The Whole Truth with Jill Rosensweig

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.