Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray WBZ.
Speaker 2: This that was a tough loss in Toronto tonight because
Speaker 2: the Red Sox were hit six nothing and they failed
Speaker 2: to respond to seven unanswered runs by the Blue Jays.
Speaker 2: But anyway, Hey, it's a long season. They'll have great
Speaker 2: games and they'll have not so great games. This is
Speaker 2: one you don't want to remember. Okay. I want to
Speaker 2: talk up a subject we haven't talked about. We have
Speaker 2: talked about the possibility of doing this now for the
Speaker 2: next for the last couple of nights, but circumstances overtook us.
Speaker 2: And so the Trump administration is becoming very aggressive in
Speaker 2: its enforcement of arresting and deporting illegals, people who are
Speaker 2: here illegally. And now we have two judges who are
Speaker 2: under under arrest and facing federal charges for their actions
Speaker 2: in two cases. One was in New Mexico and one
Speaker 2: was in Wisconsin. Now, most of you are not going
Speaker 2: to know the specifics of these cases because you'll watch
Speaker 2: us a quick news report. I would like to lay
Speaker 2: out for you these two cases, and then I would
Speaker 2: like to find out from you if you feel the
Speaker 2: arrest of the judges are justified. We did have the
Speaker 2: Shelley Joseph case here in Massachusetts, and Shelley Joseph will
Speaker 2: she has avoided federal prosecution, but she will have to
Speaker 2: face a judicial conduct commission here in Massachusetts. And I
Speaker 2: believe that part of the agreement which allowed her to
Speaker 2: walk out of federal court scott free, probably is an
Speaker 2: understanding that there will be some some punishment. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure what, but I kind of imagine that she will
Speaker 2: walk away scott free, even in front of the judicial
Speaker 2: conduct commission. But it's a much better venue for Shelley Joseph.
Speaker 2: It is not her case that we want to talk
Speaker 2: about tonight. So the first case, and again the names
Speaker 2: here are not going to be familiar to you, So
Speaker 2: just beer with me, and I will try to tell
Speaker 2: this as a factually in a straightforward as I can.
Speaker 2: There's two cases, one out of New Mexico and one
Speaker 2: out of Wisconsin. In the Wisconsin case, this is the
Speaker 2: United States versus Hannah Duggan. She happens to be an
Speaker 2: elected judge, so she's a state judge that is elected
Speaker 2: out there in the state of Wisconsin. Different states have
Speaker 2: rules in terms of either appointing or electing judges, So
Speaker 2: in this case. According to the press release from the
Speaker 2: Department of Justice, she is facing federal criminal complaint for
Speaker 2: her alleged interference with a federal law enforcement operation and
Speaker 2: unlawful unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest. So
Speaker 2: we go back to April eighteenth, just a couple of
Speaker 2: weeks ago, when members of the Milwaukee Office of US
Speaker 2: Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE and the Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Speaker 2: also a federal agency, along with other federal partners including
Speaker 2: the FBIDA, US Customs and Border Patrol, tried to execute
Speaker 2: what the Department of Justice says is a lawful warrant
Speaker 2: arrest warrant for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a Mexican national previously
Speaker 2: removed from the United States and recently charged in Milwaukee
Speaker 2: County with multiple counts of domestic abuse related battery. Federal
Speaker 2: agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, which would be
Speaker 2: like arriving at one of our courthouses here in Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: intending to arrest Floes Ruiz in a public hallway. Following
Speaker 2: his court appearance before Judge Dugan, the judge learned that
Speaker 2: the agents were present in the hallway, very similar to
Speaker 2: what Shelley Joseph found out in Newton District Court a
Speaker 2: few years ago. Dugan allegedly confronted and ordered the federal
Speaker 2: agents to leave the courthouse. I don't know that she
Speaker 2: would have authority to do that, but she's not charged
Speaker 2: with that action. After she was made aware that they
Speaker 2: had a valid immigration arrest warrant, according to the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice, Dugan told agents they needed a judicial warrant
Speaker 2: and demand that they go to the Chief Judge's office.
Speaker 2: So this is where the ruse starts. Once the agents
Speaker 2: were no longer in the vicinity of her courtroom, they're
Speaker 2: cooperating with her. Judge. Dougan allegedly elected not to conduct
Speaker 2: the hearing on this criminal case, despite the fact that
Speaker 2: they were victims in the courtroom. They were expecting to
Speaker 2: see the process of justice proceed on their behalf, but
Speaker 2: that didn't happen because the judge personally escorted Flees, Ruiz
Speaker 2: and his attorney through a restricted jury door. If you
Speaker 2: have been in a courthouse, there's certain doors you can't
Speaker 2: go through. If you're a judge, pretty much can go anywhere,
Speaker 2: but if you're a criminal defendant or if you're a witness,
Speaker 2: or if you're a victim, or if you're a television reporter,
Speaker 2: you know a certain areas you can't go through. So
Speaker 2: this is a restricted door called jury door, not typically
Speaker 2: used by defendants or attorneys. The doorway led to a
Speaker 2: non public hallway through which Flora's ruiz and his attorney
Speaker 2: exited the courtroom the courthouse. According to the affidavit, Judge
Speaker 2: Jugan's actions resulted in Flores's ruiz temporarily avoiding federal custody.
Speaker 2: Her effort was to get him out of the courthouse
Speaker 2: and allow him to escape. He was arrested outside the
Speaker 2: courthouse following a brief footchase. She's charged with obstruction of
Speaker 2: proceedings before a department or agency of the United States,
Speaker 2: which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison,
Speaker 2: and concealing a person to prevent arrest, which carries a
Speaker 2: maximum penalty of one year in prison. Flores had previously
Speaker 2: been deported in twenty thirteen and re entered the US illegally,
Speaker 2: and he was subject to arrest based on an administrative
Speaker 2: warrant issued by ICE for immigration violations following his recent
Speaker 2: criminal activities in Milwaukee. So that's case number one in
Speaker 2: your opinion. Did the judge do anything wrong? I think
Speaker 2: she's got a heap of problems there. Okay, let's go
Speaker 2: to New Mexico. So we have a husband and wife,
Speaker 2: Nancy Ann Canoe and Jose Lewis Cano. Jose Lewis is
Speaker 2: the judge. They've both been arrested for evidence tampering offenses
Speaker 2: related to the federal investigation and prosecution against Christian or
Speaker 2: Tego Lopez of venezuelan national residing unlawfully within the US
Speaker 2: with alleged ties to Trende Ragua, US designated foreign terrorist organization.
Speaker 2: There's a statement here from the US Attorney out there
Speaker 2: in Mexico that judges are responsible for upholding our country's law.
Speaker 2: Beyond egregious for a former judge and his wife to
Speaker 2: engage in evidence tampering on behalf of a suspected Trendy
Speaker 2: Deragua gang member accused of illegally possessing firearms. The US
Speaker 2: Attorney's Office is committed to dismantling this foreign terrorist group.
Speaker 2: Disrupting its criminal operation in New Mexico starts by prosecuting
Speaker 2: those who support gang members, including judges. Now, according to
Speaker 2: the documents, Homeland Security initiating the investigation of or Take
Speaker 2: Lopez after receiving an anonymous tip that this subject, or
Speaker 2: take A Loz, was unlawfully present in the US and
Speaker 2: in possession of firearms. Subsequent investigation confirmed the defendant illegally
Speaker 2: entered the country in two thousand and three and was
Speaker 2: released shortly thereafter due to over karate at the border facility.
Speaker 2: Evidence uncovered by federal agents realed revealed the debt defendant
Speaker 2: had posted multiple photos and videos on social media showing
Speaker 2: him and other illegal aliens handling firearms at a shooting
Speaker 2: range in Lacruss, New Mexico. Among the weapons allegedly pictured
Speaker 2: a six hour P three sixty five handgun, an AR
Speaker 2: fifteen rifle equipped with a suppressor, and other high powered
Speaker 2: firearms and ammunition. Tattoos confirmed Ortego Lopez identity in the
Speaker 2: photos and videos for the review of his social media
Speaker 2: activity revealed content suggesting affiliation with Trend Deagua, including gang
Speaker 2: related tattoos, hand gestures, and clothing. January twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: the government agents received the tip that Ortega Lopez was
Speaker 2: unlawfully residing with other illegal aliens on a property in Lacrusius,
Speaker 2: owned by Nancy and Jose Cana, the judge and his wife.
Speaker 2: Prior to his resignation from the court in March of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, Cano served as a judge of the
Speaker 2: donna Anna County Magistrate Court and warrant has executed two
Speaker 2: search warrants in connection with the investigation, resulting in the
Speaker 2: arrest of Ortega Ortes in February. February twenty eighth multiple
Speaker 2: associates and the seize for four firearms so he's arrested
Speaker 2: for illegal possession of firearms and AMMO. Four firearms believed
Speaker 2: to be in his possession, along with three of his
Speaker 2: cell phones, was seized during the operation. During the search,
Speaker 2: or Tego Lopez was permitted to make a phone call
Speaker 2: before being taken to the detention center. He told agents
Speaker 2: a particular phone he wished to use was not among
Speaker 2: the devices recovered from the detention center. Later showed Nancy Cano,
Speaker 2: the wife of the judge, holding a black iPhone believed
Speaker 2: to be Ortega's fourth phone. A fourth telephone in a
Speaker 2: March seventh call with Ortego Lopez Nancy Cano, this is
Speaker 2: after his arrest, used the device to contact a person
Speaker 2: via WhatsApp. Then facilitated a FaceTime conversation between the person
Speaker 2: and Ortego Lopez using her personal phone. Additionally, in an
Speaker 2: April twentieth call, the judge's wife and Ortego Lopez discussed
Speaker 2: deleting his Facebook account, a platform where he had previously
Speaker 2: shared incriminating content, including gang affiliations and images with firearms.
Speaker 2: This is the Judge's wife. On April twenty fourth, federal
Speaker 2: agents executed a subsequent search warrant at the Cano residence
Speaker 2: to locate the missing cell phone. During question Jose Cano,
Speaker 2: the judge admitted he destroyed Ortega's cell phone by smashing
Speaker 2: it with a hammer approximately five weeks prior after Ortego
Speaker 2: Lopez's arrests, believing it contained incriminating photos and videos of
Speaker 2: Ortega with firearms. Forensic analysis of the recovered phones revealed
Speaker 2: messages linked to Artaga's criminal activities, including affiliations with trend
Speaker 2: de Agua and images of Artaga with firearms. Judge Cano
Speaker 2: former Judge Cano, charged with one count of tampering with
Speaker 2: evidence and Nancy Cano charged with one count of conspiracy
Speaker 2: to tamper with evidence. If convicted, the defendants face a
Speaker 2: maximum penalty of twenty years in prison, three years of
Speaker 2: supervise release, and a two hundred and fifty thousand dollars fine.
Speaker 2: So my question is that's the bare bones of the
Speaker 2: cases and the allegations. You will not understand that if
Speaker 2: you watch the nightly newscasts because they don't have the
Speaker 2: time to explain that. But I've explained that to you.
Speaker 2: Pretty serious charges in my offense, in my opinion, pretty
Speaker 2: egregious activity by a couple of judges, one in Wisconsin,
Speaker 2: one in New Mexico. Is the Trump administration correct and
Speaker 2: based upon the facts as presented in arresting these individuals,
Speaker 2: or should they be immune from prosecution because they're state judges.
Speaker 2: That's my question. You know now probably more than ninety
Speaker 2: nine point five percent of the American public about the
Speaker 2: background of these cases. We're talking about destruction of evidence,
Speaker 2: tampering with evidence. We're talking about basically trying to in Wisconsin,
Speaker 2: defeat the legitimate purposes of federal agents. I can understand
Speaker 2: that you, as a judge, you might feel differently, and
Speaker 2: maybe in your court you can cut someone a break
Speaker 2: because you have some flexibility in your courtroom. But when
Speaker 2: you're not in your court and you're functioning outside of
Speaker 2: your jurisdiction as a judge, I think you get big
Speaker 2: problems six seven, two, five, four thirty, six, seven, nine,
Speaker 2: ten thirty. Who's right on this? The Trump administration. These
Speaker 2: are probably not the only judges that are going to
Speaker 2: face this, and it's it's a really interesting legal question
Speaker 2: and I'd love to hear your response. We'll be back
Speaker 2: on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2: By the way, I do you want to mention that
Speaker 2: tomorrow night we will have the BSY car guys. During
Speaker 2: this period of time, Scott and Larry will join us
Speaker 2: taking your question. Tomort night is May first, so that
Speaker 2: has started the summer driving season, as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 2: the unofficial start. And we'll also talk with former state
Speaker 2: Representative Dave Nagel, who made a very interesting presentation at
Speaker 2: the State House about the dangers of getting in over
Speaker 2: your head with gambling. I mean, gambling is now legal
Speaker 2: and a lot of people are doing it. He got
Speaker 2: in over his head go all the way back to
Speaker 2: when he was a teenager, and he eventually paid for
Speaker 2: it with a guilty plea in federal court and he
Speaker 2: was sentenced a year and a half in prison. He
Speaker 2: was in during the COVID period of time and served
Speaker 2: seven months, But seven months is still seven months. And
Speaker 2: I don't care if you're a federal prison or a
Speaker 2: state prison. It's no fun. And he's going to talk
Speaker 2: about it tomorrow night and talk about his path back.
Speaker 2: I had a great conversation with him today, and look,
Speaker 2: all of us have done dumb things. Some of us
Speaker 2: have done dumber things than others. But the idea of
Speaker 2: someone paying their debt and then working their way back
Speaker 2: into society is something that I think all of us
Speaker 2: would want to have a chance to do. And we'll
Speaker 2: talk about that tomorrow night. I think it's going to
Speaker 2: be a really interesting program, so as I like to
Speaker 2: think every night is an interesting program. Let's go to
Speaker 2: the phone. So the question is how do you feel
Speaker 2: about these judges? And you know, it's really funny because
Speaker 2: there's a little bit of a juxtaposition here in that normally,
Speaker 2: historically in this country, it's been democratic presidents who have
Speaker 2: argued federal law supersedes state law. And in the past
Speaker 2: you've had some Republicans, but some Democrat governors who have
Speaker 2: claimed sort of a version of states rights. But when
Speaker 2: you talk about immigration law, it's really preempted according to
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court and their decision from I think
Speaker 2: it was twenty eleven US versus Arizona, that immigration law
Speaker 2: is preempted by the US, by the United States government,
Speaker 2: by the federal government. And here you have sort of
Speaker 2: a reverse, if you will. You have Democrats now almost
Speaker 2: claiming states rights they stay out of our state courts.
Speaker 2: Bill is an Easton Hi bill. You were first this
Speaker 2: hour and night side. Thank you for calling and thanks
Speaker 2: for your patients in listening to my explanation. But I
Speaker 2: really wanted people to understand the specifics.
Speaker 3: And yeah, I don't think judges should be exempt, but
Speaker 3: the class system is alive and well so apparently you know,
Speaker 3: police officers are not exempt. They're blue collar. Now you're
Speaker 3: a judge, you become white collar.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting that's an interesting analogy that you draw.
Speaker 2: That's that is interesting. Yeah, I mean everybody agrees if
Speaker 2: a police officer breaks the law should lose his badge
Speaker 2: and also be punished, and we've seen that.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Yeah, it's it should be an equal standard
Speaker 3: I think for all all citizens, regardless of whether the
Speaker 3: public officials or not even the military salthis standards.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think by the way that the judge in Wisconsin,
Speaker 2: she has been suspended from the bench by the state
Speaker 2: Supreme Court out there, and the court isn't very political
Speaker 2: in Wisconsin, and when they don't appoint judges unlike here
Speaker 2: where governors appoint judges out in Wisconsin, they run for
Speaker 2: office at all sorts of levels, which you know is
Speaker 2: a different sort of system. And right now there are
Speaker 2: four Democratic judges and three Republican judges on the court,
Speaker 2: and I guess that the court ruled four to three
Speaker 2: that in light of this, you know, she would be
Speaker 2: suspended from the bench. She's going to be paid, but
Speaker 2: she'll be suspended from the bench, which is interesting because
Speaker 2: if it had broken along party lines, it probably she
Speaker 2: would still be allowed to conduct her business as a
Speaker 2: judge in Milwaukee.
Speaker 3: So the system is still corrupt the fact that she'll
Speaker 3: be suspended with pay. Cops used to have that protection,
Speaker 3: and you're seeing it fade in relation to zenaif everybody
Speaker 3: agrees with you on that. But what a cowardly country
Speaker 3: we live in to house his family for free and
Speaker 3: be threatened by his family if we dare harm him.
Speaker 3: That was ridiculous. Put back to the cameras too. I'm
Speaker 3: opposed generally to cameras, way too many cameras, but many
Speaker 3: many crimes wouldn't be solved unless we had them, including
Speaker 3: this marathon bombing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're right, I think. Look, I think as a
Speaker 2: matter of fact, I happen to and you and I
Speaker 2: may disagree. You almost sound like you might be a
Speaker 2: police officer. I think it's a good idea for police
Speaker 2: to wear cameras because most people don't understand the amount
Speaker 2: of aggravation and disrespect that is directed at police officers
Speaker 2: in this country. The average person would never tolerate with
Speaker 2: what police officers have to put up with in this country.
Speaker 2: So I know the unions tended to be opposed to
Speaker 2: the implementation of body cams on police officers, but I
Speaker 2: think it's actually helped them. It's also showed us often
Speaker 2: what police officers go through in the course of their
Speaker 2: day at work, sometimes risking their own lives, running into
Speaker 2: bruning buildings. As firefighters as well, are running into cars
Speaker 2: that are within seconds of exploding and pulling people out
Speaker 2: who have suffered you know, horrific car accidents. So I
Speaker 2: think I think that cameras uh on police officers, which
Speaker 2: which were pushed by the defense bar, actually has helped
Speaker 2: people better understand how tough a job being a police
Speaker 2: officer actually is.
Speaker 3: Okay, fair enough, Yeah, I just I'm I'm a skeptic.
Speaker 3: I think more harm than good will come from them
Speaker 3: cameras in general. I think it's a tool.
Speaker 2: Okay, we can agree to disagree, agree to disagree. Bill,
Speaker 2: I appreciate your call is always, thank you much, and
Speaker 2: you would you you, you would just.
Speaker 3: As soon see these judges pay a price, he be
Speaker 3: held accountable and not suspended with pay.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean they still have to go through the
Speaker 2: criminal prosecution. Now that that's really the real problem.
Speaker 3: There's going to be it's going to be a slap
Speaker 3: on the wrist. You know that that's going to get
Speaker 3: drawn out.
Speaker 2: Let's see, let's see what happened. You know what, if
Speaker 2: if I thought it was going to be a slapping
Speaker 2: the wrist, I wouldn't bring it up for conversation. And
Speaker 2: I think it's important for people to weigh in on this.
Speaker 2: That's that's what I think. I mean. If if people
Speaker 2: aren't interested in weighing in on it. UH, then maybe
Speaker 2: they will get a slap of the risk. But I
Speaker 2: think these are pretty egregious actions that the FEDS have
Speaker 2: arrested here. I think Shelley Joseph's action was pretty egregious,
Speaker 2: and she went through a The charges were eventually settled
Speaker 2: because her lawyer is a good lawyer, and he said,
Speaker 2: let's let it be settled by the judicial UH committee,
Speaker 2: by a judicial commission and judicial conduct commission. UH. And
Speaker 2: we'll see what happens there. If it's a slap on
Speaker 2: the wrist, we'll talk about it. Thank you, Bill, We'll
Speaker 2: talk again. Appreciate your call. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Okay, have a.
Speaker 2: Good one six one, seven, two, five four ten thirty.
Speaker 2: I have one line there and I got one line
Speaker 2: at six one seven, nine three one ten thirty. I
Speaker 2: think this is an important topic. That's why I bring
Speaker 2: it up. If you think it's important, I would invite
Speaker 2: you to call. If you think it's unimportant, feel free
Speaker 2: tell me why you think it's unimportant. Back on night
Speaker 2: Side after this.
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2: Blue Editorial comment here. Without the tourists, the cap Jaboard
Speaker 2: would have a lot of businesses closing up, let's keep
Speaker 2: rolling here. We're not talking about the Cape. We're talking
Speaker 2: about a couple of judges arrested. Hey William in Baltimore.
Speaker 2: Welcome back, William.
Speaker 5: How are you?
Speaker 6: Oh right? How you doing?
Speaker 5: Then?
Speaker 2: Just Gray, what are your thoughts on this? I kind
Speaker 2: of laid it out. I took my time to lay
Speaker 2: it out because people I wanted people to understand what
Speaker 2: these folks who are accused of doing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you know what, I'm glad you did that, because
Speaker 6: all I've been touching is bits and pieces of him.
Speaker 6: And uh, let's see how you explained it. Yes, I
Speaker 6: think that it is gligious and I believe the last
Speaker 6: phone caller. They are paying this lady. And these are judges.
Speaker 6: That means that they are attorneys who like more than elected.
Speaker 2: Right, that they're what I'm sorry, they're what.
Speaker 6: That means that there are attorneys want Well, yeah, I
Speaker 6: don't know.
Speaker 2: Yes, most judges are lawyers, although in many states where
Speaker 2: judges are elected, I'm not sure that they have to
Speaker 2: be a lawyer because we appoint judges. In Massachusetts. All
Speaker 2: the judges in Massachusetts are appointed by the governor. It's
Speaker 2: one of the great powers that a governor has in Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: and there's a lot of states that works that worked
Speaker 2: that way. I suspect Maryland is similar. But out in
Speaker 2: Wisconsin and others do they Does the governor point the
Speaker 2: judges down your way?
Speaker 6: Some of them are appointed and some of them are elected.
Speaker 2: Yes, okay, well, we don't have any elected judges. They're
Speaker 2: all appointed.
Speaker 6: Yes, we have elected in the city and the city
Speaker 6: of Baltimore.
Speaker 2: It okay, well we don't have any elected ones. But
Speaker 2: in some states that yeah, they're elected. And I don't
Speaker 2: think that it probably varies from state to state, but
Speaker 2: I'm sure that there must be some state where you
Speaker 2: can become a judge even though you're not a lawyer.
Speaker 6: Well, I think in some cases you don't have to
Speaker 6: be a lawyer evil, but I think they have to
Speaker 6: have some type of explod like in the orphans court
Speaker 6: or something like that. But I'm not sure.
Speaker 4: But any well, you.
Speaker 2: Know, if you got elected as a judge in one
Speaker 2: of these towns, say you know, small town or whatever,
Speaker 2: you're not the only person there. You got some clerks,
Speaker 2: and I suspect that there are people that help guide you. Look,
Speaker 2: when you get elected as a United States senator, The
Speaker 2: only qualification is to become a United States senator is
Speaker 2: you have to be over the age of thirty and
Speaker 2: a US citizen. And I'm sure that there's a lot
Speaker 2: of those guys go to men and women go to
Speaker 2: Washington as US senators, and they don't even know how
Speaker 2: to find the bathroom, never mind how to run an office.
Speaker 2: And you have these people who work in for the
Speaker 2: Senate and they are called lifers who they are administrative
Speaker 2: assistants and legal aids and all of that. And when
Speaker 2: one senator gets unseated or retires, they go and work
Speaker 2: for another senator. So they're the ones that really run
Speaker 2: the Senate. In the House, it's not the not the
Speaker 2: elected members in my opinion, but that's another story.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's good knowing with the you know, with these
Speaker 6: judges and the way you explained it. Yes, I think
Speaker 6: they should be prosecuted, but we'll see what happened. But
Speaker 6: this immigration stuff is really UH is really getting out
Speaker 6: of hand, you know, without with our senator here, Chris
Speaker 6: Vah and Holland and UH and the UH. And what
Speaker 6: Michelle Obama said about she not being able to sleep
Speaker 6: at night, I say, well, and she's not able to
Speaker 6: sleep at night. That's her problem, you know. But uh,
Speaker 6: you know, I'm sure she sleeps very safety and she
Speaker 6: had to go ahead with the blooney But uh, you know,
Speaker 6: but the way you explained it, then I'm glad you did, because,
Speaker 6: like I said, I was just getting bits and pieces
Speaker 6: of it. But I certainly think that these people should
Speaker 6: be prosecuted and made the design I.
Speaker 2: Mean, I mean, smash it up a cell phone with
Speaker 2: a hammer, a judge someone else's cell phone. It's like,
Speaker 2: you're you got a pretty clear intention there, what you.
Speaker 4: What you doing?
Speaker 2: And yeah, uh and forget the fact that he was
Speaker 2: how they were housing on his property. It's unclear to
Speaker 2: me if the property in which they were housed was
Speaker 2: where the judge and his wife lived or if it
Speaker 2: was a piece of rental property that uh that these
Speaker 2: guys were living at. You know, either way, it's in
Speaker 2: my opinion, it's a problem. Look, I can remember there
Speaker 2: was a judge back in the early nineties. She was
Speaker 2: nominated to federal court. Her name was Kimba Wood. I
Speaker 2: believe she was going to become a federal judge in
Speaker 2: New York, which is a big deal. Bill Clinton nominator
Speaker 2: and it turned out that she had used a housekeeper
Speaker 2: who was not a citizen and did not have legal papers.
Speaker 2: So she was paying somebody under the table, you know,
Speaker 2: to to help her maintain her house. That fact, and
Speaker 2: that fact alone torpedo ended her possibility of becoming a
Speaker 2: federal judge magically. Remember how So it just shows you
Speaker 2: how things have changed. You used to lose your federal
Speaker 2: judgeship if you had someone working in your house that
Speaker 2: didn't have the right papers. When when we have people
Speaker 2: come to our house, you know, we have I have
Speaker 2: a yard, so I don't cut the grass in my house.
Speaker 2: I did a long time ago, but I've given up
Speaker 2: on that. And so I got a great company that comes.
Speaker 2: I have never had the audacity, nor should I expect
Speaker 2: to have the audacity, to say, the guy who owns
Speaker 2: that company, can you show me the papers of all
Speaker 2: these people? Are they illegal? I assume they are okay,
Speaker 2: because frankly, one I don't want to know, and number two,
Speaker 2: I don't want to start at what what right do
Speaker 2: I have to art start asking people? If if he
Speaker 2: files statements that he is only employing Americans or or
Speaker 2: legal people who are illegally, that's fine, that's between him
Speaker 2: and the government. I don't want to get involved in
Speaker 2: that fight.
Speaker 6: So I agree with you, Dan. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 6: It's not my job to, you know, walk up to
Speaker 6: somebody who I think is not agreegal, but that's the
Speaker 6: governments job. But people are pointed there to do this,
Speaker 6: and there was definitely on the line.
Speaker 4: Man.
Speaker 6: That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I'm telling you, William, if we trace our family tree,
Speaker 2: we're going to be related back there somewhere. I'm simple
Speaker 2: as that. Every time I talk to you, I try
Speaker 2: to find something we can disagree on, and we don't,
Speaker 2: so I think I think we're related somewhere. Hey, William,
Speaker 2: great to your employe, my friend. Thanks to talk to
Speaker 2: you soon. All right, let me keep rolling here. Who
Speaker 2: can I get in here next? I don't want a
Speaker 2: short change, so let me break quickly here one minute early.
Speaker 2: I got David san Antonio. We'll bring him back right
Speaker 2: after the break. I don't want a short change. People.
Speaker 2: I got Dave, I got Joe and Cambridge, I got
Speaker 2: Paul in Dorchester. I got room in one one call
Speaker 2: and we can go into the second hour of this.
Speaker 2: I'd like to do two hours if you want six
Speaker 2: one seven, nine thirty, but the only line open right
Speaker 2: now is six one, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty.
Speaker 2: We'll be right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1: You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's
Speaker 1: news radio.
Speaker 2: There we go. Let's go down to Texas, deep in
Speaker 2: the heart of Texas. We'll talk with Dave and san Antonio. Dave,
Speaker 2: I'm suspecting you agree with me on whether these judges
Speaker 2: should face the music.
Speaker 4: I both certainly do.
Speaker 5: And the rest of them that are interfering with his
Speaker 5: uh job is going to have to be answered if yes, me,
Speaker 5: all of them, not just the ones on the border,
Speaker 5: but the ones with the the what.
Speaker 2: Do you call it, sanctuary city, sanctuary.
Speaker 5: Cities, some hick judge and Hickville tells all of America
Speaker 5: that Donald can not deport these prisoners.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's going to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: I think that Trump is looking for some of those
Speaker 2: fights because, like any president, Democrat or Republican, presidents like
Speaker 2: the power. Okay, there's very few presidents in recent memory
Speaker 2: who are looking to push power back to the States.
Speaker 2: So yeah, presidents like to they like to be being
Speaker 2: president is good is a good thing. Being king is good,
Speaker 2: Being president is good.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but I I certainly agree with you there with
Speaker 5: that that that woman escort and that criminal out of uh,
Speaker 5: out of the grasp of the uh the police.
Speaker 2: But by the way, someone charged with domestic battery.
Speaker 5: I own.
Speaker 2: I mean that's now again, you know, I I think
Speaker 2: that he presumed he is he presumed he has the
Speaker 2: presumption of innocence. Okay, but that's pretty strong charge. And
Speaker 2: then the guy down a want of them go smashing
Speaker 2: up the cell phone. I mean, that's something only Hillary
Speaker 2: Clinton should be allowed to do.
Speaker 4: Dan.
Speaker 2: All right, Dave, I got it all in. Thanks man,
Speaker 2: we'll talk later. Okay, all right, let me get Joe
Speaker 2: and Cambridge in here. Joe, okay, you're in Cambridge. What
Speaker 2: do you say, buddy?
Speaker 7: Hey, hey, Dan, Well, I have a lot to say.
Speaker 7: So to start, they did a great job summing up
Speaker 7: all of those particular cases. I've been kind of following
Speaker 7: them off and on.
Speaker 2: You know, had you had you heard with clarity what
Speaker 2: these got. These these folks, the judge of Wisconsin and
Speaker 2: the judge in New Mexico had been charged with That's
Speaker 2: why I took my time. I wanted people to understand
Speaker 2: what the allegations are. Their allegations. They haven't been proven,
Speaker 2: but their allegations, that's what they charged with.
Speaker 7: Mm hmm, yeah, yeah, I did. You did a fantastic
Speaker 7: job in them precisely. So I'm kind of struggling with
Speaker 7: really trying to understand or get to the root of,
Speaker 7: you know, what's going on in the brains of some
Speaker 7: of these these judges. I mean, is this a case
Speaker 7: of severe Trump arrangement syndrome? Is is this a case
Speaker 7: you know, is in the case with those two, with
Speaker 7: those two where yeah, they were protecting that that you
Speaker 7: know trend there radwa uh. And by the way, I
Speaker 7: think it was that they're at their primary residence where
Speaker 7: they were housing him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was unclear from the Department of Justice statement,
Speaker 2: so I did not want to make an assumption. But
Speaker 2: if it was, that's even worse. You know, if it
Speaker 2: was at a rooming house, you know, five miles away,
Speaker 2: still should know who's renting your property.
Speaker 7: I think, you know, yes, yes, I think I think
Speaker 7: either way they were knowingly you know, protecting him and
Speaker 7: housing him, which I guess it doesn't really matter. But
Speaker 7: so in the case with those two, I don't know
Speaker 7: if it isn't the case that there's does this guy
Speaker 7: have something on them, you know, blackmailing them. I mean,
Speaker 7: I don't know what.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe, I mean, I don't know. It could be
Speaker 2: that they are some people who who firmly believe that
Speaker 2: we don't have a right to have a border. I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe maybe they believe that and they see the law
Speaker 2: is Again, if you're a judge, you're supposed to understand that, uh,
Speaker 2: that that if a law is an invalid law, that
Speaker 2: that our system will rectify that absolutely.
Speaker 7: And yeah, I have no doubt, you know, in the end,
Speaker 7: I have no doubt that it's the these people are
Speaker 7: just simply out to you know, disrupt our you know, constitution.
Speaker 7: They're out to disrupt this country, you know, by allowing this.
Speaker 7: You know, Partly, I think it does have to do
Speaker 7: with you know, they're they're fighting against President Trump. But
Speaker 7: either way, at the end of the day, I'm sorry,
Speaker 7: I know they have to go through the prosecutes, her process.
Speaker 7: I hope that in each of these cases, me personally,
Speaker 7: I am rooting for the maximum, absolute, maximum sentence, no
Speaker 7: mercy whatsoever with each of these cases. In any other
Speaker 7: judges that are, you know, pursuing the similar fashion. I
Speaker 7: don't want to see in this thing about them getting
Speaker 7: paid in the meantime. That's absolutely ludicrous. What I don't
Speaker 7: want to see obviously is are not guilty on any
Speaker 7: of these but a far from that. I don't want
Speaker 7: to see this case where we had here with Tanya Fernandez,
Speaker 7: where she pleads out, you know, on her corruption chargers
Speaker 7: and gets a slap on the wrist. I know she
Speaker 7: got a few months in prison or whatever, but you know,
Speaker 7: that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: So I don't know that she's been sentence ships, and
Speaker 2: I thought that was part of her plea plea bargain
Speaker 2: deal with You could have a plea deal which which
Speaker 2: will say you can be sentenced up to I don't
Speaker 2: know those those Even on a plea deal, you got
Speaker 2: to wait for the sentence because, uh, sometimes the judge
Speaker 2: will will comply with the agreement. And judges are independent,
Speaker 2: they have an opportunity, particularly when you're talking about somebody
Speaker 2: who is in the public, who's who's an elected official.
Speaker 2: There's a higher standard there as well as a judge.
Speaker 2: We'll find out that's that's I gotta do some work
Speaker 2: on that. Joe I'll try to get an answer for you.
Speaker 7: Okay, yeah, yeah, no, no, I know you will.
Speaker 2: Let me try to get two more in here before
Speaker 2: the break if I can do that, And I also
Speaker 2: are sure you excellent call.
Speaker 4: I'm with you.
Speaker 2: Thanks, I'm not a Paul Is in Dorchester. Paul, You're
Speaker 2: next on nightside.
Speaker 8: Go ahead, Hey, Dan, I think that was an excellent
Speaker 8: call was just heard. I Uh, I am almost insane
Speaker 8: after three years of balloonhead out of Shifty coming down
Speaker 8: saying I've got evidence. I've got evidence, I mean, and
Speaker 8: then people in the background like Nancy Pelosi, no one
Speaker 8: is above the law, no one is above the law.
Speaker 8: They they made me nuts. I think I think that
Speaker 8: this is obstruction of justice, Dan uh in all these cases,
Speaker 8: I think we kind of missed those midnight appointments that
Speaker 8: Joe Biden pushed through. Of these like two hundred or
Speaker 8: something of these nutty judges. It seems that he just
Speaker 8: he just put all these judges in to obstruct and
Speaker 8: impede the progress that they just want to block and
Speaker 8: impede any progress that the Trump is making. It's it's
Speaker 8: the you know, the the the process is the punishment.
Speaker 8: The uh, these people I do not think are qualified either.
Speaker 8: I mean, I'm not a veterinarian, Dan, but I know
Speaker 8: the difference between a dog and a cat. I'm not
Speaker 8: a doctor, but I know the difference being between someone
Speaker 8: having ovaries and testicles. I do not think that these
Speaker 8: people that are in high positions are necessarily all there.
Speaker 8: Because if you got somebody like Joe Biden putting them in,
Speaker 8: God who had who had the auto pen when those
Speaker 8: people went through, you know, I I think I think
Speaker 8: Hedge must roll. I think hang them high. I think
Speaker 8: this is a good stot on on these hundreds of
Speaker 8: judges that are in there. Reiterate no one is above
Speaker 8: the law.
Speaker 2: Oh, I think that's very important. As as as you
Speaker 2: mentioned Schumer, we used the Schumer comment last night how
Speaker 2: you shouldn't threaten judges, and then him threatening Kavanaugh and Gorsich.
Speaker 2: As I will say, they know how to sing from
Speaker 2: the hymnal. They know how to sling it with the
Speaker 2: best of them. Simple as that, Paul, I got to
Speaker 2: get one more in. I'm gonna let you run. Thanks
Speaker 2: as always, thank you the best way. Thank you much. Pete,
Speaker 2: my buddy Pete down in South Carolina. Pete your thoughts.
Speaker 4: Hey, hey, my friend, I'm with you all the way
Speaker 4: on this, but I have two points. And the gentleman
Speaker 4: that just said something that you know and I forgot
Speaker 4: about this, that Biden pointed two hundred judges at midnight
Speaker 4: or whatever, can trom pull those.
Speaker 2: Back once you know what happens is once once the
Speaker 2: nomination is made by president. And I don't have any
Speaker 2: information on that to be realised with it. I know
Speaker 2: that he issued a lot of executive orders. He issued
Speaker 2: some commutations and some pardons. I didn't Normally, you don't
Speaker 2: fire two hundred judge, you don't fill two hundred spots.
Speaker 2: But if if the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans,
Speaker 2: chooses not to act on a nomination, now that the
Speaker 2: Republicans control the Senate, the nomination of someone from President
Speaker 2: Biden dies of its own initiative, uh, and then Donald
Speaker 2: Trump can can nominate. So Donald Trump doesn't have to
Speaker 2: pull something back. All he has to do is watch
Speaker 2: the Senate choose to take no action, because you need
Speaker 2: to have know only the nomination, but the confirmation, and
Speaker 2: the confirmation involves a hearing and then a vote by
Speaker 2: the full Senate, and and those if there were two
Speaker 2: hundred judges nominated, and I don't recall that. Okay, someone
Speaker 2: has a couple of people to mention that I don't
Speaker 2: recall that. It was more that there were two hundred
Speaker 2: people on death row, and I think one hundred and
Speaker 2: ninety seven of them had the death penalty lifted from them.
Speaker 2: That's was the only way that he didn't lift was
Speaker 2: the Boston bomber, the guy down you're that killed the
Speaker 2: black parishioners, and the guy that attacked the synagogue outside
Speaker 2: of Pittsburgh.
Speaker 4: And the other thing I just want to make the
Speaker 4: quick point is the judge or the judges, they are
Speaker 4: supposed to uphol law law, not the same the law
Speaker 4: or break the law.
Speaker 2: Or write the law. They're supposed to follow, follow the
Speaker 2: law and uh and do justice. That's what That's what
Speaker 2: a good judge choose.
Speaker 4: Well, like usually when I call you know, I'm always
Speaker 4: on your side, except when it comes to baseball.
Speaker 2: All right, all right, Well, the Red Sox lost the
Speaker 2: tough one tonight. They were leading the Toronto Blue Jays
Speaker 2: six nothing, and I think the sixth inning and they
Speaker 2: lost seven to six.
Speaker 5: And ten.
Speaker 4: Won.
Speaker 2: Good, Okay, all right, I'll let you run. Thanks, Thank
Speaker 2: you soon. Have a great night.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: If you folks want to continue to talk about this,
Speaker 2: I got wide open lines. Let's open it. Let's fill
Speaker 2: them up after eleven. If not, I'm going to change topics.
Speaker 2: I think this is a really important topic. I really
Speaker 2: do back on Night's side after the eleven