UNBIASED - Week in Review: October 3-9, 2022

Episode Date: October 10, 2022

1. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Merrill v. Milligan (Voting Rights Act) (2:40)2. Kim Kardashian Pays Out $1.26M for Violating Anti-Touting Law (10:58)3. Texas Executes Inmate John Henry Ramirez (15:35) 4. President Biden Pardons All Individuals Federally Convicted of Simple Marijuana Possession (21:40)Links to all sources can be found at www.jordanismylawyer.comFollow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube @jordanismylawyerThis episode is sponsored by Good Party: https://goodparty.org/?utm_source=pod&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=sep_2022_jordan-is-my-lawyer_independent_general&utm_content=independent_general&utm_term=general 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. What's up guys? Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news. And we have a lot of interesting stories today. I'm actually talking about a Supreme court case dealing with the voting rights act, talking about a recent execution that just happened in Texas last week, talking about Kim Kardashian's SEC violation, and President Biden's announcement that he is pardoning people with simple marijuana convictions under federal law. So there's a lot of really good stuff to talk about, but before we

actually dive into it, I want to remind you guys that you can always comment on my website any thoughts that you have on any of the issues that I talk about. So throughout the episode, I tend to pose various questions about each topic just to get you guys thinking. And if you feel so inclined to voice your responses or your opinions, you can always do so. So that is jordanismylawyer.com. You can go to each individual episode description page, and there's a comment section at the bottom of each page. And that's kind of how we can interact and carry on this discussion a little bit further. Last thing I want to remind you of is that if you haven't already, please, please, please leave

me a review on whichever platform you listen. I obviously appreciate five stars, but it literally takes two seconds. If you guys want to, you can, you know, write more and write what you love about my show, but I can only ask for so much. So I do just ask that you do that if you've been loving my podcast. So with that, I want to tell you guys a little bit about this episode's sponsor. With the midterms fast approaching, Good Party is here to help. Good Party isn't a political party, but rather it's a movement that helps good independent candidates run and win. Good Party promotes thinking outside of the traditional two-party system, and it helps independent-minded people like you find independent candidates. Our country deserves representatives who will put politics aside for once and just pass laws

that will serve all of us, not just the two-party leaders or big money donors. So go to goodparty.org today to learn more about the independent candidates in your state ahead of midterm elections. Our first story today is about Merrill v. Milligan, which is a case that the Supreme Court just heard last week, and it's in regards to the Voting Rights Act. So this case stems from a situation in Alabama in 2021. After the 2020 census, Alabama created a redistricting plan of its seven districts. So as seven districts in the states in the state, which is why there are seven representatives that represent the state of Alabama and the House of Representatives. Only one of those seven districts is a majority Black district. The issue is that 27% of the state's residents are Black.

Just over 25% of Alabama's registered voters are Black. So proportionally, the argument from the plaintiffs is that this would mean that two of Alabama's districts should be majority black and not just one. Two divided by seven equals 28.6. Obviously, 28.6 is a lot closer to that 27% of the state's residents that are black rather than just one of the districts. Now, the plaintiff's argument is essentially that the state illegally packed Black voters into a single district. And what they're saying is that this map, this new map that Alabama created after the 2020 census, is intended to minimize the number of districts in which Black voters can elect their chosen candidates. So what they're saying Alabama did is they grouped all of the black voters into one district and then the

remaining black voters, they kind of spread out into various districts. Um, so they didn't necessarily constitute a majority. So they're saying that failure of the state to create a second majority black district violates section two of the Voting Rights Act. Now, what does section two of the Voting Rights Act say? Well, it basically bars any election practice that results in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race. So what they're saying here is that by sectioning off all of, or the majority of Alabama's black population into one district, they're abridging the rights of the black population that are spread out in the minority district. Because those that are in the minority districts, their votes don't really, they don't

really have a say really, right? Because they're in the minority. So they don't have an opportunity to elect their chosen candidates. And only one district in Alabama does. So the lawsuit is premised on the denial of the voting rights of the minorities, right? The ones that are spread out in the minority districts, because they don't have the opportunity for their vote to matter. Now, the plaintiffs are further saying that creating a second district would bring the congressional representation further in line with the actual realities of Alabama's population growth over the last 10 years. Now, on the other hand, the defendants, so the state of Alabama, is arguing that although Section 2 bars discrimination against voters based on race, it doesn't impose an affirmative obligation upon the states to

ensure that wherever a majority minority district can be drawn, it must be drawn. And they're further saying that requiring the state to create another majority black district would violate the constitution because that approach would entail racial targets and race-based sorting. Whereas what they're currently doing, their current map, they're saying was drawn using a race neutral approach, which is the way it's supposed to be. Now in January, so a little bit of the procedural history of this case, in January, a three judge district in Alabama agreed with the plaintiffs that the state's new map does violate the Voting Rights Act because it sections

black voters into one congressional district and it spreads the other black voters across the state and and like basically they don't have a say their vote doesn't matter the three judge panel gave the state two weeks to draw a new map with two majority black districts instead of one and three days later the state said hey, do you mind putting your order on hold because we're going to appeal this decision? And the court was like, no, we're not putting the order on hold. This is a very straightforward Section 2 case. This isn't a quote unquote legal unicorn meeting. This isn't really a case where there's there's much question. This is very straightforward in our opinion. This is a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights

Act. And that's it. We're not putting this on hold. So then the state obviously took it a step further, and they filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court asking that the Supreme Court justices freeze the lower court's order until the Supreme Court hears oral arguments. They granted this request, and one of the reasons that they granted the request and froze the lower court's order is because they said, and I believe this was Justice Kavanaugh's stance. He says that the freeze is consistent with the Purcell principle. And what the Purcell principle stands for is the idea that federal courts should not change state election rules shortly before an election, because this could cause confusion among other negative implications.

And so according to this particular principle, federal courts are not to intervene in state election rules and procedures when there's an election coming up. So they froze it in the meantime. But on the flip side of that, Justice Kagan said that, look, the primary is still months away. The general election is even further out. So it's not too late. You know, we don't have to freeze this order. We can let it stand and then we can, we can hear arguments later, but at least let the order stand for now so that the state has to draw up a new map. In the end, the majority of the justices said that they are willing to freeze the order. So it was put on hold, but the Supreme court did hear oral arguments this past week on Tuesday. Now a decision isn't likely until the end of the term, because the more controversial

a case is the longer Supreme court, the Supreme court is going to take to rule on it. Whereas, you know, if it was just a simple, straightforward, unanimous decision, it would obviously come out a lot quicker. The media expects this to be a ruling in favor of Alabama. So they think that the conservative majority court will end up saying this does not violate the Voting Rights Act and will in turn weaken the Voting Rights Act. But my prediction is actually the other way. So I think it's going to be 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs. It could be 6-3 depending on Chief Justice Roberts. So here's my take on the 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs. It could be 6-3 depending on Chief Justice Roberts. So here's my

take on the 5-4 prediction. I think that it will be Justice Kagan, Justice Jackson, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. And then the four that I think will be in the minority is Justice Gorsuch, Justice Thomas, Justice Breyer, and Chief Justice Roberts. Now, when I said it could be 6-3, depending on Justice Roberts, the thing with Chief Justice Roberts is that he, since Roe v. Wade was overturned, it seems like he's pretty keen on rebuilding the public's trust in the court. And so for that reason, I think he could uphold the Voting Rights Act, just because I don't think he wants the public to lose even more trust in the court. So that's why I think there is a chance that it could be 6-3, but my

feeling is that it'll be 5-4, the way that I said. Now, I'm curious what you guys think, how you think the justices will rule. Do you think that they'll rule in favor of the Voting Rights Act, or do you think that they'll further deteriorate the Voting Rights Act with their decision? Meaning, do you think they'll vote in favor of the state? And taking the justices out of it, do you think that this violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? Meaning, do you think creating only one majority Black district results in the denial of certain individuals' rights to vote because those placed in a minority Black district don't have the same opportunity to elect their chosen candidates? Do you think that if the state were to make a map intentionally based on race, that that could have potential negative implications?

Or would you consider that to be a good thing? Maybe you think that that's how it should be. So those are just some things to think about in regards to this case. But like I said, there likely won't be a decision until the end of the term, which isn't until 2023, June 2023. So we'll see what happens, but you already know when it happens, I will fill you in. Now, moving on to the second story, we're going to talk a little bit about Kim Kardashian's settlement, so to speak, with the SEC. It wasn't really a settlement. It was more so her paying a civil penalty. But what happened in that case was the Supreme Court charged her with violating anti-touting laws. Now, what happened was she posted to Instagram on June 13th, 2021, about a cryptocurrency called Emacs Tokens. And in the post, it included a link to a website

which was operated by the company that offers and sells Emacs Tokens. Now in the post, she did include the hashtag ad, but she failed to disclose how much she received in exchange for the promotion, which was $250,000. Now federal security laws are pretty clear that anyone, whether you're a celebrity or not, that promotes cyber assets for payment, like in exchange for payment, has to disclose the nature, source, and amount of compensation that they received in exchange for the promotion. Because Kim K

failed to disclose how much she received, she failed to disclose the nature, source, and amount of compensation. As per the law, you know, the hashtag ad wasn't sufficient. That is where they charged her with violating anti-touting laws. The specific statute is section 17B of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits individuals from promoting securities in exchange for compensation without fully disclosing the receipt and amount of compensation. Now note that the language in this statute is securities, right? So this section prohibits individuals from promoting securities in exchange for compensation without disclosing the amount. The thing is, is that

because cyber assets are so new, there's not a ton of precedent on whether or not cyber assets are considered securities. There's a, there's a strong argument for it. And that's why the SEC has gotten away with charging people with these violations. But just keep in mind, this is a very old act. It's a 1933 act. So, you know, whether cyber assets are securities, not really that established, but like I said, the SEC has charged people with the same violation in the past, which I actually had never heard of before, or it's never made, you know, celebrity news before, I guess. But since Kim K is such a high profile celebrity, this one made the news. Other celebrities that have received similar violations are Floyd Mayweather, DJ Khaled, and Steven Siegel. So they had a similar situation where they paid a civil penalty,

but in this case, Kim neither denied nor admitted the charge. She instead just agreed to pay the $1 million civil penalty and an additional $260,000 for the payment she received for the post plus prejudgment interest. So that was it. She paid the 1.26 million and now she's off the hook, so to speak. Following the violation, her violation, the SEC chair released a video reminding potential investors not to make investment decisions based solely on the recommendations of celebrities and influencers and when I saw the video I was like do people really take advice like do they really make investment decisions based on celebrities

and influencers um and so I made a TikTok about this situation if you follow me on TikTok you probably saw it and at the end I said I just have to ask. If you follow me on TikTok, you probably saw it. And at the end, I said, I just have to ask you, would you invest in a crypto coin if an influencer or celebrity endorsed it on social media? And most of the responses were no, if not all responses were no, especially like if you see hashtag ad, I don't know, but that begs the question, what do you think about influencers having to disclose how much they were paid, right? So in other words, is hashtag ad or hashtag paid partnership on the post itself enough? Because those hashtags implies that they were paid. It just doesn't necessarily specify the amount, but does the amount really matter? Paid is paid, right?

But what do you think? I mean, do you think that they should disclose how much they were paid? Would that affect someone's decision at all to see, oh, this influencer was paid $250,000 or this influencer was paid $10? If they were paid $10, are you more likely to invest? I don't know. I don't really think it matters, but I'm curious to know your take on that. The third story of the day is in regards to the most recent execution in the United States. So last week, John Henry Ramirez was executed in Texas by way of the lethal injection. Ramirez was convicted of killing a man named Pablo Castro back in 2004. Pablo Castro was a convenience store clerk. He was taking out the trash at the time,

and Ramirez had been on a three-day drug binge with two women. He robbed Castro as he was taking out the trash, only robbed him of a dollar and 25 cents, and then stabbed him 29 times. Now this was part of a series of robberies, so they had been on a robbery spree essentially for the past few days when this had happened. He and the girls fled to Mexico afterwards and he managed to stay in Mexico for three and a half years, but he was arrested eventually and brought back to the States and sentenced to death. Now, his execution was originally scheduled for September 8th of 2021, but back when that was supposed to happen, he asked that his reverend be able to lay his hands on him and pray over him during the execution. Texas denied the request for the spiritual advisor to be present and do those

things. He appealed it and he argued that the denial of that would violate his rights under the first amendment and the religious land use and institutionalized persons act. Now it's funny because whenever I talk about an inmate, like appealing something or saying that they're having their rights violated, people always come back with the, why should this person have rights kind of thing. But that's just the way the constitution works. It doesn't matter if you're on death row,

you're still entitled to your constitutional rights. So at the very last minute, like the day leading up to his originally scheduled execution, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and his execution was put on hold. Now in March of this year, the Supreme Court ruled in an eight to one decision that an inmate could not be denied the right to a spiritual advisor and the advisor is allowed to lay their hands on the inmate and pray over them during the execution. So the execution was rescheduled once this decision was handed down for October 5th.

And on October 5th, he was given a lethal dose of pentobarbital, which is a medication typically used for like anxiety and stuff like that, but this is obviously a lethal dose. And he was pronounced dead at 6 41 PM. During his last words, he thanked the family of the victim for their efforts to communicate with him through the victim advocacy program. He said he hopes that his execution gives the family comfort. And he told his friends and family that he loved them. And he finished by letting the warden know he was ready for the execution. Now, what I didn't know, because I posted about this execution on TikTok and, you know, certain states have different rules for inmates last meals. So for instance, Florida caps the amount that the last meal can cost at $40. So the inmate can ask for what they want, but they can't spend

more than the, it can't cost the prison more than $40. Other states have like a mile radius thing where they can't get food outside of a three mile radius from the prison. So each state has their own rules. But when I had posted about this execution on TikTok, I made mention that Texas hadn't released the information about Ramirez's last meal yet and that I would cover in the podcast. And I had someone comment and say, Texas doesn't offer last meals because of one inmate that like made this big meal order and then refused to eat it. And ever since then, Texas doesn't offer meals and I had no idea. So I looked more into it and it's actually pretty crazy. So this inmate's name was Lawrence Russell Brewer. This was back in 2011. He ordered a huge meal. I can't even believe that they allowed such a big

meal to be ordered, but this was his meal that he ordered. Two chicken fried steaks with gravy and sliced onions, a triple patty bacon cheeseburger, a cheese omelet with ground beef, tomatoes, onions, bell peppers, and jalapenos, a bowl of fried okra with ketchup, a pound of barbecued meat with a half a loaf of white bread, three fully loaded fajitas, a meat lovers pizza, a pint of bluebell vanilla ice cream, a slab of peanut butter fudge with crushed peanuts on top, and three root beers. I read that and I confirmed this with many sources, okay? I didn't just read one article because when I read it, to be quite honest, I was like, there's no way. There's no way that this inmate would be allowed to order this much food.

And yeah, he was. So when he was given the meal, he said he wasn't hungry and he didn't eat any of it. He didn't take one bite. The meal was thrown out and the state Senator at the time asked Texas prison officials to end the tradition completely. And the prison's agency director terminated last meals effective immediately. Like there was no messing around. They were like, we're done. Now I tend to think that this was a very emotional reaction, whether or not you agree with last meals, because I know some people are like, these inmates don't even deserve to choose their last meal. I still think it was emotionally driven. Like, I think they were like, oh, this guy got one over on us, so we're just going to ruin it for everyone else. Because this

was an 87-year-old tradition. And with one guy, they were just like, nope, we're done. So I want to know what you think about the decision to end the tradition of last meals. You know, even if your thought process is inmates shouldn't get to choose their last meal at all, fine, but do you think that's right that one guy, it just took one guy and it ruined it for everyone? That brings us to our last story, which is that President Biden announced that he pardoned all Americans who have been convicted at a national level of simple marijuana possession under federal law and DC statute. Now, what is simple possession? Simple possession is when a person has a small amount of a substance on their person or available for their own use. Part of President Biden's campaign pledge when he was running for president was to erase prior federal possession convictions, and he wanted to start the process

of loosening the federal classification of marijuana. So this kind of ties into that, and this is part of that pledge. Now, as far as how many people this will affect, according to the New York Times, it's estimated that the pardon will affect 6,500 people convicted between 1992 and 2021. And you're hearing that saying that does not sound like a lot of people, I'm sure. And that's because it's not. It's really not going to make a huge difference because although he has the authority to pardon federal charges, he can't pardon the charges at a state level. So that's where the majority of these convictions happen. Rarely do they happen at a federal level. When you actually compare the number of federal convictions to state convictions,

federal convictions are just a drop in the bucket. Just to give you an example of how small of a drop it is in the bucket, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, only 92 people were sentenced on federal marijuana charges in 2017 out of 20,000 drug convictions that year mean, that's 0.46%. That's not even 1%. So that's not even a half of 1%. So you can see federal charges are so small compared to the amount of state charges. And because of that, the president has also asked state governors to follow suit. But this pardon was part of a three-step plan. So first, he pardoned all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession. The second step was that he asked governors to do the same at the state level so there could be more of an impact.

And the third was that he asked the Department of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to actually review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Because believe it or not, marijuana is currently in the same category as heroin and LSD, which are schedule one substances. And it's more, this, this is what got me. Marijuana is more seriously criminalized than fentanyl. Fentanyl is a schedule too. So, you know, when you take that and you combine it with the amount of, not the amount, but how much marijuana has been legalized in recent years, it's kind of crazy that marijuana is still considered a Schedule 1 drug.

Just to put that into perspective, recreational marijuana is legal in 19 states, and medical marijuana is legal in 37 states. But despite that, it's still illegal at the federal level. As far as state governors following suit, we likely won't see this from all states. Given that it's a politically motivated move, it's likely we'll see blue states follow suit more so than red states. And that's just a fact. There's already blue states who have pardoned low-level marijuana convictions in the past. So just as an example, California governor and the Colorado governor already issued pardons for low-level cannabis convictions prior to President Bideniden doing this and the illinois governor actually at the end of 2020 expunged nearly half a million marijuana arrest records and pardoned

thousands of convictions so there's already been states that have moved towards this idea and there's likely to be more but that's what's that's really what's going on with that it's just kind of a move in the direction of decriminalizing marijuana, but it's not really changing anything major in the short term unless states hop on the bandwagon. Now, I did come across an interesting fact when I was reading about this. So in 1994, when President Biden was a senator in Delaware, he sponsored a crime bill called

the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. He's been asked about it many, many times. It's old news. He has changed a lot of his views in the past. Back when he was a senator of Delaware, his views are drastically different than they are now, especially when he became vice president to President Obama. So like, whatever, that is what it is. I'm a big proponent of people changing and people, you know, views evolving. That happens with age and with time. That's not what I'm concerned about. What I thought was interesting was that the day before President Trump left office,

he actually commuted sentences of many, many inmates, but 12 of those inmates were sentenced to life under President Biden's, that crime control bill that President Biden sponsored. So in that crime control bill, it did a lot of things. It increased accountability for law enforcement. It added new protections for domestic violence and sexual assault survivors. It also deployed thousands of officers into neighborhoods of color. It eliminated inmates Pell Grant eligibility while in prison. It authorized the death penalty for an additional 60 federal offenses, among many, many other things.

But one of the other things that this law did was that it imposed mandatory life sentences for people with three or more felony convictions. And this was known as the three strike law. And as a result of the three strike law, some inmates were sentenced to life for marijuana convictions. So two examples of this, uh, one guy's name is Corvain Cooper. He was sentenced July 28th of 2014. He was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laund the inmates that former president Trump pardoned. And then another one was John knock. He was sentenced July 30th of 2001 and similarly charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. But these two guys are just two of a handful of inmates that were sentenced to life under President Biden's three-strike law. So I thought that was interesting.

Just a little fact. It's interesting to see how people's views change. And that's okay, by the way. I'm not hating at all on President Biden's views changing. I think it's great. My views have changed drastically over the years. And I think that's great. My views have changed drastically over the years, and I think that's normal. As you grow, you, you know, tend to change stances on certain issues, and that's fine. But that is the pardoning matter in a nutshell. So in short, it's really not changing anything major in the short term. It's just kind of a step towards decriminalizing marijuana, like I said. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this move. What are your thoughts on decriminalizing

marijuana generally? Do you see an issue with the fact that the majority of states have legalized marijuana in some form, yet it's still a Schedule I substance on a federal level? And what about, what are your thoughts on it being scheduled higher than fentanyl? I mean, fentanyl is a huge deal, right? So just some thoughts to leave you with as always. And like I said, in the beginning of this video, feel free to voice your thoughts on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. I hope you guys enjoyed this episode. I love being here with you guys on Mondays, depending on what day you're listening to this on. I hope you have a great week or you had a great week and I will talk to you next Monday.