0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
8K tayangan7 halaman
R. Kelly's defense team filed a motion April 1, 2019, requiring law enforcement to preserve any communications between celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
Judul Asli
R. Kelly's wants communications between Avenatti, prosecutors
R. Kelly's defense team filed a motion April 1, 2019, requiring law enforcement to preserve any communications between celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
R. Kelly's defense team filed a motion April 1, 2019, requiring law enforcement to preserve any communications between celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
INTHE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOI
‘COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL NOS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
)
Plaintiff, ?
)
v. ) No. r9cRars
‘SROBERT KELLY, ? 200, : 8
+ = 2761' =
)
2 Defendant. ) aed aan
Sor
MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN
MICHAEL AVENATTI AND OTHER ATTORNEYS, WITH THEIR CLIENTS,
EACH OTHER, ANY WITNESSES, ANY THIRD PARTY AND/OR ANY
EMPLOYEE OF THE COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEYS OFFICE, LAW
ENEORCEMENT, OR OTHERS REGARDING B, KELLY.
NOW COMES the Defendant, Robert Kelly, by the undersigned counsél; and
moves this Honorable Court to order the preservation of evidence. In support of this
request he states the following:
1. Defendant is charged in these cases with aggravated criminal sexual
abuse.
2. Pretrial discovery is supposed “to promote the fact-finding process and
to eliminate the tactical advantage of surprise by either side’ and since these goals
are served by broad disclosure between the prosecution and the defense...they are
quite clearly not served by one party's failure to inform both the court and opposing
arty of the existence of summaries and notes from interviews with a witness.”
People v. Carrasquillo, 174 I. App. Sd 1023, 1081-32, 628, 529.N.E.2d 603, 609(1988).
3. From what has been tendered it appears that the only “investigation”
done before these charges were brought (in 8 of the 4 cases) was a State’s Attorney
investigator reading old reports, an interview with a Micheal Avenatti client, and
the prosecutor(s) speaking with Avenatti. The lack of anyb meaningful
investigation of these stale allegations is outrageous.
4, ‘On March 25, 2018, Avenatti was charged with extortion in the
Southern District of New York. He was' separately charged with frauds in the
Central District of California,
5. During his alleged extortion Avenatti was recorded by the FBI
inst >
discussing his attacks on R. Kell). and threatening the same kind of attacks
ing outlandish; he can ‘solicit others to join his cause,
and amplify public outrage. He describes how he can use that to pressure others to
do as he wishes.
Avenatti has publicly claimed, in writing and otherwise, that he
6.
repeatedly spoke with State's Attorney Foxx regarding an alleged sex taps, and her
course of action, as well as generally about how R. Kelly should be prosecuted.
Before all of these cases were indicted, he engaged in a pervasive campaign of public
claims, sourced on his conversations with prosecutors, traveling to Chicago so that
he could praise his involvement and acting as if he himself were the prosecutor.
Unrestrained because he is not a licensed attorney here, he was no different than
Eustace Charleston Haney, free to say whatever he wished.Indeed, Avenatti has acted as a de facto prosecutor, it appears with the
full cooperation of the State's Attomey, as well as an agitator, saying what she
could not. Given the allegations against him one must wonder what he has told
those he has interacted with in these matters, and what is true and what is not,
8. Avenatti has publicly claimed to represent numerous people in the
cases that have been brought.
9. According to CBS (who interviewed his client) he represents the
alleged victim Lanita Carter. She explained to CBS she responded to Kim Fox's
solicitation. (See ¥ 21).
10. How did she end up represented by a California based celebrity
lawyer? 2
11° Her case was fully investigated by the CPD when she made a
complaint in 2002-2008, "Thé prosecitor zejected charges. The charges were
rejected, notwithstanding that Mr. Kelly had a then pending case. Anyone familiar
with the practice here knows how unusual it is to refuse to prosecute an alleged
sexual assault when the same alleged offender is on bond for a sex related (or any
other) offense.
12, The case laid dormant till Mr. Avenatti joined in. Then it miraculously
was resurrected, although nothing had changed. 15 years later. This is unheard of.
13. From the sparse discovery presented thus far it is clear that Avenatti
also represents someone in the alleged tape case (the tape the prosecutor does not
want to let the defense see).