Thread by @meghanncuniff

OK I am here at the federal courthouse in Orange County for the third day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s client theft trial. I’ll be tweeting updates on this thread. 🧵

There was some discussion a few minutes ago outside the jury about transcripts from Avenatti's judgment debtor exams, which we'll be seeing as evidence later. Judge Selna is off the bench now and nothing more is expected until 9 a.m. when the jury gets seated.

When they're not in court, Avenatti and Dean Steward and another lawyer, Courtney Cummings Cefali, are in a conference room connected to a courtroom down the hallway. There are two conferences rooms connected to this courtroom, but no one is using them. (More privacy down hall.)

Everybody wants a witness list, which *seems* like it'd be available, BUT --- prosecutors have that list. They must give it to Avenatti night before. It's not personal, but especially during trial, they're not talking much to reporters. So it's kind of impossible to get publicly.

Avenatti and Dean and Courtney are back at the defense table. Avenatti is sharing a war story from a past trial. Recounting the Q&A for an attentive Dean.

Seven of the 16 jurors are choosing to wear masks. (Avenatti has objected to masked jurors during trial, but as my @lawdotcom story here explains, Selna's ruling on this is in keeping with other judges nationally: bit.ly/3BC7iRt

The first witness of the day is Joseph Varani (sp?), a DOJ employee from Washington, D.C., who is a senior digital investigative analyst in the cyber crimes unit. AUSA Alex Wyman is questioning him.

He's been doing this for 11 years. He's talking about his forensic toolkit for extracting data from digital devices, such as the computers and phones seized during the DOJ's investigation into Avenatti.

Wyman is introducing documents found on Avenatti's Macbook. Avenatti objects; Selna overrules but tells jury the documents are published only because they were found on the computer; jurors aren't to take the content as truth yet. (That'll come later in the direct exam.)

Wyman is talking Varani through the details of one document. Varani says it was created on March 23, 2019, which gives us a pretty good clue on what it's about. (Remember those meetings with Geoff Johnson after the judgment debtor exam?)

"The last saved user name was Michael Avenatti," Varani says. The title of the document? "Client Testimony Approval."

That was quick. Wyman is done with Varani. Now Avenatti is up to cross exam him.

“Mr. Varani good morning. Welcome to California,” Avenatti says. #GoldenState

Avenatti starts hammering on how long Varani waited out in the hallway to testify, but Judge Selna tells him to get into the substance of the exam right now.

Avenatti is asking Varani about all his emails and communications in connection with the case, and if anyone ever asked him to gather all that. Varani says no.

This of course gets into the conspiratorial narrative against prosecutors that Avenatti is pushing. My new story for @lawdotcom looks at this, online now: law.com/therecorder/20…

Avenatti is questioning Varani about the fact that he didn’t actually extract the data from the device himself. He used forensic images given to him by other investigators, including yesterday's witness, Nshan Tashchyan.

“You personally do not know whether the data came from the device?” Avenatti asked.
“I only know based on information that was provided to me,” Varani answered.

Avenatti got another mention of ex-prosecutor Julian Andre in by asking Varani who provided him a list of keyword searches to use on the forensic images.

Avenatti is emphasizing that Varani took screenshots of each piece of metadata, but he “brought none of them here today.”
“I did not,” Varani said.
Because nobody asked you to,” Avenatti said.
Yes,” Varani said.

Avenatti: “As you sit here today, you have no way of knowing whether the date and time on the metadata that you extracted from the documents was actually the date and time that the documents were created, do you?”

Varani: “With a thorough forensic analysis of an entire computer, that may be able to be fully determined.”

Avenatti: “But you didn’t do that, did you?”
Varani: “No.”
Avenatti: “You just looked at the metadata and assumed that that was the correct date and time?”
Varani: “Yes.”

Avenatti uses Donald Duck as an example. Anyone could sign up for that username and create a document. More Q&A about not knowing for sure if Avenatti actually created any of the documents, then Avenatti ends with:“Sir, thank you for your candor.”

Here we go -- Next witness is Carlos Colorado, a lawyer with the X-Law Group, which is run by a former Avenatti lawyer, Filippo Marchino. Colorado used to work at Eagan Avenatti LLP, the bankrupt law firm now controlled by a court-appointed trustee.

Wyman is asking Colorado about his role at Eagan Avenatti, and his work with Avenatti personally. “He was knowledgable of the details, and we would debrief him on a daily basis about what was happening.”

Wyman asks if Avenatti’s involvement changed as cases neared resolution.
“Yes, typically his involvement would increase as cases neared resolution,” Colorado answers.
And, “as he became more involved, my role diminished.” One case Colorado worked? Geoff Johnson's lawsuit.

They’ve got excerpts from the contingency agreement with Johnson displayed on the overhead. Colorado says what we’ve heard before: The attorney fee agreement with Johnson was 40 percent.

Wyman is going through correspondence between Avenatti's law firm and the care center where Johnson lived, and other documents regarding Johnson. Slow Q and A like: "What is the document behind the fax cover sheet?" "It's a document from the Social Security Administration..."

We saw the document warning Johnson could lose his benefits. Wyman asks Colorado who was primarily responsible for case at that time. He obviously wanted Colorado to say Avenatti, but Colorado said a few others, so Wyman is asking more about when Avenatti would take over cases.

Colorado says settlement negotiations are typically delicate, and you don’t want too many cooks in kitchen. “He wanted to present a unified face,” Colorado testifies.
“And who would that unified face be?” Wyman asks.
“It would be Mr. Avenatti,” Colorado answers.

Given that, Colorado wasn't involved in settlement negotiations in Geoff Johnson's lawsuit. He says that was all Avenatti and Avenatti's paralegal (and former Yorba Linda cul-de-sac dweller) Judy Regnier.

We're seeing the infamous settlement document from yesterday with Johnson's alleged signature. Was it forged or not? Still no clear answer, but Wyman is trying.
"Did Mr. Johnson ever tell you that he signed this document?" Wyman asks.
"He did not," Colorado answers.

Wyman ends with Colorado tentatively identifying Avenatti's signature on the document. Now Avenatti is up for cross exam. He has zero qualms about publicly shredding his former business partners, so this should be interesting.

“I was the one who made the decision to hire you at my law firm?” Avenatti asks.
Yes,” Colorado says.
And we enjoyed a good relationship?
Yes.
Avenatti asks if it’s fair to say Colorado was “one of the most junior attorneys at the firm.”
Yes, generally, Colorado says.

Avenatti asks one by one if Colorado has ever given a closing argument in a trial, and other key trial lawyer work. No, he hasn’t.

Avenatti: "You're not suggesting to this jury that I wasn't involved in my cases are you?"
Colorado: "Not at all."
Avenatti: "Why are you not suggesting to the jury that I was not involved in my cases?"
Colorado: "Well, I testified that you were involved in the cases."

Avenatti is slowly questioning Colorado about Avenatti's devotion to his cases, and his correspondence about cases at all hours of the day, from anywhere he was in the world. (Avenatti of course emphasizes world.)

Avenatti is still focused on how much work he did on his cases. This is really slow, detailed (and repetitive) questioning.

“You’re not suggesting I was lazy are you?” Avenatti asks.
“No,” Colorado answers.
“You smile. Why do you smile?” Avenatti asks.
Colorado says he wasn’t trying to infer anything, he was just answering questions.

Now Avenatti is onto the contingency agreement with Johnson that Wyman asked Colorado about during direct exam.
"You don't know if there were other people doing other work for Mr. Johnson outside what you were working on, correct?” Avenatti asks.

“I don’t know of anyone else doing any other work,” Colorado answers.
“But you don’t know if anyone else was assigned by me to do other work for Mr. Johnson?” Avenatti asks.
“I don’t,” Colorado answers.

Avenatti asks Colorado who Scott Sims is. Colorado answers that he's a lawyer who used to work at Eagan Avenatti. (He's also current law partners with ex-EA lawyer turned Avenatti credit, Jason Frank, and Frank's lawyer Andrew Stolper.)

It's kind of a throwaway mention at this point, but it keeps with Avenatti's strategy of mentioning these guys as much as possible.

Avenatti is asking Colorado about Johnson's living situation and the cost of it. Colorado doesn't know those details because he wasn't in charge of paying for it, so he's acknowledging he doesn't know about those costs.

"There wasn't anything unusual about me instructing you and others that as we got closer to trial and specific settlement" Avenatti would be lead voice?
Colorado says no, “at the time,” he didn’t think it was unusual.

A lot of questions from Avenatti about Colorado not knowing what Johnson wanted his family to know about the settlement and what he didn't, and now we are on a 15-minute break.

The view of Santa Ana (and beyond) from the 10th floor of the courthouse is nice.

You can Fashion Island in Newport Beach (Orange County’s version of a high-rise skyline) etc., and on clear day you can see Catalina Island.

We're back, and Avenatti just asked Colorado about his current firm, the X-Law Group in Pasadena. Who does he work for now? Filippo Marchino. (Another random name drop pushed by Avenatti.)

Avenatti turns back to the settlement document. Did he do anything to hide it from Colorado and other lawyers at the firm? Colorado says no.

Avenatti asks Colorado about his meetings w/ government. He's naming investigators and pointing them out in court for Colorado. "You also met with Julian Andre that day, Mr. Sagel's colleague at the U.S. Attorney's Office?" Avenatti asks.

"I don't recall," Colorado answers.
"But you don't dispute it?" Avenatti asks.
No, he doesn't.

"You told the government that you never saw any suspicious funds or red flags while working at my law firm, didn't you?" Avenatti asks.
Colorado says that "sounds generally consistent with what I said."
Avenatti asks if he'd like to refresh his recollection.

Avenatti gives Colorado a document to refresh his memory (sorry, I didn't get details) Still, Colorado's answer is the same: He doesn't recall telling government he didn't see suspicious funds or red flags, but he doesn't dispute that he said that.

Avenatti is still on it, though. Wyman objects as “asked and answered,” but Selna overrules, so Avenatti is still hammering Colorado about it. Also asks if Colorado told government he doesn't know of Avenatti ever forging a signature. Same answer.

Avenatti asks if Colorado remembers saying he never say Avenatti engage in any suspicious activity while at the firm.
“I do remember saying that,” Colorado answers.

“Do you stand behind it?” Avenatti asks
“That I do not recall seeing you engage in any suspicious conduct…Yes,” Colorado answers.
“Mr. Colorado, thank you for your candor. Nothing further, your honor,” Avenatti does a courtroom mic drop.
Wyman up for re-direct now.

Wyman kept it short and simply. Questioned Colorado about whether he knows that a duty of the firm was to make sure clients got the money they were entitled to, and Colorado of course said yes.

Avenatti springs up for re-cross about Johnson case details and no evidence of wrongdoing. "You were not aware of any such evidence, correct?" Asked and answered objection is sustained, and Avenatti sits down.

Next witness is Elsa Guerrero, a 14-year employee with the Social Security Administration. A claims technical expert. (So she obviously worked on Geoff Johnson's Social Security stuff.) Wyman is questioning her.

In 2018, Guerrero's duties included handling possible benefit redeterminations. People are randomly selected for this. Wyman asks what happens if people don't follow through. Guerrero says they provide "due process," but eventually if there's no info, they must suspend benefits.

"Are you familiar with a person named Geoffrey Johnson?" Wyman asks.
"Yes," Guerrero answers.
She redetermined his benefits in November 2018. She last reviewed his file two weeks ago. Wyman asks if she say an attorney named in there. Yes, she did.

"What was the name of that attorney?" Wyman asks.
"Michael Avenatti," Guerrero answers.

Guerrero reads aloud a letter signed by Avenatti that directs the Social Security Administration to send all correspondence about Johnson to Avenatti. Now Guerrero is recounting a phone call she had with Johnson as part of the redetermination process.

Johnson told Guerrero of settlement with LA County that was paying his lawyer quarterly, so his lawyer was giving him monthly payments. (This obviously doesn’t match the actual terms of the $4 million settlement and supports prosecutors’ claim that Avenatti was lying to Johnson.)

Guerrero reads aloud a warning letter about Johnson possibly losing his benefits. She gave him a 60-day extension.
“Did you receive any contact at all from the defendant?”
No,” Guerrero says.
So Johnson’s benefits were suspended. Wyman is done, so Avenatti is up for cross now.

Avenatti starts by asking Guerrero what she did to prepare to testify here today."You've met with the government on a number of occasions over the last month?" She says twice. (Not sure how this conspiratorial narrative is going to go with this witness, but we'll see.)

Avenatti: "Whose idea was it to have an attorney resent at the second meeting?"
Wyman objects for relevance, but Selna overrules.

Guerrero says Wyman wanted her to have an attorney there. "It was because of our privacy act...The first interview was unproductive because I was unsure what I could disclose."

Avenatti: "Are you aware of any involvement that me or my law firm had in getting Mr. Johnson his initial benefits?"
Guerrero: "I am not aware."
Avenatti asks if she's corresponded with others about Johnson. She says no.

Avenatti asks Guerrero about documents associated w/ redetermination process. Not everything is included in court today, so Avenatti is really focused on that. He asks if she remembers what 'redetermination summary' says, and she doesn't, so he gets Selna's permission to approach

Avenatti hands Guerrero something and asks if it's the redetermination summary "that's missing" from a previous document entered as evidence by Wyman. She says yes, it's a redetermination summary.

Avenatti asks her what a better source of evidence is about what Johnson told her office. "This document, or your recollection?" Wyman objects but Selna overrules. "The redetermination summary of the document," Guerrero answers.

Avenatti goes over summary: Johnson says he got a settlement w/ LA County with quarterly payments. He gets monthly money from his lawyer who then gets reimbursed from the quarterly payments. (This is totally avoiding fact that actual settlement did NOT involve quarterly payments)

Avenatti asked Guerrero about the fact that people she interviews are under penalty of perjury. And he’s going over how Johnson told her he wasn’t receiving any outside financial assistance. (So he’s basically trying to say Johnson perjured himself to Social Security office.)

Avenatti: "Ms Guerrero, you wanted to say something. Go ahead."
No, no. We're going to have a question," Judge Selna says.

Avenatti asks about a "high-profile case" line in Guerrero's notes.
"That means it can be a possible public relations issue," Guerrero answers.
"What do you mean it can be a possible public relations issue?" Avenatti asks. But Wyman objects for relevance, and Selna sustains.

Selna dismissed the jury for lunch, and now AUSA Brett Sagel is complaining to him about how Avenatti is entering documents and trying to impeach witnesses. He says Avenatti is not doing "reciprocal discovery" as required.

Prosecutors gave Avenatti thousands of documents. “We're not just supposed to guess that because we produced it, it's going to come back. He needs to provide back what he's planning on using even if he got it from the government,” Sagel says.

Sagel says if Avenatti is using documents for impeachment, "it's fine, but if it's not, he needs to produce it." Selna tells Sagel to "marshal the court's remarks for me over the lunch period" regarding discovery obligations.

Avenatti responds, and it just captures how in control he is in court. He actually asked Judge Selna a question, and the judge answered!
Avenatti: “Do you know when we got these documents?”
Selna: “No.”

“July 20. July 20, your honor. So how could I have met some reciprocal discovery deadline?” Avenatti tells Selna. Based on late disclosure, “we could have moved to exclude any reference to these exhibits.”

Avenatti said some the entries qualify as “Brady” material, referring to Brady v. Maryland case about exonerating evidence. Says they show he didn't tank Johnson's Social Security benefits like prosecutors allege. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._…

Selna says we'll proceed on a document-by-document basis. While Avenatti is at the lectern, his counsel Courtney Cefali is trying to get his attention. She finally does, then Avenatti tells Selna: “I was just informed that we got them on July 14, not July 20.”

Selna questions the relevancy of this questioning. “This case is not about whether Mr. Avenatti malpracticed in any way.” It’s about whether he committed crimes.

Selna says he’s “developing a list of topics for further specific jury instruction that may need to be given as a result of the evidence that has come in. This is No. 1 on my list.” And now we really are on lunch. Back at 1:30. 🥪🥗

OK we’re back, and Avenatti is continuing his cross exam of Else Guerrero, the Social Security Administration employee who halted Geoff Johnson’s benefits.

Avenatti points out that Johnson told Guerrero he’d “gambled away $15,000.” She said she had to cut his benefits because “his resources were over $2,000 at the time when I interviewed him in May of 2019.” She doesn't lay blame on Avenatti.

Avenatti asks why she didn’t mention that in her direct examination. “Is it because Mr. Wyman never asked you about it. Isn’t that true?” Yes. Now Wyman is up for re-direct.

That was so quick I missed it while I was reshuffling my stuff. But apparently Avenatti isn't worried about the re-direct, because his re-cross consisted of him going to the lectern and saying, "Ms. Guerrero, thank you." Now we're onto the next witness.

Next witness is actually AUSA Brett Sagel reading a transcript from a settlement conference in Geoff Johnson’s lawsuit. Avenatti did the talking at the hearing. "Mr. Johnson would like the money paid within 60 days," Avenatti said.

Another AUSA Bradley Marrett, is here to read aloud from a deposition. #teameffort Selna is explaining to jurors the process of a deposition. "You're to treat that testimony as if it had been given here in court," Selna says.

Sagel clarifies that the transcript is from a judgement debtor exam, not a deposition. But the standard for the jury is the same. This is going to be a blast from the past for me - it's the March 22, 2019, judgment debtor exam I covered for @LADailyJournal.

I remember this day well. I was in court w/ a Good Morning America producer and Jacob Wohl. There was another guy in street clothes we thought was a reporter, but he wouldn't tell us who he was so we thought he was kinda rude. Turns out he was an IRS agent investigating Avenatti

(He's sitting behind me in court now, wearing a suit, and I can confirm that is NOT rude.)

Oh! Look what I just remembered I have. A copy of the transcript that's being read in court right now. You can find it here on Google Drive: drive.google.com/file/d/1vI_215…

Just got back online after some extremely frustrating internet connection problems. (I use my iPhone as a hotspot.)

On the stand now is Tom Goeders, a real estate agent in Sun Valley, Calif., who worked with Johnson to buy a house. He testified the purchase fell through when Avenatti told him he was waiting for a special needs trust to be approved. tomgoeders.yourkwagent.com

Wyman is questioning Goeders about all the details regarding Johnson's would-be home purchase, which went all the way to escrow. Goeders is also detailing the home loan purchase Avenatti took out for Johnson.

Goeders is reading aloud excerpts from his emails with Avenatti about the home purchase for Geoff Johnson. "I am handling it," Avenatti tells him in one.

This is not related to Goeders current testimony, but regarding that March 22, 2019, judgment debtor exam, here's my tweet from that day.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1109246851570499584

Goeders said a month after the home purchase fell through, Johnson still didn't seem to know it wasn't happening. Again, Goeders says he was told by Avenatti that special needs trust wasn't approved, so the home purchase fell through (which of course isn't true).

These details about the home purchase are a little tricky and I spent a lot of the testimony cussing under my breath about my Internet problems, so I missed some stuff. But Avenatti is up to cross exam Goeders now.

Avenatti asks Goeders: “Have you ever told anyone that I was at fault for the property transaction not closing?”
“I don’t believe I’ve ever said that,” Goeders answers.

Avenatti is really pushing the “they’re not telling you everything you should know” bit with the jury re: prosecutors. He’s asking Goeders about Wyman’s talks with him, whether this was brought up.

Avenatti is going over details of the would-be home purchase. Says Goeders was told the home purchase “was going to have to utilize an LLC.” Asks Goeders if one was ever formed, Goeders says he doesn’t know. Avenatti says one was created by his firm.

And now we're on a break for 15 minutes. Send good vibes to my Internet connection. (We're looking solid right now.)

We're back, and Avenatti is continuing his cross of Goeders, the real estate agent who worked on buying a house for Geoff Johnson. Avenatti asks him if he knows anything about forming an LLC. No. Avenatti says it was clear the house "had to be held in an LLC." Goeders disagrees.

Avenatti is saying he told Goeders from the very beginning the home needed to be held by an LLC, but again Goeders is disputing that. Now onto special needs trusts. Avenatti: "How do you establish a special needs trust?"
Goeders: "I don't know."

"Since this transaction didn't close, you didn't get paid, did ya?" Avenatti asks.
Correct," Goeders answers.

"Sir were you privy to a single communication that I had with Mr. Geoff Johnson about his efforts to purchase a home. Yes or no?" Avenatti asks.
"Yes," Goeders answers.

Avenatti is asking Goeders to detail all communication he knows about, and there's a lot of objections and back and forth. Selna to Wyman and Avenatti: "One at a time, please."

Wyman: "He's attempting to strike the question when the witness is in the middle of answering, your honor. That's improper." Selna tells Avenatti to let witness answer.

Avenatti: "Sir do you know one way or the other whether Mr. Johnson suffered any mental deficiencies" when you were dealing with home purchase?
Goeders:"I was not aware."
Avenatti:"You don't know one way or the other, do you?"
Wyman objects as asked and answered. Selna sustains.

"Sir, this is a yes or no question. At the time of these potential real estate transactions, did you know whether or not Mr. Johnson had a gambling problem?" Avenatti asked.
"I was not aware of that," Goeders answered.

Goeders just testified he thought Johnson got $3.5 million from his settlement. Can't remember if he heard that from Johnson or AvenAtti. "You spent more time with Mr. Johnson than you did with me."
"That's right," Goeders said.

Avenatti brings up emails that he pointedly says Wyman didn't ask him about. He asks when Goeders gave his phone to feds to extract info from, and Goeders says it was around spring 2019 after Avenatti was in the news.

Avenatti: Did you consent to them imaging your entire phone, or just certain messages.
Goeders says it's messages and emails about Avenatti and the Johnson home purchase.
"So you gave them a list of phone numbers that you agreed to, right?" Avenatti asks.

Avenatti: Did you consent to them imaging your entire phone, or just certain messages.
Goeders says it's messages and emails about Avenatti and the Johnson home purchase.
"So you gave them a list of phone numbers that you agreed to, right?" Avenatti asks.

Avenatti is hammering on this. Gives Goeders a document to refresh his memory. "I honestly can't recall what your phone number was," Goeders says.

More internet problems driving me crazy this afternoon so there's been a big lag. But Avenatti is still questioning Goeders. His firm sent money to Goeders that it lost because Johnson's home purchase fell through. ted a real estate attorney about what had happened.

When home purchase fell through, Avenatti was going to refuse to sign anything until he consulted a real estate attorney.

Goeders says he was due $12,000 if this home purchase went through. Avenatti: The faster we closed the transaction, the quicker you'd get paid?

Goeders says they get paid when transactions close. Avenatti: "So answer would be yes?" Aveantti hammers Goeders about editorializing instead of answering questions. Asks if he editorialized when answering prosecutors' questions. Wyman objects as argumentative and Selna sustains.

Avenatti just pointed out Goeders' lawyer in the audience: Patrick McLaughlin. He also points out the federal agents in the room. This is who was in the room when Goeders met with prosecutors.

Avenatti calls it a "dress rehearsal." "You understood they were previewing for you the questions they were gong to ask you on the stand, correct?"
Goeders: Some of it, yes."

One meeting was around April 2019 after Avenatti’s arrest in the Nike extortion plot.
Avenatti: “The government came to you or contacted you for the first time after I had been arrested?"
Goeders: “Yes.”

Avenatti: "You had no contact with the government about anything you testified to or about today before I was arrested, true?"
Goeders: "That's true."

AUSA Brett Sagel just got permission from Judge Selna to send the next witness home for the day. Which is a small detail, but it also shows how much Avenatti's cross is dominating. It's always way longer than prosecutors expected.

Avenatti asks Goeders if he had similar contact with Avenatti and his lawyers like he had with prosecutors "when you were rehearsing your questions and answers." Goeders says no.

Avenatti is hammering Goeders about his emails to government agents about the case, but Judge Selna interjects: "Sir, this is becoming cumulative." (Becoming?) Mercifully, the judge ends court for the day. Jury just filed out.

Avenatti asks when he gets the witness list for the next trial day, which is Tuesday. Sagel tells Selna: “Mr. Avenatti claims he has over an eight-hour cross for our next witness” so no other witnesses needed for Tuesday.

The witness? Judy Regnier, Avenatti’s ex-paralegal (and a former Yorba Linda cul-de-sac dweller).
Sagel says direct exam of Regnier will be four to six hours.
“Sounds like that takes care of Tuesday and Wednesday,” Selna says.
Indeed it does.

Judge Selna gives prosecutors and Avenatti a homework assignment: He wants briefs “of no more than 10 pages” by noon on Monday about “the extent of reciprocal discovery.” When does it apply to documents in cross examination? (Should be a couple gripping reads!)

And that's it for the day. Remember, no trial on Monday. Most judges do trial four days so they can work other cases one day. This is Selna's Monday calendar. (Coincidentally, the firm seeking to withdraw from the first case is the same firm that ditched Avenatti in 2019.)

Thanks for following along! Check back Tuesday about 9 for another thread.