BREAKING – Attorney Michael Cohen Fights Back! The Lawyer Of Stormy Daniels Confuses Trump’s Lawyer With Other “Cohens.”

by Ruby Henley

It is being reported by the ‘Washington Times’ that Stormy Daniels’ lawyer confused President Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, with other Michael Cohens.  Yes, is it not unbelievable?

Michael Avenatti released a seven page document in which he insinuated that President Trump’s  attorney, Michael Cohen, received money from a Russian to pay off Stormy Daniels. This is very fishy and makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, according to reports, at least two of the payments in the document, which Mr. Avenatti posted on Twitter, were to other men named Michael Cohen.

President Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, is fighting back.

This is breaking news:


In a prior report, I wrote about this if you want to refer to it.

‘Rudy Giuliani took shots at Michael Avenatti on Tuesday night, after Stormy Daniels’ lawyer made a stunning claim about Michael Cohen.

Avenatti took to Twitter on Tuesday evening to allege that a company tied to a Russian oligarch paid Cohen, President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, $500,000 in 2017.

The news was first revealed by Avenatti — who is representing porn star Stormy Daniels in her case against Cohen, who paid her $130,000 in 2016 to keep quiet about an alleged affair with Trump — and later confirmed by the Daily Beast and CNN.

And when Bloomberg reached out to Giuliani, Trump’s pugnacious new attorney, for comment by telephone, he trashed Avenatti.

“I have no idea how he would know that. I have no reason to believe that anything he says is true,” Giuliani said. “I consider him now sort of a guy who books for Saturday Night Live. The guy is a pretty unsuccessful lawyer — can’t remember a case he’s ever had that meant anything — and I think he’s desperate for money.”

Avenatti’s response to Giuliani –

Michael Avenatti


Mr. Giuliani – you just called me a “pretty unsuccessful lawyer” and stated that you “can’t remember a case he’s ever had that meant anything.” 1st, you obviously can’t remember much. 2nd, check my bio and you will find over a BILLION worth of verdicts and settlements. #dumb 7:09 PM – May 8, 2018

Washington Times goes on to report the following:

‘The Daily Caller reported that one of “wrong Michael Cohen payments” was a $4,250 wire transfer from Actuarial Partners, to a bank in Toronto.

Zainal Kassim, a representative for Actuarial Partners, forwarded an email from his Mr. Cohen to the porn-star lawyer requesting that he “correct this error forthwith and make it known publicly” that he got the wrong Michael Cohen.

“You are surely aware of the fact that this is an extremely common name and would request that you take care before involving innocent parries in this sordid affair,” Mr. Cohen wrote Mr. Avenatti in the email, the Daily Caller reported.’


Wow, this is quite something.  The attorney for President Trump, Michael Cohen, is fighting back to clear his name.  He is declaring the Avenatti document as inaccurate.

Michael Avenatti’s Report Allegedly Named Two of the Wrong Michael Cohens

We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!

BREAKING: Michael Cohen responds to allegations by Michael Avenatti for the first time saying Avenatti:

– produced inaccurate statements

– misidentified at least one wire transfer to a different Michael Cohen

– some info seems to be from Cohen’s *actual* bank statements


In a further development the lawyer of Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, is under investigation into how he obtained these “documents.”

Michael Cohen’s lawyers respond to accusations against the attorney –

Avenatti “deliberately distorted information from the records which appear to be in his possession for the purpose of creating a toxic misinformation,” the Cohen lawyers wrote.

They said the report stated incorrectly that Russian oligarch and Putin ally Viktor Vekselberg was involved in routing payments to Cohen’s shell company through Columbus Nova, a New York investment firm run by the billionaire’s American cousin Andrew Intrater.   Vekselberg’s conglomerate, Renova Group, is the firm’s biggest client, but he played no role in hiring Cohen for real estate and investment advice, according to Columbus Nova.

Further they stated there were “blatantly incorrect statements” by Avenatti about Cohen’s company receiving payments from Canada, Singapore, Hungary and a Bank of America account in Taiwan.  “Mr. Cohen has never had a Taiwanese bank account, has never been to Taiwan, and has never even had a Bank of America bank account,” they said.

Ending with – “Mr. Avenatti’s conduct in somehow obtaining random bank records and publishing them without proper concern for their accuracy is extremely troubling for the parties in this case, the court, and the public,” they wrote.

Avenatti responds – “the letter is baseless, improper and sanctionable. Among other things, they effectively concede the receipt of the $500,000 from those with Russian ties.”


In conclusion, I still believe when Michael Cohen’s offices were raided, the law was annihilated.  It was crushed for all Americans. The privacy a client depends upon when he or she hires an attorney can no longer be trusted.  I am not sure if we understand just how much we have lost in losing the sanctity of attorney-client privilege.

I make my case –

The attorney-client privilege is a long- established part of the common law in Wisconsin.1 It also is recognized in the attorneys’ oath2 and embodied in the Rules of Professional Conduct,3 Wisconsin statutes,4 and Wisconsin case law.5

The policy behind the rule is based on the recognition of the value of legal advice and assistance obtained through full disclosure of the facts and the corollary that full disclosure to counsel often will be unlikely if there is fear that other persons can compel a breach of confidences. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated as early as 1900:

“It is essential to the ends of justice that clients should be safe in confiding to their counsel the most secret facts, and to receive advice and advocacy in the light thereof without peril of publicity. Disclosures made to this end should be as secret and inviolable as if the facts had remained in the knowledge of the client alone.”6

Disputes have arisen, however, over whether an unauthorized disclosure by counsel of a privileged communication waives the attorney-client privilege. Most frequently these disputes arise during litigation when documents are produced during discovery. Other jurisdictions have addressed the issue applying a variety of rules.

Before the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent decision in Harold Sampson Children’s Trust v. Linda Gale Sampson 1979 Trust,7 it was undecided in Wisconsin whether an unauthorized disclosure of a privileged communication waived the attorney-client privilege. Well-established Wisconsin case law preceding this decision states that the privilege belongs to the client and only the client can waive the attorney-client privilege.8 However, the pre-Sampson cases addressed situations in which the privilege was asserted and no privileged communications were disclosed.

The Sampson decision addresses disclosure without the assertion of privilege when the client is unaware of the disclosure and the attorney discloses the information without authority. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Sampson that the privilege is not waived when a lawyer makes an unauthorized disclosure of a privileged communication. That holding is consistent with Wis. Stat. section 905.03, which provides:

“A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client….”

This decision is important for all Wisconsin practitioners because unauthorized disclosures can occur in a myriad of ways and have adverse consequences for the client. Counsel, when culling through documents to determine what should be produced, can overlook a privileged document due to oversight or a miscommunication between lawyer and client. A briefcase containing privileged documents can be lost or stolen. A document intended for a client can be sent to opposing counsel because the wrong fax number is used. Privileged documents can be copied for production due to a misunderstanding of copying instructions or post-it notes falling off of the privileged documents. A single mistake can have a significant impact on a client whose communications have been disclosed.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.