UNBIASED - Week in Review: October 31-November 6, 2022

Episode Date: November 7, 2022

1. Update on Paul Pelosi Attacker; Charges Added to Rap Sheet; Elon Musk Deletes Tweet to Hillary Clinton and Gets into Feud with AOC (0:32)2. Supreme Court Hears Affirmative Action Oral Arguments (9:58)3. Oprah Winfrey Endorses Dr. Oz's Opponent in Pennsylvania Senate Race (17:47)4. Gabby Petito's Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Moab Police Department (20:06)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 lawyer podcast. I'm not actually a lawyer.

Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. I have four stories for you today. So we're just going to get right into it. The first story is in regards to my previous episode on the Paul Pelosi home intruder. I had mentioned that he was going to be charged with attempted murder, and I just wanted to clarify that his charges actually stem beyond that. So the intruder that broke into Nancy and Paul Pelosi's home and attacked Paul Pelosi has been charged with assault, attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, assault of an immediate family member of a U.S. official with intent to retaliate against the official, and attempted kidnapping of a U.S. official with intent to retaliate against the official and attempted kidnapping of a U.S. official. That charge relates to Nancy Pelosi specifically. Obviously, she is the U.S. official. And then that charge was brought because according to an FBI affidavit, he told police that he planned to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage. So far, the suspect has pled not guilty to all of his state charges.

He has not yet entered a plea as to his federal charges, but my assumption is that he will also plead not guilty to those. So according to the Department of Homeland Security, DePapp, who is the suspect, was actually in the country illegally. So he's a Canadian citizen, but he entered the country in 2008 via the U.S.-Mexico border. And the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, aka ICE, issued an immigration detainer on DePAP, which are basically these immigration detainers are issued to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. And it informs them that the agency intends to take custody of an individual and requests that ICE be notified before that person

is released. So that immigration detainer was issued on the suspect, but according to a CNN article as well as many other outlets, this detainer is unlikely to affect the suspect's case because deportations often happen after criminal cases are resolved. So likely he will have to serve his sentence and then he will be deported. So that story kind of, I just wanted to give you an update on it, but that kind of ties in to an Elon Musk story. Following Paul Pelosi's attack, Hillary Clinton made a tweet about how the suspect that attacked Paul Pelosi spread right-wing conspiracy theories. And her whole point of that tweet was to basically just say that, you know, the right-wing conservatives are spreading misinformation and hate and yada yada. And Elon Musk replied to that tweet saying,

quote, there's a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye. And he shared a link to an article in the Santa Monica Observer, which is allegedly a right-wing outlet. They have supposedly posted some misinformation in the past. I did not confirm that, but that is what I read. And that article in the Santa Monica Observer stated that Paul Pelosi was drunk and in a fight with a male prostitute. And that male prostitute is the suspect that attacked him. So Elon shares this link to this article and writes, you know, there's a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye. Well, that tweet is now deleted, but I want to talk about why I think that tweet was intentional. So Elon Musk wrote, and if you listened to my last episode, I covered this open letter to his advertisers.

And in that letter, you know, he, he wrote this letter first and foremost, because advertisers are obviously Twitter's main form of revenue and he has to keep those advertisers on board if they want to keep making money. And so he issued this letter because there was some worry among the advertisers of what Elon was planning to do with the company. And he basically said, look, I don't, you know, what I plan on changing is that I want, I want everyone to be able to debate all kinds of viewpoints in a healthy manner without resorting to hate and violence. And everyone has an opportunity to, you know, have an open dialogue without being penalized or suspended or banned or censored or whatever. And he talks about how

he wants to actually help the advertisers. And, you know, and he would do that by targeting their ads to specific people more precisely. So the ads were actually relevant and helpful to the consumer rather than just spam and irrelevant essentially. So that was the deal with that. Now in that letter to advertisers, he never mentioned truth one time. So he never mentioned that he wanted Twitter to be a, you know, platform that really seeks out the truth. I don't think Elon Musk is a truth seeker. What I think about Elon Musk is that he really just wants a place where everyone can say what they want freely, as long as it's not hate speech or anything like that. Um, you know, and they're not fearful that

they'll get penalized for things that they say. So that is very different than truth. And he does talk about free speech in his letter and just the ability for people to, you know, as I've said, say what they want, but just not experience any repercussions. So the reason that I think his tweet back to Hillary Clinton was intentional is because I think he was doing exactly what he set out to do, right? So he wants to make Twitter this kind of free speech forum where people can say what's on their mind, say what they want. And that's what he did. He shared this right-wing conspiracy theory that hasn't been affirmatively proven to be truthful or not, but yet he was able to share it. And I think that's the point he was making is, you know, he said, look, here's my thoughts on it. And honestly,

maybe it wasn't even his thoughts, but just the fact that he was able to put it out there and not face repercussions, but he did delete the tweet. So that raises the question. And this is something I was thinking about a bit that I would love to get your guys' thoughts on, is, you know, he has this whole mission allegedly that he has set out to do in buying Twitter, but how will he achieve that goal if the court of public opinion, so to speak, has a say in what he posts? So I guess to kind of clarify that, I'm assuming, and again, this is an assumption, I'm assuming that he deleted his tweet because he feared what other people would say about him. And he feared that, you know, he may lose advertisers or

something like that because maybe he wasn't carrying out the mission that people thought he was there to carry out. And it just really makes you wonder, you know, if he deletes it because of the public's opinion, then how does that really allow us to achieve this end goal where we're all able to say what we want, whether it's truthful or not, simply because that's how we view things. But at the end of the day, are we really allowed? Do we have that freedom? Because other people kind of dictate what our repercussions are, if that makes sense, if they disagree with us. So that was kind of a story that I found to be pretty interesting and just really got me thinking about, you know, how easy is it going to be for him to achieve this goal of his? So there was another issue also surrounding AOC

on Twitter. And I found this out because some people wrote on my TikTok, I had posted a video on TikTok about what I just spoke about, Elon and, you know, his tweet about the right-wing conspiracy theory. And some people commented on it saying that AOC had been banned. Well, she actually wasn't banned. And I think that's an important clarification to make because I always tell you, you know, read past the headlines. It's very important to understand actually what's going on. So I found the CNBC article and basically AOC claimed that her Twitter account was experiencing technical issues following an online Twitter disagreement with Elon Musk. So she alleges that her Twitter mentions and notifications weren't working. So people couldn't mention her or she couldn't mention other people. And she followed

that up with a second tweet on Thursday, where she claimed that the verified tab of her account, you know, that blue check appeared to be empty. So she says, quote, this is what my app has looked like ever since my tweet upset you today. What's good. Doesn't seem very free speechy to me. So you have people saying, look, my Twitter account experiences glitches all the time. Like this is nothing, yada, yada. Then you have other people saying, no, it looks like Elon may have messed with her Twitter account. And, you know, how is he promoting free speech when he's, when he's penalizing AOC for saying things that he doesn't, he doesn't agree with. So that, you know, that was a whole other issue. So if that is true, obviously, you know, if he is messing with AOC's account because she disagrees

with him, that's clearly an issue, right? That clearly contradicts his message of what he set out to do. On the other hand, if it's not true and it's just some technical difficulties, then it just is what it is. And it's, it's really not a big issue, but I did want to bring those stories to your attention because they all kind of tie in to each other. So we'll see. Again, I said last episode, only time will tell what Elon plans to do with Twitter. We will see how this goes. He is, according to him, trying to make this a more free space, if you will. So we will see. Now let's talk about the affirmative action case that the Supreme Court just heard. So affirmative action is basically the practice of just heard. So affirmative action is basically

the practice of favoring certain people in certain groups that are known to have been discriminated against in the past in order to kind of further equality and balance the scales, so to speak. In 2014, this lawsuit was brought by a group called the Students for Fair Admissions, and they brought this lawsuit against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. And the lawsuit claims that both of these universities are discriminating based on race in the application process. It says specifically that Harvard is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and UNC is violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Why are they different violations? Well, basically, the answer is really simple. Harvard is a private university.

UNC is a public university. So they are both subject to different rules. So what this lawsuit is saying is that Asian American applicants are less likely to be admitted to Harvard than similarly qualified white, black, or Hispanic applicants. And that UNC is allegedly considering race in its admissions process when it does not need to do so in order to achieve a diverse student body. So the federal courts in both Boston and North Carolina heard these cases. They sided with the universities, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the case and, you know, make a decision on whether or not

affirmative action will go forward. So I said in the beginning of the story that affirmative action is basically the practice of favoring people in certain groups that have been discriminated against in the past in order to balance the scales. So what happened was, in prior cases, universities were allowed to consider race in the application process to kind of put the minorities on equal footing with whites. And that is what's been the case for decades now. And now it's being challenged. And the question becomes, when does this affirmative action end? Because at some point you achieve that equal footing that, that you put affirmative action into place for. So what time does this kind of, you know, do we put a stop to it? So the lawyer for the SFFA, the group that brought the lawsuit, argued that racial classifications

are wrong. And they cited to Brown versus Board of Education, which if you know Brown versus Board of Education, it's a very famous case. It struck down racial segregation in schools. And according to the lawyers for this group, it finally and firmly rejected the idea that racial classifications should be allowed to influence educational opportunities. But the other side, right, the lawyers for the universities are like, well, actually Brown versus Board of Education was a case meant to do away with exclusion. We are wanting to include, right? So this is two completely different cases here. So why are you citing to that precedent? Well, then another argument that the lawyers for SFFA have is that in 1978 and 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race in higher education and virtually went against Brown's decision because they're saying Brown

rejected the idea that racial classification should be allowed to influence educational opportunities. And then these cases specifically in 1978 and 2003, said that racial classifications are allowed. And therefore, they say these two more recent cases, the 1978 and the 2003 case, they should be overturned so we can uphold Brown v. Board of Education and say that racial classifications should not influence educational opportunities. So those are the main arguments for the group that brought this lawsuit. And again, the lawyers for the universities are saying Brown was for a completely different purpose, right? It's a different situation. So the main question that the conservative justices on

the court had for the universities is, when do we put an end to this affirmative action? So that 2003 case that I was referencing a few times, it's called Grutter v. Bollinger, and it basically held, well, let me give you a little background of the case. So it was a white student that applied to the University of Michigan law school, and she didn't get in. And she brought a lawsuit saying that she was discriminated against because of her race, you know, yada yada. Basically, long story short, the holding was that the University of Michigan's law school admissions process was acceptable and it was fine. But what they said is that race cannot be considered a loan. It can be considered as a plus, right, to the applicant's file, but that can't be the

determining factor. And the holding also said that the universities cannot establish quotas for certain racial or ethnic groups. So that was the precedent set in the 2003 case. Now, Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that majority opinion specifically said, and I quote from directly from the opinion said, we are mindful, however, that a core purpose of the 14th amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race. Accordingly, race conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. This requirement reflects that racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification

for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle. In a nutshell, what Sandra Day O'Connor was saying is that, look, we're aware that race can be considered, but we're also aware that this can't be a forever thing because at some point there's going to come a time when the races are on equal footing grounds. These universities are diverse enough to represent, you know, the population, whatever it may be. And therefore we can't have this affirmative action in place forever. So she gave in, in that opinion, she gave it, she gave 25 years as the hypothetical end. Well, 25 years would be 2028. We are obviously currently in 2022. So it's been, it's been 1920 years since then.

And that's the main question that these conservative justices have because, you know, the more liberal justices are on the side of keeping affirmative action, but the, the conservative justices are saying, look, when do we put an end to this? Because it was already established that it has to come to an end at some point. So when do we put an end to it? And if you listen to the oral arguments, which were five plus hours long, I do have them linked on my website. Basically the universities can't really give an answer. They don't really have an end date. So it seems like based on the environment of the arguments and the questions that were being posed, it seems like this

is going to, this case will end affirmative action. It's just not clear if they're going to end it immediately or if they're going to say, you know, by 2025 or 2028, it's really not sure where it's not clear where it's going to go, but it is looking like they will put an end to it soon. So that's, what's going on with that. We won't know until the decision comes out or until the opinion I should say is released. So that could be months from now, but that's where that case stands. Oprah Winfrey endorses Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman over Dr. Oz. So if you didn't know, Dr. Oz, the TV personality, is running for Senate in Pennsylvania as a Republican candidate. John Fetterman is his Democratic opponent. He's been hoping to win

Oprah's endorsement, and he did. During a virtual event, Oprah said, quote, at the beginning of midterm campaigns, I said it was up to the citizens of Pennsylvania. But I will tell you all this. If I lived in Pennsylvania, I would have already cast my vote for John Fetterman for many reasons. So the reality is this is surprising, but it's also not that surprising. It's not surprising for obvious reasons. This all boils down to political affiliation, right? It's all a game. People are going to endorse who aligns most with their political affiliations. It's not necessarily who they think is a better person or who they like as a better person. It's who aligns with their political views. It's slightly surprising on the

other hand, because Oprah is kind of the one that gave Dr. Oz his platform. She had him on her show a bunch back in the day, and then her company Harpo Productions actually helped him start his own show, which was the Dr. Oz show in 2009. So they are close. They have been close. So I guess that's kind of why it's a little bit surprising, but it's also not because, you know, political affiliations run everything these days. And then, you know, Kid Rock actually came out and expressed his dissatisfaction with, with Oprah's endorsement. And he said in a tweet, quote, Oprah helped Dr. Oz with his career, I assume because she vetted him and found him to be a wonderful person. Now she is against him. Oprah is a fraud, end quote. So this kind of goes back to the, you know, the point of, it's not really like you don't really

endorse the person you think is the best person. It's, it's more so you endorse the person who aligns with your political views. That's just the way politics work, unfortunately. But you know, this isn't anything new. That the reality back in 1999 Donald Trump actually said that he he loved Oprah as a potential running mate but I don't think he would say the same today so that's just the nature of the game it is what it is but a fun fact if Dr. Oz wins this election he would be the nation's first Muslim senator. So I thought that was kind of interesting. And that brings us to our last story. Gabby Petito's parents file a lawsuit against the Moab police department. So on Thursday, Gabby Petito's parents filed a lawsuit against the Moab police

department claiming that their negligence led to her death weeks later. So this is a wrongful death lawsuit. And basically just to give you a little bit of background, if you're not familiar with Gabby Petito, Gabby Petito and her boyfriend, Brian Laundrie garnered the nation's attention just last summer when Gabby went missing during a road trip with her boyfriend, Brian, her boyfriend returned home without her and stood his ground that he wasn't really sure what happened to her. So later, after her body was found in Grand Teton National Park, Brian actually committed suicide in a park in Florida, like a state park, a marshy area in the middle of the state, kind of, and left behind a note where he admitted to killing her.

But a couple of weeks before she was killed, Brian and Gabby were stopped in their van by police officers in Moab. And this is kind of where the lawsuit stems from. So they were stopped by police officers. And the reason that they were stopped is because a witness saw them arguing and like in a pretty heated argument. And they called the police to see what was going on. Well, there is video footage of the stop and it's clear that things were off between them. Gabby was very distressed. She was crying. Things didn't look right. They both admitted that they had gotten into a heated

argument. I think they even admitted that it was a physical argument, but I'm not 100% positive on that. And so what Gabby's parents are saying in their lawsuit is that the officers that pulled them over that day in their van disregarded signs of violence that they should have been trained to notice and that the officers quote coached Gabby to provide answers that the officers used to justify their decision not to enforce Utah law. And specifically that Utah law they're referring to requires action to be taken in response to domestic violence incidents. So they're saying, because in this case, they didn't really do much. And they kind of just like, let them, they did separate the two for the night, but they didn't take any action as far as like

getting Gabby help or anything like that. And so the lawsuit says that the police should have issued a domestic violence citation and really taken this to the fullest extent of the law. But because they didn't, now Gabby's parents are saying that they are responsible for Gabby's death. So another thing that the complaint says is that one of the officers, his name is Eric Pratt, they say he was fundamentally biased in his approach to the investigation, choosing to believe Gabby's abuser, Brian, ignoring evidence that Gabby was the victim and intentionally looking for loopholes to get around the requirements of Utah law and his duty to protect Gabby. And the reason that they're saying this guy was fundamentally biased stems from a woman who is referred to as Witness 1, who alleges that Eric Pratt, this officer, threatened to kill

her, the witness, after their relationship ended at some point before all of this. So basically, they're saying this guy is an abuser himself, signs, you know, of Gabby being a victim of abuse and therefore he was fundamentally biased and he messed up in not protecting Gabby. He did not respond. He did not comment on the situation. He was reached out to. He did not respond. A city spokesperson, though, said in a statement,

our officers acted with kindness respect and empathy towards mrs petito no one could have predicted the tragedy that would occur weeks later and hundreds of miles away and the city of moab will ardently defend against this lawsuit keep in mind this lawsuit is asking for 50 million dollars in damages so let's talk a little bit about in utah what has to be found in order for a defendant to be liable for wrongful death typically the plaintiff so the one bringing the lawsuit has to prove four things and that is one the death of a loved one two a wrongful act neglect or default of defendant that caused the deceased death. Three, survival of heirs who

suffered the loss of the deceased, which would obviously be her parents. And four, the appointment of a personal representative for the deceased. But in order for the court to order damages, right? So that $50 million that Gabby's family is seeking. The following elements have to be proven. And these are the elements of that wrongful death action. Okay. So there has to have been a duty of care by, from the defendant to the plaintiff. So the defendant had to have had some sort of duty of care to the person who died, the deceased. So in this case, that would mean that the officers that, you know, pulled Gabby and Brian over, they had to have owed Gabby a duty when they pulled her over in the van after the witness saw them fighting. And after she, you know, they clearly saw she was distressed.

The plaintiffs have to be able to prove that in that moment, the officers owed Gabby a certain duty of care, whether that be getting her to safety, whatever it might be. The second element that needs to be proven is a breach of that duty. So not only does there need to be a duty owed, but there has to be a breach of that duty. In this case, the breach of the duty would be the officer not getting Gabby help, the help that she needed or not following the requirements of the law or something of that nature. The third element is causation. And this means that the defendant's breach of their duty had to directly cause the death and the damages owed to the family. So not only does there need to be a duty owed, but there has to be a breach of that

duty and that breach has to have caused the death. So keep in mind though that a break in this causation will usually avoid a wrongful death judgment and damages. So if somehow the defendant can prove that the causation is not directly linked to the death, there was some intervening factor there, and they didn't directly cause the death, then they likely won't be found liable for wrongful death. I have a feeling that is why the city spokesperson made a point to say that no one could have predicted the tragedy,

that it occurred weeks later, that it occurred hundreds of miles away, because that time and distance may be sufficient to break that causation. So I think there was kind of a method to the madness. I'm sure they had help in drafting that statement, but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I personally do not see this going in favor of Gabby's parents, but you just never really know. I think there were too many other circumstances. Yes. Should the police have gotten Gabby help? Sure. But if I am not mistaken, the police did separate them that night. Um, you know, and, and, and, and they're adults, like that's the reality. So it's not like the police should have called Gabby's parents or

anything like that and reported anything. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. You know, it's possible that the city offers some sort of settlement or something, but the city spokesperson did say that they were going to defend this lawsuit ardently. So maybe they don't even offer a settlement. Who knows? We will see what happens. But that's the situation with that. And that ends this episode. I hope you guys really enjoyed it. I just want to leave you guys with my normal reminders. If you haven't already, please leave me a review on whichever platform you listen, Spotify or Apple podcasts. I really, really appreciate it. And it helps my show more than you know. So thank you in advance for that. And if you have any thoughts on this episode on any of the topics I talked about, I do have that comment section on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. If you go to the episode description for this particular episode, scroll down to the bottom and the comment section will be there and you can share your thoughts with me. I love being able to interact with you guys that way.

Also on my website, on each episode description page, I have the sources linked. So if there's anything I talked about that maybe you want to read up on yourself or something like that, it is there in the sources section. So just keep that in mind as well. And that's all. I hope you guys have a great week. If you're listening to this later on in the week, I hope you have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday. Bye.