The Whole Truth with Jill Rosensweig

In the 8th episode of Season 2 of the podcast, Attorney Rosensweig walks you through the arguments that are being raised regarding the constitutionality of moving forward with an impeachment trial of a former president.  She explains the articles of the Constitution that speak to this issue and she talks about the two instances in which former senators were impeached after no longer being in office.  Attorney Rosensweig also touches upon the likelihood of Donald Trump's conviction and the potential point in moving forward with impeachment where the option of removing a president is no longer viable.  This episode is a crash course on impeachment that even kids can enjoy.  

In this episode, Attorney Rosensweig talks about the leaked phone call between Donald Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State.  Was it permissible to leak the call? What was the call about?  What is the status of the lawsuits currently pending in Georgia in which Trump is alleging the Georgia election results are wrong?  Attorney Rosensweig shares her (arguably controversial) thoughts on the matter in this episode.

In this week's episode, Jill speaks with Eric Lorenzo, an immigration attorney based out of New York, about all things immigration law.  They discuss additional hurdles that are currently in place in terms of securing a visa during the pandemic, increased fees that were proposed by the Trump administration, thus making it harder for foreigners to secure employment in the U.S., issues relating to DACA and more.   Jill also asks Attorney Lorenzo what he expects will change with respect to immigration under a Biden administration.  If you are interested in immigration law, this episode is for you. 

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing a decision that was issued by a federal appeals court, blocking two ordinances on First Amendment grounds in Florida that ban licensed therapists from providing “conversion therapy” to minors.  This was a 2-1 decision with the 2 judges who ruled to allow conversion therapy being appointees of Donald Trump.  Conversion therapy seeks to change sexual orientation for gay people and the majority opinion was not persuaded by the research showing that this type of therapy can lead to depression and suicide in children.  Is Conversion Therapy free speech or is it professional conduct (as was argued by the defendants) and thus not protected by the 1st amendment? Also, how much did the judges' personal views affect their decision in this case?  What will happen if this case is appealed to the Supreme Court?  Will the current makeup of the Court result in laws banning conversion therapy being deemed unconstitutional? All of this and more is discussed in this episode. 

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig talks about the fake ballot boxes that have been discovered in various parts of California and how the Republican Party has admitted that they are responsible for placing them around the State.  Are they legal or is this a form of voter fraud?  Attorney Rosensweig explains what ballot harvesting is, what the law is in California regarding ballot harvesting, and whether or not fake ballot boxes fall within the confines of the law.  Please check out this episode and also Jill's Covid-19 children's book, Bailey Bloom and the Battle of the Bug. 

In episode 3, Season 2 of the podcast, Attorney Rosensweig is breaking down each aspect of the Breonna Taylor case so that her listeners can really understand what questions they might ask when assessing whether the officers should have been put on trial for her death.  Attorney Rosensweig goes over the following: 1) Were there sufficient grounds for a search warrant to have been issued?  2) Should the search warrant have been a knock and announce as opposed to a no-knock warrant? 3) Did the castle doctrine provide Breonna Taylor's boyfriend a legitimate defense in shooting an officer when law enforcement barged into their apartment in the middle of the night in plain clothes? 4) How dangerous are no-knock warrants, especially in states where there is the castle doctrine?  5) Did the police use excessive force when firing 32 bullets in response to 1? 6) What exactly happened with the grand jury and who is to blame for these officers walking free?  This is a complex episode but one worth listening to, especially if you want to understand the systemic challenges that exist within the criminal justice system. Also, please check out the most recent episode of Be Here for a While on which Attorney Rosensweig was a guest this week; and, please check out her Covid-19 children's book, Bailey Bloom and the Battle of the Bug. 

On episode 2 of Season 2 of the podcast, Attorney Rosensweig speaks with New York personal injury attorney, Matthew Haicken, about his quest to change the law in New York so that convicted felons who have completed their sentences can be called for jury duty.  Matthew explains why banning those with felony convictions from serving on juries not only keeps those individuals from feeling fully reintegrated into society, it also hurts criminal defendants who have the right to a jury of their peers as well as plaintiffs in personal injury cases who benefit from having a jury comprised of people with similar life experiences.  Matthew explains how race and systemic racism plays a factor in excluding convicted felons from jury pools and how he was able to convince conservative Republicans to get on board with his proposed change in the law.  More broadly, if you have ever thought about how you might go about changing a law when you are neither a politician nor a political activist, this episode is without a doubt for you.  Get ready to be inspired!  

In today's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing the Portland protests and whether or not the US government had the right to enter the city based upon an executive order that Donald Trump signed in late June.  The executive order stated that the US government had the right to protect the federal courthouse in Portland and, just days later, various federal agencies entered Portland and started using pepper spray, batons and other non-lethal forms of ammunition to "quell" the protests.  Just last week, a group of women (aka the Wall of Moms) filed a lawsuit, asking the court to declare that the US government was acting unlawfully and days later, the US government packed up and left the area.  Does that executive order give the US government the right to enter cities and use force against people protesting?  Attorney Rosensweig explores the law as it relates to whether the federal government has the authority to police the protests and the viability of this court case. 

On June 20, 2020, Donald Trump is holding a political rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma in an enclosed arena in which he is anticipating approximately 19,000 attendees.  The date of the rally was originally June 19th but he moved it one day amid outcry over its clash with the Juneteenth holiday marking the end of US slavery.  In order to purchase tickets for the event, one must click on an agreement, waiving the right to sue if the purchaser or their guests contract Covid-19.  Is this waiver enforceable? Who exactly is bound by it?  Can attendees sue if they are assuming the risk of contracting Covid-19 at this event? Attorney Rosensweig discusses the various flaws with this waiver, she discusses the challenges a plaintiff might face in asserting a negligence claim against Donald Trump and the event organizers, and she also discusses waivers generally since waivers will be something businesses will be contemplating preparing at this time and consumers will be confronted with having to sign.   

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig talks about qualified immunity and how this legal doctrine shields police officers from being held civilly liable even when a court determines that the officer used excessive force.  Attorney Rosensweig uses a recent Supreme Court decision to explain what qualified immunity is and how a court determines whether or not a police officer can be shielded by it.  Attorney Rosensweig also explains how this legal doctrine came to be, how it has evolved over the years and where things currently stand in terms of how easy it is for a police officer to escape civil liability even when it is glaringly obvious that he/she violated a person's 4th amendment rights.  Ms. Rosensweig also explains how this legal doctrine might impact a potential civil suit relating to the recent murder of George Floyd and she generally explains how qualified immunity is a contributing factor in the rise of excessive force.  If you are trying to better understand how excessive force seems to persist in the United States without repercussions, this episode hopefully sheds some light on just one factor that contributes to this problem.  

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing citizen's arrest laws and how they relate to the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, the young man who was jogging through a quiet, Georgia neighborhood when he was savagely gunned down by a father and son.  Can Gregory and Travis McMichael successfully argue that the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery was lawful by asserting that what they did was further to a lawful citizen's arrest?  Is there any way they can prove that what they did met Georgia's citizen's arrest statute?  Even if, hypothetically, Ahmaud Arbery was actually running away after committing a crime, did they comply with the law in terms of what they did once they stopped him?  Does the law allow a civilian to not just stop someone but kill them?  Ms. Rosensweig explains the citizen's arrest law in terms of when it is lawful to "arrest" a person and, more importantly, what it allows someone to do once making a citizen's arrest.  Ms. Rosensweig also talks about the dangers in keeping citizen's arrest laws on the books and how these laws have been used by people to commit heinous and often racially motivated crimes.   

Hi Everyone! In this week's episode, I'm talking about a lawsuit that was filed by a non-profit in Washington against Fox News, in which it is alleged that Fox News downplayed Coronavirus by calling it a hoax, which undermined efforts to slow the spread of the disease and put its viewers at risk.  The lawsuit asserts that Fox News violated the Consumer Protection Act by engaging in "deceptive practices".  The lawsuit focuses on statements made by Sean Hannity and Trish Regan.  Fox News has moved to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting that the statements that were made have been distorted.  Fox News also asserts that, even if the statements made were false, they are still protected by the 1st amendment and that other media outlets made statements downplaying how serious Covid-19 was during the same time period.  This case really turns on whether the 1st Amendment protects false statements that could pose a health risk.  We know that statements that create an "imminent" health risk (i.e. screaming fire in a crowded theater) are NOT protected by the 1st amendment but are statements likening Covid-19 to the flu or calling it a hoax the same? All of this is discussed in this episode. 

In this episode of the podcast, Attorney Rosensweig discusses a lawsuit that was filed by 3 pastors and one church congregant against California Governor, Gavin Newsom, and various other government leaders, in which they are claiming that by not including in-person church services on the essential services list, the government is violating their 1st amendment rights.  They are claiming that, even though the shelter-at-home orders do include virtual faith-based services as essential, by not allowing them to place hands on their congregants, perform baptisms and congregate in person, their right to freely exercise their religion is being violated.  Are these stay-at-home orders unfairly targeting religion or are the laws neutral in that they are aiming to shut down all activities that are not essential?  What about the fact that coffee shops and marijuana dispensaries are open? Does this support the claim that churches are being unfairly targeted?  Conversely, does the fact that schools are closed demonstrate that the government is not discriminating against religious institutions and its goal is to only allowing essential services to remain open for in-person interactions? Attorney Rosensweig discusses all of this and more in this episode.   

Hi Everyone! In episode 45 of the podcast, Attorney Rosensweig is explaining how Covid-19 might be impacting your contractual rights/obligations.  If you have a contract with someone, can they simply not perform their end of the agreement by arguing that the global pandemic is making it impossible for them to fulfill their obligations?  What if, despite the global pandemic, they could still find ways, like providing services via Zoom, to perform but they're choosing not to?  For those who truly cannot perform right now because of a shelter-in-place order or some other reason beyond their control, do they need to worry about getting sued by the other party to the contract?  What exactly does your Force Majeure (Act of God) provision need to say to apply to this global pandemic and what if your contract has no Force Majeure provision at all?  Attorney Rosensweig is discussing all of this and more in this episode. 

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig dives deeper into questions relating to the global pandemic and its impact on real estate.  This week, she is speaking with real estate broker, Chadd Levine, specifically about how to navigate any concerns you may have regarding making your mortgage payments at this time.  Can you simply stop making payments?  Should you seek a forbearance, effectively pausing your mortgage obligations? How about refinancing so that your monthly payments are lower?  Is it possible to borrow against your property to have more liquidity right now?  Finally, what happens to people who are suddenly not earning an income because of Coronavirus but they were in the midst of securing a loan?   Is all hope lost?  Mr. Levine gives sound, solid and clear advice as to how to get through this challenging and unprecedented time. 

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is speaking with seasoned real estate lawyer, Pierre Debbas, managing partner of Romer Debbas, about how the Coronavirus pandemic is affecting the real estate market.  Will you have to pay your mortgage during the crisis?  What happens if you are unable to pay?  Will the federal government suspend all mortgage payments during the crisis?  What if they don't? What about paying rent?  Can you get evicted? How is the pandemic affecting retailers who cannot afford to pay rent while their stores are closed?  Pierre explains all of this and more in this important episode. 

Have you ever looked up a business on Yelp or Google and seen one negative review after the next, all sounding nearly identical and obviously written by the same person?  Today's guest, a psychologist from Toronto, Ontario, experience just this thing.  For approximately 5 years now, an unknown individual has been writing vicious reviews on various websites and his legal options are sadly very limited.  How can you sue someone when you have no idea who they are and can't find them, even after hiring a private investigator?  How can you sue the websites who allow "customers" to leave glaringly fake reviews when there are laws in place to shield them from liability? Discussing all of this and more in this week's episode! 

Have any of you noticed that prices for face masks, hand sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, etc. have skyrocketed ever since the Coronavirus (Covid-19)? Have you wondered if it's legal for individuals and/or companies to increase prices exponentially so that they can take advantage of people's panic and desperation?  Attorney Rosensweig discusses all of this and more and explores one of the legal ramifications of the Coronavirus that is not being widely covered by mainstream media. 

In this week's episode of the Whole Truth with Jill Rosensweig, Attorney Rosensweig is providing a detailed analysis of the sexual assault and rape charges that Harvey Weinstein faced and exactly what he was convicted of (and what he was not).  Attorney Rosensweig describes the allegations that were made by Miriam Haley, which resulted in a conviction of 1st degree Criminal Sexual Assault and compares them against the allegations of Annabella Sciorra, which could have resulted in the most serious conviction of predatory sexual assault but did not.  Why did the jury believe Miriam Haley's story but they presumably did not believe Annabella Sciorra's?  Their stories are strikingly similar so what led to this inconsistent result?  Attorney Rosensweig reviews the strengths and weaknesses of both claims and provides various theories for you to consider so that you can decide for yourself.   And, while most feel the result of this trial is a huge victory, are you frustrated with the fact that Harvey Weinstein was not convicted of predatory sexual assault when approximately 80 women have come forward with allegations of sexual assault, rape and/or sexual harassment against him?  Attorney Rosensweig discusses all of this and more in the 40th episode. 

In April 2016, a woman who went by the pseudonym, Katie Johnson, filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, claiming that they both savagely raped her when she was 13 years old.  Just four days prior to the presidential election, the case was suddenly dropped and the plaintiff has been silent ever since.  Why did the plaintiff drop her case?  Is it true that the plaintiff was being threatened at that time?  Is what she alleged in her complaint credible?  Do you see differences between the complaint she filed in California when she didn't have an attorney and the complaint she later filed when she was represented by counsel that would make you doubt the veracity of her claim?  Does the affidavit from the assistant to Jeffrey Epstein, who confirms everything the plaintiff alleges convince you that the plaintiff is being truthful in her account?  Why did the media hardly cover this case?  Is it possible we will hear from this woman again, as a witness in the cases that have been filed by other women who claim they were raped and trafficked as young girls against Jeffrey Epstein's estate?  Could this woman possibly file her lawsuit again, now that New York has extended the statute of limitations to allow these suits to proceed?  Does the possibility that these rapes might have been videotaped provide sufficient "new evidence" that the plaintiff could move to reopen her case even though she voluntarily discontinued it?  Attorney Rosensweig discusses all of this and more in this episode.    

Michelle Carter, a young woman who encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself, was released from jail on Thursday, after just under a year behind bars.  Carter was just 17 years old when her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, died by suicide after sitting in his truck, which was filled with carbon monoxide.  The evidence revealed that, in the weeks prior to that fateful day, Michelle Carter had sent Conrad text message after text message, urging him to kill himself.  However, despite what the media has widely reported, Michelle Carter was not convicted of involuntary manslaughter due to those text messages.  In fact, the Court determined that those text messages were not Michelle Carter's crime.  Instead, it was when Conrad Roy got out of his truck midway through his suicide attempt and was on the phone with Carter telling her that he did not want to go through with it where her crime was committed.  Instead of encouraging him to stay out of the truck, Carter confessed to a friend that she commanded him to get back in and finish things.  And, when she knew he was back in the truck and was dying, she did nothing to save him.  It was based on her commanding him to get back in the car and doing nothing to save him from the danger she created that the Court concluded Carter was responsible for Roy's death and why she was ultimately convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  Do you agree? Can someone's words alone over a telephone be the cause of another person's suicide?  Do words constitute "conduct" as required by the law in Massachusetts?  Does charging someone with involuntary manslaughter based on their words alone violate that person's right to free speech?  In the age of social media, should remotely coercing someone to commit suicide be illegal?  Attorney Rosensweig examines all of this and more in this episode. 

Hi Everyone! This is Jill.  I recorded this to say hi and let you know that I was not able to record a real episode this week.  My daughter's 5th birthday is this weekend, we have a big Frozen 2 party coming up and my in-laws arrive in just a couple of hours! On top of the birthday, my in-laws will be renewing their vows in honor of their 40th wedding anniversary!  And, guess who's officiating?! ME! So, no time for a real episode this week but I will be posting one early next week.  Promise! For now, please send Happy Birthday vibes to my sweet daughter and Happy Anniversary/Vow Renewal vibes to my in-laws. Also, if you know anything about how to officiate a vow renewal, please contact me at thewholetruthpod@gmail.com! I need help! Thanks! 

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing a lawsuit that was filed by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against Remington Arms, who manufactured the assault weapon that was used during that mass shooting. Just last month, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Remington Arms, which argued that it is immune from liability and cannot be sued because of a 2005 federal law, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes.  However, the Plaintiffs argued that they can proceed in suing the manufacturer because their theory of the case falls within an exception to the federal law (called the Predicate Exception), which says that gun manufacturers can be sued when they violate a separate state or federal law that "applies to" the sale or marketing of the product.  The Plaintiffs allege that Remington violated Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in deceptive and unfair marketing practices by selling an assault weapon as dangerous as the AR-15-style rifle to the public for home protection.  Plaintiff's argued that by violating Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, Remington has subjected itself to being sued since that law "applies to" the sale of its product.  Remington argued that the only way it would be subject to suit would be if it violated a law that relates solely to the sale of firearms but the Court disagreed.  The Court said that as long as there is a law that can be "applied to" the sale of firearms, it does not need to be a law that exclusively relates to the sale of firearms.  The Court, in employing a broader interpretation of the exception to the statute, is allowing the Plaintiffs to finally move forward with their case and the implications of this precedent setting ruling cannot be understated.  This decision is a huge victory for victims of mass shootings in circumventing the PLCAA so that they can sue the makers of firearms who are marketing military style weapons to the public for home protection.  Will the Court ultimately decide that Remington is liable for the Sandy Hook shooting?  Did Remington engage in unfair or deceptive marketing practices?  Will the Plaintiffs be able to prove that Remington's unfair or deceptive marketing practices caused the shooter, Adam Lanza, to use the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, thus enabling him to kill 26 innocent people, 20 of whom were children, in less than 5 minutes? All of this remains to be seen but what we do know for now is that the Plaintiffs will have their day in Court and that, in and of itself, is a victory. 

In this episode of the podcast, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing the case that was filed in federal court by Khairuldeen Makhzoomi against Southwest Airlines, after he was removed from a flight in 2016.  At the time, Makhzoomi was 26 years old, a student at UC Berkley, an Iraqi refugee and American citizen.  The night before the flight, Makhzoomi had attended a UN event and was able to ask a question of the Secretary General regarding Iraq trying to liberate people in Mosul from ISIS.   When he boarded the plane, he called his uncle in Iraq to tell him about the exciting events from the night before.  A woman sitting in front of him heard him speaking in Arabic and thought she heard him say a word that means "Martyr" in her own language.  She became concerned so she reported him.  He was then removed from the plane for questioning and, according to him, a Southwest agent told him that he should not be speaking "that language" on the plane and that he would not be taking that flight.  After being patted down by police, sniffed by a K-9 and questioned by the FBI, he was finally released and left to find another way home.  Makhzoomi, after not receiving an apology from Southwest filed suit and Southwest tried to dismiss the case, arguing that Makhzoomi failed to show that he was discriminated against in any way.  Was Makhzoomi prevented from taking the flight because of “Islamophobia,” or was it simply a matter of Southwest believing there was a legitimate safety risk in having him take the flight? Did Makhzoomi admit to a Southwest employee that he said the words bomb, jihad (holy war), shahidi (martyr) and ISIS on that call with his uncle or was that completely fabricated by the employee who made the call to keep him off the plane?  Also, does it matter that the employee who decided to keep Makhzoomi off the flight is also Arabic speaking and a devout Muslim?  What about the argument that airline employees are immune from liability as long as they can show that they are acting due to a safety concern?  Ms. Rosensweig is discussing all of this and more in this episode. 

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing the sexual assault of Carlota Prado (from Big Brother Spain) and whether the show should be held liable for a) filming the assault but doing nothing to intervene and b) forcing the victim to watch footage of the assault while locked in the diary room and begging to be let out.  Ms. Rosensweig is also discussing similar instances of sexual assault and harassment on Big Brother U.S., Survivor and MTV's the Challenge. What are the producers required to do when a contestant assaults another contestant on the show?  Do the victims qualify as employees, such that the show has a special duty to keep them safe?  Can the producers escape liability by pointing to the contracts that the contestants sign in which they agree that they are not "employees" and that the show is not responsible for any physical harm that comes to them while filming?  What about the show's responsibility to vet the contestants and reject contestants with criminal backgrounds?  Ms. Rosensweig discusses the legal arguments that are made surrounding these issues and weighs in with her thoughts vis-à-vis liability within the reality TV world. 

This week, Uber finally released a report in which it revealed that there were nearly 6,000 incidents of sexual assault reported by Uber passengers, almost 500 of which were rapes, during 2017 and 2018.  Not only are these numbers disturbing, they also beg the question: At what point should Uber be held liable for the criminal acts of its drivers? Can Uber escape liability by successfully arguing that its drivers are not employees and are, instead, independent contractors?  If, as Ms. Rosensweig believes, Uber drivers would be considered employees, can Uber still escape vicarious liability by arguing that the sexual assaults fall outside of the scope of the drivers' employment?  What about asserting a claim that Uber should be held liable for negligently hiring and/or supervising Uber Drivers with sketchy pasts that might suggest that they could perpetrate a violent crime like this?  Ms. Rosensweig explores all of this and more in this episode.  

This week, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing the $13 million lawsuit that was filed by D.C. author, Natasha Tynes, against her publisher after it announced that it would no longer be publishing her book following claims of her online racism.  Natasha Tynes was riding the subway just weeks before her book was set to be released when she tweeted about an African American MTA worker eating on the train (including a photograph of the unsuspecting woman eating and alerting the MTA as to where and when she saw this MTA worker eating).  The Twitterverse was very upset about what it deemed to be a racist attack against this MTA worker and, after receiving threats to boycott the publisher's other authors, the publisher decided to release a statement saying that it would no longer publish Ms. Tynes' book.  Ultimately, the publisher did publish the book but Ms. Tynes filed suit anyway, asserting claims of defamation, emotional distress and breach of contract and seeking $13 million in damages.  Attorney Adam J. Schwartz, who represented the publisher in this fascinating lawsuit, describes the intricacies of the case and how it ultimately settled. We discuss SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) and the way that some states are enacting statutes to force plaintiffs to pay for defendants' legal fees if it is determined that their lawsuit was indeed a SLAPP suit, filed solely for the purpose of trying to silence someone's free speech by harassing them with a frivolous lawsuit.  What are anti-SLAPP motions?  Why have only some states and not others enacted statutes to push back against SLAPP suits? Why has there not been a federal statute to prohibit SLAPP suits? What about other types of frivolous claims that are rampant in the U.S.? My esteemed guest and I discuss all of this and more in this engaging and philosophical episode. 

In episode thirty-two of the podcast, Attorney Rosensweig is talking all things Fortnite! Parents of two boys in Quebec, Canada are seeking permission to file a class action against the maker of Fortnite, Epic Games, alleging that Epic Games designed a game that is as addictive as cocaine and has all but destroyed the lives of their children.  The primary legal theory in the case is that Epic Games failed to warn consumers that Fortnite is addictive and, for that reason, Epic Games should be held liable for the damages suffered by these children.  The lawsuit was brought after a Quebec appeals court upheld an enormous verdict against tobacco companies based upon a similar "failure to warn" theory.  Will the Court in this case view Fortnite in the same way it did smoking?  Will the Court apportion some of the liability to the parents for failing to curb their children's gaming activities? Does Epic Games have a duty to warn consumers that Fortnite is addictive if it's widely known that video games are addictive? Is Fortnite that much more addictive than other video games, thus creating an added need to warn consumers when contemplating downloading this game?  This is a must-listen episode for parents who are inevitably confronted with the "should I allow my child to play X video game" question.   

In this week's episode, I am discussing the jury's award of $8 billion in punitive damages to a young man who grew breasts after taking Risperdal as a child.  Risperdal is a drug that was approved by the FDA for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in adults but was prescribed off label to the Plaintiff when he was 9 years old for systems related to autism spectrum disorder.   It is alleged in the lawsuit that the same year he was prescribed the drug, the defendants conducted a study showing that young boys taking Risperdal could lead to the growth of breast tissue but that study was not disclosed to the FDA.  It is also alleged that J&J was marketing the drug to kids, while knowing of this elevated risk of breast growth and not disclosing it.  What does this verdict say to drug companies?  What does this case say about off label drug use in general?  All of this and more is covered in this episode. 

In this week's episode of the podcast, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing a class action lawsuit that was filed by three convicted sex offenders last month against a sheriff in Butts County Georgia who put "no trick or treating" signs in their yards just before Halloween last year.  The petitioners in the case are claiming that the signs constitute compelled speech in violation of their first amendment rights.  Do these signs qualify as "compelled speech" when the signs themselves make clear that the message is coming from the sheriff's office? Is speech that is clearly coming from the government unconstitutional if a citizen is being forced to display that speech on their private property?  Ms. Rosensweig compares this case to the landmark Wooley case, where the Court decided that it was unconstitutional to force someone to display a license plate that says "Live Free or Die" on their car since this qualified as "ideological speech" and the plaintiff in that case did not agree with the government's message.  Ms.  Rosensweig opines as to whether these signs in sex offenders' lawns also qualify as "ideological" speech and, if they do not, could they still be considered compelled speech based on comments made in other Supreme Court cases?  Finally, Ms. Rosensweig discusses whether or not these lawn signs achieve a compelling government interest in protecting the public and if they are narrowly drawn in doing so.  All of this and more is discussed in this episode. 

In today's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing the case that was filed by a blind man who complained that he was unable to order a customized pizza off of Domino's website because the website was not made accessible to the blind.  He claimed that Domino's violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires that all "places of public accommodation" be equally accessible to the blind.  The 9th Circuit Court agreed and the Supreme Court declined to take the case, thus resulting in a win for the Plaintiff.  This begs the question:  Is a website a place of public accommodation?  Fascinatingly, the courts are split on this issue because the law was written at a time when there was no Internet.  What do courts do when a law is outdated and does not account for modern technology?  Do the Courts in NY have it right, that a website is a public accommodation and needs to be ADA compliant?  Or, did the California court in the Domino's case get it right when it said that a website must be ADA compliant ONLY IF that website is for a business that has a physical brick and mortar storefront (i.e. a "place")?  Should the courts be following the "spirit of the law" or the "letter of the law" and what should they do when the spirit of the law and the letter of the law are inconsistent?  All of this and more will be discussed in this episode.  

In this episode of the Whole Truth with Jill Rosensweig, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing the ethics complaint that was just filed against Judge Kemp who, after sentencing Amber Guyger to ten years in prison for the murder of Botham Jean, handed Guyger a bible and told her which portions to read when Guyger asked the judge if God would ever forgive her.  The ethics complaint contends that Judge Kemp's actions violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits government actors from taking any actions that favor one religion over another or religion over non-religion or non-religion over religion.  Was handing her personal bible to the defendant in a criminal case while the judge was still wearing her robe and just moments after the sentencing hearing concluded appropriate?  Should the judge be reprimanded when trying to show compassion toward the defendant?  If no religion should be advanced in a courtroom why is it okay to have bibles and other religious symbols in court?  Attorney Rosensweig discusses all of this and more in this episode. 

In this episode of The Whole Truth With Jill Rosensweig, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing SB 276, the new law that was just passed in California, which makes it harder for parents to send their unvaccinated children to school by asserting that they are exempt from the State's vaccine requirements due to medical reasons.  Is this new law constitutional or does it improperly infringe upon a parent's right to make medical decisions for their child?  What is the history of vaccine laws in the United States?  How are they viewed from a constitutional law perspective? What do the Courts say when analyzing whether the safety of the public outweighs a parent's concerns about vaccines? What are the potential legal challenges one could make with respect to this new law? All of this and more will be discussed in this controversial but important episode. 

In this episode of the Whole Truth with Jill Rosensweig, we are discussing D*ck Pics! Are they considered a form of free speech? Can one be criminally penalized for sending them? Ms. Rosensweig discusses the recent law that was passed in Texas making it a crime to send D*ck Pics and a similar bill that was recently introduced in New York, both making it a misdemeanor offense to send explicit photos without the recipient's consent.  Attorney Rosensweig also discusses a decision that came down in Texas in which the Court struck down a revenge porn law on the basis that it violated one's first amendment right to free speech, since that decision is instructive in terms of whether or not the Texas d*ck pic law will survive a legal challenge.  Were these laws narrowly drawn enough to be considered constitutional?  What are the implications of these laws when it comes to "explicit" works of art or innocent photos that happen to show a person's "intimate" parts?  Ms. Rosensweig covers all of this and more in this arousing episode! 

In the 25th episode of The Whole Truth With Jill Rosensweig, Attorney Rosensweig discusses the recent resolution that was filed in the House of Representatives, seeking an inquiry as to whether Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached.  This raises many questions, including, how does the impeachment process work?  What would be the grounds to impeach Kavanaugh?  What is the likelihood of the senate convicting him and removing him from the Supreme Court?  What is the burden of proof?  What is the smartest strategy in terms of what to focus on in trying to successfully impeach and convict Kavanaugh?  Do you simply have to prove the allegations of sexual misconduct are true or do you need to prove that he lied about these incidents?  Ms. Rosensweig discusses all of this and more in this episode. 

In this episode, Ms. Rosensweig discusses the landmark ruling in Martin v. Boise, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case which determined that it is an unconstitutional violation of one's 8th amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when a homeless person is charged with a crime for sleeping outside.  Ms. Rosensweig will discuss the case itself, the cases that the 9th circuit relied upon in coming to its decision and what the real-life consequences are of such a decision on cities that are dealing with significant homelessness issues.  Ms. Rosensweig will also explain the arguments that are made by the City of Boise in its recent petition to the Supreme Court to have it overrule the 9th Circuit Court's decision.  Is arresting a homeless person for sleeping outside when they have nowhere to go reasonable or is it cruel and unusual? What if certain people are homeless by choice and do have somewhere to seek shelter?  What about the health and safety concerns that arise when large amounts of people are sleeping outside?  And, what about the residential neighborhoods and businesses that are affected? Ms. Rosensweig discusses these delicate issues and more in this episode. 

In the 23rd episode of this podcast, Attorney Rosensweig discusses the recent petition that was filed in the Supreme Court by Adnan Syed's attorneys.  In that petition, Syed's lawyers are pressing for him to get a new trial based upon the argument that his 6th amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when his attorney failed to call an alibi witness who could confirm that Adnan Syed was at the library during the exact 20 minute window in which the prosecution was claiming he murdered his ex-girlfriend in a Best Buy parking lot.  Did the Maryland Court of Appeals get it wrong when they decided Syed was not prejudiced by his lawyer failing to present this key witness at trial?  Could the Maryland Court of Appeals ignore the well-established standard of evaluating prejudice and deny Syed the right to a new trial by coming up with this hypothetical that a jury might have ignored the prosecution's timeline and convicted Syed anyway? Ms. Rosensweig discusses all of this and more in this episode and ultimately gives her opinion as to whether or not she believes Syed's attorneys have adequately shown that Syed was prejudiced and deserves another day in Court. 

In this episode of the podcast, Jill is discussing Extreme Risk Laws, also known as Red Flag Laws, which enable a family member or police officer to obtain a court order to prevent a person from possessing firearms when a court is convinced that there are "red flags" that show that the person is at risk of harming themselves or others.  There are currently 17 states with Extreme Risk Laws in place and it is uncontroverted that the laws are helping to prevent deaths by suicide, mass shootings and other deaths via firearms.  So, why are some people against these laws being enacted?  Is it true that they are unnecessary?  Do they really violate the 2nd Amendment?  Why is it that many states only enact these laws after there has been a mass shooting? Attorney Rosensweig discusses all of this and more in this episode. 

In the 21st episode of this podcast, we will take a break from covering a legal issue and hear all about the host of this podcast instead! Who is she? Where is she from?  What is her legal background?  What about her personal life?  If you've been listening to this podcast and are somewhat curious about the host, this short episode will give you a little bit of insight into Ms. Rosensweig's life.  

Today, Ms. Rosensweig will be talking about the family of a three-year-old boy who was born with a rare congenital heart defect, leaving the left side of his heart critically underdeveloped.  The boy was set to have a potentially life saving procedure in Boston and just days before the surgery was scheduled, the family learned that their insurance provider was denying coverage of the procedure.  Despite their doctor explaining that no in-network provider can perform this much-needed procedure, the insurance company denied coverage, asserting that there are good providers that are in-network.  This episode touches upon this all-too-common problem and Ms. Rosensweig explains, from a legal perspective, why the insurance companies are in breach of contract when they deny reasonable claims for coverage.  The hope with this episode is for those of you going through something similar to understand your rights so that you can fight for the coverage you deserve. 

In this episode, Ms. Rosensweig is discussing the tragic death of twin 1-year-olds who were left in a car for eight hours by their father who mistakenly thought he had dropped them off at daycare.  Was this a crime or an accident?  Does punishing the father with prison time make sense under the circumstances?  How could something like this happen?  Ms. Rosensweig discusses the psychology behind false memories and how one might genuinely believe their kids are not in the car when they are.  Ms. Rosensweig will also discuss legislation that is being proposed to necessitate that all cars be equipped with technology to prevent children from being left unintentionally in hot cars going forward.  If you have young children and want to understand how this could possibly happen and what you might do to prevent it from happening to you, this episode is worth a listen. 

In this episode, Attorney Rosensweig discusses the fact that the civil lawsuit and criminal charges against Kevin Spacey were dropped after an 18-year-old boy claimed he was sexually assaulted by Spacey.  Does this mean Spacey is innocent?  What happened to the young man's missing cell phone?  In general, when a case like this is dropped, can we safely assume the accused is innocent?  Ms. Rosensweig explores all of this and more in this important episode. 

In this episode, Attorney Rosensweig discusses two lawsuits that have been filed against CHA Fertility (an IVF clinic in Los Angeles) after a woman in New York gave birth to two babies who are not genetically hers.  The couple in NY is suing CHA and the genetic parents of one of the babies is suing as well, after learning 2 weeks after their child's birth that the NY woman carried their child to term.  How could the clinic implant 3 women (that we know of) with the wrong embryos and then allegedly try to cover it up?  Where are the actual embryos of these women? What does this mean in terms of other families out there who may have given birth to babies who are not genetically theirs?  Was it right for the Los Angeles couple to gain custody of the baby after the New York woman carried the baby to term?  All of this is discussed and more in this personally significant episode. 

In this episode, Ms. Rosensweig discusses the Court of Appeals decision, ruling that Trump engaged in viewpoint discrimination when he blocked certain users on Twitter who disagreed with his tweets.  The various arguments that were raised by Trump will be outlined and the Court's reasoning as to why and how Trump violated the users' first amendment rights will be explained.  Ms. Rosensweig will also discuss how the court's ruling has now prompted two lawsuits against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for blocking users on Twitter from accessing her account.  Finally, what, if anything, does this case mean in terms of Twitter's exposure in future cases?  If someone can be held to have violated someone's first amendments rights on Twitter can Twitter itself be accused of violating a user's first amendment rights when it removes that person from the platform or deletes their tweets?  Please take a listen and let me know what you think! 

This past week, Harvey Weinstein's attorneys asked the Court to dismiss a sex trafficking claim that was asserted against him by a woman who alleges that Weinstein raped her.  This came after a judge who is presiding over another sexual assault civil suit against Weinstein issued a decision saying that the sex trafficking statute applied to the circumstances at issue.  In this episode, I will discuss the sex trafficking statute and analyze both the arguments advanced by Weinstein's lawyers as to why what he's alleged to have done does not constitute sex trafficking and I will also explain how the Court in the first case against Weinstein concluded that what he is alleged to have done does qualify as sex trafficking under the statute.  I'll also give you the pros and cons of such a broad interpretation of the statute and why lawyers try to convince courts to apply such broad interpretations to statutes.  I'll also touch upon the benefits of statutes that allow a plaintiff to recover punitive damages and attorney's fees.  If you're following the Weinstein cases or are interesting in how lawyers come up with creative arguments for their clients, this episode is for you!

In this episode, Ms. Rosensweig discusses the bizarre case that came out of Michigan, where a man has been ordered to share about 40% of his lottery jackpot with his ex, two years after SHE filed for divorce and after they had been separated for 4 years.  How did this happen?  Is this how the law typically works?  What does this case tell us about protecting assets during the time between a couple separating and the divorce being finalized?  Ms. Rosensweig explains this and more in this episode.  If you, or someone you know, is contemplating a divorce, this episode is for you! 

In this episode, Ms. Rosensweig discusses two cases that were recently before the Supreme Court relating to cake bakers refusing to design wedding cakes for same-sex couples.  The cake bakers asserted that to do so would conflict with their religious beliefs whereupon the same-sex couples went to court to seek redress.  After working their way through the lower courts, both cases ultimately ended up before SCOTUS.  Unfortunately, the outcomes of both cases leave us still asking:  Is discriminating against a same-sex couple permissible on the basis of one's alleged religious beliefs? Ms. Rosensweig attempts to explain the balance between 1st amendment rights v.s. anti-discrimination laws and gives her opinion as to what will happen with the ongoing Oregon case now that the Supreme Court sent it back to the lower court to have it review the case again.  

I'm sure most of you are aware that there is an opioid crisis in the United States.  The statistics are staggering and hard to ignore.  In response, more and more states are now suing Purdue Pharma, the maker of Oxycontin, and the allegations in the complaints are both shocking and disturbing.  If you're interested in understanding the strategies employed by big pharma in hooking people on dangerous drugs, this episode is for you. 

In the 11th episode of the Whole Truth With Jill Rosensweig, Attorney Rosensweig provides a legal analysis of 1) what Volume II of the Mueller Report says; and, more importantly, 2) what it doesn't explicitly say but hints at instead.  Ms. Rosensweig also explains why it is that Attorney Mueller does not overtly state whether or not Trump obstructed justice.  If you're confused as to what is going on with the Mueller Report, this episode is for you.  

Did you know that in most parts of the United States a perpetrator of a violent crime can argue that they should not be convicted of a crime because they panicked when they discovered their victim was gay or transgender? In today's episode, Ms. Rosensweig discusses a recent law that was passed in Nevada, banning this deplorable defense.  She then explains what the defense is, how it is used and how successful it has been in allowing violent criminals to either secure a conviction of a lesser crime or not be convicted at all.  If this episode shocks and disturbs you, please take the time to share it with others.  Knowledge is power. 

In today's episode, Ms. Rosensweig discusses Nicolas Cage's 4-day marriage, his efforts to annul the marriage and his wife refusing to agree to an annulment and instead seeking a divorce and spousal support from him.  Ms. Rosensweig explains the difference between an annulment and a divorce, whether she thinks Nicolas Cage can get the annulment he seeks and whether or not she believes the wife can secure spousal support from Nicolas Cage.  If you've ever wondered how a divorce works, this episode is for you!