Thread by @meghanncuniff

I’m here at the Orange County federal courthouse in California for the 10th day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s wire fraud trial. I’ll be posting updates to this thread, so stay tuned. ⚖️🧵⚖️

Judge Selna just took the bench and his three law clerks have assumed their regular positions at a table behind the defense. On tap is more discussion about that spreadsheet Avenatti wants to ask Marchino about but can't find. USA filing from last night: bit.ly/3AbwnRS

Selna says he's "satisfied that the government has in fact produced" spreadsheet. Avenatti explains how mismatched documents were, and there's no way to track spreadsheet, etc, but Selna is not swayed. He's not changing his mind. Again, here's the filing: drive.google.com/file/d/1YG8Koy…

Judge Selna says Avenatti won't be allowed to ask ex-client Greg Barela in cross about his 2006 misdemeanor conviction related unlicensed contracting, saying it's not a crime of dishonesty. But it sounds like a couple 2018 fraud convictions will come in.

That's it for out-of-the-jury argument this morning. Jury is due at 9. In the meantime, check out my new article on @lawdotcom about Avenatti's cross-exam of his former law partner, Filippo Marchino: bit.ly/3iwd7bX

Regarding the jury, they're unfortunately not reflected in my computer screen, so I don't observe them as much as I'd like during trial, but I do know they all seem to be paying close attention.

Meanwhile, down the hall, Judge Staton has a trial for a neurosurgeon accused of a kickback scheme that's already lost both alternates because two jurors were sleeping in court. 😴😴 That's definitely not happening in Avenatti's trial.

Alright, the jury is in and AUSA Brett Sagel is continuing his direct exam of Avenatti's ex-client Greg Barela. We saw a lot of text messages yesterday of Barela asking about his settlement and Avenatti stringing him along. This was in 2018, when Avenatti was all over the news.

Barela described his financial situation back then as "dire." Now Sagel is moving into another situation for Barela in 2018. He texted Avenatti and said, "I really need you Michael. Thanks and looking forward to talking to you." It was about Barela's legal troubles in San Diego.

The San Diego County district attorney's office was after Barela for diversion of funds and contracting without a license, and he eventually pleaded guilty to both crimes. Sagel asks if Avenatti kept working with him after that. "He did," Barela answers.

Sagel asks, "What reservations if any did defendant have about dealing with you" after the conviction, but Judge Selna sustains Avenatti's objection for speculation. So Sagel asks what reservations "did he tell you he had" and Barela answers "none."

June 27, 2018. Barela tells Avenatti he's worried about the wire, and he's getting in a "bit of trouble." Financial trouble, that is. Barela wants an advance from Avenatti. "OK. On it," Avenatti replied. Barela says, "Thanks."

Then later on June 27, 2018, Barela texts Avenatti again, "Thanks. Let me now when received. I know you're busy." Barela soon gets a $30k wire that he thinks is an advance on the settlement, not knowing Avenatti got the settlement months earlier.

Next day, Barela emails Avenatti's paralegal asking for copy of settlement
"Now six months after you signed the document with the defendant, why are you sending this email to Ms. Regnier?" Sagel asks.
"Because nobody was giving me a copy of the signed agreement," Barela answers.

"When you sent this email to Ms Regnier, did you get a copy back in response to this email?" Sagel asks.
"No," Barela answers.
"Did you know at the time the reason Ms Regnier did not provide it to you is because the defendant told her not to?" Sagel asks.
"No," Barela answers.

Barela is again asking for the settlement in July 2020. "I'm starting to worry that possibly something like this had happened...I needed to see a copy of it to see what was going on," he testifies. This leads to a meeting with Avenatti at the law firm.

We've heard about this meeting before, with some confusing details about what Avenatti did w/ document before he gave it to Barela, and inference that trickery was afoot. But it isn't clear. Sagel is going over the document Barela got that day now, w/ it displayed on the overhead

Signatures dates are in March. Sagel asks Barela if Avenatti told him true dates were actually in January. No. Did Avenatti tell him the settlement had already been paid? No. Did he expect him to?
Barela: "Of course," Barela answers
Sagel: "Why?"
Barela: "Because he's my lawyer"

Now we're seeing an email chain between Barela and Avenatti from Aug. 15-22, 2018. (It's exhibit 229, and it's now in evidence.) Barela is telling Avenatti about his plea date in San Diego. Says he's nervous but will have wife call him if it goes bad. Sends list of old business.

The list of course includes talk about his settlement and money needs. He's again asking Avenatti for money help, says he already took an $80k loan from a friend. More chances for Avenatti to tell him the truth about the money, but he doesn't do it.

But Barela is thanking Avenatti for being part of his team still. Sagel asks if Avenatti told Barela he'd already gotten his money, would Barela be saying "that he's doing good work and you're proud that he's part of your team?"
"Of course not," Barela asks.

Sagel asks what Avenatti called him in this exchange.
"Brother, " Barela answers.
Sagel says he forgot to ask a question, then has Barela identify Avenatti as the man he met at the law firm meeting in which he got the doctored agreement.

Aug 24, 2018. Barela texts Avenatti, "Thanks for your time today. Hope you know I really care about what you have done and are doing"
Sagel: "When you said 'what you have done,' were you referring to the $1.6 million he took from your settlement account?"
Barela: "Of course not."

Sagel: "What were you referring to?"
Barela: "The work I thought he was doing" on his settlement issue.
How did Avenatti reply?
"All good, brother."

Sept. 10, 2018. Barela emails Avenatti saying he really needs help on a wire as discussed. Avenatti had told him he'd send him $14k as an advance.
"An advance on what?" Sagel asks
"The $1.6 million we hadn't collected" from the settlement, Barela answers.

We see email Barela sent paralegal Judy Regnier asking if new wire was $14k.
Sagel: "Why did you ask if it was $14,000?" Sagel asks.
Barela: "Because in the past, the amount always seemed to go down."
Sagel "Why do you mean go down?"
Barela: "It was less than what we discussed"

The next day, Barela gets the wire. And it was only $6,000.
"Is that less than the defendant told you he was going to send you?" Sagel asks.
"Yes," Barela answers.

More correspondence from September/October 2018. "Did defendant ever tell you 'we're not waiting on anything, that money came in nine months earlier'?" Sagel asks.
"No," Barela answers.
"Would you have wanted to know that?" Sagel asks.
"Of course," Barela answers.

Sagel asks if Barela ever confronted Avenatti about the theft.
"One time I kind of accused him, yes," Barela answers.
"What happened?" Sagel asks.
"I was cautious, because if he had taken the money, I was hoping I could get it. But he was upset that I would ask such a thing."

More detailed correspondence between Barela and Avenatti that lays out how misinformed Barela was about true settlement terms. Barela is telling him he's considering taking a loan out backed by settlement. But Avenatti said deal is confidential, so he can't share it with lenders.

Barela told Avenatti he needed to know the timing of the payment and their ability to collect so he could pursue the loan.
Sagel asks if Avenatti ever told "we have no ability to collect because they've already paid?"
"Never," Barela answers.

Still, Barela was still considering the loan despite Avenatti's advice, because his financial situation was so dire. "I had no other options," he testifies.
October 30, 2018. Avenatti texts him, "Let's chat in a.m." and says he has a solution.

Barela replies and says "I need it by Wednesday at the latest or my life goes upside down."
Sagel asks him what he meant by that.
"I would be evicted from my home," Barela answers.

Nov. 1, 2018. Barela texts Avenatti, "Thanks for the time today. Look forward to talking tomorrow."
Then: "Hi Mike, here's the account for the $8k. Thanks again."
It's another "advance" from Avenatti to Barela.

Later Barela texts that he and his wife are about to get their three-day notice to pay or leave their home. "If this is not going to happen please let me know so we can prepare."
Sagel brings up a Nov. 5, 2018 cashier's check copy Avenatti gave Barela for $4,000.

Sagel didn't ask Barela if $4,000 is less than $8,000, but, spoiler alert: It is.

Meanwhile, Avenatti was telling Barela he could get him a $100,000 loan in January 2019.
Sagel asks if Avenatti told him the second settlement payment was due then. No, he didn't.
Sagel asks if Barela would have wanted to know that.
"Of course," Barela answers.

After that transfer, Barela is still asking Avenatti for help.
"Why didn't you ask for your portion of the settlement money?" Sagel asks.
"Because he said we had not received it," Barela answers.

November 2018. More texts and email, one that begins "Hate to bother you." Was Avenatti responding? No, he wasn't. Did Barela end up hiring another lawyer? Yes, he did.
Sagel brings up a letter Barela sent Avenatti on Nov. 17, 2018 from Larson O'Brien LLP, now just Larson LLP.

The letter says Barela has been advised the settlement hasn't been paid, and asks Avenatti for proof of that, as well as a copy of the settlement. It also says that if the money was paid, "We ask that you provide an immediate accounting concerning such funds."

Sagel asks if, at that time, Barela knew Avenatti had gotten the money. No, he didn't.
"Do you know if defendant received this letter emailed to him?" Sagel asks.
"Yes he did," Barela answers.

Sagel says Avenatti had been ignoring Barela, but "after you sent this letter, did you hear from him?"
"More than I ever heard from him ever," Barela answers.

Avenatti emails Barela on Nov. 17, 2018, after 11 p.m.
"Greg I just tried to call your cell. Please call me when you receive this. Thanks, Michael."
Avenatti also texted Barela twice.
"Pls call me."
"What is this all about? Pls call me ASAP."

Avenatti also left him a voicemail. (This means we're going to get to hear it in a minute.)

Here we go. Avenatti doesn't object to it being played.
"Hey Greg, this is Michael Avenatti, give me a call when you get a chance, I mean as soon as possible...It's urgent."
Sagel asks if Avenatti gave him a copy of the agreement or an accounting like the letter asked. No.

"Would you have needed new attorneys to reach out to the defendant if you had already had that information?" Sagel asks.
"Of course not," Barela answers.

Now we're on the mid-morning, 15-minute break.

ICYMI, my new trial article for @lawdotcom: 'How About ZERO?': Avenatti Hammers Ex-Law Partner in Sprawling Cross-Examination bit.ly/3iwd7bX

With jury and Barela out of the courtroom, Avenatti tells Selna that prosecutors have opened the door for him to ask Barela about his convictions more in cross. Selna says he's clearly entitled to ask about that in cross, and they'll deal with it question by question.

But judge reiterates Avenatti cannot ask about 2006 conviction. Avenatti protests, says it's part of 2018 discussions about Barela's legal trouble, but Selna is not having it
"Sir, I ruled. The direct examination has presented no new material with respect to the 2006 conviction."

AUSA Brett Sagel is continuing his direct of Avenatti's ex-client Greg Barela. He asks him if, with his new lawyers, he eventually got a new copy of the settlement from opposing counsel. Yes, he did. And the signature dates were January 2018, not March 2018.

In December 2018, Barela authorized his new lawyers to send a follow up letter to Avenatti. Sagel puts it before the jury. (It's evidence exhibit 257.) And this point, Barela and his lawyers know Avenatti already got the money.

The new letter to Avenatti from Barela's new lawyers goes over the previous requests for settlement and accounting and Avenatti's lack of response, then states, "Your silence speaks volumes."

Sagel asks Barela about his work with Avenatti on a separate business venture, and their deal that Avenatti would handle legal work for it and get a 10 percent equity. Barela confirms Avenatti didn't say anything about charging for his work and taking it from the settlement.

Now we're seeing emails Barela's corporate counsel for his separate business center, Matthew Waterman, sent Avenatti in December. He's trying to finish the corporate organization for Barela, and he needs key info/documentation from Avenatti auctuslaw.com/about/

Avenatti replies with "a couple points of clarification." He tells Waterman he was in the process of finalizing documents for the corporation when Barela stopped returning his phone calls.

Sagel going over this corporate work Avenatti did and having
"In January of 2019 did you file a public lawsuit or complaint against the defendant?" Sagel asks
"We did," Barela answers.
(This is when I picked up the story for @LADailyJournal)

Sagel asks Barela how Avenatti responded to the lawsuit. Barela says Avenatti "beat me up, called me a liar, said very negative things" about him, including that he was a career criminal.

Prior to that, "had defendant ever said anything about not trusting you because of your felony convction?" Sagel asks.
"No, he called me his brother," Barela answers.

Sagel goes over a list of lawyers and law firms, including Marchino's X-Law Group, and Barela doesn't know any of them. Never authorized any payments to them.

"At the time, did you know what Global Baristas was?" Sagel asks. (Are your ears burning, @Global_Barista_?) Barela says yes, it was Avenatti's investment in Tully's Coffee.
Barela says he never authorized Avenatti to spend his settlement money on the coffee venture.

Sagel asks if Avenatti ever told Barela he wasn't entitled to his share of the settlement money.
"Never," Barela answers.
Did he ever provide an accounting that showed why the costs and fees meant he got zero money? Never.

Sagel: "Why during that entire time did you trust the defendant?"
Barela: "Because I believed in him, and he was my closest adviser, and I couldn't believe that you can't trust your lawyer."
Sagel: "No further questions, your honor."
Avenatti up for cross now.

Avenatti starts by asking Barela about the oath he took to tell the truth. "What is your understanding of what that oath means?" Avenatti asks.
"To tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help you God," Barela answers.

Avenatti asks if he thought that applied to some answers, or all of them. Sagel objects as argumentative, but Judge Selna overrules.
"All of them," Barela answers.
Avenatti asks if he said anything untrue during his direct, and Barela says no.

Avenatti asks something about, can we take that to the bank, and Selna tells him to move on. So Avenatti asks Barela who Steve Howard is.
"Steve Howard was an elderly gentleman you defrauded out of" money, "isn't that true, yes or no?"
"Yes," Barela answers.

Avenatti does same questions for another victim, then asks Barela if prior to those two, had he ever defrauded anyone, and Barela answers yes.
"Were they elderly?" Avenatti asks. Selna overrules Sagel's objection under Rule 403.
"They were," Barela answers.

Avenatti goes over his convictions, sentences, then asked Barela about being sued in 2018 for fraud. "They did sue me, yes," Barela answers. Avenatti converses with advisory counsel then tells Barela, "We'll come back to that."

Now he turns to the Nov 2018 meeting at the law firm. He says Barela knew a court reporter was transcribing his testimony yesterday, correct?
"Correct," Barela answers.
Avenatti says Barela says he didn't get a copy of the settlement at the meeting.
But Barela says no, he did.

I'm a little confused by this line of questioning, and I don't think I'm the only one. Judge Selna asked Barela if he got the settlement at the meeting, and Barela said yes. But I think Avenatti was referring to initial meeting about settlement, and whether Barela got a copy then

Avenatti is displaying transcript excerpts from Barela's direct exam. It's Barela saying he didn't get a copy of settlement because copier wasn't working, but Avenatti said he could pick one up. He also references Barela saying he'd never seen a page with a specific signature.

So Avenatti showed something that I think had Barela's signature near the signature he testified he hadn't seen. (I think.) Thankfully, Avenatti is moving on from this confusing stuff and asking about Barela's misconduct claims against other attorneys related to the settlement.

"You accused each of them of stealing your money, ins't that correct?" Avenatti asks.
Barela says no, he just said they had knowledge of it.
Avenatti gets Selna's permission to approach the witness and gives Barela something to refresh his recollection.

It's Barela's complaint, which names paralegal Judy Regnier and other Eagan Avenatti attorneys, John Arden and Ahmed Ibrahim. Avenatti asks again if Barela accused them of theft. "It appears so," he says.
"Do you stand behind the allegations in this document?"
"I do. I filed it"

Avenatti asks about Nov 2018 firm meeting. Barela claims Arden gestured to Ibrahim through the glass of the conference room, then they abruptly stopped talking to him.
"And according to you, that's because they were trying to keep the settlement details from you?"
"I believe so."

Avenatti asks if Barela will stand by that if Arden and Ibrahim testify it never happened, and Barela says yes. Avenatti calls it "the conference room glass event."
Avenatti asks if his testimony on that is as truthful as all his other testimony, and Barela says yes.

Avenatti: "Now we're going to get into the details after the lunch break" then asks about Barela's testimony that Avenatti wasn't responding to him in late 2018.

"Sir, in 2018 was it your custom to invite someone who you thought had stolen your money and was not responding to you out to have a martini? Was that your custom in 2018, sir?" Avenatti asks.
"No," Barela answers.

Avenatti asks "isn't it true" that Barela sent a text on Nov. 15, 2018, saying "you could not wait to see me and inviting me out for a martini." Gives him text copies to refresh recollection.
"And while you're looking for that, I'm going to get my flip chart," Avenatti says.

And he did. Avenatti pulls his trusty flip chart over to the lectern and starts writing.

Barela acknowledges the text about the martini. "Alright, can you see my clip chart here?" Avenatti asks.
He can.
Avenatti says there are dates listed "and a terrible drawing of a martini glass."
(I'm so bummed I can't see this drawing right now.)

Judge Selna halts this questioning because it's time for lunch. There's no outside-the-jury argument, so it's time to head out. (The clerk locks the courtroom during the 90-minute break.)
Back at 1:30 p.m. Read today's @lawdotcom article: bit.ly/3iwd7bX

I’m back in the courtroom and Avenatti’s standby counsel Dean Steward complimented Avenatti’s drawing of the martini glass. Tells him he’s got a real future in art. “Hunter Biden’s got nothing on me,” Avenatti said.
“Except millions of dollars for BS paintings,” Steward said.

OK, we are back and Avenatti is continuing his cross-examination of ex-client Greg Barela. He's got the flip board with the martini drawing behind him, and he tells Barela he wants to go back to about six months before the martini invitation text in November.

Avenatti has a May 15, 2018 email that Sagel asked Barela about in direct exam. Barela told Sagel under oath "that you sent this email because you didn't believe that anything was getting done on the matters that you needed me to work on, do you remember that?" Avenatti asks.

Yes, Barela remembers. Avenatti says let's fast forward to one day after that email. Barela invited Avenatti to go play golf. Avenatti was really barking out the "ISN'T IT TRUE" when Judge Selna interrupted him: "Mr. Avenatti, why don't you lower your voice a bit?"

Avenatti apologized to Selna, then told Barela if he thought was too loud, "I apologize to you."
He returns to the golf invite, which was for the Shady Canyon Golf Club in Irvine. Avenatti turned down the invite, but he still met with Barela later about the business.

Now Avenatti is asking Barela about his meeting with feds, and if he was truthful. Barela responding with usual, "Of course." He's not rattled up there at all.
Avenatti asks, isn't it true Barela told the feds that paralegal Judy Regnier was present when he signed the settlement.

Barela says he doesn't remember that, so Avenatti gets permission to approach and gives him the memo of an interview with feds that states he indeed said Regnier was there when he signed the document.
"Do you deny that?" Avenatti asks.
"I don't recall," Barela answers.

"Sir, my question's a little different," Avenatti says. Asks if he denies that he told two AUSAs and two federal agents that Ms. Regnier was in and out of the conference room. No, he doesn't remember.
"Your testimony now is that Ms. Regnier was never there, am I correct?"
"Yes."

Avenatti is going over Barela's attempts to contact the other firm lawyers, John Arden and Ahmed Ibrahim. Another lawyer, criminal defense lawyer Evan Jenness, was in Arden and Ibrahim's corner, and they called Barela together. jennesslaw.com

According to Barela, Jenness told Barela he can't accuse Arden or Ibrahim of theft because it's slanderous. Barela replied telling Jenness she has a conflict because she was in meetings with Barela and knew that he was waiting for settlement money.

The three hung up, and Barela told feds that's when he was sure his settlement had been stolen.
"Was that the last time you spoke with Evan Jenness?" Avenatti asks.
"I believe so," Barela answers.

Three days later, Barela enlisted Steven Bledsoe of Larson LLP to write a letter to Ibrahim and Arden "asking them to confirm that they had represented" to Barela that the opposing party in the settlement had still not paid the initial $1.6 million.

The letter is displayed on the overhead. Avenatti asks if Ibrahim or Arden responded.
Barela doesn't believe so.
"I believe they forwarded these to you and you responded," Barela says.
Avenatti has a document to try to impeach that testimony.

Avenatti asks isn't it true they responded next day. And they told Barela they had made no representations to Barela about the settlement payments.
Barela acknowledges he was wrong when he said a minute ago they didn't respond.
"Yes or no, you were wrong?"
"I was wrong."

Avenatti asks about Barela appearing surprised when he gave him Arden and Ibrahim's letter in court today.
"I've seen it, but I thought it was from you. I didn't think it was from them."

Avenatti asking about the settlement agreement. Asks Barela if it's his testimony under oath that the agreement wasn't amended. "I don't recall if we ever did, I don't think so."
What about an addendum?
Avenatti: "Is it your testimony that that never happened?"
Barela: "It is."

Avenatti asks Barela if he agreed that Avenatti could bring in other lawyers to work his case at Avenatti's discretion. Gets Barela to acknowledge that yes, that happened, and he was wrong earlier when he said it didn't.

(This touches on a line of questioning from AUSA Brett Sagel in direct about Barela not knowing or authorizing payments to attorneys like Ed Ricci in Florida.)

Avenatti says as of late January 2019, he was no longer representing Barela. It wasn't that Barela asked him to stop representing him, it's that Avenatti told Barela he didn't want to represent him anymore.
"That's true," Barela says.

This is the fraud case down in San Diego apparently, not the missing settlement case, and Barela just said he never even knew Avenatti was representing him in that case.

Avenatti: "Did you ever ask me to represent you in that case?"
"I did," Barela answers. But it was never finalized. Avenatti just said he would review it, Barela testifies.

Avenatti asks Barela, isn't it true he told investigators that Avenatti had filed at least one document in the San Diego case as his lawyer?
Yes, Barela acknowledges that's true.
Avenatti turns to the business Barela had invited him to be part of, Quix Supply Inc.

Avenatti met with Barela after his San Diego sentencing because a judge prohibited Barela from contacting a business partner as part of his probation, and the guy was involved in Quix Supply.
Avenatti asked if Barela wanted to work with him in violation of his probation.

Barela says no, he kicked the guy out of Quix Supply because of the no contact order. He says he thinks the meeting with Avenatti was about something else, but he acknowledges they did discuss this issue in that meeting.

Avenatti: "I would say at least once every other week, sometimes twice.
Avenatti: "Sometimes multiple days a week, isn't that true?"
Barela: "That's true."
Avenatti: "Was there ever a time where you asked to use our offices and were told no?"
Barela: "Never."

Avenatti brings up Barela's compliments, which we heard about in Sagel's direct exam.
Barela said the work he was proud of Avenatti and referring to was his work on the settlement, right? Barela says no.
Avenatti acts exasperated, says that's what you told Sagel this morning?

Barela says no, that was just referring to one text message.
Avenatti brings up a text "that Mr. Sagel did not ask you about." It's Oct. 31, 2018 (that's the day the Mongols biker gang trial opened in this courthouse, but they don't mention that.)

"K, Michael. Another door knocker. Love you." And there's a picture.
What was the picture? Barela tells Avenatti it's of Democratic door knockers "rooting for you."

Avenatti says the compliments were all about Avenatti's activities like that, not Avenatti's work on settlement. Barela says it was a mix of both.
Avenatti pulls out some texts for Barela to read aloud.

March 24, 2018. Barela texts Avenatti that he "watched everything unfold, big stuff....good luck this weekend with the @60Minutes. We're going to have a watch party for you here at my home."
That wasn't about the settlement was it, Avenatti asks.
No, Barela answers.

About that @60Minutes interview.
"CBS' 60 Minutes landed the interview after Daniels and her lawyer Michael Avenatti directly reached out to the show." cnb.cx/3jtDzCc

More complimentary texts, including one from Barela lamenting @TuckerCarlson and one in which Barela says, "I feel like a Level 5 girlfriend. Let me know when you can talk. Thanks. LOL."
That was one of the Greatest Hits from Avenatti's state bar hearing, which was about Barela.

And we're stopping here for the day because, as Judge Selna said yesterday, we're stopping at 3 today. No explanation given. It could be that the judge has an appointment, or maybe a juror does and doesn't want it announced to the other jurors.

Barela will be back on the stand tomorrow at 9 to finish cross-examination with Avenatti. Avenatti says he has 90 minutes or so left. Long Tram (Michelle Phan's business partner) is the next live witness (someone might read something into the record before he goes on).

So that's it for the day. Thanks for following along, and check back tomorrow about 8:30 a.m. for another thread.

OK Twitter, I’ve been waiting for this moment. I finally get to introduce you to the courthouse cat. This cool calico has been hanging around outside the courthouse for at least the five years I’ve been covering trials here. I call her Justice, because she can be a bit elusive.

To answer a few questions: I don’t know if Justice is spayed, but someone tells me that years ago, there was a real effort to round up the courthouse strays (there used to be a lot more) and get them fixed, and it led to a big brouhaha about employees feeding them.

“It started with GSA (@USGSA) saying the employees cannot feed the cats and then the mall cops FPS (@FPSgov) got involved and said they were going to ticket people. It was all so stupid.”

@threadreaderapp Please unroll. Thank you!