weeks ago as you recently did in connection with the protest at your home?

Tucker already explained why he never mentioned this incident, an explanation that is ignored by Avenatti, and it’s more than a reasonable explanation. Unlike Democrats who enjoy using children as political props, Conservatives don’t exploit their own children to help their career or agenda. He wanted to keep his children out of the media. Given the actions of these mobs, what parent wouldn’t? The difference between this restaurant incident, and the mob at Tucker’s house, is that it was the mob itself that posted the video of what they did and made it public, whereas the incident at the restaurant was never made public until Michael Avenatti spoke about it publicly on behalf of his client. For Avenatti to even ask this question shows either abject incompetence, or deliberate means to promote propaganda.

I may add more to this later, so check back often, and leave your comments. But in my opinion, I believe that Avenatti is orchestrating these events, and should be investigating by the Department of Justice.