August 19, 2025 • 21 mins
https://justiceteamnetwork.com
Welcome back to Part 2 of Spencer's visit on the Justice Team Podcast. The discussion shifts to various challenges in leadership styles within the military, compliance with orders, and the balance of personal beliefs versus professional duties. Spencer shares his experiences defending service members, navigating legal issues related to COVID-19 mandates, and working with federal agencies such as ICE.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:02):
Hey, it's Bob Simon taking abreak to tell you about CallRail.
CallRail is a product that my firm uses,and what CallRail does is it plugs into
your phone calls with your intake and withyour clients to record those phone calls
as real time transcripts so you can getintelligence and with the attorney share.
Plugin, you can actually, in realtime, be able to send a referral out
(00:22):
through the marketplace to find thebest match all made possible with
CallRail being plugged into your firm'sintake with real intelligence CallRail.
Well, what are some of the frustrationsthat you've had with, with the system?
Um, so I think it's, it's onethat's easily attributable and
I, I, I always wanna caveat.
(00:45):
Every experience I've had through life.
Great positives, things that frustrate me.
So if, if I had to highlight some of thefrustrations, um, you know, it's, it's
maybe that, that abuse of power kindof component that we've seen before.
And it's, it's just that there'sdifferent leadership styles or traits
that somebody thinks is effective.
(01:07):
The Army actually has,um, literature they have.
Training manuals on how to avoid toxicleadership, how to try to be an empathetic
leader, how they, how do you focus ongetting people to want to follow your
orders, not just getting direct follow.
Does,
does it change from likechain of command down?
Like does, 'cause you were there fortwo different presidencies, right?
(01:30):
Correct.
Does it, does thatchange from the top down?
So the, the, the mindset behind itfor the military is always a. We are
not concerned with who is in the seat.
We are concerned with the orders that weare given, the legal legality to follow
those orders and executing the mission.
(01:51):
And so we are, you know, themilitary is a non-partisan.
Organization.
It is a non-partisan arm of thegovernment that is intended to
ensure it meets its requirement.
And the, the surface level mainmission requirement is to defend
the nation from all enemies.
Um, and so
even the enemy within
it?
(02:11):
Yes.
Foreign and domestic.
Well, let me ask, so I, and we'veheard stories out there that
there were certain, certain peoplewithin ICE that said, I don't feel
comfortable with this, and they're.
Aren't there means for people tosay like, I feel like the orders
I'm given are not appropriate.
Like, what do they dounder that circumstance?
Because I had some people reach outto me that, that had that question.
(02:33):
I didn't know how to answer that for them.
Like, what do I do if I'm at ICEand I feel uncomfortable with this?
Or if there's something soinappropriate, like, what do I do?
I don't wanna follow these orders.
Sure.
And, and so I have to be clear that, youknow, ICE being a federal agency that is
distinct from the Department of Defense.
Many different channels mayexist, many different supervisory
hierarchies that may exist.
(02:53):
I know with the, within the military, atleast the experience that I had, was when
the, the COVID vaccine mandates came down.
There certainly was a divisive kindof response to that, where some
people were fully in support, otherpeople were, were highly opposed.
Um, and so.
Being the legal advisor to thecommanders as they're asking me,
(03:13):
what do I do here if I don't agreewith this or I don't agree with that.
And the truth, I, I told them, I said,look, we're at this stage in this
part of the process, um, where ifsomebody, if somebody isn't voluntarily
committing to the vaccine mm-hmm.
And we are now asking your opinionas to whether approve or deny
(03:34):
their request to not get it.
Sir, state your opinion.
I'm not here to tell you what to say.
If you're looking for assistanceon, you wanna support their, their
request, or you want to deny theirrequest and you, you need help forming
your opinion, we can talk about it.
I can help give you a draft or whatever,but I'm not, nothing that I'm writing
is what I'm telling you to say.
(03:56):
Nobody can dictate that.
And if somebody has an issue withwhat you say, you're the one who
bears their consequences for that.
Um, so I, I think.
There were some thatsaid, yeah, absolutely.
If I think that somebody's got avalid purpose or reason to deny, I'm
going to argue for their approval.
And the people above me may beof a different opinion and say,
no, I think they should get it.
And you're, you're dumb for supporting it.
(04:17):
So be it.
The, the difference ofopinion wasn't an issue.
Um, but they had to know, am Iin a position to make a a stand?
Can I, am I in a positionto, to, you know.
Make a recommendation.
Um, and I don't think everybodyalways feels that way.
I'm, I, I would assume without knowingmore of the details, that those
individuals in ICE may have been moreequivalent to the person who's just,
(04:42):
look, you get told what to do andyou do it, or you don't have a job.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and you may not have the weight orthe authority to, to go, aren't those
the folks that you would end up sometimesdefending is because they either.
Took a stand or didn'twanna follow orders.
And so what's that like?
So
(05:03):
specific within the military?
I definitely re recall on numerousoccasions having discussions with
people where their, due to personalbeliefs due to uh, their, their sense of
entitlement, sense of whatever they'd say.
Like, yeah, they told me todo this, but I'm not doing it.
And at least within the military look,there may be components where you
can say, no, this isn't one of them.
(05:24):
You can't say, I'm not showing upfor pt. You can't say that I'm not
going to my doctor's appointment thatI'm scheduled for because that turns
into a criminal, criminal offense.
I'm, I'm not trying to maximize thepunishment they can impose against you.
Um, and so.
I think my experience within the militarycan be so dis, can be distinguished from
(05:46):
maybe what members of federal agencieswho are, again, civilians employed by
the federal government from those whoswear on oath, raise a right hand and do
relinquish a certain amount of rights.
Um, that's
it's important distinction is thatthe people that are working for
ICE are civilians working on behalfof the federal government, right?
(06:06):
Correct.
So they, I mean, they can.
You do have rights as a civilian, right?
That you can, you cannot follow orders.
You could have consequences to that,but you could have remedies and rights,
right?
I, I don't think, certainly, so I, Ithink as a civilian employed by a federal
agency, your consequences for not doingyour job, if that's how it would be
(06:29):
described by the agency or something likethat, is termination of your employment
from a military member standpoint.
Depending on the lens, it's viewed as faras, look, if it's legitimate grounds of
a unlawful order goes outside the bounds.
And
I, I, I, yeah.
'cause we saw orders wherethey would have, you know,
the National Guard deployed.
(06:49):
Mm-hmm.
I mean that's, that's military, right?
Or the Marines being deployed.
Right.
Like there, that is a situationwhere they could be like, you know
what, this isn't, these are not.
Can they say, these aren'teven legal orders like this.
So that process would take a legaladvisor or a legal person reviewing
what they've received, determining ifthe authority exists there, and then
(07:12):
raising up the chain, Hey, we haveconcerns or questions about this action.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and the thought pro, I mean, typicallydecisions like that for an entire unit
that's mobilized or something likethat, elevated typically at least two.
Uh, a full bird colonel in oh sixwho was advising that entire unit,
that's typically a position that'sheld to, to cover a unit of that size.
(07:33):
Um.
And those are discussions happening.
Well high up the chain.
I, in my experience, I only got totouch on that a handful of times.
Uh, so I had a client who was imposedpunishment and they reduced his rank.
I looked into the commanding generalfor his unit, had pushed out certain
regulations, and very specificallyin plain language, it said that the
(07:57):
commander who imposed this punishmentcannot reduce somebody of that rank.
They don't have the authority to, and Inotified the legal advisor for the unit
and he goes, uh, I, I, you know whatI, I, I think that that was supposed
to be changed 'cause there was a changeto the rules a couple of years ago.
So I think that just gotleft in there by accident.
And I said that sounds likeit was the rule that was in
(08:19):
place when you guys did this.
I don't.
Okay.
So there was a process that exists withinthe Uniform code that's called an Article
1 38 complaint, and it goes to thecommander that wronged you if they imposed
on a right that they weren't supposedto or anything like that, you have to
notify them and request they remedy it.
If they deny you, itimmediately gets elevated to the
commanding general above them.
(08:39):
And so he denied it.
I submitted it up.
About a week and a half went by and thelegal advisor to that commanding general,
a full board colonel, contacted me andsaid, um, so what we think you should
do is if you put in a request to havethis removed, we think it'll go through.
And if it doesn't, if you're nothappy with the result, just contact
(09:01):
me and we're gonna act on this.
Okay.
So I put up the request within 24hours, they reinstated his rank,
went back, everything was cleared.
Um, so that was one ofthose situations where.
I saw his position of maybe that ruleshouldn't have been in place at the time.
Maybe it should have been rescinded,but it was in place at the time.
And so if you're not gonna give it tome, I will go up to the next level.
(09:24):
And it's hopefully the check andbalance that's supposed to exist there.
Yeah,
yeah.
Yeah.
So that's, um, you know,I'll turn the page now.
This is, you know, mid-July orlate July, we're filming this.
Going into private practice.
Yeah.
So you're starting at a, well, anational law firm, but in their Phoenix
office with, with Sweet James and Crew.
(09:45):
Yep.
Which I'm super happy about.
I know we talked aboutthis for a long time.
'cause I think you have the opportunityto, because you've worn so many
different hats where you could dothat there and learn how to do what
you're great at, which is helpinghuman beings in the courtroom.
I, yeah, so I, I, and I was thinkingabout this on the way in, you know, really
kind of trying to, to narrow down why.
(10:05):
Why I wanted to go this direction.
And, and you were a huge, huge aspect tothat, maintaining the relationship that
I've had with you and, and understandingand following the work that you've done.
Um, I think it gave mea great avenue to see.
I enjoyed obviouslybeing in the courtroom.
That was a great experience for me.
But when I was prosecuting, um, thatwas in, at Fort Bliss, I was relegated
(10:26):
out to the US Attorney's office tobe a special assistant US attorney,
and I would prosecute offensesthat occurred on, on federal land.
I had discretion over my cases.
I got to look at all the investigations.
I gotta determine if they weresufficient or insufficient and kick
them back and then decide what arewe taking to trial so that authority
over does this case have merit?
Is there worthwhile in pursuing this?
(10:47):
I loved that discretionbeing a defense attorney.
I got to see the personal aspects.
I got to see the context.
Yes, you can say thatsomebody did a bad thing.
Do you understand why?
Do you understand thestory behind this person?
Um.
Uh, an example was a, a, an individualI represented who had been serving
(11:10):
for almost as long as I'd been alive.
So he was, he'd done activetime, he was in the reserves, but
he was an activated reservist.
So he was working yearround, full-time job.
And he was recruiter, he had beenrecruiting so long, he'd recruited all
three of his sons to, to the military.
Um, and he was nowgetting court martialed.
(11:30):
For testing positive for marijuana.
On multiple occasions, he wastaking marijuana because he was on
his third or fourth back surgery.
Wow.
Uh, fourth knee surgery,he was using a walker.
I mean, it was 60, almost 60 years old,and even way better than being on opioids.
And that was the issue was that he'dbeen prescribed opioids for a long time.
(11:51):
But as a service member,you cannot use marijuana.
And look, I understand that the letterof the law is can't use marijuana.
I understand that maybe therewere other avenues that he
could have sought to try and getalternatives or something like that.
But under the, the veil of, of 30plus years of military service and
what one of the sons that he hadrecruited into the military had
(12:12):
passed, uh, was killed in action.
He had given this country somuch and I jumped on the case.
I was super excited to not just tellhis story, um, but also try to identify.
Where the, the system had had failedhim, and one of them was, yes, he
had a number of positive tests.
(12:34):
However, the way in which thosetests were collected weren't correct.
So I filed a motion before thejudge could even rule on the motion
to exclude a number of the tests.
The government called me, we tend toagree, so they reduced it down from the
seven or eight charges he had to one.
And then we were arguing over herwhether he gets to retire at his
current rank or one rank below.
And by the time we told thejudge everything he had done, the
(12:56):
judge goes, no rank reduction.
Absolutely not.
Wow.
Yeah.
But it takes that diligence to be able tofight for someone, learn the human story.
We talk.
I mean, this is why like it'sa perfect transition for you.
'cause it's the same thing.
You learn the human story, the why, andthen you can, you can work backwards.
Man.
That's, that's awesome.
Shit.
So like what are another issue?
I mean, 'cause you were down in El Paso.
Do you guys, did youever have to deal with.
(13:18):
Um, any type of immigration issue'cause you're so close to the border.
So being in federal court, I got to see,and I was, um, I made great relationships.
I was, I was really able to connect withthe people, the US Attorney's office,
many of whom were former militarymembers or, or current reservists.
Um, and so they deal with the immigrationissue of unlawful re reentries.
(13:40):
I got to see, uh.
Two separate trials where theywere trying multiple members from
the same incident where they werecollected and things like that.
Um, and I had actually in lawschool, um, I had interned for a
judge at that courthouse in thatfederal courthouse for a summer.
So I, I got to see quite anumber of how regularly unlawful
reentry cases popped up.
(14:01):
Um, from the military side.
I didn't.
Touched those very much.
There was brief moments where there,there was a correlation between
involvement of military members and,um, crimes that were being investigated
by the US Attorney's Office.
So there was joint, uh, lawenforcement investigation through.
The, um, border Patrol, Homeland Security,the FBI and the militaries, um, criminal
(14:27):
Investigations division, or CID and thenas kind of the bridge between military
prosecutors and the federal prosecutors,I would be looped in to try to understand,
Hey, do you need assistance from us?
Or is this something we need to take on?
Are we dividing prosecution?
Because anybody who's subjectto the UCMJ can be prosecuted
in a me, um, military court.
(14:48):
Doesn't have to happen ona military installation.
Doesn't have to happen.
Um, just when you're, you're,you know, on base on duty.
You're on duty 24 7.
Um, and so there were some correlations.
There were some casesthat popped up where.
A service member may have beeninvolved or something like that,
but nothing that I prosecuted.
Well,
I've seen some stuff in this, in the, thenews where like, people that served the
(15:10):
Mil US military were getting deported.
Like, how does that happen?
So I did have one clientwhere this was kinda the case.
So, um, and I don't know this thissystem perfectly, but I, I have
a, a general understanding of it.
So when I was stationedat Fort Leavenworth.
One of the key things that occursthere is that the Army's, uh, rehearing
center of excellence occurs there.
(15:30):
So if a case is overturned on appealand sent back to the trial court, they
don't go back to the original courthouse.
They don't go to the originaljurisdiction or the original installation.
They retrial all the cases at Fort Lor.
Um, so I had a client who had, wasvery early into his military service,
but had served about a year, andthen he was convicted of a crime
(15:50):
that was then over overturned.
He came back to us and.
I was working with the prosecutors astrying to understand whether there was
a deal to be made on the, on the case,and my client was not a US citizen.
Um, and what is required is ahundred days of honorable service.
(16:12):
At a hundred days of honorable servicein the United States military, you can
apply for citizenship and it goes throughyour chain of command, who then sign
off and submit the proper paperwork thatthen processes for your citizenship.
Wait, I did not know this.
So non-US citizens canget into the armed forces.
Yes.
And if they do a hundred days.
They can actually apply for citizenship.
(16:32):
Correct.
Doesn't that sound likea fantastic opportunity?
It is.
Was presented.
I did not know that.
And it's one that's, thatis exercised quite a bit.
I, I served with quite a few individualswho did not have US citizenship
when they joined and did that as ameans, as a path towards citizenship.
Wow.
Yeah.
Um, and then that ended upbeing a huge fighting point
over his case, which was, um.
(16:54):
We couldn't, we couldn't plead.
There was no plea to be had because if youpled guilty to any offense, his service is
not honorable at that stage, and he wouldlose the ability to gain citizenship.
Um, fortunately for him, thefacts were on his side as far as
a, he did not commit the crime.
I fought tooth and nailbecause the government.
(17:17):
The prosecutors view the case differentlyis it may not be something that we
can prosecute in a criminal caseand, and, you know, uh, prosecute
to beyond a reasonable doubt, butwe can take into an administrative
separation where the, the standardof proof is a preponderance of the
evidence and we can get him kicked out.
And I. Rose quite raised quitea bit of a stink over that case.
(17:41):
I submitted one of those Article 1 38complaints to the two Star General at my
installation when, oh no, I apologize.
Three Star General.
And when he said no to doing what I asked,I had to raise it to a four star level.
Um, and.
I, I threw my name quite a bit out there.
We filed with the appellate courtRitz for, for habeas corpus.
(18:02):
Um, and ultimately he was foundeven at the administrative level
not to have committed misconduct.
Wow.
He was released, honorably, paid backfor the time that he served in jail.
Um, and.
The last time that I saw you whenwe had dinner in Arizona, I had just
gotten a text from him that he wasboarding his flight to New York to
go be with his family and that hiscitizenship application was already in.
(18:25):
Man, that's powerful.
Yeah.
Wow, man, that's such a, I mean,that's a very life changing moment.
I, I have.
Wow.
I have that text.
How long did you have that case?
Seven months.
Six.
Seven months.
Wow.
Yeah, and I mean, I did not know.
That was a path.
(18:45):
So when we're hearing stuff in the newsthat people that are served or getting
deported, so that likely means thatthey got this path to citizenship and
they did some way to say, you committeda crime, now we're gonna revoke.
I mean, it has to be something like that.
So I, I could see many avenues.
I could see, um, that they weredischarged and their, their period of
service was not considered honorable.
Um, I could see it as, you know, inthe case of my client, he'd already
(19:08):
served more than that a hundred daysbefore he had been taken to trial.
Um.
The paperwork hadn't been completed.
And if that's the case, then you know,more concerning as to where's the
bottleneck, where's the restriction?
And I can't say for sure whether it'sthe individual who has the responsibility
to, to, you know, push their thing ahead.
Or did somebody leave it on a desk?
(19:30):
Have you, I mean, I Do you think anybody'sout there just enlisting in the u
enlisting in the US Army solely for thepurpose of getting US citizenship and
just doing it for a nefarious purpose.
Is
No, no.
Well, uh, do we have systemsdesigned to ensure that somebody
isn't joining the military to tryto gain access to something that
is a matter of national security?
Absolutely.
Do.
I, as I stated, I work, I, I had thepleasure of serving with individuals
(19:55):
who were, you know, citizens of othercountries or seeking citizenship
in the United States, and they werealways incredibly high integrity
individuals, high work ethic, and.
A pleasure to be around.
So, man, this is such a good step.
All right, so where, how dopeople find Captain Spencer Wolf?
What's the best way to contact you now?
(20:15):
Uh, so, uh, I'm certain thatI will probably have a Sweet
James email coming up soon.
Um, I, on my state bar profile atthe State of California, um, I have
always listed my personal email.
So as much as that thing isstarting to get a little bit flooded
as time goes on, uh, Spencer cWolf, Spencer cWolf@gmail.com
is an easy way to contact me.
(20:37):
I've.
Been a huge fan of mentorship.
Um, that's something I've been blessed by.
I talked about you, I've talked to,um, talked about the people that
helped me get into law school andthey helped me navigate that avenue.
And so I've always wantedto try and give back.
I've tried to help mentor individualswho are interested about the JAG
course, so if anybody has questionsabout that, they're, they're more
than welcome to reach out to me.
Awesome.
Well, welcome to the quasi civilian field.
(20:58):
I mean, you're gonna be full onprivate, but still in the military.
It's awesome.
Well, thank you for watching, listeningto this episode, the Justice Team Network.
The Just team podcast.
The just team network.
But man, there's so much stuffthat I learned this episode that
I'm gonna deploy immediately.
Thanks brother.
Thank you.
Hey, it's Bob Simon taking abreak to tell you about CallRail.
CallRail is a product that my firm uses,and what CallRail does is it plugs into
your phone calls with your intake and withyour clients to record those phone calls
as real time transcripts so you can getintelligence and with the attorney share.
Plugin, you can actually, in realtime, be able to send a referral out
(00:22):
through the marketplace to find thebest match all made possible with
CallRail being plugged into your firm'sintake with real intelligence CallRail.
Well, what are some of the frustrationsthat you've had with, with the system?
Um, so I think it's, it's onethat's easily attributable and
I, I, I always wanna caveat.
(00:45):
Every experience I've had through life.
Great positives, things that frustrate me.
So if, if I had to highlight some of thefrustrations, um, you know, it's, it's
maybe that, that abuse of power kindof component that we've seen before.
And it's, it's just that there'sdifferent leadership styles or traits
that somebody thinks is effective.
(01:07):
The Army actually has,um, literature they have.
Training manuals on how to avoid toxicleadership, how to try to be an empathetic
leader, how they, how do you focus ongetting people to want to follow your
orders, not just getting direct follow.
Does,
does it change from likechain of command down?
Like does, 'cause you were there fortwo different presidencies, right?
(01:30):
Correct.
Does it, does thatchange from the top down?
So the, the, the mindset behind itfor the military is always a. We are
not concerned with who is in the seat.
We are concerned with the orders that weare given, the legal legality to follow
those orders and executing the mission.
(01:51):
And so we are, you know, themilitary is a non-partisan.
Organization.
It is a non-partisan arm of thegovernment that is intended to
ensure it meets its requirement.
And the, the surface level mainmission requirement is to defend
the nation from all enemies.
Um, and so
even the enemy within
it?
(02:11):
Yes.
Foreign and domestic.
Well, let me ask, so I, and we'veheard stories out there that
there were certain, certain peoplewithin ICE that said, I don't feel
comfortable with this, and they're.
Aren't there means for people tosay like, I feel like the orders
I'm given are not appropriate.
Like, what do they dounder that circumstance?
Because I had some people reach outto me that, that had that question.
(02:33):
I didn't know how to answer that for them.
Like, what do I do if I'm at ICEand I feel uncomfortable with this?
Or if there's something soinappropriate, like, what do I do?
I don't wanna follow these orders.
Sure.
And, and so I have to be clear that, youknow, ICE being a federal agency that is
distinct from the Department of Defense.
Many different channels mayexist, many different supervisory
hierarchies that may exist.
(02:53):
I know with the, within the military, atleast the experience that I had, was when
the, the COVID vaccine mandates came down.
There certainly was a divisive kindof response to that, where some
people were fully in support, otherpeople were, were highly opposed.
Um, and so.
Being the legal advisor to thecommanders as they're asking me,
(03:13):
what do I do here if I don't agreewith this or I don't agree with that.
And the truth, I, I told them, I said,look, we're at this stage in this
part of the process, um, where ifsomebody, if somebody isn't voluntarily
committing to the vaccine mm-hmm.
And we are now asking your opinionas to whether approve or deny
(03:34):
their request to not get it.
Sir, state your opinion.
I'm not here to tell you what to say.
If you're looking for assistanceon, you wanna support their, their
request, or you want to deny theirrequest and you, you need help forming
your opinion, we can talk about it.
I can help give you a draft or whatever,but I'm not, nothing that I'm writing
is what I'm telling you to say.
(03:56):
Nobody can dictate that.
And if somebody has an issue withwhat you say, you're the one who
bears their consequences for that.
Um, so I, I think.
There were some thatsaid, yeah, absolutely.
If I think that somebody's got avalid purpose or reason to deny, I'm
going to argue for their approval.
And the people above me may beof a different opinion and say,
no, I think they should get it.
And you're, you're dumb for supporting it.
(04:17):
So be it.
The, the difference ofopinion wasn't an issue.
Um, but they had to know, am Iin a position to make a a stand?
Can I, am I in a positionto, to, you know.
Make a recommendation.
Um, and I don't think everybodyalways feels that way.
I'm, I, I would assume without knowingmore of the details, that those
individuals in ICE may have been moreequivalent to the person who's just,
(04:42):
look, you get told what to do andyou do it, or you don't have a job.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and you may not have the weight orthe authority to, to go, aren't those
the folks that you would end up sometimesdefending is because they either.
Took a stand or didn'twanna follow orders.
And so what's that like?
So
(05:03):
specific within the military?
I definitely re recall on numerousoccasions having discussions with
people where their, due to personalbeliefs due to uh, their, their sense of
entitlement, sense of whatever they'd say.
Like, yeah, they told me todo this, but I'm not doing it.
And at least within the military look,there may be components where you
can say, no, this isn't one of them.
(05:24):
You can't say, I'm not showing upfor pt. You can't say that I'm not
going to my doctor's appointment thatI'm scheduled for because that turns
into a criminal, criminal offense.
I'm, I'm not trying to maximize thepunishment they can impose against you.
Um, and so.
I think my experience within the militarycan be so dis, can be distinguished from
(05:46):
maybe what members of federal agencieswho are, again, civilians employed by
the federal government from those whoswear on oath, raise a right hand and do
relinquish a certain amount of rights.
Um, that's
it's important distinction is thatthe people that are working for
ICE are civilians working on behalfof the federal government, right?
(06:06):
Correct.
So they, I mean, they can.
You do have rights as a civilian, right?
That you can, you cannot follow orders.
You could have consequences to that,but you could have remedies and rights,
right?
I, I don't think, certainly, so I, Ithink as a civilian employed by a federal
agency, your consequences for not doingyour job, if that's how it would be
(06:29):
described by the agency or something likethat, is termination of your employment
from a military member standpoint.
Depending on the lens, it's viewed as faras, look, if it's legitimate grounds of
a unlawful order goes outside the bounds.
And
I, I, I, yeah.
'cause we saw orders wherethey would have, you know,
the National Guard deployed.
(06:49):
Mm-hmm.
I mean that's, that's military, right?
Or the Marines being deployed.
Right.
Like there, that is a situationwhere they could be like, you know
what, this isn't, these are not.
Can they say, these aren'teven legal orders like this.
So that process would take a legaladvisor or a legal person reviewing
what they've received, determining ifthe authority exists there, and then
(07:12):
raising up the chain, Hey, we haveconcerns or questions about this action.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and the thought pro, I mean, typicallydecisions like that for an entire unit
that's mobilized or something likethat, elevated typically at least two.
Uh, a full bird colonel in oh sixwho was advising that entire unit,
that's typically a position that'sheld to, to cover a unit of that size.
(07:33):
Um.
And those are discussions happening.
Well high up the chain.
I, in my experience, I only got totouch on that a handful of times.
Uh, so I had a client who was imposedpunishment and they reduced his rank.
I looked into the commanding generalfor his unit, had pushed out certain
regulations, and very specificallyin plain language, it said that the
(07:57):
commander who imposed this punishmentcannot reduce somebody of that rank.
They don't have the authority to, and Inotified the legal advisor for the unit
and he goes, uh, I, I, you know whatI, I, I think that that was supposed
to be changed 'cause there was a changeto the rules a couple of years ago.
So I think that just gotleft in there by accident.
And I said that sounds likeit was the rule that was in
(08:19):
place when you guys did this.
I don't.
Okay.
So there was a process that exists withinthe Uniform code that's called an Article
1 38 complaint, and it goes to thecommander that wronged you if they imposed
on a right that they weren't supposedto or anything like that, you have to
notify them and request they remedy it.
If they deny you, itimmediately gets elevated to the
commanding general above them.
(08:39):
And so he denied it.
I submitted it up.
About a week and a half went by and thelegal advisor to that commanding general,
a full board colonel, contacted me andsaid, um, so what we think you should
do is if you put in a request to havethis removed, we think it'll go through.
And if it doesn't, if you're nothappy with the result, just contact
(09:01):
me and we're gonna act on this.
Okay.
So I put up the request within 24hours, they reinstated his rank,
went back, everything was cleared.
Um, so that was one ofthose situations where.
I saw his position of maybe that ruleshouldn't have been in place at the time.
Maybe it should have been rescinded,but it was in place at the time.
And so if you're not gonna give it tome, I will go up to the next level.
(09:24):
And it's hopefully the check andbalance that's supposed to exist there.
Yeah,
yeah.
Yeah.
So that's, um, you know,I'll turn the page now.
This is, you know, mid-July orlate July, we're filming this.
Going into private practice.
Yeah.
So you're starting at a, well, anational law firm, but in their Phoenix
office with, with Sweet James and Crew.
(09:45):
Yep.
Which I'm super happy about.
I know we talked aboutthis for a long time.
'cause I think you have the opportunityto, because you've worn so many
different hats where you could dothat there and learn how to do what
you're great at, which is helpinghuman beings in the courtroom.
I, yeah, so I, I, and I was thinkingabout this on the way in, you know, really
kind of trying to, to narrow down why.
(10:05):
Why I wanted to go this direction.
And, and you were a huge, huge aspect tothat, maintaining the relationship that
I've had with you and, and understandingand following the work that you've done.
Um, I think it gave mea great avenue to see.
I enjoyed obviouslybeing in the courtroom.
That was a great experience for me.
But when I was prosecuting, um, thatwas in, at Fort Bliss, I was relegated
(10:26):
out to the US Attorney's office tobe a special assistant US attorney,
and I would prosecute offensesthat occurred on, on federal land.
I had discretion over my cases.
I got to look at all the investigations.
I gotta determine if they weresufficient or insufficient and kick
them back and then decide what arewe taking to trial so that authority
over does this case have merit?
Is there worthwhile in pursuing this?
(10:47):
I loved that discretionbeing a defense attorney.
I got to see the personal aspects.
I got to see the context.
Yes, you can say thatsomebody did a bad thing.
Do you understand why?
Do you understand thestory behind this person?
Um.
Uh, an example was a, a, an individualI represented who had been serving
(11:10):
for almost as long as I'd been alive.
So he was, he'd done activetime, he was in the reserves, but
he was an activated reservist.
So he was working yearround, full-time job.
And he was recruiter, he had beenrecruiting so long, he'd recruited all
three of his sons to, to the military.
Um, and he was nowgetting court martialed.
(11:30):
For testing positive for marijuana.
On multiple occasions, he wastaking marijuana because he was on
his third or fourth back surgery.
Wow.
Uh, fourth knee surgery,he was using a walker.
I mean, it was 60, almost 60 years old,and even way better than being on opioids.
And that was the issue was that he'dbeen prescribed opioids for a long time.
(11:51):
But as a service member,you cannot use marijuana.
And look, I understand that the letterof the law is can't use marijuana.
I understand that maybe therewere other avenues that he
could have sought to try and getalternatives or something like that.
But under the, the veil of, of 30plus years of military service and
what one of the sons that he hadrecruited into the military had
(12:12):
passed, uh, was killed in action.
He had given this country somuch and I jumped on the case.
I was super excited to not just tellhis story, um, but also try to identify.
Where the, the system had had failedhim, and one of them was, yes, he
had a number of positive tests.
(12:34):
However, the way in which thosetests were collected weren't correct.
So I filed a motion before thejudge could even rule on the motion
to exclude a number of the tests.
The government called me, we tend toagree, so they reduced it down from the
seven or eight charges he had to one.
And then we were arguing over herwhether he gets to retire at his
current rank or one rank below.
And by the time we told thejudge everything he had done, the
(12:56):
judge goes, no rank reduction.
Absolutely not.
Wow.
Yeah.
But it takes that diligence to be able tofight for someone, learn the human story.
We talk.
I mean, this is why like it'sa perfect transition for you.
'cause it's the same thing.
You learn the human story, the why, andthen you can, you can work backwards.
Man.
That's, that's awesome.
Shit.
So like what are another issue?
I mean, 'cause you were down in El Paso.
Do you guys, did youever have to deal with.
(13:18):
Um, any type of immigration issue'cause you're so close to the border.
So being in federal court, I got to see,and I was, um, I made great relationships.
I was, I was really able to connect withthe people, the US Attorney's office,
many of whom were former militarymembers or, or current reservists.
Um, and so they deal with the immigrationissue of unlawful re reentries.
(13:40):
I got to see, uh.
Two separate trials where theywere trying multiple members from
the same incident where they werecollected and things like that.
Um, and I had actually in lawschool, um, I had interned for a
judge at that courthouse in thatfederal courthouse for a summer.
So I, I got to see quite anumber of how regularly unlawful
reentry cases popped up.
(14:01):
Um, from the military side.
I didn't.
Touched those very much.
There was brief moments where there,there was a correlation between
involvement of military members and,um, crimes that were being investigated
by the US Attorney's Office.
So there was joint, uh, lawenforcement investigation through.
The, um, border Patrol, Homeland Security,the FBI and the militaries, um, criminal
(14:27):
Investigations division, or CID and thenas kind of the bridge between military
prosecutors and the federal prosecutors,I would be looped in to try to understand,
Hey, do you need assistance from us?
Or is this something we need to take on?
Are we dividing prosecution?
Because anybody who's subjectto the UCMJ can be prosecuted
in a me, um, military court.
(14:48):
Doesn't have to happen ona military installation.
Doesn't have to happen.
Um, just when you're, you're,you know, on base on duty.
You're on duty 24 7.
Um, and so there were some correlations.
There were some casesthat popped up where.
A service member may have beeninvolved or something like that,
but nothing that I prosecuted.
Well,
I've seen some stuff in this, in the, thenews where like, people that served the
(15:10):
Mil US military were getting deported.
Like, how does that happen?
So I did have one clientwhere this was kinda the case.
So, um, and I don't know this thissystem perfectly, but I, I have
a, a general understanding of it.
So when I was stationedat Fort Leavenworth.
One of the key things that occursthere is that the Army's, uh, rehearing
center of excellence occurs there.
(15:30):
So if a case is overturned on appealand sent back to the trial court, they
don't go back to the original courthouse.
They don't go to the originaljurisdiction or the original installation.
They retrial all the cases at Fort Lor.
Um, so I had a client who had, wasvery early into his military service,
but had served about a year, andthen he was convicted of a crime
(15:50):
that was then over overturned.
He came back to us and.
I was working with the prosecutors astrying to understand whether there was
a deal to be made on the, on the case,and my client was not a US citizen.
Um, and what is required is ahundred days of honorable service.
(16:12):
At a hundred days of honorable servicein the United States military, you can
apply for citizenship and it goes throughyour chain of command, who then sign
off and submit the proper paperwork thatthen processes for your citizenship.
Wait, I did not know this.
So non-US citizens canget into the armed forces.
Yes.
And if they do a hundred days.
They can actually apply for citizenship.
(16:32):
Correct.
Doesn't that sound likea fantastic opportunity?
It is.
Was presented.
I did not know that.
And it's one that's, thatis exercised quite a bit.
I, I served with quite a few individualswho did not have US citizenship
when they joined and did that as ameans, as a path towards citizenship.
Wow.
Yeah.
Um, and then that ended upbeing a huge fighting point
over his case, which was, um.
(16:54):
We couldn't, we couldn't plead.
There was no plea to be had because if youpled guilty to any offense, his service is
not honorable at that stage, and he wouldlose the ability to gain citizenship.
Um, fortunately for him, thefacts were on his side as far as
a, he did not commit the crime.
I fought tooth and nailbecause the government.
(17:17):
The prosecutors view the case differentlyis it may not be something that we
can prosecute in a criminal caseand, and, you know, uh, prosecute
to beyond a reasonable doubt, butwe can take into an administrative
separation where the, the standardof proof is a preponderance of the
evidence and we can get him kicked out.
And I. Rose quite raised quitea bit of a stink over that case.
(17:41):
I submitted one of those Article 1 38complaints to the two Star General at my
installation when, oh no, I apologize.
Three Star General.
And when he said no to doing what I asked,I had to raise it to a four star level.
Um, and.
I, I threw my name quite a bit out there.
We filed with the appellate courtRitz for, for habeas corpus.
(18:02):
Um, and ultimately he was foundeven at the administrative level
not to have committed misconduct.
Wow.
He was released, honorably, paid backfor the time that he served in jail.
Um, and.
The last time that I saw you whenwe had dinner in Arizona, I had just
gotten a text from him that he wasboarding his flight to New York to
go be with his family and that hiscitizenship application was already in.
(18:25):
Man, that's powerful.
Yeah.
Wow, man, that's such a, I mean,that's a very life changing moment.
I, I have.
Wow.
I have that text.
How long did you have that case?
Seven months.
Six.
Seven months.
Wow.
Yeah, and I mean, I did not know.
That was a path.
(18:45):
So when we're hearing stuff in the newsthat people that are served or getting
deported, so that likely means thatthey got this path to citizenship and
they did some way to say, you committeda crime, now we're gonna revoke.
I mean, it has to be something like that.
So I, I could see many avenues.
I could see, um, that they weredischarged and their, their period of
service was not considered honorable.
Um, I could see it as, you know, inthe case of my client, he'd already
(19:08):
served more than that a hundred daysbefore he had been taken to trial.
Um.
The paperwork hadn't been completed.
And if that's the case, then you know,more concerning as to where's the
bottleneck, where's the restriction?
And I can't say for sure whether it'sthe individual who has the responsibility
to, to, you know, push their thing ahead.
Or did somebody leave it on a desk?
(19:30):
Have you, I mean, I Do you think anybody'sout there just enlisting in the u
enlisting in the US Army solely for thepurpose of getting US citizenship and
just doing it for a nefarious purpose.
Is
No, no.
Well, uh, do we have systemsdesigned to ensure that somebody
isn't joining the military to tryto gain access to something that
is a matter of national security?
Absolutely.
Do.
I, as I stated, I work, I, I had thepleasure of serving with individuals
(19:55):
who were, you know, citizens of othercountries or seeking citizenship
in the United States, and they werealways incredibly high integrity
individuals, high work ethic, and.
A pleasure to be around.
So, man, this is such a good step.
All right, so where, how dopeople find Captain Spencer Wolf?
What's the best way to contact you now?
(20:15):
Uh, so, uh, I'm certain thatI will probably have a Sweet
James email coming up soon.
Um, I, on my state bar profile atthe State of California, um, I have
always listed my personal email.
So as much as that thing isstarting to get a little bit flooded
as time goes on, uh, Spencer cWolf, Spencer cWolf@gmail.com
is an easy way to contact me.
(20:37):
I've.
Been a huge fan of mentorship.
Um, that's something I've been blessed by.
I talked about you, I've talked to,um, talked about the people that
helped me get into law school andthey helped me navigate that avenue.
And so I've always wantedto try and give back.
I've tried to help mentor individualswho are interested about the JAG
course, so if anybody has questionsabout that, they're, they're more
than welcome to reach out to me.
Awesome.
Well, welcome to the quasi civilian field.
(20:58):
I mean, you're gonna be full onprivate, but still in the military.
It's awesome.
Well, thank you for watching, listeningto this episode, the Justice Team Network.
The Just team podcast.
The just team network.
But man, there's so much stuffthat I learned this episode that
I'm gonna deploy immediately.
Thanks brother.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.