Speaker 1: There is.
Speaker 2: Your Channel nine weather forecast. It's gotta be dry un
Speaker 2: till around five pm. We've might get some spotty showers,
Speaker 2: maybe even some storms. Seventy two for the high chances
Speaker 2: storms ends around midnight, sixty one overnight low seventy seven
Speaker 2: of you are high tomorrow with storms and showers afternoon
Speaker 2: and evening hours. Scattered storms still possible. Overnight. It'll be
Speaker 2: fifty nine low and a high of sixty nine on Friday,
Speaker 2: with chances spotty showers.
Speaker 3: Fifty eight degrees. Right now, let's go to travel. I
Speaker 3: up the big chuck Ingram from the UCLP Traffic Center. UC
Speaker 3: Health wake Well Center offers comprehensive obesity care and advanced
Speaker 3: searching OH expertise.
Speaker 4: Call five one three nine three nine two two sixty three.
Speaker 3: That's nine three nine twenty two sixty three stap bound
Speaker 3: seventy one. There's an accident of Smith then where it's
Speaker 3: the left. Two lanes are blocked off. Traffic is already
Speaker 3: heavy from above two seventy five and you're over a
Speaker 3: half hour deblay thanks to a wreck east found two
Speaker 3: seventy five near Taylor Mill right hand inside traffic back
Speaker 3: to Dixie coming up next, our guest is actually a
Speaker 3: great horse picking expert, So just in time for the
Speaker 3: Kentucky Derby, our guest is going to go with rendered
Speaker 3: judgment to win, American promised to place and journalism to show. Yes,
Speaker 3: those are actually names of horses in this week's Kentucky Derby.
Speaker 3: But it's almost like the judge had the inside track.
Speaker 3: Chuck Ingramont fifty five krs the talk station, five cars
Speaker 3: the talk station. I thought it's creative, Yes, very creative.
Speaker 5: He never ceases to amaze, never.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 2: So do you have a racing form there? Judge of PAULA. Tada,
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the Vity five Jacy Warning Show.
Speaker 1: My friend, I didn't even know that Kentucky Derby was
Speaker 1: this weekend.
Speaker 5: It's really not something that's on.
Speaker 1: My rate screen, understood Thomas Massey or ran Paul.
Speaker 5: But it's not something.
Speaker 4: I follow understood.
Speaker 2: And I mentioned congressomassing the lead up to the segment
Speaker 2: because as I told you yesterday when I got your column,
Speaker 2: which is always brilliant and is always on point, that
Speaker 2: I said, you know, sometimes my listeners disagree with you,
Speaker 2: and I suggested that probably they would disagree with you
Speaker 2: because your position relative to Judge Dugan, who was scheduled
Speaker 2: to preside over hearing against the Mexican national Eduardo Flores Ruiz,
Speaker 2: who had been charged with criminal batteries. So he's in
Speaker 2: her courtroom and the immigration officials show up armed with
Speaker 2: and arrest. Weren't that an immigration official had issued? And
Speaker 2: I think this is where your argument hinges on that
Speaker 2: the Fourth Amendment in your mind, in the mind of
Speaker 2: the judge disagrees and says, this is not an official warrant.
Speaker 2: This is not something that is constitutional on its face.
Speaker 2: Er go, she's not obstructing anything because the immigration official
Speaker 2: doesn't have the actual constitutional authority to issue and arrest
Speaker 2: warrant himself.
Speaker 4: Have I got that basic right?
Speaker 5: Yes, you do have that right. And this is a
Speaker 5: good faith.
Speaker 1: And from my perspective, and I presume hers widely held
Speaker 1: judicial view of the Fourth Amendment, that these administrative warrants
Speaker 1: are unconstitutional and government officials are not obligated to comply
Speaker 1: with them. Hey, judge, there's a guy in the hallway
Speaker 1: that wants to arrest a person in your courtroom.
Speaker 5: What should we do? Does he have an arrest warrant? No?
Speaker 1: Okay, tell him to go take a hike. Let me
Speaker 1: see what he has. This isn't an arrest warrant. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to honor it.
Speaker 5: And for that she gets arrested.
Speaker 4: Well, and here's me.
Speaker 2: This is where I think that the confusion perhaps comes
Speaker 2: in or the immediate actions. You know, she should have
Speaker 2: been arrested because she's obstructing administrative law or the the
Speaker 2: the the immigration law. A federal magistrate found probable cause
Speaker 2: for her arrest in basically this act of quote unquote obstruction.
Speaker 2: So is this one of those analysis like you and
Speaker 2: I have, that the federal government is violating our Fourth
Speaker 2: Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches, their Fifth
Speaker 2: Man rights to be free on unreasonable surchies and seizures
Speaker 2: that they do all the time. But it's never been
Speaker 2: tested in court kind of arguments. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: the law on the books, right.
Speaker 1: Well, if if evidence were obtained from an administrative warrant,
Speaker 1: it can't be used in court.
Speaker 5: So to that.
Speaker 1: Extent, it's been tested because it's obviously in violation of
Speaker 1: the Fourth Amendment. But this is also in violation of
Speaker 1: the concept of federalism. I cited the recent Supreme Court
Speaker 1: cases reminding everybody that the states are sovereign, and one
Speaker 1: an instrument of sovereignty is the state court system, and
Speaker 1: the FEDS can't interfere with it. I remember case. It
Speaker 1: wasn't a s to me but one of my colleagues,
Speaker 1: and that was on the bench. I don't have an
Speaker 1: FBI agent who was stopped on the Garden State Parkway,
Speaker 1: which is.
Speaker 5: The main highway that goes along.
Speaker 1: The spine of New Jersey north to south, going eighty
Speaker 1: five miles an hour, and he actually came into Gordon
Speaker 1: said well, I work for the FBI.
Speaker 5: I'm not bound by New Jersey law. They locked him up.
Speaker 5: It took his gun and his shield and locked him up.
Speaker 1: And nobody gets locked up for speeding, but you do
Speaker 1: get locked up for interfering with the sovereignty of a state.
Speaker 1: That's probably And it wasn't, as I said, it wasn't
Speaker 1: I who locked him up. It was one of my colleagues.
Speaker 1: You don't toy with the concept of sovereignty. You respect
Speaker 1: the court. You don't show up with something that is
Speaker 1: arguably not even a warrant and expect a judge to
Speaker 1: stop what she's doing to comply with what you want.
Speaker 1: So I know this is an unpopped popular view. Most
Speaker 1: people viewing this and probably most people listening to us
Speaker 1: now are scratching their heads saying, well, who wants to
Speaker 1: get into the constitutional weeds. Trump's job is to get
Speaker 1: illegals off the streets. I understand that argument, and I
Speaker 1: even respect the argument. I don't always agree with it,
Speaker 1: but I understand it. But Trump has an obligation. I
Speaker 1: don't personalize this to the president. He wasn't making these
Speaker 1: decisions himself to follow the Constitution, which means respect the
Speaker 1: sovereignty of the States, and follow the Fourth Amendment and
Speaker 1: follow due process, none.
Speaker 5: Of which was done in this case.
Speaker 1: Now, to make matters worse, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Speaker 4: Suspended the judge yesterday.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's basically a month long vacation. She has
Speaker 1: all of her perks and she gets paid, but she
Speaker 1: does not have to come to work. That would upset me,
Speaker 1: but a lot of people would say, well, this is great,
Speaker 1: I'm going Italy form.
Speaker 2: But I guess the two fold component of this is
Speaker 2: the federal magistrate found probable cause for the arrestaurant of
Speaker 2: the judge based upon her conduct, and now the Wisconsin
Speaker 2: Supreme Court has relieved her of our official duties, at
Speaker 2: least temporarily. Doesn't that sort of I mean, flying the
Speaker 2: face of the argument that you're making, which is that
Speaker 2: this she had no obligation because this was not a
Speaker 2: judicial arrest warrant.
Speaker 5: It does not in my view.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to tell you this dark and dirty secret,
Speaker 1: but every federal magistrate wants to become a federal judge,
Speaker 1: and if they don't find probable cause, the FBI will
Speaker 1: block their ascendants. That is well known in the judiciary.
Speaker 1: The federal magistrate finding probable cause is the moral equivalent
Speaker 1: of a grand jury in dighting a ham sandwich.
Speaker 4: That's seventy times over the years.
Speaker 1: By the way, these analogies are not original to me.
Speaker 2: No, I've even used the ham Sandwench analysis a grand jury.
Speaker 2: A prosecutor can get a jury, a grand jury to
Speaker 2: indict a ham sandwich. It's easy to do. You select
Speaker 2: what evidence they hear and they see. You don't have
Speaker 2: to provide it with all the facts and information.
Speaker 4: Ergo.
Speaker 1: Same thing when you're trying to get an arrest warrant
Speaker 1: or a search warrant from a magistrate.
Speaker 5: So an Article three judge that's different.
Speaker 2: So put your defense attorney hat on. What is her
Speaker 2: next step given with the current situation she finds herself in,
Speaker 2: is that going to court?
Speaker 1: She should move she should move to Well, she hasn't
Speaker 1: been indicted yet, which is another crazy thing. They shouldn't
Speaker 1: have removed her from the bench until there's an indictment,
Speaker 1: because maybe there won't be an indictment.
Speaker 5: Maybe she'll testify before the grand jury. You know, she
Speaker 5: is a former defense lawyer herself.
Speaker 1: But her next step would be, once indicted, to move
Speaker 1: to dismiss the indictment. First Amendment, fourth Amendment, Amendment, and
Speaker 1: even tenth Amendment, which is the residue of state sovereignty grounds.
Speaker 4: All right, Well, I would.
Speaker 5: Also throw in there.
Speaker 1: A statement from the president's press secretary that he would
Speaker 1: not hesitate to arrest Supreme Court justices if he felt
Speaker 1: it was appropriate. Man, you talk about an inappropriate statement,
Speaker 1: an intimidating statement, a statement that will backfire.
Speaker 2: That was it, well, and that certainly fuels what I
Speaker 2: can only characterize is this sort of unhinged anger that's
Speaker 2: coming from the left over a lot of times really
Speaker 2: absolutely nothing, but this is the attack on the judicial system.
Speaker 2: This fuels the fire of those arguments and those claims
Speaker 2: by the left against the Trump administration writ large right.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean those who are rejoicing in Judge Dougan's arrest.
Speaker 1: Flip the switch and think of a liberal president and
Speaker 1: DJ arresting a conservative judge and how would you feel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Or arresting parents who show up at school board
Speaker 2: meetings professing their anger over policy.
Speaker 1: Right right, there you go, Yeah, there you go. That's
Speaker 1: an even better analogy because it actually.
Speaker 4: Happened in spite of the First Amendment.
Speaker 5: Yes, I mean the.
Speaker 1: Same FBI, which, by the way, could have said, Judge Dugan,
Speaker 1: we have a warned for your arrest.
Speaker 5: Can you surrender with your lawyer? Here's where you should go,
Speaker 5: and here's the.
Speaker 1: Time when you can do it, Like when the mayor
Speaker 1: of New York was indicted. Instead, rather than telling her
Speaker 1: they were coming for her, they told the press yeah,
Speaker 1: and then they showed up when she got out of
Speaker 1: her car in the parking lot of the courthouse and
Speaker 1: handcuffed to behind her back, which is the way you
Speaker 1: handcuff dangerous people obviously meant to intimidate.
Speaker 2: Like when CNN was alerted ahead of time that they
Speaker 2: were going to be rating Donald Trump's House for Privileged Documents, correct.
Speaker 1: Or when they rated when Bob Muller rated the Roger
Speaker 1: Stones House, and CNN just happened to be there at
Speaker 1: five thirty.
Speaker 5: In the morning.
Speaker 4: All right, they talked to you.
Speaker 1: I wrote a piece called an American Nightmare, and these
Speaker 1: things happen and they shouldn't.
Speaker 2: Well food for thought, and I'm glad you're able to
Speaker 2: break this down. And I excellent explanation. I understand exactly
Speaker 2: where you're coming from. And I know you provided my
Speaker 2: listeners with at least a clear eyed perspective on the situation,
Speaker 2: and Popcorn will remain out well.
Speaker 5: I think your listeners. I think your listeners are smart people.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, enjoy.
Speaker 1: Hearing an argument which is not one they're familiar with
Speaker 1: here accustomed to hearing.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what we all need. Don't live in an
Speaker 2: echo chamber. Listen to someone different, different perspective. You don't
Speaker 2: have have to ultimately side with them, but it's a
Speaker 2: it's a refreshing thing to have a great you know,
Speaker 2: sort of I don't want to say intellectual, like I'm
Speaker 2: patting myself on the back, but that's exactly what we
Speaker 2: get an involved, you know, fact based, law based driven discussion.
Speaker 2: That's the point of this segment. That's why I love
Speaker 2: having you on the show every week. God love you,
Speaker 2: my man, Judge Ennitapolitana. I'll talk next week with you
Speaker 2: and I help you have a wonderful, wonderful.
Speaker 4: Week, My friend, all the best friends. Thank you, Thank you, sir.
Speaker 4: It's a forty fifty five KRC the talk station, be
Speaker 4: right back, fifty five KRC. Thinking about buying your first
Speaker 4: home now with third federal