The Whole Truth with Jill Rosensweig

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 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.

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, 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 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.