Posted on April 26 2018
let’s talk Keith Davidson and
Daniels Motion to Intervene...
Client Karen McDougal
as discussed in this twitter thread a few weeks ago. The fact that America Media released Ms. McDougal from her contact, it’s telling.
Holy SHEETZ...AMI released McDougal from her contract.— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) April 18, 2018
Archive link to twitter thread, here
AMI released McDougal from Contract, thread below
Now let’s take a look at the Settlement Agreement between AMI & Ms McDougal:— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) April 19, 2018
Notice the carve out for Cohen AND Davidson?
👇🏻Yup that’s a B I N G O👇🏻 pic.twitter.com/fYMgtAnKyT
Client Stormy Daniels aka Peggy Peterson:
Previously discussed, here
Cohen Warrant discussed, here
Cohen Warrant & Transcript redux discussed here
Client Daniels & Davidson & Cohen Warrant:
Case # 1:18-mj-03161-KMW
Some might argue that Daniels does NOT have standing to intervene, conversely others will correctly argue that YES in fact Ms. Daniels/Clifford DOES have standing. Earlier today her current Attorney Michel Avenatti & what appears to be a NEW attorney Catherine R. Keenan filed a 103 page Motion in the USA v Cohen search warrant.
“Ms. Clifford’s prior lawyer Keith Davidson, Ms. Clifford has significant reason to believe that the government is in
possession of materials that are protected by her attorney-client privilege and settlement
communications privilege. These materials are likely to include not only Ms. Clifford’s direct
attorney-client communications between her and Mr. Davidson, but also
- (1) attorney-client communications Mr. Davidson improperly shared with Mr. Cohen as reflected in e-mails, text messages, and possibly audio recordings,
- (2) protected settlement communications between Mr. Davidson and Mr. Cohen, and
- (3) communications between Mr. Davidson and Mr. Cohen (i.e. text messages and e-mails) relating to Ms. Clifford that are the property of Ms. Clifford pursuant to California law.”
What I can’t figure out if a *new* Search Warrant was executed on Keith Davidson, if you read the language carefully on pages 5 & 6, it’s crystal clear the Government has numerous communications, text, audio, emails from & to Keith Davidson.
See footnote #1 on page 5, which reads in part:
“materials taken from Mr. Davidson also likely include Ms. Clifford’s entire client file, including
text messages and e-mails.”
And reiterated on page 6:
“Counsel for Ms. Clifford understands that these materials are likely to include direct
attorney-client communications that she exchanged with Mr. Davidson.‘
And then for the third time on pages 8 and 9:
‘Here, as discussed above, the government has come into possession of certain sensitive files, including e-mails, text messages, and possibly audio recordings, both from Mr. Cohen and Mr. Davidson. These materials are likely to include direct attorney-client communications that Ms. Clifford exchanged with Mr. Davidson. Importantly, the materials also include Mr. Davidson’s communications with Mr. Cohen regarding Ms. Clifford. Further, the materials taken from Mr. Davidson also likely include Ms. Clifford’s entire client file.”
“Ms. Clifford seeks an order granting leave to intervene in this proceeding. Intervention will then afford Ms. Clifford the opportunity, by later motion or otherwise, to seek various forms of relief relating to the subject materials. For example, Ms. Clifford may seek a protective order restricting the disclosure, and requiring the return, of Ms. Clifford’s attorney-client privileged and settlement communications.”
Say what you want to say about Ms Cliffords/Daniels but she has superb representation. They ARE looking out for her best interest. This motion to intervene is actually a very smart move because:
- 1) the Privilege is her’s
- 2) she has a civil matter pending in CA
- 3) by filing this motion now, she is rightly asserting her “claim” on the various communications currently in possession of the Government.
Also see footnote #2 on page 7. The court previously granted Trump’s motion to intervene, so common sense would dictate the Judge would also grant Ms Clifford’s motion. No?
Much of the facts outlined above are also referenced in Michael Avenatti’s attached declaration. Again the question remains, did Davidson voluntarily give the “communications” to the Government or did Prosecutors obtain them via Search Warrant. I don’t think a subpoena would be used because they did not afford that to Cohen and the facts have proven the prosecution did NOT trust Cohen and went the route of a Judicial Search Warrant. Meaning a judge found enough probable cause and issued 3.
Open Source Link to this 109 page filing, here
So if you follow me on twitter then you know this thread, I try to regularly update. Sometimes I just can’t kerp up, suffice to say there have been a lot of filings:
⚖️master Cohen Warrant intervenor twitter thread⚖️
Huh...now why on earth would Alan Futerfas intervene?— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) April 19, 2018
The Cohen search warrant just took a rather interesting turn. Curious No?
cc @lauferlaw @Delavegalaw @maddogpac @DrDenaGrayson @TrueFactsStated @LouiseMensch @xtrixcyclex pic.twitter.com/epyiZ04wIz
⚖️Archived intervenor twitter thread, here ⚖️
🚨today’s USOA-SDNY filing🚨
🚨🚨🚨INCOMING🚨🚨🚨— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) April 26, 2018
USAO-SDNY used Trump’s @foxandfriends interview from this morning. Also they withdraw their objection to a Special Master, for numerous reasons & the Privilege Log Argument has serious legs
1of 2 pic.twitter.com/ihHTHLFZG5
Archived link, here
Client Elliott Broidy vis a via ex playmate paramour:
To date the unnamed former playboy model’s identity has not been disclosed. Purportedly she is Keith Davidson’s third client. Whereas Elliot Broidy “hired” but didn’t hire Michael Cohen to broker a $1.6M settlement for the pregnant former model.
So naturally I was curious. Once you hit 3, that becomes an identifiable pattern. I am surprised that a MSM reported didn’t hunt this data down.
Davidson’s California Bar file, here.
What I would really like to know:
Did Keith Davidson negotiate these “hush deals” when he was suspended from the CA Bar in 2010 & 2014 respectively.
Just from an ethical standpoint, Cohen & Davidson are “officers of the court” they are also bound by the Ethics & Professional standards where they are licensed to practice law. And perhaps it might be slightly premature to say this, did Cohen & Davidson really have their respective “clients best interest at heart”.
This CNN interview is worth rewatching. Should you be inclined, I’d also recommend you run a google search using: Keith Davidson Jalen Rose. This was a 2010-2011 Case. The video is worth watching, particularly after Ms Cliffod’s Motion to intervene..-Spicy Out
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.