UNBIASED - Week in Review: November 14-20, 2022

Episode Date: November 21, 2022

1. Texas Executes Tracy Beatty for 2003 Killing of his Mother (3:30)2. Twitter Employees Quit Following "Fork in the Road" Email (11:48)3. Elizabeth Holmes, Former CEO of Theranos, Sentenced to 11.25 Years (18:33)4. Nancy Pelosi Steps Down as Speaker of the House (24:21)5. Biden Administration Creates New Pathway for Discharging Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy (26:12)6. Mariah Carey Denied "Queen of Christmas" Trademark (31:44)All links to sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.com.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok @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. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. We have six stories today. I have six stories for you. I don't know the last time we covered six stories, but the sixth story is something a little bit more lighthearted, festive, getting us ready for the holidays, but still has to do with the law. So before we get into the stories, I do want to just leave you guys a quick reminder. You guys hear this often if you're avid listeners, but please just leave me a review if you can on whichever platform you listen.

I absolutely love reading the reviews. It makes my day. But aside from that, it just helps my, just generally more than you know, because when people, the hardest part is getting people to click on the show and actually listen. So if they see good reviews, it helps me so much. And I just got my most recent review. It made me so happy. I'll read it to you really quickly.

It says, I've been following Jordan since the beginning of her journey, and it is so refreshing to see someone promoting civil discussion. I believe most Americans just want the unbiased facts, and it is so refreshing to see someone promoting civil discussion. I believe most Americans just want the unbiased facts and it is so impossible to find in today's divided America. I will always stand with those who promote unbiased fact. It is also great to stay in the know. I love learning every Monday with Jordan. And you know, that just makes me so, so happy because obviously when I'm achieving my goal of what I set out to do, it makes me feel super accomplished, but it makes me feel even better knowing that you guys are enjoying what I'm doing as well.

So that's great. And then also I was giving some thought as to, you know, Thanksgiving's obviously coming up this week. And what is the one thing that we are told to avoid at the family table? That is politics, right? What is the one thing that we are told to avoid at the family table? That is politics, right? And I just want you guys to keep in mind when you are at these family dinners or Thanksgiving celebrations, I want you to remember that although politics can be very divisive, there is a way to have conversation without arguing.

It's hard to do, but it's possible. And how do we do that is we do that by talking about the facts. We leave our opinions out of it because at the end of the day, no one cares what we think about anything. Everyone cares about what they think, right? And with that said, you know, if an argument comes up, a good segue is, you know, I don't want to talk about this. I don't want to get into a political argument, but I do recommend the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. She's very unbiased and she talks about things in a nonpartisan way. So we can all kind of have a conversation about these things without getting at each other's throats. Essentially, I'm always here to kind of

balance things out and allow you guys to have discussions that maybe you couldn't otherwise have because before listening to me, it was hard to find out how to talk about things without interjecting a viewpoint. So just keep that in mind. But with that said, let's get into the story number one of the day, which is the most recent execution in the United States. On November 9th, Tracy Beattie was executed in Texas. He was executed by way of the lethal injection. And in Texas, that lethal injection is pentobarbital. We've talked about this a few times before, and the lethal injection really varies by state, right? Some states have three different drugs that go into the lethal injection. Some have four, some have one. Texas only has one, and it is pentobarbital. Now let's talk about what Tracy Beattie did. So in 2003, he was found guilty of strangling his mom. They had a violent,

tumultuous relationship. Things didn't end well, obviously, and he killed her. Now, here's the thing. To qualify for the death penalty in Texas, you must be convicted of capital murder, not just murder. So what sets capital murder apart from murder is that capital murder tends to involve killing a police officer, killing a child, killing multiple people, or killing someone while committing another felony. And because of this, the prosecutors argued that Tracy Beatty killed his mom after breaking in and burglarizing her home. The problem is, though, that he lived with her. So how do you prove that someone broke into a home where they resided and burglarized the home? Because technically, if they live there, they have consent to be there.

So you can't really convict them of breaking in. So in order to show that he didn't have the consent, they had a neighbor testify that his mom asked him to move out. Obviously, if his mom asked him to move out, that would if his mom asked him to move out, that would mean that he didn't have the homeowner's consent to be there and therefore he was breaking in. But on the flip side of that, the defense had another neighbor testify that his mom often asked him to move out. And, you know, after she would ask him to move out, he either wouldn't move out or he would, but then he would move back in shortly thereafter. So the purpose in having that testimony was to say, look, yeah,

maybe his mom asked him to move out, but that doesn't really mean anything. His mom always let him come back. So the defense is painting the picture that her asking him to move out wasn't really out of the ordinary. He always had her consent to come back, and this time wasn't any different. Now, Beattie himself gave several versions of the story over time, but according to court records, he said that one night he came home drunk, they started fighting, he choked her, and he didn't realize that she was dead until the next day. Now, although all of this testimony is pretty contradictory, the prosecution's case was ultimately strong enough to get a guilty verdict and he was sentenced to death. This surprises me just because the proof that his mother had asked him to move out and he didn't have the consent to be there wasn't really super,

super strong. And I will, you know, okay, so the whole reason that him breaking it was important, if I didn't clarify this already, is because remember, to be sentenced to death, you have to have committed capital murder, which in this case, the prosecution was saying that it was capital murder because he was committing a felony when he killed her, and that felony was breaking in because he didn't have the level of proof that they probably needed to get that guilty verdict. But for whatever reason, the jury agreed with the prosecution. He was found guilty. He was sentenced to death. He appealed his case many, many times. His death sentence was affirmed every time. But what I found was interesting was one of the dissenting judges in 2009 wrote in her dissent quote the evidence of entry without consent in this case is thin and the evidence of intent to commit a felony theft or assault even thinner there is no doubt that BD killed his mother the issue is whether the burglary was proven and thus whether the offense is capital murder

or murder end quote quote. Now, remember, because if it's just murder, he can't be sentenced to death. So that's what the judge in this case was saying. Now, obviously, because she dissented, that means that she didn't agree with the majority opinion that affirmed his death sentence. But she's basically saying the evidence isn't sufficient to affirmatively tell us whether or not this is murder or capital murder. And for that reason, she didn't think his death sentence should be affirmed. But the majority opinion in that same case noted that one of the neighbors testified that Beatty had actually previously beaten his mother so bad and left her for dead. And that

goes to show his, you know, motive and who he is and all that stuff. And in that majority opinion, they wrote, quote, a rational jury could infer that BD was angry after his mother told him to get out and that he entered her house with the intent to assault her or kill her or at least take some of her money and or her possessions, end quote. Now, the reason that the majority opinion shed light on what a rational jury could infer is because in order to overturn this conviction or reverse his sentence, they had to find that a rational jury could not have agreed with the prosecution in this case. But because they found that a rational jury could agree with the prosecution's case,

they were fine with affirming the conviction. The majority opinion also noted that when Beattie killed his mom, he was out on parole after being released from prison months before. And some of his charges then included injuring a prison guard, assaulting an 18-month-old child. So it's very clear that this man was capable of doing what the prosecution said he did. Now, in one of his appeals, his attorneys argued that one of the jurors actually knew BD's mom and never said anything, never mentioned it to the court. And their argument was that that brought an unacceptable amount of bias to his verdict and his death sentence. But the appeals court dismissed that argument. They said it didn't meet the requirements for relief in a late appeal. They said that that discovery

could have been made way earlier and it could have been argued earlier. On another appeal, his lawyers argued that the state's prison system didn't allow them to properly evaluate him for possible cognitive defects or intellectual disabilities that would bar him from execution. Because you can't be executed, you can't be put to death if you are found to be a certain level of mentally disabled. And in support of that argument, his lawyers said that when they sought the evaluations to weigh a possible intellectual disability claim or mental competency, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice refused to unshackle him for the exam and his lawyers say that this was atypical behavior and it prevented a full complete exam

they should have taken his shackles off but the federal courts declined to intervene they said there was no justification that the appeal was anything other than a delay tactic and that a mental illness could have been determined at an earlier stage. So similar to the other argument his lawyers brought about the biased juror, they're saying, look, this is a very late stage appeal. All of this could have been determined earlier, and therefore we are not getting involved. That ruling was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not intervene, and he was ultimately executed. Now, he was crying as he was executed. He said that he loved his wife. He would see her when she got there, implying, you know, the afterlife. He thanked the inmates

on death row for encouraging him to get his life right. And according to the reports, once the pentobarbital was injected, he took two deep breaths, mumbled something that was unclear, began to snore, and was pronounced dead 17 minutes later. He didn't get a special last meal because Texas actually stopped doing that in 2011 when one of the inmates ordered a very, very large last meal and declined to eat any of it. And after that, Texas said, nope, we are not doing this anymore. And if you're interested in hearing that story, I did cover it in a previous episode. That would be October 10th's episode, which is week in review, October 3rd to October 9th. So if you're interested in hearing what the meal was and how the process went after the fact to stop doing that special meal request. It is in that episode. Now that takes us to story number two, which is the mayhem that is Twitter.

So obviously there were some pretty big layoffs on November 4th when Elon laid off nearly 3,500 people following his takeover. But just this past week, a bunch of employees quit. So when Elon laid off these 3,500 people on November 4th, he said that, look, this had to be done because the company is losing $4 million per day. And actually, Jack Dorsey, the prior CEO, made a statement basically saying, you know, he takes responsibility for Twitter's status, I guess, and like why all these people had to be laid off. But on top of all of those people being laid off, this past Thursday, a bunch more quit. And this is kind of how that worked. So Elon sent an email out on Wednesday to his workforce. The email was titled A Fork in the Road.

And he explained that Twitter would need to be extremely hardcore if it wanted to succeed and that those who chose to stay should expect long, intense hours of work. And those who left would receive three months severance pay. But the deadline to choose was Thursday afternoon. So he gave people like literally 24 hours. Now, as kind of a side note to that, before the end of the deadline on Thursday, a group of Democratic senators actually sent an open letter to the FTC urging an investigation of Twitter, saying that they were concerned that the company may be violating the terms of a settlement with the agency stemming from past privacy violations.

And they wrote that Elon has, quote, taken alarming steps that have undermined the integrity and safety of the platform, end quote, which is interesting because of specifically because of the Twitter whistleblower incident. came forward and essentially laid out all of these things that were happening at Twitter that were compromising the security of the platform and basically saying that it's just not safe. But now that Elon took it over, one of the things that he wants to change is making it a safer place for user data. And so it's interesting that now this group is urging the FTC to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. And now, you know, you have the Democratic senators wanting the FTC to investigate Elon and Twitter. All of these, quote unquote, investigations are going to eventually lose their

value if we keep doing this, right? We got to save these investigations for things that really matter. So one of the former data scientists on Twitter's civic integrity team who was laid off on December 4th said that these rapid changes that we're seeing risk compromising Twitter's ability to deal with toxic content and are already disrupting its business. Now, in saying that, about 150 of the 3,500 people that were laid off on November 4th made up Twitter's what they call curation team, which is in charge of, you know, adding the context and descriptions to news and events that are trending on the platform. So you'll see sometimes when people make certain tweets, they're labeled misinformation or whatever, and they'll give authoritative sources that kind of address these misleading or false claims. That's what the curation team is responsible for. Now, it's obvious to me why he got rid of that curation team, because he already said he didn't trust Twitter's previous content moderation. That's why he wanted

to take over the company in the first place. He already said he's going to be implementing a new moderation, like content moderation team. Obviously, that's going to take time. But people are worried saying that cutting back on content moderation can actually get Elon into trouble with European regulators, specifically because European regulators are known to be much stricter than regulators here in the United States, and that this could even affect democracies around the world if this content isn't moderated. Now, here's what I have to say about this transition and kind of like the chaos that we're seeing. The Twitter transition hasn't been easy, and I don't know if anyone could have realistically expected it to be easy. I mean, ever since he initially made mention that he wanted to buy it, it's kind of been back and

forth, right? He said he wanted to buy it, and then he didn't, and then he did, and then he didn't. And then it became a court case. And then the final decision to acquire Twitter was done kind of last minute because this judge put a deadline in place that said, look, you have to choose by this day whether or not you're going to acquire Twitter. Otherwise, this is going to trial. So the decision to acquire was a little bit last minute. It didn't seem like there was a ton of time to ensure that the

transition went as smoothly as possible, because whenever you see any type of mergers and acquisitions, obviously a ton of time and resources and money goes into ensuring that that transition is smooth. Now, on top of that, any acquisition is going to be hectic no matter how many precautions are put in place to ensure a smooth transition. Whenever there's a changing of the guards, so to speak, it's not going to be easy, especially when you have a situation like this one where the quote-unquote guards have two completely differing agendas. Now, obviously, Twitter can't survive without ad revenue. So it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or two, because realistically, advertisers aren't going to want to advertise on such a rocky platform.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Elon became the next, you know, President of the United States in the sense that everything he did was picked apart. We're already seeing it. The media is already coming for him. Every move he makes is criticized. We're already seeing that. So are advertisers going to want to advertise on a platform where the CEO, the person running the platform, is criticized so heavily. I don't think this is going to be an easy task for him. I don't think the public's going to make it easy for him. I don't think the media is going to make it easy for him. So it's going to be really interesting to see, you know, how this works. Which brings us to topic number three of the day, Elizabeth Holmes being sentenced. Elizabeth Holmes, the founder and CEO of Theranos, has been sentenced to 11 years and three months in prison, plus three years of supervised release

for the crimes she committed while running the company. If you haven't already seen the Dropout series on Hulu or the documentary called The Inventor, Out for Blood in Silicon Valley, I highly recommend both. It'll really give you insight as to what happened with this company. But if you're not familiar with the story, let's recap it very briefly. Elizabeth Holmes and her boyfriend, Ramesh Balwani, who's also known as Sunny, started this company called Theranos, which was supposed to run standard blood diagnostic tests with just a tiny drop of blood using this new machine that they invented, right? The Theranos machine. Now, the whole story with her boyfriend is weird, too. She never really admitted that they were ever romantically involved, but it was clear that they were. They had a very odd relationship.

Elizabeth was the CEO. Sonny was the company's president and COO. The company started out great. It was something that, you know, they both truly believed in, but then they couldn't get the machine to work. The machine couldn't run the tests like they thought it could. And the whole benefit of this machine was that, you know, when you go in for blood tests, they typically take vials of blood, like multiple vials of blood. Well, their whole purpose was that they could run those same blood tests, I think it ran like 200 plus tests or something, with just the tiniest drop of blood, like a finger prick. But the Theranos machine didn't work like they thought it would. Now, typically what you would do in that situation is get the machine to

work and be transparent about, you know, what's going on with the company. But these two didn't do that. Instead, they just continually lied to investors. They told them that the machines could run the lab tests, even though they couldn't. I think at one point they even faked some test results. They lied that the company was profitable and that its technology had been validated by multiple major pharmaceutical companies, which it hadn't. They even managed to land a $140 million partnership with Walgreens because Walgreens was going to bring the Theranos blood test inside of its stores. That partnership did not end up working out. But ultimately, the company collapsed in 2015, and both Elizabeth and Sonny faced criminal charges. Now, Elizabeth was found guilty on

three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy, based specifically on three different investments in 2014. The first investment was a $38 million investment from Brian Grossman, who is an experienced healthcare investor. The second investment was a $100 million investment from Betsy DeVos, the former U.S. Secretary of Education. And the third investment was a $6 million investment from a man named Daniel Mosley, who was a prominent estate lawyer. Despite being found guilty earlier this year on January 3rd, her sentencing just took place on Friday. Now, obviously, we know she was sentenced with jail time and supervised release, but the judge warned at her sentencing hearing

that this case should be a cautionary tale for startup founders who are willing to overhype the capability of their products. And what he said was, quote, I suppose we step back and ask, what is the pathology of fraud? Is it a refusal to accept responsibility or express contrition in any way? Perhaps that is the cautionary tale that will go forward from this case. He went on to say, this case is troubling on so many levels. What was it that caused Ms. Holmes to make the decisions she did? Was there a loss of moral compass? Failure is normal. Failure by fraud is not okay. Now, the judge also acknowledged letters that were sent to the court in support of Elizabeth that basically, so these letters

were sent from supporters in an effort to reduce her sentence. But the letters basically explained that venture capitalists are aware that startups fail. And when they make the decision to invest, they know that there is a high probability that these startups will fail and that investors typically expect to lose 90% of the money they invest. And their reason for explaining that to the judge was saying, look, what Elizabeth did wasn't that bad, you know, because the venture capitalists that invest, they already know they're going to lose their money anyway. So them losing their money in this investment isn't really anything out of the ordinary. But the judge said, quote, one thing that was missing from those letters is that the letters did not say anything

about nor did they endorse failure by fraud, end quote. Before her sentence was read, Elizabeth read a statement to the courtroom, crying and saying in part, quote, I stand before you taking responsibility for Theranos. I loved Theranos. It was my life's work. My team meant the world to me. The people I tried to get involved with Theranos were the people I loved and respected the most. They wanted to make a difference in the world. I'm devastated by my failings. Every day for the past years, I have felt deep pain for those people, those who believe in us and those patients I worked so hard to serve. I gave everything I had to try to build our company and save our company. Looking back, there were so many things I would do different. I tried to realize my dream too quickly. I am so, with that, I really do believe she went into Theranos with great intentions.

I do. But I think she just got greedy. You know, you want to succeed, but you can't hurt others and deceive people to do so. And that's going to come back and bite you most of the time right so that is elizabeth holmes the end of a very long saga and her boyfriend or ex-boyfriend i should say sonny will be sentenced at a later date he was already found guilty on his charges and his sentencing will come in the future story number four is that nancy Nancy Pelosi steps down as Speaker of the House. On Thursday, Nancy Pelosi stepped down as Speaker of the House in anticipation of Republicans

regaining control of the House. She'll continue to represent her California district in the lower chamber of Congress, but she's not going to return to a leadership role in the future, saying, quote, I will not seek not seek reelection to Democratic leadership in the next Congress. For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect, end quote. She became the minority leader in 2003. She became the speaker in 2006 when Democrats regained control. She returned to minority leader in 2010 and then returned to the speaker's chair in 2019. So she's had a long run.

She's actually the Democratic Party's longest serving House leader. And like I said, she will maintain her seat in Congress until January 2025. And that's a seat she originally took up in 1987. So it's been a long time. She will remain Speaker of the House until the next congress starts in january and at that point it's likely we'll see republican representative kevin mccarthy become the new speaker he just won the party's nomination to be speaker on tuesday but it won't be officially decided until january when the new office comes in and holds the deciding vote now if you're interested in hearing

how the speaker is chosen and elected which i I actually learned a few new things, I included a link on my website to an article that breaks it all down. It's a PBS News article, and it just explains, you know, how a new speaker is chosen, how they're elected, when the deciding vote takes place, and I thought it was pretty interesting. So that is on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. You just have to go to this episode's description page and then scroll down to the bottom where the sources are, and you'll see under this story, there's a PBS News article that, you know, talks about how the speaker is chosen. And that takes us to story number five. So the Biden administration will make it easier to dismiss student loans in bankruptcy. On Thursday, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice released new guidance on the pathway

for student loan borrowers to get rid of their debt through bankruptcy. Now, you might be wondering why this is news, and it's basically because up until now, borrowers had to prove what they call undue hardship to have their student loan debt discharged. They still have to prove undue hardship, but it's like there's a different pathway, so to speak, and I'll get into it. But the undue hardship is a pretty hard standard to meet. And in order to meet it, borrowers would basically have to show that one, they cannot maintain a minimal standard of living. Two, their circumstances are not likely to improve. And three, that they've already made a good faith effort to repay their debt and they can't. So let's talk about the new process.

According to a fact sheet released by the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, which is linked to my website, they say that basically while the bankruptcy judge makes the final decision whether to grant a discharge, the Justice Department can now play an important role in that decision by supporting discharge in appropriate cases. And under the Justice Department's new process, debtors will complete an attestation form to assist the government in assessing the discharge request, and the Justice Department, in consultation with the Department of Education, will review the information provided, apply the factors that

courts consider relevant to the undue hardship inquiry, and then determine whether to recommend discharge. And they say that even where the applicable factors may not support a complete discharge, where appropriate, the Justice Department will consider supporting a partial discharge. Now, it kind of sounds to me like all that's really changing is now the Department of Justice and the Department of Education applies the undue hardship test and then hands it off to the court with a recommendation. So it's almost like an extra hurdle in some instances, but I can also see where some would benefit where these departments suggest a discharge because maybe a recommendation from these governmental departments

holds more weight in court and a bankruptcy judge is more likely to grant it. The fact sheet goes on to say that the Department of Justice attorneys will assess the undue hardship factors in the following manner. So now they're going to take into account the present ability to pay, which is very similar to that first factor we talked about, you know, the can't maintain a minimal standard of living factor. So the attorneys for the DOJ will basically calculate the debtor's expenses and compare them with the debtor's income. And if the expense is equal or exceed the income, then the department will determine that the debtor lacks a present ability to pay. And that will go into the undue

hardship test. Now, the second factor that the Department of Justice attorneys will consider is their future ability to pay. So again, this is just like that second factor we discussed earlier, you know, the circumstances aren't likely to change. So in this case, the department will presume that a debtor's financial circumstances are not likely to change if certain factors are present. When those certain factors aren't present, the Justice Department attorney will assess the facts showing whether the debtor's present inability to pay is likely to continue. And those factors include retirement, age, disability, chronic injury, protracted employment history, lack of degree, or extended repayment status. And the third and final factor that the Department of Justice attorneys will assess

is good faith efforts. So again, very similar to that third factor we discussed earlier in the undue hardship test, and that is that the Department of Justice will focus on objective criteria reflecting the debtor's reasonable efforts to earn income, manage expenses, and repay their loan. So for example, they'll consider whether the debtor contacted the Department of Education or their loan servicer regarding payment options for the loan and, you know, try to figure out a different plan. And basically, whether or not they made a good faith effort, that's what it all boils down to. According to the Department of Justice and Department of Education, the new process will help ensure transparent and consistent expectations for the discharge of student debt in bankruptcy.

It'll also reduce the burden on debtors of pursuing proceedings, and it'll make it easier for Justice Department attorneys to identify cases where discharge is appropriate. So still, the bankruptcy judge has the final say. Again, this sounds like an extra step, but it could also benefit some people because bankruptcy proceedings and really just court proceedings in general can be a bit intimidating. So it may just make things easier, you know, going through the Department of Justice or Department of Education. Both the Department of Justice and Department of Education said that they will continue monitoring how the reforms play out, and they'll assess the effectiveness of their guidance after the first year and beyond as warranted. And as I'm sure you could have guessed, this only applies to federal student loan

borrowers, which means that those with private debt don't have the same opportunity for relief. I do foresee a lawsuit coming. Obviously, the government can't recommend, or I wouldn't think the government could recommend a discharge of a private loan, right? If you hold your loan with, let's say, Bank of America, I can't imagine the government could recommend that a judge discharges that debt. I don't think they have the authority to do that, but still you're giving an opportunity for relief to certain loan borrowers and not others. So I don't know. We'll see how this plays out, but I do see a lawsuit coming. Now our sixth and final story is a short story and it's also just a little bit lighthearted compared to everything else and kind of fits in with the holiday spirit. So last week it was determined that Mariah Carey will not

be the official queen of Christmas. The trial trademark and appeal board rejected Mariah Carey's trademark request to become the one and only Queen of Christmas. Last year, Mariah Carey filed a petition to trademark that name so no one else could use it. I guess her company, Lotion LLC, they sell various products, perfumes, makeup, clothing, jewelry, all of the above, etc. They wanted to use this Queen of Christmas name for branding purposes, and that's according to the trademark applications, but two other artists fought it. One of them was Darlene Love, who says that David Letterman christened her the Queen of Christmas nearly 30 years ago. And the other one was Elizabeth Chan, who describes herself as music's only full-time Christmas singer-songwriter.

So Elizabeth Chan filed her motion in opposition earlier this year, arguing that she herself had repeatedly been dubbed the Queen of Christmas, she had already used the brand Princess of Christmas in connection with her young daughter, and basically that Mariah Carey could not coin this name. Mariah's attorneys actually never responded to Chan's objection, and the trial trademark and appeal board rejected Mariah's request. Following the judgment against Mariah, Chan's attorneys called the win a complete victory, saying in part that, quote, Mariah Carey's company was engaged in classic trademark bullying,

trying to monopolize the title Queen of Christmas with a trademark registration. Now because of what Elizabeth did, nobody can claim exclusive and permanent rights to the Queen of Christmas title, end quote. And that is our final story. And with that, that ends the episode. Thanksgiving is a few days away and I really hope you guys have a great Thanksgiving whether you're spending the day by yourself You have to work you're enjoying the day with the family whatever you're doing. I hope you enjoy your day I hope you enjoy your weekend and the rest of your week and I will talk to you on Monday