The Whole Truth with Jill Rosensweig

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 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.

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 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.