April 30, 2025 • 39 mins
The Trump Administration’s aggressive crackdown on immigration continues as federal authorities arrest two judges; a Wisconsin judge and a former New Mexico judge in two separate cases. Both are accused of interfering with Trump administration immigration enforcement efforts. The arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is very similar to the 2019 case of MA judge Shelley Joseph who was accused of helping an undocumented immigrant evade ICE agents. Dan discussed the similarities between both the WI and MA case as well as dive into the case out of New Mexico of a former judge and his wife accused of harboring of an undocumented immigrant with alleged ties to the notorious gang Tren de Aragua.
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray WBZ.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
This that was a tough loss in Toronto tonight because
the Red Sox were hit six nothing and they failed
to respond to seven unanswered runs by the Blue Jays.
But anyway, Hey, it's a long season. They'll have great
games and they'll have not so great games. This is
one you don't want to remember. Okay. I want to
(00:29):
talk up a subject we haven't talked about. We have
talked about the possibility of doing this now for the
next for the last couple of nights, but circumstances overtook us.
And so the Trump administration is becoming very aggressive in
its enforcement of arresting and deporting illegals, people who are
(00:51):
here illegally. And now we have two judges who are
under under arrest and facing federal charges for their actions
in two cases. One was in New Mexico and one
was in Wisconsin. Now, most of you are not going
to know the specifics of these cases because you'll watch
(01:14):
us a quick news report. I would like to lay
out for you these two cases, and then I would
like to find out from you if you feel the
arrest of the judges are justified. We did have the
Shelley Joseph case here in Massachusetts, and Shelley Joseph will
(01:36):
she has avoided federal prosecution, but she will have to
face a judicial conduct commission here in Massachusetts. And I
believe that part of the agreement which allowed her to
walk out of federal court scott free, probably is an
(01:56):
understanding that there will be some some punishment. I'm not
sure what, but I kind of imagine that she will
walk away scott free, even in front of the judicial
conduct commission. But it's a much better venue for Shelley Joseph.
It is not her case that we want to talk
about tonight. So the first case, and again the names
(02:18):
here are not going to be familiar to you, So
just beer with me, and I will try to tell
this as a factually in a straightforward as I can.
There's two cases, one out of New Mexico and one
out of Wisconsin. In the Wisconsin case, this is the
United States versus Hannah Duggan. She happens to be an
(02:40):
elected judge, so she's a state judge that is elected
out there in the state of Wisconsin. Different states have
rules in terms of either appointing or electing judges, So
in this case. According to the press release from the
Department of Justice, she is facing federal criminal complaint for
(03:03):
her alleged interference with a federal law enforcement operation and
unlawful unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest. So
we go back to April eighteenth, just a couple of
weeks ago, when members of the Milwaukee Office of US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE and the Enforcement and Removal Operations,
(03:26):
also a federal agency, along with other federal partners including
the FBIDA, US Customs and Border Patrol, tried to execute
what the Department of Justice says is a lawful warrant
arrest warrant for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a Mexican national previously
removed from the United States and recently charged in Milwaukee
(03:49):
County with multiple counts of domestic abuse related battery. Federal
agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, which would be
like arriving at one of our courthouses here in Massachusetts,
intending to arrest Floes Ruiz in a public hallway. Following
his court appearance before Judge Dugan, the judge learned that
(04:12):
the agents were present in the hallway, very similar to
what Shelley Joseph found out in Newton District Court a
few years ago. Dugan allegedly confronted and ordered the federal
agents to leave the courthouse. I don't know that she
would have authority to do that, but she's not charged
with that action. After she was made aware that they
(04:35):
had a valid immigration arrest warrant, according to the Department
of Justice, Dugan told agents they needed a judicial warrant
and demand that they go to the Chief Judge's office.
So this is where the ruse starts. Once the agents
were no longer in the vicinity of her courtroom, they're
(04:56):
cooperating with her. Judge. Dougan allegedly elected not to conduct
the hearing on this criminal case, despite the fact that
they were victims in the courtroom. They were expecting to
see the process of justice proceed on their behalf, but
that didn't happen because the judge personally escorted Flees, Ruiz
(05:21):
and his attorney through a restricted jury door. If you
have been in a courthouse, there's certain doors you can't
go through. If you're a judge, pretty much can go anywhere,
but if you're a criminal defendant or if you're a witness,
or if you're a victim, or if you're a television reporter,
you know a certain areas you can't go through. So
this is a restricted door called jury door, not typically
(05:46):
used by defendants or attorneys. The doorway led to a
non public hallway through which Flora's ruiz and his attorney
exited the courtroom the courthouse. According to the affidavit, Judge
Jugan's actions resulted in Flores's ruiz temporarily avoiding federal custody.
Her effort was to get him out of the courthouse
(06:09):
and allow him to escape. He was arrested outside the
courthouse following a brief footchase. She's charged with obstruction of
proceedings before a department or agency of the United States,
which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison,
and concealing a person to prevent arrest, which carries a
maximum penalty of one year in prison. Flores had previously
(06:30):
been deported in twenty thirteen and re entered the US illegally,
and he was subject to arrest based on an administrative
warrant issued by ICE for immigration violations following his recent
criminal activities in Milwaukee. So that's case number one in
your opinion. Did the judge do anything wrong? I think
she's got a heap of problems there. Okay, let's go
(06:51):
to New Mexico. So we have a husband and wife,
Nancy Ann Canoe and Jose Lewis Cano. Jose Lewis is
the judge. They've both been arrested for evidence tampering offenses
related to the federal investigation and prosecution against Christian or
Tego Lopez of venezuelan national residing unlawfully within the US
(07:14):
with alleged ties to Trende Ragua, US designated foreign terrorist organization.
There's a statement here from the US Attorney out there
in Mexico that judges are responsible for upholding our country's law.
Beyond egregious for a former judge and his wife to
engage in evidence tampering on behalf of a suspected Trendy
(07:34):
Deragua gang member accused of illegally possessing firearms. The US
Attorney's Office is committed to dismantling this foreign terrorist group.
Disrupting its criminal operation in New Mexico starts by prosecuting
those who support gang members, including judges. Now, according to
the documents, Homeland Security initiating the investigation of or Take
Lopez after receiving an anonymous tip that this subject, or
(07:59):
take A Loz, was unlawfully present in the US and
in possession of firearms. Subsequent investigation confirmed the defendant illegally
entered the country in two thousand and three and was
released shortly thereafter due to over karate at the border facility.
Evidence uncovered by federal agents realed revealed the debt defendant
(08:21):
had posted multiple photos and videos on social media showing
him and other illegal aliens handling firearms at a shooting
range in Lacruss, New Mexico. Among the weapons allegedly pictured
a six hour P three sixty five handgun, an AR
fifteen rifle equipped with a suppressor, and other high powered
firearms and ammunition. Tattoos confirmed Ortego Lopez identity in the
(08:45):
photos and videos for the review of his social media
activity revealed content suggesting affiliation with Trend Deagua, including gang
related tattoos, hand gestures, and clothing. January twenty twenty five,
the government agents received the tip that Ortega Lopez was
unlawfully residing with other illegal aliens on a property in Lacrusius,
(09:09):
owned by Nancy and Jose Cana, the judge and his wife.
Prior to his resignation from the court in March of
twenty twenty five, Cano served as a judge of the
donna Anna County Magistrate Court and warrant has executed two
search warrants in connection with the investigation, resulting in the
arrest of Ortega Ortes in February. February twenty eighth multiple
(09:33):
associates and the seize for four firearms so he's arrested
for illegal possession of firearms and AMMO. Four firearms believed
to be in his possession, along with three of his
cell phones, was seized during the operation. During the search,
or Tego Lopez was permitted to make a phone call
before being taken to the detention center. He told agents
(09:55):
a particular phone he wished to use was not among
the devices recovered from the detention center. Later showed Nancy Cano,
the wife of the judge, holding a black iPhone believed
to be Ortega's fourth phone. A fourth telephone in a
March seventh call with Ortego Lopez Nancy Cano, this is
after his arrest, used the device to contact a person
(10:18):
via WhatsApp. Then facilitated a FaceTime conversation between the person
and Ortego Lopez using her personal phone. Additionally, in an
April twentieth call, the judge's wife and Ortego Lopez discussed
deleting his Facebook account, a platform where he had previously
shared incriminating content, including gang affiliations and images with firearms.
(10:40):
This is the Judge's wife. On April twenty fourth, federal
agents executed a subsequent search warrant at the Cano residence
to locate the missing cell phone. During question Jose Cano,
the judge admitted he destroyed Ortega's cell phone by smashing
it with a hammer approximately five weeks prior after Ortego
(11:01):
Lopez's arrests, believing it contained incriminating photos and videos of
Ortega with firearms. Forensic analysis of the recovered phones revealed
messages linked to Artaga's criminal activities, including affiliations with trend
de Agua and images of Artaga with firearms. Judge Cano
former Judge Cano, charged with one count of tampering with
(11:22):
evidence and Nancy Cano charged with one count of conspiracy
to tamper with evidence. If convicted, the defendants face a
maximum penalty of twenty years in prison, three years of
supervise release, and a two hundred and fifty thousand dollars fine.
So my question is that's the bare bones of the
cases and the allegations. You will not understand that if
(11:45):
you watch the nightly newscasts because they don't have the
time to explain that. But I've explained that to you.
Pretty serious charges in my offense, in my opinion, pretty
egregious activity by a couple of judges, one in Wisconsin,
one in New Mexico. Is the Trump administration correct and
(12:07):
based upon the facts as presented in arresting these individuals,
or should they be immune from prosecution because they're state judges.
That's my question. You know now probably more than ninety
nine point five percent of the American public about the
background of these cases. We're talking about destruction of evidence,
(12:27):
tampering with evidence. We're talking about basically trying to in Wisconsin,
defeat the legitimate purposes of federal agents. I can understand
that you, as a judge, you might feel differently, and
maybe in your court you can cut someone a break
because you have some flexibility in your courtroom. But when
you're not in your court and you're functioning outside of
(12:51):
your jurisdiction as a judge, I think you get big
problems six seven, two, five, four thirty, six, seven, nine,
ten thirty. Who's right on this? The Trump administration. These
are probably not the only judges that are going to
face this, and it's it's a really interesting legal question
(13:12):
and I'd love to hear your response. We'll be back
on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
By the way, I do you want to mention that
tomorrow night we will have the BSY car guys. During
this period of time, Scott and Larry will join us
taking your question. Tomort night is May first, so that
has started the summer driving season, as far as I'm concerned,
the unofficial start. And we'll also talk with former state
Representative Dave Nagel, who made a very interesting presentation at
(13:45):
the State House about the dangers of getting in over
your head with gambling. I mean, gambling is now legal
and a lot of people are doing it. He got
in over his head go all the way back to
when he was a teenager, and he eventually paid for
it with a guilty plea in federal court and he
(14:05):
was sentenced a year and a half in prison. He
was in during the COVID period of time and served
seven months, But seven months is still seven months. And
I don't care if you're a federal prison or a
state prison. It's no fun. And he's going to talk
about it tomorrow night and talk about his path back.
I had a great conversation with him today, and look,
(14:28):
all of us have done dumb things. Some of us
have done dumber things than others. But the idea of
someone paying their debt and then working their way back
into society is something that I think all of us
would want to have a chance to do. And we'll
talk about that tomorrow night. I think it's going to
be a really interesting program, so as I like to
(14:50):
think every night is an interesting program. Let's go to
the phone. So the question is how do you feel
about these judges? And you know, it's really funny because
there's a little bit of a juxtaposition here in that normally,
historically in this country, it's been democratic presidents who have
(15:13):
argued federal law supersedes state law. And in the past
you've had some Republicans, but some Democrat governors who have
claimed sort of a version of states rights. But when
you talk about immigration law, it's really preempted according to
the US Supreme Court and their decision from I think
(15:33):
it was twenty eleven US versus Arizona, that immigration law
is preempted by the US, by the United States government,
by the federal government. And here you have sort of
a reverse, if you will. You have Democrats now almost
claiming states rights they stay out of our state courts.
Bill is an Easton Hi bill. You were first this
(15:55):
hour and night side. Thank you for calling and thanks
for your patients in listening to my explanation. But I
really wanted people to understand the specifics.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
And yeah, I don't think judges should be exempt, but
the class system is alive and well so apparently you know,
police officers are not exempt. They're blue collar. Now you're
a judge, you become white collar.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
That's an interesting that's an interesting analogy that you draw.
That's that is interesting. Yeah, I mean everybody agrees if
a police officer breaks the law should lose his badge
and also be punished, and we've seen that.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Mm hmm. Yeah, it's it should be an equal standard
I think for all all citizens, regardless of whether the
public officials or not even the military salthis standards.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah, I think by the way that the judge in Wisconsin,
she has been suspended from the bench by the state
Supreme Court out there, and the court isn't very political
in Wisconsin, and when they don't appoint judges unlike here
where governors appoint judges out in Wisconsin, they run for
(17:08):
office at all sorts of levels, which you know is
a different sort of system. And right now there are
four Democratic judges and three Republican judges on the court,
and I guess that the court ruled four to three
that in light of this, you know, she would be
suspended from the bench. She's going to be paid, but
(17:29):
she'll be suspended from the bench, which is interesting because
if it had broken along party lines, it probably she
would still be allowed to conduct her business as a
judge in Milwaukee.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
So the system is still corrupt the fact that she'll
be suspended with pay. Cops used to have that protection,
and you're seeing it fade in relation to zenaif everybody
agrees with you on that. But what a cowardly country
we live in to house his family for free and
be threatened by his family if we dare harm him.
(18:02):
That was ridiculous. Put back to the cameras too. I'm
opposed generally to cameras, way too many cameras, but many
many crimes wouldn't be solved unless we had them, including
this marathon bombing.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Yeah, you're right, I think. Look, I think as a
matter of fact, I happen to and you and I
may disagree. You almost sound like you might be a
police officer. I think it's a good idea for police
to wear cameras because most people don't understand the amount
of aggravation and disrespect that is directed at police officers
in this country. The average person would never tolerate with
(18:43):
what police officers have to put up with in this country.
So I know the unions tended to be opposed to
the implementation of body cams on police officers, but I
think it's actually helped them. It's also showed us often
what police officers go through in the course of their
day at work, sometimes risking their own lives, running into
(19:05):
bruning buildings. As firefighters as well, are running into cars
that are within seconds of exploding and pulling people out
who have suffered you know, horrific car accidents. So I
think I think that cameras uh on police officers, which
which were pushed by the defense bar, actually has helped
(19:26):
people better understand how tough a job being a police
officer actually is.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Okay, fair enough, Yeah, I just I'm I'm a skeptic.
I think more harm than good will come from them
cameras in general. I think it's a tool.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Okay, we can agree to disagree, agree to disagree. Bill,
I appreciate your call is always, thank you much, and
you would you you, you would just.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
As soon see these judges pay a price, he be
held accountable and not suspended with pay.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Well, I mean they still have to go through the
criminal prosecution. Now that that's really the real problem.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
There's going to be it's going to be a slap
on the wrist. You know that that's going to get
drawn out.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
Let's see, let's see what happened. You know what, if
if I thought it was going to be a slapping
the wrist, I wouldn't bring it up for conversation. And
I think it's important for people to weigh in on this.
That's that's what I think. I mean. If if people
aren't interested in weighing in on it. UH, then maybe
they will get a slap of the risk. But I
think these are pretty egregious actions that the FEDS have
arrested here. I think Shelley Joseph's action was pretty egregious,
(20:37):
and she went through a The charges were eventually settled
because her lawyer is a good lawyer, and he said,
let's let it be settled by the judicial UH committee,
by a judicial commission and judicial conduct commission. UH. And
we'll see what happens there. If it's a slap on
the wrist, we'll talk about it. Thank you, Bill, We'll
(20:57):
talk again. Appreciate your call. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Okay, have a.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Good one six one, seven, two, five four ten thirty.
I have one line there and I got one line
at six one seven, nine three one ten thirty. I
think this is an important topic. That's why I bring
it up. If you think it's important, I would invite
you to call. If you think it's unimportant, feel free
tell me why you think it's unimportant. Back on night
Side after this.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Blue Editorial comment here. Without the tourists, the cap Jaboard
would have a lot of businesses closing up, let's keep
rolling here. We're not talking about the Cape. We're talking
about a couple of judges arrested. Hey William in Baltimore.
Welcome back, William.
Speaker 5 (21:40):
How are you?
Speaker 6 (21:42):
Oh right? How you doing?
Speaker 5 (21:43):
Then?
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Just Gray, what are your thoughts on this? I kind
of laid it out. I took my time to lay
it out because people I wanted people to understand what
these folks who are accused of doing.
Speaker 6 (21:54):
Yeah, you know what, I'm glad you did that, because
all I've been touching is bits and pieces of him.
And uh, let's see how you explained it. Yes, I
think that it is gligious and I believe the last
phone caller. They are paying this lady. And these are judges.
That means that they are attorneys who like more than elected.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Right, that they're what I'm sorry, they're what.
Speaker 6 (22:15):
That means that there are attorneys want Well, yeah, I
don't know.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Yes, most judges are lawyers, although in many states where
judges are elected, I'm not sure that they have to
be a lawyer because we appoint judges. In Massachusetts. All
the judges in Massachusetts are appointed by the governor. It's
one of the great powers that a governor has in Massachusetts,
and there's a lot of states that works that worked
(22:41):
that way. I suspect Maryland is similar. But out in
Wisconsin and others do they Does the governor point the
judges down your way?
Speaker 6 (22:50):
Some of them are appointed and some of them are elected.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Yes, okay, well, we don't have any elected judges. They're
all appointed.
Speaker 6 (22:56):
Yes, we have elected in the city and the city
of Baltimore.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
It okay, well we don't have any elected ones. But
in some states that yeah, they're elected. And I don't
think that it probably varies from state to state, but
I'm sure that there must be some state where you
can become a judge even though you're not a lawyer.
Speaker 6 (23:14):
Well, I think in some cases you don't have to
be a lawyer evil, but I think they have to
have some type of explod like in the orphans court
or something like that. But I'm not sure.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
But any well, you.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Know, if you got elected as a judge in one
of these towns, say you know, small town or whatever,
you're not the only person there. You got some clerks,
and I suspect that there are people that help guide you. Look,
when you get elected as a United States senator, The
only qualification is to become a United States senator is
you have to be over the age of thirty and
(23:45):
a US citizen. And I'm sure that there's a lot
of those guys go to men and women go to
Washington as US senators, and they don't even know how
to find the bathroom, never mind how to run an office.
And you have these people who work in for the
Senate and they are called lifers who they are administrative
assistants and legal aids and all of that. And when
(24:08):
one senator gets unseated or retires, they go and work
for another senator. So they're the ones that really run
the Senate. In the House, it's not the not the
elected members in my opinion, but that's another story.
Speaker 6 (24:21):
Yeah, it's good knowing with the you know, with these
judges and the way you explained it. Yes, I think
they should be prosecuted, but we'll see what happened. But
this immigration stuff is really UH is really getting out
of hand, you know, without with our senator here, Chris
Vah and Holland and UH and the UH. And what
Michelle Obama said about she not being able to sleep
(24:41):
at night, I say, well, and she's not able to
sleep at night. That's her problem, you know. But uh,
you know, I'm sure she sleeps very safety and she
had to go ahead with the blooney But uh, you know,
but the way you explained it, then I'm glad you did, because,
like I said, I was just getting bits and pieces
of it. But I certainly think that these people should
be prosecuted and made the design I.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Mean, I mean, smash it up a cell phone with
a hammer, a judge someone else's cell phone. It's like,
you're you got a pretty clear intention there, what you.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
What you doing?
Speaker 2 (25:14):
And yeah, uh and forget the fact that he was
how they were housing on his property. It's unclear to
me if the property in which they were housed was
where the judge and his wife lived or if it
was a piece of rental property that uh that these
guys were living at. You know, either way, it's in
(25:35):
my opinion, it's a problem. Look, I can remember there
was a judge back in the early nineties. She was
nominated to federal court. Her name was Kimba Wood. I
believe she was going to become a federal judge in
New York, which is a big deal. Bill Clinton nominator
and it turned out that she had used a housekeeper
(25:59):
who was not a citizen and did not have legal papers.
So she was paying somebody under the table, you know,
to to help her maintain her house. That fact, and
that fact alone torpedo ended her possibility of becoming a
federal judge magically. Remember how So it just shows you
(26:21):
how things have changed. You used to lose your federal
judgeship if you had someone working in your house that
didn't have the right papers. When when we have people
come to our house, you know, we have I have
a yard, so I don't cut the grass in my house.
I did a long time ago, but I've given up
on that. And so I got a great company that comes.
(26:44):
I have never had the audacity, nor should I expect
to have the audacity, to say, the guy who owns
that company, can you show me the papers of all
these people? Are they illegal? I assume they are okay,
because frankly, one I don't want to know, and number two,
I don't want to start at what what right do
I have to art start asking people? If if he
files statements that he is only employing Americans or or
(27:08):
legal people who are illegally, that's fine, that's between him
and the government. I don't want to get involved in
that fight.
Speaker 6 (27:14):
So I agree with you, Dan. That's what I'm saying.
It's not my job to, you know, walk up to
somebody who I think is not agreegal, but that's the
governments job. But people are pointed there to do this,
and there was definitely on the line.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Man.
Speaker 6 (27:28):
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
I'm telling you, William, if we trace our family tree,
we're going to be related back there somewhere. I'm simple
as that. Every time I talk to you, I try
to find something we can disagree on, and we don't,
so I think I think we're related somewhere. Hey, William,
great to your employe, my friend. Thanks to talk to
you soon. All right, let me keep rolling here. Who
(27:51):
can I get in here next? I don't want a
short change, so let me break quickly here one minute early.
I got David san Antonio. We'll bring him back right
after the break. I don't want a short change. People.
I got Dave, I got Joe and Cambridge, I got
Paul in Dorchester. I got room in one one call
and we can go into the second hour of this.
I'd like to do two hours if you want six
one seven, nine thirty, but the only line open right
(28:12):
now is six one, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty.
We'll be right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
There we go. Let's go down to Texas, deep in
the heart of Texas. We'll talk with Dave and san Antonio. Dave,
I'm suspecting you agree with me on whether these judges
should face the music.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
I both certainly do.
Speaker 5 (28:35):
And the rest of them that are interfering with his
uh job is going to have to be answered if yes, me,
all of them, not just the ones on the border,
but the ones with the the what.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Do you call it, sanctuary city, sanctuary.
Speaker 5 (28:53):
Cities, some hick judge and Hickville tells all of America
that Donald can not deport these prisoners.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Yeah, well that's going to be decided by the Supreme Court.
I think that Trump is looking for some of those
fights because, like any president, Democrat or Republican, presidents like
the power. Okay, there's very few presidents in recent memory
who are looking to push power back to the States.
So yeah, presidents like to they like to be being
(29:24):
president is good is a good thing. Being king is good,
Being president is good.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
Yeah, but I I certainly agree with you there with
that that that woman escort and that criminal out of uh,
out of the grasp of the uh the police.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
But by the way, someone charged with domestic battery.
Speaker 5 (29:48):
I own.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
I mean that's now again, you know, I I think
that he presumed he is he presumed he has the
presumption of innocence. Okay, but that's pretty strong charge. And
then the guy down a want of them go smashing
up the cell phone. I mean, that's something only Hillary
Clinton should be allowed to do.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Dan.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
All right, Dave, I got it all in. Thanks man,
we'll talk later. Okay, all right, let me get Joe
and Cambridge in here. Joe, okay, you're in Cambridge. What
do you say, buddy?
Speaker 7 (30:24):
Hey, hey, Dan, Well, I have a lot to say.
So to start, they did a great job summing up
all of those particular cases. I've been kind of following
them off and on.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
You know, had you had you heard with clarity what
these got. These these folks, the judge of Wisconsin and
the judge in New Mexico had been charged with That's
why I took my time. I wanted people to understand
what the allegations are. Their allegations. They haven't been proven,
but their allegations, that's what they charged with.
Speaker 7 (30:56):
Mm hmm, yeah, yeah, I did. You did a fantastic
job in them precisely. So I'm kind of struggling with
really trying to understand or get to the root of,
you know, what's going on in the brains of some
of these these judges. I mean, is this a case
(31:16):
of severe Trump arrangement syndrome? Is is this a case
you know, is in the case with those two, with
those two where yeah, they were protecting that that you
know trend there radwa uh. And by the way, I
think it was that they're at their primary residence where
they were housing him.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
Yeah, it was unclear from the Department of Justice statement,
so I did not want to make an assumption. But
if it was, that's even worse. You know, if it
was at a rooming house, you know, five miles away,
still should know who's renting your property.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
I think, you know, yes, yes, I think I think
either way they were knowingly you know, protecting him and
housing him, which I guess it doesn't really matter. But
so in the case with those two, I don't know
if it isn't the case that there's does this guy
have something on them, you know, blackmailing them. I mean,
(32:09):
I don't know what.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Well, maybe, I mean, I don't know. It could be
that they are some people who who firmly believe that
we don't have a right to have a border. I mean,
maybe maybe they believe that and they see the law
is Again, if you're a judge, you're supposed to understand that, uh,
(32:30):
that that if a law is an invalid law, that
that our system will rectify that absolutely.
Speaker 7 (32:39):
And yeah, I have no doubt, you know, in the end,
I have no doubt that it's the these people are
just simply out to you know, disrupt our you know, constitution.
They're out to disrupt this country, you know, by allowing this.
You know, Partly, I think it does have to do
with you know, they're they're fighting against President Trump. But
(33:03):
either way, at the end of the day, I'm sorry,
I know they have to go through the prosecutes, her process.
I hope that in each of these cases, me personally,
I am rooting for the maximum, absolute, maximum sentence, no
mercy whatsoever with each of these cases. In any other
(33:24):
judges that are, you know, pursuing the similar fashion. I
don't want to see in this thing about them getting
paid in the meantime. That's absolutely ludicrous. What I don't
want to see obviously is are not guilty on any
of these but a far from that. I don't want
to see this case where we had here with Tanya Fernandez,
(33:45):
where she pleads out, you know, on her corruption chargers
and gets a slap on the wrist. I know she
got a few months in prison or whatever, but you know,
that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
So I don't know that she's been sentence ships, and
I thought that was part of her plea plea bargain
deal with You could have a plea deal which which
will say you can be sentenced up to I don't
know those those Even on a plea deal, you got
to wait for the sentence because, uh, sometimes the judge
will will comply with the agreement. And judges are independent,
(34:19):
they have an opportunity, particularly when you're talking about somebody
who is in the public, who's who's an elected official.
There's a higher standard there as well as a judge.
We'll find out that's that's I gotta do some work
on that. Joe I'll try to get an answer for you.
Speaker 7 (34:31):
Okay, yeah, yeah, no, no, I know you will.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
Let me try to get two more in here before
the break if I can do that, And I also
are sure you excellent call.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
I'm with you.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Thanks, I'm not a Paul Is in Dorchester. Paul, You're
next on nightside.
Speaker 8 (34:47):
Go ahead, Hey, Dan, I think that was an excellent
call was just heard. I Uh, I am almost insane
after three years of balloonhead out of Shifty coming down
saying I've got evidence. I've got evidence, I mean, and
(35:08):
then people in the background like Nancy Pelosi, no one
is above the law, no one is above the law.
They they made me nuts. I think I think that
this is obstruction of justice, Dan uh in all these cases,
I think we kind of missed those midnight appointments that
Joe Biden pushed through. Of these like two hundred or
(35:29):
something of these nutty judges. It seems that he just
he just put all these judges in to obstruct and
impede the progress that they just want to block and
impede any progress that the Trump is making. It's it's
the you know, the the the process is the punishment.
The uh, these people I do not think are qualified either.
(35:51):
I mean, I'm not a veterinarian, Dan, but I know
the difference between a dog and a cat. I'm not
a doctor, but I know the difference being between someone
having ovaries and testicles. I do not think that these
people that are in high positions are necessarily all there.
Because if you got somebody like Joe Biden putting them in,
(36:14):
God who had who had the auto pen when those
people went through, you know, I I think I think
Hedge must roll. I think hang them high. I think
this is a good stot on on these hundreds of
judges that are in there. Reiterate no one is above
the law.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
Oh, I think that's very important. As as as you
mentioned Schumer, we used the Schumer comment last night how
you shouldn't threaten judges, and then him threatening Kavanaugh and Gorsich.
As I will say, they know how to sing from
the hymnal. They know how to sling it with the
best of them. Simple as that, Paul, I got to
(36:55):
get one more in. I'm gonna let you run. Thanks
as always, thank you the best way. Thank you much. Pete,
my buddy Pete down in South Carolina. Pete your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (37:04):
Hey, hey, my friend, I'm with you all the way
on this, but I have two points. And the gentleman
that just said something that you know and I forgot
about this, that Biden pointed two hundred judges at midnight
or whatever, can trom pull those.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Back once you know what happens is once once the
nomination is made by president. And I don't have any
information on that to be realised with it. I know
that he issued a lot of executive orders. He issued
some commutations and some pardons. I didn't Normally, you don't
(37:42):
fire two hundred judge, you don't fill two hundred spots.
But if if the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans,
chooses not to act on a nomination, now that the
Republicans control the Senate, the nomination of someone from President
Biden dies of its own initiative, uh, and then Donald
(38:04):
Trump can can nominate. So Donald Trump doesn't have to
pull something back. All he has to do is watch
the Senate choose to take no action, because you need
to have know only the nomination, but the confirmation, and
the confirmation involves a hearing and then a vote by
the full Senate, and and those if there were two
hundred judges nominated, and I don't recall that. Okay, someone
has a couple of people to mention that I don't
(38:26):
recall that. It was more that there were two hundred
people on death row, and I think one hundred and
ninety seven of them had the death penalty lifted from them.
That's was the only way that he didn't lift was
the Boston bomber, the guy down you're that killed the
black parishioners, and the guy that attacked the synagogue outside
(38:47):
of Pittsburgh.
Speaker 4 (38:49):
And the other thing I just want to make the
quick point is the judge or the judges, they are
supposed to uphol law law, not the same the law
or break the law.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Or write the law. They're supposed to follow, follow the
law and uh and do justice. That's what That's what
a good judge choose.
Speaker 4 (39:12):
Well, like usually when I call you know, I'm always
on your side, except when it comes to baseball.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
All right, all right, Well, the Red Sox lost the
tough one tonight. They were leading the Toronto Blue Jays
six nothing, and I think the sixth inning and they
lost seven to six.
Speaker 5 (39:28):
And ten.
Speaker 4 (39:30):
Won.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Good, Okay, all right, I'll let you run. Thanks, Thank
you soon. Have a great night.
Speaker 4 (39:36):
All right.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
If you folks want to continue to talk about this,
I got wide open lines. Let's open it. Let's fill
them up after eleven. If not, I'm going to change topics.
I think this is a really important topic. I really
do back on Night's side after the eleven
It's Night Side with Dan Ray WBZ.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
This that was a tough loss in Toronto tonight because
the Red Sox were hit six nothing and they failed
to respond to seven unanswered runs by the Blue Jays.
But anyway, Hey, it's a long season. They'll have great
games and they'll have not so great games. This is
one you don't want to remember. Okay. I want to
(00:29):
talk up a subject we haven't talked about. We have
talked about the possibility of doing this now for the
next for the last couple of nights, but circumstances overtook us.
And so the Trump administration is becoming very aggressive in
its enforcement of arresting and deporting illegals, people who are
(00:51):
here illegally. And now we have two judges who are
under under arrest and facing federal charges for their actions
in two cases. One was in New Mexico and one
was in Wisconsin. Now, most of you are not going
to know the specifics of these cases because you'll watch
(01:14):
us a quick news report. I would like to lay
out for you these two cases, and then I would
like to find out from you if you feel the
arrest of the judges are justified. We did have the
Shelley Joseph case here in Massachusetts, and Shelley Joseph will
(01:36):
she has avoided federal prosecution, but she will have to
face a judicial conduct commission here in Massachusetts. And I
believe that part of the agreement which allowed her to
walk out of federal court scott free, probably is an
(01:56):
understanding that there will be some some punishment. I'm not
sure what, but I kind of imagine that she will
walk away scott free, even in front of the judicial
conduct commission. But it's a much better venue for Shelley Joseph.
It is not her case that we want to talk
about tonight. So the first case, and again the names
(02:18):
here are not going to be familiar to you, So
just beer with me, and I will try to tell
this as a factually in a straightforward as I can.
There's two cases, one out of New Mexico and one
out of Wisconsin. In the Wisconsin case, this is the
United States versus Hannah Duggan. She happens to be an
(02:40):
elected judge, so she's a state judge that is elected
out there in the state of Wisconsin. Different states have
rules in terms of either appointing or electing judges, So
in this case. According to the press release from the
Department of Justice, she is facing federal criminal complaint for
(03:03):
her alleged interference with a federal law enforcement operation and
unlawful unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest. So
we go back to April eighteenth, just a couple of
weeks ago, when members of the Milwaukee Office of US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE and the Enforcement and Removal Operations,
(03:26):
also a federal agency, along with other federal partners including
the FBIDA, US Customs and Border Patrol, tried to execute
what the Department of Justice says is a lawful warrant
arrest warrant for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a Mexican national previously
removed from the United States and recently charged in Milwaukee
(03:49):
County with multiple counts of domestic abuse related battery. Federal
agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, which would be
like arriving at one of our courthouses here in Massachusetts,
intending to arrest Floes Ruiz in a public hallway. Following
his court appearance before Judge Dugan, the judge learned that
(04:12):
the agents were present in the hallway, very similar to
what Shelley Joseph found out in Newton District Court a
few years ago. Dugan allegedly confronted and ordered the federal
agents to leave the courthouse. I don't know that she
would have authority to do that, but she's not charged
with that action. After she was made aware that they
(04:35):
had a valid immigration arrest warrant, according to the Department
of Justice, Dugan told agents they needed a judicial warrant
and demand that they go to the Chief Judge's office.
So this is where the ruse starts. Once the agents
were no longer in the vicinity of her courtroom, they're
(04:56):
cooperating with her. Judge. Dougan allegedly elected not to conduct
the hearing on this criminal case, despite the fact that
they were victims in the courtroom. They were expecting to
see the process of justice proceed on their behalf, but
that didn't happen because the judge personally escorted Flees, Ruiz
(05:21):
and his attorney through a restricted jury door. If you
have been in a courthouse, there's certain doors you can't
go through. If you're a judge, pretty much can go anywhere,
but if you're a criminal defendant or if you're a witness,
or if you're a victim, or if you're a television reporter,
you know a certain areas you can't go through. So
this is a restricted door called jury door, not typically
(05:46):
used by defendants or attorneys. The doorway led to a
non public hallway through which Flora's ruiz and his attorney
exited the courtroom the courthouse. According to the affidavit, Judge
Jugan's actions resulted in Flores's ruiz temporarily avoiding federal custody.
Her effort was to get him out of the courthouse
(06:09):
and allow him to escape. He was arrested outside the
courthouse following a brief footchase. She's charged with obstruction of
proceedings before a department or agency of the United States,
which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison,
and concealing a person to prevent arrest, which carries a
maximum penalty of one year in prison. Flores had previously
(06:30):
been deported in twenty thirteen and re entered the US illegally,
and he was subject to arrest based on an administrative
warrant issued by ICE for immigration violations following his recent
criminal activities in Milwaukee. So that's case number one in
your opinion. Did the judge do anything wrong? I think
she's got a heap of problems there. Okay, let's go
(06:51):
to New Mexico. So we have a husband and wife,
Nancy Ann Canoe and Jose Lewis Cano. Jose Lewis is
the judge. They've both been arrested for evidence tampering offenses
related to the federal investigation and prosecution against Christian or
Tego Lopez of venezuelan national residing unlawfully within the US
(07:14):
with alleged ties to Trende Ragua, US designated foreign terrorist organization.
There's a statement here from the US Attorney out there
in Mexico that judges are responsible for upholding our country's law.
Beyond egregious for a former judge and his wife to
engage in evidence tampering on behalf of a suspected Trendy
(07:34):
Deragua gang member accused of illegally possessing firearms. The US
Attorney's Office is committed to dismantling this foreign terrorist group.
Disrupting its criminal operation in New Mexico starts by prosecuting
those who support gang members, including judges. Now, according to
the documents, Homeland Security initiating the investigation of or Take
Lopez after receiving an anonymous tip that this subject, or
(07:59):
take A Loz, was unlawfully present in the US and
in possession of firearms. Subsequent investigation confirmed the defendant illegally
entered the country in two thousand and three and was
released shortly thereafter due to over karate at the border facility.
Evidence uncovered by federal agents realed revealed the debt defendant
(08:21):
had posted multiple photos and videos on social media showing
him and other illegal aliens handling firearms at a shooting
range in Lacruss, New Mexico. Among the weapons allegedly pictured
a six hour P three sixty five handgun, an AR
fifteen rifle equipped with a suppressor, and other high powered
firearms and ammunition. Tattoos confirmed Ortego Lopez identity in the
(08:45):
photos and videos for the review of his social media
activity revealed content suggesting affiliation with Trend Deagua, including gang
related tattoos, hand gestures, and clothing. January twenty twenty five,
the government agents received the tip that Ortega Lopez was
unlawfully residing with other illegal aliens on a property in Lacrusius,
(09:09):
owned by Nancy and Jose Cana, the judge and his wife.
Prior to his resignation from the court in March of
twenty twenty five, Cano served as a judge of the
donna Anna County Magistrate Court and warrant has executed two
search warrants in connection with the investigation, resulting in the
arrest of Ortega Ortes in February. February twenty eighth multiple
(09:33):
associates and the seize for four firearms so he's arrested
for illegal possession of firearms and AMMO. Four firearms believed
to be in his possession, along with three of his
cell phones, was seized during the operation. During the search,
or Tego Lopez was permitted to make a phone call
before being taken to the detention center. He told agents
(09:55):
a particular phone he wished to use was not among
the devices recovered from the detention center. Later showed Nancy Cano,
the wife of the judge, holding a black iPhone believed
to be Ortega's fourth phone. A fourth telephone in a
March seventh call with Ortego Lopez Nancy Cano, this is
after his arrest, used the device to contact a person
(10:18):
via WhatsApp. Then facilitated a FaceTime conversation between the person
and Ortego Lopez using her personal phone. Additionally, in an
April twentieth call, the judge's wife and Ortego Lopez discussed
deleting his Facebook account, a platform where he had previously
shared incriminating content, including gang affiliations and images with firearms.
(10:40):
This is the Judge's wife. On April twenty fourth, federal
agents executed a subsequent search warrant at the Cano residence
to locate the missing cell phone. During question Jose Cano,
the judge admitted he destroyed Ortega's cell phone by smashing
it with a hammer approximately five weeks prior after Ortego
(11:01):
Lopez's arrests, believing it contained incriminating photos and videos of
Ortega with firearms. Forensic analysis of the recovered phones revealed
messages linked to Artaga's criminal activities, including affiliations with trend
de Agua and images of Artaga with firearms. Judge Cano
former Judge Cano, charged with one count of tampering with
(11:22):
evidence and Nancy Cano charged with one count of conspiracy
to tamper with evidence. If convicted, the defendants face a
maximum penalty of twenty years in prison, three years of
supervise release, and a two hundred and fifty thousand dollars fine.
So my question is that's the bare bones of the
cases and the allegations. You will not understand that if
(11:45):
you watch the nightly newscasts because they don't have the
time to explain that. But I've explained that to you.
Pretty serious charges in my offense, in my opinion, pretty
egregious activity by a couple of judges, one in Wisconsin,
one in New Mexico. Is the Trump administration correct and
(12:07):
based upon the facts as presented in arresting these individuals,
or should they be immune from prosecution because they're state judges.
That's my question. You know now probably more than ninety
nine point five percent of the American public about the
background of these cases. We're talking about destruction of evidence,
(12:27):
tampering with evidence. We're talking about basically trying to in Wisconsin,
defeat the legitimate purposes of federal agents. I can understand
that you, as a judge, you might feel differently, and
maybe in your court you can cut someone a break
because you have some flexibility in your courtroom. But when
you're not in your court and you're functioning outside of
(12:51):
your jurisdiction as a judge, I think you get big
problems six seven, two, five, four thirty, six, seven, nine,
ten thirty. Who's right on this? The Trump administration. These
are probably not the only judges that are going to
face this, and it's it's a really interesting legal question
(13:12):
and I'd love to hear your response. We'll be back
on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
By the way, I do you want to mention that
tomorrow night we will have the BSY car guys. During
this period of time, Scott and Larry will join us
taking your question. Tomort night is May first, so that
has started the summer driving season, as far as I'm concerned,
the unofficial start. And we'll also talk with former state
Representative Dave Nagel, who made a very interesting presentation at
(13:45):
the State House about the dangers of getting in over
your head with gambling. I mean, gambling is now legal
and a lot of people are doing it. He got
in over his head go all the way back to
when he was a teenager, and he eventually paid for
it with a guilty plea in federal court and he
(14:05):
was sentenced a year and a half in prison. He
was in during the COVID period of time and served
seven months, But seven months is still seven months. And
I don't care if you're a federal prison or a
state prison. It's no fun. And he's going to talk
about it tomorrow night and talk about his path back.
I had a great conversation with him today, and look,
(14:28):
all of us have done dumb things. Some of us
have done dumber things than others. But the idea of
someone paying their debt and then working their way back
into society is something that I think all of us
would want to have a chance to do. And we'll
talk about that tomorrow night. I think it's going to
be a really interesting program, so as I like to
(14:50):
think every night is an interesting program. Let's go to
the phone. So the question is how do you feel
about these judges? And you know, it's really funny because
there's a little bit of a juxtaposition here in that normally,
historically in this country, it's been democratic presidents who have
(15:13):
argued federal law supersedes state law. And in the past
you've had some Republicans, but some Democrat governors who have
claimed sort of a version of states rights. But when
you talk about immigration law, it's really preempted according to
the US Supreme Court and their decision from I think
(15:33):
it was twenty eleven US versus Arizona, that immigration law
is preempted by the US, by the United States government,
by the federal government. And here you have sort of
a reverse, if you will. You have Democrats now almost
claiming states rights they stay out of our state courts.
Bill is an Easton Hi bill. You were first this
(15:55):
hour and night side. Thank you for calling and thanks
for your patients in listening to my explanation. But I
really wanted people to understand the specifics.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
And yeah, I don't think judges should be exempt, but
the class system is alive and well so apparently you know,
police officers are not exempt. They're blue collar. Now you're
a judge, you become white collar.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
That's an interesting that's an interesting analogy that you draw.
That's that is interesting. Yeah, I mean everybody agrees if
a police officer breaks the law should lose his badge
and also be punished, and we've seen that.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Mm hmm. Yeah, it's it should be an equal standard
I think for all all citizens, regardless of whether the
public officials or not even the military salthis standards.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah, I think by the way that the judge in Wisconsin,
she has been suspended from the bench by the state
Supreme Court out there, and the court isn't very political
in Wisconsin, and when they don't appoint judges unlike here
where governors appoint judges out in Wisconsin, they run for
(17:08):
office at all sorts of levels, which you know is
a different sort of system. And right now there are
four Democratic judges and three Republican judges on the court,
and I guess that the court ruled four to three
that in light of this, you know, she would be
suspended from the bench. She's going to be paid, but
(17:29):
she'll be suspended from the bench, which is interesting because
if it had broken along party lines, it probably she
would still be allowed to conduct her business as a
judge in Milwaukee.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
So the system is still corrupt the fact that she'll
be suspended with pay. Cops used to have that protection,
and you're seeing it fade in relation to zenaif everybody
agrees with you on that. But what a cowardly country
we live in to house his family for free and
be threatened by his family if we dare harm him.
(18:02):
That was ridiculous. Put back to the cameras too. I'm
opposed generally to cameras, way too many cameras, but many
many crimes wouldn't be solved unless we had them, including
this marathon bombing.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Yeah, you're right, I think. Look, I think as a
matter of fact, I happen to and you and I
may disagree. You almost sound like you might be a
police officer. I think it's a good idea for police
to wear cameras because most people don't understand the amount
of aggravation and disrespect that is directed at police officers
in this country. The average person would never tolerate with
(18:43):
what police officers have to put up with in this country.
So I know the unions tended to be opposed to
the implementation of body cams on police officers, but I
think it's actually helped them. It's also showed us often
what police officers go through in the course of their
day at work, sometimes risking their own lives, running into
(19:05):
bruning buildings. As firefighters as well, are running into cars
that are within seconds of exploding and pulling people out
who have suffered you know, horrific car accidents. So I
think I think that cameras uh on police officers, which
which were pushed by the defense bar, actually has helped
(19:26):
people better understand how tough a job being a police
officer actually is.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Okay, fair enough, Yeah, I just I'm I'm a skeptic.
I think more harm than good will come from them
cameras in general. I think it's a tool.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Okay, we can agree to disagree, agree to disagree. Bill,
I appreciate your call is always, thank you much, and
you would you you, you would just.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
As soon see these judges pay a price, he be
held accountable and not suspended with pay.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Well, I mean they still have to go through the
criminal prosecution. Now that that's really the real problem.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
There's going to be it's going to be a slap
on the wrist. You know that that's going to get
drawn out.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
Let's see, let's see what happened. You know what, if
if I thought it was going to be a slapping
the wrist, I wouldn't bring it up for conversation. And
I think it's important for people to weigh in on this.
That's that's what I think. I mean. If if people
aren't interested in weighing in on it. UH, then maybe
they will get a slap of the risk. But I
think these are pretty egregious actions that the FEDS have
arrested here. I think Shelley Joseph's action was pretty egregious,
(20:37):
and she went through a The charges were eventually settled
because her lawyer is a good lawyer, and he said,
let's let it be settled by the judicial UH committee,
by a judicial commission and judicial conduct commission. UH. And
we'll see what happens there. If it's a slap on
the wrist, we'll talk about it. Thank you, Bill, We'll
(20:57):
talk again. Appreciate your call. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Okay, have a.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Good one six one, seven, two, five four ten thirty.
I have one line there and I got one line
at six one seven, nine three one ten thirty. I
think this is an important topic. That's why I bring
it up. If you think it's important, I would invite
you to call. If you think it's unimportant, feel free
tell me why you think it's unimportant. Back on night
Side after this.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Blue Editorial comment here. Without the tourists, the cap Jaboard
would have a lot of businesses closing up, let's keep
rolling here. We're not talking about the Cape. We're talking
about a couple of judges arrested. Hey William in Baltimore.
Welcome back, William.
Speaker 5 (21:40):
How are you?
Speaker 6 (21:42):
Oh right? How you doing?
Speaker 5 (21:43):
Then?
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Just Gray, what are your thoughts on this? I kind
of laid it out. I took my time to lay
it out because people I wanted people to understand what
these folks who are accused of doing.
Speaker 6 (21:54):
Yeah, you know what, I'm glad you did that, because
all I've been touching is bits and pieces of him.
And uh, let's see how you explained it. Yes, I
think that it is gligious and I believe the last
phone caller. They are paying this lady. And these are judges.
That means that they are attorneys who like more than elected.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Right, that they're what I'm sorry, they're what.
Speaker 6 (22:15):
That means that there are attorneys want Well, yeah, I
don't know.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Yes, most judges are lawyers, although in many states where
judges are elected, I'm not sure that they have to
be a lawyer because we appoint judges. In Massachusetts. All
the judges in Massachusetts are appointed by the governor. It's
one of the great powers that a governor has in Massachusetts,
and there's a lot of states that works that worked
(22:41):
that way. I suspect Maryland is similar. But out in
Wisconsin and others do they Does the governor point the
judges down your way?
Speaker 6 (22:50):
Some of them are appointed and some of them are elected.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Yes, okay, well, we don't have any elected judges. They're
all appointed.
Speaker 6 (22:56):
Yes, we have elected in the city and the city
of Baltimore.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
It okay, well we don't have any elected ones. But
in some states that yeah, they're elected. And I don't
think that it probably varies from state to state, but
I'm sure that there must be some state where you
can become a judge even though you're not a lawyer.
Speaker 6 (23:14):
Well, I think in some cases you don't have to
be a lawyer evil, but I think they have to
have some type of explod like in the orphans court
or something like that. But I'm not sure.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
But any well, you.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Know, if you got elected as a judge in one
of these towns, say you know, small town or whatever,
you're not the only person there. You got some clerks,
and I suspect that there are people that help guide you. Look,
when you get elected as a United States senator, The
only qualification is to become a United States senator is
you have to be over the age of thirty and
(23:45):
a US citizen. And I'm sure that there's a lot
of those guys go to men and women go to
Washington as US senators, and they don't even know how
to find the bathroom, never mind how to run an office.
And you have these people who work in for the
Senate and they are called lifers who they are administrative
assistants and legal aids and all of that. And when
(24:08):
one senator gets unseated or retires, they go and work
for another senator. So they're the ones that really run
the Senate. In the House, it's not the not the
elected members in my opinion, but that's another story.
Speaker 6 (24:21):
Yeah, it's good knowing with the you know, with these
judges and the way you explained it. Yes, I think
they should be prosecuted, but we'll see what happened. But
this immigration stuff is really UH is really getting out
of hand, you know, without with our senator here, Chris
Vah and Holland and UH and the UH. And what
Michelle Obama said about she not being able to sleep
(24:41):
at night, I say, well, and she's not able to
sleep at night. That's her problem, you know. But uh,
you know, I'm sure she sleeps very safety and she
had to go ahead with the blooney But uh, you know,
but the way you explained it, then I'm glad you did, because,
like I said, I was just getting bits and pieces
of it. But I certainly think that these people should
be prosecuted and made the design I.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Mean, I mean, smash it up a cell phone with
a hammer, a judge someone else's cell phone. It's like,
you're you got a pretty clear intention there, what you.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
What you doing?
Speaker 2 (25:14):
And yeah, uh and forget the fact that he was
how they were housing on his property. It's unclear to
me if the property in which they were housed was
where the judge and his wife lived or if it
was a piece of rental property that uh that these
guys were living at. You know, either way, it's in
(25:35):
my opinion, it's a problem. Look, I can remember there
was a judge back in the early nineties. She was
nominated to federal court. Her name was Kimba Wood. I
believe she was going to become a federal judge in
New York, which is a big deal. Bill Clinton nominator
and it turned out that she had used a housekeeper
(25:59):
who was not a citizen and did not have legal papers.
So she was paying somebody under the table, you know,
to to help her maintain her house. That fact, and
that fact alone torpedo ended her possibility of becoming a
federal judge magically. Remember how So it just shows you
(26:21):
how things have changed. You used to lose your federal
judgeship if you had someone working in your house that
didn't have the right papers. When when we have people
come to our house, you know, we have I have
a yard, so I don't cut the grass in my house.
I did a long time ago, but I've given up
on that. And so I got a great company that comes.
(26:44):
I have never had the audacity, nor should I expect
to have the audacity, to say, the guy who owns
that company, can you show me the papers of all
these people? Are they illegal? I assume they are okay,
because frankly, one I don't want to know, and number two,
I don't want to start at what what right do
I have to art start asking people? If if he
files statements that he is only employing Americans or or
(27:08):
legal people who are illegally, that's fine, that's between him
and the government. I don't want to get involved in
that fight.
Speaker 6 (27:14):
So I agree with you, Dan. That's what I'm saying.
It's not my job to, you know, walk up to
somebody who I think is not agreegal, but that's the
governments job. But people are pointed there to do this,
and there was definitely on the line.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Man.
Speaker 6 (27:28):
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
I'm telling you, William, if we trace our family tree,
we're going to be related back there somewhere. I'm simple
as that. Every time I talk to you, I try
to find something we can disagree on, and we don't,
so I think I think we're related somewhere. Hey, William,
great to your employe, my friend. Thanks to talk to
you soon. All right, let me keep rolling here. Who
(27:51):
can I get in here next? I don't want a
short change, so let me break quickly here one minute early.
I got David san Antonio. We'll bring him back right
after the break. I don't want a short change. People.
I got Dave, I got Joe and Cambridge, I got
Paul in Dorchester. I got room in one one call
and we can go into the second hour of this.
I'd like to do two hours if you want six
one seven, nine thirty, but the only line open right
(28:12):
now is six one, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty.
We'll be right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
There we go. Let's go down to Texas, deep in
the heart of Texas. We'll talk with Dave and san Antonio. Dave,
I'm suspecting you agree with me on whether these judges
should face the music.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
I both certainly do.
Speaker 5 (28:35):
And the rest of them that are interfering with his
uh job is going to have to be answered if yes, me,
all of them, not just the ones on the border,
but the ones with the the what.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Do you call it, sanctuary city, sanctuary.
Speaker 5 (28:53):
Cities, some hick judge and Hickville tells all of America
that Donald can not deport these prisoners.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
Yeah, well that's going to be decided by the Supreme Court.
I think that Trump is looking for some of those
fights because, like any president, Democrat or Republican, presidents like
the power. Okay, there's very few presidents in recent memory
who are looking to push power back to the States.
So yeah, presidents like to they like to be being
(29:24):
president is good is a good thing. Being king is good,
Being president is good.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
Yeah, but I I certainly agree with you there with
that that that woman escort and that criminal out of uh,
out of the grasp of the uh the police.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
But by the way, someone charged with domestic battery.
Speaker 5 (29:48):
I own.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
I mean that's now again, you know, I I think
that he presumed he is he presumed he has the
presumption of innocence. Okay, but that's pretty strong charge. And
then the guy down a want of them go smashing
up the cell phone. I mean, that's something only Hillary
Clinton should be allowed to do.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Dan.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
All right, Dave, I got it all in. Thanks man,
we'll talk later. Okay, all right, let me get Joe
and Cambridge in here. Joe, okay, you're in Cambridge. What
do you say, buddy?
Speaker 7 (30:24):
Hey, hey, Dan, Well, I have a lot to say.
So to start, they did a great job summing up
all of those particular cases. I've been kind of following
them off and on.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
You know, had you had you heard with clarity what
these got. These these folks, the judge of Wisconsin and
the judge in New Mexico had been charged with That's
why I took my time. I wanted people to understand
what the allegations are. Their allegations. They haven't been proven,
but their allegations, that's what they charged with.
Speaker 7 (30:56):
Mm hmm, yeah, yeah, I did. You did a fantastic
job in them precisely. So I'm kind of struggling with
really trying to understand or get to the root of,
you know, what's going on in the brains of some
of these these judges. I mean, is this a case
(31:16):
of severe Trump arrangement syndrome? Is is this a case
you know, is in the case with those two, with
those two where yeah, they were protecting that that you
know trend there radwa uh. And by the way, I
think it was that they're at their primary residence where
they were housing him.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
Yeah, it was unclear from the Department of Justice statement,
so I did not want to make an assumption. But
if it was, that's even worse. You know, if it
was at a rooming house, you know, five miles away,
still should know who's renting your property.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
I think, you know, yes, yes, I think I think
either way they were knowingly you know, protecting him and
housing him, which I guess it doesn't really matter. But
so in the case with those two, I don't know
if it isn't the case that there's does this guy
have something on them, you know, blackmailing them. I mean,
(32:09):
I don't know what.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Well, maybe, I mean, I don't know. It could be
that they are some people who who firmly believe that
we don't have a right to have a border. I mean,
maybe maybe they believe that and they see the law
is Again, if you're a judge, you're supposed to understand that, uh,
(32:30):
that that if a law is an invalid law, that
that our system will rectify that absolutely.
Speaker 7 (32:39):
And yeah, I have no doubt, you know, in the end,
I have no doubt that it's the these people are
just simply out to you know, disrupt our you know, constitution.
They're out to disrupt this country, you know, by allowing this.
You know, Partly, I think it does have to do
with you know, they're they're fighting against President Trump. But
(33:03):
either way, at the end of the day, I'm sorry,
I know they have to go through the prosecutes, her process.
I hope that in each of these cases, me personally,
I am rooting for the maximum, absolute, maximum sentence, no
mercy whatsoever with each of these cases. In any other
(33:24):
judges that are, you know, pursuing the similar fashion. I
don't want to see in this thing about them getting
paid in the meantime. That's absolutely ludicrous. What I don't
want to see obviously is are not guilty on any
of these but a far from that. I don't want
to see this case where we had here with Tanya Fernandez,
(33:45):
where she pleads out, you know, on her corruption chargers
and gets a slap on the wrist. I know she
got a few months in prison or whatever, but you know,
that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
So I don't know that she's been sentence ships, and
I thought that was part of her plea plea bargain
deal with You could have a plea deal which which
will say you can be sentenced up to I don't
know those those Even on a plea deal, you got
to wait for the sentence because, uh, sometimes the judge
will will comply with the agreement. And judges are independent,
(34:19):
they have an opportunity, particularly when you're talking about somebody
who is in the public, who's who's an elected official.
There's a higher standard there as well as a judge.
We'll find out that's that's I gotta do some work
on that. Joe I'll try to get an answer for you.
Speaker 7 (34:31):
Okay, yeah, yeah, no, no, I know you will.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
Let me try to get two more in here before
the break if I can do that, And I also
are sure you excellent call.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
I'm with you.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Thanks, I'm not a Paul Is in Dorchester. Paul, You're
next on nightside.
Speaker 8 (34:47):
Go ahead, Hey, Dan, I think that was an excellent
call was just heard. I Uh, I am almost insane
after three years of balloonhead out of Shifty coming down
saying I've got evidence. I've got evidence, I mean, and
(35:08):
then people in the background like Nancy Pelosi, no one
is above the law, no one is above the law.
They they made me nuts. I think I think that
this is obstruction of justice, Dan uh in all these cases,
I think we kind of missed those midnight appointments that
Joe Biden pushed through. Of these like two hundred or
(35:29):
something of these nutty judges. It seems that he just
he just put all these judges in to obstruct and
impede the progress that they just want to block and
impede any progress that the Trump is making. It's it's
the you know, the the the process is the punishment.
The uh, these people I do not think are qualified either.
(35:51):
I mean, I'm not a veterinarian, Dan, but I know
the difference between a dog and a cat. I'm not
a doctor, but I know the difference being between someone
having ovaries and testicles. I do not think that these
people that are in high positions are necessarily all there.
Because if you got somebody like Joe Biden putting them in,
(36:14):
God who had who had the auto pen when those
people went through, you know, I I think I think
Hedge must roll. I think hang them high. I think
this is a good stot on on these hundreds of
judges that are in there. Reiterate no one is above
the law.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
Oh, I think that's very important. As as as you
mentioned Schumer, we used the Schumer comment last night how
you shouldn't threaten judges, and then him threatening Kavanaugh and Gorsich.
As I will say, they know how to sing from
the hymnal. They know how to sling it with the
best of them. Simple as that, Paul, I got to
(36:55):
get one more in. I'm gonna let you run. Thanks
as always, thank you the best way. Thank you much. Pete,
my buddy Pete down in South Carolina. Pete your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (37:04):
Hey, hey, my friend, I'm with you all the way
on this, but I have two points. And the gentleman
that just said something that you know and I forgot
about this, that Biden pointed two hundred judges at midnight
or whatever, can trom pull those.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Back once you know what happens is once once the
nomination is made by president. And I don't have any
information on that to be realised with it. I know
that he issued a lot of executive orders. He issued
some commutations and some pardons. I didn't Normally, you don't
(37:42):
fire two hundred judge, you don't fill two hundred spots.
But if if the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans,
chooses not to act on a nomination, now that the
Republicans control the Senate, the nomination of someone from President
Biden dies of its own initiative, uh, and then Donald
(38:04):
Trump can can nominate. So Donald Trump doesn't have to
pull something back. All he has to do is watch
the Senate choose to take no action, because you need
to have know only the nomination, but the confirmation, and
the confirmation involves a hearing and then a vote by
the full Senate, and and those if there were two
hundred judges nominated, and I don't recall that. Okay, someone
has a couple of people to mention that I don't
(38:26):
recall that. It was more that there were two hundred
people on death row, and I think one hundred and
ninety seven of them had the death penalty lifted from them.
That's was the only way that he didn't lift was
the Boston bomber, the guy down you're that killed the
black parishioners, and the guy that attacked the synagogue outside
(38:47):
of Pittsburgh.
Speaker 4 (38:49):
And the other thing I just want to make the
quick point is the judge or the judges, they are
supposed to uphol law law, not the same the law
or break the law.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Or write the law. They're supposed to follow, follow the
law and uh and do justice. That's what That's what
a good judge choose.
Speaker 4 (39:12):
Well, like usually when I call you know, I'm always
on your side, except when it comes to baseball.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
All right, all right, Well, the Red Sox lost the
tough one tonight. They were leading the Toronto Blue Jays
six nothing, and I think the sixth inning and they
lost seven to six.
Speaker 5 (39:28):
And ten.
Speaker 4 (39:30):
Won.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Good, Okay, all right, I'll let you run. Thanks, Thank
you soon. Have a great night.
Speaker 4 (39:36):
All right.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
If you folks want to continue to talk about this,
I got wide open lines. Let's open it. Let's fill
them up after eleven. If not, I'm going to change topics.
I think this is a really important topic. I really
do back on Night's side after the eleven
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!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com