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 i

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, esp

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 f

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 t

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

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

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 t

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

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 othe