Protests, the Military, Newsom v. Trump, the Insurrection Act, & Martial Law

Episode Notes

Transcript

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Martial law is a far cry from invoking the Insurrection Act in order to allow military troops to engage in law enforcement on the city streets, it really gets to the idea of it is a military occupation of the country. And if it’s done on improper grounds, we are in an authoritarian repressive state and we’re not the United States of America as we know it anymore.

Announcer:

Welcome to the award-winning podcast, Lawyer 2 Lawyer with J. Craig Williams, bringing you the latest legal news and observations with the leading experts in the legal profession. You are listening to Legal Talk Network.

J. Craig Williams:

Welcome to Lawyer 2 Lawyer on the Legal Talk Network. I’m Craig Williams, coming to you from Southern California. I occasionally write a blog name. May it please the court and have three books out titled How To Get Sued the Sled and My newest book. How would You Decide 10 Famous Trials That Changed History? You can find all three on Amazon. In addition, our new podcast miniseries in Dispute, 10 famous trials that changed history is currently featured here on the Legal Talk Network and on your favorite podcasting app. Please listen and subscribe. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the right to peacefully protest is critical to a functioning democracy. And at the core of the First Amendment, throughout history, protests have been met with challenges including police cracking down on demonstrations through mass arrests, illegal use of horse or curfews. In response to the recent protests in Los Angeles, sparked by ICE raids, president Trump deployed 2000 National Guard troops to LA and now 700 active duty Marines have joined bypassing the authority of Governor Gavin Newsom and estimated to cost taxpayers and estimated $134 million.

This stirred discussions over whether the president could use the Insurrection Act of 1807 and declare martial law and whether those actions can be enforced. So what is the Insurrection Act and martial law and will we see this come into play? And are we headed for a civil war today? On lawyer to lawyer? We’re spotlighting martial law and the Insurrection Act. We’ll talk about the origin, the criteria for enforcing martial law, the Trump administration’s response to protests, and whether the deployment of troops to Los Angeles constitutes martial law. And to help us better understand today’s topic, we’re joined by our special guest, Rachel e VanLandingham, whose Lieutenant Colonel retired. She’s the co associate Dean of Research and the Erwin Barr Buckhalter Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School. Rachel is a national security law expert and former active duty judge advocate in the US Air Force. She was appointed to the Southwestern Law School full-time faculty in 2014 in the fall and awarded tenure as a full professor in 2018. As both the scholar and president of the leading national nonprofit dedicated to improving the military criminal justice system, professor Van Landingham was instrumental in helping 2020 ones passage of the most significant military justice legislative reform since the 1950s. Welcome to the show, Rachel,

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

And thank you so much for having me. It’s an honor to be here.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, we’re thrilled and honored to have you, especially given your background. But tell us a little bit about yourself and how you became interested in national security law.

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Sure. I mean, I’m just a little girl from Toledo, Ohio. Two months after I turned 18, I was off to serve our country and really I just wanted to leave Ohio and see the world and wear the uniform. I was a off to the US Air Force Academy where I matriculated in 1992 and wound up finishing my career and retiring as the deputy director of the legal department, the teaching side of the US Air Force Academy. And in that over 20 year career, I was very fortunate. I had a lot of varied experiences for a while. I couldn’t hold a job. I went from everything from being a nuclear surety inspector, which was fascinating to being a chief of protocol, a chief protocol officer. And finally after I kept begging to go to be able to fly, the Air Force told me I was too short and too blind to fly.

I actually have the paperwork that says that, and I finally gave up on the hopes of being a pilot, and they said, but we’ll send you to law school and pay you to go. And I’m like, oh, well, okay, I’ll go to law school. So even a blind squirrel finds nut occasionally. And that was me. And I had the honor of going to law school at University of Texas at Austin, which was a fantastic legal, gave me a fantastic legal education. And then I went on from there to be a prosecutor for the Air Force head, the chief prosecutor at Holman Air Force Base in New Mexico to be a defense counsel. I also did appellate work. I was an appellate defense counsel. I also deployed shortly after nine 11 to be a staff judge advocate, the leading lawyer at our two bases at the time, two bases and Qatar.

We were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom following our invasion into Afghanistan following nine 11. And then at some point I was sent to get an LLMA Master’s of Law and International and Operational Law, and then had the highlight of my career was serving for four years as the chief of international law had headquarters, US Central Command where I deployed numerous times to both Afghanistan and Iraq and provided advice on everything from procedural safeguards to detainees to operational issues and how they intersect with international humanitarian law, the law of war and other law. And again, I finished my career at the US Air Force Academy and fell in love with teaching. And I have now matriculated and have been a professor of law for over 10 years now. And also have helped with quite a bit of reform of the military justice system, trying to ensure that we have the most fair criminal justice system for those who serve in uniform.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, thank you for your service. That’s an amazing career.

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

I’m very fortunate, but the pinnacle really should be that I have two wonderful children, two teenage boys, which is why my hair is gray. We can’t tell that because it’s colored, but I have two teenage boys and we have the incredible good fortune of living here in Southern California and a wonderful community. So I feel incredibly blessed.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, you’ve been on the ground in part in the response to these protests. What have you seen?

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Well, I was downtown on Wednesday and I was there in front of the federal detention facility, which adjoins the federal courthouse right there. And I saw protestors, but at that point, largely they were completely peaceful. They were starting to go onto the highway, which here in Los Angeles, you don’t want people on the highway, that’s for sure. And Los Angeles will get upset when the highway is blocked and that’s unlawful. And the LAPD was being very, very direct and ensuring that that wasn’t going to happen. And I did sense and have seen over the last few days that there’s been a more aggressive Los Angeles Police Department response and posture to keep things quiet and not give the federal government any further fodder or rationale or excuse to be able to deploy greater federal assets here. And it’s also just right for Losan Mayor Karen Bass finally, I do think she should have done it earlier, but she did enact a curfew a few days ago. And that thing seems to have really kept things, any kind of violence to a minimum, that curfew, again being overnight, but only for particular parts of la this has been very centralized and very narrow. And just a few really basically blocks of downtown Los Angeles and originally the adjoining communities of places like Paramount, but again, very localized, very narrow. I did march in the George Floyd protest back in 2020. Definitely came home at night. Those were, I saw far more violence with those protests than we’ve seen here.

J. Craig Williams:

So do these protests, are they spontaneous? Are they permitted? How do they arise?

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

That’s a really good question. I don’t know because I’ve not been part of the protest. I was down there, but I was there with C Nnn being interviewed with Aaron Burnett, so I was not a protester myself at this time.

J. Craig Williams:

These protests are largely in response to ICE raids and largely in the garment district where the raids have been taking people away.

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Yes, I mean, from what the protestors were shouting and waving flags and having placards, it was two protest, the President’s immigration policies and really the execution I think as well of these immigration policies,

J. Craig Williams:

These protests started out peaceful. Some of them have turned a bit violent. Could the Los Angeles Police Department, the sheriff, and the California Highway Patrol handle the type of violence that was occurring in these protests?

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Well, I think that we’ve seen that and seen that to an even greater degree over the last several days. I mean, I think Tuesday was the first day there were over a hundred arrests by the LAPD. The local law enforcement in Los Angeles, which is the second largest city as you know in the United States, is tremendous. It’s huge. There are numerous assets that can be deployed to keep the peace, and it’s this governor and the mayor’s responsibility to ensure they use those local law enforcement assets appropriately. And I think yes, to this point, they were very capable of doing it. It’s easy to second guess. I’m not a law enforcement official. I’m not going to second guess when a curfew was enacted or not. I just do see that the curfew has seemingly, if there’s cause and effect, has seemingly affected a definite decrease in any kind of violent action really, because all major protests, and again, Americans have a First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and protest actions by the government, any government, be it state, federal, or local, to peacefully protest government actions that they don’t agree with.

So we want to be able to protect our citizens’ rights to peacefully assemble under the First Amendment, while balancing safety of the community, safety of businesses, safety of protestors. There are individuals that always take advantage of large gatherings of human beings to sow mayhem and to take advantage, to try to loot, to steal, to set things on fire. And that’s what the police have to deal with. And I really, my hats off to the local law enforcement that I saw downtown this week just doing a tremendous job. And some of them looking pretty tired, to be honest, while they try to protect protestors at the same time, keep any violent agitators that want to interrupt those protesters to a minimum and to arrest them and to enforce the law against them.

J. Craig Williams:

We’ve heard the term unlawful assembly. When does a peaceful assembly become unlawful?

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Well, there’s numerous. I mean, I also teach criminal law. I mean there’s quite a few criminal laws out there regarding what you can do on the city streets, right? So for example, I mentioned that there were protestors starting to go on to our highways here. I don’t remember if it was the 1 0 1 or the one 10, I think it was the 1 0 1 right there. That’s unlawful. You’re not allowed to protest on the highway, right? You’re not allowed to block intersections unless you have a permit to do so. That’s unlawful, right? Unlawful does not simply have to be someone throwing a Molotov cocktail or otherwise engaging in clear violence. Unlawful can also be not dispersing when the police tell you to disperse because the mayor or the police, police chief has declared an area an unlawful assembly area that’s unlawful. That’s unlawful. Assem assemblage simply means a group of people. So again, I mean most protests across the United States wind up having some illegality associated with them. Not necessarily violence, but people going to places where they’re not supposed to be. And therefore local law enforcement has to strike that balance

J. Craig Williams:

At this time. Let’s take a quick break to hear a word from our sponsors. We’ll be right back and welcome back to Lawyer to Lawyer. I’m joined by Rachel VanLandingham, Lieutenant Colonel, retired and co associate Dean of Research and the Irwin r Buck culture professor of law at Southwestern Law School. We’ve seen President Trump nationalize the California National Guard, which means, as you’ve said in many of your interviews, means that they have protection rights and they can protect federal resources. They can’t go out and protect ice people while they’re on a raid. They have to stay protecting federal buildings and so forth. But when does it come to the point where it transfers from use of enforcement from the state to the federal? How does that transfer occur? Or is it just simply a declaration by the president of the United States? I’m coming in lookout.

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Well, lemme try to unpackage that question a bit. So the greater context is that states and local governments had the primary responsibility in our system of government under the Constitution and the theory of federalism, which the Constitution enacts states have the primary law enforcement responsibility for safety of the communities ensuring law and order on our streets. The federal government only comes in as a backup in extremis in an emergency. I mean, and that fund and the federal troops, the federal military, which the National Guard is when they’re called up by the President, they’re put under the president’s command and control. There’s deep seated traditional aversion to using federal troops on our city streets to enforce our laws to act as law enforcement and for good reason. As our founding fathers articulated back in the Federalist Papers, they can be used and have been used by authoritarian leaders as a tool for tyranny to repress civil liberties of the people and to therefore dismantle our constitutional democracy.

And not only is there a deep seated tradition to not using federal troops and aversion to not using federal troops to police city streets, there’s actual federal statute called the Posse Act that prohibits federal troops from engaging in law enforcement functions and acting as a posse kamata. And there’s case law in which we have greater granularity insight into what is posse com, what is law enforcement classically arrests, searches and seizures. Seizures mean any kind of restraint on an individual’s liberty by either show of authority or physical force. So you have actions that are compulsory prescriptive or regulatory, and that all flows from case law. You have that prohibition against using these now federalized, national Guard troops and the Marines. They’re not allowed to engage in law enforcement until and unless the president invokes a statutory exception called the Insurrection Act. However, in the middle ground, they are allowed to be used in a purely protective function of federal property and federal assets essentially.

So what are federal assets, federal personnel and federal, federal property be a building or a vehicle? And that really goes back to the resident’s inherent authority as chief law enforcement officer to keep it. And it goes back to a very old Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court says the President has a duty and responsibility to keep federal people safe and federal property safe. However, that’s a very reactive mode. So the fact that they’re national guards, men and women honorably serving, and I saw them around the federal detention facility in federal building downtown here in Los Angeles. They’re purely protective standing there. I mean, if they have to push, for example, I’ve read reports that they’ve actually seized some individual seizing means, right? They didn’t formally arrest them, but they’ve restricted someone’s liberty by a show of force or I’m assuming by physical force, but not just show of authority because they had, because they were pushing up against a building for example.

Then they immediately turned them over to local law enforcement, probably LAPD to arrest that person for whatever assault or violation of trespassing, whatever they were doing at the time. That is really the limited mode. They’re supposed to be acting in this protective type of mode. And that’s not a violation of ATU and it’s not a violation. It doesn’t require invocation of the insurrection Act. Again, it falls into this very narrow category of they’re purely in a protective status. Let me contrast that though with something I’ve also been reading that’s happening that is in violation of the Posse Taught US Act. That is federalized National Guard troops being sent with ICE agents as these ICE agents are going out in the field and executing raids in order to arrest individuals. That’s accompanying a law enforcement, federal law enforcement officer as they’re executing federal law. If you’re accompanying law enforcement agents as they’re executing federal law, you’re executing federal law, you’re engaging in law enforcement, you can’t hide under the guise and they shouldn’t be, even though they are.

We’re just protective because the case law that does exist, and I’m talking about, we have an eighth circuit case from the eighties called Binet v Hague. It also references a Supreme Court case called LAD b Tatum. And we also have a ninth circuit case much more recently regarding active investigations. But what these cases show us is what tries to draw a line, when do we have actual law enforcement and therefore we have activities by federal troops that are violating that TATA act. The more active the engagement, the more proactive like sending these troops out with ICE agents out in the field while they’re executing federal law. It really seems that has now gone. That would be, that’s active engagement and law enforcement type activities and hence it is posse. It is law enforcement and therefore it’s prohibited unless and until the president reaches for an exception to the Posse Kamata Act, one of the exceptions would purely protective mode of these protective buildings.

But the case will never has said that that protective mode extends to actually going out with agents who are executing federal law to protect them. Then that becomes that active participation that the courts of stress does cross the line as well. And so therefore, I do think if there actually have been, and it has been reported federalized, national Guard troops going out with ICE agents on raids ostensibly to protect them. I believe they are violating the law and I think they violated IC Kamata and I honestly believe they should be disobeying that order to do so because it’s, to me and to others, it’s a clear violation of the TATA Act. It’s an unlawful order and they shouldn’t be doing it.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, we know what happens to people that obey unlawful orders.

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Well, under this administration, we’ve had war criminals that were convicted by fellow service members, by fellow individuals in uniform who are then pardoned. But again, if we’re talking about the actual legality and what could be done here, the protective function, those National Guards members I saw on Wednesday outside the federal building, that’s fine. That falls within the president’s constitutional statutory authorities. If we’re going much farther outside of that, that’s where we really seem to be running into trouble until and unless the president actually takes the formal step of invoking the Insurrection Act and we can get into all what are the circumstances in which he could.

J. Craig Williams:

Right. But I’d like to first talk about the lawsuit that’s going on between California and the United States of Newsom versus Trump. There’s a statute that President Trump has relied on that requires the orders to be channeled through the Governor. And to me, it seems like if there are orders to be channeled through the governor and the chain of command, then that individual in that chain has the right to deny that order. Am I right on that or am I wrong?

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

So you’re referencing chapter 10 of the United States Code Section 12 4 0 6, which provides for statutory basis plural for the president to federalize that is put under his command and control any state national guard units that he would like to do so if it fits one of the three categories provided. And that lawsuit has two primary components. I mean three if you look at the 10th amendment issue, but the two primary components of the lawsuit says first, hey, he acted outside of his scope of authority. He exceeded the scope of the statute because the facts on the ground did not support that we’re actually in there was a rebellion or a danger of rebellion against federal authority. That’s one of the categories that allows the president to federalize the National Guard. And that’s the category the president explicitly cited in his memorandum, thereby federalizing the National Guard, was that there was a rebellion against federal authority, but the statute actually says rebellion or threat of rebellion against federal authority.

The other two didn’t fit the other two was he needed to execute federal law or there was an invasion, which clearly there’s no invasion even though he’s used the term invasion. And so there’s the substantive litigation on that substantive prong of did he exceed the scope of whether or not that there’s a actual rebellion or threat of rebellion, danger of rebellion. I think that one courts are leery to second guess the president if there are any kind of facts that could be shown. And there are facts that are cited in the government’s brief facts that could be shown that a reasonable person could think that there actually was a danger of rebellion. But the procedural component is that you just highlighted was clearly violated. There’s another component of that statute that says when the president uses this authority, he will send his orders through the governor, the respective governor, and the president clearly did not that so clearly in violation of that component of the statute. So the governor’s argument is that’s not a fatal flaw of this mission. That was a procedural technical aspect. It doesn’t mean what we did was unlawful. So we’ll wait for the judge that they’re going to be going into court here in about half an hour. We’ll see what the federal judge says on that component because it was clearly a violation of the law on that procedural aspect. The government argues that doesn’t make it a fatal flaw for the overall operation. We’ll see what the judge says on that.

J. Craig Williams:

And let’s take a quick break to hear a word from our sponsors. We’ll be right back and welcome back to Lawyer to lawyer. I’m back with Rachel Vanlandingham, Lieutenant Colonel, retired and co associate Dean of Research and the Irwin r Buckhalter professor of Law at Southwestern Law School. Well, we have also the issues between insurrection and potentially martial law. What’s the difference between the two?

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

There’s a huge difference legally and normatively between martial law and invocation of the INSURRECTION Act. So let me put this in context. The Insurrection Act exemplifies is a law federal statute. It goes back to the early part days of our country because it actually operationalizes implements constitutional authority that Congress has to allow the president to tell the active duty military as well as any federalized National Guard, that they can be used on our city streets basically in a policing and law enforcement fashion in order to deal with various emergencies. So it’s an express exception to the Posse Acts prohibition against using the military on our city streets for law enforcement. And it provides for, it’s actually a collection of five different statutes and it provides for a very formal triggering mechanism. And that is the president to invoke the Insurrection Act has to issue a proclamation telling the various unlawful assemblages combinations, rebellions or insurrectionists to go home.

And there’s a reason that it’s so formal is because that deep seated diversion that’s manifested in federal law against using federal troops on the ground because that’s what King George III did against the American colonists. And one of the primary reasons we fought a revolutionary war back in the day while over 200 years ago. And so our founding fathers and those that wrote most of these very early statutes said, we want to ensure that no president just decides to use troops on American streets against Americans because they feel like it. Because an authoritarian thug, we have to provide for very strict for limitations on this. At the same time providing for flexibility for a president to be able to keep our country safe if there’s such combinations, rebellion, insurrection that makes it impractical to enforce the laws of the United States. And so they wanted to provide flexibility while also recognizing that this is really an exceptional power and it’s an exceptional power, but we are a rule of law country.

And so if he’s going to invoke this kind of power, he has to do in a very formal fashion. So that’s what the Insurrection Act is. It was invoked in 1992 and President Bush responded to then California Governor Pete Wilson’s request to send federal assets and federal troops to California to help call the LA riots. It was invoked in 1965 when President ly Ma Johnson federalized National Guard members not at the request of any governor, but he federalized them in order to protect the constitutional rights of civil rights protestors and marchers marching from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. And it’s been used in a collection of a collection of circumstances prior to that, but really in these extremis emergency type situations, contrast that to martial law. The constitution itself or the United States has no mention of martial law and for good reason because what is martial law?

Martial law is essentially domestic military occupation. So I served in Iraq for a short time. The United States military was occupying Iraq back in 2003 after the United States invaded and dethroned, essentially Saddam Hussein took him out of power and we were occupying the country. It means we were ensuring everything from the garbage was being picked up in the streets of Baghdad to ensuring that there were courts running in law enforcement. And so martial law here is similar where it’d be domestic military occupation and it’s considered incredibly rare. And it hasn’t occurred in the United States since World War ii because it gives the president as the commander in chief and the head of the entire US military, the power to militarily occupy the country and tell people what to do and arrest people and throw them in jail and then be the judge, jury and executioner by having military courts.

So we have some very famous cases from the Supreme Court that speak to martial law and they very much talk about how extraordinary a situation would really need to be for there to be martial law. So the first one is a famous case called Ex Parte Milligan from 1865 from the Civil War in which Mr. Milligan, who was a civilian was being tried in a military type tribunal. And the court there discussed the fact that martial law requires a true, and they called it an invasion, am mere threatened invasion is not enough. And in fact, they really honed in on the fact the symbol that, well, if the civilian courts are open and ready for use, they must be used. If you’re only going to use military courts and military courts being kind of the pson, they’re very symbol of martial law. If civilian courthouses are still open and able to help enforce the law they need to be, it’s not martial law time and we don’t need to have troops on the ground and military tribunals and have a military occupation of our streets.

And we’re followed up almost a hundred years later. In a famous case that emanated from Hawaii, a case that Duncan versus Kana Muco in 1946. And again, the petitioners were civilians that were being prosecuted in military tribunals because the commanding general in Hawaii had established martial law following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Well, of course, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the civilian courts in Hawaii were not open. You needed martial law, you needed the military to come in and basically be occupying the city or occupying Honolulu in order to ensure law and order and to keep things running. But Mr. Dun, and by the time that the petitioners in that Duncan case were prosecuted in military courts, the civilian courts were open. And so the Supreme Court said, wait a second. If the civilian courts are able to be open, you don’t get to have martial law.

So it really has been the idea of martial law for our Supreme Court has honed in on who gets to decide the law. Civilian judges, civilian courts through a civilian process or draconian military tribunals that provide much less due process protection, much less procedural constitutional safeguards, et cetera. And so we’re not anything near martial law. And again, martial law is a far cry from invoking the insurrection act in order to allow military troops to engage in law enforcement on the city streets. It really gets to the idea of it is a military occupation of the country, and if it’s done on improper grounds, we are in an authoritarian repressive state and we’re not the United States of America as we know it anymore.

J. Craig Williams:

Right. Well, it seems like we’ve had some changes in terms of the political nature of the military. There was recently a speech where we had military members cheering and booing particular aspects of political issues. Is that appropriate?

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

I understand their frustration and if that’s how they wanted to let out their frustration, I think it can be disrespectful. But I also think that the military is being disrespected on a daily basis right now by unnecessary use of resources and of military personnel. These National Guard men and women, they’re the classic citizen soldier. They weren’t just sitting around some base waiting for President Trump to call them up. They were at work. They were picking their kids up from families. They were living their daily lives, and to call them up unnecessarily is so disrespectful, rest them from their lives. And they were sleeping in buildings downtown without shower facilities, eating RAs without in conditions where, yeah, if it was an emergency, you would need that and they would expect that, but not as some kind of show of force in order to intimidate, not based on the practical realities on the ground. So I find it incredibly disrespectful how the military is being treated here and how, I mean, again, this huge parade this weekend in Washington DC where troops are being forced to stay in federal buildings without showers, without proper facilities, not in hotels, really, that’s how you’re going to treat your troops. So some booing to me, I’m like that booing was more to my opinion, opinion

J. Craig Williams:

As we just about reached the end of our program. So it’s time to wrap up and get your final thoughts about all of this process. Where do you think we’re headed?

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

I really hope that cooler heads prevail, and I think that other cities outside of Los Angeles need to take a very proactive approach. On one hand, we don’t want any of this preemptive and inappropriate use of military force on our streets to chill our Americans First Amendment rights to peacefully protest. On the other hand, I think cities also need to be engage in the curfews early as they saw from Mayor Karen Bass doing it after a few days and how effective that is. Be much more proactive with their local law enforcement so they don’t give any excuse to this administration to abuse and exploit our military and to upset our system of federalism and to start to veers toward a path of authoritarianism by abusing these laws that were supposed to be for emergencies.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, Rachel, it’s been an absolute pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you very much.

Rachel E. VanLandingham:

Well, Craig, you’re terrific. Thank you for exploring some of the deeper issues here.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, here are a few of my thoughts about today’s topic. The problem with the statutes that we are dealing with is that there are vague and give both parties a significant amount of discretion and courts are required to defer to the executive branch in the exercise of their discretion when it comes to surprise discretionary statutes. So as Rachel said during the interview, we’ll find out shortly how the court will rule on it. So far, governor Newsom has lost the request for an emergency relief and it looks like he may lose in the long term. The only way that we’ll problem solve these problems is to keep the protests from becoming violent, which is an interesting thing to do because in the next upcoming day against King’s March, I think the advice is when the protests turn violent is sit down and stop. It sounds like an old method of protest. Last few of my thoughts about today’s topic. If you’d like what you heard, please let us know what you think, and you can rate us on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcasting app. You can also visit [email protected], where you can sign up for our newsletter. I’m Craig Williams. Thanks for listening. Please join us next time for another great legal topic. Remember, when you want legal think lawyer to lawyer.

Announcer:

Thanks for listening to Lawyer 2 Lawyer produced by the broadcast professionals at Legal Talk Network. Subscribe to the RSS feed on legal talk network.com or in iTunes. The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of nor are they endorsed by Legal Talk Network, its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders, and subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer.