UNBIASED - Netherlands Government Collapses, 1912 Massacre Reparations Lawsuit, US Drone Strike Kills ISIS Leader, FDIC Sued Over $1.9B, and MORE.

Episode Date: July 11, 2023

1. Netherlands Government Collapses Over Immigration Debate, But It's Not the First Time It's Collapsed (2:14)2. AI Software Companies, Including Meta, Facing Multiple Lawsuits; Accusations of Copyright Infringement, Invasion of Privacy, and More (12:22)3. Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group Sues FDIC Over Its Retention of $1.93B (18:37)4. United States Carries Out Successful Drone Strike Killing ISIS Leader (24:04)5. Larry Nassar, Former USA Gymnastics Coach, Stabbed Multiple Times in Florida Prison (25:54)6. Biden Visits Europe For NATO Summit; Here's What His Itinerary Looks Like (27:20)7. Oklahoma Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Seeking Reparations for 1912 Tulsa Massacre (28:40)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, TikTok, and YouTube.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. I hope you had a great weekend and are ready for a new week. A new week means a new news cycle. So let's get into it. I have three full stories for you today. Plus, of course, that segment of notable mentions, which is where I cover multiple stories. Each story is covered in under two minutes. The three stories I have for you, the first one is going to be the Dutch government collapse. That story is going to include a little civics lesson. The second story is going to be the Dutch government collapse. That story is going to include a little civics lesson. The second story is going to be these AI lawsuits we're seeing now.

So most recently, there were a few authors, including a stand-up comedian that we know well here in America, that filed lawsuits against both Meta and ChatGPT, or OpenAI, which owns ChatGPT, alleging copyright infringement on Justin Richmond, a bunch of other things. So we'll get into that. The third story is about Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group suing the FDIC, which is, of course, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in order to recoup $1.9 billion that the FDIC is withholding and refusing to give back. And then, of course, we'll finish with that notable mention segment. I have four notable mentions for you today, which we will get into a little bit later. Before we get into the stories, let me just please remind you to review my show on whatever

platform you listen on. It really helps support my show. And it also lets other people know why they should be listening to my show. And along with that, another way you can help me is by sharing my show with your family, your friends, your colleagues, whoever it might be that you feel appreciates nonpartisan news just as much as you, or better yet, send it to the people in your life that you feel desperately need nonpartisan news. One final note, I need to get better at giving this disclaimer. I'm sure you all know this, but yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. On Friday, the news broke that the Dutch government collapsed. Obviously here in the United States, that is not something we hear of. So let's go through it. What does this mean? So we're going to talk not only about the government in the Netherlands, but also who the

prime minister is, what the issue was here. And the government in the Netherlands has actually collapsed a few times. So this isn't anything ultra crazy. Yes, it is an important event, but it is something that has happened in the past. So just note that before we go forward. First, let's talk about how the government in the Netherlands works, just so we can kind of get an idea of what happened here. The Netherlands, and by the way, if I say the Netherlands, for those who are not super familiar, the Netherlands is also informally known as Holland. So that's the area of the world I'm talking about here. But the Netherlands has what's called a coalition government. And a coalition government is when different political

parties cooperate with one another to form a government. Think of here in the United States, if the Republicans, Democrats and independents were to get together, and they were to form our government, it would never happen. That's not something we have here in the United States. But in Europe, this does exist. And it's not only in the Netherlands. It actually happens in multiple countries. It typically happens when one party can't capture the majority of a vote during the election. So as an example, in Belgium in 2019, in the federal election, no party got more than 17% of the vote. So it's not uncommon for their government to be made up of six or more

parties. In the Netherlands, no single party has held a majority in parliament since the 19th century. And this is what it looks like. So there's 150 cabinet seats, and each party will secure a certain number of seats in the cabinet every election. Of those 150 seats, it's led by a prime minister. The current prime minister is Mark Rutte, who actually just said he is leaving politics altogether, but we'll get into that in a little bit. And then there's also other ministers as well as state secretaries. Now, Mark Rutte, he was sworn in as prime minister in 2010. He has led four consecutive governments, so it's not like the term limits here we have in the United States. But Ruta actually became the longest serving prime minister in August of last year. So he was sworn in in 2010. Two years later, in 2012, the government collapsed, and that was due to an impasse on budget negotiations. But Ruta returned as prime minister. So whenever the government collapses, there's going to be a new election. And at that point in that new election is when the new coalition is decided. So maybe

it's made up of the same parties. Maybe it's made up of different parties. But nonetheless, Ruta came back as prime minister. Then in 2021, so nine years later, the government collapsed again, this time because of a scandal relating to false allegations of child welfare fraud by the Dutch tax authorities. But Ruta, again, he remained in office through the new election. And once that election happened, he returned. And he's gained this nickname Teflon Mark because he manages to come out of all of these scandals and crises pretty much unscathed. So he's gotten that nickname because of that. Now, in addition to being the prime minister, he leads the VVD party. The VVD party is also known as the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy.

And we'll talk about it more in a second once we run through the four parties that make up Netherlands Coalition. But he does run that party. However, on Monday, he announced that he's leaving the VVD party and he's leaving politics altogether. So he'll stay on as the head of the caretaker administration until the next election happens in the fall. But he did tell parliament that he would not be running for a fifth term and that he's out of politics. Prior to the collapse on Friday, the coalition was made up of four parties.

So you have the VVD, which I said is otherwise known as the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. You have D66, which stands for Democrats 66, the Christian Democratic Appeal, CDA, and then you have the Christian Union. Now, I'm going to give you a brief summary of each of these parties, but just note that in the Netherlands, I would say the government is mostly liberal. So if we're comparing it to the political landscape we see here in the United States, where you have, you know, each party is very sharply divided in their views and they don't

really share similar views on a lot of things. The government in the Netherlands, all of the parties I would say are mostly left if we're putting them on a spectrum of United States politics. However, there are a couple of parties that do have conservative policies, but not all of their policies are conservative. So it'll make sense in a minute. But let's first talk about the VVD or the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. This is the one that the prime minister leads, and this is the most conservative of the four parties. But still, you know, they believe non-discrimination should be more important than the exercise of religion. They're supporters of free markets. They promote

economic liberalism, classic liberalism, and cultural liberalism. They believe social rights are not simply rights, but they also create obligations. This party also has a commitment to an open economy with a regulated free market. They are supporters of pro-choice as well as euthanasia expansion. Now, euthanasia is not something we have in America, but it's basically the right to end your life if you would like to do that by way of euthanasia. D66 is another party. It's one of the four that make up the Netherlands coalition. D66 stands for Democrats 66 because it was founded in 1966. That's where that 66 number comes from. It's a social liberal party, though it does place

itself in the center of the political spectrum, it shares both progressive agendas and conservative agendas. So it has a progressive agenda when it comes to social issues like LGBT rights, gender equality, etc., but a more conservative agenda on economic issues. And then there's the Christian Democratic Appeal, the CDA. Despite its name, the party does also have Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim members of parliament, and it actually advocates for the integration of minorities into Dutch culture. And this party was clashing with the VVD and the next party we're going to talk about because the Christian Democratic Appeal, you know, believes in more lax immigration policies,

whereas the other two don't. So the Christian Democratic Appeal Party is also considered a center party, but it does have a considerable left wing. And then the fourth and final party is the Christian Union. Again, they also classify themselves as a centrist party. They have progressive stances on the economy, immigration, and the environment, and more conservative stances on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia. So you really have a wide variety of political views within this coalition government. But the issue here, and the reason why the government collapsed in this instance, is immigration. So there were concerns over a housing crisis, high gas prices, and inflation. Some blamed the foreign migrants like international

students and expats, but mainly asylum seekers. The Netherlands government estimates that the number of asylum seekers could top 70,000 by the end of this year, which is more than last year's number of 48,000 and nearly double 2021 numbers of 36,000. The prime minister who leads the VVD party, which I said leans a bit more right, as well as the Christian Democratic Appeal Party, which also leans a bit more right, were reportedly arguing for a harder stance on immigration. So they were arguing that the carrying capacity of the Netherlands is under pressure and that people often find themselves competing for housing, health care, and education, whereas D66 and the Christian Union were disagreeing with this. Allegedly, and this has been denied by Rute,

but one of the pushes that Rute was making was limiting the entrance of children for war refugees who were already in the Netherlands and making families wait up to two years before they could be reunited. A statement by the Christian Union Party, who is one of the more progressive parties, said, quote, one of the values that's important with the proposals is that children grow up with their parents. As a family party, that is what we stand for, end quote. So you can see, although the government in the Netherlands is very different than here in America, there are similarities, right? You have a right and a left. You have parties that fall on either side, and they have certain policies that they're going to stand up for. And in the Netherlands, you have these two parties,

the Christian Democratic Appeal and the VVD, that are wanting more strict immigration policies, like the conservatives do in the United States. And then you have the D66 and Christian Union who want more lax immigration policies, which the Democrats here in the United States fall more in line with. So it's still split. It's still a split government, even though the government works differently. At a press conference on Friday night, the prime minister said, quote, it's no secret that the coalition partners have differing opinions about immigration policy, but those differences have become insurmountable, end quote. By law, the next election can't happen for at least 90 days. And because of the summer and fall recesses, the election likely won't happen until at least mid-fall. So for now, the caretaker administration will remain in place.

Rutte will stay on as the head of the caretaker administration until that next election. But at that time, when that next election happens is when a new coalition will take shape and take over. Again, as I said, that new coalition could be these same four parties, or it could be entirely different parties, or some parties can remain and new parties can join in. So that's a little bit about the government in the Netherlands. And I hope you learned something from that because I definitely did in doing my research. But I found it very interesting to learn about a different form of government and how it works and how, although it's so different, it still has similarities to here in the United States. So that's your story on the Dutch government collapsing. And that takes us into story number two, which are these AI

lawsuits. ChatGPT and OpenAI, which owns ChatGPT, have faced multiple lawsuits recently. And these lawsuits are accusing it of things like invasion of privacy and copyright infringement. But now meta has been thrown into the mix too. And I find this story to be interesting because it's an area of the law that isn't yet established. We have so many areas of the law. And although the law is never concrete, I always say this, one of the things we were taught in law school is that it always depends. The law can always be interpreted in so many different ways. That's why we have lawyers. But this is an area of law that has never been touched on. It's uncharted. It's not yet established.

And I recently sat in on a discussion at my former law school called AI's Impact on Entertainment. And one of the speakers was the vice president of business and legal affairs at Sony. And the conversation was interesting as far as how is AI going to affect people in the entertainment industry. And one of the examples that we talked through was how singers, how artists are going to be affected if AI uses their voices to create songs. And this is something that's already been done. But how does that affect ownership over the songs and profitability and things like that? So it's a very interesting area of the law. But of course,

AI is going to affect much more than that, which is why it's really interesting to talk through these lawsuits. The most recent of lawsuits, which were filed on Friday, were brought by Sarah Silverman. You may have heard of her. She's a stand-up comedian and an actress here in the United States. She was on SNL, but she's also an author. And two other authors were a part of this lawsuit as well. But Silverman and these other two authors filed these two lawsuits, one's against Meta and the other is against OpenAI, but both allege almost identical facts. So the lawsuits focus on these things called large language models. Large language models are AI software programs that are designed to put out text in response to user prompts. We're most familiar with ChatGPT's version, but Meta also has a similar AI

product called LLAMA, which stands for Large Language Model Meta AI, but it's pronounced Lama. So if you hear me saying Lama, that's what it is both chat gpt and llama while they were created by two different companies that being meta and open ai are trained by copying text across the internet so they go and they scour the internet for all kinds of text books whatever it might be that's where they get their text and they extract data from that text. And their output, when they're prompted by users, is entirely reliant on this material that they're trained with. So the lawsuit says that the plaintiff's books, which are copyrighted, were copied and ingested as part of this training

and that the plaintiffs never consented to this. So the claims in the lawsuit are direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, removal of copyright management information, false assertion of copyright, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and negligence. And if you're wondering what the difference is between copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement, it's just that vicarious copyright infringement is a different's a different claim but it requires a larger degree of control over the infringing activity so in this case the plaintiffs say that meta and chat gpt control their ai's software output and therefore vicariously infringed on the author's copyrights

because they're basically dictating how their products are trained. And so they're vicariously infringing on these authors' copyrights. So one difference between ChatGPT and Lama is that Lama was actually only intended for certain government officials and approved researchers. But unfortunately for them, it was leaked to the public on GitHub, which is an online software development platform, and it was made commercially available. In March of this year, Meta did try to sort of solve the problem by issuing a DMCA takedown notice to the GitHub programmer that released it. But according to a more recent June report, Meta plans to make the next version of Llama commercially available anyway. This lawsuit, though, is just one of many

in the last few weeks. Just in the last few weeks, Getty Images sued Stability AI for copyright infringement. That was over Stability AI's copying and processing millions of Getty Images, which are also protected by copyright. And recently, there was this one class action lawsuit that was filed by a California law firm. And the defendants are OpenAI, connected entities to OpenAI, and Microsoft, which is an investor in OpenAI. But the basis is that OpenAI has stolen private information from hundreds of millions of internet users, including children, without their consent. And the lawsuit says that the amount of data that continues to be captured far exceeds any reasonably authorized use, and it's all being

done to develop and train AI products. And the lawsuit says, quote, using stolen and misappropriated personal information at scale, defendants have created powerful and wildly profitable AI and released it into the world without regard for the risks. And it goes on to say that this has led to this AI arms race. And it says these big tech companies are onboarding society onto a plane that many experts believe has a 10% chance of crashing and killing everyone on board. The lawsuit acknowledges that in today's day and age, profiting off of data collection is normal and internet user data is available for purchase just like any other content or property.

But the lawsuit says that this is different because these defendants didn't take the established route for obtaining data. Instead, they stole it. So as I said in the beginning, this is uncharted territory, and it really is going to be quite the ride in seeing how this area of the law develops. And it's just kind of crazy to think we're all witnessing this new area of the law take shape in real time. Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group, which I will also refer to as SVBFG, which owned Silicon Valley Bank when it collapsed in March, has sued the FDIC to recover the $1.93 billion that it took when it took over the bank. Let's go through a little background and then we'll talk about what the lawsuit is over. So you probably remember back in March, Silicon Valley Bank collapsed. Following that,

depositors pulled $42 billion out in one day, leaving Silicon Valley Bank collapsed. Following that, depositors pulled $42 billion out in one day, leaving Silicon Valley Bank with a negative cash balance, and the FDIC came in and seized the bank. In an effort to stabilize the banking system and prevent these bank runs at other financial institutions, the FDIC invoked the system risk exception. In doing that, the FDIC was able to cover insured deposits that were under the FDIC's $250,000 limit and uninsured deposits that exceeded the limit. So you may be wondering, okay, you said the bank had a negative cash balance, so where does this $1.9 billion come into play? The $1.9 billion was the cash balance of three of the financial group's uninsured accounts that were with SVB. So Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group had been in the

business of owning other businesses for 23 years. Silicon Valley Bank was just one of those businesses that it owned, but it also happened to be where Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group kept much of its money. So as of early March, right before the collapse, Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group had deposited roughly $2.1 billion into three different deposit accounts at SVB. Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group now says it's owed that money and the FDIC's failure to give it back and retention of that money violates United States bankruptcy laws. Part of the financial group's argument is that it's entitled to be made good along with all of the other depositors. So according to the lawsuit following the FDIC's takeover, the FDIC announced that all deposits, both insured and uninsured, had been transferred to the newly created and FDIC-operated bank called Bridge Bank. The FDIC also confirmed that all depositors would

be made whole and that they would have full access to their money beginning March 13th. And the lawsuit goes on to say that despite acting to make all depositors whole, despite announcing publicly it was doing so and ensuring full access to depositors on an immediate basis, the FDIC has refused to pay the financial group the funds that it once owned. And essentially what they're arguing is, look, we're a depositor too. Like we kept our money in Silicon Valley Bank. We are entitled to that money just like all the other depositors are. So they feel they should get their money back just like everyone else got their money back.

What the FDIC says, though, is actually we can't pay you because we may have a claim against you down the road. We may have multiple claims against you. And that might provide us with a right to offset the claim against the money that we're retaining. So we're going to hold on to this money for now, just in case, you know, we have a claim against you and we can offset that amount. And the financial group says, no, actually, that's not how it works. You can't do that. So therein lies the issue of the lawsuit. Now, there was a period of time between March 13th

and March 16th that the financial group had access to its money, just like every other depositor. During this three-day period, the financial group initiated eight wire transfers from its new account at Bridge Bank. But on March 16th, Bridge Bank started rejecting the financial group's wire transfers because the FDIC had come in and told the bank, they said, hey, you got to put the financial group's accounts on hold and also contact the recipient banks for the wires that had already been completed and cleared and inform them that these wires were initiated in error and they need to be canceled. And then on top of that, the FDIC had Bridge Bank assign all of Silicon Valley Bank financial group's accounts and associated assets and liability to the FDIC. And now assign all of Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group's accounts and

associated assets and liability to the FDIC, and now they won't let it go. So the Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group says it needs this money to reorganize itself, and not having this money is causing it continual harm. On top of that, it says this money should be generating more than $100 million in annual interest for the estate at current rates. And they're losing out on all of this interest because the FDIC is just holding their money and they're not able to accrue interest. In sum, the Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group is asking the court to either order the FTC to immediately pay this $1.9 billion or in the alternative, if the court finds that there is this valid set-off argument, which Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group argues there's not, then at least

order the FDIC to place the money in a court-supervised interest-bearing account and have the FDIC turn over any amount in excess of what the court determines could be used as a set-off. So that's what they're asking for in the lawsuit. The FDIC was reached out to for comment, but hasn't responded to any of those requests. Finally, let's get into today's notable mentions. As I said in the beginning of this episode, this is where I cover four to five stories. And today it happens to be four, but each story is covered in two minutes or less. The first notable mention is that the United States successfully completed an anti-ISIS mission on Friday by killing an ISIS leader with a drone strike. In a statement to The Independent on Sunday, the Department of Defense said that the group of drones destroyed a motorcycle being ridden by the individual who is thought by U.S. forces to be a top commander of ISIS forces

in Syria. Now, keep in mind that no one outside of the people involved in this operation is sure how they knew that the man on the motorcycle was, you know, for sure this ISIS leader. So we're kind of just taking the Department of Defense's word. But if it's true, it's good news. This is an add-on to the story that you may have heard about on Friday, where these Russian aircrafts were harassing these U.S. drones. So the U.S. had these MQ-9 Reaper drones that were flying in Syria. And Russia is currently operating in Syria right now, supporting the Syrian president. But it started earlier in the week when three Russian fighter jets dropped these parachute flares in front of three of the United States drones. And then on Thursday, they did it again. And then on Friday,

the Russian aircraft flew 18 close passes, you know, by these drones that apparently caused the drones to react to avoid unsafe conditions. But this whole incident where the Russian aircraft was making these close passes lasted about two hours. So it was kind of an issue. They were causing a problem. And that's why the commander of U.S. forces called it harassment. But they weren't doing it to just just us. The Russian aircraft was actually harassing a French plane too. So there were allegedly no civilians killed in the strike, but reports of civilian injury are still being assessed. The second notable mention is that Larry Nassar was stabbed multiple times in a Florida prison. Larry Nassar was the former United States gymnastics

doctor who you probably remember. He was convicted of sexually abusing many young gymnasts during these quote unquote medical sessions that he used as an opportunity to also molest them. But he was stabbed 10 times in a Florida prison on Sunday. The president of the local correction officers union said that he was stabbed twice in the neck, twice in the back and six times in the chest nasser is in stable condition and the officers that were on the scene are credited with saving his life he is currently serving a lengthy sentence for both state and federal charges stemming from the child abuse and child pornography so in 2017 he was sentenced to 60 years for possessing 37 000 pictures of child pornography and attempting to destroy them in, he was sentenced to 60 years for possessing 37,000 pictures of child pornography and attempting to destroy them.

In 2018, he was sentenced to an additional 40 to 175 years for sexually assaulting the gymnast and another 40 to 125 years after he pled guilty to an additional three counts of sexual assault. He was originally sent to a prison in Tucson, Arizona, but he was attacked shortly after he was released into the general population. So he was then transferred to the maximum security prison in Florida, where he was just stabbed. So he may have to be transferred again. But that's the story with Larry Nassar. The third notable mention is President Biden's European itinerary. So the president is in Europe for the NATO summit in which alliance leaders are going to debate the war in Ukraine and allegedly revised plans for dealing with Russian aggression. But he's also doing some other things in Europe. So his first stop was in London, where he met with the prime minister and also King Charles. When he was with the prime minister, they talked about the United States' recent decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine, which you would know about if you were

subscribed to my newsletter that goes out every Saturday. It's a free newsletter, another nonpartisan source of news. If you would like to subscribe, just go to jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe. Anyway, the UK is one of many countries that doesn't agree with the use of cluster munitions, but at the same time, the UK is a strong defender countries that doesn't agree with the use of cluster munitions. But at the same time, the UK is a strong defender of Ukraine and has pushed the United States to take more aggressive steps in providing Ukraine with military aid. So they were talking about that. With the King, President Biden and the King were supposedly discussing climate change, an issue that the two of them are committed to. And then he will attend

the summit. And on Thursday, he'll finish his Europe trip with a trip to Helsinki, where he will celebrate Finland's entrance into NATO. Finland is NATO's newest member, having joined in early April. But now you know President Biden's itinerary. The fourth and final notable mention is that an Oklahoma judge threw out a reparations lawsuit. On Friday, an Oklahoma judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking reparations for the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. The Tulsa Race Massacre, otherwise known as the Black Wall Street Massacre, took place between May 31st and June 1st of 1921. Mobs of white people burned more than 35 square blocks of what was called the Greenwood District. And at the time, the Greenwood District was one of the wealthiest Black communities

in the country. And that's where the name Black Wall Street comes from. This lawsuit was filed in 2020 by three survivors who are now over 100 years old, but they filed it with the hope of, quote, seeing justice in their lifetime. The defendants of filed it with the hope of, quote, seeing justice in their lifetime. The defendants of the suit included the city of Tulsa, the Tulsa regional manager, the board of county commissioners, and more. The lawsuit contended that Tulsa's long history of racial division and tension stemmed from the massacre and that it resulted in the racial and economic disparities that still exist today. The suit was filed under the state's public nuisance law, and that's where a community or a neighborhood or a big group of people

is affected by some happening at one point in time. So to give you an example, the public nuisance law is what the Oklahoma's Attorney General used last year to sue Johnson & Johnson for its contribution to the opioid crisis. So again, community, neighborhood, big group of people, whatever, affected by some instance at the same time. So in that case, it was the opioid crisis, and Johnson & Johnson had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars. The Oklahoma judge did dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice, which means that it can't be brought again, though it can be appealed.

So there was no official word on whether it would be appealed. The actual attorneys that filed this case have not made a comment on whether or though it can be appealed. So there was no official word on whether it would be appealed. The actual attorneys that filed this case have not made a comment on whether or not it would be appealed. That concludes this episode. I hope you enjoyed it. Please don't forget to leave me a review. Don't forget to subscribe to my newsletter and I will talk to you on Friday. you