• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Michael Avenatti faces up to 330 years

Recommended Posts

Rippleman    3,741
Posted (edited)

Can't believe they are all easily detectable offences. Did he think he was going to get away with it? 

 

 

Edited by Rippleman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    14,930

Politics how? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macrosslover    555

I don't like the man, but that amount of time is just crazy.  I'm all for punishment, but not stupid amounts, like that doctor that was molesting the gymnasts getting 300+ years.  Just say he will get life, period, not this 200, 300, and 400 year sentence junk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon H    2,500
10 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Politics how? 

agreed so I've moved to Real World News for clarity :)

1 minute ago, macrosslover said:

I don't like the man, but that amount of time is just crazy.  I'm all for punishment, but not stupid amounts, like that doctor that was molesting the gymnasts getting 300+ years.  Just say he will get life, period, not this 200, 300, and 400 year sentence junk.

I've heard the reasoning is because you can get so much time knocked off for good behavior and such. but I totally agree with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka    3,877

Detestable is right.

 

I think a lot of lawyers do get away with it, and he only got so publicly caught because of his Stormy representation.

 

1 minute ago, macrosslover said:

I don't like the man, but that amount of time is just crazy.

Detention rates can get extremely outrageously either far too long or far too short. I'll save my rage for people in jail for life for minor marijuana possession charges or cops getting 2 years for shooting an unarmed person.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven P.    12,446
10 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

I don't like the man, but that amount of time is just crazy.  I'm all for punishment, but not stupid amounts, like that doctor that was molesting the gymnasts getting 300+ years.  Just say he will get life, period, not this 200, 300, and 400 year sentence junk.

Apart from the individual victims getting their sentences tacked on, that amount can be halved as time served in some countries making it 150 years, and then on appeal it can be shortened further still, I agree that it looks stupid, but there are several reasons for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
virtorio    2,973

Given today's standards, he might be presidential materiel after-all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal    7,855

He's been "indicted" a few times an nothing stuck so far.  Let's see where this goes, if he's guilty he's guilty.

 

I know he's been going after Nike for a whole slew of things and this might be their way of retaliating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    14,930

So far he's been bringing the receipts and he hasn't been convicted of anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,103
3 minutes ago, primortal said:

He's been "indicted" a few times an nothing stuck so far.  Let's see where this goes, if he's guilty he's guilty.

 

I know he's been going after Nike for a whole slew of things and this might be their way of retaliating.

 

This trial involves five of his clients and a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles in United States District Court (which is why the Feds are involved) - the clients won the case.  The charges against Avenatti involve what was done with the damages awarded to his clients.

 

As most of you (in the United States) *should* be aware, there are rules governing awards in civil judgments - such as how much the lawyer is permitted to charge the clients - this is where Avenatti got into hot water.  (Unlike in specific types of cases - such as worker's compensation - where these rules are not merely spelled out, but are public documents, the rules are known to the lawyers (and law firms) and are *supposed* to be shared with their clients - not only can you get fined and/or jailed for violating them - which is the case with Avenatti - you can lose your law license atop that.)  It is also completely separate from the NIKE case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal    7,855
15 hours ago, PGHammer said:

This trial involves five of his clients and a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles in United States District Court (which is why the Feds are involved) - the clients won the case.  The charges against Avenatti involve what was done with the damages awarded to his clients.

 

As most of you (in the United States) *should* be aware, there are rules governing awards in civil judgments - such as how much the lawyer is permitted to charge the clients - this is where Avenatti got into hot water.  (Unlike in specific types of cases - such as worker's compensation - where these rules are not merely spelled out, but are public documents, the rules are known to the lawyers (and law firms) and are *supposed* to be shared with their clients - not only can you get fined and/or jailed for violating them - which is the case with Avenatti - you can lose your law license atop that.) 

Speculative on your part.

 

15 hours ago, PGHammer said:

It is also completely separate from the NIKE case.

Why, you don't think Nike isn't capable of trying to smear/discredit Avenatti so his case gets thown out?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,934
On 4/11/2019 at 3:53 PM, Brandon H said:

agreed so I've moved to Real World News for clarity :)

 

I've heard the reasoning is because you can get so much time knocked off for good behavior and such. but I totally agree with you

 

Since 1984 there's no parole in the US federal prison system, and time off for good behavior maxes out at 54 days/year served. The most he could get knocked off a 330 year sentence is about 49 years.

 

Of course this is if the sentences are served consecutively (ex: 10+10+13 = 33 years). If they're served concurrently (in parallel) his max time would be that of the longest individual sentence (ex: 10+10+13 = 13 years).

 

Who decides which? The sentencing judge, who has broad discretion. Tick off a federal  judge and....

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.