Government files opposition to Avenatti's 9th Circuit bid to reverse Judge Selena's bail revocation order

Unless Michael Avenatti can convince the 9th Circuit to reverse district court judge Selena's order revoking his bail and remanding him until tried in the CDCA, 36 felony count case, it is likely that the next time Avenatti breathes fresh air will be upon expiration of the longer of the prison sentences he is likely to receive in three pending felony cases.

Judging from the Government's brief in opposition to that bid the reversal Avenatti seeks does not appear likely. At all.

Judge Selena based his remand decision on a lengthy affidavit filed by IRS Criminal Division and a slew of bank and other business records showing that Avenatti intercepted a $1M fee check earned by Avenatti Associates (an entity that  had already been transferred by the divorce court to the soon-to-be-ex Mrs. Avenatti) and deposited it into a new personal account.

Avenatti then procured a $700,000 cashier's check payable to his first wife Carlin, who immediately kicked him back $500,00 to a third account, bought Avenatti a Mercedes Sedan (parked at Avenatti's driver's house), make a check to Avenatti's attorneys, then spend the rest on her own bills.

The cash  washed through Carlin's account was then deposited to the account of a new entity Avenatti formed, as to which account Avenatti constantly withdrew cash just under the $10,000 reporting limit, obtained a cashier's check just under the federal reporting limit which he cashed the next day, and withdrew the balance in a large cashier's check -- to keep his bank balance near zero to avoid creditor garnishment. Avenatti would then repeat this "check flipping" and currency structured process, and managed to pay his $11,000 monthly rent, to buy his garnished art up for auction for $15,000, to renew his "Exclusive Resorts" membership for $35,000, and to generally live what the Government describes as a "lavish lifestyle".

Avenatti's appeal is based on a number of mischaracterizations of the record and the argument that Avenatti was just doing what was needed to exist and pay for the necessaries of life.

I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that the 9th Circuit is going to affirm the remand order.

Avenatti's problem is that all the 9th Circuit needs to find in the record is sufficient evidence to support probable cause to believe that Avenatti committed a crime or crimes while on pretrial release, and that the Court's determination that there were no lesser means to protect the public from danger existed -- which is presumed unless Avenatti rebutted the Government's showing in the trial court, which he did not even try to do, was not clearly erroneous.