UNBIASED - Alito Allows Firearm Regulations For Now, $5M Kraft Mac & Cheese Lawsuit, U.S. Nuclear Reactor, Hunter Biden's Business Partner Testifies, Trump's New Charges, and More.

Episode Date: August 1, 2023

1. Florida Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Kraft Mac & Cheese for Deceptive Cooking Time on Packaging (2:06)2. Man Sues Buffalo Wild Wings for Deceptive Marketing of Boneless Wings; Says They're Not Actually Deboned Wings (4:33)3. Justice Alito Temporarily Grants Biden Admin's Request to Keep ATF Firearm Regulation Rule in Place (7:46)4. President Biden Signs Executive Order Implementing Independent Counsel for Serious Military Crimes, Revoking Authority from Commanders (17:44)5. Three Additional Charges Against Trump in Classified Documents Case; Sources Say Trump Will Start Legal Defense Fund to Help Pay Legal Bills (22:13)6. Hunter Biden's Former Business Partner, Devon Archer, Testifies in Congressional Closed-Door Hearing (24:23)7. US Begins Operating New Nuclear Reactor; First Time in Seven Years (27:02)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased

news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Tuesday. Today we're going to start off a little bit different, not too different, but I want to start off with some fun, lighthearted, I don't know if fun is the right word, but lighthearted lawsuits that I was reading about when I was doing my podcast prep. Because you know what? Tuesdays are always a slower day in the news or Mondays, I should say, when I'm doing all of the podcast prep. So I figured let's take advantage of when we don't have tons of news going on and I can fill you guys in on some interesting, humorous, lighthearted lawsuits. So first, we'll talk about a couple of those. Then we'll talk about the Supreme Court ruling, specifically Justice Alito's ruling in a case

dealing with new gun rules or gun restrictions. So we'll get into that a little bit. And I'm also going to talk about a new executive order that President Biden signed on Friday that deals with the military. And then, of course, we'll finish with the notable mentions, which I will be giving you a brief update on both the cases against Donald Trump and Hunter Biden. I know we're all like we've all heard enough about it, but I do want to keep you guys informed. And I will also be letting you guys in on a new nuclear reactor that is operational in the United States for the first time in seven years. So that's today's episode. Let me just remind you to please leave my show a review if you haven't already. If you have, thank you so much. It truly does help support my show. It lets other people know

why they should listen to my show. And then again, as I always like to remind you, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. a florida judge just dismissed a class action lawsuit against craft heinz food company that alleged that the company misled the public about the amount of time it takes to prepare its microwavable velveta mac and cheese cups. Okay, so according to the package, according to the mac and cheese cup packaging, it takes just three and a half minutes to make this mac and cheese. But what the complaint is saying,

what the lawsuit says, is that the three and a half minutes doesn't take into account the time that it takes to remove the lid, take out the cheese pouch, add the water, and stir in the cheese sauce once it's done cooking. So the complaint says, and I quote, consumers seeing ready in three and a half minutes will believe it represents the total amount of time it takes to prepare the product, meaning from the moment it is opened to the moment it

is ready for consumption. However, the directions show that three and a half minutes is just the length of time to complete one of several steps. The label does not state that the product takes three and a half minutes to cook in the microwave, which would have been true. Consumers are misled to expect the product will be ready for consumption in a shorter amount of time than it really takes to prepare. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions. There are eight total counts including fraud, unjust enrichment, false and

misleading advertising, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and more. How much do you think this lawsuit is asking for? Well, the lawsuit's been dismissed, but how much do you think the lawsuit was seeking? Just take a guess. $10? A million dollars? $5 million? Now, granted, $1 million, $5 million. Now, granted, as I said, this was a class action lawsuit. So had it been able to proceed and had the plaintiff prevailed, then it would have been distributed to a class of people. But $5 million. So the judge ultimately dismissed this lawsuit for a lack of standing. However, the judge did dismiss this without prejudice

and left open the option to amend the complaint. So we'll see if the plaintiff tries again. The option is definitely there. But that is the Kraft mac and cheese case for you. Now, the second case I want to talk about that's also along these same lines is a case against Buffalo Wild Wings. So this is another class action lawsuit filed by one guy in particular. And in this lawsuit, Buffalo Wild Wings. So this is another class action lawsuit filed by one guy in particular. And in this lawsuit, Buffalo Wild Wings is being accused of false and deceptive marketing because its boneless chicken wings aren't actually wings that have been deboned, but rather just chicken breast meat. The complaint says, and I quote,

surely if Buffalo Wild Wings was transparent with its customers, it could readily change the name of the product to boneless chicken or disclose on its menu that the products are actually made of chicken breast meat. Indeed, several of Buffalo Wild Wings competitors are careful to name their products boneless chicken or chicken poppers rather than boneless wings to prevent consumers from being misled. Now, as a side note, the competitors that are cited to, you know, when the plaintiff references boneless chicken or chicken poppers are Domino's and Papa John's. And I'm not entirely sure that those are close competitor. I definitely wouldn't call them close competitors. Maybe they're competitors,

but not close competitors. So I looked into it a little bit myself and I looked at Wingstop's menu, which is one of Buffalo Wild Wings' very close competitors. And Wingstop also calls them boneless chicken wings. So maybe there's a reason that the complaint didn't reference Wingstop because maybe it makes it seem common for these wing restaurants to call them boneless wings. But anyway, as with the mac and cheese lawsuit, to prevail on this claim for false and deceptive advertising, the plaintiff would need to be able to show that as the consumer, he would have paid less for the product or not bought it at all had he known the real deal. So in this case, the plaintiff would have to prove that he and other similarly situated customers would have paid less for the chicken wings or not purchased them at all

had he known that the chicken wings weren't actually deboned wings and instead chicken breast meat. So this case actually hasn't been dismissed on its merits yet. It was dismissed when it was filed because of subject matter jurisdiction, which is a whole other issue that doesn't deal with the actual issue set forth in the complaint. So I don't want to get into that. But after it was initially dismissed for subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff came back and filed an amended complaint. So the amended complaint has not been dismissed, although Buffalo Wild Wings is trying to get it dismissed. But along with filing their motion to dismiss this lawsuit, Buffalo Wild Wings also made fun of the complaint several times on social media.

So shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Buffalo Wild Wings took to Twitter to write, quote, It's true. Our Buffalo Wings are all white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our Buffalo Wings are white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are zero percent buffalo. So Buffalo Wild Wings is kind of taking a lighthearted approach to the situation. But those are the two lawsuits I read about that I just wanted to cover because I figured, you know what? Why not? Let's start with some lighthearted news today. A lot of the news

can be so heavy, and I figured those were kind of humorous. So now let's get into the heavier, more political news. You may have seen a headline last week at the end of last week that said something along the lines of Alito blocks ghost gun ruling or something like Supreme Court temporarily blocks ghost gun ruling. What does this mean? Let's break it down because first and foremost, the case that is at issue here wasn't just about ghost guns. It was actually about firearms generally. So that's one thing I wanted to clear up. Secondly, what is a ghost gun?

A ghost gun is it's also known as a homemade firearm or privately made firearm. But a ghost gun is a name given to guns that can be assembled with kits. So you can literally buy a kit that has parts, take it home, and make it. And because of this, they're produced without serial numbers and therefore are untraceable. So they got the name Ghost Gun. So this case is called Vanderstock v. Garland, and it's called that or it's referenced as that because Vanderstock is the last name of one of the individual plaintiffs. Garland is Attorney General Merrick Garland. It's his last name. And so although the lawsuit includes multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, we just reference this case by the last names of the first listed plaintiff and

defendant. So this case is called Vanderstock v. Garland. And here's what happened. This case centers around the ATF's revisions to the Gun Control Act. The ATF is, of course, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. And recently they issued this new rule that changes the definition of a firearm, firearm frame and receiver, and includes ghost guns in guns that can be regulated. And what the plaintiffs are saying is that this was an overstep. They exceeded their statutory authority in doing this. So let's break it down a little further. That's the surface level issue, but let's break it down a little more. The Gun Control Act was enacted in 1968, and it regulates the firearms industry and firearms

ownership. And it does this by regulating interstate commerce. So without getting too far into the weeds, the Gun Control Act defined firearm in four different ways. Again, this is back in 1968 when it was enacted. And the four ways are these. So the first definition was any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. So does it shoot something by action of an explosive or can it or is it designed to? The second definition is the frame or receiver

of any such weapon. Now, you can consider the frame or receiver to be the part that other parts connect into. So without this, a firearm won't function. The third definition is any firearm muffler or firearm silencer. And the fourth definition, as set forth in the Gun Control Act of 1968, is any destructive device. As I said, frame and receiver were not defined. So then about 10 years after enactment in 1978, the ATF comes in and wants to clarify what different aspects of the Gun Control Act mean. Because keep in mind, so this is important, right? Congress can enact laws and set forth the punishment for violating those laws. But Congress can't pass laws that govern every

single application of what the law encompasses. So this is why we have agencies like ATF that essentially interpret the law, right? That's the executive branch's role, to interpret the law. So they're in charge of setting forth things like what do particular words mean? What is considered a violation? How far do you have to go before you violate the law enacted by Congress? Things like that. With that said, though, these agencies can't exceed their authority. They can't expand upon the law or exceed the parameters of the law. They're just interpreting the law. When these agencies exceed their authority and try to expand upon the law, that's where you run into the issue we're seeing in Vanderstock. So now that we know that, previously, ATF had said that any firearm

that is manufactured to a point of 80% of completion or more can be regulated as a firearm. So what happened was some people would start to manufacture guns to 79% or under that 80% threshold to avoid regulation. And then other people could then assemble the gun to more than 80% of completion. However, last year in 2022, ATF published a final rule, and this final rule changed the definition or idea of what could be regulated. So now the ATF says, as long as a device can be readily converted to a firearm, it can now be regulated as a firearm. And it set forth eight different criteria that are used to assess whether a device can be readily converted to a firearm. And this includes things like the time it takes to convert to a firearm, how easy or difficult it is, the level of expertise needed,

the expense of doing it, feasibility, things like that. Now, this rule also extended the definition of firearm to include weapons, parts, kits. And it did other things as well. So it also clarified that ghost guns qualify as firearms. It also requires serial numbers on these ghost guns. It requires manufacturers of these guns to be licensed. And it requires a background check prior to the sale, because before, if you just bought a parts kit, it wasn't a regulated firearm, so you didn't need to have a background check. So now what ATF is saying is, hey, these are the new rules, and now you have to abide by all of these things. Well, Vanderstock is challenging this final rule. And what they're saying is that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority because it went beyond the scope of the law. It basically changed the law or expanded

upon it and is attempting to regulate weapons parts that Congress explicitly left out of the statute. So this case was brought in the Northern District of Texas by two individual gun owners, one gun rights advocacy group, and one firearm producer slash retailer. It was brought against Attorney General Garland, the DOJ, the ATF, and the director of the ATF. So the Northern District Court of Texas gets this case, the first court to hear this case, and they vacate the ATF's new rule because they agreed with the plaintiffs and said that the ATF had exceeded its authority and expanded the rule too far. So the ATF then appeals to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and asks the court to put the lower court's order on hold pending appeal. This would

have left ATF's rule in place until the appellate court made a decision on the merits of the case. But on July 24th, the Fifth Circuit says, nope, we're not going to block the lower court's order, which meant that ATF's rule could not be enforced while this appeal is pending. So from there, the Biden administration, which of course includes ATF, seeks emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking the Supreme Court now to place the lower court's order on hold because they're saying if the appellate court won't do it for us, can you please do it for us just while the appeal is pending? And the argument was that if the Supreme

Court allowed the lower court's order to remain in place and therefore blocked the ATF's rule from being enforced, it would enable an irreversible flow of large numbers of untraceable ghost guns into our nation's communities. So that was the Biden administration's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. And this appeal, by the way, was made specifically to Justice Alito because that is the justice who gets the appeals from the Fifth Circuit. So each justice on the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over certain circuits. So the Fifth Circuit. So each justice on the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over certain circuits. So the Fifth Circuit, Justice Alito has jurisdiction. So the appeal goes directly to him. Now, when a justice gets an appeal, they can either make a decision on

it themselves or they can refer it to the full court. So in this case, Justice Alito made the decision himself and he granted the Biden administration's request temporarily. So what he said is that the rules challengers, so the ones who initially brought this lawsuit, have until August 2nd to file a response to the administration's request to put this order on hold. So in other words, Alito said the rule challengers have until August 2nd to respond to the administration's request to put the order on hold pending appeal. But I'm going to pause the case until August 4th. That way, when the rules challengers submit their brief, I have time to read it. I have time to make a decision. And by August 4th, I will make a final decision as to

whether this order is put on hold pending the duration of the appeal. So that's what's going on with that. I wanted to clear it up because a lot of the headlines I saw really made it seem like this case was about ghost guns specifically, and it's not. Although it is, it's more than that. The ATF's rule is much more broad. On Friday, we will know whether the Supreme Court officially puts on hold the lower court's order pending the appeal to the Fifth Circuit. But for now, that is where the case stands. On Friday, the president signed an executive order, which in part gives decisions on the prosecution of serious military crimes to independent military attorneys rather than

higher ups in the command. So these crimes that these independent attorneys will now have authority over include sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, murder, and other things. Now, this executive order, basically what it does is it formally implements legislation passed by Congress in 2022 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. So we just kind of touched on this a couple of minutes ago. Congress makes the law, the court enforces the law, and the president and the executive branch interpret the law. And they interpret these laws through rules. So agencies can make rules, the president can make rules through executive orders. But remember, the executive order is a presidential action.

It just requires the president's signature. It can be checked by Congress and the courts, but it's a presidential action reserved for the president. And basically what executive orders do is they direct the actions of the rest of the federal government. So they tell all of the other agencies in the executive branch how to act in order to, you know, carry out these laws. So in this case, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022, because we know they're currently debating the act for 2023. But this is an annual bill that has to pass every year. So in for fiscal year 2022, Congress enacts the National Defense Authorization Act, and it covers a ton of bases, you know,

within the Department of Defense. It's over 900 pages. But for purposes of this story, it mandated that, one, the military create a new special trial council. It set forth what the special trial council does. It set forth the elements of sexual harassment in the military. It mandates sentencing reform. It mandates reporting requirements. There's a ton of things that the National Defense Authorization Act did. But because these changes require modifications to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, presidential action was needed to implement these modifications. That power

rests with the president. So that is exactly why President Biden had to sign this executive order. The most notable takeaway from the executive order is that the decision as to whether to prosecute serious military crimes now officially rests with the independent council and not the commanders. Prior to this executive order and prior to the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year of 2022, members of Congress and defense leaders were actually fighting over this issue. So Congress felt that at times commanders were willing to ignore charges or incidents in order to protect those that were accused, whereas the military leaders felt that taking this power to prosecute away from the commanders would actually erode the authority of the commanders. But ultimately, Congress decided

to include these changes in the NDAA for fiscal year 2022 after this independent review on sexual assault was done in 2021. That independent review showed that the number of sexual assaults in the military had increased every single year since 2006, and during the 2022 fiscal year, there were more than 8,942 reports. So under the NDAA for fiscal year 2022, the new changes, including the offices of Special Trial Counsel, are set to take effect by December 27th of this year. So that was the deadline. But even though the deadline isn't until December, the offices have actually already been established within the Department of Defense, and they're in the process of hiring. And one thing to note is that each department, so, you know, the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, they all have their own office of Special Trial Counsel.

So I know that the Army has already hired someone to lead that office. The Air Force, I believe, said that they opened their office or established their office just last month. So they're all in the process of hiring for these offices. But that's a little bit about the president's executive order. So let's get into our notable mentions. I have four for you today. We're going to start with an update on Donald Trump's case, the classified documents case. And listen, I know that we're all getting sick of the Donald Trump case, the Hunter Biden case. But unfortunately, both cases are the bulk of the news and that it just

is what it is. And I also want to keep you abreast of what's going on. I want you guys to be in the loop, but I'll make it short to the point. So last week, there were three more charges brought against Donald Trump in a superseding indictment. A superseding indictment basically just adds, changes, revises things in the original indictment in light of new evidence. So in this case, it added three more charges, one count of willful retention of national defense information. This adds to the previous 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information. And it pertains to one particular military presentation about Iran that Donald Trump was allegedly showing his aides at his golf club in New Jersey. And this document was actually mentioned in the original indictment.

But I guess now that the prosecution has the actual papers, now the charge has been brought. Then there's also one count of altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing an object. And the third count is corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a document, record, or object. Now you'll probably notice those last two counts sound very similar. That's because they are. The only real difference is the use of the word corruptly, which the U.S. code defines corruptly as acting with an improper purpose, either personally or by influencing another. In addition to these three charges, Donald Trump's lawyers noted in a court filing

that Donald Trump has spent roughly 40 million dollars in legal fees just this year alone. And because of this and the fact that he still may get hit with multiple other indictments and therefore increase his legal costs tremendously, sources say that Donald Trump's team is creating a legal defense fund called the Patriot Legal Defense Fund, which will be led by Michael Glasner, who is Trump's associate and advisor. The second notable mention is an update on Hunter Biden. So the latest news in the investigation into Hunter Biden is the testimony of Hunter Biden's former business partner, Devin Archer. This testimony took place behind closed doors on

Capitol Hill on Monday, and it dealt with questions about the Biden's business dealings, both Hunter and Joe. Archer apparently has knowledge of this because he worked with Hunter on the board of Burisma Holdings starting in 2014, and he also co-founded an investment firm with Hunter Biden and another guy where Archer was the managing director. However, also during this time, from 2014 to 2016, Archer took part in defrauding a Native American tribal entity and various investment advisory clients out of $60 million, roughly, and he was ultimately sentenced to a year and a day in prison. Now, the reason that this is relevant is because over the weekend on Saturday, the DOJ submitted a request asking the judge to schedule a date for Archer to surrender to prison to start serving his sentence. And this prompted a little bit of speculation from Republicans that the Biden administration

was trying to prevent Archer from testifying to the House Oversight Committee. But here's the thing. His testimony was already scheduled for Monday. So even if the court came in and granted the DOJ's request and scheduled a date for him to surrender to jail, the chances that she would have ordered him to report on Monday morning when the request was filed on Saturday was extremely slim. But despite that, you know, the Republicans had their speculation. So the House Oversight Committee submitted a court filing of their own requesting that Archer's sentence begin after he completes his congressional testimony, to which Archer's attorney then said in a statement that Archer would still be appearing Monday as he had planned to do. So after the

testimony, one representative said that the interview was productive. Another said that there was a lack of evidence connecting the president to Hunter Biden's dealings. And according to a source familiar with the interview, Archer allegedly told the committee that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access to his father and that, yes, Hunter Biden did put his father on speaker phone in the presence of business partners, but that business was never discussed. So I'm sure we'll know more in the days that come. This obviously just happened and it was it was a closed door hearing. So, you know, we got to wait for the sources to talk and then we'll find out

more. The third notable mention is that Monday marked the first time a new nuclear reactor began delivering power to the electric grid in the United States in seven years. A quick debrief on nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors are essentially the heart of a nuclear power plant. The reactors contain and control nuclear chain reactions that produce heat through a process called nuclear fission. That heat is then used to make steam, which spins a turbine and creates electricity. As of 2021, there were more than 440 commercial reactors worldwide, and 92 of them were in the United States. But the Unit 3 reactor at Plant Vogel in Georgia is the one that is now operating, and it underwent preliminary tests in March and started commercially operating on Monday. And it generates enough energy to power roughly 500,000 homes and businesses and will apparently

deliver electricity for the next 60 to 80 years. According to Columbia University, construction on the nuclear reactor began in 2009, but took much longer than expected to complete and cost a lot more than initially expected. So initial cost estimates for both the Unit 3 and Unit 4 reactor were $14 billion, and both were expected to be up and running in 2016 and 2017. The costs are now above $30 billion, and Unit 4 still isn't operational. I think Unit 4 is to be operational at the end of 2023 or the beginning of 2024. So here's the thing. The interest in nuclear energy kind of took a downward fall in 1979 when the Three Mile Island tragedy happened in Pennsylvania. Climate activists, though, have had this increased interest in it, though, in the last decade because it's a carbon-free form of

electricity. As with anything, nuclear energy has its pros and cons. So it is carbon free. It doesn't take up much space. It's, you know, a high power output. We get you can get a lot of energy from it. And it's a relatively reliable energy source. On the flip side of that, uranium, which is what the current nuclear technology relies on, is technically non renewable because there's only limited amounts in the Earth's crust. So once that's gone, it's gone. Or once we use too much, obviously the cost to obtain it gets higher. On top of that, it comes with high upfront costs, nuclear waste, which is not a good thing, and malfunctions can be absolutely catastrophic,

which I'm sure you've heard of either Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island. Those are some of the biggest. But nonetheless, Unit 3 of the Vogel plant is the first nuclear reactor to start operations in seven years here in the United States. So it's kind of a big deal. But that concludes this episode. I hope you enjoyed it. Please don't forget to leave me a review, share the show with your friends and have a great rest of your week. I will talk to you on Friday.