The President Wants You to Stop
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.7″ text_font=”avenir-heavy|||on|||||” background_layout=”dark” text_letter_spacing=”2px” text_font_size=”14px”] 11 Minute Read [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ specialty=”off” background_color=”#f7f7f4″ parallax_method=”off” custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” prev_background_color=”#ffffff” next_background_color=”#000000″ _builder_version=”3.7″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_mobile=”on” parallax_method=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Sans||||” text_font_size=”10em” text_text_color=”#323232″ use_border_color=”off” text_line_height=”1.1em” custom_margin=”0px||0px|” show_bottom_space=”off” _builder_version=”3.7″]30
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#aeaeac” show_divider=”on” divider_style=”solid” divider_position=”top” hide_on_mobile=”off” custom_css_main_element=”width:20px;” /][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Sans|on|||” text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”-10px||0px|” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″]MARCH, 2020
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Sans||||” text_text_color=”#02b875″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” custom_margin=”20px|||” _builder_version=”3.7″]Written by
Mark M. Leitner
Within the last month, Donald Trump became the first sitting president to file suits against media organizations, claiming that the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN defamed him in opinion pieces about Russian influence on his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. On March 25, 2020, President Trump doubled down, sending cease-and-desist letters to local television stations in Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, asserting that they violated the law by airing an advertisement containing the “false assertion” that Trump called COVID-19 a “hoax”.[1] (The ad, produced by Priorities USA Action Fund, is here;[2] you should definitely watch it, so you can make your own evaluation. Maybe even a couple times.)
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”20″ text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”30px||0px|” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|tablet” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ module_class=”reg-cd-para”]The letters demand that the stations stop airing the ad immediately, or face “all legal remedies available” to the campaign. Although it doesn’t identify those remedies, from the context it is pretty clear that the principal threats are a petition asking the Federal Communications Commission to revoke the stations’ licenses, and a defamation suit. (Under black-letter defamation law, the publisher of a defamatory statement can be held liable, even if the statement appears in an advertisement, not in content actually generated by the station.)[3]
This is new territory for President Trump. Until now, he has generated a lot of anti-media rhetoric in his tweets and speeches, but he has not aggressively pursued criminal prosecutions or prior restraints. Even now, he’s chosen civil suits or administrative proceedings to air his latest grievances with people speaking out about his approach to governing.
I believe that is because he and his lawyers know that these actions are absolutely baseless on their merits. His chances of winning any of them are too small to measure. Andrew McCarthy of the National Review is a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger, and even he thinks the suit against the Times, which is substantially identical to the other two, is “frivolous.”[4] So does everyone else who knows First Amendment law, and isn’t also in the tank for the President. Criminal prosecutions won’t achieve his objectives either.
President Trump isn’t bringing these suits to vindicate his legal rights. He’s suing, or challenging license renewal, to do three things: (i) energize his political base and focus its energy on the oft-repeated snark about the “fake news” media; (ii) raise money for his 2020 re-election campaign; and (iii) most important – intimidate newspapers, broadcasters, reporters, bloggers, PACs, and anyone else thinking about publicizing an anti-Trump opinion into thinking twice about it, lest they face the expense and inconvenience of defending a lawsuit. Remember that even a completely bogus lawsuit doesn’t just go away, especially when it’s backed by a well-funded person, company, or presidential campaign. All of these cases should be thrown out on a motion to dismiss, before expensive discovery takes place, but even a motion to dismiss in high-stakes cases like these will be costly. Suits of this kind might not necessarily be a big deal for the Washington Post or CNN, but may be for a local affiliate, and they definitely will be for a blogger sitting at his kitchen table cranking out posts that criticize Trump based on the facts before them.
Even if Trump loses the cases, they’re still red meat for the base. Remember that any judge that rules against his position isn’t applying the law – he’s an “absolute disgrace” who is biased because he’s (an Indiana-born) “Mexican.”[5] President Trump made those statements about federal judge Gonzalo Curiel, but there are many other examples of his petulant reactions to court decisions against him. The President and his true believers do this any time someone uses facts or logic to contradict him. Recent attacks on Dr. Anthony Fauci over his assessments of the impact of the Coronavirus on the United States demonstrate my point further.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_mobile=”on” parallax_method=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”on” disabled_on=”on|on|on”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”20″ text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”30px||0px|” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|tablet” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ module_class=”reg-cd-para”]We think there are plenty of judges capable of deciding commercial cases, Judge Niess himself being an excellent example. Nevertheless, we also think that establishing an exclusive forum for litigating complex business matters, allowing judges assigned to the docket to focus on that body of law, and promoting the publication of written trial court decisions on commercial issues will benefit the bench, bar, litigants, and Wisconsin overall. Business Courts are meant to streamline efficiency, educate the judiciary and business litigants, and create predictable commercial case law that will inform dispute resolution on business matters going forward.
The basis for our promotion of the Business Court Pilot Project is pretty simple.
First, while Delaware had a lock on laying claim to courts with expertise in resolving business issues through its Chancery Court for more than 100 years, the idea of specialty business courts has blossomed in the United States since the early 1990s. Indeed, as of 2018 there were at least 27 states that had some form of business court in practice (be it for the entire state or some portion of it as is the case in Wisconsin).[8] We take that as evidence of a need for specialized business courts. Indeed, the uptick in usage of such courts reflects success in those states that pioneered the concept.
Second, Justice Abrahamson’s 2017 dissent to the project asserted that business interests were trying to garner greater predictability in commercial matters by the creation of the Business Court. That’s correct, but it is hardly grounds for cynicism. The judges sitting as Business Court judges issue written decisions that will inform litigants and other judges on commercial matters; by specializing the circuit court we can ensure a body of case law that will inform generations to come and with time help reduce the number and length of business disputes.[9] Irrespective of what kinds of cases are appealed in Wisconsin (some kinds of cases are simply appealed more than others for a number of reasons), can we all agree that it is frustrating to find an appellate decision on point from our Court of Appeals only to find out that it is unpublished and thus of no precedential value (or, worse, it is too old to be cited at all)? The Court of Appeals’ crowded docket is well-known, so why not instead create a body of published trial court decisions to guide commercial litigants in the absence of published appellate authority?
In our view, Wisconsin has long failed to publish enough case law affecting commercial matters. Consider this: according to Westlaw there are 102 “recreational tort immunity” cases in Wisconsin and 1291 setting forth how to approach a writ of mandamus. Worthy issues, for sure. Further consider that there are 23 published cases involving the sale of franchises (even though Wisconsin is one of 15 states with a franchise sales statute), a mere 40 dealing with shareholder derivative actions, and only 9 dealing with the topic of shareholder oppression even though the concept has been the subject of multi-volume treatises for more than 40 years.
While you may accuse us of taking these numbers out of context, and it’s certainly fair to say not all kinds of cases are created equal (some cases by their nature automatically result in an appeal), anyone who has practiced commercial law in Wisconsin for any period of time is frustrated by the dearth of published appellate case law on business issues. By establishing a Business Court in Wisconsin and requiring trial judges in those courts to publish their rulings, business litigants will have access to an immediate body of law governing their approach to issues that they and their lawyers confront daily.
Third, by appointing judges to the Business Court, we are assured that those with commercial backgrounds help build that case law. For example, Judge Michael Aprahamian, the presiding Business Court judge in Waukesha County, was a commercial trial lawyer for years at our state’s largest law firm before taking the bench. That experience provides him with unique insight into the often complex matters affecting business interests. While voters could complain that such appointments run contrary to their electing a judge to a court of general jurisdiction, this is a contrived problem. Every major metropolitan area has enough caseload to require some level of specialization in the courts. How is establishing a Business Court any different?
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row make_fullwidth=”off” use_custom_width=”off” width_unit=”on” use_custom_gutter=”off” custom_padding=”50px|||” padding_mobile=”on” allow_player_pause=”off” parallax=”off” parallax_method=”off” make_equal=”off” parallax_1=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_divider color=”#aeaeac” show_divider=”on” divider_style=”solid” divider_position=”top” hide_on_mobile=”off” /][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”37″ text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”16px||30px|” text_line_height=”1.3em” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” text_font_size_tablet=”27″ max_width=”900px” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” module_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”3.7″ header_font_size=”44px” header_line_height=”1.3em” text_font_size_phone=”23″]“Why are you so sure that President Trump is going to lose? Aren’t you biased?” Of course I am. But my bias on these issues is based on a stack of law books a couple stories high.
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#aeaeac” show_divider=”on” divider_style=”solid” divider_position=”top” hide_on_mobile=”off” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_mobile=”on” parallax_method=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”20″ text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”30px||0px|” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|tablet” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ module_class=”reg-cd-para”]Around now, you’re entitled to ask, “Why are you so sure that President Trump is going to lose? Aren’t you biased?” Of course I am. But my bias on these issues is based on a stack of law books a couple stories high. In those books are court and agency decisions making it absolutely clear that the President’s arguments don’t hold water. And I would be making these arguments against any politician who abused the legal system in this way. The core of my political beliefs is a commitment to free speech, for everyone. The rule of law is essential, and one of its fundamental principles is that legal rules apply across the board, no matter whether it’s a Republican, Democrat, Communist, or anarchist asserting their protection. We protected the Nazis marching in Skokie for a reason.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row custom_padding=”50px|||” parallax_method=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” custom_padding_tablet=”17px|||” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|tablet” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”on” disabled_on=”on|on|on”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_image src=”https://llgmke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/026.jpg” show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” animation=”fade_in” sticky=”on” align=”left” force_fullwidth=”off” always_center_on_mobile=”on” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” animation_style=”fade” animation_duration=”500ms” animation_intensity_slide=”10%” animation_direction=”center” show_bottom_space=”off” /][et_pb_text background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” text_font=”PT Serif||on||” text_font_size=”16″ text_line_height=”1em” custom_margin=”20px||0px|” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]I’m an Image Caption ready-to-use.
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” text_font=”PT Serif||on||” text_font_size=”12″ text_line_height=”1.2em” custom_margin=”6px|||” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]Photograph by Lorem Ipsum via Unsplash
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_mobile=”on” parallax_method=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”on” disabled_on=”on|on|on”][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”2_3″][et_pb_text max_width=”620px” text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”20″ text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”30px||0px|” text_line_height=”1.5em” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|tablet” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″]My point is not that these journalists are intentionally misreporting but rather that modern journalism is susceptible to dangerous shortcuts, at a time when even greater dedication to precision is required because of rapid and widespread dispersion of news through social media. Outlets must recognize how “fast but thin” reporting negatively impacts the legislative process and address this problem. Most of the dysfunction in Congress is self-inflicted, but better reporting would make legislative text matter a lot more to representatives and senators.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_mobile=”on” parallax_method=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”on” disabled_on=”on|on|on”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”20″ text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”30px||0px|” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|tablet” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ module_class=”reg-cd-para”]The Times article quotes Judge Malloy: “I don’t want to see anybody deactivated, but I don’t write the legislation.” It also quotes the president of the public interest group, praising the decision because it prevented a state agency from “ignor[ing] clearly written state law.” Top Democrats were quoted as well, contending that the lawsuit was a right-wing political strategy intended to benefit Republicans by suppressing turnout.
So: there is “legislation.” Maybe even “clearly written state law”! WHAT DOES IT SAY? Leaving that out is a serious flaw, because the result depends on what the statute says and how the courts interpret it. Now, I know that I am a law geek; I wasn’t expecting an excerpt from the briefs, but we do know that a statute of some kind was involved. Would it have been so hard to add a paragraph something along the lines of: “The dispute involves a Wisconsin statute that provides X. The public interest group argued that this language required the board to purge the rolls because Y, while the board contended Z”? Apparently that was too much to ask of the Times, so I finished the article with my curiosity unsatisfied.
If the New York Times would not explain the legal issues, could I get some help from Fox News? Nope. The Fox article on Judge Malloy’s contempt order[3] has lots of rhetoric from both the conservative side (cheers!) and the liberal side (boos!) but fails to explain even in simple terms the legal issues in the case. Fox did summarize the original decision, saying “Malloy last month sided with conservatives who filed the lawsuit and ordered that the voters have their registrations deactivated.” Sure, that literally describes what the judge did – but this language reads like the decision was pure politics, with Judge Malloy raising Rick Esenberg’s hand as if he’d won an MMA match. I’ve had lots of cases before Judge Malloy, and I have never felt that he exhibits an ideological bias. Who knows, maybe he showed a tilt in this case – but there is absolutely no way to decide that without understanding the law that he was interpreting.
In late February, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals chimed in, reversing Judge Malloy’s order and refusing to require an immediate purge of the voter rolls. I haven’t read the opinion, just media coverage of the decision,[4] so at this point readers will be unsurprised that I still have no idea why any of the courts ruled the way they did, or the legal reasoning they expressed in their decisions. I do know that Mr. Esenberg of the public interest group thinks that under the Court of Appeals’ ruling, Wisconsin won’t have “clean elections,” and the Wisconsin Supreme Court needs to step in to “ensure that the Wisconsin Elections Commission complies with state law.” So now it’s the conservatives’ turn to BOOOOO. And if the conservatives are booing, the liberals must be cheering, right? Sure enough, the Hill’s coverage[5] plays the case as an exercise in pure politics: “A Wisconsin court of appeals handed Democrats a win on Friday by overturning a ruling that sought to purge up to 209,000 people from voter registration rolls.” No one should be surprised that like the Times, Fox, and CNN, the Hill did not think the legal issues at stake worthy of mention, let alone explanation.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_mobile=”on” parallax_method=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”28″ text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”10px||0px|” text_line_height=”1.6em” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″]The next post in this series will show why President Trump’s threat to challenge the licenses of the local affiliates that aired the Priorities USA ad is a loser. In a third post later this week, I’ll argue that all four defamation claims are equally defective, and I will speculate why these claims are being made by his campaign, rather than by him personally.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_mobile=”on” parallax_method=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.7″ color=”#898989″ height=”15px” /][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”20″ text_text_color=”#363636″ use_border_color=”off” custom_margin=”30px||0px|” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|tablet” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.7″ module_class=”footnote-cd”] [1] https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/2017/web/hero_images/Redacted_PUSA_Letter.pdf (return) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkMwvmJLnc0 (return) [3] As I will discuss in future posts, filing bogus libel suits against newspapers and activists was one of the principal tools used by white supremacists in the 1960s to suppress the civil rights movement. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S 254 (1964) the decision that established the “actual malice” requirement of First Amendment law, requiring public officials to prove that a publisher either knew an allegedly libelous statement was false or that it acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, was one of those suits. In that sense, Trump is reviving a vile American tradition. (return) [4] https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/donald-trump-libel-lawsuit-new-york-times-losing-battle/ (return) [5] https://time.com/4356045/donald-trump-judge-gonalo-curiel/ (return) [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ specialty=”off” background_color=”#f7f7f4″ parallax_method=”off” custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#222222″ _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”on” disabled_on=”on|on|on”][et_pb_row make_fullwidth=”off” use_custom_width=”on” width_unit=”on” custom_width_px=”780px” use_custom_gutter=”off” padding_mobile=”off” allow_player_pause=”off” parallax=”off” parallax_method=”off” make_equal=”off” parallax_1=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text text_font=”PT Serif||||” text_font_size=”32″ text_text_color=”#363636″ text_line_height=”1.4em” use_border_color=”off” text_font_size_tablet=”26″ text_font_size_last_edited=”on|tablet” custom_margin=”||70px|” show_bottom_space=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” module_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”3.7″ text_orientation=”center”]Want the latest articles as soon as they’re published? Subscribe to the Concurrences & Dissents Newsletter.
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_contact_form captcha=”off” use_border_color=”off” custom_button=”on” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#02b875″ button_border_width=”8″ button_border_color=”#02b875″ button_border_radius=”4″ border_radii=”on|0px|0px|0px|0px” _builder_version=”3.7″ text_orientation=”left” success_message=”Thank you for subscribing! ” email=”nvotto@gmail.com” saved_tabs=”all” custom_message=”%%E-mail_Address%%||et_pb_line_break_holder||%%First_Name%%” global_module=”206092″][et_pb_contact_field field_title=”E-mail Address” field_type=”input” field_id=”E-mail_Address” required_mark=”on” fullwidth_field=”off” field_background_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0)” form_field_font_select=”PT Sans” form_field_font=”PT Sans||||” form_field_font_size=”20″ form_field_font_size_tablet=”20″ form_field_font_size_phone=”20″ form_field_text_color=”#adadab” form_field_line_height=”1.4em” form_field_line_height_tablet=”1.4em” form_field_line_height_phone=”1.4em” use_border_color=”on” border_color=”#adadab” border_width=”1″ border_style=”solid” custom_css_main_element=”height:64px;” _builder_version=”3.7″ checkbox_checked=”off” checkbox_options=”%91{%22value%22:%22E-mail Address%22,%22checked%22:0}%93″ radio_options=”%91{%22value%22:%22E-mail Address%22,%22checked%22:0}%93″ select_options=”%91{%22value%22:%22E-mail Address%22,%22checked%22:0}%93″ min_length=”0″ max_length=”0″ allowed_symbols=”all” conditional_logic=”off” conditional_logic_relation=”off” conditional_logic_rules=”%91{%22field%22:%22first name%22,%22condition%22:%22is%22,%22value%22:%22%22}%93″ use_background_color_gradient=”off” background_color_gradient_start=”#2b87da” background_color_gradient_end=”#29c4a9″ background_color_gradient_type=”linear” background_color_gradient_direction=”180deg” background_color_gradient_direction_radial=”center” background_color_gradient_start_position=”0%” background_color_gradient_end_position=”100%” background_color_gradient_overlays_image=”off” parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on” background_size=”cover” background_position=”center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_blend=”normal” allow_player_pause=”off” background_video_pause_outside_viewport=”on” form_field_text_shadow_style=”none” border_radii=”on||||” box_shadow_style=”none” /][et_pb_contact_field field_title=”First Name” field_type=”input” field_id=”First Name” required_mark=”on” fullwidth_field=”off” field_background_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0)” form_field_font_select=”PT Sans” form_field_font=”PT Sans||||” form_field_font_size=”20″ form_field_font_size_tablet=”20″ form_field_font_size_phone=”20″ form_field_text_color=”#adadab” form_field_line_height=”1.4em” form_field_line_height_tablet=”1.4em” form_field_line_height_phone=”1.4em” use_border_color=”on” border_color=”#adadab” border_width=”1″ border_style=”solid” custom_css_main_element=”height:64px;” _builder_version=”3.7″ /][/et_pb_contact_form][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ specialty=”off” background_color=”#222222″ parallax_method=”off” custom_padding=”0px|||” _builder_version=”3.7″ prev_background_color=”#f7f7f4″][et_pb_row make_fullwidth=”on” use_custom_width=”off” width_unit=”on” use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”2″ padding_mobile=”on” allow_player_pause=”off” parallax=”off” parallax_method=”off” make_equal=”off” parallax_1=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_2=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” parallax_3=”off” parallax_method_3=”off” column_padding_mobile=”on” custom_padding=”40px|||” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_image src=”https://llgmke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/business-low-box.jpg” align=”center” force_fullwidth=”on” use_border_color=”off” url=”/using-business-courts-to-enhance-commercial-law-in-wisconsin/” animation_style=”fade” animation_duration=”500ms” animation_intensity_slide=”10%” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”off” disabled_on=”off|off|off” /][et_pb_text text_orientation=”center” text_font=”PT Sans|on|||” text_font_size=”12″ text_text_color=”#888888″ text_line_height=”1.2em” use_border_color=”off” text_letter_spacing=”2px” custom_margin=”30px|||” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” module_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”off” disabled_on=”off|off|off”]COURTS
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text text_orientation=”center” text_font=”PT Sans||||” text_font_size=”24″ text_text_color=”#ffffff” text_line_height=”1.2em” use_border_color=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” module_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”off” disabled_on=”off|off|off”]Using Business Courts to Enhance Commercial Law in Wisconsin
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_image src=”https://llgmke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/seventh-lowbox.jpg” align=”center” force_fullwidth=”on” use_border_color=”off” url=”/how-to-make-the-seventh-circuit-unhappy/” animation_style=”fade” animation_duration=”500ms” animation_intensity_slide=”10%” show_bottom_space=”off” _builder_version=”3.7″ /][et_pb_text text_orientation=”center” text_font=”PT Sans|on|||” text_font_size=”12″ text_text_color=”#888888″ text_line_height=”1.2em” use_border_color=”off” text_letter_spacing=”2px” custom_margin=”30px|||” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” module_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”3.7″]ARTICLE
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text text_orientation=”center” text_font=”PT Sans||||” text_font_size=”24″ text_text_color=”#ffffff” text_line_height=”1.2em” use_border_color=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” module_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”3.7″]How to Make the Seventh Circuit Unhappy
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_image src=”https://llgmke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/careful-lowbox.jpg” align=”center” force_fullwidth=”on” use_border_color=”off” url=”/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” animation_style=”fade” animation_duration=”500ms” animation_intensity_slide=”10%” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”off” disabled_on=”off|off|off” /][et_pb_text text_orientation=”center” text_font=”PT Sans|on|||” text_font_size=”12″ text_text_color=”#888888″ text_line_height=”1.2em” use_border_color=”off” text_letter_spacing=”2px” custom_margin=”30px|||” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” module_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”off” disabled_on=”off|off|off”]FOLLOW UP
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text text_orientation=”center” text_font=”PT Sans||||” text_font_size=”24″ text_text_color=”#ffffff” text_line_height=”1.2em” use_border_color=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” module_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”3.7″ disabled=”off” disabled_on=”off|off|off”] [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
