*Bonus Episode* Week in Review: September 19-22, 2022

(0:25) Intro
(1:51) Martha's Vineyard Migrants File Class Action Lawsuit Against Governor DeSantis 
(14:49) DOJ Announces $250M Feeding Our Future Fraud Scheme
(20:00) Adnan Syed Released from Jail After Serving 23 Years 
(28:23) New York Attorney General Files $250M Lawsuit Against Donald Trump and Others

Links to sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.com

Transcript

Jordan: [00:00:00] You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer 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. I know what you're thinking. You're like Jordan, it's Thursday. What are you doing here? I thought you cut off true crime. I did, but today we're doing another like current affairs episode. I figured since I got rid of the true crime, I could give you guys a little, you know, bonus episode.

So today we're covering four stories. I feel like this week has just been heavy in the news. There's been a lot of news. So we are going to talk about the class action lawsuit filed against [00:01:00] governor DeSantis by some of the migrants. That were flown to Martha's vineyard. We're going to talk about a non Sied who I'm sure you've heard was released from jail after serving 23 years of his life sentence.

We are also going to talk about the lawsuit filed against Donald Trump, his children, and the Trump organization. And others by the New York attorney general. And we are going to talk about a pretty crazy food scandal, 250 million fraud scheme, essentially that was taking advantage of a stimulus plan during the pandemic.

So without further ado, let's get into it.

Last week. I am sure you heard 47 Venezuelan migrants were flown from Florida to Martha's vineyard in Massachusetts. By the way, I [00:02:00] just wanna put this disclaimer out there. I am going to use the word migrants. I did do some research and look up the difference between migrants, immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.

And I. Have a link on my website that you can read about these words and what they mean and how, and when to use them. I feel here. One could argue the case for all of these words to be used in this instance, but I am going to use the word migrants. I just, I don't that's I just, I don't know. I feel like in today's day and age, you kind of have to put that disclaimer out there that you're not meaning to offend people because you never know when a word is gonna be taken offensively or out context.

So just don't take that to mean anything negative, but anyway, Um, these migrants were flown into Martha's vineyard in Massachusetts. And in case you were wondering where the authority comes from for governor DeSantis of Florida to do this, Florida actually had an annual budget set of $109.9 billion. And the legislature [00:03:00] allocated 12 million of that to quote, facilitate the transport of unauthorized aliens out of Florida.

So this 12 million was specifically dedicated to this kind of thing. And I will say this isn't the first time that. Florida has transported migrants. They usually do bus transports, but because Martha's vineyard is an island, they had to get there by plane. Now, governor DeSantis, when asked about the state budget, he did say he will be using every penny of that $12 million to make sure he is protecting the people of Florida.

And I will get into why, you know, he considers the transporting of migrants to be protecting. The state in just a minute. So keep in mind that Florida isn't one of the major states that migrants lead to, right? It's typically Texas, but DeSantis says that a lot of these migrants, 40% of them actually express a desire to [00:04:00] relocate.

To Florida. Now DeSantis says he wants to avoid the cost on the communities of Florida. And what these costs are, is like education costs, healthcare costs, public safety costs, things of that nature. He says it can be very expensive and it's his intention to avoid those costs and to do that, he plans on.

Getting the migrants out of the state, once the migrants landed in Martha's vineyard, uh, there was an attorney from Martha's vineyard that I saw ho hosting, like sort of a press conference, so to speak where she was livid at this move by DeSantis, she was very unhappy with it. And since then, There has been a class action lawsuit filed the civil rights group.

Aliza Americas sued governor DeSantis, as well as the secretary of Florida's department of transportation. The state of Florida, the Florida department of transportation, and five unidentified individuals. Now this lawsuit wasn't just brought by AZA America's. [00:05:00] It was also brought by an individual given the name Ynet do another individual given the name.

Pablo do. And a third individual given the name ha Jesus DOE. Now in here in the United States, typically when we see these unidentified really plaintiffs bringing suit or defendants, we use the name, John and Jane DOE. In this case, they are, they are being given the names. Y Pablo and Jesus. I actually have never seen that.

And I practice law in Miami. Which everyone knows has is almost like a melting pot really. And there's so many different cultures down there. And I have never seen that before. So that was interesting to see, definitely, but basically what this lawsuit alleges is that the defendants and their accomplices.

So the accomplices are those five unidentified individuals, the, the named defendants being governor DeSantis, the state of Florida, all of those people, I just [00:06:00] mentioned a few seconds ago. So, what they're saying is that defendants and the accomplices designed and carried out a premeditated, fraudulent, and illegal scheme for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal financial and political interest.

Now, the allegation is basically that. The defendants were targeting the plaintiffs in Texas, pretending to be these good Samaritans, good people offering the plaintiff's humanitarian assistance. In some cases they would offer the plaintiff's $10 McDonald's gift cards in order to fill out paperwork and give them information.

And again, this is all according to the complaint. So all of these facts I'm about to give you is according to the factual allegations of the plaintiffs, this is their narrative. So just keep that in mind. This isn't me saying that these facts are true. This is just me telling you what the complaint says.

So the complaint goes on to say that once the plaintiffs were [00:07:00] lured, um, the defendants would make them false promises and false representations, basically. If these plaintiffs were willing to get on planes and go to other states, they would receive in exchange, employment, housing, and educational opportunities.

So the plaintiffs who agreed to go were put up in hotels and they were told they were either being flown to Boston or Washington DC. Instead they landed in Martha's vineyard without food, without water, without shelter. When they landed, they had attempted to. The, the defendants that being those five unidentified individuals and or accomplices, because these people had given the migrants that are phone numbers at one time and said, you know, call me if you have any issues.

Well, once the, the migrants landed, they tried to call the defendants to figure out what was going on. What were they supposed to do from here? Allegedly. And the defendants allegedly were ignoring their phone calls. [00:08:00] Also, according to the complaint right before the plaintiffs landed. So as they were in the air a few minutes before they were going to land in Martha's vineyard, they were given a red folder that contained a brochure called Massachusetts refugee benefits.

They were also given instructions on how to change an address with us citizenship and immigration services. They were given the form to change their address. They were also given an aliens change of address card. But notably the plaintiffs say, or the civil rights group says that the Massachusetts refugee benefits brochure that was given to the plaintiffs on the plane was made up by the defendants.

Not Massachusetts. There was no Massachusetts agencies involved in the, in the making of this brochure. It was completely made up by the defendants and it used language from the Massachusetts refugee resettlement program, which is a real thing. So, what it sounds like [00:09:00] is according to the civil rights group, the state of Florida had taken language from an actual refugee program in Massachusetts.

Made up their own brochure and gave it to the plaintiffs on the plane. Now the defendants, according to the plaintiffs, failed to notify anyone on Martha's vineyard failed to arrange any services that they had promised the plaintiffs. So there was no housing arranged, nothing like that. Um, and what the plaintiffs are saying is that they have suffered economic, emotional, and constitutional harms that exceed $75,000.

Now I will say this, although I do always suggest you guys read these documents for yourselves. So I have the complaint linked on my website on this podcast. Episode's webpage, but there's a particular section of the complaint that I think is important to read. And it's titled the individual plaintiff's experiences of escaping a humanitarian crisis.

Only for the defendants to use them as pawns in a political stunt. That is literally the name [00:10:00] of the section. It's a very long name. It's on page 12 of the complaint. And I recommend reading it because it gives a look into what each defendant specifically endured. So Y do PDO and hezuo and when I read it, I kind of got a different.

Feeling than I did when I read the rest of the complaint. Uh, so I don't know. I, I would just recommend you guys read it and kind of let me know your thoughts on it as always the comment section you guys should know by now is on that same webpage where you can find this link. And I really like to be able to engage in conversation with you guys.

So if you do happen to read that, let me know because. I wanna know if you felt differently about anything, about any of the factual allegations when you were reading that. Now let's talk about the press conference that governor DeSantis had, because his story is obviously very different than the complaint.

That's natural. Obviously two sides are gonna have their own story. Hence the saying two sides to every story. So [00:11:00] governor's DeSantis says that the migrants were identified in Texas. Is that, that aligns, um, with the plaintiff story and they were identified as wanting to relocate to Florida. So they basically profiled these people and found out who wanted to go to Florida, who had the intention of making their way to Florida.

And that's specifically who they targeted. Then they had the plaintiff's sign release forms to go to Massachusetts. Keep in mind that according to the class action lawsuit, the packet that they were given, all of this information was given to them right before they landed. According to governor DeSantis, it was given to them before that.

But we'll get into that. The reason that governor DeSantis gave for taking them on a plane. From Texas to Florida to Martha's vineyard was because the state of Florida has a really hard time identifying migrants in [00:12:00] cars. So typically they'll travel in pack of two or three people at a time and they'll come in in any ordinary car.

So like, how are you supposed to differentiate? Who's a migrant and who's not this way. According to DeSantis, they were able to transport 50 people at a. And that was that it was the easiest way for them to do it. Someone at the press conference asked DeSantis how he justifies taking these people from Texas and sending them to Martha's vineyard.

When the state statute requires that they be taken from Florida. And it's a really great question. And what DeSantis says is that these people are intending to go to Florida and they were, they were. Literally, um, transported from Florida. So although they came from Texas, they did land in Florida, apparently for a short amount of time before going to Martha's vineyard.

That is a bit of a gray area. Um, as far as you know, like landing in Florida, just for the sake of landing and saying they came from [00:13:00] Florida. I don't really know. I also don't, he didn't really go into specifics about, you know, how long they stayed in Florida, where they landed, why they, that wasn't really talked about.

But he did say he justifies it because these people did technically come from Florida. Um, but they started in Texas. Another question that he got was what he thinks about the allegations that these people were enticed or lured into this T. And he says, no, no, no, no, no. They weren't enticed. They weren't lured.

They were given a release form to fill out and a packet that contained a map of Martha's vineyard. So how could they not know where they were going? They were given the map of Martha's vineyard. He says it was totally voluntary. Um, he thinks that's the way it should be done. No one should be forced to do anything.

It shouldn't be mandatory for anyone. And he says that, although these people are identified and profiled as wanting to relocate to Florida, They are told what their ultimate destination will be. Now, other things that he said during the press conference was that [00:14:00] he wants sanctuary jurisdictions to put their money where their mouth is and take care of these people.

Um, you know, Martha's vineyard is a sanctuary jurisdiction yet when they got there, I guess they were saying, you know, they don't have the resources to take care of these people. He also says Florida will continue to bust people out as they currently do. And insinuated that his hope was one day down the road, less and less people will try to come to Florida.

So that is the deal with that. This class action lawsuit was just filed a couple of days ago. So we'll see how. Kind of unfolds. If you want to read the complaint for yourself, it is on my website. So with that, let's go onto our next story, which is this pandemic food program theft it's crazy, but the DOJ brought charges against 47 defendants on Tuesday for allegedly defrauding, a federal program that provided food for needy children during the pandemic.

The charges brought against these defendants include conspiracy wire fraud, money [00:15:00] laundering, and paying and receiving illegal kickbacks. So this is all based around the federal child nutrition program, which is run by the department of agriculture. And what happens is the department of agriculture distributes federal funds to state governments and each.

The program is run by its own state department. So in Minnesota, which is where all of this happened, the program is run by the Minnesota department of education and how it works is this, this federal child nutrition program provides free meals to children of lower income families. And it does this by serving meals at different sites.

Now, each site has to be sponsored by an authorized sponsoring organization. Sponsors in order to become a sponsor, have to submit an application to the Minnesota department of education for each site. And these sponsors are responsible for monitoring each of their sites, preparing reimbursement claims for each site, et cetera.

[00:16:00] So the us department of agriculture provides the Minnesota department of education, federal reimbursement funds on a per meal basis. the Minnesota department of education then gives those funds to the sponsoring agent who then pays the reimbursements to the sites under its sponsorship. So basically you have, like, if you look at it in a hi hierarchy hierarchy, there we go.

Hierarchy. Why am I having such a hard time saying that, you know what I'm trying to say? It goes the United States department of agriculture up at the top, and then under it is the state department of educat. Under that is the sponsor. And then under that are the sites that are actually providing the meals to the children that are receiving the reimbursement.

So the funds trickle down. The sponsoring agent takes about 10 to 15% of the funds as an administrative fee. So think of it like. Us department of agriculture gives the funds to the Minnesota department of [00:17:00] education who gives the funds to the sponsoring agent who takes 10 to 15% and then, and then gives the rest to the sites under the sponsorship.

Okay. So it's a reimbursement. So when the pandemic hit Congress, not only expanded the program, But also waived certain requirements for participation in an effort to get more meals out to more kids. This is where feeding our future comes in as a nonprofit organization, participating as a sponsor feeding our future was founded by Amy Bach, who is the mastermind behind this whole thing?

She's a 41 year old from apple valley, Minnesota. And she allegedly recruited people and companies that would open these sites to distribute food and fraudulently claim to be serving meals to thousands of children a day. And here's the kicker. They'd be allegedly serving these thousands of meals a day within just days of, of opening.

[00:18:00] Okay. So Amy being the founder and executive director of feeding our future. Was sponsoring these six companies and each company had anywhere from three to six individuals ranging in ages from as young as 25 to as old as 63. But the DOJ says that these defendants not only submitted fake meal count sheets, which documented the number of children and meals served at each site, but also submitted fake invoices for food purchases that never.

and submitted fake attendance, rosters with fake names and ages of children that allegedly received meals that day. And what they would do is they would go on this website called www.listofrandomnames.com and just generate all of these random names. And those are the names that they would submit. As like who they provided their meals to.

It's crazy. So they would get these reimbursement funds and they would go and spend it on cars and houses and just [00:19:00] living lavishly, the nonprofit, feeding our future. The one that sponsored these six different companies that were serving meals, went from receiving and dispersing 3.4 million in funds in 2019 to almost 200 million in 2020.

That is like a red flag. If I've ever seen one, by the end of their fraud run feeding, our future had opened more than 250 sites in Minnesota and had obtained and dispersed more than 240 million in funds. So that is what's going on with that.

The third story today is the release of AED from jail after serving 23 years for a murder conviction. And the reason he was released is actually something that [00:20:00] you don't see often. The prosecutors in the case are actually the ones that asked the judge to release Aon from jail and vacate his murder conviction.

So let's give a little bit of background of what happened, why he was convicted. And then we'll talk about why the prosecutors wanted him released. So in 2000 Aon Sayed was convicted of the 1999 murder of his ex-girlfriend hay. Hay was last seen at her high school. On January 13th, 1999, around two, 15 to 2:30 PM.

Her body was discovered weeks later in a local park and her cause of death was determined to be manual strangulation. Well, according to the state, the investigation turned to AAN odd. Nan was her ex-boyfriend. The state's theory was that the relationship was on again, off again. And the month before that she, the month before she was murdered, coincidentally, she had gotten into a new relationship, which according to the state made Aon mad and he killed her because of it.

[00:21:00] Although there was no physical evidence linking him to this crime. The prosecution's case relied very heavily on the testimony of a guy named Jay wilds. Jay wilds was a Nan's friend, as well as his co-defendant. And he testified in Adnan's trial that AAN told him he wanted to kill hay. That AAN admitted to strangling her.

That AAN showed him her body in the trunk of her car. And that the two of them buried her body in the park. Now the prosecution also used cell phone tower data to pinpoint a Nan's cell phone in the park where hay was buried at the time that Jay said that they were there. Although this sounds like incriminating, reliable evidence, it turns out that it's not.

So Jay pled guilty to accessory after the fact. And he, he testified against Ana in this case, which is that testimony that we just went over. At odd nun's trial, they found him guilty of first [00:22:00] degree murder, kidnapping robbery, and false imprisonment. And he was sentenced to life plus 30 years. But now prosecutors say that one, the cell phone tower data should have never been relied on.

And two, there were two alternative suspects that were never disclosed to the defense at ad's trial. And this is what we call a Brady violation. So a person's Brady rights are violated when the government fails to disclose evidence pointing to an alternative suspect. Um, and we won't get too far into that, but that is what you need to know.

So the prosecution filed a motion to vacate, which is linked on my website. You can read it for yourself. It's really not that long. And it's, it's pretty interesting, but they admit in their motion to vacate that the evidence against Aon was not overwhelming and it was largely circumstantial for, and that that's, that's pretty important because that says a lot about how juries view the burden of proof.

Like do juries fully understand a burden of. [00:23:00] I don't know, maybe in some cases, maybe not in all cases, but that that's just a bit concerning that, that the prosecution themselves are like, uh, yeah, the evidence really wasn't that strong and was pretty circumstantial, but yet he was found guilty. Anyway, another thing in the motion to vacate is that where Hayes car was left, which was at the 300 block of Edgewood avenue in Baltimore.

Get, this was a location known to one of the alternative suspects because a person related to him owned a house there for many years. And. Because the suspect himself lived there in 1999, which is the year of the murder. Now this information was not available at a Nan's trial because it was just uncovered this year in an investigation done by the prosecution, with the defense.

So. that is that's [00:24:00] huge. That's huge. Right? So this suspect one of the suspects lived at the place that Hayes car was left when she was killed. In addition to that, one of the new suspects told hay at one time that he could make her disappear and have her kill. The two suspects have also been charged with physical crimes in the past.

And one of the crimes was known to the state at the time of the trial, but wasn't disclosed to the defense. And by the way, if you keep hearing me refer to these as like one of the suspects, one of the suspects it's it's because the state doesn't. Clarify in its motion, which suspect is which, um, just because it's an ongoing investigation and they don't wanna release too much information about the suspects.

So I will continue to say one of the suspects. I don't know which one, but it's one of them. So in regards to the physical crimes that the two suspects have been charged with, one of the suspects was convicted of attacking a woman in her car. [00:25:00] One of the suspects was convicted of serial rape and sexual.

and one of the suspects, forcibly confined a woman that he knew and threatened to kill her, which happened before a Nan's trial and was known to the state, but was not disclosed, obviously that would have a huge impact on the case. If the defense could use that as part of their case, that odd nun didn't do it.

And that this other suspect did X, Y, and Z, you know, The defense wasn't given the chance because the state didn't disclose that information. The cell phone tower data that was used to pinpoint odd none at the park where hay was buried. Had a notice on the record that specifically advised that the locations for incoming calls would not be considered reliable information for.

yet the state used it anyway to show when ADN [00:26:00] was receiving incoming calls and where he was in the park, a Nan's attorney, although she had the records in her trial file, and she knew this little disclaimer that the locations for incoming calls wouldn't be considered reliable. She didn't cross examine the state's cell phone tower expert regarding the notice.

Now there is more in the motion, including some detective misconduct and stuff. So I do suggest you read that motion for yourself, but the prosecutors aren't necessarily saying odd on is innocent. They're just saying that given what we know now, it would not be just for us to keep him detained and keep him in jail.

Because obviously this calls the entire trial into question, and even the states like doubting his guilt, you know, so the, his release and the fact that his convictions were vacated, it doesn't necessarily mean he is 100% a free man. What it means is that the case is still active and [00:27:00] that the prosecution has 30 days to bring a new trial.

So he's not entirely free yet. I, I don't see the prosecution bringing a new trial, just given they may bring a trial against someone else, but given what they know, I don't see them bringing a new, a new trial because the reality is the prosecution admitted. There wasn't much evidence against Adan in the first place.

So unless they uncovered more evidence since he's been in jail, They don't really have anything to. to, to, to bring to a new trial, you know what I mean? And if they did, they wouldn't ask for his convictions to be vacated. If you're interested in hearing more about this case, I highly suggest listening to season one of the serial podcast.

It's spelled S E R I a L like serial killer. It's available on apple podcast, Google podcast or Pandora? No, this is not sponsored, but I've heard such great things about this podcast. And the whole season one is dedicated to ad Nan's trial and like his [00:28:00] convictions and they cast doubt on the entire thing.

And they've been dead set from the beginning that he is not guilty, but that I've heard rave reviews. Without further ado. Let's talk about the last story of the episode. The New York state attorney general Latisha James has filed a 250 million lawsuit in the state of New York. Obviously against Donald Trump, his children, the Trump organization, and others.

This complaint is 222 pages. It has a full blown table of contents. There is a lot in it. And basically what this lawsuit is alleging is fraud. Um, specifically that Donald Trump and the other defendants have systematically misstated values of properties and they have overvalued assets. So one example is that the lawsuit says Donald Trump valued his moral Lago property on the false premise that it's sat on unrestricted property [00:29:00] and it could be developed for residential use, even though he allegedly knew that the asset was subject to a slew of restrictions.

According to Latisha James, who is again, the New York attorney general, Malago generated less than 25 million in annual revenue and should have been valued at about 75 million, but was valued at 739 million. Now the lawsuit has seven total causes of action. Causes of action are basically what is the basis of the lawsuit?

What are, where are the illegalities? So one is persistent and repeated fraud. Two is falsifying business records. Three is conspiracy to falsify business records, four issuing false financial statements, five conspiracy to falsify false financial statements, six insurance fraud, and seven conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.

According to the complaint. This is a three year long investigation where they've interviewed 65 witnesses. They've sifted through millions of pages of documents. [00:30:00] And the attorney general says that Donald Trump engaged in numerous acts of fraud and representation in the preparation of annual statements from 2011 to 2021, the complaint goes on to say that the acts of fraud, grossly inflated Donald Trump's net worth by billions of dollars.

And that the statements were used to obtain funds from lenders. And induce insurance companies to provide higher limits at lower premiums. Now I mentioned that this was a 250 million lawsuit, so yes, the state is seeking 250 million, but in addition to that, the state is also requesting that the trustees of the Donald J.

Trump provokable trust to be replaced with new independent trustees, that an independent monitor is appointed to oversee compliance, financial reportings, valuations, and disclosures for no less than five years. They're also asking that Donald Trump and the Trump organization be barred from entering into any New York state commercial real estate acquisition for the next five years and barred from applying [00:31:00] for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York department of financial services for the next five years.

They're also asking that Donald Trump Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump, Jr. And Eric Trump. Be barred from serving as an officer or director in any near corporation or similar business entity registered and or licensed in New York state. They're also asking for a few other things, but those were the ones that stood out to me.

The complaint again, is linked on my website. Now, in response to this complaint, Donald Trump has called this lawsuit, quote, another witch hunt. And he said that Latisha James was motivated by her own reelection bid. He made a post on truth social and in part said, quote, another witch hunt by a racist attorney, general Latisha, James.

I never thought this case would be brought until I saw her really bad poll numbers. She is a fraud who campaigned on a quote get Trump platform. Despite the fact that the city is one of the crime and murder disasters at the [00:32:00] world under her watch end quote. Donald Trump Jr. Responded by saying quote, the bullshit D witch hunt continues that was on Twitter.

Eric Trump posted on truth, social saying quote Latisha. James is the most corrupt attorney general in the United States history. She campaigned on the promise to Sue my father and Trump's lawyer. Alina Haba said in a statement quote, Today's filing is neither focused on the facts nor the law, rather it is solely focused on advancing the attorney General's political agenda.

It is abundantly clear that the attorney General's office has exceeded its authority by prying into transactions where absolutely no wrongdoing has taken place. We are confident that our judicial system will not stand for this unchecked abusive authority. And we look forward to defending our client against each and every one of the attorney General's meritless claims end quote.

So that was the response from the Trump side of things, by the way. I it's so funny. I posted about this story on TikTok [00:33:00] and you know, if you're listening to my podcast, I pride myself on my unbiased take on things. And there were a couple things I said in the TikTok video, one of them being factual allegations as per the complaint, because that.

Literally what they're called. They are called in the pleadings in legal, in legal pleadings, factual allegations. And they are the facts. According to the party filing the complaint doesn't mean that they're true. It just means that this is what the plaintiff believes is true. And they are called factual allegations.

And I had a couple people call me out for saying, like, saying that these are facts. I'm like, guys, it's literally what it's called. I'm not, I'm not saying these are like the 100% certain facts. Just saying it's called factual allegations. And then the other instance was at the end of the video, I said, importantly, Trump has responded saying, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And someone was like, oh importantly. And you say, this is unbiased. And I'm like, the, that is important. Like, it is important to give both sides of things. So it's just funny how you can [00:34:00] be unbiased and people will always think. You're biased because of a word you use or something you say that you like didn't intend at all to be biased, but I think people's own biases get in the way sometimes.

So that's my little spiel on that, but I hope you enjoyed this episode. I'm really glad I got to push out a Thursday episode for you guys. And as always comment on my website, let me know your thoughts on these stories. Really curious to hear your guys' opinion and just, you know, I like sparking.

Substantive conversation with you guys because substantive conversation is how people with differing viewpoints find a way to somehow get along in most cases. So with that being said, that is the end of this episode, please. If you enjoyed it, leave me a five star review on whichever platform you listen.

It really, really supports me and my show. And I will talk to you guys on Monday.[00:35:00]