Time for the Channel nine first one and one fourcast. Got a warm bit windy day to day with gus up to forty miles per hour. I have seventy The rain kicks in storms set to arrive around eight pm, and they say there may be damaging winds thirty seven. The overnight low to Mars high forty three with clouds and perhaps a wintery mix. Mostly cloudy overnight with a low of twenty nine, and on Friday we'll have a higher fifty seven with gradually clearing, thick skies. It's sixty
degrees right now. Let's hear from Chuck Ingram on traffic. Chuck from the ucl Traffic Center.
The University of Cincinnati Cancer Center offers innovative clinical trials and the region's only young onset colorectal cancer program called five on three five eight five UCCC North Bend seventy one crews continue to work with an accident before you get to two seventy five. That traffic backing up to Red Bank. He spend two seventy five and as a wreck before you get to seventy one. That's backing traffic towards forty two in Sharonville northbound seventy five continues slow
from the Lateral Pass. Numerous accidents near Gowbrith from earlier problems at Shepherd. The highway is now open. After this segment, check out the new brack and picking podcast called Objection That's a bad Pick from Oddly Enough. Our very next guest, the Judge, is coming up chucking from on fifty five KRS the talk station.
It's a thirty on a Wednesday here fifty about KARSD talk station. That means it is the time of week when we get the blessing of speaking with Judge and Anapolitana. Judge Napolatana, welcome back to the fifty five KOSE Morning Show, my dear friend. Always a distinct pleasure to have you on the program.
Thank you, Brian.
Fighting a little cold, so I apologize for my stuffy and naisily voice, but I'm happy to be with you as always, no matter what we're talking about, coming.
In loud and clear, and of course an advocate for all things constitutional and our unalienable rights, including the freedom of speech. Yeah, I appreciate your comment column and as I perhaps slightly controversial given the viewpoints of the detained and booted person, which I can understand being against what her political viewpoints might be, but nonetheless, we all enjoy the right to free speech in this country, at least I thought we did, but maybe not.
Well the column that you would talk about, which, by the way, I hope I don't speak out of school when I say received the blessing of missus Thomas gave me a smile from hearing ear.
I had to let you know.
She was reading over my shoulder, because you know, I launched your email and I was reading the column, and she happened along, and she's reading. She goes, well, he makes some really good points. It's like, yes, he always does. So she's listening right now.
So you did.
Good morning to you, and it was very nice for you to pass that along, and nicer still for her to say that. This is the story of two people with permanent resident aliens in the United States, one of whom was summarily deported in violation of a federal court order that she stay here until the hearing could be held. This is a kidney specialist, an MD doctor in a Providence, Rhode Island, on the faculty of the Brown University Medical School.
The government claims had deported her because she attended the funeral of Hassan Nasralla, the now dead former head of Hesbala. On her return from Lebanon to Boston's Logan Airport, she was detained for thirty six hours during the course of what she called lawyers who rushed to a federal court who heard from her lawyers and from the DOJ and said, well, keep her here until we can have a hearing. You're going to have to demonstrate to me that she's a
danger to the proper execution of American foreign policy. They disregarded the order and deported her to Paris and then to Lebanon, which is where she is now. She's from Lebanon. The other case is highly controversial here in New York because it took place here in New York. This is a Columbia University student, also a permanent legal resident, married to an American who's entering her ninth month of pregnancy with their child, yanked out of his Columbia dorm room
and shipped to Louisiana. The charging documents there are no charging documents against the doctor because she's gone. The charging documents against the Columbia grad student do not allege a crime, Do not allege terrorist acts, do not allege inappropriate behavior, do not allege any facts, do not offer any evidence, but just the conclusion that Marco Rubio, I don't know how even knows this kid exists.
Marco Rubio is of the opinion that his.
Presence on the Columbia campus as a student is an impediment to the effective execution of American foreign policy. There isn't a judge in the country Article three or immigration court that would deport him on that basis of His lawyers have said, look, this is free speech.
Number one. Number two. The Constitution says, if the.
Government's going to try you for anything, it must be in the judicial district in which the government says the basis for the trial arose. That would be New York City. Why is the Louisiana Number three, He's entitled to due processing. You can't try him because of his speech, because the First Amendment protects everyone. So we're at a stalemate on
this case right now. But I write about it because of the dangers confronting us if the government seeks to punish speech, deny due process, and defy court orders.
I've never seen anything like this.
Well, I found most unusual, as you wrote in your column, which thankfully I get early perilous times for personal liberty. The woman that was deported to Paris and then Lebanon, the federal agent seized her mobile phone after she was detained and searched through it. Now, based upon what probable cause of what did they have any rights?
They did not have a search warrant for that phone. Right they will claim that she gave it to them voluntarily.
We don't know that. There's been no hearing as to how as to how they got it. But that's a good point. Why did they stop her if the evidence were stopping her was acquired after the stop?
Yeah, I found that most unusual. And you know that's a threat to everyone. I know there's a lot of listeners screaming at the radio, well, these damned terrorists, and you know they support the murder of innocent civilians and October sixth and all that, And I'll agree with them all day long, don't you hear this person's viewpoints? But as you and I have talked about many times over the years, of Brandenburg decision from here in Ohio protects the speech of hardcore cold Nazis and clan members.
You know it's agree right.
Clan members calling for I'm going to use the word that the mister Brandenburg used.
It's not an English word.
Revengeance against African Americans and Jews. The Brandenburg case is profound A because it is a broad protection for free speech. B because it was unanimous. C Because Brandenburg himself was hateful, as were the things he said. So it stands for a number of things, not the least of which is.
In matters of politics.
You can say whatever you want in this country, and the First Amendment protects everyone.
Who's here, not just American citizens.
Well, and there is a difference between speech and violence and property crimes and taking over, you know, spaces that the university should should have open and free access to for all students. So there's there's acts which may be actionable, but the speech in and of itself is not something that they can act on by way of crime. And these are you point out they were lawfully in our country. They were not here illegally.
Well, not only.
Were they here lawfully, they were here permanently. They have families here, they have driver's licenses here. In the case of the doctor, she has I'm only here in a medical practice, as well as being on the Bround faculty. The doctor's case is particularly troublesome. She got here because of a shortage of nephrologists physicians who specialize in kidney ailments. The government welcomed her because of a unique skill that
she brought to the providence Rhode Island community. And of course the other troubles some aspect is that there was an order signed by a judge. This is not one of those things where she's over the water and we don't know if the judge still has authority like this nonsense with the gang members sent to Al Salvador. She was at Logan Airport when a judge said, do not deport her until I can hold a hearing, and the blink of an eye, she was on a plane to Paris.
Yeah, and that's very troubling because everyone is entitled to due process. I mean, there was no hearing on all of the evidence in this particular case.
The only way the president can deport without due process is under the Enemy Alien Act when the human being he wants to deport is an agent of a country with which we're at war. We are not at war with anybody right now, So no one fits into that category. Therefore, everyone he wants to deport is entitled to due process. It's not a jury trial, but some sort of a hearing before a neutral arbiter. To the extent you can call immigration judges neutral, I mean they work for the prosecutor.
Who's the prosecutor in an immigration court? The Secretary of Homeland Security? For home do immigration judges work the Secretary of Homeland Security. That's why these lawyers keep trying to get these cases before Article three judges or truly neutral. Nevertheless, you are entitled hearing at which the government must lay out its evidence against you, and you have an opportunity to challenge it.
Well.
A parallel questions sort of came up earlier in the program with one of my regular commentators, and he also was a lawyer and journalist and historian. But is there something generally speaking that Congress could do by way of curtailing or curving US district duds authorities to issue blanket nationwide injunctions.
The short answer, The short answer is yes. The longer answer is the Supreme Court crafts the federal rules of civil procedure for Congress to object modify or reject right now, those rules permit that. I mean, if federal district court judges did not have universal jurisdiction, the government would just defy them by going to another judicial district. That's why
in constitutional matters, judges assert their authority everywhere. I'm going to enjoin the president from doing this wherever the president goes. In all other matters, the authority is confined to the judicial district. Well, why did they take this kid from Columbia out of the New York judicial district? Well, it's kind of obvious trying to confine someone. Would you rather argue before a judge of Manhattan or a judge in Lafayette, Louisiana.
I'm going to hear it from my friends in New Orleans. I'm going to hear it for the way I mound, the way they say Lafayette.
Well, forum shopping, you know, I did civil litigation, your honor, and quite often Cook County, which is where I did a lot of my practice when I lived in Chicago, was a great forum for PLAINTUS lawyers to shop in. Because the judges were so liberal and so pro plaintiff, you could usually score a really great jury verdict or get a bench verdict. There a lot easier than say, if you went to some conservative judge in Texas or wherever.
Right right, But here you have an express clause in the Constitution saying in the judicial district wherein the events occurred in Madison. Put that in there, because George the third charged Commis with crimes legendly committed here and then ship them to London for trial. And of course they were all convicted.
Yeah, not shocking, well, very quickly. In terms of the defiance of the court order. The court did have the order, she was still here, was not yet deported. Any ramifications from that.
Well, there must be. There must be whoever defied that order should be arrested.
And that that's not pardonable because that's not an offense against the United States, and it's an offense against the court. So whoever that was, whether it was Christie known personally or somebody I'll lunt that that was her personally somewhat along the line, defied that court order. If judges don't punish for the violation of their court orders, people just start violating them and the judiciary will be meaningless.
Other than as an arbiter in one of the bu.
Accidents, and that is a greater concern. That's like calling for impeachments of judges just because they issue a bad decision. I know Robert came out against.
Federal judge and I hate to admit this because it was orchestrated by my hero Thomas Jefferson to be impeached because of his rulings was just as Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court. The impeachment took two years, during the course of which the Supreme Court was effectively hamstrung, and he was eventually acquitted. Jefferson was behind the whole thing. That's the last time they impeached a judge for his decisions. Now, judges have been impeached because they committed crimes.
Judges have been impeached for bribery. That's legitimate, right. The basis for the impeachment of a.
Judge is the same as for a president treason, bribery, other high crime and misdemeanor.
Or in the case of the Supreme Court, you don't have to impeach, I mean, just pack the court so you fill it with judges that are of your political like mind. Judge Hennon Apolitano, God bless you, Sir, I appreciate your counting the program every week. I really thoroughly enjoy our conversations that my listeners do as well. I'll look forward to another one next time Wednesday, sir.
Thank you, Brian, all the best and my love to miss what's her first name, Paulette, my love to pull that Thomas.
Thank you sir, and get well. I wish you the best to help you all right, we'll talk next week coming up at eight forty four or fifty five KC Talk stations. Don't go away, I'd be right back