The great thing about Michael Avenatti, AKA the wife beating failed attorney, staying active in social media is him giving hope for other failed attorneys.
Do you mean "cleared of all domestic violence charges Avenatti" who just put R Kelly in prison with 10 counts?
Cleared? Very impressive. Even more impressive is Avenatti as a defense attorney putting R Kelly in prison. Outstanding performance with Avenatti for getting the bankruptsy of his own law firm behind him and leaving only a $10,000,000 shortfall. Exceptional performance is shown with Stormy losing against Trump with Avenatti representing her. With Avenatti as your attorney or business partner, who needs bad luck?
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/mak...her-case-and-its-because-of-michael-avenatti/ Make No Mistake, Stormy Daniels Won Her Case and it’s Because of Michael Avenatti https://www.businessinsider.com/stormy-daniels-hush-money-lawsuit-trump-tossed-2019-3 Judge tosses out Stormy Daniels’ lawsuit to tear up the NDA to stop her from talking about her alleged affair with Trump A federal judge tossed a lawsuit by porn star Stormy Daniels, which sought to invalidate a non-disclosure agreement intended to stop her from talking about her alleged affair with President Donald Trump. Daniels has repeatedly spoken about the alleged affair, and wanted the deal declared invalid so she could talk without fear of financial penalties. Trump's lawyers said they would not sue her for breaking it, so Daniels and her lawyer Michael Avenatti declared victory over the case. Avenatti also took a victory lap, saying that it already resulted in Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's prison sentence for campaign finance violations over the NDAs. Trump's lawyers maintained during the lawsuit that the deal was invalid and that they will not sue her for breaking it, leading Daniels to declare victory even fter the judge tossed the lawsuit. Daniels has spoken about her claims, including in her book, "Full Disclosure," and on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" last year. But she wanted a court to rule that the agreement was illegal, so she could speak without fear of incurring a financial penalty if the violated it. On Thursday James Otero, a district judge in California, said that the NDA "lacked subject matter jurisdiction" and the case should be sent back to Los Angeles Superior Court, where the case was first filed, CNN reported. The Associated Press reported that Otero said that his decision does not mean that litigation would continue at the Los Angeles court, but that Daniels may be entitled to legal fees.
Yawn. Is this in a California court? For there to be a valid contract, is must cover lawful subject matter, all parties must be competent, and the contract must have consideration. Consideration is a thing of value. A thing of value can be money, a promise to do or not do something, or even "love". If Stormy was given something of value such as money in exchange for her to promise something that was not illegal, such as not disclosing certain information, they have a valid, legally enforceable contract. If Stormy violated the provisions of that contract, she is in breach of the contract. If Trump is a valid party to the contract, he is entitled to compensation. Appropiate compensation might be return of consideration, attorney's fees, and damages. I say damages because it would be a moral hazard for someone to willingly enter an agreement then breach it because of a more profitable opportunity came along. What it come down to, assuming Trump had sex with Stormy, is Stormy got paid for sex, got paid for the non-disclosure agreement, and is looking to get paid for writing a book about the alleged affair. An aging, small change whore may yet hit it big. Perhaps stormy will be able to say she F**ked Trump Thrice.
Won't dispute your points, but the facts remain, Trump's lawyers backed off from enforcing it. If there's any consolation, in doing so, Otero threw stormy's claim since the NDA was show to be a charade and with it went her claims for legal fees, some argue. There's also the whole Trump not signing the NDA which made their argument valid (NDA not enforceable to begin with).