What WSJ knew & when: Avenatti dumps

    To:               Michael Cohen[mcohen©trumporg corn]
    From:          Keith Davidson
    Sent:           Thur 11/3/2016 7:31:38 Al

    Subject: Fwd. WSJ


    Sent from my mobile device Begin forwarded message

    From: Keith Davidson <[email protected]>
    Date: November 2, 2016 at 3:43 :32 PM PDT
    To: "Palazzolo, Joseph" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <KElTil@kmdassociates_com>
    Subject: RE,: WSJ


    We spoke last week. At that time, I told you that I had never represented Donald Trump nor anyone adverse to him.

    Yet you persist to call anyone and everyone under the sun, (including my current clients with whom I have contractual relationships), and whom I am currently representing in litigation matters.

    I understand that you are attempting to report that I am representing "women from Donald Trump's past" and that I am "presumably seeking settlements_"

    Let me be abundantly clear that your repeated calls to my existing and past clients have caused disruptions in my contractual relationships and have and will cause me financial harm.

    Let me further be abundantly clear that I have not now, nor previously represented anyone adverse to Donald Trump. Likewise, I have never sought, nor obtained a settlement from him. Any assertion by you or the Wail Street Journal to the contrary is false, defamatory and otherwise actionable.

    Last week I asked you for proof or for you to name your unnamed sources. You refused to provide either

    because as you stated, at that time, you had none. I implore you to provide what proof you have as to my representation of women adverse to Donald Trump at once. But you won't...because you have

    none, ._because there is none.

    Demand is hereby made that you and The Wall Street Journal immediately refrain from publishing, distributing or disseminating any factually untrue and unsubstantiated information regarding me or my firm since these falsehoods are, at a minimum, damaging, defamatory, and an invasion of privacy. I expect an immediate email confirmation from you that you and The Wall Street Journal will comply with this demand. Failing that, I will be forced to take appropriate legal action to protect my rights, and you and The Wall Street Journal will be acting at your and its legal risk and peril. Govern yourself accordingly,

    This letter is not intended us a complete statement of all facts concerning this matter. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a relinquishment of any of my or my firm's rights, remedies, causes of action, or claims for relief at law or in equity, all of which are expressly reserved.

    Keith M. Davidson

    Keith M. Davidson, Esq, Davidson & Associates, PLC

    8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510

    Beverly Hills, CA 90211

    Phone (323) 658-54441Fax (323) 658 -5424

    -w.1<indl aw.com                    KeithigiCmdI ZW.COM

    The information in this electronic mail message is confidential and for use of only the named recipient_ The information may be

    protected by privilege, work product immunity or other applicable law. If you arc not the intended recipient the retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error please notify us immediately at (323) 658-5444 or by e-mail at keithgkindlaw.com

    From: Palazzolo, Joseph [mailto:joe.palazzolo(4wsicom]
    Sent: October 21, 2016
    10:04 AM
    To: KETTH(a.kindassociates.corn; Keith Davidson Subject: WSJ

    Hi, Keith.

    Hope you're doing well. I'm sure you're well aware we've been calling around about you. I'm sorry for the indiscretion. But I wanted to make sure I knew what I had before I bothered talking to you. At your convenience, could we talk? Happy to speak of the record.

    Thanks and best,


    Joe Palazzolo
    Staff reporter

    1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036


    347-255-1866 (m)

    [email protected]


    [APE Local 1096: We Power Dow Jones.

    Craig Linder
    Associate General Counsel 212.416.30 88
    raig.lir derradconjonescorn

    November 3, 2016

    VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ([email protected])

    Keith M. Davidson
    Davidson & Associates, PLC
    8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510 Beverly Hills, California 90211

    Re:          Your November 2, 2016, email to Joe Palazzolo of The Wall Street Journal

    Dear Mr. Davidson:

    I am counsel to Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal. I write in response to an email that you sent to Journal reporter Joe Palazzolo yesterday. In your email, you suggest that the Journal intends to disrupt your contractual relationships, disseminate false information about you, and invade your privacy.

    Neither Mr. Palazzolo nor the Journal intends to do any such thing. Instead, both Mr. Palazzolo and the Journal intend to continue their constitutionally protected efforts to investigate a matter of pressing public concern and publish a fair and accurate report of any findings that they consider newsworthy.

    One particular point in your email demands a specific response: In your email to Mr. Palazzolo, you say 'Mast week I asked you for proof or for you to name your unnamed sources. You refused to provide either because as you stated, at that time, you had none." That statement is not correct, At no point did Mr. Palazzolo state that he had no sources or other factual basis for his reporting. To the contrary, the Journal adheres only to the highest standards of responsible journalism, including fair, truthful, and unbiased reporting that is based on information provided by sources in which we have the highest confidence.

    Consistent with those high standards, the Journal has no intent or desire to publish any false statement about you or any other subject. Mr. Palazzolo and Dow Jones's other reporters are committed to obtaining as much information as possible and to reporting in an honest and forthright manner. To that end, Mr. Palazzolo will be reaching out to you separately with additional questions based on his reporting into this matter, including inquiries pertaining to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal,

    The Journal continues to be willing to fully consider any information you provide in connection with its reporting on any future article that may discuss you. I encourage you to engage with Mr. Palazzolo so as to ensure that your views are fairly reflected in any article that he may prepare.
    Of course, The Wall Street Journal will fully consider whatever information you provide in connection with any future article. And the Journal will in any event maintain its longstanding commitment to truth, fairness, and accuracy in any possible story regarding you.

    This letter is not a full statement of Dow Jones's rights, all of which are expressly reserved.

    Craig Linder

    [As transcribed by OCR from copy placed by Michael Avenatti at https://www.dropbox.com/s/mzu5nxn457qzw28/Correspondence.pdf?dl=0 ]



    Yeah... you're generally not supposed to let your reporting become a source for the rumors you're reporting, so I figure the guy has his reasons.

    Uh oh, Avenatti gets lecture on proper officer-of-the-court behavior from Judge Kimba Wood:

    Avenatti drops request to participate in Cohen case after warning to 'stop your publicity tour'

    By Kara Scannell @ CNN.com, May 31 @ 3:31 pm

    Porn star Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, withdrew his motion to participate in the court battle involving the FBI raid of President Donald Trump's attorney's hotel and office Wednesday after a federal judge warned him he would have to "stop your publicity tour."

    Avenatti, who practices law in California, had requested to be admitted into the New York proceedings, but was met with fierce objection from the attorney for Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time lawyer, who cited Avenatti's frequent television appearances, public statements about Cohen's guilt and his release of Cohen's personal financial information.

    In a nod to that, Judge Kimba Wood told Avenatti that for him to be admitted, "you would have to change your conduct" and "stop your publicity tour." Wood said she didn't mean that in a derogatory way but later said "this conduct is inimitable to giving Mr. Cohen eventually a fair trial."

    Wood did not rule on whether to allow Avenatti to appear formally in court but made clear that his time speaking before her was limited. "Until you are admitted I don't expect you to stand here and be heard," the judge told him. About an hour after the hearing ended Avenatti withdrew his motion to appear without prejudice, meaning he could take it up later [....]

    Turns out Judge Wood was not happy with the other side either:


    I did not read Wood's response to Avenatti as a "dressing down." She told him to pick a lane. He did.

    I am not sure Klasfeld has framed the timing of the taint team correctly. The Special Master did not replace their function, just put an intermediary process in place before their work began. Wood only put in the Special Master to satisfy other parties. She did not rule it was necessary on the basis of evidence presented initially. The prosecutors still need to have all evidence go through the "taint" review process before seeing it themselves.

    This was my read, too, influenced by TPM who reported that the comment about the "publicity tour" was not pejorative.  It was more a warning: "If your goal is to have standing in these proceedings, you're going to have to tone it down going forward or we'll never find an untainted jury."

    Latest Comments