UNBIASED - Trump's Fraud Ruling Explained, FTC Sues Amazon, Chinese Wire Transfers, Biden's Minimum Wage Rule Blocked, and More.

Episode Date: September 29, 2023

1. Judge Rules Trump and Co-Defendants Liable for Fraud; Ruling Explained; Trump's Response; What to Expect at Trial (3:29)2. FTC Sues Amazon in Largest Regulatory Challenge Thus Far (12:33)3. Chinese Wire Transfers Sent to Hunter Biden at President Biden's Delaware Home; House GOP Holds First Impeachment Hearing (16:19)4. Judge Blocks Biden's Federal Minimum Wage Rule; CA Enacts New Minimum Wage Law for Fast Food Workers (19:46)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 have four stories for you today, although it's kind of like six, but you'll see what I mean. So first, we're talking about the judge that found Trump liable for fraud. I kind of want to explain that ruling a little bit, go into detail about what it means. The second story is going to be about the FTC filing this lawsuit against Amazon. This was another one that I had posted to my Instagram story that the vast majority of you said wanted to hear address, and then how that ties in to this impeachment hearing that was just held on Thursday in the House. So two stories in one there. Then finally, we'll talk about a minimum wage rule that President Biden implemented by way of

an executive order in 2021, but was just struck down by a judge. And we'll also tie that conversation into a new minimum wage law out of California. So that's why I said it's kind of like six stories, but really four main stories. Now, before we get into it, I do have to, of course, give you the two reminders I give every episode. But on top of that, I have a couple of other things I want to say. This episode is going to be a bit shorter than what you may be used to listening to my episodes. And I want to try this out because I had also posted to my Instagram a poll to try to see what your ideal podcast length is. And the majority of people said either under 20 minutes or between 20 and 30 minutes. So not many people like hearing episodes

longer than 30 minutes. So I want people like hearing episodes longer than 30 minutes. So I want to try to do a shorter episode in that, I don't know, like 20 to 25 minute timeframe and see how you guys like it. Because what that means is I'm going to go into less detail than I might otherwise would if the episode was longer. So let me know how you feel. If you're a Spotify listener, you can always let me know on Spotify. There's a section where you can write what you thought about the episode, or you can email me jordan at jordanismylawyer.com. So I really just want to know if you prefer these shorter episodes that may not go into that much detail, but are, I don't know, time efficient, I guess.

And then the other thing I wanted to remind you of is that I have my weekly newsletter going out tomorrow. So every Saturday, I send out a nonpartisan newsletter. If you're on my email list, you can just go to jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe, put your email in and you'll get the newsletter when it comes out on Saturday. It's basically just an additional source of news. And then of course, as always, if you haven't yet, please go ahead and leave my show a review. If you like what you hear, you can do it on any platform you listen.

It takes two seconds. It's very, very easy. And finally, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So without further ado, let's get into today's episode. on Tuesday, a judge in New York found Donald Trump and his co-defendants liable for fraud. But what does it mean? Let's dive into this ruling a little bit and also talk about, you know, what was this lawsuit about and what was the ruling specifically on? Because this wasn't a ruling as to the whole case. In fact, there are still six

claims that have to be litigated, which will go to a trial soon. But this ruling specifically only applied to one claim in the lawsuit. So first, let's differentiate this legal battle from the others that Donald Trump is facing. This was a civil case filed in New York by New York's attorney general. The allegation is that Trump and the Trump organization and other people associated with the Trump organization perpetrated these acts of fraud and misrepresentation by lying on Trump's annual statements of financial condition and presenting those false financial statements to lenders and insurers. Now, statements of financial condition, otherwise known as a balance sheet, that's where you'll find assets, liabilities, and capital of the organization, in this case, the Trump organization. So it's on those statements

that the New York attorney general is saying Trump and these other people lied. They inflated their assets. They inflated Donald Trump's net worth and presented those false statements to these lenders and insurers. So that's what this lawsuit is about. And again, it's a civil suit. It's not criminal. It was filed about a year ago on September 21st of last year, and it sets forth seven claims against all 15 defendants. So as I said, Donald Trump is not the only defendant in this case. He is one of them, but you also have the Trump Organization. Then you have multiple entities within the Trump Organization.

You have Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and I believe two or three other individuals. So in total, with the individuals and the companies involved, there are 15 defendants. Now, the seven claims that are set forth in this lawsuit is one, persistent and repeated fraud, two, falsifying business records, three, conspiracy to falsify business records, four, issuing false financial statements, five, conspiracy to falsify false financial statements, six, insurance fraud, and seven, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud. The judge's ruling on Tuesday only applies to that first claim, persistent and repeated fraud. More specifically, the judge agreed with

the attorney general that Donald Trump had fraudulently valued his various properties. So Mar-a-Lago, Trump Park Avenue, 40 Wall Street, there's a property in Westchester County, New York, and there's also one of his golf courses. So the judge agreed that all of these values had been inflated. And he wrote in his ruling, quote, time and time again, the court is not comparing one appraisal to another. It is comparing an independent professional appraisal to a pie in the sky dream of concocted potential. His ruling also noted that trump had falsely claimed that his penthouse in the trump tower was nearly three times its size so 30 000 square feet instead of 10 000 square feet and that trump had said the penthouse was worth about 327 million when in reality it was worth

according to the judge's ruling far less than that the The judge wrote, quote, a discrepancy of this order of magnitude by a real estate developer sizing up his own living spaces of decades can only be considered fraud, end quote. With that being said, the judge ruled on that first claim only, which means we still have those six other claims remaining, right? While this judge's decision gives us an idea as to how he will rule on the other issues, they do still need to go to trial. So the rest of the six issues will go to trial on October 2nd. The judge will issue his ruling as to, you know, those six issues, plus how much is owed in monetary damages. It is a non-jury trial, which means it is up to the judge. There won't be a jury. But that begs the question,

if there's a trial, then why wasn't this issue decided at the trial? You may remember in the beginning of the month, New York's attorney general came out and said that Donald Trump had actually inflated his net worth by far more than what she previously thought and that she had a mountain of evidence to prove it. And that statement was announced as she filed what's called a motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment basically asks a judge to rule on an issue or multiple issues before a trial date based on the evidence available. So discovery happens, both parties get the documents they request, and based on that evidence, one party will say, hey, judge, we want you to issue a judgment now based on what we know, you know, rather than taking this issue to trial. In order for a motion

for summary judgment to be granted, as it was in this case, the New York Attorney General had to show that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact. That is the standard. In other words, no material fact was in question. All material facts supported her claim of fraud, and there was no genuine dispute as to the fact that the financial statements were false and or misrepresented for a continuing period of time. Because remember, the claim is persistent and repeated fraud. So the judge ultimately agreed, right? That's why he granted the motion for summary

judgment. But not only did the judge find the defendants liable, he also sanctioned some of the attorneys, $7,500 to be exact, for putting forth arguments that had previously been rejected by the court and also putting forth arguments that he considered to be frivolous or ridiculous. So the lawyers got sanctioned, the defendants were found liable, and the judge also canceled the business certificates of the entities owned by the defendants in the state of New York. So any entities owned by the Trump organization, Donald Trump, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., as well as the other individual defendants that were named in this lawsuit. It's unclear. No one really knows how that's going to be put into practice, like how that's going to play out in reality. But he did say in his ruling that he would appoint an

independent receiver based on suggestions from the parties to manage the dissolution of these affected corporate entities that are having their business certificates canceled. Following the ruling, Donald Trump made his own statement on Truth Social. He said, quote, I have been unfairly sued by the Trump-hating Democrat Attorney General of New York State, Letitia James, over the false fact that I inflated my financial statements in order to borrow money from banks, etc. The judge in the case refused to allow this case to go to the commercial division where it belongs. And then he continues going. He also called the judge a Trump hater. And he cited

four facts in particular in saying that the facts of this case are simple. He said, one, I am worth much more than the numbers show on my financial statements. Two, I didn't even include my most valuable asset, which is my brand. Three, these banks were paid in full. Sometimes they were paid back early. There was never any defaults. Therefore, there were no victims. And four, the disclaimer on the financial statements tells people reviewing these financial statements to not rely on them and to do their own research. He concluded his statement on Truth Social by writing, quote, I call for help from the highest courts in New York state or the federal system to intercede.

This is not America, end quote. And just for the record, those four facts that he set forth in saying that the facts are simple, the judge did reject those arguments. Trump's attorney called the ruling outrageous. He said that it seeks to nationalize one of the most successful corporate empires in the United States and seize control of private property, all while acknowledging there is zero evidence of any default, breach, late payment, or any complaint of harm. Trump's team did say that he will be appealing this decision. So from here, we can expect the rest of the issues to go to trial on October 2nd. As I said, it is a non-jury trial. The judge will determine the rest of the issues as well as the

amount of damages owed by the defendants. So in this case, the attorney general is seeking $250 million. The judge can either award that amount or lessen that amount. It's up to him. So that's what's going on with that ruling. Now let's get into this lawsuit filed by the FTC against Amazon. This is going to be a really quick recap. I don't feel the need to get too into detail with this. After all, the lawsuit is 170 pages. But really quickly, for one, this is the biggest regulatory challenge that Amazon has faced thus far from the FTC. But basically what it says is that Amazon has used various tactics to entice consumers and sellers to its platform and then essentially trap them there. And doing this prevents other online retailers like Walmart, Target, eBay from

attracting those same consumers to their own sites because they're trapped on Amazon's platform. It's almost like the lawsuit saying Amazon gets these customers addicted and the customers feel like they can't shop anywhere else. So these other places lose out on sales. And it also entices these sellers because they have the potential to sell to millions of customers, whereas those same sellers may not be able to sell to that many customers on another platform like Walmart or Target. So the lawsuit continues and says once the consumers and sellers are hooked on Amazon, Amazon then takes advantage of them by increasing platform fees, putting advertisements within the search results that make sellers feel like they have to buy ads to show up in the search. It requires sellers to fulfill their products with Amazon's own in-house fulfillment services in order to get certain best-selling

benefits like the Prime badge. And so the FTC says that these actions have actually led to a worse experience for Amazon users and artificially high prices for everyone, even non-Amazon platforms. So it's basically saying, you know, Amazon has this monopoly and it's affecting prices all across the board. It's affecting how consumers shop and how sellers sell, and therefore they're filing this lawsuit to try to combat the monopoly. So far, 17 states have sued alongside the FTC, but it's, you know, like we saw in the Google case, this could take years to actually

go to trial. The Google antitrust case was filed in 2020. It's just now going to trial. So this could take years. Now the lawsuit does ask for structural relief, which means that if a judge were to rule in the FTC's favor, the judge could require that Amazon kind of like restructure and could change the way Amazon actually does business. But the real issue here is liability and money. The FTC wants Amazon to pay up. They want Amazon to be found liable. So all of that will come a bit more clear as this lawsuit plays out and once we know if Amazon is even found liable. But just to give you an idea of the lawsuit, that's what it is. Amazon released a long statement in response to the lawsuit, which I do have linked on my website if you want to read the whole thing. But it says,

the lawsuit reveals the commission's fundamental misunderstanding of retail. It then dissects each anti-competitive practice that the lawsuit sets forth and rebuts it with, you know, their own take on things. So if you want to read that statement, it's there for you on my website in the sources section. But let's take a quick break. When we come back, we'll finish with our last two stories, which are kind of four stories, but really two stories. Let's talk about these wire transfers from China to President Biden's house. We know that there's this ongoing investigation into the president and his potential involvement with his son's foreign business dealings. On Monday, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to a bank

for Hunter Biden's records related to a specific bank account. In those records, there were two wire transfers from Chinese nationals. The wire transfers listed Hunter Biden as the beneficiary, not the president. So Hunter Biden was who was being paid, but listed the president's Delaware home as the beneficiary address. Now, here's where, you know where the investigation is happening. Hunter Biden at one time lived with his dad. There were various points throughout when he was addicted to cocaine that he was living with his dad when he had his intervention, things like that. There was also a time where Hunter Biden had this Delaware address listed on his driver's license as his permanent address. That time in which he had the address on his driver's license was 2019, and the wires were sent in 2019. So it could very well be that

Hunter Biden was living at this home when those wire transfers were sent. But of course, we know the House Oversight Committee is conducting their investigation. So they're looking deeper into this to see if there's something else. The first wire was dated July 26, 2019. It was from a individual named Wang Sin in the amount of $10,000. The second wire was dated August 2, 2019. And that was from Jonathan Lee and Tan Ling. And that was in the amount of $250,000. Now, the thing is, is President Biden wrote a letter of recommendation for Jonathan Lee's daughter. And so the thought from House Republicans is that, you know, potentially these wires were actually intended for President Biden, or at some point, President Biden received money from these individuals, you know, in exchange for certain acts, whether that be the letter of recommendation for Lee's daughter

or something else. So what Hunter Biden's attorneys are saying is that the wires were because Hunter Biden had invested in this Bohai Harvest Rosemont Partners in 2017, and Hunter Biden was borrowing money using his equity as security. These wires were really loans. And the reason that the wires were sent to the Delaware address is because that was Hunter Biden's only permanent address at the time. So in a nutshell, wire transfers were sent to Hunter Biden with President Biden's home address listed as the beneficiary address. But as of now, that's not enough for the House committee to get what they're going after. But Thursday did mark

the first formal impeachment hearing by House Republicans into President Biden. So we know that the inquiry was announced by Speaker McCarthy. This hearing is pretty much the next step. And then following this gathering of the evidence and the review, that's when the committee will vote to recommend, either recommend or not recommend articles of impeachment. And from that point, if articles of impeachment are recommended, the full house would vote on it. So that's where we're at. This hearing is a preliminary step in the impeachment process. Now, the fourth and final story is about a federal minimum wage law that was blocked by a judge on Tuesday. So back in 2021, President Biden signed an executive order, which was meant to increase

the minimum wage for federal contractor employees from the existing minimum wage of $10.95 an hour up to $15 an hour by March 2022. And this was specifically for federal contract workers, including tipped workers. So this executive order is signed and then three states come in, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. They challenge the executive order. So they file a lawsuit. They say President Biden overstepped his authority when he tried to increase the minimum wage for federal contract workers, and it's impermissible. And the judge agreed. On Tuesday, the judge issued the ruling, and the ruling discusses two specific things in particular as the basis for its holding.

One, the Procurement Act, and two, the Major Questions Doctrine. We're going to keep this really short, simple, and to the point because both of these can be quite complex. The Procurement Act, on the most basic level, governs the way goods and services are purchased by federal agencies. So what the judge said is this. The Procurement Act provides a relatively hands-off framework that enables federal agencies to determine for themselves the quantity and quality of items to procure on behalf of the federal government. It does not confer authority for the president to decree broad employment rules. Then it moves on to the major questions doctrine.

The major questions doctrine is a framework that is used to determine when congressional authorization is needed. Now, if we apply that to this case, which involves an executive order, what the major questions doctrine says is that when an executive order involves vast economic and political significance, congressional authorization is required. So in this case, the judge said, yep, this executive order involves vast economic and political significance. Congress has not clearly authorized it, and therefore the president exceeded his authority. Now, this decision only applies to those three states that challenged, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Why? It comes down to jurisdiction. Other lawsuits were filed around the country challenging this same executive order,

but they were unsuccessful, which means a judge ruled the other way, ruled in favor of the Biden administration. Those cases are on appeal, but the Texas court can't encroach on other courts that have ruled on this issue. So rather than issuing a nationwide injunction in this particular case, this injunction as to Biden's executive order only applies to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In other minimum wage news, Governor Newsom signed a bill into law on Thursday, as to Biden's executive order, only applies to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In other minimum wage news, Governor Newsom signed a bill into law on Thursday that requires fast food workers in the state to earn a minimum wage of $20 an hour starting next April. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2022, the average pay for a fast food worker in California was $16.60 an hour, which was about $3 more an hour than the country's average. So the new minimum wage of $20 an hour will equate to an annual salary of about $41,000. So now you're caught up on a couple of minimum

wage stories nationwide and in Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi and California. They're all caught up. That concludes today's episode. Please don't forget to let me know if you prefer these shorter episodes with, you know, less in-depth stories. And maybe if I do that, I could do three episodes a week rather than two. But let me know your thoughts on that. Please don't forget to leave me a review have a great weekend don't forget to subscribe to my newsletter and I will talk to you next week