UNBIASED - NY Attorney General Requests Verdict Against Trump Before Trial Starts, Biden Admin's New Overtime Pay Rule, US to Potentially Reclassify Marijuana, Judgment Against Giuliani, and More.

Episode Date: September 1, 2023

1. New York’s Attorney General Asks Judge to Hold Trump and Co-Defendants Liable for Fraud Before Trial Starts (2:19)2. Biden Administration Proposes New Overtime Pay Rule for Salaried Employees (7:11)3. Dept. of Health and Human Services Recommends Reclassifying Marijuana From Schedule I Drug (9:22)4. Judge Enters Judgement Against Rudy Giuliani in Defamation Case (14:49)5. Company 3M Agrees to $6B Settlement for Defective Earplugs Used by U.S. Servicemembers (20:26)6. Rep. Justin Jones Silenced by Tennessee House for Speaking Off Topic (22:12)7. Justice Thomas Discloses Using TX Businessman’s Jet Last Year After Criticism over Non-Disclosures (26:31)8. Trump Pleads Not Guilty in Georgia Election Interference Case; Requests Separate Trial from Co-Defendants (27:13)9. Mitch McConnell Given the “All-Clear” After Freezing Up at the Podium Again (27:28)10. Texas Supreme Court Reinstates Gender-Affirming Ban for Minors (28:13)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 Friday. I hope you had a great week. My voice is slowly but surely getting there. A little bit of congestion left, but we're getting there. And this week was a hot, hot week in the news. I have a lot of stories for you today. We're going to start with New York's attorney general asking for the judge to render a verdict in Trump's civil fraud case prior to the trial even starting. We're also going to talk about the Biden administration's new overtime pay rule. Then we'll get into the recommendation for reclassification of marijuana from the Department of Health and Human Services. We'll also talk about the default judgment against Rudy Giuliani,

in which he was found liable for the defamation of two Georgia election workers. Then we'll talk about a $6 billion settlement from 3M over some defective earplugs worn by service members. We'll then talk about Justin Jones being silenced in the Tennessee House. He was one of those lawmakers that was expelled in April. And we'll finish with a few final notes. So just very short mentions of things that are going on that I feel you should know. Those are today's stories. Before we get into them, let me just

give you the reminder that I always give, which is to please leave my show a review. You guys have been killing it with the reviews. If you already have, thank you so much. It truly means the world to me. If you haven't already, it's very easy to do. Apple Podcasts and Spotify both make it very easy, and it just takes two seconds. So if you like what you hear, please go ahead and do that for me. I would really appreciate it. And as a final reminder, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. On Wednesday, New York's attorney general asked a state judge to declare Donald Trump and his co-defendants liable for fraud before the trial has even started. Now, this isn't something so

out of the norm, so crazy. This is what we call a motion for summary judgment. In this case, it is a motion for partial summary judgment. I'll get into what that motion means, but first, let's talk about which trial we're talking about. This was filed by New York's Attorney General back in September of last year, and what it alleges is that Trump, his children, the Trump Organization, and other Trump Organization executives participated in this fraudulent scheme in order to enrich themselves by inflating the value of properties as well as Donald Trump's own net worth. So the complaint lays out more than 200 instances in which the New York attorney general says were false asset valuations. One of them being, just to give you

an example, this group of apartments in Trump Park Avenue that were listed on corporate paperwork as being worth more than $49 million when, according to the lawsuit, they were appraised at a combined $750,000. Now, as I said, it was originally filed in September of last year. It was set to go to trial, or it is set to go to trial in October, specifically October 2nd. And remember, this is a civil case. It's not criminal. So there's no indictment. We're not looking at criminal charges, nothing like that. Instead, New York's attorney general is seeking civil remedies. So for one, she wants $250 million in damages. She wants the Trump

organization's business certificate to be revoked, basically banning the organization from doing business in the state of New York. And she also wants a ban on the defendants from conducting business in the state for the next five years. As for Trump himself, he has denied any wrongdoing, and his attorneys have said that the attorney general's office exceeded its statutory authority by prying into transactions where absolutely no wrongdoing has taken place. So that's the basis of this lawsuit. What this new filing is, is what we call a motion for summary judgment, or in this case, it's a motion for partial summary judgment. So seeking summary judgment

on only some of the issues rather than all of the issues. In this case, it's just on one, which is fraud. So this is basically where you say, hey, judge, look, there's no question of liability here. None of the material facts are in dispute here. Therefore, we don't need to take this issue all the way to trial, waste the court's resources, et cetera, when you can just rule on the issue now because the evidence is so overwhelming. And the standard when looking at a motion for summary judgment is whether there's any dispute as to any material fact. So there has to be no dispute as to any of the material facts in an issue. So in this case, what the attorney general is saying more specifically is

that here is the overwhelming evidence that Trump and his co-defendants inflated the values of properties. Trump inflated his net worth in some years by more than $2 billion. And this inflation is a blatant and obvious deceptive practice. And there is no question as to any of these material facts. Therefore, go ahead and rule that he is liable for fraud, and we will deal with the other issues at court, but at least this one can be solved now. So this motion for summary judgment is scheduled to be heard on September 22nd. That's roughly two weeks before the trial date. So we'll know around that time whether the judge grants this motion or not. If the motion is granted, what will happen is the trial will proceed as scheduled, but the fraud claim won't be heard as it will have already been decided. So the trial

will focus on the other claims in the lawsuit, like falsification of records, issuing false financial statements, things like that. On the other hand, if the motion is denied, then the trial will proceed and all claims, including the fraud claim, will be heard and decided at that time. Trump himself likely will not testify in this case. He won't testify at trial, but he did have his deposition taped back in April, which will come into play at the trial. And if you're interested, the deposition is very long. It's over 400 pages, but I do have it linked for you. It's a PDF doc that I have linked on my website. So you can always find it in the sources description in the podcast episode just by clicking on the hyperlink or just going to

jordanismylawyer.com, finding this episode, scrolling down, and the sources are there for you. So that's what's going on with the attorney general in New York and Trump's fraud case. Let's move on now to this Biden administration rule that would extend overtime pay. So on Wednesday, the Biden administration announced a new proposed rule that would extend the overtime pay threshold by about $20,000 and benefit roughly 3.6 million salaried employees. This proposed rule came from the Department of Labor. It still has to go through the entire rulemaking process, which can take some time. So this includes publishing the notice of the proposed rule to the federal register, allowing 60 days for public comment, reviewing those comments, conducting an analysis on those

comments, and then publishing a final rule. Before you get too excited, this doesn't apply to everyone. So first, you have to be a salaried employee. Hourly pay just doesn't cut it here. Second, you have to earn a salary of less than $1,059 a week or about $55,000 a year. If you earn more than that, if you're over that threshold, you might still be eligible so long as you're not primarily performing management-related duties. So what this rule does is it extends that threshold. So that number I just gave you, that 1,059 a week or about 55,000 a year, this rule is extending what it currently is. The current threshold is about 35,500 a year. That was set by the Trump administration in 2020, but some say that that rule didn't go far enough and it should have been taken further.

Previously, the Obama administration tried putting the salary threshold at about $47,000, but a judge had ruled that amount too high. Now, this proposed rule would also make it so the salary threshold has to be increased every few years. So that's another thing that this rule does. But that is the Biden administration rule. So now it'll be published to the Federal Register, as I mentioned, go through public commenting, and then eventually become a final rule if the administration decides to proceed with

it once all of those comments are taken into account. The third story is about the Department of Health and Human Services recommending lesser restrictions on marijuana and a reclassification of the drug. So the recommendation came by way of a letter that was sent from a top official at the Department of Health and Human Services. It was sent to the DEA and the letter was requesting that marijuana be reclassified as a Schedule III drug rather than a Schedule I drug. Prior to this letter, though, President Biden had asked the Health and Human Services Secretary, as well as the Attorney General, to review how marijuana is scheduled based on certain

factors that are considered in determining how to schedule a particular drug. So basically, President Biden asked these two individuals, hey, review this drug. If after your review, you find that it should be reclassified, send a letter to the DEA, and then the DEA will do their final analysis and make the final determination. That was about a year ago that President Biden asked these two people to do that, and the letter just came this week to the DEA, so now the DEA will start doing their own look into marijuana. So just a few seconds ago, I had mentioned that there are certain factors that are considered when determining how to schedule a drug. And those factors include the following. One, is the drug currently accepted in medical use treatment? And we know that

marijuana is, right? In certain states, it is. Two, does the drug have abuse potential and to what extent? And three, how likely is the drug to cause dependence if abused and to what extent? So if a drug currently has no accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse, that drug is scheduled as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. And we're talking things like heroin, LSD, ecstasy, and yes, marijuana. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 currently. If a drug has a high potential for abuse and can lead to serious dependence, whether that's psychological or physical, then the drug is classified as a Schedule 2

controlled substance. These are things like oxycodone, fentanyl, methadone, opium, codeine, things like that. Schedule 3 controlled substances have a potential for abuse, but less than Schedules 1 and 2. And with Schedule 3 substances, it can lead to moderate or low dependence, but not as severe as a Schedule 1 or 2 would. These are things like ketamine, anabolic steroids, and Tylenol that contains codeine. So not your typical Tylenol, but there is a particular Tylenol that contains codeine. Schedule 4 substances have a low potential for abuse relative to Schedule 3 and include drugs like Xanax, Valium, and Ativan. And finally, Schedule 5 substances have an even lower potential for abuse and contain limited quantities of certain narcotics.

Cough syrups that have less than 200 milliliters of codeine per 100 milliliters. So this would be Robitussin, things of that nature. So as you can see, it gets less and less severe as you go from schedule one to schedule five. Marijuana is currently schedule one. So what this letter is requesting is that the DEA reclassify marijuana as a schedule three controlled substance. Therefore, it would be in the same category as things like ketamine, anabolic steroids, and that Tylenol that contains codeine. Even though Schedule III obviously isn't the most lax of classifications, reclassifying it to Schedule III would be the most significant federal cannabis reform in modern history. Some of the biggest impacts that we would

see from reclassification would be tax breaks for cannabis companies and making marijuana research easier. What it seems like is the federal government is realizing, okay, look, maybe we've been a little too stringent on marijuana in a way that doesn't make sense. We've been a bit too restrictive. Let's change this a little bit, but we're not ready to legalize it. Some cannabis activists say that this recommendation for rescheduling just doesn't go far enough. It's not going to fix the current divide that we see between federal law and the states that do allow it to be used for medical use and allow it for recreational use as well. So there are currently 38 states that allow it for medical use and 23 states that allow it for

recreational use. These advocates say that the only way to really align federal law with these states would be to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act altogether and regulate it in a way that's similar to how we regulate alcohol. From here, as I mentioned, the DEA will complete its own review and make its own final determination. Should the DEA decide to make the change, it will have to follow that typical rulemaking process that we just talked about in this story prior. That's what's going on with marijuana. Let's jump into Rudy Giuliani. You may have seen the headline this week that a federal judge found Rudy Giuliani liable for defamation. There's actually more than just defamation involved in this story. The judge

found Giuliani liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. But let's talk about why and also give some context. Giuliani was facing a defamation suit from two Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss. They also happened to be mother and daughter. The two women alleged that Giuliani had defamed them by falsely accusing them of ballot tampering after the 2020 election. So specifically, Giuliani had called them ballot-stuffing criminal conspirators. He said that there was a security video of the ballot counting in Atlanta that showed suitcases full of ballots, and he accused Freeman of handing some kind of USB to Moss like, quote, vials of cocaine or heroin, end quote,

as part of an elaborate vote-stealing scheme. Typically, when we hear about defamation cases, the verdict comes after a decision from a judge or a jury once the evidence has been presented at a trial. This case is a little bit different. This judgment was entered as a sanction or otherwise known as a punishment. So according to the judge, Giuliani was making this case very difficult. And we know that part of the reason is because he's struggling financially. He's struggling to keep up with all of these attorney's fees, but nonetheless, he was not keeping up with

the case, which you have an obligation to do, specifically in regards to discovery. So in discovery, if one party requests certain documents or subpoenas certain documents for the case, you have to provide those documents. When the court then gets involved and orders you to provide those documents, you have to listen to the court, otherwise you get sanctioned. So that's what was going on here. Giuliani wasn't abiding by these court orders. He wasn't keeping up with the discovery requests. He wasn't maintaining access to electronic records. And he had already been sanctioned almost $90,000 for attorney's fees for the plaintiffs in this case. So basically what happens is you get to a point where if you reprimand a party so much, the judge is left with only so many options.

Federal court rules provide that if a party doesn't comply with a court's order, specifically a discovery order, the court can do multiple things to sanction that party. One of those things is obviously monetary sanctions, which had already been used in this case. But another thing is to enter a default judgment against the party that's not complying. And that's exactly what happened here. Giuliani had defended his inability to produce the documents on the basis that the FBI had seized his electronic records. He couldn't access them, so he couldn't provide them. And he also defended the statements that he made about the election workers

as being protected by the First Amendment. The judge disagreed with both of these claims and entered a default judgment against him. So when a default judgment is entered, that means a judgment is entered against you. So that gives you a bit more context when you see these headlines that he was found liable of these things. It is because the judge entered a judgment against him, not necessarily on the merits of the case as much as it was a punishment. So from here, the case will head to trial where monetary damages will be determined. So how much will he owe the plaintiffs in this case? And at that point, he'll have one final opportunity to comply with the discovery request and the judge's instructions. And if he doesn't comply, he could face even more sanctions than what he's already facing.

Of course, monetary sanctions because he already had the judgment entered against him. So there's really only so many places a judge can go from here. And typically that would be monetary. I'm going to take a quick break here. It's going to last about 30 seconds. I have one favor to ask you. I obviously do all of my work for free. I don't charge for my podcast.

I don't charge for my weekly newsletters, nothing like that. But I do have one favor to ask you. In this next 30 seconds, if you could, if you could just go to the app that you listen to this podcast on and just share my show with whoever pops up in the pre-automated list of contacts that you typically contact, or if you think there's someone that would love this show, this nonpartisan news, send it to them. It's very quick. You just go to the episode, you click on the arrow button that says share, and you just text it off to whoever it is. I so appreciate it in advance. Let's take

a 30 second break. And when we come back, I will finish with the remainder of the stories. So so 3M has agreed to pay $6 billion to settle lawsuits from U.S. service members who say that they experienced hearing loss or other serious hearing injuries after using faulty earplugs made by 3M. And this is a really short story, but let's clarify that it wasn't the earplugs themselves that actually caused the that it wasn't the earplugs themselves that actually caused the hearing loss. The earplugs didn't have some defect where it caused you to go deaf, but rather it was the design of the earplugs. When they were worn by these military members, the earplugs would loosen slightly, and that would allow hearing

damage from outside noise like close range firearms, explosives, things like that. Notably, this is not the first payout that 3M has had to agree to in regard to this particular issue. So previously, 3M agreed to pay $9 million to settle, which is obviously significantly less than the $6 billion that they just agreed to. But they agreed to pay $9 million to settle a lawsuit on behalf of the government, which alleged that 3M knowingly supplied defective earplugs to the United States military. And since 2019, 3M has lost 10 of the 16 cases against it that have gone to trial. So it's safe to say 3M is pretty much at the point where they're like, we're probably not going to win this if we take it to trial, so it's safe to say 3M is pretty much at the point where they're like, we're probably not going to win this if we, you know, take it to trial. So let's settle it now. And that's how they

reached their decision. 3M though released a statement along with the announcement of the settlement, clarifying that the settlement is not an admission of liability. And they stood by their claims that the earplugs are safe and effective when they are used properly. That's the 3M settlement. Pretty short story, as I said in the beginning, but felt as if you should know it. Let's now move on to the Tennessee House silencing Justin Jones. Do you remember earlier this year, or if you've been with me for a while, I reported on this back in April, when two Democrats were expelled from Tennessee's legislature for being out of order during a debate. Well, they're back. They're back in the legislature, but

one of them has now been silenced. So Justin Jones and Justin Pearson were expelled in April of this year after they led gun control chants using a megaphone from the House floor during a recess. Republican lawmakers at the time voted to expel them because, as Republicans said, the two had broken principles of decorum and procedure by speaking without being recognized and crowding the House clerk's desk. Well, following the expulsion, the two eventually got reinstated. So per Tennessee's Constitution, when a member is expelled and there's more than a year until the general election, what happens is the legislative bodies of the respective counties that have an expelled lawmaker elect an interim representative until a special election can be held.

So the legislative bodies of Justin Jones and Justin Pearson's counties got together and elected both of them to be the interim representatives because there's no rules against that. The special election was just held in early August, just a few weeks ago, and both Jones and Pearson reclaimed their seats. So they return their back in the legislature. Now, a special session was recently called by Tennessee's governor asking the legislature to pass an order of protection law after the recent shooting at the Covenant School. And this is something the legislature was supposed to do prior to adjourning their regular session, but they didn't. So they called a special session. And according to new Tennessee House

rules, particularly for special sessions, members who speak off topic more than twice cannot be called on for the rest of the day if the legislature votes on that. So this past Monday during the special session, Justin Jones was ruled out of order twice by the House Speaker, and that prompted this vote by the House, and he was eventually silenced. But first, there was a warning. Jones spoke out against proposals that would allow private schools to adopt their own gun carry policies. Jones called these proposals reprehensible, asinine, and insulting. The House Speaker warned him that he was out of order. He then spoke about issues that were deemed to be off-topic from the bill that was being discussed. So that happened once where he was speaking off-topic,

and then that happened twice. To give you an example of what that looked like, there was a discussion about allowing local police to assign an officer to schools that don't already have one. And Jones's response to that was, quote, what our schools need are mental health professionals. We need funding for mental health. We need to pay our teachers better. We don't need more police in schools. And Jones was ruled to be off topic. So after two times of being ruled off topic, this automatic vote was triggered in accordance with the special session rule. And the vote passed along party lines 70 to 20. Democrat representatives walked out in protest. and the gallery that was at the legislature at the time also had to be removed for causing a scene. Following that,

Jones took to X to post a video about the silencing, and what he said is that what's happening is not democratic, it's authoritarianism. He also accused Speaker Sexton of silencing him because he had earlier proposed a vote of no confidence against the speaker, and he felt that this was the speaker's way of retaliating against him. Before we conclude this episode, let's go through a few final notes. These are basically things that have happened over the last week that maybe just didn't have enough information to be blocked off as a whole story, or I didn't feel they should be blocked off as a whole story, but things that I feel you

should know nonetheless. Justice Thomas filed his disclosure form on Thursday, which showed that he took two flights using a private jet owned by a Texas businessman. He cited safety concerns as his reason for doing so, and this was following the leak of the Dobbs decision, which overturned the right to abortion. He stated that his security detail had recommended he fly non-commercial whenever possible, and his disclosure form came, him and Justice Alito's, came two months after the other justices filed theirs. So these disclosure forms, it's something that these justices are required to do.

That's what's going on with Justice Thomas. He had received some criticism lately for not disclosing certain things. Also on Thursday, Donald Trump pled not guilty to all charges in the Georgia election interference indictment and asked that his case be tried separately from the other defendants that are going to trial on October 23rd, saying there's just not enough time to prepare. Senator Mitch McConnell got the all clear from the Capitol's attending physician after appearing to freeze up again this week. He was facing questions on Wednesday in Kentucky. He was asked if he would consider running for reelection in 2026. And he seemed to laugh a little bit, like chuckle a

little bit. And then he just goes silent for about 30 seconds. The woman standing next to him was asking if he was okay. He eventually said he was fine and continued on. The doctor responsible for reviewing the incident and talking to him about the incident chalked it up to lightheadedness, which is common in people recovering from concussions, and also dehydration, and said that he is free to return to business as normal. The Texas Supreme Court reinstated a gender-affirming ban that was blocked by a lower court judge last week. If you are subscribed to my newsletter, you probably read about this story. Last week, a lower court judge said that the ban could not take effect, but the Texas Supreme

Court has stepped in and said it will take effect. It takes effect on Friday, and it prohibits most minors from receiving gender-affirming treatments such as puberty blockers, surgery, and hormone therapy. The ban's exception is for intersex patients as well as some minors who were already receiving gender-affirming care before the law was passed, but those minors will have to wean off any drugs that they are currently prescribed. And as a reminder, student loan interest starts today, Friday, September 1st, and the first loan payments are due on October 1st. So those will be the first payments due after three years of student loan payments being on pause. So get ready for

that. If you have student loan payments, don't miss it. And that concludes today's episode. I appreciate you being here as always. Have a great weekend. If you want my nonpartisan newsletter, don't forget to subscribe. Jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe. It's completely free. It's another nonpartisan source of news. And I will talk to you on Tuesday.