UNBIASED - Week in Review: January 9-15, 2023

Episode Date: January 16, 2023

1. The Fair Tax Act: What is it? (2:01)2. Special Counsel Appointed to Investigate Classified Documents Found at President Biden's Office and Residence (11:56)3. California Moves Towards Abolishing Death Penalty (19:51)4. Amber McLaughlin Executed in Missouri (26:28)All sources can be found at www.jordanismylawyer.com.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok for more content @jordanismylawyer. 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 Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. I'm going to be talking about the Fair Tax Act, which if you follow me on TikTok, then you heard me talk about this a little bit, but obviously I go into a lot more detail in the podcast episodes. I'm also going to be talking about the classified documents found in President Biden's office and his home, and also going to tie that story into kind of an impartiality test, if you will. I'm also going to be talking about California moving towards dismantling death row. If you've heard me talk about death row before the death penalty in

general, you may have heard me talk about the fact that in California and execution hasn't happened in over 15 years. So they really haven't been using the death penalty. Death row has just kind of been existing. So they're taking steps to dismantle death row. And then the last story is the exact opposite of that. There was an execution on January 3rd in Missouri. There's actually been multiple executions this month so far, but I'm going to be covering one at a time per episode. So we will be talking about the first execution of the year as our last story. So without further ado, let's get into it.

Why are we hearing about the Fair Tax Act? Well, the Fair Tax Act has been reintroduced in Congress for years, actually. So this is really nothing new. It's always kind of been there. It's just never been passed. And the reason we're hearing about it now is because Kevin McCarthy and his run for Speaker of the House really kind of had to make a few concessions. Because if you listened to last episode, or if you follow me on TikTok, you heard me talk about the fact that there were some Republicans who didn't necessarily vote for Kevin McCarthy right off the bat. And they use that as almost like leverage to get some things that they wanted out of Kevin McCarthy. So they wanted him to make concessions for their votes. And one of those

concessions that he made was agreeing to send this fair tax act to a vote. So that's what we're hearing about it now. It's not that it was voted on yet. It's not happening, you know, tomorrow. It just will be going to a vote. So what is it? Well, if you want to read it for yourself, as always, I do have it linked on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. You can find it in the sources section. It's really not that long, but it is pretty intricate as far as like language, the verbiage that it uses. Even I was reading through it and I was like, okay, this is, this is like kind of too much. But in a reading through it and I was like, okay, this is kind of too much. But in a nutshell, it abolishes federal taxes, which includes income tax, death tax, gift tax,

payroll tax, all those things. And because of that, it abolishes the IRS because obviously the IRS is the one who handles federal taxes. So instead of federal taxes, what there would be is something called a 23% sales tax. We're going to get into that 23% in a little bit and kind of talk about, you know, is it 23%? Is it more than 23%? We'll talk about it. Now, this plan was actually first discussed by the Church of Scientology years ago. So what happened was the Church of Scientology was in a dispute with the IRS over whether or not it constituted a church because as a church, it would be tax exempt. And so obviously the Church of Scientology

was saying, yes, we're a church. The IRS was saying, no, you're not. And the Church of Scientology wanted to do away with the IRS. They wanted the IRS to get off their back. But once the IRS just kind of allowed the Church of Scientology wanted to do away with the IRS. They wanted the IRS to get off their back. But once the IRS just kind of allowed the Church of Scientology to present itself as a church, they really stopped pursuing the idea. But once they introduced that idea and introduced that concept during their dispute, it got

the attention of several politicians. And at this point, you know, these politicians had brought this idea and introduced it as legislation, which again has been reintroducing Congress ever since as the fair tax. So again, this really isn't anything new. It's just kind of gaining steam and catching headlines because of what happened with Kevin McCarthy and the concessions that he had to make. Both oppositionists and advocates have brought attention to some of the issues that the bill poses. So one of the issues is what happens in the five states that don't impose a sales tax, you know, on a state level, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Alaska, all of those states don't have a state sales tax. And then the states that do impose a sales tax, each state exempts a range of goods or services from that sales tax. So now

those goods and services would be subject to a national sales tax, but not a state sales tax. So that's where that could get kind of confusing. And then in the instance where a state doesn't impose a sales tax, the bill allows the treasury to administer the national sales tax, which would in turn require some level of federal oversight for tax collection, which kind of would be the IRS. So how do you do away with the IRS when it's still kind of needed to impose this national tax in states that don't collect state sales tax, you know, because the whole issue, like the state, the states that do have sales tax, they're ultimately going to become responsible for collecting this national sales tax and remitting it to the federal government. So in the states that don't have a state sales

tax, that's where you run into an issue because now you don't have any body collecting tax in those states. So this bill names the treasury as the people who have to collect the state sales tax, but that still is federal oversight, which is exactly what they're trying to do away with. I hope that makes sense. Another issue is that states don't have much of an incentive to collect the federal government's revenue because their only incentive in this bill is that they get a small fee that's equal to one quarter of one percent of the revenue that they provide to the federal government. So the states have to take on the burden of collecting this national sales tax, but in return, they're really not getting much. So what incentive do they have to do this?

You know, now on top of that, you heard me mention earlier that this is a 23% sales tax, but some say the tax is really a 30% tax. And it's really all kind of, it really boils down to how you look at this as kind of an accounting principle, if you will. So according to the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, proponents call it a 23% tax because that sounds better, but in reality, it's more like a 30% tax. And this is how they explain it. Under the bill, if you buy something that costs $100 pre-tax, you pay $30 of national sales tax on that item. Most of us would call that a 30% sales tax, right? But proponents of the bill call it a 23% tax because that $30 is 23% of your payment of 130 after tax. So think about it like this. I'm going to try to make it a little bit easier to

understand because I know when you talk numbers over audio, it doesn't really like the calculation doesn't translate. So let's say you live in a state hypothetically that has 10% sales tax. I don't think a state exists that has 10% sales tax. I think the highest is like nine or something, but let's just say 10% sales tax for ease of the hypothetical. You buy a necklace for $100. You go to the register. Your total comes out to $110 after sales tax, right? We all think of that as a 10% sales tax. But if you divide that 110 total by the $10 that you're spending in tax,

it's no longer 10%. It's now 9%. So you could say it's a 9% tax, but the way we typically think of it is a 10% sales tax. So the ITEP also says that if this bill is enacted, it will likely be amended at some point to have an even higher rate. So this could kind of just keep growing, like this tax rate could just keep going up. But let me just say that this will not be enacted. And we'll get into why shortly, but this isn't going to pass. This is just something that's been, you know, the attention's been brought to it. A lot of people like to talk

about it because it is an interesting scenario, but it's just, given the current breakdown of Congress, it's just not going to happen. So let's talk about some implications of this Fair Tax Act that lie kind of below the surface. For one, eliminating the personal income tax means eliminating the child tax credit, which would obviously have a negative impact on those that rely on it. This would also mean that families that receive tax credits to help pay health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act would no longer receive those tax credits and instead would have to actually pay a new national sales tax

on their premiums. Now, this bill does provide a rebate to families that need it. So according to the bill, it says, quote, each qualified family should be eligible to receive a sales a rebate to families that need it. So according to the bill, it says, quote, each qualified family should be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of the rate of tax imposed and the monthly poverty level, end quote. The bill then later says in another section, quote, rebates shall be mailed on or before the first business day of the month for which the rebate is being provided. The Social Security Administration, the department responsible for issuing these rebates, may provide rebates in the form of smart cards that carry cash balances or direct electronic deposit, end quote. So why will this not pass Congress?

I want you to remember the makeup. So you have a house that's 213 Democrats to 222 Republicans, not huge margins. And then you have a Senate that leans in favor of the Democratic Party and the Democrat. This isn't this isn't a Democratic bill. This is a Republican bill. And then you have a Democratic president in office. OK, so even if it passes the House, let's just say because obviously it's a Republican bill. And then you have a Democratic president in office. Okay. So even if it passes the house, let's just say, because obviously it's a Republican controlled house, not by much, but it is. Let's say, even if this passes the house, it has to pass the Democrat controlled Senate, which just won't happen.

I do not see that happening. And even if it passes the Senate, it then has to get the president's signature, which it won't. So if the president vetoes it, then it would have to get two thirds vote of Congress, which just isn't happening. It's almost like the probability of this passing is not there. Like there's, it's not going to pass. So then to expect to get two thirds vote if the president vetoes it is just nearly impossible. So that's why I say this. This isn't going to pass Congress this term. Nothing's changing. But at least now you know what the Fair Tax Act is and why it's being talked about right now. That takes us to our next story, which is that a special counsel has been appointed to Biden's classified documents. If you haven't heard, President Biden is facing a special counsel investigation after classified documents from the Obama administration were found at his private office in D.C. and his personal residence in Delaware. Now, the president has already come out and made a statement. He said he's fully cooperating with the DOJ.

The White House has said it's confident that the probe will show the documents were inadvertently misplaced. So let's run through the timeline of this. I said in the intro that I want to tie this into an impartiality conversation, and I'm sure you can kind of guess where I'm going with that, but we'll get to that at the end of the conversation. So on November 4th, 2022, which was four days before midterm elections, a member of the National Archives contacted a prosecutor at the DOJ and informed them that someone from the White House told the National Archives that classified documents had been located in President Biden's office in D.C. President Biden's office is not an authorized location for the storage of classified documents. Those documents had been turned over to the National Archives at that point. Then on November 9th, the FBI conducted an assessment in accordance

with standard protocol to determine whether the classified documents had been mishandled in violation of federal law. So we talked about this in relation to Donald Trump, right? The violation of federal law, the investigation, yada yada. On November 14th, Attorney General Garland assigned Attorney Lausch to conduct an initial investigation and inform the Attorney General whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate this further. Then on December 20th, Biden's personal counsel informed Attorney Lausch that additional classified documents were identified in Biden's personal counsel informed attorney Lausch that additional classified documents were identified in Biden's garage at his personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware. They informed

Lausch that those documents were from Biden's service as vice president and the FBI secured those documents. Then on January 5th, Lausch advised the attorney general on his findings, and the Attorney General determined that additional investigation by special counsel was warranted. And from there, Robert Herr was appointed special counsel. Robert Herr is currently serving as a litigation partner at a D.C. law firm. He previously served as the U.S. Attorney General for the District of Maryland. He was appointed by President Trump in 2017. He also previously served as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. So he has a great resume, a lot of experience, and that is who will be the special counsel in this

investigation. So that was on January 5th. Then on January 12th, which was just a few days ago, Biden's personal counsel informed attorney Lausch that an additional document bearing the classification marking was found at Biden's personal residence. So that is where the timeline stands as of now. Now, what the special counsel's job is, is basically to determine whether any person or entity violated any federal laws in connection with either the removal or the handling of these classified documents. So that's what we know as of now.

Now, I made a TikTok about impartiality. And my question to my audience was, how did you feel when the news reported on former President Trump's classified documents versus when you heard about President Biden's classified documents? And that could be, you know, maybe you first heard about the classified documents from President Biden when I just talked about it just now. Maybe you heard about it in the news. I don't know. But how did your feelings differ when you heard about the two? Did you presume one person's guilt and another person's innocence? Did you presume both were guilty? Did you presume both were innocent? Are you one of those that was just like, okay, let's just, you know, see how this plays out? Or did you apply a different standard to former President Trump and

President Biden? To me, this story offers us a huge opportunity to learn what being partial and biased is all about. Because the chances are, you have a preconceived notion about each of these two individuals, depending on where you stand. And it's really up to you to be able to say, okay, despite my preconceived notions, how can I learn to apply the same standard to both people? How can I learn to presume the innocence of both people? And it's hard. It's hard. But at least being able to filter out because our news doesn't do this for us. The mainstream media doesn't do this for us. No matter what channel you listen to, if you're a CNN person, if you're a MSNBC person, if you're a Fox News person, whatever you are,

the news is giving you their side. You have to have it in you to recognize that, catch yourself and say, okay, this is how I'm going to approach the situation, and approach it with impartiality and as unbiased of a thought process as possible. So with that, each side obviously has their own set of facts, right? One side's going to argue that as the president, Trump had the ability to take and declassify documents, whereas Biden did not have that power. He was just the vice president, so there's no reason to have those documents. The other side is going to argue that, you know, President Biden's cooperating with the DOJ, whereas Trump wasn't. No matter which side you're on, you're obviously going to have

justifications. But you have to be able to stop yourself in your tracks and say, the reality is both of these people had classified documents. The situations aren't exactly the same, but they're similar enough to practice impartiality. Put your arguments aside, focus on the subject matter. You have every opportunity to find impartiality within yourself. But you know who doesn't? The media. The media is driven by an agenda. Those anchors have zero say in the messages they broadcast. And trust me when I tell you, I know this.

I have been contacted by big media outlets and they want nothing to do with me when they know I'm unbiased. Now, in connection with this, I want to draw your attention to a CNN article that I found. I have it linked on my website and you're interested if you're interested in reading it. And the headline I thought was very interesting because the headline said Biden's whirlwind final days as VP had aides scrambling to close his White House office. Now to me, and what this article read as, is that they are providing a justification for why classified documents were found in Biden's possession. I guarantee you that when Mar-a-Lago was raided, CNN was making absolutely no excuses or justifications for Trump. Just as I'm sure,

if you look at the Fox News articles around August 8th when Mar-a-Lago was raided, those headlines look a lot different than they do now that Biden has classified documents in his possession. And I'm not saying that one media outlet is worse than the other. They're all at fault of this. So I just urge you to be wary of these biases. Take note when you're reading an article, kind of check yourself, just acknowledge it and take it from there and just try to practice seeing through the bias and forming your own opinions. Moving on to the death penalty. While the death penalty does still exist in California,

there has not been an execution in 17 years. In fact, in 2019, Governor Newsom actually imposed a moratorium on executions and closed the death chamber at San Quentin. So this moratorium stopped executions. There were no executions happening. And in an effort to end the death penalty altogether, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ran a pilot program that voluntarily moved 101 inmates off of death row and into general population prisons across the state. And according to them, the pilot program went really well. And now there's going to be a 45-day public comment period so the public can share their thoughts. And then there will be a public hearing in March. And then following that, the state plans to move all 671 death row inmates into prisons across the state with high security units. So

they're not going to go to any prisons that don't have high security units, but they will eventually be dispersed across the state. Now, from there, some of the inmates will get jobs, and those that do will see 70% of their pay from their jobs go to their victims' families. And that's a requirement under Proposition 66. Proposition 66 in California was a 2016 measure that basically amended California's penal code to require death sentence inmates to work and pay restitution. Restitution is basically payback. It was also intended to speed up the time between a death sentence inmates to work and pay restitution. Restitution is basically payback. It was also intended to speed up the time between a death sentence and an execution, but

that clearly didn't happen because these people have been sitting on death row forever. Obviously, this move to transition these death row inmates to general population prisons comes with both support and opposition. And even some of the supporters are saying that this has to be done very carefully because the mental state of the death row inmates has been, I mean, it's a known fact that when you're on death row, your mental state is affected. You do not have the same prison experience as you do if you're in a general population prison. You're basically alone all the time. You drive yourself crazy. I mean, you literally lose your mind. So even some of the

supporters are saying, you know, this has to be executed very carefully because the mental state of the death row inmates is not the same as these general population inmates. So you kind of got to figure out how that can happen because you're going to be putting them, I mean, you're going to have some general population prisoners get a new roommate who came from death row. So you kind of got to figure out how that can happen because you're going to be putting them. I mean, you're going to have some general population prisoners get a new roommate who came from death row. So you just have to be very careful. You have people like, you know, Robert Rhodes, for instance, who's on California death row. He abducted an eight-year-old boy while the boy was walking home from school, tortured him by stabbing him 70 to 80 times, sodomized him, and then dumped his body in a riverbed. And despite being sentenced to death in 1998, he is not going to be put to death now. And now he's

going to be someone's roommate, potentially, you know, in a general population prison. So one interesting thing I found about that, you know, it's, again, it's a known fact, a man is much more likely to be sentenced to death than a woman. And an African American is more likely to be sentenced to death than a than a white person. So what I found to be interesting, though, is you have someone like Robert Rhodes, he's a white man, he did this heinous crime, this poor eight year old boy, you know, and this eight year old boy's family just wants justice. And the interesting thing is that Governor Newsom and a lot of the people who are against the death penalty feel the same way. They're against the death penalty because it's racially and class-based. But Robert

Rhodes is a white man. And I understand that, you know, again, the numbers on death row are disproportionate. But if we're talking about letting all inmates off death row because of racial targeting, and in the midst, we're letting absolute monsters off who are 100% guilty, that doesn't feel right. It almost like there needs to be an additional justification for people like Robert, you know, and I've always said this, like people always ask me on TikTok because I do talk about the death penalty often. And people always say, you know, do I agree in the death penalty? Do I not agree? And I always say, I think that the death penalty should exist, but I think it should exist

for, I think there should be another burden of proof for the death penalty. So obviously, you know, you have things like beyond a reasonable doubt, but there needs to be a, another threshold, which is like 150% certain that this person did the crime. Like there's absolutely no question. And the crime has to be a certain crime, right? Like as we, you know, a murder, but then, you know, you get into the question of like, what if it's like this murder versus this murder?

Obviously, you have different versions, but it would have to be like first degree murder, rape, like rape of a child, just like the craziest crimes. And I think then you're justified. But all of this to say, I get why people are against the death penalty. I mean, I took a class in law school called death penalty in the law, and you really learn about kind of the death penalty reforms that have happened over the years and why that is and the evidence behind it and all that stuff. And it's very, very interesting. And I get it. I do. But it just feels like in instances like Robert Rhodes, who committed such a terrible crime, and he's 150% guilty, how do you take him off of death row and put him in general population? So I don't know. I mean, obviously there's no right answer here. I'm curious to hear your guys' thoughts on this. Please comment on my website. I have that comment section available for you guys. What do

you think is the right, I mean, totally okay if you're completely opposed to the death penalty, if you're, you know, totally in favor of the death penalty, or if you think there's some sort of rationale you could apply or like heightened burden of proof or whatever. I'd just be curious to hear your thoughts. But California is actually not the only state phasing out of the death penalty. We've seen this a lot in recent years, but obviously not all states are heading in that direction. You have a few that are, I don't think ever going to change. Those include states like Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas. I just, I never see those going the other way, but never say never. So just in the first two weeks of January, three inmates have been executed in three different states. So we're going to cover the first one and then I'll cover one more each episode from,

from here on out. So next week I'll cover a new one, the next week I'll cover a new one. So today we're going to talk about Amber McLaughlin's execution, which happened on January 3rd in Missouri. And this is an interesting one because it's the first known transgender execution. And when she was sentenced to death, her name was Scott McLaughlin, identified as a male. But then about three years ago, she transitioned to a female and her name became Amber McLaughlin. So the death warrant was for Scott McLaughlin and she was executed as Amber McLaughlin. So it's a bit of an interesting situation. What did McLaughlin do?

Back in 2002, McLaughlin had a turbulent relationship with a woman named Beverly Gunther. And they lived together for a little bit, but they would break up all the time. And at one point, Beverly even got a restraining order against McLaughlin. It just wasn't good. They ended their relationship in the spring of 2003, but they would still see each other occasionally, like out and about at social events, whatever. And sometimes you would go to her work, like if they were on good terms, he would go visit her. Well, on October 27th, 2003, McLaughlin broke into Beverly's house. She says she was just getting some things that she had left there when she moved out. But when this happened,

Beverly got freaked out naturally and she got an order of protection against McLaughlin. But that didn't really help things, and that actually aggravated things. So on November 20th, 2003, this is about a month after, like three weeks after McLaughlin broke into the house, and two days after McLaughlin was arraigned on the burglary charge, McLaughlin drove to Beverly's work, waited for her to get off, and when she did, McLaughlin approached her, tried to talk to her, and eventually lost it. And according to evidence presented by the state at the murder trial,

the physical evidence from the crime scene suggests that McLaughlin forced Beverly to the ground, raped her, and then stabbed her repeatedly. Then dragged her body to the car, put it in the hatchback, drove to a river, and disposed of the body in the underbrush along the riverbank. One of McLaughlin's tires actually went flat during all of this, so she ended up sleeping in the car that night. And the next day, cleaned out the car with bleach, started getting increasingly hyperactive and nervous, so much so that she asked a friend to take her to the hospital so she could get meds. And it's unclear how, but the police were at some point notified that McLaughlin was going to be at the hospital. And they were already aware that he had potentially killed Beverly because her neighbors called the police the night of the murder and reported that she hadn't come home from

work. So the officers went to Beverly's building, and that's when they found a broken knife handle and a trail of blood, and they just obviously assumed the worst. So McLaughlin was arrested at the hospital and was charged with first degree murder, forcible rape, and two counts of armed criminal action. One for the murder, one for the rape. The next day, McLaughlin led the police to Beverly's body. So there's never been a question of McLaughlin's guilt. It's always been pretty clear.

The jury found McLaughlin guilty of first degree murder, forcible rape, and armed criminal action based on the first-degree murder charge, but not the armed criminal action in regards to the rape charge. When it came time to decide whether to sentence him to life or death, the jury actually couldn't agree on a punishment. And in Missouri, if jurors are unable to agree unanimously, then the decision goes to the trial court, goes to the judge. This is only in Missouri and Indiana. Usually if it's a state that requires a unanimous verdict and the jury can't decide, then it's a life sentence. But in Missouri and Indiana, if the jurors are unable to unanimously agree, then the judge gets to decide. So in this case, obviously the judge sentenced McLaughlin to death. McLaughlin appealed the case and argued that the judge was prohibited from imposing anything other than a life sentence

when the jury wasn't able to agree, but obviously according to Missouri law, that's not the case. So the appellate court disagreed and they upheld the death sentence. Now the death sentence was eventually overturned in 2016, but then it was reinstated again. So the reason it was overturned was because a federal district court found that when McLaughlin's attorneys made a last-minute decision to pull their expert witness during the original trial that would have testified to McLaughlin's mental health, that pulling of the expert witness constituted a grievous and prejudicial error. And that's why the death sentence was overturned. But then on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals

reversed that ruling and reinstated the death sentence. At that point, it was appealed to the Supreme Court, who declined to review the case. So then on December 12, 2022, you guys have heard me talk about a clemency hearing. That's kind of the last ditch effort to try to get a life sentence rather than being executed. So on December 12th, 2022, McLaughlin submitted a 20, 27 page application for clemency. And in that application for clemency, his attorneys basically laid out the chronic trauma that McLaughlin had endured as a tri, as a child, which included both physical and sexual abuse, his time in foster care, brain damage from fetal alcohol exposure, suicide attempts.

I guess McLaughlin had tried to commit suicide both as a child and an adult. And, you know, the application also talked about the error made by his attorneys at the trial phase, the polling of the expert witness last minute, which ultimately caused the sentence to be temporarily overturned. So kind of throwing everything at the wall, which is what you have to do in these situations. But that petition was ultimately denied and McLaughlin was executed on January 3rd via a lethal dose of pentobarbital, which is the method of execution in Missouri. And on the day of the execution, the governor of Missouri confirmed that the execution would go forward saying, quote, McLaughlin's conviction and sentence remains

after multiple thorough examinations of Missouri law. McLaughlin stalked, raped, and murdered Ms. Gunther. McLaughlin is a violent criminal, end quote. McLaughlin's last words were, quote, I'm sorry for what I did. I'm a loving and caring person, end quote. And the last meal was cheeseburger, french fries, strawberry milkshake, and peanuts M&Ms. So that is Amber McLaughlin and her execution. As I said, these next few episodes,

I will have one execution to cover each episode. I believe another execution is actually scheduled for a week or two from now. So plenty of death penalty content. Don't forget to leave any of your thoughts on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. You can click on this episode's description web page, scroll to the bottom. That's where you'll find all of my sources as well as a comment section. So definitely take advantage of that. And if you haven't already, please leave me a review on whichever platform you listen. It really, really helps me so much helps support my show. It lets other people know how much you guys are enjoying it. I am very proud to say that I still maintain a five-star rating on Spotify and Apple podcasts, which makes me so incredibly happy. And the reviews that came in this week really just,

they made my day. I refresh it every day and I read new reviews and they just make me so incredibly happy. And the reviews that came in this week really just, they made my day. I refresh it every day and I read new reviews and they just make me so happy. So thank you for that. And with that, that concludes this episode. I will talk to you guys on Monday.