The Whole Truth With Jill Rosensweig

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 pu

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! 

Have you ever asked yourself what exactly Roe v. Wade stands for and how that case could be overturned? In today's episode, Attorney Rosensweig discusses the heartbeat bills that are being passed in various parts of the United States, prohibiting abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected at 6 weeks.  She explains Roe v. Wade, how it could be overturned, the ins and outs as to how a case might be overturned generally and how states are preparing themselves for the possibility that Roe v. Wade might be overturned at some point by the Supreme Court.  

In this episode, Ms. Rosensweig and her guest, comedian Daniel Strauss, discuss Roy Moore's defamation suit against Sacha Baron Cohen based on his appearance on Sacha Baron Cohen's series, "Who Is America?" where it is implied that Roy Moore is a pedophile.  They also discuss defamation v.s. satire within the context of comedy and whether or not all jokes are fair game or if some jokes cross the line into defamation.  Ms. Rosensweig also explains the recent decision in the Roy Moore case, in which the lawsuit was transferred to a New York court and she explains why she feels Roy Moore will ultimately lose the case.  Finally, Ms. Rosensweig describes 2 lawsuits in which comedians were sued based on comments they made about family members during their standup routines.  

In the aftermath of the Poway Synagogue shooting, Ms. Rosensweig explains the hate crime laws in the United States.  What makes a crime a "hate crime"?  Why is it important for a crime to be designated a hate crime? And, is the same crime labeled a hate crime in different parts of the U.S.? Also, how do the federal laws work when it comes to hate crimes?  All of this is broken down in today's episode, which seeks to shed light on the holes that exist in the hate crime laws, especially in certain parts of the United States.   Please click on this chart to see which hate crime laws are in place in your state and compare those laws against the hate crime laws that exist in other parts of the country. 

In this episode, Attorney Rosensweig discusses a recent lawsuit that was filed by three women who are alleging that they were sexually assaulted by fake Uber drivers after calling for an Uber late at night, outside of bars in Los Angeles.  The lawsuit alleges that these sexual assaults came after five other sexual assaults by fake Uber drivers in the same area of LA, in the few months leading up to their attacks.  The lawsuit alleges that Uber knew about these assaults by fake Uber drivers and did nothing to warn the Plaintiffs that they might be in danger.  Should Uber be held liable?  Did they do enough to satisfy their legal obligation to keep these women safe?  Ms. Rosensweig dissects the case and shares her predictions in this important episode of the podcast. 

In this episode, Attorney Rosensweig discusses all angles of the Jussie Smollett case with civil and criminal defense attorney, Jeffrey Bernfeld.  Were the charges actually dropped as the media claims?  Why did Kim Foxx recuse herself and did her recusal impact the way this case was handled?  Was the way this case was handled typical or was there something unusual about it and, if so, what and why?  All of this is explored and more in this episode of the Whole Truth with Jill Rosensweig. 

In this episode, Jill Rosensweig discusses the recent decision in the Stormy Daniels lawsuit against Donald Trump in which she was seeking a declaration from the Court that the non-disclosure agreement she signed, preventing her from disclosing the details of her affair with Donald Trump, was invalid.  The headlines say that the case was dismissed but was it dismissed because Stormy Daniels lost the case or was it dismissed because Stormy Daniels actually got what she wanted, thus rendering the case no longer relevant?  Jill breaks down the decision for you here. 

In this inaugural episode, Jill Rosensweig and her guest, Karla Braun, discuss the recent decision in the Ashley Judd v. Harvey Weinstein case, in which the court dismissed Ms. Judd's sexual harassment claim.  They discuss why that claim was dismissed, whether the Court got it right and, most importantly, how the law was recently expanded to now cover the exact circumstances in which Ms. Judd was allegedly harassed by Harvey Weinstein.  They also talk about the "me too" movement generally and how the law is impacted by people coming forward with their stories.