A keyword on our website.
Happy. That's happy.
Enter it now, you want to be in Americanity. This Radio seven hundred WLW Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan this morning. I will be in for him Thursday as well.
Well.
I'll tell you what, there's a lot going on both locally and nationally. The big story that everybody's talking about, and I mean talking about it more today, I think, is the situation with the what's been referred to by the police union president and I agree a backroom deal with the Hinton family with respect to the shooting that occurred, which the county prosecutor County Pillage ruled that it was
a justifiable shooting. But apparently the city of Cincinnati wants, through the city manager in the administration, not so much at least for two council members. And we're going to talk about those two in a minute. They want to give them money. I don't really know why. I don't get the theory behind it. And you know, I've heard it times. I got coffee this morning. You know, hey,
I guess crime really does pay in Cincinnati. People are really really honked off about this, and you know, the FOP president as I said Ken Kober good Man, Great FOP President, he kind of blew the whistle on this thing last week. City Council went into executive session yesterday afternoon. Executive session is a situation where they go in a room and the public can't be there, the media certainly can't be there, and they talk about settlements things like that,
different things, but mainly financial deals. And I get it there's a good reason for executive session, but I don't think this one is. But anyway, they talked about it, although we can't really say for sure that they talked about it because nobody no one would confirm it, but I'm sure that's what they talked about for about two hours. They all came out. Nobody's saying anything. So I think this is one where the city, through the administration, kind of walked in uh Tiger's den in this thing, and
people aren't happy about it. I'll tell you what. Just in the this thing broke last week. I don't know how many people have stopped me and want to talk about this because they're p oed. I mean, you know, this family. I don't know why the City of Cincinnati. I'm talking about the Hinton family would want to reward them. I mean, the father is on trial for just brutally brutally murdering a police officer with his vehicle. Well, anyway,
like I said, they met behind closed doors yesterday. Again, we think they were probably talking about the settlement with the family of Ryan Hinton. Now, the kid Ryan, he's an eighteen year old. He was fatally shot by police. And you know, I certainly don't have all the information, but have a little experience in doing these things, and from everything that I've seen, it sure looks to me like the prosecute was right. He was a justifiable shooting.
But the news of the possible settlement last week, as I said, sparked some really strong reactions from the police union. And this settlement, potential settlement, it follows on the heels of the city paying eight point one million bucks to protesters who were arrested in the what some referred to as the racial Justice protest in two thousand. But with respect to what we're talking about here, the hint and deal, the city manager, Cheryl Long, she said last week that
the city definitely has not reached the settlement agreement. Didn't say they didn't talk about it. The attorney for the Hinting family, he didn't want to talk about it either, and of course he's representing his client. I understand that, but it's just a deal. Where Like Ken Kober, the FOP president, said, why would you do this in executive session? Well,
I understand it from the city's point of view. But Ken went on to say, hey, doesn't the public have a right to know what the hell's going on and how their money's being spent? And you know, I have to say that I agree with him on that, but we're going to keep our eyes on this one and see what happens. But I did, I did, and I
did this Saturday too. On my Saturday show. I wanted to point out two people, two council members Democrats, who had the stones to stand up and I think do the right thing, and I wanted to kind of talk about them for a minute.
Here.
One was Jeff Kramerting. He's the chair of the Budget, Finance and Governance Committee, and he said pretty unequivocally, he doesn't support a settlement with the Hinton family. And here's what he said. I'm going to quote him directly. Councilman Kramerton said, I think the city's position is that the officer has done nothing wrong. I see nothing in the video contrary to that. I do not feel a settlement is warranted. I think that would send the wrong message
to the Cincinnati Police. Well, you better believe it. I mean, they are honked off about this, and justifiably so. Councilman Seth Walsh. And by the way, I met him a couple of weeks ago at a function and frote an impressive young man. He called the situation, in his words, abhorrent. But here's what he had to say. I think this some it up just perfectly. He says, it is a tremendous disrespect to the families involved and to make the public and to make a public spectacle out of a tragedy.
I think it's unconscionable for the City of Cincinnati to be considering a settlement without the full deliberation of council. The tragedy that unfolded in May devastated our community, and it is our responsibility to heal the wreckage, not create more division. Amen, and thanks to you, Councilman Seth Walsh. I mean, he's he's got the tone in the feel of what the public is thinking, I think, and both he and counsel in cramity through their strong statements, I
think they've made it very clear where they stand. Now. Whether that can translate into majority of council and the mayor jumping on board for no settlement, I don't know. We'll just have to see in the coming days. But you know, it sure like seems like down at city Hall the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing half the time. And you know they had a situation with the fire chief, and again I don't
know who made the call. I guess counseled collectively to pay eight point one million dollars to protesters, But it doesn't make any sense to me. Hey, I'm gonna take a break here for a minute, but I wanted to let you know you can call in if you have an opinion on this. Seven four nine, seven thousand, one, eight hundred the big one. Those are the numbers, and I've got open lines from nine thirty to ten, so if you want to call, I'll give his call. Seven
four nine, seven thousand, one eight hundred. The big one are the numbers. Mike Allen in for Slowey seven hundred WLW Kay, We're back Mike Allen in for Sloaney seven hundred WLW today and Thursday, Well, we talked about the situation with the City of Cincinnati meeting in executive session to discuss a potential settlement on the Hinting case. I wanted to talk about something else here just for a moment, and then we'll break go to news and then I'll
take your calls. Seven four nine, seven thousand, one, eight hundred, The big one are the numbers. But I wanted to talk about this because it's coming up today the Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments today on two big cases that have to do with
men in women's sports. It's not even a close question as far as what the public thinks, and I'll give you that in just a second here, But anyway, it's challenging the state bands these two cases, ones from West Virginia, the other ones from Idaho. Challenging these bands on transgender athletes and girls and women's sports, and it can also
impact about twenty other states who have similar laws. So it's important, you know, Honestly, sometimes it's hard for me to fathom that in the year twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six. We're talking about biological men in women's sports. The whole thing is it's just an absurdity in and of itself. But hey, that's just me. The people involved transgender athlete Becky pepper Jackson, she's in the West Virginia case,
and Lindsey Heacox, she's with the Idaho case. They're both arguing that the bands violate Title nine of the Equal Protection Clause. The states come back and they say what they say that They assert that fair competition for cisgender females and I guess that's the term coming out of the college campus for females who are not transgender. I don't know, you know, they make up all these new terms and statements. I've made it a point not to say them, actually try to figure out what the hell
they are. But here's the thing. Here's the athlete's argument. They say that the bands discriminate against transgender girls and women, violating Title nine. Again, Title nine. It's used quite a bit legitimately in most cases, but Title nine prohibits sex based discrimination in education. They're also arguing the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Okay, the two states Idaho and West Virginia are saying that these bands are necessary to ensure fair competition and equal opportunities for cisgender girls, citing potential biological advantages. This is the pre Supreme Court United State Supreme Court's first time in addressing the legality of these kind of cases, and it's going to set a precedent. Like I said, there's about twenty other states
that have the same situation, So it's important. Oral argument is that portion of the case where the attorneys go before the Supreme Court, stand in the well behind e lectern and argue before the highest court in the land. I've never had the opportunity to do it, but I've talked to lawyers that have, and they said, from a lawyer's point of view, no matter what side you're on, there's nothing like it. But let's talk a little bit about what the public thinks about this, and it's basically
an eighty twenty issue. And I'm telling you, I mean, I've been involved in politics and public affairs for a long long time. You never get an eighty twenty issue. You don't get a seventy thirty issue. What people think about this through all kinds of political lines raised everything else.
There's really no there's no middle ground in it. But anyway, most recent pull I could find January twenty twenty five, not very long ago, cited in Fox News reports, and again they kept this thing updated throughout late twenty twenty five, and also the latest one early twenty twenty six. Are you ready? Found that seventy nine percent of participants believe biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in women's sports. Seventy nine percent believe that,
I what the hell are we doing? W can you imagine how much time has been expended on this thing? Seventy nine percent. Now, I know you know, majority rules but not always, but I mean, not even cluartion to this. This might surprise you. The same data showed that sixty seven percent of Democrats or Democrat leading participants ninety four percent of Republicans That doesn't surprise me opposed transgender athletes competing in women's divisions independence. I thought this might have
been a little bit higher, but still pretty high. Among independent voters, sixty four percent expressed opposition to transgender athletes in women's sports, while twenty six percent declined to answer. So you know, and that's just not the only survey that says that I saw one this morning. I was looking at New York Times about a year or so ago, same thing, pretty much eighty twenty. This thing needs to be put to bed once and for all. It's pretty
damn simple, folks. I mean, you know, the Good Lord made you one of two things. He made you a man or he made you a woman. And it's just patently unfair to let biological men compete in women's sports. And you might say, what's the big deal, Mike, Nobody loses money or anything like that. I'll tell you what the big deal is. What about these women that are competing for scholarships, are competing for the Olympics. It's just
it's ridiculous. And I hope the Supreme Court comes out quickly and very clearly on this, and I kind of think that they will. Hey, we do have to take a break for the news. But before we do that, I wanted to let you know what we got on the show today, ten o'clock, nine point thirty to ten Calls ten o'clock. Janis Heisel of the Epoch Times. I have her on my Saturday show frequently. She is all over the situation in Minnesota with the fraud cases. She's
on this like the proverbial white on Rice. She filed three stories last week and they will update us the stories that she filed on what's going on out there. And I'll tell you what. It just keeps getting bigger
and bigger and bigger. It's snowballing. Christopher Smith. I'm at ten thirty going to ask Christopher, a former vice mayor and chair of the Law and Public Safety Committee, what he thinks about this proposed settlement, And at eleven o'clock to talk to legal analyst Steve Gooden going to talk about the potential hitting settlement with the city. Steve was
also a former Cincinnati council member also Delay yesterday. DeLay's in the what I referred to as the Downtown beatdown trial, and I'm also going to ask him will the Ice agent who shot that lady last week be prosecuted? Not going to be prosecuted federally, but the state may come in. I'm going to talk to Steve about that, but anyway, we'll do that when we get back. Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan's seven hundred WLW in today and Thursday. I'm going to get to the phones here in just
a second. But this morning Fox News published a list of athletes, coaches, lawmakers who have picked a side in this battle that the Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments on today. Of course, that's the situation with biological men in women's sports. Okay, here are some just some boy, this list goes on and on. Some of the some who opposed biological men in women's sports. Martina let Nevra Talova kind of a surprise. She's pretty liberal person.
But and I get here a while back talking about it. She gets it. Of course, Riley Gains, she's been outspoken on this, you know, I mean, it's pretty much you would think that opposed this. Megan Rapahos, she's a two time Women's World Cup champion, former co captain of the US women's national soccer team. And you got just oodles and oodles of Republican lawmakers. No surprise there. Okay, here are the ones that signed an Amikas brief, and an Amikas brief is a Friend of the Court brief to
support transcends athletes. No surprises here. Leading the list, of course, is crazy Mazie Arona Senator Mazie Herona of Hawaii. Probably, although it's arguable probably the stupidest person in the United States Senate. She really shouldn't be there. I don't think
she's got an IQ of four. Ed Markey, Senator from Massachusetts, shifty shift California, no shocker there, And of course Pocahontas herself, Elizabeth Warren and big mouth Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Jay Paul Democrat from Washington, King Jeffries, I don't think that man knows how to smile AOC Nancy Pelosi, Jamie Raskin rasheated to leave, pretty much the usual suspects. But well, it's kind of taken sides on this thing. And if you want to look at this, it's on Fox News,
and man, it goes pages and pages. So hey, let's get to the phones here. Let's talk to Ron in Fairfield. Hey, good morning, Ron.
Hey, good morning, Mike. Hey, great show. I always I love listening to you.
Thank you.
Hey.
I'm surprised. And Megan Rapino goes against that transcender sports. I'm glass year. That's great. My question this morning, though, is if the officer, the sheriff they got killed. If we give the money to that family, the Hinton family, can they turn around and sue the Hintons for that lawful, an awful death?
You know?
You know what, then I'm sorry, I go ahead. I didn't mean to.
I wasna saying the same with the people who just got the eight point two million. Can the property damaged people go back and get money from those people?
I don't know why they can't. I mean, with respect to the situation with Sergeant Henderson, and that was, yes, so brutal the way he died, it would have to be his estate that does it. And you know, I'm no expert on that, but I don't see a reason why they couldn't. I mean, the initial thought would be with respect to Hinton is you know, it's kind of
like blood out of a turnip. But I mean, you're right, if they get tons of money dumped on them by city council, yeah, I don't see why they couldn't, But it would have to be the estate.
Okay, thanks for asking my question. I'm a great day.
Okay, you too, Thank you. That is an interesting question. I may drill down on that a little bit. I'm going to make sure I get it right. I would certainly think in both cases they especially with respect to Sergeant Henderson, they would have a legitimate argument for it, you know, but it all can be just obviated, if you will, if City Council does the right thing. But as we all know, don't hold your breath on that. Hey, let's talk to Lawrence and Heartwell. Hey, good morning, Lawrence.
How you doing.
I'm good, My good morning to you, great show.
Thank you.
I'm calling because I wanted to ask you a question, knowing your background this executive session meeting that City Council had yesterday. My riding of the law, I have a lot of agree. My rinting of the.
Law is that they have to state why they go.
Into an executive session.
Yep.
That's my understanding of it, and I have not yet to see any statement as to why they went to an executive session. I went to the agenda, I went to the agenda packet, I watched the meeting, even when they had to vote, they didn't say why they were going into executive session. That is concerning to me, because they can go back there and blow smoking mirrors and do whatever they want to do if they're not stating why they're an executive session and taxpayer money is potentially
on the line. Do you think somebody I said this they might have a right to sue them for this.
I think so, and let me I'm glad you brought this up. I really am. I looked during the break Daveost. Of course, he's the attorney General. On his website he explains executive sessions, and obviously he's the Ohio Attorney General, so this would comport with Ohio law. Just a couple sentences here, and it addresses what your question is. Executive sessions are the only portions of meetings that are closed to the public. A public body cannot vote or take
official action during an executive session. A public body must follow a specific procedure to convene an executive session, and can convene only for specific reasons. I think there are nine of them. I don't have those in front of me, but anyway, he goes on to say, this is the Ohio Attorney General. To convene an executive session, the public body must first have a roll call vote, followed by a motion and a second and then a vote to adjourn by a majority of quorum of the public body.
The role call vote must be recorded in the minutes. Lastly, importantly, a public body can convene in an executive session to discuss only nine specific topics which are listed in the Open Meetings Act. The topics that the public body will discuss during executive session must be put into the minutes, and the public body cannot discuss any topic other than
those put into the record. So I don't have those nine reasons in front of me, but that gives you a pretty good idea I think of what the law is with respect to Ohio and these executive sessions.
Yeah, I read the none that you mentioned, and one is a case of litigation. But then if you drop down and read the subsettions, you see where they have to actually state which subsets they're going into executive session for.
They never did that.
Well, I said, I've got about as a matter of law.
Yeah, I mean, if they didn't, then it can be challenged. I mean, and my guess is that if they do end up throwing a bunch of money at this family, that somebody's going to challenge that. I had somebody ask me Saturday, I think it was on my Saturday show if there could be a taxpayer lawsuit with respect to that, and I looked at it just very briefly, and I don't see why not a lot of people aren't happy about this lawrence. But yeah, I'm glad.
If they just say why they were having the session, I will probably be okay with it. But the fact that I took the time to watch the beating, look at the agenda, look at the agenda packet, and saw no reason why they were having this execut decession causes concern. And I just want to know if there was remedy for the taxpayers.
Yep, you know what I mean. I'm glad that you asked the question. You obviously have done your homework. Are you a practicing lawyer anywhere?
I do not practice. I went to Michigan State for laws. Who you know, I took to the ball one time in Michigan, didn't do it, and went on to bigger and better things.
Anyway, Ah, there you go. I'm a happily retired lawyer.
So are you retired?
Man?
Yeah?
Yeah, you know what, And I'm enjoying. I love doing the radio. But at fifty one years in the criminal justice system in one way, shape or form, that's enough for anybody I.
Think I can imagine that you have a good day.
Okay, Lawrence, thanks for the call. Yeah, I tell you what, it's great when you get a caller that knows what the hell he or she is talking about, and Lawrence did. There's all kinds of things. Those nine things, apparently Lawrence read them time to do. But they can be attacked on that if they don't follow the law on that. There's a presumption that all meetings, all business discussed by
a public body should be public. And I tell you what, I can't disagree with that he mentioned too, and he's right. The reasons why they'll go into executive session is to discuss pending litigation. Well, guess what litigation to me infers that a lawsuit has been filed. None has been filed in this case. So I don't know what reason they use, but I tell you what, a guy like Lawrence, he'll keep up with it. And they do have to have a record. Council has to make a record of what
they do. So this thing, obviously you haven't heard the last of it. I mean, this is going to go on for a while and I'm going to keep my eye on it because I think, well, like I just said before I stopped to get coffee coming in this morning, and the guys over there recognized me. Great guys stop over there all the time. And one of them said, there is no way the city of Cincinnati could give that family that money. I mean, people are p od about this, and no one is more pod than Ken Kober,
the FOP president. He's a damn good FOP president too. Well, let's do this, uh, seven four, one, eight hundred. The big one are the numbers. If you want to call, I'll take a short break and come back and if we get some calls, we'll finish up on that. If not, we'll find something else to talk about. Mike Allen in for Sloaney seven hundred WLW. Hey, we're back, Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan and we'll be Thursday as well.
You know, you've heard so much in recent days about what's going on in Minnesota, Minneapolis, Portland, Cincinnati, even too other cities. They're all out in force, and you know, the women with the pink hair and the nose rings and everything else, and many of them are carrying signs that appear to be not the one you sit down like Jethro Bod used to do and just take a
paintbrush and write something. Looks like they've been kind of made at the same place, which indicates to me, and there are people looking at this, that these things are being financed by someone, probably a guy like George Soros or his son or his ilk. But I watched these things, and I talked about this Saturday. I just asked myself a question, and maybe I don't get it. I don't think so. I think I do. Okay, let's just do this by the numbers real quickly. Here there is a
federal law. I don't have it in front of me now, but it basically says, thou shalt not trespass into our country. You have to enter at a place designated by ICE to come in, real, real simple. The law was adopted by Congress in nineteen fifty two. Some minor changes to it throughout the years, but it's still there, still there. It is a crime to trespass into our country, the
United States of America, plain and simple. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement are is the federal agency charged with taking care of these kind of things and prosecuting these kind of things. If you will or at least getting the process started. Crystal clear, they raised their hand and they take an oath to uphold the law and the constitution of the United States. Okay, this is just a long way of saying, they're doing their job. They're doing what
they're paid to do, what they're sworn to do. And my god, they're making Trump and others look like the devil on all of these things. And I was thinking about it. I was thinking about this yesterday. And you know, my recollection is Barack Obama is eight years, was no slouch in the deportment department, and there are some that have referred to him as the deporter in chief. Just
listen to this just for a minute here. Okay, Like I said, you got these protests in Minneapolis, Portland, other place, all active idiots. A horrible tragedy with that lady dying, but it was a tragedy of her own making. Okay. And this is from AI, and I'm using AI a lot, and I found it to be reliable. I found it to be fair. During his eight year presidency, the Obama
administered deported ready approximately three million people. Three million. This total typically refers to removals, which are former legal orders that carry the stiff penalties for re entry rather than returns. It's all just a fancy way of saying deportations. So you know, again, Ice is simply doing the job that they were sworn to do. Getting back to Saint Obama. Here,
total removals for him during his eight years. Estimates generally ranged, like I just said, from two point seven million two three point one million, depending upon whether the full fiscal year of two thousand and nine is included. Here's the peak year twenty thirteen. He's still he just finished. He's in his second term. Okay, first term two thousand and nine to twenty twelve, approximately one point six million deportations
occurred the peak year. The peak year was in twenty thirteen, four hundred and thirty eight thousand, four hundred twenty one deportations. His second term slowed down a little bit here, just a real little bit. Twenty thirteen to twenty sixteen, one point six million removals. So, I mean, there you go. Where were these pink haired, fat ugly quote protesters unquote when Obama was doing it? I mean, it just it
boggles the mind. It really doesn't given today's situation. But when was the last time you heard anything about a comparison with the deporter in chief Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Now, granted, you know, Trump's into the first year of his second term. He hasn't deported anything near that number. My point is this, And you know what, I'm glad Obama did what he did, because again they're breaking the law. They're trespassing into our country, your and my country. I'm glad he did it. But
where were they then? Where was the media being all over them? Where was Joy Behar Where were all these other big mouth liberals screaming and yelling? You know, Where were the people shouting at the cops and getting in their face and taunting them? Then? I don't recall any whatsoever at all boils down to this. It's all about
Donald J. Trump. They freaking hate him, and no matter what, you know, Donald Trump could be walking down the street and there's a burning building and there's one hundred babies in that building, and Trump could run out and save ninety nine of them, and he'd get crap for not saving that last one. And you know what, and I've been pretty upfront about this, some of this stuff he tends to bring on himself. But that's just the way
he operates. And I'm telling you the first term, and especially early into the second term, you sure can't argue with the results. But again, it just shows theocrisy of the mainstream media and the hypocrisy in general of the left. Good. I got that off my chest. I feel better. Hey, we got to take a break. But when we get back, as I said, Janis Heisel of the Epoch Times, and
if you're not reading Epoch Times, you should be. She is all over this thing in Minnesota, to the point where none other than Nut Gingrich himself has publicly praised her reporting of it. I think she's probably into it more than any other journalists in the country. She's going to give us the new developments in that situation when we come back and talk to her. And there's some things going on that just tend to indicate that, man, you ain't seen nothing yet. So we'll talk to Janis
when we get back from the news. Mike Allen's seven hundred WLW the congressional hearings started with respect to the Minnesota which is now multi billion dollar fraud scandal, and Congress is looking into this through the US House Committee on Oversight and government reform. The hancho or not that is Representative James Comer from Kentucky here to talk about it is Janis Heisel of the Epoch Times. And as I said, if you're not reading the Epoch Times, you should.
And I'll say it again because she's too modest to say it. Janie's reporting has been looked at and has been commented upon by none other than former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrid's basically saying that her reporting is as thorough as any that he's ever read on this, And to me, that's a big deal. Hey, Janis, thanks for joining us again this morning.
Absolutely, thank you very much for having me. This has obviously been one of the biggest news stories. I feel like we've packed in almost a year's worth of news just in the last few weeks.
Yeah, well you're right about that, so go ahead.
So this this congressional hearing that you mentioned, there were three representatives, you know, state reps from Minnesota who were the main witnesses for that.
And I've got to tell you if it.
Was one of the more uh animated, I guess, shall we say, sure, uh congressional parings that I've covered I did, covered only by live stream, Uh, but it was you could just see there was a lot of back and forth, people were storming out of the room. Uh, it got
a little bit, uh, very animated. But all that heat, aside the light they shed here was really really worth noting because these legislators have been in contact with whistleblowers about the Minnesota Somali fraud, and one of them in particular, testified quite extensively about the.
Ways in which people who reported fraud were accused.
Of being I'm aplobic racist and then had many worse things happened to them, such as threats against them, possibly even using military app surveillance apparatus to pinpoint their locations, in voluntary job reassignments, all kinds of retaliation against them.
And so with that as the backdrop, that is.
Why this Minnesota fraud has literally exploded over a course of years. It didn't just happen, you know, overnight. It's just finally people are actually paying.
Attention to it.
Yeah, I mean, you're right, and the story that you have there, you published three I think last week, but this one I just want to read a couple paragraphs and not paragraphs, just really sentences talking about what happened in this hearing, talking about their collective message has been completely consistent. Instead of focusing on the fraudsters, DHS leadership instead focuses on its surveillance on employees. That was one of the state life that testified to that, and Janes
here's the kicker. After one whistleblower raised concerns, she faced a lengthy investigation, was escorted out of the building. Again, this is a whistleblower on this this fraud was escorted out of the building and was transferred involuntarily to another state agency, according to Representative Rarek one more sentence uh.
Other employees have reported being threatened with being fired, being blacklisted from all state agencies, and receiving quote a veiled threat of the use of military intelligence against them close quote. Have you ever, in all the years you've been reporting, ever heard of anything like that? In a word, no military intelligence are going to sick on you if you dare to stand up and blow the whistle on this stuff. It's beyond belief. In my opinion, there.
Are details that I ended up not including in my story that I would like to share here is you know, how would you feel if you were an employee of one of these agencies, you had come forward and you asked to see your personnel file and you find pictures
of your home in it. Things like that. It made people feel like that they were definitely being scrutinized for literally raising concerns about billing that they didn't think was right, like maybe the documentation is not right, or maybe it's suspicious that they just went into business yesterday and their bill.
Is for thousands and thousands of thousands of.
Dollars for one day of work or things like that, and so you know, that is why you know, when you have a chilling effect from people reporting concerns and then then they don't really take ash the sixth that the systemic this is, this is a big Frauden's going to happen.
People are going to find game systems.
But when the people in charge of the systems know that they should change and aspects of the operation because it's vulnerable to fraud, and they simply don't, that is where you create the fertile territory for fraud to just flourish.
And they've done that over a period of years too. And you've pointed out numerous times that it's people that should know about this didn't know about it. They did, but they chose to do nothing. And what I'm reading for your reporting and others is a big reason for that is they didn't want to get the scarlet letter of the R word being accused of racists or being an islamophobe, so they shut up and didn't do anything about it. Is that consistent with what you're seeing?
Absolutely, that is what I've heard from people that I interviewed.
Now.
Unfortunately, so far, I haven't directly spoken to a whistleblower, and I am sure trying. I've asked everybody that has had contact with whistleblowers with whom I have spoken. I'm telling them, hey, I would I would really like to speak to a whistleblower, but these people are terrified to tell a story. Even I rarely give out promises of anonymity, but I've had to do that a lot more lately under the circumstances that I've been covering.
Something tells me that if you keep going at it, you're going to get it eventually. Uh. You know, you have a situation where people are being threatened with military uh investigations. You know something happening to their homes things like that. It's just not something that can be tolerated. And what I'm hearing lately, janis is other states are starting to look into this stuff and they're finding things too. Is that consistent with what you're finding?
Yes, to a certain degree.
You know, like I said, fraud is going to you know pretty much what I've spoken to in government acknowledges programs are vulnerable to fraud. Businesses are vulnerable to you know, shoplifters for example. I think people who can cheat and steal find ways to do it. Even sometimes despite the best things you can come up with, they get crafty and they find ways around it.
And so yes, I am finding that out. But one of the differences it seems.
To be so far whether or not when people.
Make reports, whether action is taken, or whether they're ignored.
That is a key component in whether the fraud just takes off like wildfire. Because after one story I wrote, the headline was something like they saw other people getting away with it. One way I interviewed who has a scholarly background, was studying all of those situations happening in Minnesota.
Four years. Once again, we're America is.
Just now noticing what has been going on in Minnesota four years.
How it's been like a snowball effect.
It has literally gain momentum because when one person says, ooh, I'm driving around at a BMW and here's how I got it, then the neighbor's going to be I want one too, you know, And how'd you do that? Oh? Here there is hot.
Works, here's a roadmap.
And so there are quite a few people in the legislature and in other official positions in Minnesota and even in the federal.
Government that are really trying hard to dissect a how did this fraud happen in the first place?
Be what fixes need to be made to prevent it? And see who ignored or were shit punished.
The people who were trying to report it.
So those are the main components of what to boil it down. What is happening with the Minnesota fraud right now?
Well, let me ask you this a specific question. I guess it was last week or maybe the week before land doctor memot oz He is the Medicare and Medicaid administrator for the Trump administration. He testified, maybe he didn't testify. No, I don't think he did. He just spoke. He said he's going to claw back fraud funds from Minnesota. I'll tell you Janis, you know, I just I really do admire and appreciate him at some point trying to do that.
But my experiences in these and I never had one anything close to this is in a situation like this, you're not going to get even close to what was stolen, but I think you still have to try. Is that your recollection of his testimony.
Yes, he actually.
Wrote a letter about this to put the state of Minnesota on notice that that is what is happening.
But in addition to that, the second component.
Of it is they're subtracting from payments quote unquote owed or whatever expected by the staves Minnesota. They're subtracting the amounts that they say are fraudulent that from the past from those payments.
So they're trying as best they can't. Now, this is something you and.
I have discussed a little bit in the past, Mike, and that is as a former prosecutor, you know as well as I know.
I don't know if the listeners understand that people are.
Demanding money back. Yeah, but if the money has already been spent, or if it's been used by a foreign property, which some of this was spent by these fraudsters have owned, they now own properties in places like ken You you're not going to get that money back, No.
You're not. I mean they have to try. It has to be if it goes to try or plea or whatever and results in a guilty finding, it has to be a part of the sentence. But I just I don't see it happening. It's just so big, the people involved are so dishonest. It's just going to be no way that that happens. But again, and that doesn't mean that you don't try. I wanted to ask you to in one of your stories. I forget which one. It
was one of these programs. One grantee got seven hundred thousand bucks for a single month of quote work unquote. Can you expound on that one a little bit because I don't have it right in front of me, but I wanted to ask you about it.
Yeah, in that particular, Chanse, what happened is that there is a watchdog agency. It's called the Office of Legislative Auditor. It's been in place in the episode for many years. They do a deep look at various agencies.
They kind of pick them just to kind of.
Periodically check when they.
Especially when they have concerns.
So every year they pick a few to look at, and they decided to look at a branch of the welfare agency called behavioral health Services.
They deal that agency is supposed.
To help people who have, you know, mental issues or disabilities, things like that, and they administer grants to providers.
Who are supposed to help these people. So that's where that.
Particular recollection of yours comes from, Mike, is that that seven hundred thousand dollars payment went to a company, and when the auditors were trying to figure out what was going on, they flagged that transaction is being suspicious, and they also started asking questions about, well, did you verify that the grantee, the agency that received the money, the
provider was actually helping people the way they promised. They weren't able to provide the documentation, so they backdated and said, okay, even though this visit with the auditors in February of last year, that yes, we really really really did go and visit and scrutinize this agency late in twenty twenty four several times, and here.
Are the days they didn't keep.
The records at the time, and so there's a lot of suspicion about that being possibly misrepresented or completely fabricated. And the things that I was surprised by is the report from the auditor makes no recommendation or reference to what can or should happen to multiple employees who were involved with backdating records creating new documents in the midst
of an audit. That is an unanswered question that I haven't actually had time to explore just yet, but it is definitely on my list of many my very long and growing list of questions about the Minnesota fraud.
It's just I don't even know what to say about that one.
And then furthermore, a person who approved the grant that was you know, how did you do, you know, justify a seven hundred thousand dollars payment for one month of work? The person within the agency who approved the state agency who approved that grant ended up later.
Taking a job with the company.
That got that money.
Gee, what a shocker that is. Yeah, you did a whole story last week on the Minnesota agency staff backdated records, as you've just talked about, as auditors found failures, and boy, that is absolutely eye opening. Hey, we got a couple of minutes left. I wanted to ask you a couple things. First, is Columbus we heard about a week or so ago, I guess week and a half, and all this stuff is percolating and brewing in Columbus. Somebody went up there. It wasn't the guy whose name escapes me now from
that blew the whistle in Minnesota. What the heck's that guy's name? Janis? Can you recall there are a bunch of.
Different people who've gone up there and film that daycare centers, Uh, not just literally people upon Columbus.
Yeah, Nick Shirley was a guy in Minnesota, but he didn't go to Columbus. It's just a long way of asking you, what are you hearing about that is anything of substance coming out of it? Because I've not heard anything of substance yet.
Well, as I mentioned earlier in our conversation, Mike, I just yesterday actually was on the phone with the Dan Tierney, who is a spokesman for Governor Mike DeWine here in Ohio, and I was asking questions of him, and also I spoke to uh a state Senator George Lang and asked about you know, are there is there any sign that there's systemic fraud here in Ohio. Again, everybody agrees fraud is happening, and Ohio says it's doing its best to uh.
Clamp down on it. Sometimes a few of these suspicions raised by citizens don't pan out right.
For example, there was a widely circulated photo of this address.
Is supposed to be a.
Daycare, but guess what instead, it's a tobacco shop.
Well, it turns out the.
Photo was taken in twenty twenty two and the daycare didn't.
Open until twenty twenty five.
Yeah, you got to do your homework. And it seems like, maybe so far at least that's the case in Ohio.
But I know, however, there are quite a few videos and confirms raised by the public that the state of Ohio says it is, you know, investigating, and the lawmakers did all banded together on the Republican side at least, and they're asking the auditor as well as the Department of Youth and Children, which administers the daycare, to look at all of this and see.
If there is systemic fraud.
They also it out that fire to again this huge firestorm, media firestorm, over all of this. Earlier last year, early like a year ago, Ohio had taken action against several daycares and shut down the ones that appeared to be operating fraudulently.
Some of them are fighting back in court too, So there's that.
Well, somebody's keeping an eye on it. Unfortunately we're out of time. Janis, again, I can't tell you how much I appreciate. I know my listeners do as well, your steadfastness on this case. And hope we can call on you again.
Thank you again.
I appreciate it.
Okay, all right, Janis Eizel of the Epoch Times on it like White on Rice, and I check in with her a couple times a week, and as soon as something happens up there, she'll know about it. She'll tell us about it. Hey, you got to take a break. Button we get back. Going to talk to former Vice Mayor and chair of the Law and Public Safety Committee, Christopher Smith. I want to ask him about the case in the downtown beatdowns, what I call it being continued yesterday.
Also going to ask him, of course, about the situation with a possible payment to the Hinton family. We'll do that when we get back Mike Allen seven hundred WLW.
Hey, we're back.
Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan today and Thursday. Well, the beat goes on with Cincinnati City Council yesterday an executive session presumably, although we don't know this for one hundred percent certain, presumably to talk about a proposed settlement
with the Hinton family. Of course, you have the situation there where CPD officer had to shoot the young Hinton I think eighteen years of age, ruled by the prosecutor to be a justifiable shooting, and then the next day the father of that young man brutally and I stress brutally kills a former deputy sheriff, Sergeant Henderson by mowing him down in his vehicle. And it just doesn't get any worse than that. You know, there's a thought that there might be a settlement. Boy, I'll tell you what,
a lot of people are weighing in on that. And the loudest, I think appropriately so is FOP President Ken Kober. Here to talk about it is former Vice mayor and former chair of the Law and Public Safety Committee, Christopher Smith. And Christopher, thanks so much. For checking in with us this morning.
Hey, Mike, thanks for having me on. And you know, my heart goes out to Sergeant Henderson's family. Yeah, this has got to be real tough on them, his widow children, grandkids, you know, nieces and nephews. And I think for law enforcement really all across the country, Mike, And you know
this is your profession. I mean, you know all about it, law enforcement, and these are the kind of things that undermine the profession and make it difficult for us to recruit to retain law enforcement officers across the country.
You know, Christian to your point, that's an understatement. I talked to Ken Kober about a week or so ago. They are having a dickens of a time trying to find people that want to be Cincinnati police officers. And that's happening all over the country. And I'll tell you, I never thought I would see that, But it's a problem.
It's a big problem because you know, if you if you're if you make a decision like in the case we're talking about, that officer's life, you know, was hanging in the balance for a long time. No one knew kind of what was going to happen. You know, my heart goes out to the Hinting family. I mean, I have children. I certainly would not want anything like this to happen to my eighteen year old son anytime there's a loss of life.
But you've got to.
Look at a circumstance like this where you've got a young man in a stolen car with a gun running from a police officer and turns in that officer's direction, and it's a recipe for what ultimately happened. Officers have to make these split second decisions. And if you've never done those simulations where you're have a fire army you're trying to make you shoot, you shoot or not. It's really difficult out there. And so we're asking, Mike so much of our officers. We're asking them to be big
brothers and big sisters. We're asking them to be aucts and uncles, dads, all these kind of things that Wekatina ask our police officers. And their job is out there, you know, just to keep us safe. For city Council, you should never go into executive session without us knowing your agenda. Yes, you know, I served on council, Mike, and I'm gonna tell you I've never we never did executive session in all my years of serving on council. Really,
so this is a no, this is new. This is a new tool that this council is deciding to exercise.
Here.
When I served with John Cranley or Charlie Luken as example, we never went into executive session. The people's business was always in the light, the sunshine rule was always there. But for them to go into executive session and not even tell us the agenda, right, it shows you how aggressive this council is as far as discussing taxpayer business.
Yeah, I was gonna say that it's used in a lot of cases for discussing pending litigation. And you're saying that that never happened while.
You were on.
No.
Wow, you know we didn't. We did, we didn't. You know, we didn't use executive session. This is something new under this mayor and Council that they have now moved to using executive session. And again, you know, we dealt with the Gang of Five, who were, you know, illegally holding meetings outside of the regular business of council. You know, I'm saying if you're you know, I sit on the casino board for the State of Ohio appointed by Governor Mike DeWine. In the last two months, we had to
go into executive session. The agenda said this is why we're going into executive session, pending litigation against the commission. And we were advised by our attorney during that executive session. And then we came out of executive session. But there was not anybody in the audience knew why we were going into executive session. The problem in this case is it's okay to use executive session. I'm not knocking executive sess. I'm asking counsel and the mayor and the manager and
the city' Sollersh's office. Why can't the public know your agenda?
Yeah, I mean I don't see what's wrong with that. And well, I'll tell you what. As I said in the intro to you, Christopher, I mean, people in this city are really really honked off about this. Just the proposition in general in this thing paying money to the hint And family. I can't tell you. And it happened this morning. I stopped me that coffee before I came in this morning. People recognized me and said, what the hell's going on with that? Your thoughts in general on it.
It just it defies belief.
In my opinion, Yeah, I agree with you. It's a bad decision for Cincinnati City Council to do this. And we see a pattern in Cincinnati and across the country. I mean, the eight point one million.
Dollars I thought was bill at five.
This is another example where crime does pay. And you know this notion that you know, we continue to you know, support or protect criminals. And we're seeing this with ice, We're seeing this with sheriffs. We're seeing this with police departments. I mean, no matter FBI, at f DEA, we're seeing this kind of behavior where it's about protecting the criminal and not the law abiding citizens. And so this is
a terrible decision. It would be devastating for the morale of the Cincinnati Police Department, the Hamilton County Sheriff's department. For even the entertaining of it, right, is so ridiculous. The entertaining of it. But let's say they actually settle and they give the family money. How that's going to make law enforcement feel? But I think that's where we are. We're in the defund the police were in to reimagine the police were into. You know, we don't need the police.
We said, Mike in the last election in November going into twenty t twenty five, that this election was about all the Wines, and fifty two neighborhoods super majority voted for this. So elections have consequences, and I would assume that the electorate who showed up and voted they support this. Those who didn't vote one hundred and sixty thousand people didn't show up and vote at all, and let's say say thirty percent of those are like minded people like
you and I. You know, elections have consequences, Mike. If you don't show up and participate in vote, you can't complain about any of these outcomes.
Yeah, I tell you, And it's got me scratching my head and a lot of other people. Would you care to, based on your background, training, and experience and counsel, kind of give us your thoughts on what you think is going to happen on this thing. It seems like they realize they're in a jam with this and a lot of other things too. What do you think is going to happen? Christopher?
I think the city is going to give the family money. That's what I think. I think that's the culture of this council and the mayor and the city manager. I think they're gonna I don't know what that dollar amount will be, we certainly will see it. But I think they're going to give the They're going to give the family money. And I think we're going to see more of this. You know, notice that you know again, I want to highlight she's Washington who was terminated wrongly.
She's Fiji.
She's still on administrative lead getting paid. There's a pending lawsuit. The gentleman who was attacked at city Hall in that city Hall, attacked downtown, punched in the back of the head, that was the beginning of the fight, was forced. It looked like cities listeners demanded that somebody might be charged. That person was charged. His lawyer is saying, no, we're
going to go to trial. There was a continuance, I think yesterday there was, and that's gonna eventually, that's gonna that's going to end up in a lawsuit against the City of Cincinnati. So you know, taxpayers are getting hit while the mayor, Mike Allen, is saying that he would like to increase taxes and so this is all going to come to a head thirty one, a thirty three million dollar deficit in all of his pending litigation with judgment bonds. Again, elections have consequences.
Let me ask you on the situation with the railroad funding. I understand that that has to be used for infrastructure, which frankly is high drive around the city, especially on the West side. I ain't seeing any evidence of that at all. But because of the fact that that money can be taken out of that fund for that purpose infrastructure, wouldn't that therefore mean that there would be more money available for public safety without raising the income tax or is that just kind of a pipe dream?
Yeah, that's a separate pot of money. I mean, the capital dollars are for bridges, roads, pothole you know, infrastructure. You know, we can't we can't use those dollars for operation. We certainly could use those dollars, which I wouldn't agree with with putting infrastructure in for the second phase of the streetcar. But again, as many of us discussed a
decade ago, it wasn't well for me. It was the capital expenditure too, but the bigger part of it was the operation of the streetcar, which is now competing with basic services like police and fire and sanitation. So we're spending five million dollars or so is my estimation a year to operate the streetcar. People aren't paying to get on the street car. It's not free. We're just subsidizing it with five million dollars. And the city Council just
seems to not want to make the tough decision. So for a quick example, with there, you're struggling in your household with the amount of money you're bringing in, but you still have cable. You're still paying two hundred dollars a month for cable, or you have Netflix, so you have Disney. You're not willing to give up any of the bills and whistles. This is what's wrong with city Hall. They're not willing to pull in their own rain of their spending, but they want us to pay more in taxes.
And I think you know that's what you're going to see this this. You know, members, the citizens who are living in the fifty two neighborhoods are saying, my property taxes are going through the roof, and now you're going to hit me with a higher income tax. It's going to be it's going to be very very tough.
It is a practical matter. How will that come down, Christopher? I mean, that's something counsel can do on their own, But can't it somehow be get some find some way to get it on the ballot. I'm just not sure the ins and outs of that.
Yeah, they pass it without passing an emergency, which I would think, you know, a fair transparent city council would pass a tax increase and not pass an emergency, meaning it goes into effect within uh you know, uh thirty days of passage, meaning you're giving the citizens the ability to petition. But if they pass the tax increase and also pass an emergency, then it will it will make it impossible for taxpayers to go out and collect senators
to stop it. But based on what I'm seeing from this council and this mayor and this administration, I would predict they're going to do all of those all of those things. Mike Allen, this is a very tough time. You know, when you look at democratic cities, you know your your your show goes all over the United States of America. I mean, people are listening to this in Florida, and so when you look across the state of Ohio.
This is why I say the zk Ramaswami, who I'm supporting for governor, is so critical, meaning we have got to hold the line in this gubernatorial race that we
don't lose the governor's office to liberal Democrats. I just can't see it, and I want to really just share with you know, those farmers across Ohio, those small towns across Ohio, whether it's Preble County or Butler County, whatever, Claremont County, We've got to really focus in on that gubernatorial race and make sure we're registering all the young people of our families, those who are going away to college.
We want to make sure they come back and vote in Ohio, vote in our local election, and make sure that we vote for vivek Ramaswami to be the next governor of the state of Ohio. I think it's just a critical race because our judicial system is very, very liberal across the state of Ohio, our county commissioners very liberal across our counties. If we lose the state of Ohio, we're in real trouble.
No, I hear you, and I agree with you too. Only have a couple minutes left. I know this is a little bit off topic, but I wanted to ask you your thoughts on the oral arguments that are happy. I think even as we speak in the Supreme Court on the issue of transgenderism with in sports, college, high school, whatever your thoughts on that. Again, it's the oral argument is today sometime.
I'm a girl dad. I mean, you know, I've had a wonderful, beautiful daughter at Seaton High School. She's a varsity swimmer. My shout out to coach Jody Schaeffer. I would not want men or boys swimming against my daughter or anybody on the Seaton swim team. I think women deserve the protection in our sports. We're talking about protecting them. Whether they're playing volleyball, whether they're playing soccer, whether they're swimming. They should have protection women. So I support the lgbt
Q plus community. You know, I'm a supporter of gay rights. This is just a bridge too far that I think that having men competing against women is just not fair. The last point I'll make about it, Mike Allen, I have blown away that we're even destopping it at the
Supreme Court. Like you and I, our grandparents are turning over yes in their grades, they think that the Supreme Court has to make this common sense decision that girls and women in weightlifting, in boxing, and swimming need to be protected so that men aren't competing against them in sports. That's I think the reality and why these elections coming up are so critical lacking common sense.
Yep, Hey, we're out of time, Christopher. I really appreciate you weighing in and hope we can call on you again sometime.
Thank you so much, Mike Allen. People can follow me if they want on X at vote Smitherman.
All right, my friend, thank you. All right. Well, I'll tell you what. He's always got good insights into everything, and that last thing that he said I just have to echo. And I got a few years on Christopher. But to even think that that subject, that topic is before the highest court in the land just blows me away. But hey, maybe that's just me. Hey, we got to take a break. But when we get back, we are going to talk to legal analyst and former Cincinnati City
Council member Steve Gooden. I'm going to ask him his thoughts on the proposed settlement with the Hinton family, also his thoughts on the delay, the continuous the third one
I believe in the Downtown beat down trial. I want to ask him too, will the ICE agent who was involved in that tragic shooting tragic because it was promulgated by the person that died, unfortunately, but whether that ICE agent can be prosecuted in state court by state agencies because I don't think the fedger are going to touch it. We'll do that when we get back. Mike Allen in Forslowe's seven hundred WLW asked Steve. He he is with the law firm of Port of Right, where he handles
complicated civil and criminal matters. Steve, thanks so much for joining us this morning.
But thank you, Mike. I think we're going to talk about some very complicated matters.
Boy, you know what, I was thinking the same thing, Steve. Well, here's one that shouldn't be too complicated, the Downtown beat down case, Alex. I think I'm pronouncing this right Stravinsky. He was set to go to trial yesterday. It was continued for the third time, somewhat unusual, but the judges judged Dante Johnson, who I feel is an excellent judge and knows what he's doing. What's your thought on that?
I mean the reason for the continuance. It could be just about anything, but just your thoughts briefly and in general about that.
Well, you know, I watched some of the video of the preceding and I'm with you. I think, you know, Dante Johnson is one of the really, you know, kind of rising star of great young judges down there, and he really has a reputation for being even handed and fair, and I think he was yesterday. What the City Solicitor's office stated was this was that there was a witness to whatever happened on Fourth Street, so called a beat down, brawl, whatever you want to call it, who allegedly was an
FBI informant. The prosecutor yesterday stated in open court that that was false, that the person is not an FBI informant, and that the news reports suggesting that the person was an FBI informant has placed that person in jeopardy, and that that person, whatever the name was, was afraid to show up as a witness, and that the prosecution needed more time to get their case together. So again, this is one of these situations where you don't know who
or what to believe. I looked as though the prosecutor was sort of putting this whole FBI informant identification thing on the defense attorney. The defense attorney denied that what the truth actually is, I don't know, but the judge basically gave them another month a month and a half to kind of sport all of this out. This does
look as though it was heading for a trial. This guy is charged with disorderly conduct at a low level misdemeanor, under the theory that he sort of helped like agitate or cause the quote unquote violent reaction that kind of led to this whole incident. So you know, what the truth is, I don't know. I don't know that anybody knows at this point. But a lot of it all yesterday all hinged on this idea that there was an FBI in format potentially involved as a witness to this case.
Okay, yeah, and like you said, I forget the exact date, but it's a short continuance. And again he's charged with disorderly conduct. A lot of controversy about it. Deck apparently had a real difficult time finding a cop that would actually file the charge. As many believe, and I'm one of them, that he's charged only because skin color happens to be white. But hey, that's just me. I wanted to ask you to This one is a little more complicated,
the potential hint in settlement. Yesterday, Council went into executive session for apparently a couple hours in the afternoon, came out. Nobody's saying anything. What are your thoughts on that.
Steve, Well, there's a couple of things. I mean, this is a human tragedy on multiple multiple levels. I mean, what we have is the young man, Ryan Hinton, who was shot and killed by CPD officers. You know what the what we know, or what we've been told, is that he was fleeing with a gun from a stolen car. The county prosecutor cleared the officers, as has the city, and basically, I never people called a good shooting. There is no good shooting. It's a shooting that probably appears.
To be legal.
We do know the Hinton family, you know, the young man apparently had never been in trouble before, so they've got a lot of questions about how this all came about. You know, they of hired council. They have not filed a lawsuit at this point. We also know that within a day or two. The young man's father, Rodney Hinton, then goes off and kills Larry Henderson, a retired deputy
from Hamilton County. You know, he's now on facing murder charges and is basically has all but set the table for a not guilty by reason of insanity defense in which you know, he doesn't really deny that he did it, but argues that he had some sort of pre existing mental conditions. So we have these two families that are sort of forever linked, and just the way that that the random, kind of awful way that these things happen.
What we do know that is this about yesterday. Ken Kober, who's the head of the f UP, issued appress release last week basically saying that the city manager, I guess city solicitor have been secretly negotiating a settlement and that and the city manager dinn But yet they did go into executive session yesterday council to be briefed on the matter.
And under Ohio law, the only two things you can be briefed about an executive session as an elected official are either a potential settlement of a lawsuit impending litigation, or some sort of a personnel matter. They didn't say which one. They really weren't supposed to say that, but based upon a couple different council number statements that looked as though there were some discussion about a hint, either a hint in lawsuit that might be coming or settlement.
We do know that his the hint and family lawyer Fanon Rucker has stated publicly that there is no settlement that has been reached. So what occurred yesterday, we don't know. Everyone was very tight lipt when they left. It was an attorney client privileged discussion. They were allowed to talk about it, but it probably been told not to by their counsel, and that's typically a smart thing to do. So we do know they were briefed yesterday. We presume
it to be about that. There really is no indication that a final settlement has been reached. There is no lawsuit, and I just know that I would note that the context of this really matters. You know, the city did just enter into a very controversial eight point one million dollar lawsuit with some of the George Floyd protesters. A lot of police officers feel very burned by that and
question that. I mean, that's something you know that the city actually had had, you know, had had the prior city solicitor had approved this curfew to shut down the protest, they went out and forced it. So there's a lot of questions about that settlement. I think that lingers over whatever is or isn't happening on the Hint matter. So you know, that's why a lot of folks are really really watching that right now. So again, we don't know
what's happening. It's not particularly unusual that we don't know at this stage. We know that no lawsuit has been filed, and I think based on the public discussions, it's pretty clear that you know, they family's council has had some
discussions with the city. What the basis of a settlement could be is very unclear, and I think it's also pretty clear from some of the statements by a couple of the different council members, Walsh and Cranberton, particularly that they had a very negative reaction even to the concept
of settling. I think, particularly given the fact that you know, what the young man's father appears to have done, so just an extraordinarily complicated thing that's going to take some time to play out, and I just think it's very unfortunate that that this is surfacing after that giant settlement to the protesters, which I think a lot of folks in the community, and particularly in the law enforcement community, think was a very very bad thing.
You know, Steve across town where I go places in it happened this morning too. I mean people literally stop me and ask me about and the general maybe swear I hang out, But the general kind of question is how in the hell can the city of Cincinnati paid money to that family. I mean, it just it defies all logic and in many people's opinion, common sense. Put your political hat on for a minute. You served on city council, I mean, are you surprised that they are
apparently even considering this? And I understand nuisance settlements, but this appears to be something that's more of a principal thing.
Well, you know, you know, it's really hard to say. On the facts that I have seen, I would agree with your friends, Okay, I don't see. You know, when when you have a police shooting of the sort that we that we've seen here what we know about anyway, when you have multiple people having looked at it and declared that nothing illegal or improper happened there. It's really really hard to even, you know, understand how the city
could owe the family money. And I know, from from a common sense standpoint idea, I think the concern is, well, my God, could somehow the father who is who is a waiting trial for murder somehow benefit from this suit. I mean that is those are very common sense, natural questions. I don't see it. I don't get it. But there may be some piece of this that we don't know, right, so I think we have to reserve a little judgment there because we don't know everything. But I'll just based
on the facts that are publicly available. It is really a hard thing for a lot of people to get their head around. And just like this last settlement was, and I think there was just this this fear that that right or wrong. There is this perception, particularly in the law enforcement community and among a lot of regular voters, that these are some of these settlements are more political minded than vile minded. And I hope that isn't the case, but you know, we just have to kind of wait
and see on this one. Again, there's no lawsuit filed. We don't know particularly what's being alleged here, but we do know that both the county prosecutor, who all note it's an elected Democrats, and the Internal Affairs a CPD and everyone else, everyone has has cleared the officer who pulled the trigger in regards to the younger Hinton. So you know, I'm at a loss for what it could be.
But again, there may be something we don't know, uh so, But but right now I think it will be a very very hard sell, I think, for for for the community, and particularly for the law enforcement community to ever get there wrapt.
No question about it. Big day, big day in the Supreme Court of the United States today, oral argument on whether biological men can compete in women's sports. I think it's or Utah maybe or in West Virginia, two separates, No, it's I don't know. It doesn't matter two separate states are bringing that suit or that suit is being brought against them by uh people representing the people that want
to participate in those sports. Your thoughts on that, Steven, And as a practicing lawyer, how important in your mind is oral argument mainly in front of the Supreme Court. I've always kind of wondered that I've never been an appella judge, but just wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Well.
You know, I think just in my experience, I mean, oral arguments probably only matter about fifteen or twenty percent of the time. By and large, I think most appellate judges have read the briefs and kind of have their minds made up. Frankly, it looks as though to me the Supreme Court is very much primed to go back to a much more and I think correctly go back to a much more traditional, common sense view of gender. You know, I don't think the oral arguments are going
to matter that much. I count six about its right away to stick with a biological definition of man and female when it comes to sport. I mean, I think that's just common sense. It's where the public is, it's where our traditions are. I think it's very interesting too, that just a couple of months ago, Uh, basically the British Supreme Court, you know, has already gone that way. It's basically said, hey, look, you know, how we're born matters, what biology is matters. Uh, And they have gone back.
Even in the sort of more lefty United Kingdom has adopted a just the common sense gender definition there that's not to say that people don't have issues with you know, uh, you know, there are i know, the medical issues, there's intersects, you know, people who were born that way. I understand
all those things. But by and large, when it comes to actually, you know, competing in sports and making common sense definitions for education and accommodations, you know, the the vast majority of people in the world, you know, have a biological gender and and that is kind of the way our society is organized and based. And and the idea that we've struggling with that as a legal community or as a society is just one of those like very bizarre things to me. To me, it's just common sense.
It looks as though the court's going to go that way.
Yeah, everyone that I have talked to literally has said the same thing. That can't believe that we're even in this posture where it has to be decided by the highest court in the land. But you know, that's life in the year twenty twenty six. I'm afraid, Hey, I don't have a lot of time for this, darnet. And this is one I really wanted to dig into you with the question of whether state charges can be filed in a prosecution en sue for ice officer Jonathan Ross
and that shooting in Minneapolis. I guess it seems to me like, yes, they can be fouled if some things are meant, and then possibly even removed to federal court. I only got you about a minute and a half left, Steve. I'm sorry.
Well, yeah, I'll be I'll be real quick on this one. The answer, that's going to be a big question mark going forward. I think that's what everyone's watching to see if they do try to indict him. I mean, there is an argument that the federal law could preempt There is an argument if the local authorities do indict him, that they could try to remove it to federal court,
where jurisdiction will presumably be more favorable. You know, I mean, typically speaking on federal agians are only subject to federal jurisdiction. But you know this, this is we are heading into.
A very very weird time where.
A lot of those lines are being are being blurred. So I will be surprised if they don't try to indict him locally there in Minneapolis. So we're just going to have to wait and see. The short version is we're gonna we're digging into questions that have not been litigated in many, many, many many decades, where you have local authorities that are standing in direct opposition to federal directives.
So it's a very again unfortunate time, you know that, where we're litigating issues I think we all thought were long settled. Typically the federal agent would be would be dealt with by the federal authorities, but now we have local authorities. It seemed to have a very very very different view to forwards.
All right, time, all right, Steve, thank you so much. I really appreciate we covered a lot of ground and I thank you for it.
Anytime.
Might take care, Okay, bye bye. All right, Steve good and legal analyst. I'll tell you what he's good. He knows the stuff. I wish I would have asked that question about whether that ice officer can be charged statewide earlier we could have expounded on a little bit. What I'm reading is the answer is yes, and then I think if some circumstances apply, it can possibly be removed a federal court. Like Steve said, it is an absolute mess and it's going to be one of those stay
tuned deals. Hey, we got to take a break. But when we get back open lines if you want to call seven four, nine, seven one, eight hundred, the big one are the numbers. Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan's seven hundred WLW eleven thirty eight News Radio, seven hundred WLW Mike Allen in for Scott Sloan today and thirdsday. As promised, I'm going right to the phones. Let's talk to Greg in Michigan. Hey, good morning, Greg, Hey, good morning Mike.
Mister positive thanks for taking my call. When you talk about the situation in Minnesota, we have to understand the fundamental axiom of confirmation bias. You and I, Mike can look at a situation and we can see the exact same thing. We're going to come out with different conclusions. Ask yourself why You've got to understand that what you believe from the past, you're going to make predicate your
decision upon that. Me and Chris Cuom will talk about this all the time you look at something, I'm going to judge you, Mike Allen, about what you did in the past, and I'm going to assert it with the situation that's directly in front of us. We can't do that, Ladies and gentlemen, you have to look at the situation rate in front of us in Minnesota.
No matter.
She did not use the car to run him over. You see the tires turn away. Why would she back up? If I want to run Mike Allen over, I'm going to go directly straight. I'm not going to back up. This is such a divisive country that we're not looking at things objectively. I need people to read philosophy, understand iron Ran, understand the law of identity A is a Aristotelian logic.
People are just so.
Emotional on this and they cannot separate their emotion from logic.
What say you, Michael, I'll tell you what.
It's an interesting conversation. And I don't discount all of what you say. I mean, you're right. You do bring your prior I guess, biases or experiences into a question like about something like this. But everybody's gonna feel a different way or not really that the two sides they're about equal number. The battle lines have been drawn and we are not listening to each other. I certainly agree with you on that, and I wish we can find a way to do that.
Oh you're you're spot on. Thanks for taking my call. Everybody find man Facebook, Gregory Baltef, mister positive he.
Can you can you smell your last night? Because I want to look you up.
Man.
Please g R E g r E g o r y. That's my first name.
Baltef spelled B like boy a, l T, like Tom, E, like Elvis, F like Frank Frank.
You can hear me on Stephen A.
Smith, Chris Cuomo. I'm a shaker remover. I want to make people believe in their dreams. I want everyone to go for your dreams. And I wish Bill Cunningham would put me on a show. He sometimes doesn't treat me well, but I want him to read more philosophy. I want him to not to be a reporter. I want Billy. I love Rappin' Bill. I want him to be more philosophical, not just say this is what happened in New York,
this is what happened in Cincinnati. I want him to be like Cuomo and be philosophical and get to the nitty gritty, because that's the only way we're going to find truth.
Everybody, everybody, go for your dreams.
Thank you. That was interesting, But I mean I was telling the truth. I don't discount that. I don't. And as far as reading philosophy, yeah, I had to do that in college, and I wasn't really a big fan. I mean, I'd read a lot, but it's mostly biographies and things like that. I don't know. I just don't think brain's kind of set up for the classics. But I don't denigrate it. But he's right. I mean, we should be trying to talk to each other. It's not happening.
And you know, I'm going to have a point of view on that. I think a conservative is much much, much more willing to have a conversation with someone of a different political persuasion than if you flip it. Because I'm sorry, I mean I have to generalize here because I think I'm right more than half the vast majority of those on the left, they feel sanctified. They feel like they're right, no matter what they feel like. Well, professor told me this, so it's got to be true.
I think that's the big problem with a lot of them. You're much more likely to get a debate, and boy, my Saturday Show proves this. You're much more likely to get a debate with a conservative then with a liberal. Because I mean, they do it. They'll call, with some exceptions, they'll call, you know, they'll yell and scream, and you try to engage them, and more often than not, it ends up with them hanging up on you. There's a guy and I had a guy Saturday. He was a
leftist kind of guy. He had a good conversation and we're talking back and forth. He said, Yeah, I wish we still had Glenn from Mason. You may remember him. Glenn was on the left, unapologetic, and man, if you locked horns with him, you better be ready because he was. And that's what we need. We need that so badly. But the other side they ain't willing to do that. They're not I've said it since literally my first radio show, and I'm gonna say it till my last, which I
hope is not is a long way off. It's the arrogance of liberal is they think they are right no matter what. It is very rare that they will engage with you, and if they do, in many, if not most cases, it ends up with them calling, at least on my show, call me a name and hanging up on me. But I really that an interesting call, and I look that dude, up when I get home. Okay, let's talk to Ken in Sharonville. Hey, Ken, how you doing.
Good morning, Mike. I just wanted to tell you. I was listening to the WHIO twelve ninety o Kepin Dayton and they were reporting some protests that they had up there. I guess it was Sunday, And then after reporting it, they also reported the group that organized it. Okay, and I think the group was I think I got this right,
American Socialist Marxist Society. So that was honest reporting. These news agencies like yours that have a lead story every time, and they've done this for all day yesterday and all day to day about these paid for protests and don't tell who's organizing it. Then they're part They're in on the scam.
You know what. I gotta agree with you on that. The only thing is, let me say this with respect to radio boy, you are so limited in time as to how deep you can dig into it. But hey, you know what, I'm with you, man. I would love for someone in the media, and it's not going to be any of the mainstream media. It would have to be someone on the right to dig into that and
look at it because from everything I'm seeing. I'm watching these things going back and forth, and it sure looks to me like in some cities they're carrying the same signs as they are in other cities. And you're right, it is very relevant who's bankrolling these damn things, And they sure don't look spontaneous to me. Thank you, Mike, Okay, thank you. Yeah. I mean that's a really, really good point. And I wish somebody would do that, because I think
some people may be surprised at what you find. You know, and you can say, well, who cares. They still have a right to proch. Yeah, they do. But I think that's something that the public has a right to know and should know. And well, I hope somebody picks up on that someday, someday soon. Hey, let's talk to Ross and Portsmouth. Hey, Ross, how you doing.
I'm doing good.
It's very unfortunate that a person had to lose their eyes in these situations. My understanding is they had been told several times to quit obstructing law in their process that day. That wasn't the first place that had happened. The road was blocked, which is a violation.
Of the law.
The thing is here's the thing. When a law enforcement officer, no matter who it is, ice, city police, sheriff's department, FBI instructs you, requests you, or tells you.
To do something.
If you follow their instructions, probably nobody's gonna get hurt, little and killed.
You are absolutely right about that. You're right now.
You can protest and you can do what you want. The other gentleman, I respect his opinion about the turning of the wheels in the backing up, but how did the officer get hit and the vehicle will be going forward when the shots was fired? Well, see my question to him. And number two to the lady that in Butler County addressed. My question to her would be.
Uh.
I think it's time personally that most places have federal funding. Means probably the Butler County Jail has federal money. You can't refuse to incarcerate people that a federal agent has arrested without the loss or the chance of the loss of federal funding. And I think the only thing that's ever going to be understood in these liberal cities, in the liberal areas and by the liberals is when the money dries up, then when the services they want is
not there, then they start crying and hollering. Then you can pull them out. This is what you asked for. This is what we are giving you what you asked for. And are elected politicians from the lowest level right to the state, right to Washington, d C. I personally believe it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican or an independent. They do not listen to their constituent. And what you guys have got on in Cincinnati's horrible. And I'll throw this out there. There is a thing I
think you can do it. I thought you could do it, recall petition for an election to people ont of office. Why don't someone in Cincinnati get a recall petition?
If they're not going to.
Follow the will of the people, then fine, get them out. But you know what, when you put someone in office, they're gonna be decisions that are not popular. There's gonna be a lot of decisions that are unpopular, and you can't weigh that into your decision. You got to do what's right because that's what the people are elected you for. But these people are only worried about being re elected for whatever their personal reasons are.
And it's hard.
It's just time. It's just time the elected officials are held accountable.
Well, you know what accountability is, the is the key to all of it. Ross And I appreciate the call, thank you, I really do. Yeah, I mean a recall petition. I believe Ohio has provision. I'm sure they have provision for that. But boy, I'll tell you my recollection is and it's been a long time since I looked at it as it is. It's really hard to do. You need a ton of signatures. But you know, there again, and that's a Donald Trump takes so much crap for
so much. I'll tell you one thing he can't shouldn't take crap for is not doing what he said he's going to do. I mean, he was elected, not overwhelmingly like he says, but it wasn't really close, let's just say comfortably elected. And you know, people that voted for him, the majority that did, heard what he had to say, and he's following through on it. So I think there's accountability there with him at least. Hey, let's talk to Steven Lovelin. Hey, Steve, real quick, Okay.
I was just going to say the other day, and it was the morning after the shooting.
Uh.
Fox had a an article and basically they know who these people are. They put something out and they did this timeline and it's basically American socialists, but they named names. They named time Reed when they were getting signs. Yeah, so that's they know. And I think it's probably because they have people on the inside, but they put that all together so they.
Know who's causing this.
The funny thing is, I don't think all these liberal moms realize that, you know, that it's socialistations that are calling for this kind of revolution and again young susceptible to revolution, but they do know.
I guess this is the well Yeah, I mean because their professors cram it down their throats and they don't have the stones that have another side presented because they're afraid that they wouldn't that students wouldn't agree with them, they'd agree with the other side. It just doesn't happen. Let me ask you, because I'm gonna drill down on it. So it was on National Fox News. Was it like a story, a written.
Story or it was Yeah, it was on on an app on my phone and it was a written story, Okay, but it was Fox News.
Yes, I'm gonna check that out because I was waiting for somebody to do that, and earlier caller today was kind of saying the same thing. And it doesn't surprise me at all. Let me ask you if you can recall did the name George Sorows come up at all in that story?
Surprisingly, no, there was but same names.
And I was looking for his name now, But there there were I think a couple of a couple of female names, you know, who were who were prominent? Uh uh, you know the ones who are calling the shot?
Sure, sure that way, yeah.
But no, it wasn't there.
There really wasn't anything that tied him to it.
I was looking for, you know what, I'm gonna check it out. I really appreciated Steve. That's important and people need to know. So I'm gonna try and see if I can find it.
All right, Hey, Mike, thanks a love three times.
Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'll tell you what. As soon as I get home, I'm gonna drill down and try to find that. And you know, it doesn't surprise me at all. What he said is to who they are this socialist organization, that socialist organization, And I'm telling you you know, some people think I'm obsessed with it. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. This stuff so much of it starts with the college professor. And now I mean even high school teachers and even as young as Great School,
they start the indoctrination. That's got to stop or we're never going to see an end to dealing with this. I mean, you look at it. When we were kids, we were raised in a conservative household, and we discussed issues around the dinner table. I don't think that happens anymore. And a lot of reasons is because mom's working, dad's working. Somebody's got to make the dinner and maybe they don't
have time. But I guess that's just a long way of saying that we need to do a little bit more work on what is being taught to our kids. Now Donald Trump, God bless him, he's put the screws to some of these Ivy League schools and others too. With you know, okay, you don't want to give both a little diversity of thought. You love diversity so much. Got a little diversity of thought on these college campuses. By the way, if you don't, you ain't getting your
federal funds. It's the only way you can do it with these people because they're arrogant, especially a college professor. I mean, you know, they're obsessed with the sixties, and that's just a fact they are. And many of that, not many, there aren't many left, but that's where they kind of got their got their idea of how things should be. But again, and the other thing too, is if people say this till they're blue in the face, give me an example, please, please give me an example
of where socialism has worked. Please. But it ain't gonna happen because they can't do it. Hey, listen, I'm blathering on here and I am getting out of here, but I'll be back on Thursday. Mike Allen's seven hundred WLW