OFF PAGE ONE
Thursday, January 30, 2020
East Oregonian
A7
Prosecutor: Michael Avenatti saw dollar signs in Nike fraud
By LARRY
NEUMEISTER
Associated Press
NEW YORK — A pros-
ecutor kicked off opening
statements at the attempted
extortion trial of Michael
Avenatti on Wednesday by
saying the deep-in-debt Cali-
fornia lawyer used the “mod-
ern weapon” of a big social
media following and clout as
a television program guest to
try to extort millions of dol-
lars from Nike.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Robert Sobelman told jurors
in Manhattan that the law-
yer, who gained fame by rep-
resenting porn star Stormy
Daniels in lawsuits against
President Donald Trump,
went to Nike after an ama-
teur coach who felt cheated
by the sportswear giant
sought his help.
“He sold out his client,
and then tried to harm a
major company,” Sobelman
told jurors.
The prosecutor said
Avenatti used “a weapon, a
modern weapon” to try to
force the company to pay
him up to $25 million. That
weapon, Sobelman said, was
Avenatti’s large social media
following and access to tele-
vision shows.
“When he looked at the
coach, he did not see a cli-
ent to help,” the prosecutor
said. “He saw dollar signs for
himself.”
Defense attorney How-
ard Srebnick told jurors that
Avenatti’s negotiations with
AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File
In this Dec. 17, 2019, file photo, attorney Michael Avenatti
arrives at federal court in New York to enter a plea to an in-
dictment charging him with trying to extort up to $25 million
from Nike.
Nike were “not extortion.”
Avenatti has pleaded not
guilty to trying to extort Ore-
gon-based Nike in March
2019 by threatening to go
public with evidence that
the shoemaker had paid off
the families of highly ranked
high school basketball pros-
pects. The trial is expected to
last about 2½ weeks.
He also faces an April
trial in New York on charges
that he cheated Daniels,
whose real name is Stepha-
nie Clifford, of proceeds of a
book deal and a May trial in
Los Angeles on charges that
he ripped off clients and oth-
ers for millions of dollars.
He has denied all charges
and maintained that he
was targeted by the Trump
administration after clashing
with the president on social
media and frequently criti-
cizing him.
Prosecutors say Avenatti,
48, tried to leverage his abil-
ity to attract a large amount
of attention to any public
statements he might make
to force Nike to pay between
$15 million and $25 mil-
lion to prevent damaging
publicity.
Prosecutors had asked
U.S. District Judge Paul G.
Gardephe to prevent defense
lawyers from mentioning
Daniels and Trump, but the
judge said it would be impos-
sible because it would oth-
erwise seem “Avenatti sud-
denly became this incredibly
public lawyer magically.”
Avenatti grew so famous
in the past two years that he
considered a run for presi-
dent after making over 100
appearances on cable televi-
sion programs to talk about
lawsuits Daniels brought
against Trump over an affair
she claimed occurred before
he became president.
Sanctuary: Ordinance is a preemptive response to future regulations
Continued from Page A1
It’s that kind of talk that
Beard says the people of
Lexington don’t want to
entertain.
“I firmly believe in the
safe handling of firearms,”
he said. “When you crimi-
nalize these things, you’re
criminalizing a lot of gun
owners who are law-abiding
citizens.”
Morrow County Com-
missioner Don Russell said
that about five years ago,
commissioners passed a res-
olution expressing county-
wide support of Second
Amendment rights. He
added that there aren’t cur-
rently any state laws the
county would decline to
enforce.
That, he said, is up to
Morrow County Sheriff Ken
Matlack.
“I think the sheriff has a
lot of flexibility over what
he enforces and doesn’t
enforce,” he said.
Matlack expressed con-
cern over the possibility of
a safe storage law, or other
laws that might affect gun
owners. He said gun stor-
age requirements would
defeat the purpose of having
a weapon during an instance
like home invasion.
“If a (law) was obvious
enough to be a violation of
the Second Amendment as it
was written, I would be con-
cerned over defending my
oath to protect and defend,”
Staff photo by Ben Lonergan
The town of Lexington recently passed a “Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance” aimed at protecting Second Amend-
ment rights as they currently stand even under changes to state or federal law.
he said.
In 2018, Matlack voiced
his opposition to an initiative
petition that would ban semi-
automatic weapons. In a let-
ter posted on Facebook, he
compared the possible regu-
lation to preemptive actions
of oppressive governments,
including Nazi Germany
and Stalin’s Russia.
Lexington council mem-
bers have yet to reach out
to Matlack about the ordi-
nance, which states that any
peace officer may enforce
the ordinance.
Without a city police
department,
Lexing-
ton relies on county law
enforcement.
Matlack said without
a contract, the Morrow
County Sheriff’s Office is
not responsible for enforc-
ing an individual town or
city ordinance.
“If the (town) of Lex-
ington wanted a contract
for some city ordinances, I
would consider it,” he said.
Heppner and Irrigon both
have contracts with the sher-
iff’s office to aid in code
and ordinance enforcement.
Matlack said if the county
were to take on a sanctuary
ordinance, his office would
also work to support that
decision.
“We have not considered
it. Probably because nobody
has brought it up, and I sus-
pect somebody will,” he
said.
Morrow County Com-
missioner Jim Doherty
expressed fear that announc-
ing Morrow County as
a “Second Amendment
Sanctuary” would water
down the county’s abil-
ity to support the Second
Amendment.
“I’m a little bit hesitant to
do these ordinances. It gives
us a voice, we already have
the ability. To sign on and
say we are a sanctuary could
weaken that voice,” he said.
And while the county
doesn’t appear to be sign-
ing up for sanctuary sta-
tus anytime soon, Kennedy
said some constituents from
Heppner have approached
her with interest in bringing
a similar ordinance to their
own city.
She said when the town
council passed the ordi-
nance, some people ques-
tioned the effectiveness of
such a move.
“We don’t want someone
coming in and taking our
guns,” she said. “It’s a mat-
ter of a starting point, com-
ing together as a community
to let people and other com-
munities know our stance.
There’s power in numbers.”
Housing: Presently, Oregon prohibits
taxes and fees on real estate transfers
Continued from Page A1
Image Courtesy of Pendleton Public Works
The proposed Byers Avenue Plaza is one of several public projects that the Pendleton Devel-
opment Commission plans to address after shifting their focus away from private develop-
ment in favor of public projects.
Projects: Byers Avenue Plaza possible
Continued from Page A1
Back in 2003, the urban
renewal plan estimated the
commission would spend
more than $36 million over
the lifetime of the district,
with more than two-thirds
of the money going toward
public projects.
But the commission
hasn’t come close to spend-
ing that much money, much
less on public improvements.
One of the projects the
committee is bringing back
to light is a plaza and festi-
val street at the bend where
Southwest Byers Avenue
turns into First Street.
More than a decade ago,
Portland architecture firm
GreenWorks made concep-
tual drawings of the idea,
which envisioned a multi-
use area that incorporated a
viewing terrace overlooking
the nearby Umatilla River,
removable floodwall panels,
and a reconfigured parking
lot that could double as a
plaza space.
The advisory commit-
tee also suggested doing
various street reconstruc-
tion projects in the urban
renewal district, a pricey
proposition.
The commission recently
agreed to spend more than
$1 million to repair and
widen several sections on
Southeast Byers, but the
2003 estimate pegs the cost
across the district at more
than $7 million.
Denight said he’s meeting
with Public Works Direc-
tor Bob Patterson to get
updated cost estimates on
streets in the urban renewal
district.
Hanging over all these
discussions is the urban
renewal district’s 2023 expi-
ration date.
The commission hasn’t
yet committed to extending
it, and Denight said what
projects members choose
to proceed with will help
determine whether the dis-
trict continues after 2023.
Denight said the com-
mission will meet soon to
discuss the proposed ideas
and whether to extend the
urban renewal district in an
upcoming workshop.
“Outside of how we
build, construct and develop
housing, we don’t have an
ongoing dedicated source
of funding to provide the
services,” said Shannon
Singleton, Brown’s hous-
ing policy adviser. “Local
jurisdictions don’t neces-
sarily have the ability to
meet service level needs
without some sort of new
revenue.”
If it gets traction,
Brown’s resolution would
become the latest high-pro-
file
housing
proposal
slated for the 35-day ses-
sion that begins Feb. 3.
OPB first reported that
House Speaker Tina Kotek,
D-Portland, plans to ask
lawmakers to declare a
housing state of emergency
in Oregon, and she will
push a $120 million pack-
age meant to help commu-
nities establish shelters and
provide housing.
But Brown’s idea also
would dredge up a debate
Oregon last had in 2012. At
the time, housing prices in
the state had bottomed out
from the great recession
and were just beginning a
rise that continues today.
Realtors and business
groups poured millions of
dollars into Measure 79,
which created a prohibition
on real estate transfer taxes
in the state constitution.
Oregon statutes already
prohibited localities from
creating such taxes, but
Measure 79 proponents
wanted more certainty.
They made hard-to-prove
claims that cities around
the state had been plotting
to institute transfer taxes,
and that such a move would
create another burden for
homeowners and prospec-
tive buyers.
“We are very concerned
about anything that would
make a terrible housing
situation even worse,” the
Salem Area Chamber of
Commerce wrote in a vot-
ers’ pamphlet statement.
“With property val-
ues declining, it is unfair
to impose additional taxes
on struggling middle class
families and Oregon busi-
nesses,” chimed in the Ben-
ton County Farm Bureau.
Opponents countered
that the measure was
unnecessary and would add
unneeded complexity to the
state’s constitution. Mea-
sure 79 wound up resonat-
ing with voters and passed
with nearly 59% of the vote.
As a result, the Oregon
Constitution now prohib-
its any “tax, fee or other
assessment upon the trans-
fer of any interest in real
property, or measured by
the consideration paid or
received upon the transfer
of any interest in real prop-
erty.” A 0.1% transfer tax
that Washington County
had in place when the mea-
sure passed was allowed to
continue.
A representative with
the Oregon Association of
Realtors did not respond to
a request for comment on
Brown’s proposal Tuesday.
Neither did a spokesman
for Kotek, whose chamber
the resolution must move
through first.
The governor’s office,
meanwhile, contends it’s
time Oregon started consid-
ering transfer taxes again.
If her measure makes
the ballot and passes, hard
details about any tax would
be decided by the state’s
Legislative
Assembly.
States around the country
have adopted a wide range
of taxing structures for
property transfers.
“Let’s bring this back
into the conversation and
at least bring it back before
voters to see if at this point
in time with the data that
we have … is it time to
revisit,” said Singleton,
who formerly led the Port-
land homeless services
organization JOIN. “It’s not
something that ever stops
being talked about in the
housing community. We
always need to be talking
about additional revenue
sources.”
In absence of trans-
fer taxes, lawmakers have
turned to other mecha-
nisms to raise money for
affordable housing.
In 2018, the Legisla-
ture raised the fee county
clerks collect for record-
ing documents from $20 to
$60, doubling the money
the state raises for afford-
able housing. Realtors sup-
ported that change after it
was paired with a provision
allowing first-time home
buyers to set up tax-free
savings accounts.
Lawmakers have also
repeatedly
considered
narrowing the state’s tax
deduction for mortgage
interest payments, a move
aimed at raising tens of mil-
lions of dollars for afford-
able housing. Those pro-
posals have been opposed
by Realtors.