All the President’s Empty Threats
[/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”] 10 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″]1
[/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″]APRIL, 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
This post is the second in a series discussing President Trump’s defamation suits and threatening letters against the media, and evaluating whether the law supports those efforts.
[/et_pb_text][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″ module_class=”intro-para”]All of the claims that the President asserts start with a huge obstacle in the path to victory: he is complaining about statements made in the context of a political campaign. The Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that, “it can hardly be doubted that the [First Amendment] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.”[1] There are many cases before and after upholding the same principle: political speech is the core of protected speech, and speech about candidates and campaigns is the core of that core.
[/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”]It’s no surprise that the cease and desist letter ignores that principle. The letter is a piece of advocacy, and at this stage President Trump is trying to intimidate the other side into stopping the ads. The President isn’t shy about relying on legal authority: the letter cites three court cases and one administrative decision. None of these, however, involves a broadcast licensee that was denied renewal because it refused to stop airing a political advertisement over the objections of a candidate criticized in the ad.
[/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″]When you send a cease-and-desist letter, you want the recipient to obey, so you want the letter to be as strong as possible. When the other side’s lawyers check your research, their reaction should be “damn! We might be in trouble here.”
[/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”]It’s a telling omission. When you send a cease-and-desist letter, you want the recipient to obey, so you want the letter to be as strong as possible. When the other side’s lawyers check your research, their reaction should be “damn! We might be in trouble here.” If Trump had any authority showing that FCC denial of the station renewals was a real threat, it would have been in the letter.
And there is a reason why there isn’t any authority like that. In 1986, the Reagan administration’s deregulation of broadcasting was well underway. As part of that deregulatory effort, the FCC issued a new policy on how it would apply the statutory requirement that it evaluate a license applicant’s “character” (among many other criteria).[2] One of the issues it addressed was deceptive advertising – that is, deceptive advertising in general, not limited to the core first amendment speech involved in advertising related to a public official, candidate, or campaign.
The FCC’s policy statement is crystal clear: even outside the highly-protected core of political campaign speech, deceptive advertising is not a licensing qualification matter unless there is a “knowing presentation” of deceptive advertising, which requires proof of “active participation of the broadcaster in perpetuating the deception.”[3]
President Trump might seize on this, arguing that if the local affiliates kept airing the ad after receiving the letter, they were “actively participating” because they had learned The Truth from Trump. The FCC foreclosed that avenue too: there are only two ways to show “knowing presentation”: either the licensee’s “active involvement in the knowing creation of a deliberately fraudulent ad” or its “awareness of a Federal Trade Commission or other final governmental action involving the ad in question.” Finally, the Commission made clear that it would not decide whether an advertisement was deceptive: “Complaints which require determinations as to whether certain advertising actually is fraudulent” would be referred to the Federal Trade Commission, consistent with existing FCC practice.
[/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 affiliates didn’t participate in making the Priorities USA ad, and there isn’t any FTC or other agency or court decision finding the ad deceptive. (If either existed, it would have been included in 36-point type in President Trump’s letter.) So there is no chance that the FTC would deny license renewal to any of the affiliates based on their running the Priorities USA ad. That part of the cease-and-desist letter is completely frivolous.
[/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=”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”]Later this week, I will discuss why that’s also true for the defamation threat in the letter, and the three already-filed lawsuits.
[/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] Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971). (return) [2] In re: Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 F.C.C.2d 1179, 1213 (1986) (return) [3] Id. (Emphasis added.) (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/2020/04/president-lowbox.jpg” align=”center” force_fullwidth=”on” use_border_color=”off” url=”/the-president-wants-you-to-stop/” 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”]PRESIDENT TRUMP
[/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”]The President Wants You to Stop
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][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″] [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
