Latest / Justice Team Podcast / From Military Justice to Civilian Advocacy with Spencer Wolfe - Part 2

Transcript

From Military Justice to Civilian Advocacy with Spencer Wolfe - Part 2 · Justice Team Podcast

• 0:02
  Hey, it's Bob Simon taking a break to tell you about CallRail.
• 0:06
  CallRail is a product that my firm uses, and what CallRail does is it plugs into
• 0:10
  your phone calls with your intake and with your clients to record those phone calls
• 0:15
  as real time transcripts so you can get intelligence and with the attorney share.
• 0:19
  Plugin, you can actually, in real time, be able to send a referral out
• 0:22
  through the marketplace to find the best match all made possible with
• 0:26
  CallRail being plugged into your firm's intake with real intelligence CallRail.
• 0:34
  Well, what are some of the frustrations that you've had with, with the system?
• 0:38
  Um, so I think it's, it's one that's easily attributable and
• 0:42
  I, I, I always wanna caveat.
• 0:45
  Every experience I've had through life.
• 0:49
  Great positives, things that frustrate me.
• 0:51
  So if, if I had to highlight some of the frustrations, um, you know, it's, it's
• 0:57
  maybe that, that abuse of power kind of component that we've seen before.
• 1:00
  And it's, it's just that there's different leadership styles or traits
• 1:05
  that somebody thinks is effective.
• 1:07
  The Army actually has, um, literature they have.
• 1:12
  Training manuals on how to avoid toxic leadership, how to try to be an empathetic
• 1:17
  leader, how they, how do you focus on getting people to want to follow your
• 1:21
  orders, not just getting direct follow.
• 1:24
  Does,
• 1:24
  does it change from like chain of command down?
• 1:27
  Like does, 'cause you were there for two different presidencies, right?
• 1:30
  Correct.
• 1:31
  Does it, does that change from the top down?
• 1:34
  So the, the, the mindset behind it for the military is always a. We are
• 1:41
  not concerned with who is in the seat.
• 1:43
  We are concerned with the orders that we are given, the legal legality to follow
• 1:48
  those orders and executing the mission.
• 1:51
  And so we are, you know, the military is a non-partisan.
• 1:55
  Organization.
• 1:56
  It is a non-partisan arm of the government that is intended to
• 2:00
  ensure it meets its requirement.
• 2:01
  And the, the surface level main mission requirement is to defend
• 2:05
  the nation from all enemies.
• 2:08
  Um, and so
• 2:09
  even the enemy within
• 2:11
  it?
• 2:11
  Yes.
• 2:12
  Foreign and domestic.
• 2:13
  Well, let me ask, so I, and we've heard stories out there that
• 2:16
  there were certain, certain people within ICE that said, I don't feel
• 2:21
  comfortable with this, and they're.
• 2:24
  Aren't there means for people to say like, I feel like the orders
• 2:27
  I'm given are not appropriate.
• 2:28
  Like, what do they do under that circumstance?
• 2:30
  Because I had some people reach out to me that, that had that question.
• 2:33
  I didn't know how to answer that for them.
• 2:35
  Like, what do I do if I'm at ICE and I feel uncomfortable with this?
• 2:37
  Or if there's something so inappropriate, like, what do I do?
• 2:39
  I don't wanna follow these orders.
• 2:41
  Sure.
• 2:41
  And, and so I have to be clear that, you know, ICE being a federal agency that is
• 2:47
  distinct from the Department of Defense.
• 2:49
  Many different channels may exist, many different supervisory
• 2:52
  hierarchies that may exist.
• 2:53
  I know with the, within the military, at least the experience that I had, was when
• 2:57
  the, the COVID vaccine mandates came down.
• 3:00
  There certainly was a divisive kind of response to that, where some
• 3:03
  people were fully in support, other people were, were highly opposed.
• 3:07
  Um, and so.
• 3:09
  Being the legal advisor to the commanders as they're asking me,
• 3:13
  what do I do here if I don't agree with this or I don't agree with that.
• 3:17
  And the truth, I, I told them, I said, look, we're at this stage in this
• 3:22
  part of the process, um, where if somebody, if somebody isn't voluntarily
• 3:29
  committing to the vaccine mm-hmm.
• 3:31
  And we are now asking your opinion as to whether approve or deny
• 3:34
  their request to not get it.
• 3:37
  Sir, state your opinion.
• 3:38
  I'm not here to tell you what to say.
• 3:40
  If you're looking for assistance on, you wanna support their, their
• 3:44
  request, or you want to deny their request and you, you need help forming
• 3:48
  your opinion, we can talk about it.
• 3:50
  I can help give you a draft or whatever, but I'm not, nothing that I'm writing
• 3:54
  is what I'm telling you to say.
• 3:56
  Nobody can dictate that.
• 3:58
  And if somebody has an issue with what you say, you're the one who
• 4:00
  bears their consequences for that.
• 4:02
  Um, so I, I think.
• 4:04
  There were some that said, yeah, absolutely.
• 4:06
  If I think that somebody's got a valid purpose or reason to deny, I'm
• 4:09
  going to argue for their approval.
• 4:11
  And the people above me may be of a different opinion and say,
• 4:15
  no, I think they should get it.
• 4:16
  And you're, you're dumb for supporting it.
• 4:17
  So be it.
• 4:18
  The, the difference of opinion wasn't an issue.
• 4:21
  Um, but they had to know, am I in a position to make a a stand?
• 4:26
  Can I, am I in a position to, to, you know.
• 4:30
  Make a recommendation.
• 4:32
  Um, and I don't think everybody always feels that way.
• 4:34
  I'm, I, I would assume without knowing more of the details, that those
• 4:37
  individuals in ICE may have been more equivalent to the person who's just,
• 4:42
  look, you get told what to do and you do it, or you don't have a job.
• 4:45
  Mm-hmm.
• 4:45
  Um, and you may not have the weight or the authority to, to go, aren't those
• 4:51
  the folks that you would end up sometimes defending is because they either.
• 4:55
  Took a stand or didn't wanna follow orders.
• 4:58
  And so what's that like?
• 5:00
  So
• 5:03
  specific within the military?
• 5:04
  I definitely re recall on numerous occasions having discussions with
• 5:08
  people where their, due to personal beliefs due to uh, their, their sense of
• 5:14
  entitlement, sense of whatever they'd say.
• 5:16
  Like, yeah, they told me to do this, but I'm not doing it.
• 5:19
  And at least within the military look, there may be components where you
• 5:22
  can say, no, this isn't one of them.
• 5:24
  You can't say, I'm not showing up for pt. You can't say that I'm not
• 5:28
  going to my doctor's appointment that I'm scheduled for because that turns
• 5:32
  into a criminal, criminal offense.
• 5:34
  I'm, I'm not trying to maximize the punishment they can impose against you.
• 5:38
  Um, and so.
• 5:40
  I think my experience within the military can be so dis, can be distinguished from
• 5:46
  maybe what members of federal agencies who are, again, civilians employed by
• 5:51
  the federal government from those who swear on oath, raise a right hand and do
• 5:55
  relinquish a certain amount of rights.
• 5:58
  Um, that's
• 6:00
  it's important distinction is that the people that are working for
• 6:03
  ICE are civilians working on behalf of the federal government, right?
• 6:06
  Correct.
• 6:06
  So they, I mean, they can.
• 6:08
  You do have rights as a civilian, right?
• 6:11
  That you can, you cannot follow orders.
• 6:14
  You could have consequences to that, but you could have remedies and rights,
• 6:17
  right?
• 6:17
  I, I don't think, certainly, so I, I think as a civilian employed by a federal
• 6:24
  agency, your consequences for not doing your job, if that's how it would be
• 6:29
  described by the agency or something like that, is termination of your employment
• 6:34
  from a military member standpoint.
• 6:37
  Depending on the lens, it's viewed as far as, look, if it's legitimate grounds of
• 6:41
  a unlawful order goes outside the bounds.
• 6:43
  And
• 6:43
  I, I, I, yeah.
• 6:45
  'cause we saw orders where they would have, you know,
• 6:48
  the National Guard deployed.
• 6:49
  Mm-hmm.
• 6:51
  I mean that's, that's military, right?
• 6:52
  Or the Marines being deployed.
• 6:54
  Right.
• 6:54
  Like there, that is a situation where they could be like, you know
• 6:58
  what, this isn't, these are not.
• 7:00
  Can they say, these aren't even legal orders like this.
• 7:03
  So that process would take a legal advisor or a legal person reviewing
• 7:08
  what they've received, determining if the authority exists there, and then
• 7:12
  raising up the chain, Hey, we have concerns or questions about this action.
• 7:16
  Mm-hmm.
• 7:16
  Um, and the thought pro, I mean, typically decisions like that for an entire unit
• 7:22
  that's mobilized or something like that, elevated typically at least two.
• 7:26
  Uh, a full bird colonel in oh six who was advising that entire unit,
• 7:30
  that's typically a position that's held to, to cover a unit of that size.
• 7:33
  Um.
• 7:35
  And those are discussions happening.
• 7:37
  Well high up the chain.
• 7:38
  I, in my experience, I only got to touch on that a handful of times.
• 7:44
  Uh, so I had a client who was imposed punishment and they reduced his rank.
• 7:48
  I looked into the commanding general for his unit, had pushed out certain
• 7:53
  regulations, and very specifically in plain language, it said that the
• 7:57
  commander who imposed this punishment cannot reduce somebody of that rank.
• 8:01
  They don't have the authority to, and I notified the legal advisor for the unit
• 8:06
  and he goes, uh, I, I, you know what I, I, I think that that was supposed
• 8:10
  to be changed 'cause there was a change to the rules a couple of years ago.
• 8:13
  So I think that just got left in there by accident.
• 8:16
  And I said that sounds like it was the rule that was in
• 8:19
  place when you guys did this.
• 8:21
  I don't.
• 8:22
  Okay.
• 8:22
  So there was a process that exists within the Uniform code that's called an Article
• 8:26
  1 38 complaint, and it goes to the commander that wronged you if they imposed
• 8:30
  on a right that they weren't supposed to or anything like that, you have to
• 8:32
  notify them and request they remedy it.
• 8:35
  If they deny you, it immediately gets elevated to the
• 8:38
  commanding general above them.
• 8:39
  And so he denied it.
• 8:41
  I submitted it up.
• 8:42
  About a week and a half went by and the legal advisor to that commanding general,
• 8:47
  a full board colonel, contacted me and said, um, so what we think you should
• 8:53
  do is if you put in a request to have this removed, we think it'll go through.
• 8:59
  And if it doesn't, if you're not happy with the result, just contact
• 9:01
  me and we're gonna act on this.
• 9:03
  Okay.
• 9:04
  So I put up the request within 24 hours, they reinstated his rank,
• 9:07
  went back, everything was cleared.
• 9:09
  Um, so that was one of those situations where.
• 9:13
  I saw his position of maybe that rule shouldn't have been in place at the time.
• 9:17
  Maybe it should have been rescinded, but it was in place at the time.
• 9:20
  And so if you're not gonna give it to me, I will go up to the next level.
• 9:24
  And it's hopefully the check and balance that's supposed to exist there.
• 9:29
  Yeah,
• 9:30
  yeah.
• 9:30
  Yeah.
• 9:30
  So that's, um, you know, I'll turn the page now.
• 9:32
  This is, you know, mid-July or late July, we're filming this.
• 9:37
  Going into private practice.
• 9:38
  Yeah.
• 9:39
  So you're starting at a, well, a national law firm, but in their Phoenix
• 9:42
  office with, with Sweet James and Crew.
• 9:45
  Yep.
• 9:45
  Which I'm super happy about.
• 9:46
  I know we talked about this for a long time.
• 9:48
  'cause I think you have the opportunity to, because you've worn so many
• 9:51
  different hats where you could do that there and learn how to do what
• 9:55
  you're great at, which is helping human beings in the courtroom.
• 9:58
  I, yeah, so I, I, and I was thinking about this on the way in, you know, really
• 10:02
  kind of trying to, to narrow down why.
• 10:05
  Why I wanted to go this direction.
• 10:06
  And, and you were a huge, huge aspect to that, maintaining the relationship that
• 10:10
  I've had with you and, and understanding and following the work that you've done.
• 10:14
  Um, I think it gave me a great avenue to see.
• 10:17
  I enjoyed obviously being in the courtroom.
• 10:19
  That was a great experience for me.
• 10:20
  But when I was prosecuting, um, that was in, at Fort Bliss, I was relegated
• 10:26
  out to the US Attorney's office to be a special assistant US attorney,
• 10:29
  and I would prosecute offenses that occurred on, on federal land.
• 10:32
  I had discretion over my cases.
• 10:34
  I got to look at all the investigations.
• 10:35
  I gotta determine if they were sufficient or insufficient and kick
• 10:38
  them back and then decide what are we taking to trial so that authority
• 10:42
  over does this case have merit?
• 10:44
  Is there worthwhile in pursuing this?
• 10:47
  I loved that discretion being a defense attorney.
• 10:51
  I got to see the personal aspects.
• 10:53
  I got to see the context.
• 10:54
  Yes, you can say that somebody did a bad thing.
• 10:57
  Do you understand why?
• 10:58
  Do you understand the story behind this person?
• 11:00
  Um.
• 11:01
  Uh, an example was a, a, an individual I represented who had been serving
• 11:10
  for almost as long as I'd been alive.
• 11:12
  So he was, he'd done active time, he was in the reserves, but
• 11:15
  he was an activated reservist.
• 11:17
  So he was working year round, full-time job.
• 11:19
  And he was recruiter, he had been recruiting so long, he'd recruited all
• 11:24
  three of his sons to, to the military.
• 11:26
  Um, and he was now getting court martialed.
• 11:30
  For testing positive for marijuana.
• 11:32
  On multiple occasions, he was taking marijuana because he was on
• 11:38
  his third or fourth back surgery.
• 11:39
  Wow.
• 11:40
  Uh, fourth knee surgery, he was using a walker.
• 11:43
  I mean, it was 60, almost 60 years old, and even way better than being on opioids.
• 11:48
  And that was the issue was that he'd been prescribed opioids for a long time.
• 11:51
  But as a service member, you cannot use marijuana.
• 11:54
  And look, I understand that the letter of the law is can't use marijuana.
• 11:59
  I understand that maybe there were other avenues that he
• 12:01
  could have sought to try and get alternatives or something like that.
• 12:05
  But under the, the veil of, of 30 plus years of military service and
• 12:09
  what one of the sons that he had recruited into the military had
• 12:12
  passed, uh, was killed in action.
• 12:14
  He had given this country so much and I jumped on the case.
• 12:19
  I was super excited to not just tell his story, um, but also try to identify.
• 12:26
  Where the, the system had had failed him, and one of them was, yes, he
• 12:30
  had a number of positive tests.
• 12:34
  However, the way in which those tests were collected weren't correct.
• 12:38
  So I filed a motion before the judge could even rule on the motion
• 12:42
  to exclude a number of the tests.
• 12:43
  The government called me, we tend to agree, so they reduced it down from the
• 12:47
  seven or eight charges he had to one.
• 12:49
  And then we were arguing over her whether he gets to retire at his
• 12:52
  current rank or one rank below.
• 12:54
  And by the time we told the judge everything he had done, the
• 12:56
  judge goes, no rank reduction.
• 12:58
  Absolutely not.
• 12:59
  Wow.
• 12:59
  Yeah.
• 13:00
  But it takes that diligence to be able to fight for someone, learn the human story.
• 13:03
  We talk.
• 13:03
  I mean, this is why like it's a perfect transition for you.
• 13:05
  'cause it's the same thing.
• 13:06
  You learn the human story, the why, and then you can, you can work backwards.
• 13:10
  Man.
• 13:10
  That's, that's awesome.
• 13:11
  Shit.
• 13:11
  So like what are another issue?
• 13:13
  I mean, 'cause you were down in El Paso.
• 13:15
  Do you guys, did you ever have to deal with.
• 13:18
  Um, any type of immigration issue 'cause you're so close to the border.
• 13:21
  So being in federal court, I got to see, and I was, um, I made great relationships.
• 13:28
  I was, I was really able to connect with the people, the US Attorney's office,
• 13:31
  many of whom were former military members or, or current reservists.
• 13:35
  Um, and so they deal with the immigration issue of unlawful re reentries.
• 13:40
  I got to see, uh.
• 13:42
  Two separate trials where they were trying multiple members from
• 13:44
  the same incident where they were collected and things like that.
• 13:47
  Um, and I had actually in law school, um, I had interned for a
• 13:52
  judge at that courthouse in that federal courthouse for a summer.
• 13:55
  So I, I got to see quite a number of how regularly unlawful
• 13:59
  reentry cases popped up.
• 14:01
  Um, from the military side.
• 14:03
  I didn't.
• 14:04
  Touched those very much.
• 14:06
  There was brief moments where there, there was a correlation between
• 14:10
  involvement of military members and, um, crimes that were being investigated
• 14:14
  by the US Attorney's Office.
• 14:15
  So there was joint, uh, law enforcement investigation through.
• 14:19
  The, um, border Patrol, Homeland Security, the FBI and the militaries, um, criminal
• 14:27
  Investigations division, or CID and then as kind of the bridge between military
• 14:31
  prosecutors and the federal prosecutors, I would be looped in to try to understand,
• 14:36
  Hey, do you need assistance from us?
• 14:38
  Or is this something we need to take on?
• 14:40
  Are we dividing prosecution?
• 14:42
  Because anybody who's subject to the UCMJ can be prosecuted
• 14:46
  in a me, um, military court.
• 14:48
  Doesn't have to happen on a military installation.
• 14:49
  Doesn't have to happen.
• 14:51
  Um, just when you're, you're, you know, on base on duty.
• 14:56
  You're on duty 24 7.
• 14:58
  Um, and so there were some correlations.
• 15:01
  There were some cases that popped up where.
• 15:03
  A service member may have been involved or something like that,
• 15:05
  but nothing that I prosecuted.
• 15:06
  Well,
• 15:06
  I've seen some stuff in this, in the, the news where like, people that served the
• 15:10
  Mil US military were getting deported.
• 15:12
  Like, how does that happen?
• 15:14
  So I did have one client where this was kinda the case.
• 15:17
  So, um, and I don't know this this system perfectly, but I, I have
• 15:21
  a, a general understanding of it.
• 15:22
  So when I was stationed at Fort Leavenworth.
• 15:25
  One of the key things that occurs there is that the Army's, uh, rehearing
• 15:29
  center of excellence occurs there.
• 15:30
  So if a case is overturned on appeal and sent back to the trial court, they
• 15:35
  don't go back to the original courthouse.
• 15:37
  They don't go to the original jurisdiction or the original installation.
• 15:40
  They retrial all the cases at Fort Lor.
• 15:43
  Um, so I had a client who had, was very early into his military service,
• 15:47
  but had served about a year, and then he was convicted of a crime
• 15:50
  that was then over overturned.
• 15:52
  He came back to us and.
• 15:56
  I was working with the prosecutors as trying to understand whether there was
• 15:59
  a deal to be made on the, on the case, and my client was not a US citizen.
• 16:05
  Um, and what is required is a hundred days of honorable service.
• 16:12
  At a hundred days of honorable service in the United States military, you can
• 16:14
  apply for citizenship and it goes through your chain of command, who then sign
• 16:18
  off and submit the proper paperwork that then processes for your citizenship.
• 16:22
  Wait, I did not know this.
• 16:24
  So non-US citizens can get into the armed forces.
• 16:28
  Yes.
• 16:29
  And if they do a hundred days.
• 16:31
  They can actually apply for citizenship.
• 16:32
  Correct.
• 16:33
  Doesn't that sound like a fantastic opportunity?
• 16:35
  It is.
• 16:35
  Was presented.
• 16:36
  I did not know that.
• 16:36
  And it's one that's, that is exercised quite a bit.
• 16:39
  I, I served with quite a few individuals who did not have US citizenship
• 16:43
  when they joined and did that as a means, as a path towards citizenship.
• 16:46
  Wow.
• 16:47
  Yeah.
• 16:47
  Um, and then that ended up being a huge fighting point
• 16:51
  over his case, which was, um.
• 16:54
  We couldn't, we couldn't plead.
• 16:57
  There was no plea to be had because if you pled guilty to any offense, his service is
• 17:00
  not honorable at that stage, and he would lose the ability to gain citizenship.
• 17:04
  Um, fortunately for him, the facts were on his side as far as
• 17:09
  a, he did not commit the crime.
• 17:12
  I fought tooth and nail because the government.
• 17:17
  The prosecutors view the case differently is it may not be something that we
• 17:21
  can prosecute in a criminal case and, and, you know, uh, prosecute
• 17:25
  to beyond a reasonable doubt, but we can take into an administrative
• 17:27
  separation where the, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the
• 17:31
  evidence and we can get him kicked out.
• 17:34
  And I. Rose quite raised quite a bit of a stink over that case.
• 17:41
  I submitted one of those Article 1 38 complaints to the two Star General at my
• 17:45
  installation when, oh no, I apologize.
• 17:47
  Three Star General.
• 17:48
  And when he said no to doing what I asked, I had to raise it to a four star level.
• 17:53
  Um, and.
• 17:56
  I, I threw my name quite a bit out there.
• 17:59
  We filed with the appellate court Ritz for, for habeas corpus.
• 18:02
  Um, and ultimately he was found even at the administrative level
• 18:08
  not to have committed misconduct.
• 18:09
  Wow.
• 18:09
  He was released, honorably, paid back for the time that he served in jail.
• 18:14
  Um, and.
• 18:16
  The last time that I saw you when we had dinner in Arizona, I had just
• 18:19
  gotten a text from him that he was boarding his flight to New York to
• 18:22
  go be with his family and that his citizenship application was already in.
• 18:25
  Man, that's powerful.
• 18:26
  Yeah.
• 18:27
  Wow, man, that's such a, I mean, that's a very life changing moment.
• 18:31
  I, I have.
• 18:31
  Wow.
• 18:32
  I have that text.
• 18:33
  How long did you have that case?
• 18:40
  Seven months.
• 18:40
  Six.
• 18:41
  Seven months.
• 18:41
  Wow.
• 18:42
  Yeah, and I mean, I did not know.
• 18:45
  That was a path.
• 18:45
  So when we're hearing stuff in the news that people that are served or getting
• 18:49
  deported, so that likely means that they got this path to citizenship and
• 18:54
  they did some way to say, you committed a crime, now we're gonna revoke.
• 18:57
  I mean, it has to be something like that.
• 18:58
  So I, I could see many avenues.
• 19:00
  I could see, um, that they were discharged and their, their period of
• 19:03
  service was not considered honorable.
• 19:05
  Um, I could see it as, you know, in the case of my client, he'd already
• 19:08
  served more than that a hundred days before he had been taken to trial.
• 19:12
  Um.
• 19:13
  The paperwork hadn't been completed.
• 19:15
  And if that's the case, then you know, more concerning as to where's the
• 19:20
  bottleneck, where's the restriction?
• 19:21
  And I can't say for sure whether it's the individual who has the responsibility
• 19:26
  to, to, you know, push their thing ahead.
• 19:28
  Or did somebody leave it on a desk?
• 19:30
  Have you, I mean, I Do you think anybody's out there just enlisting in the u
• 19:34
  enlisting in the US Army solely for the purpose of getting US citizenship and
• 19:38
  just doing it for a nefarious purpose.
• 19:40
  Is
• 19:40
  No, no.
• 19:41
  Well, uh, do we have systems designed to ensure that somebody
• 19:44
  isn't joining the military to try to gain access to something that
• 19:47
  is a matter of national security?
• 19:48
  Absolutely.
• 19:49
  Do.
• 19:50
  I, as I stated, I work, I, I had the pleasure of serving with individuals
• 19:55
  who were, you know, citizens of other countries or seeking citizenship
• 19:59
  in the United States, and they were always incredibly high integrity
• 20:05
  individuals, high work ethic, and.
• 20:08
  A pleasure to be around.
• 20:09
  So, man, this is such a good step.
• 20:11
  All right, so where, how do people find Captain Spencer Wolf?
• 20:14
  What's the best way to contact you now?
• 20:15
  Uh, so, uh, I'm certain that I will probably have a Sweet
• 20:18
  James email coming up soon.
• 20:20
  Um, I, on my state bar profile at the State of California, um, I have
• 20:25
  always listed my personal email.
• 20:27
  So as much as that thing is starting to get a little bit flooded
• 20:30
  as time goes on, uh, Spencer c Wolf, Spencer cWolf@gmail.com
• 20:35
  is an easy way to contact me.
• 20:37
  I've.
• 20:38
  Been a huge fan of mentorship.
• 20:40
  Um, that's something I've been blessed by.
• 20:42
  I talked about you, I've talked to, um, talked about the people that
• 20:45
  helped me get into law school and they helped me navigate that avenue.
• 20:47
  And so I've always wanted to try and give back.
• 20:50
  I've tried to help mentor individuals who are interested about the JAG
• 20:52
  course, so if anybody has questions about that, they're, they're more
• 20:54
  than welcome to reach out to me.
• 20:55
  Awesome.
• 20:56
  Well, welcome to the quasi civilian field.
• 20:58
  I mean, you're gonna be full on private, but still in the military.
• 21:01
  It's awesome.
• 21:02
  Well, thank you for watching, listening to this episode, the Justice Team Network.
• 21:05
  The Just team podcast.
• 21:07
  The just team network.
• 21:07
  But man, there's so much stuff that I learned this episode that
• 21:09
  I'm gonna deploy immediately.
• 21:11
  Thanks brother.
• 21:12
  Thank you.