Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant new stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you, and my name is Jim Santel.
I am your host on this broadcast.
Throughout the broadcast stations of civic media in Wisconsin and throughout the nation, delighted and honored as always that you have selected, you made the choice to spend some time with my producer Max and me as we discussed those major issues, those events, those developments in the areas of the rule of law, the delivery of justice and government.
locally, statewide, and nationally.
This broadcast, this weekend, no exception to that.
Once again, adopting and promoting our mission here on Amicus, a law review of being quite literally a friend to the community, regardless of political perspective, regardless of partisan views about the world, providing information and insight and perspective that is helpful to an understanding of the world in which we live.
the livelihoods that are animated by these events in the areas of the rule of law so that you can make your own decisions about your government, about the ways in which you participate in our lives and our livelihoods.
throughout the state and throughout the nation as well.
This broadcast this weekend, no exception to that, we are going to be spending a good deal of time as we often do, providing some information, almost some law school-like instruction, once again based upon a major development.
Right here in the state of Wisconsin, you know what that is.
That is the arrest on Friday of this past week of a sitting Wisconsin circuit court judge, her name, Hannah Dugan.
We're going to talk about both
substance there, what she has been charged with.
We're also going to spend some time talking about process and procedure, and that's where the law school portion of this comes in, the civics aspect of our broadcast.
Going to be describing for you some of the federal criminal rules that apply, some of the statutes under which the judge has been charged.
Yes, indeed, two felony counts in the federal system.
We'll talk about how that played out, the process by which he was brought into federal court, then released.
And we'll talk then a bit about what happens next.
All of that, all of that in anticipation of some commentary from me, not only about the method by which this matter proceeded, but the specifics in terms of the decision to arrest.
focusing specifically upon the standards by which federal prosecutors, state prosecutors, both under the statutes and under the general rules of principles of criminal prosecution, proceed when it comes to making decisions.
about whether to arrest a defendant or summon that person in for the initiation of proceedings.
We'll talk all about that.
Necessarily going to begin our broadcast today, however, with the other breaking story as we gather together this weekend, and that is the funeral of Pope Francis.
And you might be saying to yourself, gosh, why is that a rule of law issue?
Why is that a government issue?
What does that have to do with the administration and the delivery of justice?
And the answer is a whole lot.
All of you know, all of you know that this Pope was certainly the head of the Roman Catholic Church, not just there in Rome, of course, but throughout the
face of the planet, but he was also the head of state, not just in Vatican City, but also a leader on the world stage.
We'll talk about some of the issues that he promoted, that he articulated during his 12 year term as Pope, and that do in fact have an impact to this day and beyond for many years, maybe even generations on the administration of justice.
Across the planet we'll talk about that and focus in particular upon the other major issue that we'll get to probably in the second hour of our broadcast and that is this Pope's commitment to immigrants and migrants himself being the product of a family that came
to South America.
We'll talk about the things that he said is advocacy, his outreach to communities around the world.
And so that is necessarily where we begin with our broadcast.
We're also in our second hour going to get to some of our more routine but equally important issues having to do with other things going on in federal courts.
We know, for example, that there was a major sentencing in Highland Park just this past week, 2020 to the mass shooting that happened there.
We'll talk about the dramatic yet highly appropriate sentence imposed upon the shooter just this past week.
We'll talk about the sentencing of George Santos, the former representative, and the impact that that will have upon our nation as it always does when it comes to the sentencing of public officials.
We saw that not too long ago in connection with the sentencing of a senator from New Jersey.
We'll talk as well about the...
and conviction of Nadine Menendez, his spouse, anticipating her sentencing.
And we'll also talk again, mentioning in the category of rule of law snapshots a recent decision by a jury in connection with a defamation lawsuit brought by Sarah Palin, former governor of...
of Alaska and also a former candidate for the vice presidency of the United States of America.
Necessarily, again, time permitting, there is a lot and it is a lot.
We'll necessarily return to our recurring project, which is to identify for you under the heading injunction function, the continuing work, the continuing bastions provided by our federal district court judges in responding to the many, the flurry of executive orders entered by our president.
This week, talking about two of the many injunctive orders issued by federal judges, what I'm having to do with public school funding, other than having to do with that very infamous, famous executive order issued by the president a while back, seemingly attempting to regulate federal elections, and in particular, requiring proof of citizenship, according to Donald Trump.
We'll talk about what judges have done in that area.
And then,
necessarily returning to another matter that's often in the news necessarily focusing upon yes indeed migrants as the Pope has throughout his career talked about them that issue remains current to this day we'll talk about those 238
Venezuelan immigrants now in prison in El Salvador, talk about one of them who continues to be the focus of a judge named Paula Zinnis in Maryland.
You know his name well.
We'll also talk about yet another, another deportee identified just as Christian who again may have been.
deported by this government, by our Department of Justice, by our Homeland Security without proper legal foundation.
All of that, all of that coming up, and more.
And the more, of course, is as always.
your contributions to our discussion.
We especially invite Max and I, your questions and your inquiries, especially as we get into some of the specifics about process and due process in our nation.
What does this mean?
How does this all play out?
We invite, we encourage, we solicit, we welcome your comments, your questions, your observations about how this works, how the rule of law works in our nation, in our state and even locally.
And that phone number, of course, is 855.
752-4842.
One more time, that's 855-752-4842.
Max also reminds me that you can drop a question or an inquiry into our chat box as well.
Go to Civic Media, find our broadcast, and let us know once again about your specific inquiry.
Your thing that is prompting you to wonder out loud how this works, we'll talk about it.
Also, of course, inviting your observations, as we always do.
We appreciate and value so much, the contributions made every single broadcast by our listeners, and even if you choose not.
not to be a part of our direct conversation on air.
Appreciate and value.
The listening that you do, because it does indeed animate me, it animates Max, it animates civic media when it comes to providing information about the world in which we live.
Again, ensuring that you have the necessary information, hopefully in an apolitical, nonpartisan way, so that you can make decisions of your own, make judgments, discretionary value assessments.
But what's going on in the world?
And that's what we're all about.
And so let us begin.
Let us begin with this edition of Amicus, a law review.
A friend to you, friend to the people of our nation and our state.
We begin, of course, by recognizing and acknowledging perhaps some of you got up early here in the state of Wisconsin and beyond throughout the United States and observed by television, by the broadcast of virtually every news station and beyond the very solemn.
but the majestic funeral.
that happened earlier today and the steps of St.
Peter's Basilica there in Rome.
The Roman Catholic Church, again, laying to rest Pope Francis.
He is, of course, as you know, is a pope of many firsts.
He is the pope who, again, is the first from the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits.
He's the first Latin American, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere.
He comes from Buenos Aires, and he's the first pope raised outside of Europe since eighth century Syrian pope
Gregory III, a lot of firsts there.
And again, just this morning, earlier today in Rome, in Rome, there about seven hours ahead of us laid him to rest.
And so it is important because not only of the significance of this as a news story, but also as I indicated, because he is a man of state, he is a leader in the national and international discussion of major issues.
It is significant.
that we talk about the legacy of Pope Francis, even as we think about what is to come with respect to the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.
The ceremony, of course, including, of course, Gregorian chants, Latin verses, reverberating throughout the Piazza, about 250,000 people marching by in recent days, waiting long lines to say farewell to the Pope.
body dressed in red vestments and scuffed black shoes as he lay in state before the Basilicas altar for many days before.
Hundreds of thousands again this morning filled and spilled out into St.
Peter's Square, streamlining along the Long Avenue.
Those of you who've been there along the Tiber River there, the funeral of course, including heads of state, including our own president, Donald Trump is there, Volodymyr Zelensky is there as well.
Ukraine, they had a discussion, again, underscoring that politics and government and the operations of state are also, also a part of this bringing together of chiefs of state.
Those leaders, again, gathering there, the body of St.
Francis, who of Pope Francis, rather, who died again at the age of 88 on Monday.
And again, the important aspect of what is going to be happening next in his underway right now is that the papal coffin loaded into a customized white vehicle.
is driving through Rome, goes through Rome and pass crowds of once again thousands of people.
Their hands, according to the reporting and according to the viewing of this, of course, shouting great as that cavalcade moves forward, the white vehicle.
Francis being buried in a private ceremony in a term with the one word inscription, Franciscus, he is buried, buried at...
the Papal Basilica of St.
Mary, Major in Rome.
He indicated long before his death that he would go there before and after any of his trips to pray and so appropriate that he would be laid to rest there in tomb there on this day when we recognize Pope Francis.
When we come back, we'll talk more about the things that he said and his legacy when it comes to immigration and immigrants and migrants in particular here on Amicus, a law review.
you
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Sallaraview coming to you from Radio Park in Racine Broadcast Station of Civic Media.
Delighted, honored to have you with me this weekend as every weekend as Max and I talk with you and engage with you on the important issues of law and justice and government.
Spending some time appropriately in our broadcast initially this weekend talking about the funeral for Pope Francis.
Concluded now in Rome, many of you watched it in the early morning hours here in America, here in the state of Wisconsin as well.
Pope Francis, December 17th, 1936, born and died on April 21, 2025.
Now, laid to rest at the Papal Basilica of St.
Mary Major in Rome, along with many other.
other popes of our history.
Pope Francis, of course, eulogized as well by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Ray during the course of the ceremony, the service today, identified as a pope among the people.
The Cardinals said with an open heart towards everyone, he said the guiding thread of his mission was also the conviction that the church is a home for all, a home with its doors always open.
And indeed to that eulogy and that statement about who this Pope was, Pope Francis we know was a strong advocate for among many, many other things, migrants and refugees.
Often speaking about policies related to mass deportations, advocating and
and for asylum seekers and for more asylum laws to ensure the integrity of the human spirit, the human condition.
He is, again, is the son of Italian immigrants in Argentina.
He frequently drew on his own experiences, his own family history to emphasize the dignity of those who cross borders in search of a better life, obviously an issue much relevant to us here in America, to other nations on the face of the planet.
Pope Francis consistently
highlighting all a part of his speeches, the human cost of migration.
He emphasized repeatedly the importance of treating migrants with dignity and compassion, frequently criticized policies of governments, other heads of state that led to mass deportations, frankly, critical, quite critical of our current president and this administration's policies.
Viewing those policies is a violation of human dignity.
of basic human human rights.
He frequently criticized those policies that led to mass deportations and called for more generous and humane asylum laws throughout all nations.
He viewed them once again as important to promoting the human spirit.
Again, he recognized the global nature of migration.
The global nature of migration called for a response that is, in his words, human, just, and fraternal.
He personally visited refugee camps throughout his 12-year term as the pope.
He met with newly arrived migrants on a regular basis and even brought 12 Syrian Muslims to Rome after visiting a refugee camp.
in Greece a number of years ago.
All of that, a part of his legacy, again, having to do principally with migration and immigration issues, but also many other things on his docket.
We know those well.
He advocated as well for climate change, also bringing to that discussion an awful lot of review and analysis of what nations around the world are doing to preserve the future of our planet.
He was involved in that intimately, criticized consumerism and what he called overdevelopment.
He opposed the death penalty dead stop dead stop opposing the death penalty under all circumstances He of course was an advocate for impoverished people opposed their oppression by governments He condemned past and recent war crimes in places like Europe
in the Middle East.
He encouraged, of course, the role of women in society and even inside the church.
And yes, he advanced openness, openness to the LGBT communities throughout the world as well, significantly promoting a human rights agenda that focused again upon immigrants and refugees.
He called that a duty of civilization, his words.
And so we think and we are thoughtful.
this broadcast this weekend, this time, this week, this year about the legacy of Franciscus, Pope Francis, as he is laid to rest in Rome this day.
And we will certainly revisit the kinds of things that he talked about later in this broadcast as we revisit what our own nation is doing in connection with migrants and immigration.
Plainly one of the challenges here in our nation is the apparent incapacity of our own legislature to address
uniform and across the board immigration reform desperately needed, acknowledged by people of all partisan backgrounds and viewpoints, something that our legislature proposes on a routine basis and advances sometimes, but it's not accomplished.
We still need that omnibus kind of immigration reform.
Yes, some movements made in recent years, but not the kind of colossal across the board addressing of immigration issues of the sort that the Pope
advocated for.
And so we think about him, we think about the future of our nation and of immigrants and all these other issues that were a part of his history.
Pope Francis, again, being laid into his tomb today, laid to rest today in Rome as we think about other issues on our agenda, the rule of law agenda, the justice agenda, the government agenda, necessarily then turning to
The other major issue that broke this past Friday, playing the percolating for a while, having to do with the decision by the Department of Justice, presumably also by the United States Attorney's Office in eastern Wisconsin, to arrest a sitting judge, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge, Hannah Dugan.
We're going to talk about the circumstances of that.
I'm going to tell you a little bit more about her.
We're going to talk about the mechanism by which she was arrested.
How did that come about?
We're going to provide you in some detail with exactly what it is the government is alleging so that you can understand from the very document, the very thing, the piece of paper that was presented in court that charges her with two felony counts under the federal law.
We'll talk about that.
And then some commentary from me, former U.S.
attorney, 30 years as an assistant U.S.
attorney, six and a half of those as the United States attorney both court appointed and presidential appointed about the mechanisms to its decisions like this are made.
Focusing in particular, and yes, you're going to hear criticism and objection from me about the manner in which this particular matter, once a decision was made to prosecute, to bring her into the justice system.
And that is the arrest, the physical arrest of a sitting judge brought into federal court in that custodial setting.
We'll talk more about that.
Let us begin, however, be providing you with some general sense of what the news is.
and then get into great detail about the specifics in this case.
FBI agents, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents joined by others, arrested Hannah Dugan.
She is Wisconsin's circuit court judge from Milwaukee County.
She is a trial judge sitting here in Milwaukee County, one of the many counties, of course, in the state of Wisconsin.
Friday morning in the parking lot there of the Milwaukee County Courthouse, charges of obstructing immigration agents will get into that in greater detail.
saying that basically she's steered, she directed an undocumented immigrant who was appearing in her court on a criminal matter through a side door in her courtroom while the agents, the federal agents, waited to arrest him in an adjacent hallway.
and in the courthouse generally.
The decision, of course, to charge and to arrest Judge Dugan, of course, heightening this focus of this administration on all sorts of issues related to deportations, because at the core of this is a defendant.
His name is Eduardo Flores Ruiz.
He is a citizen of Mexico, again, according to all of the reporting, who is subject to deportation.
issue, of course, is what happened in the wake of his appearance just this past week.
What happened with the judge?
How did the agents behave?
How did the chief judge respond?
How did the federal magistrate respond?
How did the lawyers in this case likewise engage in this case?
All of that coming up in great detail here on Amicus, a law review.
This is Amicus, a law review.
Thank you for joining me and Max for our discussion this morning.
A review, a reporting on this major story coming out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, just late this past week, having to do with the decision by the United States Department of Justice, U.S.
Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Wisconsin to arrest a sitting Wisconsin circuit court judge.
Her name is Hannah Dugan.
Again, the allegations are that she violated federal law.
Let's talk about that.
Let's talk about the process.
Let's talk about the substance of what this case is all about.
Let's begin with a little bit about Judge Dugan.
She is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1987.
She is 65 years old.
She has spent much of her career prior to taking the bench, serving on behalf of many, many clients of clients in the areas of housing and public benefits, social security cases, a lot of pro bono work, a lot of things involving charitable causes and focuses.
Executive Director of the Catholic Charities of Southeastern Wisconsin also served on the Milwaukee County Ethics.
during the course of one of her campaigns, she notably said justice is hard work.
Everyone knows that, and indeed, that is one thing that we can perhaps all agree on.
Justice is not easy.
She acknowledges that she was elected by a wide margin to the bench in 2016.
She beat an incumbent judge who was sitting at the time, was unopposed for reelection in 2022, and her current term, her current term expires in 2020.
28.
A little bit about Judge Hannah Dugan.
Also, also I should note, as we begin our discussion of this major story, that I know Judge Dugan well.
She is a friend with a small F. I want to let all of our listeners know about that.
We have had a professional and even a friendship relationship for decades.
She is very much a person of the community, which is also relevant to some commentary that I will offer in a few moments, in a few later segments of our broadcast.
But I know her well.
I have not practiced in front of her, but knew her both as a private practitioner and then see her and sometimes participate with her in various programs and issues.
in the community.
She is a part of our community as well.
And as late as a few weeks ago, she and I were together with many others talking about civics, talking about constitutional rights and talking about many of the things we discuss on this broadcast.
And so I know her.
And I, again, want to let you know that as we talk about these particular events having to do with her arrest, her charging in the federal system by my now former office, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Eastern Wisconsin, and the agency for which I worked for 30 years, that is the United States Department of Justice.
So.
Hannah Dugan, a defendant now in a case called the United States of America versus Hannah Dugan.
She is charged with two felony counts.
It is always significant.
This is not a matter that federal prosecutors simply identify.
descriptively what a particular defendant has done allegedly, allegedly in violation of law, but they identify particular statutes.
In this case, it's 18 USC section 1505 that is obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.
The second charge is brought under a second statute.
It's 18 USC section 1071 that's concealing an individual to prevent his discovery or arrest.
Let's talk a little bit more about those two statutes in particular 1071 again concealing a person from arrest It says basically this whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States So as to present prevent his discovery and arrest after notice or knowledge of the fact
that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person shall be fined and otherwise pursued, prosecuted under this particular statute.
It is a felony.
It carries with it a fine.
It carries with it an imprisonment for no more than five years or both.
That's section 1071 concealing a person from arrest.
That's one of the bases, the statutory bases.
Again, all of these pieces
of law here passed by the legislature, our federal legislature.
Then we've got section 1508.
It is also significant because it's the other one, the other one that contemplates prosecution for obstructing or impeding a proceeding.
before a department or agency of the United States.
And so what is that all about?
It is a longer statute.
But it basically says this, whoever corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had.
Before any department or agency of the United States or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which this investigation is being had.
That person also, subject to prosecution under this statute, section 1505, likewise, carries with it fines, imprisonment of not more than eight years.
Those are the two statutes.
Those are the two statutes under which the Wisconsin Circuit Court judge, Hannah Dugan, has been charged.
Now, how has that happened?
What is the process by which this happened?
How is it that those federal agents and others arrested Hannah Dugan Friday morning in the parking lot at the
Milwaukee County Courthouse.
Well, they were acting pursuant to a criminal complaint.
A criminal complaint, and you may say, well, gee, Jim, haven't we always talked on this broadcast and other settings about the right of every single person under our Constitution?
If you are charged federally, didn't James Madison, doesn't the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantee that indeed someone who's charged in the federal system will be subject to due process and all of those other things?
only upon presentment, as the Constitution says, or indictment of a grand jury, and there are exceptions to it, and that's what Amendment 5 to the Constitution says.
presuming that any charges coming out of your federal government doesn't apply to states but the federal government will come out of a grand jury 23 people as we've talked about at such great length in the past brought together they are you they may not be me but they may be you others in our community brought together to decide whether or not the government has established and here's the first standard to think about
Probable cause not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's a trial standard But probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and so what's happens in front of a grand jury?
private proceedings not a part of the public domain unlike a trial and juries in a a pettus any setting PET it a Trial that's public, but the grand jury is not
the grand jury proceeds in a private setting to determine whether the evidence presented before them, yes, by the US Department of Justice, yes, by federal agents, sometimes often by citizen witnesses as well, but by assistant US attorneys who are presenting evidence the first step in moving forward on a criminal prosecution.
The grand jury has this tremendous responsibility to determine whether or not a particular case should proceed.
whether an indictment should issue whether the government has has established not proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt but established provided enough evidence to believe that there is probable cause that an offense under the federal statutes has existed in this case in this case eventually eventually one way or another will get to that a federal grand jury necessarily is going to have to review the evidence that has already been presented somewhat in this criminal complaint
And that will be their responsibility.
The federal constitution still ensures that if this case is to go ahead, a federal grand jury must pass on the evidence, make that initial determination, and decide, yes or no, should an indictment issue.
But before that happens, and so you may ask, well, gee, why doesn't that happen right now?
Before that process kicks in, in circumstances, in circumstances where there is a need,
based upon the exigencies of the investigation, based upon the particular findings of the investigative work to that date, to move more quickly, grand juries meet in courtrooms and courthouses throughout this nation on a weekly basis.
But when things happen, and as you well know, crime happens very quickly, sometimes in the dead of night, sometimes in the brightness of day, but often requiring that charges be issued more promptly than
even a grand jury can get to.
Under those circumstances, the federal rules of criminal procedure provide a mechanism, a mechanism that predates, if you will, anticipates a grand jury proceeding to ensure that the process goes ahead.
And that's the criminal complaint process.
It is a system whereby, again, upon presentation to a federal magistrate,
Again, not the grand jury, but a federal magistrate or a federal judge, the government, in this case, the U.S.
Attorney's Office, the Department of Justice presents to that judge, that judicial officer, information, the results typically of an investigation that suggests that this person, that indicates that this person reflects that the person or the entity, you can also charge a corporation, of course, has engaged in crime.
And the standard is the same, it's probable cause.
And if the judge
reviews that information presented typically by an agent upon a sworn affidavit that this is the result of the investigation that I as that agent have conducted and pursued.
If at the end of that, the judge makes the independent non-department of justice determination, the independent judicial determination that indeed there is probable cause in the four corners of this presentation made typically in writing,
can also be oral, but almost always committed to writing.
If that magistrate judge, if the federal district judge determines that there is probable cause, that magistrate judge then can issue a criminal complaint.
It is typically, of course, endorsed and presented and even advocated for by assistant U.S.
attorneys, by the lawyers of the Department of Justice and done once again
not in violation of the Constitution, but rather pursuant to the federal rules that permit this more expedited charging in a situation where charges need to issue.
Often it is the case that federal agents, state agents, may necessarily in exigent circumstances arrest a defendant who is engaging in criminal conduct typically, and this is important, of a violent nature.
the need then to react promptly to a bank robbery that has just happened to some human trafficking gang activity guns activities drugs activity transactional things like that that need very prompt attention a criminal complaint again presented in draft form to a federal magistrate or a judge reviewed by that judge an agent coming in and swearing
on the penalty of perjury that this is the result of the investigation to date, that is the process by which a criminal complaint can issued.
And that is indeed what happened here.
Again, anticipating that some point down the road, and yes indeed, the government, whether it is the Department of Justice in Washington, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in eastern Wisconsin, located in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee, still has an obligation.
This criminal complaint process does not remove
the obligation under the Constitution to pursue a criminal indictment, if at all, before a grand jury.
It just provides this interim mechanism for accomplishing that.
And the obligation, the timing obligation, this again important, is within 30 days, 30 days of that complaint, presumably of the appearance of the defendant in court in response to the issuing of an arrest warrant, the issuance of that complaint, the government, your government, the Department of Justice has 30 days to appear before the grand jury and either secure or not secure a formal indictment.
During that period of time, also fairly routine,
can be enlarged somewhat upon the agreement of the parties and the order of the court.
But during that 30 day period of the time, the defendant also has a right to what's called a probable cause hearing.
And at that proceeding, the government has the obligation to come forward in open court and support what it has written about, what the agent has written about in writing.
And that also before the magistrate judge who basically does a secondary look.
in greater detail with at the predicates for that factual finding that probable cause exists.
All of that, all of that a part of the regular criminal procedure and that is what's going on here.
And so finally we get back again to this criminal complaint.
Not a grand jury indictment, not yet issued again by a federal magistrate judge on the 24th of April.
And it's pursuant to, again, and based upon an affidavit.
And that affidavit, it is 12 pages long.
It is accessible.
It is in the public domain.
I'm going to provide to you some information about exactly what it says and doesn't say.
It is provided by a federal agent of the FBI who comes in and swears to its truth based upon the investigation to that point.
When we come back here in Amicus, I'll tell you more about exactly what that criminal complaint says, the underlying affidavit.
and then talk about the process.
This is Abacus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are necessarily spending some significant time on this, our weekend broadcast, talking about this major rule of law, justice, government story that has broken here in our state, in our nation, and indeed worldwide, having to do with the arrest on Friday of Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge.
Her name is Hannah Dugan.
talking in great detail now about the process by which this happened, the mechanisms, this is the law school portion of our broadcast, and it's also the civics portion, again, because understanding how this happened, what the process is, and then that also invests in you, the capacity to make decisions about your assessment of these things.
And yes, indeed, even though these are highly steep in the processes, the statutes, the regulations, the rules that I've already described, nonetheless, because of the nature
in which we live, you have the right, and you have the prerogative, if you so choose, to express your own opinions upon the ways in which processes are invoked.
And indeed, I will offer some perspectives on that, and in particular about the decision to arrest, arrest in just a few moments.
This affidavit, this affidavit presented again by a federal agent, her name is, she's a special agent, named specifically in this 12 page,
affidavit she swears to the magistrate judge this is true it is a compendium of all the work that plainly has been done over the period of the previous week assembling for the judge again noting that it's not complete it may not have everything that the government knows but enough to establish once again probable cause and again important to underscore the notion that this is not a presentation this is not a trial and indeed that the standard is probable cause it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that's what the magistrate
judge looks to determine whether or not the special agent has established by virtue of her affidavit
probable cause to believe that in this case, Hannah Dugan has committed violations of the federal law.
And indeed, the magistrate looking at this 12-page affidavit presented to him under oath, made that determination, issued the criminal complaint, issued the arrest warrant that accomplished the arrest of the Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge, Hannah Dugan, on Friday of this past week.
Let me give you some sense and some great detail about what this particular affidavit says begins next.
necessarily telling all of us, telling the judge, the magistrate judge, something about who the special agent is.
Note specifically that she investigates public corruption crimes, civil rights crimes, financial crimes.
Those typically are not violent in nature, but they can be, and they certainly can compromise.
Obviously the rights and prerogatives of many people out there, they're victims as a result of those crimes.
She goes on to say the purpose of this affidavit is to establish probable cause.
those two statutes that we've already identified here, and then goes on to explain exactly, exactly what the basis for this particular decision by the Department of Justice to charge this defendant.
the Wisconsin Circuit of Court Judge, Anna Dugan, and to seek, to seek in particular this criminal complaint against her.
Goes on to describe the background of this, identifies, again, Edward Flores as one of the principal actors in all of this.
His name is Flores Ruiz, and identifies in particular that the Department of Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement identified Mr. Flores Ruiz as an individual
who was not lawfully in the United States, noting again that he was appearing on April 18th in the courtroom of Hannah Dugan.
The investigation, according to the special agent,
indicates that the investigators, the law enforcement authorities, were aware that on April 18th, Mr. Flores Rias was scheduled to attend a hearing in his criminal case, courtroom 615, in front of Judge Hannah Dugan.
And that's how she becomes involved in this.
Goes on to say that as a result of some further information gathered by the law enforcement authorities, they made a determination that they would indeed attempt to make the arrest of Mr. Ruiz.
here in that setting, Mr. Flores Ruiz, because of the checkpoints and the other security issues presented by security in the courthouse.
As such, the agent says
members of this task force responsible for this action, developed a plan to arrest Flores Ruiz in a public area outside of courtroom 615 following his scheduled criminal court appearance before Judge Dugan.
Again, an awful lot of background history that gets us to that point, describes then again the arrival of the arrest teams at the Milwaukee County Courthouse and the notification of intended arrest.
Since at approximately 8 a.m.
on April 18th, the law enforcement officers
having arrived at the courthouse, a presented identification to a security guard, explained the reasons why were they there, they discussed the details of their planned arrest, including which courtroom Flores Ruiz was going to be appearing, and the sergeant who responded them asked that any arrest wait until after the completion
of the scheduled appearance before Judge Dugan and the officers agreed.
They were allowed to proceed unescorted to the public hallway outside of courtroom 615.
Again, more detail about their movement into the courthouse on that morning.
The courtroom deputy again explained that approximately 815, again explaining again to the agent who is plainly investigating this.
The agent has unmistakably talked to a lot of people who describe then what happened here.
Describe it about 815.
15 FBI agents advised that they were working with ICE and planning to arrest Flores Ruiz.
The courtroom deputy asked that the agents wait outside and arrest Flores Ruiz after the hearing the agents agreed.
to that and they left the courtroom.
Again, an awful lot more information along the way here about the interactions and the conversations that I'm not describing here in particular, but significantly other things that are disclosed that are not necessarily in the public domain, at least not the media public domain.
These are in the public domain of the criminal complaint.
Arrest team members reported that while waiting outside the courtroom for all this to happen, a woman approached and she took some photographs of the arrest team members.
And one of the agents who was inconspicuously seated away was not photographed.
The individual taking photographs of the agents has been identified by some of the witnesses as an attorney employed by the state of Wisconsin, the public defender's office.
Again, nothing wrong with that.
They note that, however, to further reconfirm the story, the events that are told on that day.
Team members observing Flores Ruiz arrive on the sixth floor courthouse at that courtroom at about 8.43.
by his attorney and the two enter courtroom 6 15.
And that is when we have after that the first of two events Judge Dugan learning of the presence of law enforcement confronting members of the arrest team.
And here I am going to read with some greater particularity exactly what the criminal complaint says because it's important once again to understand what is and is not there in the criminal complaint.
Witnesses again identified by the agent have described Judge Dugan's response to learning of the
law enforcement presence.
For example, the complaint says the courtroom deputy indicated that when Flores Riz arrived, Judge Dugan was already on the bench.
As we continue in our second hour, I'll tell you more about what this complaint actually says about the interaction between Judge Dugan and the law enforcement officers.
We'll talk about the specific events that give rise to this criminal complaint and then we'll talk about the mechanisms through which all this was executed on Friday of this past week.
Stay with us for that discussion and that analysis of the rule of law.
Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant new stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel, your host last hour, this hour as well.
importantly spending some time in great detail talking about the charges against Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Anna Dugan, the mechanisms by which she has brought
been brought into the federal system and the content, the content of the particular affidavit that supports the criminal complaint against her under these two federal statutes in the federal criminal code, important to appreciate exactly what it is the allegations are, important in the same breath to understand that these are allegations and that although a magistrate judge has found probable cause to believe that offenses have been committed by the judge under these particular statutes,
The defendant in this case, yes, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Duggan is presumed innocent.
And that attends her throughout the entire proceeding, including proceedings that will happen in the days and weeks just ahead.
The finding of probable cause is not a determination in the end, not a criminal judgment.
It is a finding that the case can proceed based upon the representations, the presentations made to the judge.
And that's where we continue at this point, providing you with some specifics from that complaint about what happened, what happened that led to these charges against Hannah.
as we pick up the story, Judge Dugan on the bench conducting proceedings in another matter.
The courtroom deputy, again, obviously having been spoken to by the FBI as a result.
Observe an attorney who's identified as Attorney A. The same attorney was taking some photographs outside in the hallway there.
Enter and approach Judge Dugan's clerk.
Attorney A stated that there appeared to be ICE agents in the hallway.
Attorney A told the clerk where the agents were seated.
and what they were wearing.
The courtroom deputy then reported that the clerk then got up and talked with Judge Dugan.
And here is where the story not only becomes increasingly important, but also descriptive by virtue of what the agents and the people who were there provided to the agents.
As Judge Duggan became visibly angry, commented that the situation was absurd, left the bench and entered chambers.
At that time, Flores Ruiz, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, who was going to be the subject of the criminal proceeding there, again, he was there to face some domestic violence charges.
He was seated in a gallery of the courtroom.
There was another person.
Attorney B was working as an assistant DA, that's very typical, in the courtroom on April 18th.
And according to Attorney B, there were approximately eight criminal cases altogether, including Flores Ruia's case scheduled for pretrial proceedings that day.
Members of the arrest team, again, all this according to the complaint, reported the following events after Judge Dugan learned of their presence and left the bench.
They say this and the agent says this.
Judge Dugan and another judge who are both wearing judicial robes approach members of the arrest team in the public hallway.
Judge A's courtroom is located adjacent to Judge Dugan's courtroom.
That is this other judge who was there.
Witnesses reported that Judge Dugan was physically upset.
had a confrontational angry demeanor again, according to the complaint.
Judge Dugan addressed the officers who were there and asked if they were present for a court appearance.
And when they responded no, Judge Dugan stated that they would need to leave the courthouse and leave the area.
The law enforcement stated that they were there to effect you in arrest.
And Judge Dugan again asked if the officers had a judicial warrant.
The officers responded no, they have an administrative warrant.
And Judge Dugan said that the
They needed a judicial warrant.
The conversation continues back and forth.
There's plainly disagreement here.
A deportation officer tells Judge Dugan that the obligation is not to have a judicial warrant.
It's a public space, the officer says, as a valid immigration warrant.
And Judge Dugan asked to see that warrant and offers, and the officer offers to show that to her.
Judge Dugan then demands that the officer speak with the Chief Judge.
And that's when this takes another different course of event that day and had a similar action with an FBI agent at the same time.
And after finding out that they were present for a court, not for a court appearance, but rather to arrest the defendant there, the judge, Hannah Dugan, directed they go to the chief judge's office.
Now, his name is Carl Ashley.
He's an outstanding judge.
He's the chief judge of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
and the other judge identified as Judge A escorted then the law enforcement to the Chief Judge's chambers and his office again on the sixth floor.
Again, skipping over some of the affidavit.
The affidavit goes on to say once at the Chief Judge's office, the law enforcement showed Judge A credentials, the administrative warrant and the judge who had accompanied those officers to the Chief Judge's office, asked the clerk to make a copy of the warrant, asked what
the chief judge was available, clerk advised that the chief judge was not in the building, but later advised that he was, in fact, there and on the phone.
At that point, the other judge left and the law enforcement went inside for a more private area of the chief judge's office to speak with him on the phone during that conversation.
And this is significant because we know this has been going on.
The chief judge, again, according to the affidavit, stated that he was working.
He was working on a policy.
There's going to address specifically these kinds of things.
Indeed, we know this from the general media policy, which would provide information and protocols and practices for accomplishing arrests inside the courtroom in a way that would be efficient, but also safe and secure.
He said, it's a policy that would dictate locations within the courthouse where
federal law enforcement, including ICE, could safely conduct enforcement actions.
According to the affidavit, the Chief Judge emphasized that those actions should not take place in a courtroom or other private locations within the building.
And the law enforcement officer asked about whether the enforcement actions could take place in the hallway.
And the Chief Judge indicated that hallways are indeed public areas authorized to do it there.
The Chief Judge expressed interest in
and talking more to management about this policy.
And indeed, that is what Judge Ashley has consistently been about in his role as the Chief Judge, putting together this policy that addresses exactly what was going on when he was presented there with this conversation by the law enforcement officers.
And then, and then finally, we get to the focus of the charges against Judge Dugan.
Multiple witnesses, according to the complaint, describe their observations after Judge
Duke and returned to her courtroom after directing members of this arrest team to spend some time with the chief judge.
For example, according to the affidavit, the courtroom deputy recalled that upon the courtroom deputies returned to the courtroom, defense counsel for Mr. Flores Ruiz, again, he is the defendant who is there to have discussion about the domestic violence charges against him, was talking to the clerk, and Flores Ruiz was seated in the jury box rather than in the gallery.
The courtroom deputy
believe that counsel and the clerk were having an off-the-record conversation to pick the next court date.
Defense counsel and Flores Rias then walked toward each other and toward the public courtroom exit.
The courtroom deputy then saw Judge Dugan get up and she heard Judge Dugan say something like wait
come with me.
And again, according to the affidavit, despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores Ruiz, Judge Dugan then escorted Flores Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the jury door, which leads to a non-public area of the courthouse.
And those events were, again, according to the affidavit, were also unusual for two reasons.
It identifies first, the courtroom deputy had previously heard Judge Dugan direct people not to
in the jury box because it was exclusively for the jury's use.
And second, according to the courtroom deputy, only deputies and juries and court staff and in court in custody defendants being escorted by deputies use the back jury door.
Defense attorneys, defendants who are not in custody never use the jury door.
Again, as a part of the conduct here described in the complaint, the attorney similarly explained after returning
to the courtroom that Judge Dugan forcefully motioned to Flores' attorney, Flores Ruiz's attorney, and made a, and a mail that she did not know, apparently attorney B had never met Flores before to approach the bench.
And Flores' attorney, again, according to the complaint, appeared to be confused by the judge's gesture, but complied nonetheless.
Judge Dugan commanded Flores Ruiz's attorney, and the mail, again,
with the attorney, of course, to leave through a back door of the courtroom.
Attorney B then saw Judge Dugan escort Flores Rui's attorney and the male through the non-public door near the courtroom's jury box.
Obviously, that male, not previously known by the other attorney, B, is Flores Rui's.
Judge Dugan came back to the courtroom, conducted hearings that morning on her docket, and later that morning,
Attorney B realized that Flores Ria's case had never been called and asked the court about it.
Attorney B learned that Flores Ria's case had been adjourned and that happened without the attorney's knowledge or participation.
All of this according to the affidavit in great detail.
Now, in the remaining pages and paragraphs of the affidavit, it is lengthy.
It is 12 pages long.
The agents go on and the FBI agent in particular describes that Ruiz eventually makes his way out of the courthouse.
arrested after a foot chase outside the courthouse itself He is brought into custody and all of that again described in this 12-page affidavit concluding with based upon all of this information I meaning the special agent I provided probable cause I have probable cause to believe that Judge Dugan violated these two statutes section 1505 and a section 1071 of title 18 that we discussed in the first portion of the
broadcast today.
That's the criminal complaint.
That's the substance of what the government alleges.
Again, these are allegations.
It is the basis upon which to be clear once again, the federal magistrate judge has found probable cause the first step in this process to initiate a criminal action of this nature and also plainly authorized an arrest warrant based upon that same affidavit and giving authorization
to the agents to go last Friday morning to the courthouse to affect the arrest of the circuit court judge as she was arriving there.
Now once again, as we said during the course of our first hour here on the broadcast, there is more process to come.
What happens of course is that in the wake of this, the government now does have an obligation.
to participate in a probable cause hearing.
The magistrate judge has scheduled that, other proceedings from May 15th, just a few weeks from now.
The government also has an obligation of the Constitution, as we said, if it chooses to do so to seek a formal indictment before a grand jury.
Again, a criminal complaint of this sort, basically in existence for 30 days.
It is intended, not as a stopgap, but to address
instances of criminal conduct that need immediate attention because there's something about them that requires that the defendant or defendants be brought into the custody of the court.
When we come back, we'll talk about what happened from the magistrate judge, we'll talk more about that arrest in particular, and my own observations and criticisms and objections to the way in which the Department of Justice executed on these documents.
All of that when Emakas Halaraview continues.
This is Amica Salarov you necessarily spending a great deal of time in our weekend broadcast talking about this major rule of law justice issue this development this event having to do with the arrest getting national indeed worldwide attention the arrest of Hannah Dugan a Wisconsin circuit court judge last Friday upon this criminal complaint these initial charges by the Justice Department by the U.S.
Attorney's Office by prosecutors federal criminal prosecutors who believe
based upon the affidavit and the information provided that Hannah Duggan has violated the federal criminal law, and this is how the process begins.
Well, how does that process continue?
Well, we know that after the magistrate judge, again, found probable cause, issued this
a criminal complaint, also issuing an arrest warrant.
And that is the authorization by which the federal agents actually arrested the judge in the parking lot on Friday morning, brought her back in custody significantly, very troublingly.
The director of the FBI, his name is Kash Patel, posted a picture of the judge in shackles on social media.
He also posted other things which we'll talk about, also equally troubling.
As a result of the issuance of that arrest warrant, the agents have judicial authorization to bring her back to the federal courthouse.
That happens.
And indeed, promptly, she appears before a federal magistrate judge.
He is the same one who issued the arrest warrant and the underlying complaint.
At that time, of course, the judge appears.
She is represented by counsel.
The government is represented by two assistant United States attorneys from the U.S.
Attorney's Office and among other
things, the charges are read, the affidavit again, part of the public record, which I've just described, not in complete detail.
There is more to that, which you can also read.
It's a part of the public domain, that's a part of our process in the federal system in America.
As a part of the system and the hearing in particular, the allegations, the charges on this criminal complaint are read.
the plea is entered and significantly one of the other most important things that happens in a in a situation like this is the judge the magistrate judge addresses what we do next.
The defendant, in this case, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, is in custody.
Does the judge release her?
Does he continue her detention, her custodial status?
What does he do?
Well, again, here is where the civics, here's where the law school portion of this comes in.
There are rules and there are statutes that specifically describe how this is to play about.
And the fundamental notion behind section 3142, that is the statute that talks all about release or detention,
tension of a defendant.
trial, it is a lengthy statute, all sorts of subsections, but the fundamental notion behind it is that the judge, the magistrate judge, has a number of different alternatives.
The judge can either release that person on personal or cognizance bond upon a particular variation of that, the execution of an unsecured bond, can secondarily release that defendant on a combination of conditions, circumstances under which that release will be
can temporarily detain that person to remit revocation of some other conditional release, other things out there or forth can detain that person going forward.
Many alternatives presented to the magistrate judge.
Here's the one that's most important.
And the thing that animates not only me when I was an assistant U.S.
attorney, also those assistant U.S.
attorneys who plainly were handling this case on Friday.
The question is this, does this
particular defendant pose a risk of flight, a risk of flight, and or a danger to the community.
That's the question that's asked in all of these post charging, post complaint, even post grand jury indictment proceedings.
It is set forth in
Subsection C of section 3142 commands the magistrate judge to make an assessment of the extent to which this person, this defendant now charged, is either a risk of flight, you're going to leave if I don't detain you, you will not return for future proceedings, and second, determining whether or not that person poses some affirmative danger, some threat.
to the safety and security of the community.
Those are the two analyses that are set forth in the statute issued by the Congress, returned by the Congress legislatively, and that is the standard by which federal judges, magistrate judges, and indeed state court judges and others operate.
danger to the community?
What threat will this person pose if indeed they are released?
And will they return?
Are they a risk of flight?
Will they get on a plane?
Will they leave the community?
Will they leave the state, the country?
Will we never be able to get them again?
And that is the analysis that, again, prompted this particular magistrate judge plainly, plainly appropriately, reasonably, to release Hannah Dugan promptly.
Why?
Why?
on this record.
And again, as I said at the outset, knowing well who she is, knowing things that frankly, the broad legal community in Milwaukee knows about her.
We know these things.
This is her community.
This is where she has lived.
This is plenty where she works.
She is of this community.
And as I said, when I provided you with my own sense of my professional relationship with her, and yes, even a small friendship with her, a small F friendship with her.
Plainly, she is out there in this community committed to the issues and events of this community.
This is where she lives.
This is where she works.
The chances that she would flee are virtually non-existent, existent at all.
She is not a risk of flight.
Absolutely not.
And secondarily, a risk of danger, safety and security of the community being compromised by releasing her?
No.
And there you make references to other cases.
Are there situations where, for example, someone who's just been arrested on a criminal complaint, returned on a grand jury indictment, who's engaged in gun dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering, other things that may compromise the safety and security of the community, sex trafficking, labor
trafficking, all kinds of things out there that indeed pose threats, threats to the continuing safety and security of the community necessary to detain them because if they are released, they are in fact a threat to the community.
Not Hannah Dugan.
plainly not a threat to the community, plainly not a risk of flight.
And we notice, while other circumstances in our recent events and memories of history of judicial proceedings in our nation, when Donald Trump in recent years was indicted four different times, he had appearances in front of the various federal and state court judges who were presiding over those cases in every one of those, although one could make an argument as, indeed, the government did.
federal government did, that there were concerns about the extent to which Donald Trump at that time, of course, private citizen, would return questions raised about whether or not he should surrender his passport.
But the reality was that in the end, Donald Trump was released.
Why?
Because he was not perceived as a danger to the community and a risk of flight.
Likewise, likewise, when others, including, for example, Eric Adams, the mayor of the city of New York, likewise charged by a federal grand jury with corruption.
That case ultimately dismissed, as we know, without a huge amount of controversy and ended up with the resignation of a U.S.
attorney in Southern District of New York when he was indicted.
Likewise, he appears in front of the federal magistrate judge and applying Section 3142 in these basic standards, no risk of flight and no danger to the community going forward.
That is not only significant with respect to this decision of the magistrate judge as Hannah Dugan is appearing in front of him last Friday, but also, also, and this is where the objection and the concern comes.
The decision to arrest her in the first place.
When Amicus Alarve comes back, I'll tell you more about that.
And then we'll also be taking any comments, questions that you've got again here on Amicus Alarve.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel, and here with Max, my producer in the studios of Civic Media, taking your phone calls as well at 855-752-4842.
We'll get to at least one, if not more of those in the coming segments.
Talking necessarily this weekend about the decision by the Department of Justice not only to prosecute, to bring charges initially again subject to a return of a grand jury indictment if that happens by a grand jury in eastern Wisconsin, that decision obviously the focus of an awful lot of attention, decision to choose and to prosecute at all, but also the mechanisms by which this was accomplished.
Again, focusing upon the prerogatives,
that federal prosecutors have about accomplishing the bringing into the system of defendants.
That can be done in a number of different ways.
And in white collar cases, in situations where there is no credible belief that the defendant, whether indicted on a criminal complaint or indicted by a grand jury or charged under a criminal complaint, poses a risk of flight, no danger to the community, it is routine.
It is regular for assistant U.S.
attorneys, for U.S.
attorney's offices around the country to reach out to that defendant often through her or his attorney and say, the grand jury has indicted your client or is about to indict your client.
And we would like to talk about the circumstances under which there is a voluntary appearance, a voluntary surrender even to the U.S.
Marshal without the need for an arrest warrant.
Why?
Why?
Because your particular client, whoever they may be, whatever they have done, the criminal nature of that, typically nonviolent, not in the nature of guns or drugs or gangs or human trafficking, those kinds of things, of a nature that does not pose an immediate threat of violence to the community, doesn't compromise the safety and security of the community, and there's no risk of flight, fairly routine.
Very routine as a matter of fact for assistant US attorneys to reach out to the defense counsel to the defendants themselves and say let's talk about making this work Let's talk about bringing the defendant in in a obviously it's still adversarial but in a circumstances
where arrest is not important, not in a custodial situation.
If you agree, for example, to show up next Tuesday morning, next Thursday morning, we will schedule that on before the magistrate judge, no need for an arrest, no need for custodial situations in advance of that, and presumably we will also agree that you can leave afterwards.
pursuant to the invocation of, again, Section 3142 contemplating that a particular defendant does not pose a risk of flight, does not pose a continuing, if ever, threat to the safety and security of the community.
Many situations where, indeed, that does not happen.
We think again about recent history in American jurisprudence.
Luigi Mangione, who just on Friday pled not guilty in the federal court in the Southern District of New York to the offense conduct charged by a grand jury against him.
appropriate there to issue a restaurant.
Absolutely.
Why?
He's a risk of flight.
He fled the scene of that horrific alleged murder.
But the event happened, we know, on the streets of New York, plainly identifying him as the very, very likely responsible party that offended in that case, and also posing a threat to the community.
Why?
He's got a gun.
He did this incredibly violent thing under those circumstances where you've got a risk of flight.
You've got a risk to the safety and security of the community.
Do you issue an arrest warrant and you execute it by bringing that person in in shackles and in a custodial situation, detaining them?
The answer is absolutely yes.
You do that because of the nature of the violent crime and because of the threat of
continued violence, the threat also that if that person is not brought in an arrest warrant, they will continue to flee.
The Mangione situation is just the opposite and it underscores my great concern, my great objection to the way in which this particular matter involving this judge was pursued.
If indeed, and it has been made by the folks internal to the U.S.
Attorney's Office and presumably by the Department of Justice as well, the strong sense is that Pam Bondi
and the director of the FBI, Cash Patel, having a major role to play in this, Pam Bondi, also troublingly indicating that this prosecution is a part of the president's plan, his policies, his practices with respect to immigration.
Those kinds of things should not be mixed up.
She is saying that.
plainly the director of the FBI, posting almost immediately information that may or may not have misdescribed exactly what's going on here, but indicating that this is more than just a local prosecution, a decision presumably having been made to prosecute.
Judge Dugan at the highest levels of government as a part of the president's immigration policies to crack down on immigrants and to address immigration issues according to the way that he sees them being addressed.
We know he's talked about this in other settings and even inside that decision, even if the decision is made in the end.
with probable cause to believe that there has been a crime committed here.
Once you make that decision, then the question necessarily has to come, how do we accomplish this?
And the decision was apparently made that Hannah Dugan somehow immediately poses a risk of flight, a threat to the community.
There's nothing, there's nothing in this record, nothing even about the affidavit itself that describes her alleged criminal conduct would suggest that, and yet the decision was made to arrest her.
and bring her in to the federal custody, doing the one thing that is, as I've often repeated in other settings, the single most significant thing that a government can do, which is deprive you of your liberty, detain you, even if it's only for an hour or two, even for minutes.
In custody is the most significant thing a government can do to you, of course, inside that imposition of the death penalty, the larger issue that a government can impose.
That's not here.
That's not implicated by this at all.
But it also indicates and also reflects upon the important discussion that needed to be had prior to the decision to issue and seek an arrest warrant for her to bring her in under those circumstances.
The apparent decision
confirmed by the director of the FBI when he posts a picture of the judge in shackles being brought into the federal courthouse.
And one has to wonder aloud about deterrence, right?
Deterrence, as we've talked an awful lot on this broadcast, is the kind of thing that you do by virtue of the prosecution itself.
The decision is made to indict Hannah Dugan.
By a grand jury that is the decision of a grand jury that is a decision plainly
embraced and promoted by the present Department of Justice, the present Interim United States Attorney.
And there can indeed be strong disputes about that.
Indeed, yesterday afternoon on the steps of the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee, I happened to be coming from a class at the time.
Great numbers of people there congregating to oppose the very decision that had reached internal to the Department of Justice to seek this prosecution in the first place.
I would like to add to that.
the concern about the mechanism by which Judge Dugan was brought into the system, this arrest in particular.
We know as well that there's an awful lot of public response to this.
We know that Mayor Cavalier Johnson said it sends a chilling effect to other people who participate in our judicial process.
When folks do not participate in the judicial process, that makes our community less safe.
David Crowley, the Milwaukee County Executive, said in a statement that Judge Dugan is entitled to her constitutional right to do process, and then goes on to say this.
He says, however, it is clear that the FBI is politicizing this situation to make an example of her and others across the country, an example that you can now see visually by virtue of what the director of the FBI did, who opposed their attack on the judicial system and our nation's immigration laws.
And again, that protest outside the federal courthouse
Friday afternoon, people gathering there carrying science reading.
hands off our judges.
We know as well that even the governor, even the governor of the state of Wisconsin, Tony Evers said, unfortunately, we have seen in recent months, the president and the Trump administration repeatedly use dangerous rhetoric to attack and attempt to undermine a judiciary at every level, including flat out disobeying the highest court in the land and threatening to impeach and remove judges who do not rule in their favor.
Pam Bondi.
and the director of the FBI in just the opposite direction, defending the arrest, telling the news outlets that escorting a criminal defendant out of back door will not be tolerated.
It doesn't matter who you are, she says, you're going to be prosecuted.
And indeed, no one is saying, no one is saying that judges, presidents, members of Congress, prosecutors should be above the law.
No one should be above the law.
And if indeed, if indeed, there is a basis for...
This return of this criminal complaint may be a grand jury indictment as well.
That is what the process will contemplate.
The concern, of course, is what is the underlying purpose of this?
What is the use for which it's being put?
And indeed, that is underscored again by the mechanism, the very mechanism for bringing Judge Dugan into the system once that very controversial decision is made.
Arrest did not have to happen here.
All that had to happen was to reach out from the U.S.
attorneys office
to her attorney, to her directly, and say, we have in our hands a criminal complaint.
What can we do?
How can we accomplish a reasonably peaceful and uneventful initial appearance?
And there is no doubt that Judge Dugan herself, through the attorneys that she has now hired to represent her, would have accomplished that absentee need to put her in shackles and bring her back, back to the federal courthouse in the way
that they did to face these charges.
That again, important to understand today as we go through all of this and I know it's a lot.
It's important to understand beyond that that these are charges.
they represent a finding by an initial finding by a magistrate judge that there is probable cause.
But that's what you get when you even present a case to a grand jury.
An indictment is not a final judgment.
It is allegations that there is probable cause to believe that conduct of a criminal nature has happened.
And that's where we are right now.
Judge Dugan has said in very measured statements that she will fight these charges that she believes strongly, as is her
as the right of every single criminal defendant in America to maintain as she does her innocence.
That's a part of our process as well.
And that's the reason why this matter is significant in a rule of law analysis as we think about what our government does and does not do.
And ultimately, ultimately,
the real purposes behind this.
We've talked at great length about the concern that I have had about the erasing of the connection between the Department of Justice, Maine Justice, U.S.
Attorney's offices, and the White House.
That has been completely erased.
We know even in the past weeks, the President has referred for investigation to people, previously a part of his administration, Justice last past week, Act Blue, an entity that provides
mechanisms for financial support of Democratic candidates and causes.
Referring routinely now, individuals and entities for investigation and presumably criminal prosecution as well.
Here, here, we have the Attorney General of the United States of America who should be apart from that, arms length as has virtually every other Attorney General now embracing this particular arrest.
as a codification of the president's policies with respect to immigration.
And the picture of the judge presented by the FBI director, the other things that he has said online, variously online, removed and then replaced there, all of those suggesting that this is not truly about.
the pursuit of justice.
This is not an investigation of genuine criminal activity that is prompted by the interest of the rule of law to ensure that we are all in compliant with it, but rather a product of a political avenue, a political purpose, which is to support the president in his political views.
That, that.
if indeed that is the purpose and the process behind this particular arrest and this prosecution.
Should be the focus of condemnation not just by me an objection not just by me But by everyone who is concerned about the future of America and the future of justice in our land again important to understand all of this Important to appreciate what the criminal complaint says what it doesn't say and know as well that there will be more May 15th is the next hearing date the judge has an opportunity plainly to be present for that She will be as will his or her attorneys and at that time
There'll be a hearing about whether or not probable cause can be found.
And at some point, if this matter goes ahead, a grand jury, the 23 people convening in private in the federal courthouse, they also have to pass on whether or not this case should be charged to the point of a grand jury indictment.
All of that's still coming up.
And in the meantime, again, the appropriate in the public domain discussion
about the role of the Department of Justice, the role of U.S.
attorneys, the role, yes, that they have necessarily to enforce the law, to invoke the statutes that are passed by the Congress to ensure that we are safe and secure, and also in the midst of all of that.
This is Amicus.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Jim Santel, and we have spent the entire broadcast appropriately talking all about this very local, very important issue that raises issues about how our Justice Department works, decision-making process internal to U.S.
Attorney's offices, and at, presumably, the highest levels of our Department of Justice, the significant takeaway, the importance that decisions about process, whether to arrest or not, to summon in,
a nonviolent, non-fleeing defendant into court in a non-arrest type situation, those issues, decisions about whether to charge at all, all of those properly vested in a Department of Justice and in U.S.
attorneys who should apply the law to the facts and the facts of law, and not in any way, in any way, shape, or form be impacted by the whims of political issues.
and political debate, partisan views and disagreements out there, including things advocated by the president with respect to larger policy issues.
Deterrence, absolutely, deterrence comes, as I've said before, through the very prosecution itself, and it will come if this particular prosecution advances, not by virtue of a photograph of the...
defendant, the judge in custody, but by virtue of what the government says in its pleadings in court to establish if it does that indeed there's been a violation here and sending the message not only to this defendant but to future defendants about deterrence.
That can still happen here and that is a legitimate purpose of the Department of Justice.
It is not to be an arm, to be an avenue for the president or even the attorney general.
to advocate for partisan policies that are the subject of what?
Legislative debate and executive debate.
And yes, indeed, sometimes review by appellate courts.
We appreciate so much as always.
Those of you who have been a part of our conversation, including those of you calling in, let's get to some of those callers.
Let's begin with you, Cornell.
You've been on the line for a while.
Thank you for your engagement in our broadcast.
Thank you, Jim.
Great show.
I just want to say I think was a terrible statement.
Bondi said that The judge was deranged which means Mentally ill and I think that's a horrible statement due to a outstanding judge and I hope she files a lawsuit a defame defamation
that it's really terrible and Bondi should really resign because she's violated the due process over 200 times and I'll listen to your comment.
All right, Cornel, look at this concern about the name calling, right?
Again, should be nowhere in our system.
I think you're making reference to the Attorney General and certainly the President of the United States of America have attacked other federal judges out there for their conduct in, again, providing judicial service to America.
and the name calling of people like Judge Zinnis in Maryland, Judge Bozburg in the District of Columbia who are presiding over these immigration cases.
Again, the intrusion of partisan politics and policy about which we can all disagree into the judicial process, that's the problem.
Cornelia, your point could not be more importantly made, and thank you for making it again on our broadcast today.
Joe from Madison, calling in.
and Joe, appreciate your participation as well.
Thanks, Jim.
Terrific show.
A couple of two points and then one question for you.
First off, and from now on, I'm going to lead every discussion about immigration.
We could have had a conservative bipartisan agreement on immigration,
but Trump
didn't want it because he wanted to run on immigration.
Absolutely.
All of this hoo-ha, all of the money that's being spent on this stuff that we're all so concerned about money is a result of that guy's decision.
There was an absolute agreement.
absolute agreement among the Republicans and Democrats during the campaign to get this done, and it was a done deal.
Again, the vote hadn't taken place, but as you just note so accurately, it was ready to go, and the President said, no, this is not helpful in my campaign, and the Republicans backed out.
Stunning,
stunning.
even though it was a conservative approach toward the issue of immigration, and those are hard to get, and he got it, and they threw it away.
Secondly, I'm wondering, Attorney Matt Flynn had said in a previous conversation, another show, that in terms of how the Judge Dougan acted, once it's in her courtroom, she's the one who decides what...
who and while, how things can go in her courtroom.
So if she wants to let somebody in a side door, if she wants to drop a rope out of a window to get them out, that it's her courtroom.
It's not the court, the court house is not her place, but the courtroom is very much her place.
And she can make the decisions about that.
I'd like your response to that.
And the second thing I'd like to ask you about is that Governor Evers apparently sent out a memo to state employees just about five days ago, four or five days ago.
I didn't get the exact number.
has written about this, so you can look it up if you want to, folks.
But it basically offered information to state employees just deciding, stating what they had to do if ICE agents came into the workplace in terms of what they, they didn't have to deliver computer files or data or anything.
And it also talked about judicial areas and said, unless there is a judicial warrant, and it said specifically in Evers Memo, it's a judicial warrant, you do not have to pay
Don't give it any mind.
What you need is a judicial warrant.
And the question I would ask for you is, number, as I understand it under the 10th amendment, that question about what happens in state places, whether it be, you know, city, county, or, you know, state courtrooms, that is an issue for state management,
not for
federal management.
And
I'd love your response to that.
Absolutely.
Joe, appreciate as always the comments.
You've got them all right.
Absolutely.
And so some commentary in our last few moments here, Judge Ashley is working on just that very issue, right?
That's the policy in which
She basically embraces that notion.
My judges have the right to manage their own courtrooms.
Hallways, different situation.
The governor's efforts also to ensure that there is a sense of regularity in all this.
Do law enforcement have the capacity to make arrests?
Absolutely they do.
The question is under what circumstances can we ensure that those things are done with safety and security in agencies of the state government, federal government, and all of that animated appropriately by a sense of the rule of law.
That's what it's all about, to appreciate so much the call.
appreciate this opportunity to come to you today.
Next week, again, more about the rule of law, the administration of justice in Wisconsin and throughout our nation.
Come back for that discussion.
Thanks again.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
I am your host on this broadcast.
Throughout the broadcast stations of civic media in Wisconsin and throughout the nation, delighted and honored as always that you have selected, you made the choice to spend some time with my producer Max and me as we discussed those major issues, those events, those developments in the areas of the rule of law, the delivery of justice and government.
locally, statewide, and nationally.
This broadcast, this weekend, no exception to that.
Once again, adopting and promoting our mission here on Amicus, a lot of you, of being quite literally a friend to the community, regardless of political perspective, regardless of partisan views about the world, providing information and insight and perspective that is helpful to an understanding of the world in which we live.
the livelihoods that are animated by these events in the areas of the rule of law so that you can make your own decisions about your government.
about the ways in which you participate in our lives and our livelihoods throughout the state and throughout the nation as well.
This broadcast this weekend, no exception to that, we are going to be spending a good deal of time as we often do, providing some information, almost some law school like instruction, once again based upon a major development.
Right here in the state of Wisconsin, you know what that is.
That is the arrest on Friday of this past week of a sitting Wisconsin circuit court judge, her name, Hannah Dugan.
We're going to talk.
about both substance there, what she has been charged with.
We're also going to spend some time talking about process and procedure, and that's where the law school portion of this comes in, the civics aspect of our broadcast.
Going to be describing for you some of the federal criminal rules that apply, some of the statutes under which the judge has been charged.
Yes, indeed, two felony counts in the federal system.
We'll talk about how that played out, the process by which he was brought into federal court.
Then released and we'll talk then a bit about what happens next all of that all of that in anticipation of Some commentary from me not only about the method by which this matter proceeded But the specifics in terms of the decision to arrest
focusing specifically upon the standards by which federal prosecutors, state prosecutors, both under the statutes and under the general rules of principles of criminal prosecution, proceed when it comes to making decisions about whether to arrest a defendant or summon that person in.
for the initiation of proceedings.
We'll talk all about that.
Necessarily going to begin our broadcast today, however, with the other breaking story as we gather together this weekend, and that is the funeral of Pope Francis.
And you might be saying to yourself, gosh, why is that a rule of law issue?
Why is that a government issue?
What does that have to do with the administration and the delivery of justice?
And the answer is a whole lot.
All of you know, all of you know that this Pope was certainly the head of the Roman Catholic Church, not just there in Rome, of course, but throughout the...
face of the planet, but he was also the head of state, not just in Vatican City, but also a leader on the world stage.
We'll talk about some of the issues that he promoted, that he articulated during his 12 year term as Pope, and that do in fact have an impact to this day and beyond for many years, maybe even generations on the administration of justice.
Across the planet we'll talk about that and focus in particular upon the other major issue that we'll get to probably in the second hour of our broadcast and that is this Pope's commitment to immigrants and migrants himself being the product of a family that came to South America
We'll talk about the things that he said is advocacy, his outreach to communities around the world.
And so that is necessarily where we begin with our broadcast.
We're also in our second hour going to get to some of our more routine but equally important issues having to do with other things going on in federal courts.
We know, for example, that there was a major sentencing in Highland Park just this past week, 2020 to the mass shooting that happened there.
We'll talk about the
dramatic yet highly appropriate sentence imposed upon the shooter just this past week.
We'll talk about the
the sentencing of George Santos, the former representative, and the impact that that will have upon our nation as it always does when it comes to the sentencing of public officials.
We saw that not too long ago in connection with the sentencing of a senator from New Jersey.
We'll talk as well about the recent conviction of Nadine Menendez, his spouse.
anticipating her sentencing and we'll also talk again mentioning in the category of rule of law snapshots a recent decision by a jury in connection with a defamation lawsuit brought by Sarah Palin former governor of
of Alaska and also a former candidate for the vice presidency of the United States of America.
Necessarily, again, time permitting, there is a lot and it is a lot.
We'll necessarily return to our recurring project, which is to identify for you under the heading injunction function, the continuing work, the continuing bastions provided by our federal district court judges in responding to the many, the flurry of executive orders entered by our president.
This week talking about two of the many injunctive orders issued by federal judges, what I'm having to do with public school funding, other than having to do with that very infamous, famous executive order issued by the president a while back, seemingly attempting to regulate federal elections, and in particular requiring proof of citizenship, according to Donald Trump.
We'll talk about what judges have done in that area.
And then,
necessarily returning to another matter that's often in the news necessarily focusing upon, yes indeed, migrants as the Pope has throughout his career talked about them.
That issue remains current to this day.
We'll talk about those 238
Venezuelan immigrants now in prison in El Salvador talk about one of them who continues to be the focus of a judge named Paula Zinnis in Maryland.
You know his name.
Well, we'll also talk about yet another, another deportee identified just as Christian who again may have been.
deported by this government, by our Department of Justice, by our Homeland Security without proper legal foundation.
All of that, all of that coming up, and more.
And the more, of course, is as always.
your contributions to our discussion.
We especially invite Max and I, your questions and your inquiries, especially as we get into some of the specifics about process and due process in our nation.
What does this mean?
How does this all play out?
We invite, we encourage, we solicit, we welcome your comments, your questions, your observations about how this works, how the rule of law works in our nation, in our state, and even locally.
And that phone number, of course, is 855.
752-4842.
One more time, that's 855-752-4842.
Max also reminds me that you can drop a question or an inquiry into our chat box as well.
Go to Civic Media, find our broadcast, and let us know once again about your specific inquiry.
Your thing that is prompting you to wonder out loud how this works, we'll talk about it.
Also, of course, inviting your observations, as we always do.
We appreciate and value so much, the contributions made every single broadcast by our listeners, and even if you choose not.
not to be a part of our direct conversation on air.
Appreciate and value.
The listening that you do, because it does indeed animate me, it animates Max, it animates civic media when it comes to providing information about the world in which we live.
Again, ensuring that you have the necessary information, hopefully in an apolitical, nonpartisan way, so that you can make decisions of your own, make judgments, discretionary value assessments,
about what's going on in the world, and that's what we're all about.
And so let us begin.
Let us begin with this edition of Amicus, a law review.
A friend to you, friend to the people of our nation and our state.
We begin, of course, by recognizing and acknowledging perhaps some of you got up early here in the state of Wisconsin and beyond throughout the United States and observed by television, by the broadcasts of virtually every news station and beyond the very solemn
but the majestic funeral that happened earlier today and the steps of St.
Peter's Basilica there in Rome.
The Roman Catholic Church, again, laying to rest Pope Francis.
He is, of course, as you know, is a pope of many firsts.
He is the pope who, again, is the first from the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits.
He's the first Latin American, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere.
He comes from Buenos Aires, and he's the first pope raised outside of Europe.
since eighth century Syrian Pope Gregory III, a lot of first there.
And again, just this morning, earlier today in Rome, in Rome, they're about seven hours ahead of us, laid him to rest.
And so it is important because not only of the significance of this as a news story, but also as I indicated, because he is a man of state, he is a leader in the national and international discussion of
issues.
It is significant that we talk about the legacy of Pope Francis, even as we think about what is to come with respect to the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.
The ceremony, of course, concluding, including, of course, Gregorian chants, Latin verses, reverberating throughout the Piazza, about 250,000 people marching by in recent days, waiting long lines to say farewell to the Pope.
Body dressed in red vestments and scuffed black shoes as he lay in state before the Basilicas altar for many days before Hundreds of thousands again this morning filled and spilled out into St.
Peter's Square Streamlining along the Long Avenue those of you who have been there along the Tiber River there the funeral of course including heads of state including our own president Donald Trump is there Volodymyr Zelensky is there as well from from Ukraine
they had a discussion again underscoring that politics and government and the operations of state are also also a part of this bringing together of chiefs of state those leaders again gathering there the body of st.
Francis who of Pope Francis rather who died again at the age of 88 on Monday
And again, the important aspect of what is going to be happening next and is underway right now is that the papal coffin loaded into a customized white vehicle is driving through Rome, goes through Rome and pass crowds of once again thousands of people, their hands according to the reporting and according to the viewing of this, of course, shouting great as that.
that a cavalcade moves forward, the white vehicle.
Francis being buried in a private ceremony in a term with one word inscription, Franciscus, he is buried, buried at...
the papal Basilica of Saint Mary major in Rome he indicated long before his death that he would go there before and after any of his trips to pray and so appropriate that he would be laid to rest there in tomb there on this day when we recognize Pope Francis when we come back we'll talk more about the things that he said and his legacy when it comes to immigration and immigrants and migrants in particular here on Amicus a law review.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Sallaraview coming to you from Radio Park in Racine Broadcast Station of Civic Media.
Delighted, honored to have you with me this weekend as every weekend as Max and I talk with you and engage with you on the important issues of law and justice and government.
Spending some time appropriately in our broadcast initially this weekend talking about the funeral for Pope Francis.
Concluded now in Rome, many of you watched it in the early morning hours here in America, here in the state of Wisconsin as well.
Pope Francis, December 17th, 1936, born and died on April 21, 2025.
Now laid to rest at the Papal Basilica of St.
Mary, Major in Rome, along with many other.
other popes of our history.
Pope Francis, of course, eulogized as well by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Ray during the course of the ceremony, the service today, identified as a pope among the people.
the Cardinals said with an open heart towards everyone.
He said the guiding thread of his mission was also the conviction that the church is a home for all, a home with its doors always open.
And indeed to that eulogy and that statement about who this Pope was, Pope Francis we know was a strong advocate for among many, many other things, migrants and refugees.
Often speaking about policies related to mass deportations, advocating, advocating and
and for asylum seekers and for more asylum laws to ensure the integrity of the human spirit, the human condition.
He is, again, is the son of Italian immigrants in Argentina.
He frequently drew on his own experiences, his own family history to emphasize the dignity of those who cross borders in search of a better life, obviously an issue much relevant to us here in America, to other nations on the face of the planet.
Pope Francis consistently
highlighting all a part of his speeches, the human cost of migration.
He emphasized repeatedly the importance of treating migrants with dignity and compassion, frequently criticized policies of governments, other heads of state that led to mass deportations, frankly, quite critical of our current president and this administration's policies.
Viewing those policies is a violation of human dignity.
of basic human human rights.
He frequently criticized those policies that led to mass deportations and called for more generous and humane asylum laws throughout all nations.
He viewed them once again as important to promoting the human spirit.
Again, he recognized the global nature of migration, the global nature of migration called for response that is in his words, human, just and fraternal.
He personally visited refugee camps throughout his 12 year term as the Pope.
He met with newly arrived migrants on a regular basis and even brought 12 Syrian Muslims to Rome after visiting a refugee camp.
in Greece a number of years ago.
All of that, a part of his legacy, again, having to do principally with migration and immigration issues, but also many other things on his docket.
We know those well.
He advocated as well for climate change, also bringing to that discussion an awful lot of review and analysis of what nations around the world are doing to preserve the future of our planet.
He was involved in that intimately, criticized consumerism and what he called overdevelopment.
He opposed the death penalty, dead stop, dead stop, opposing the death penalty under all circumstances.
He of course was an advocate for impoverished people, opposed their oppression by governments.
He condemned past and recent war crimes in places like Europe and the Middle East.
He encouraged of course the role of women in society and even inside the church.
And yes, he advanced openness, openness to the LGBT communities,
throughout the world as well, significantly promoting a human rights agenda that focused again upon immigrants and refugees.
He called that a duty of civilization, his words.
And so we think and we are thoughtful this broadcast, this weekend, this time, this week, this year.
about the legacy of Franciscus, Pope Francis as he is laid to rest in Rome this day.
And we will certainly revisit the kinds of things that he talked about later in this broadcast as we revisit what our own nation is doing in connection with migrants and immigration.
Plainly one of the challenges here in our nation is the apparent incapacity of our own legislature to address uniform and across the board immigration reform
desperately needed, acknowledged by people of all partisan backgrounds and viewpoints, something that our legislature proposes on a routine basis and advances sometimes, but it's not accomplished.
We still need that omnibus kind of immigration reform.
Yes, some movements made in recent years, but not the kind of colossal across the board addressing of immigration issues of the sort that the Pope advocated for.
And so we think about him, we think about
the future of our nation and of immigrants and all these other issues that were a part of his history.
Pope Francis, again, being laid into his tomb today, laid to rest today in Rome as we think about other issues on our agenda, the rule of law agenda, the justice agenda, the government agenda, necessarily then turning to the other major issue that broke
this past Friday, playing the percolating for a while, having to do with the decision by the Department of Justice, presumably also by the United States Attorney's Office in eastern Wisconsin to arrest a sitting judge.
Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan.
We're going to talk about the circumstances of that.
I'm going to tell you a little bit more about her.
We're going to talk about the mechanism by which she was arrested.
How did that come about?
We're going to provide you in some detail with exactly what it is the government is alleging so that you can understand from the very document, the very thing, the piece of paper that was presented in court that charges her with two felony counts under the federal law.
We'll talk about that.
And then some commentary from me, former US Attorney
30 years as an assistant U.S.
Attorney, six and a half of those as the United States Attorney, both court appointed and presidential appointed, about the mechanisms through which decisions like this are made, focusing in particular, and yes, you're going to hear criticism and objection from me, about the manner in which this particular matter, once a decision was made to prosecute, to bring her into the justice system,
And that is the arrest, the physical arrest of a sitting judge brought into federal court in that custodial setting.
We'll talk more about that.
Let us begin, however, be providing you with some general sense of what the news is and then get into great detail about the specifics in this case.
FBI agents, federal Bureau of Investigation agents joined by others, arrested Hannah Dugan.
She is Wisconsin circuit court judge from Milwaukee County.
She is a trial judge sitting here in Milwaukee County, one of the many counties, of course, in the state of Wisconsin.
Friday morning in the parking lot there of the Milwaukee County Courthouse, charges of obstructing immigration agents will get into that in greater detail.
saying that basically she steered, she directed an undocumented immigrant who was appearing in her court on a criminal matter through a side door in her courtroom while the agents, the federal agents, waited to arrest him in an adjacent hallway and in the courthouse generally.
The decision, of course, to charge and to arrest
Judge Dugan, of course, heightening this focus of this administration on all sorts of issues related to deportations, because at the core of this is a defendant.
His name is Eduardo Flores Ruiz.
He is a citizen of Mexico, again, according to all of the reporting who is subject to deportation.
The issue, of course, is what happened in the wake of his appearance just this past week.
What happened with
judge.
How did the agents behave?
How did the chief judge respond?
How did the federal magistrate respond?
How did the lawyers in this case likewise engage in this case?
All of that coming up in great detail here on Amicus, a law review.
This is Amicus, a law review.
Thank you for joining me and Max for our discussion this morning.
A review, a reporting on this major story coming out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, just late this past week, having to do with the decision by the United States Department of Justice, U.S.
Attorney's Office in the eastern district of Wisconsin to arrest a sitting Wisconsin circuit court judge.
Her name is Hannah
Dugan.
Again, the allegations are that she violated federal law.
Let's talk about that.
Let's talk about the process.
Let's talk about the substance of what this case is all about.
Let's begin with a little bit about Judge Dugan.
She is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1987.
She is 65 years old.
She has spent much of her career prior to taking the bench, serving on behalf of many, many clients of clients in the areas of housing and public benefits, social security cases, a lot of pro bono work, a lot of things involving charitable causes and focuses.
Executive Director of the Catholic Charities of Southeastern Wisconsin also served on the Milwaukee County Ethics.
during the course of one of her campaigns, she notably said justice is hard work.
Everyone knows that and indeed that is one thing that we can perhaps all agree on.
Justice is not easy.
She acknowledges that she was elected by a wide margin to the bench in 2016.
She beat an incumbent judge who was sitting at the time, was unopposed for reelection in 2022 and her current term, her current term expires in 2020.
28.
A little bit about Judge Hannah Dugan.
Also, also I should note, as we begin our discussion of this major story, that I know Judge Dugan well.
She is a friend with a small F. I want to let all of our listeners know about that.
We have had a professional and even a friendship relationship for decades.
She is very much a person of the community, which is also relevant to some commentary that I will offer in a few moments, in a few later segments of our broadcast.
But I know her well.
I have not practiced in front of her, but knew her both as a private practitioner and then see her and sometimes participate with her in various programs and issues.
presentation speeches in the community.
She is a part of our community as well.
And as late as a few weeks ago, she and I were together with many others talking about civics, talking about constitutional rights, and talking about many of the things we discuss on this broadcast.
And so I know her.
and I again want to let you know that as we talk about these particular events having to do with her arrest, her charging in the federal system by my now former office, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Eastern Wisconsin, and the agency for which I worked for 30 years, that is the United States Department of Justice.
So,
Hannah Dugan, a defendant now in a case called the United States of America versus Hannah Dugan.
She is charged with two felony counts.
It is always significant.
This is not a matter that federal prosecutors simply identify
descriptively what a particular defendant has done allegedly, allegedly in violation of law, but they identify particular statutes.
In this case, it's 18 USC section 1505 that is obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.
The second charge is brought under a second statute.
It's 18 USC section 1071 that's concealing an individual to prevent his discovery or arrest.
Let's talk a little bit more about those two statutes in particular 1071 again concealing a person from arrest It says basically this whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States So as to present prevent his discovery and arrest after notice or knowledge of the fact
that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person shall be fined and otherwise pursued, prosecuted under this particular statute.
It is a felony.
It carries with it a fine.
It carries with imprisonment for no more than five years or both.
That's section 1071 concealing a person from arrest.
That's one of the bases, the statutory bases.
Again, all of these pieces of law here passed by the legislature, our federal legislature.
Then we've got section 1508.
It is also significant.
because it's the other one, the other one that contemplates prosecution for obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.
And so what is that all about?
It is a longer statute, but it basically says this, whoever corruptly or by threats or force,
or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which this investigation is being had.
That person also, subject to prosecution under this statute, section 1505, likewise, carries with it fines, imprisonment of not more than eight years.
Those are the two statutes.
Those are the two statutes under which the Wisconsin Circuit Court judge, Hannah Duggan, has been charged.
Now, how has that happened?
What is the process by which this happened?
How is it that those federal agents and others arrested Hannah Duggan Friday morning in the parking lot at the
Milwaukee County Courthouse.
Well, they were acting pursuant to a criminal complaint.
A criminal complaint, and you may say, well, gee, Jim, haven't we always talked on this broadcast and other settings about the right of every single person under our Constitution?
If you are charged federally, didn't James Madison, doesn't the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantee that indeed someone who's charged in the federal system will be subject to due process and all of those other things?
only upon presentment, as the Constitution says, or indictment of a grand jury, and there are exceptions to it, and that's what Amendment 5 to the Constitution says.
presuming that any charges coming out of your federal government doesn't apply to states but the federal government will come out of a grand jury 23 people as we've talked about at such great length in the past brought together they are you they may not be me but they may be you others in our community brought together to decide whether or not the government has established and here's the first standard to think about
Probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that's a trial standard, but probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
And so what happens in front of a grand jury, private proceedings, not a part of the public domain, unlike a trial and juries in a pettice, setting P-E-T-I-T, a trial, that's public, but the grand jury is not.
The grand jury proceeds in a private setting to determine whether the evidence presented before them, yes, by the US Department of Justice, yes, by federal agents, sometimes often by citizen witnesses as well, but by assistant US attorneys who are presenting evidence the first step in moving forward on a criminal prosecution.
The grand jury has this tremendous responsibility to determine whether or not
a particular case should proceed, whether an indictment should issue, whether the government has established, not proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt, but established provided enough evidence to believe that there is probable cause that an offense under the federal statutes has existed.
In this case, eventually, one way or another, we'll get to that.
A federal grand jury necessarily is going to have to review the evidence
that has already been presented somewhat in this criminal complaint.
And that will be their responsibility.
The federal constitution still ensures that if this case is to go ahead, a federal grand jury must pass on the evidence, make that initial determination, and decide, yes or no, should an indictment issued.
But before that happens, and so you may ask, well, gee, why doesn't that happen right now?
Before that process kicks in, in circumstances, in circumstances where there is a need,
Based upon the exigencies of the investigation, based upon the particular findings of the investigative work to that date, to move more quickly, grand juries meet in courtrooms and courthouses throughout this nation on a weekly basis.
But when things happen, and as you well know, crime happens very quickly, sometimes in the dead of night, sometimes in the brightness of day, but often requiring that charges be issued more promptly than even
a grand jury can get to.
Under those circumstances, the federal rules of criminal procedure provide a mechanism.
A mechanism that predates, if you will, anticipates a grand jury proceeding to ensure that the process goes ahead.
And that's the criminal complaint process.
It is a system whereby, again, upon presentation to a federal magistrate,
Again, not the grand jury, but a federal magistrate or a federal judge, the government, in this case, the U.S.
Attorney's Office, the Department of Justice presents to that judge, that judicial officer, information, the results typically of an investigation that suggests that this person, that indicates that this person reflects that the person or the entity, you can also charge a corporation, of course, has engaged in crime.
And the standard is the same.
It's probable cause.
And if the judge
reviews that information presented typically by an agent upon a sworn affidavit that this is the result of the investigation that I as that agent have conducted and pursued.
If at the end of that, the judge makes the independent non-department of justice determination, the independent judicial determination that indeed there is probable cause in the four corners of this presentation made typically in writing.
can also be oral, but almost always committed to writing.
If that magistrate judge, if the federal district judge determines that there is probable cause, that magistrate judge then can issue a criminal complaint.
It is typically, of course, endorsed and presented and even advocated for by assistant U.S.
attorneys, by the lawyers of the Department of Justice, and done once again
not in violation of the Constitution, but rather pursuant to the federal rules that permit this more expedited charging in a situation where charges need to issue.
Often it is the case that federal agents, state agents, may necessarily in exigent circumstances arrest a defendant who is engaging in criminal conduct typically, and this is important, of a violent nature.
the need then to react promptly to a bank robbery that has just happened to some human trafficking gang activity guns activities drugs activity transactional things like that that need very prompt attention a criminal complaint again presented in draft form to a federal magistrate or a judge reviewed by that judge an agent coming in and swearing
on the penalty of perjury that this is the result of the investigation to date, that is the process by which a criminal complaint can issued.
And that is indeed what happened here.
Again, anticipating that some point down the road, and yes indeed, the government, whether it is the Department of Justice in Washington, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in eastern Wisconsin, located in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee, still has an obligation.
This criminal complaint process does not remove
the obligation under the Constitution to pursue a criminal indictment, if at all, before a grand jury.
It just provides this interim mechanism for accomplishing that.
And the obligation, the timing obligation, this again important, is within 30 days, 30 days of that complaint, presumably of the appearance of the defendant in court in response to the issuing of an arrest warrant, the issuance of that complaint, the government, your government, the Department of Justice has 30 days to appear before the grand jury and either secure or not secure a formal indictment.
During that period of time, also fairly routine,
can be enlarged somewhat upon the agreement of the parties and the order of the court.
But during that 30 day period of the time, the defendant also has a right to what's called a probable cause hearing.
And at that proceeding, the government has the obligation to come forward in open court and support what it has written about, what the agent has written about in writing.
And that also before the magistrate judge who basically does a secondary look.
in greater detail with at the predicates for that factual finding that probable cause exists.
All of that, all of that a part of the regular criminal procedure and that is what's going on here.
And so finally we get back again to this criminal complaint.
Not a grand jury indictment, not yet issued again by a federal magistrate judge on the 24th of April.
And it's pursuant to, again, and based upon an affidavit.
And that affidavit, it is 12 pages long.
It is accessible.
It is in the public domain.
I'm going to provide to you some information about exactly what it says and doesn't say.
It is provided by a federal agent of the FBI who comes in and swears to its truth based upon the investigation to that point.
When we come back here in Amicus, I'll tell you more about exactly what that criminal complaint says, the underlying affidavit, and then talk about the process.
You're
listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are necessarily spending some significant time on this our weekend broadcast talking about this major rule of law, justice.
government story that has broken here in our state in our nation and indeed worldwide having to do with the arrest on Friday of Wisconsin circuit court judge her name is Hannah Dugan talking in great detail now about the process by which this happened the mechanisms this is the law school portion of our broadcast and it's also the civics portion again because understanding how this happened what the process is and then that also invests in you the capacity to make decisions about your
assessment of these things, and yes indeed, even though these are highly steeped in the processes, the statutes, the regulations, the rules that I've already described, nonetheless, because of the nation in which we live, you have the right, and you have the prerogative, if you so choose, to express your own opinions upon the ways in which processes are invoked, and indeed I will offer some perspectives on that, and in particular about the decision to arrest
Arrest in just a few moments this affidavit this affidavit presented again by a federal agent Her name is she's a special agent Names specifically in this this 12-page affidavit.
She swears to the magistrate judge.
This is true It is a compendium of all the work that plainly has been done over the period of the previous week Assembling for the judge again noting that it's not complete It may not have everything that the government knows but enough to establish once again probable
And again, important to underscore the notion that this is not a presentation.
This is not a trial.
And indeed that the standard is probable cause.
It's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's what the magistrate judge looks to determine whether or not the special agent has established by virtue of her affidavit.
probable cause to believe that in this case, Hannah Dugan has committed violations of the federal law.
And indeed, the magistrate looking at this 12-page affidavit presented to him under oath, made that determination, issued the criminal complaint, issued the arrest warrant that accomplished the arrest of the Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge, Hannah Dugan, on Friday of this past week.
Let me give you some sense and some great detail about what this particular affidavit says begins next.
necessarily telling all of us, telling the judge, the magistrate judge, something about who the special agent is.
Note specifically that she investigates public corruption crimes, civil rights crimes, financial crimes.
Those typically are not violent in nature, but they can be, and they certainly can compromise.
Obviously the rights and prerogatives of many people out there, they're victims as a result of those crimes.
She goes on to say the purpose of this affidavit is to establish probable cause.
two statutes that we've already identified here and then goes on to explain exactly exactly what the basis for this particular decision by the Department of Justice to charge this defendant
the Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge, Anna Dugan, and to seek, to seek in particular this criminal complaint against her.
Goes on to describe the background of this, identifies, again, Edward Flores as one of the principal actors in all of this.
His name is Flores Ruiz, and identifies in particular that the Department of Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement identified Mr. Flores Ruiz as an individual
who was not lawfully in the United States, noting again that he was appearing on April 18th in the courtroom of Hannah Dugan.
The investigation, according to the special agent,
indicates that the investigators, the law enforcement authorities were aware that on April 18th, Mr. Flores Rias was scheduled to attend a hearing in his criminal case, courtroom 615, in front of Judge Hannah Dugan.
And that's how she becomes involved in this.
Goes on to say that as a result of some further information gathered by the law enforcement authorities, they made a determination that they would indeed attempt to make the arrest of Mr. Ruiz.
here in that setting, Mr. Flores Ruiz, because of the checkpoints and the other security issues presented by security in the courthouse, as such the agent says,
members of this task force responsible for this action, developed a plan to arrest Flores Ruiz in a public area outside of courtroom 615 following his scheduled criminal court appearance before Judge Dugan.
Again, an awful lot of background history that gets us to that point, describes then again the arrival of the arrest teams at the Milwaukee County Courthouse and the notification of intended arrest.
It says at approximately 8 a.m.
on April 18th, the law enforcement officers
having arrived at the courthouse, a presented identification to a security guard, explained the reasons why were they there.
They discussed the details of their planned arrest, including which courtroom Flores Ruiz was going to be appearing.
And the sergeant who responded them asked that any arrest wait until after the completion of the scheduled appearance before Judge Dugan and the officers agreed.
They were allowed to proceed unescorted to the public hallway.
outside of Court Room 615.
Again, more detail about their movement into the courthouse on that morning.
The courtroom deputy again explained that approximately 815, again, explaining again to the agent who is plainly investigating this.
The agent has unmistakably talked to a lot of people who described then what happened here.
Described in about 815, FBI agents advised that they were working with ICE and planning to arrest Flores Ruiz.
The courtroom deputy asked that the agents wait
outside and arrest Flores Ruiz after the hearing the agents agreed.
to that and they left the courtroom.
Again, an awful lot more information along the way here about the interactions and the conversations that I'm not describing here in particular, but significantly other things that are disclosed that are not necessarily in the public domain, at least not the media public domain.
These are in the public domain of the criminal complaint.
Arrest team members reported that while waiting outside the courtroom for all this to happen, a woman approached and she took some photographs of the arrest team members.
And one of the agents who was inconspicuously seated away was not photographed.
The individual taking photographs of the agents has been identified by some of the witnesses as an attorney employed by the state of Wisconsin, the public defender's office.
Again, nothing wrong with that.
They note that, however, to further reconfirm the story, the events that are told on that day.
Team members observing Flores Ruiz arrive on the sixth floor courthouse at that courtroom at about 843.
by his attorney and the two enter courtroom 615 and that is when we have after that the first of two events Judge Dugan learning of the presence of law enforcement confronting members of the arrest team and here I am going to read with some greater particularity exactly what the criminal complaint says because it's important once again to understand what is and is not there in the criminal complaint.
Witnesses again identified by the agent have described Judge Dugan's response to learning of the
law enforcement presence.
For example, the complaint says the courtroom deputy indicated that when Flores Riz arrived, Judge Dugan was already on the bench.
As we continue in our second hour, I'll tell you more about what this complaint actually says about the interaction between Judge Dugan and the law enforcement officers.
We'll talk about the specific events that give rise to this criminal complaint and then we'll talk about the mechanisms through which all this was executed on Friday of this past week.
Stay with us for that discussion and that analysis of the rule of law here.
My name is Jim Santel, your host last hour, this hour as well.
importantly spending some time in great detail talking about the charges against Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Anna Dugan, the mechanisms by which she has brought
been brought into the federal system and the content, the content of the particular affidavit that supports the criminal complaint against her under these two federal statutes in the federal criminal code, important to appreciate exactly what it is the allegations are, important in the same breath to understand that these are allegations and that although a magistrate judge has found probable cause to believe that offenses have been committed by the judge under these particular statutes,
The defendant in this case, yes, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Duggan is presumed innocent.
And that attends her throughout the entire proceeding, including proceedings that will happen in the days and weeks just ahead.
The finding of probable cause is not a determination in the end, not a criminal judgment.
It is a finding that the case can proceed based upon the representations, the presentations made to the judge.
And that's where we continue at this point, providing you with some specifics from that complaint about what happened, what happened that led to these charges against Hannah.
as we pick up the story, Judge Dugan on the bench conducting proceedings in another matter.
The courtroom deputy, again, obviously having been spoken to by the FBI as a result.
Observe an attorney who's identified as Attorney A. The same attorney was taking some photographs outside in the hallway there.
Enter and approach Judge Dugan's clerk.
Attorney A stated that there appeared to be ICE agents in the hallway.
Attorney A told the clerk where the agents were seated.
and what they were wearing.
The courtroom deputy then reported that the clerk then got up and talked with Judge Dugan.
And here is where the story not only becomes increasingly important, but also descriptive by virtue of what the agents and the people who were there provided to the agents.
Judge Dugan became visibly angry.
commented that the situation was absurd, left the bench and entered chambers.
At that time, Flores Ruiz, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, who was going to be the subject of the criminal proceeding there, again, he was there to face some domestic violence charges.
He was seated in a gallery of the courtroom.
There was another person.
Attorney B was working as an assistant DA.
That's very typical in the courtroom on April 18th.
And according to Attorney B, there were approximately eight criminal cases altogether, including Flores-Rubia's case scheduled for pretrial proceedings that day.
Members of the arrest team, again all this according to the complaint, reported the following events after Judge Dugan learned of their presence and left the bench.
They say this and the agent says this, Judge Dugan and another judge who are both wearing judicial robes approach members of the arrest team in the public hallway.
Judge A's courtroom is located adjacent to Judge Dugan's courtroom, that is this other judge who was there, witnesses reported that Judge Dugan was physically upset.
had a confrontational angry demeanor again, according to the complaint, Judge Dugan addressed the officers who were there and asked if they were present for a court appearance.
And when they responded no, Judge Dugan stated that they would need to leave the courthouse and leave the area.
The law enforcement stated that they were there to effect you in arrest.
And Judge Dugan again asked if the officers had a judicial warrant.
The officers responded no, they have an administrative warrant.
And Judge Dugan said that the
They needed a judicial warrant.
The conversation continues back and forth.
There's plainly disagreement here.
A deportation officer tells Judge Dugan that the obligation is not to have a judicial warrant.
It's a public space, the officer says, as a valid immigration warrant.
And Judge Dugan asked to see that warrant and offers, and the officer offers to show that to her.
Judge Dugan then demands that the officer speak with the Chief Judge.
And that's when this takes another different course of event that day and had a similar action with an FBI agent at the same time.
And after finding out that they were present for a court, not for a court appearance, but rather to arrest the defendant there, the judge, Hannah Dugan, directed they go to the chief judge's office.
Now, his name is Carl Ashley.
He's an outstanding judge.
He's the chief judge of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
And the other judge identified as Judge A escorted then the law enforcement to the Chief Judge's chambers and his office again on the sixth floor.
Again, skipping over some of the affidavit.
The affidavit goes on to say, once at the Chief Judge's office, the law enforcement showed Judge A credentials, administrative warrant, and the judge who had accompanied those officers to the Chief Judge's office, asked the clerk to make a copy of the warrant, asked whether the Chief Judge
The chief judge was available.
Clerk advised that the chief judge was not in the building, but later advised that he was in fact there and on the phone.
At that point, the other judge left and the law enforcement went inside for a more private area of the chief judge's office to speak with him on the phone during that conversation.
And this is significant because we know this has been going on.
The chief judge, again, according to the affidavit, stated that he was working.
He was working on a policy that was going
address specifically these kinds of things.
Indeed we know this from the general media policy which would provide information and protocols and practices for accomplishing arrests inside the courtroom in a way that would be efficient but also safe and secure.
He said it's a policy that would dictate locations within the courthouse where
federal law enforcement, including ICE, could safely conduct enforcement actions.
According to the affidavit, the Chief Judge emphasized that those actions should not take place in a courtroom or other private locations within the building.
And the law enforcement officer asked about whether the enforcement actions could take place in the hallway.
And the Chief Judge indicated that hallways are indeed public areas.
authorized to do it there.
The Chief Judge expressed interest in talking more to management about this policy, and indeed that is what Judge Ashley has consistently been about in his role as the Chief Judge, putting together this policy that addresses exactly what was going on when he was presented there with this conversation by the law enforcement officers.
And then, and then finally, we get to the focus of the charges against
Judge Dugan.
Multiple witnesses, according to the complaint, describe their observations after Judge Dugan returned to her courtroom after directing members of this arrest team to spend some time with the chief judge.
For example, according to the affidavit, the courtroom deputy recalled that upon the courtroom deputies returned to the courtroom, defense counsel for Mr. Flores Ruiz, again, he is the defendant who is there to have discussion about the domestic violence charges against him, was talking to the clerk.
and Flores Rias was seated in the jury box rather than in the gallery.
The courtroom deputy believed that counsel and the clerk were having an off-the-record conversation to pick the next court date.
Defense counsel and Flores Rias then walked toward each other and toward the public courtroom exit.
The courtroom deputy then saw Judge Dugan get up and she heard Judge Dugan say something like, wait, come with me.
And again, according to the affidavit, despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores Ruiz, Judge Dugan then escorted Flores Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the jury door, which leads to a non-public area of the courthouse.
And those events were, again, according to the affidavit, were also unusual for two reasons.
It identifies first, the courtroom deputy had previously heard Judge Dugan direct people not to sit in the jury box.
because it was exclusively for the jury's use.
And second, according to the courtroom deputy, only deputies and juries and court staff and in court in custody defendants being escorted by deputies use the back jury door.
Defense attorneys, defendants who are not in custody never use the jury door.
Again, as a part of the conduct here described in the complaint, the attorney similarly explained after returning to the courtroom,
Judge Duggan forcefully motioned to Flora's attorney, Flora's Ruia's attorney, and made a, and a mail that she did not know, apparently attorney B had never met Flora's before to approach the bench.
And Flora's attorney, again, according to the complaint, appeared to be confused by the judge's gesture, but complied nonetheless.
Judge Duggan commanded Flora Ruia's attorney.
And the mail, again, with that,
with the attorney, of course, to leave through a back door of the courtroom.
Attorney B then saw Judge Dugan escort Florida's Ruiz attorney and the male through the non-public door near the courtroom's jury box.
Obviously, that male, not previously known by the other attorney, B, is Flores Ruiz.
Judge Dugan came back to the courtroom, conducted hearings that morning on her docket.
And later that morning, Attorney B realized that Flores Ria's case had never been called and asked the court about it.
Attorney B learned that Flores Ria's case had been adjourned.
And that happened without the attorney's knowledge or participation, all of this, according to the affidavit in great detail.
Now, in the remaining pages and paragraphs of the affidavit, it is lengthy.
It is 12 pages long.
The agents go on, and the FBI agent in particular describes that Ruiz eventually makes his way out of the courthouse.
He is arrested after a foot chase outside the courthouse itself.
He is brought into custody.
And all of that, again, described in this 12-page affidavit concluding with, based upon all of this information, I, meaning the special agent,
I provided probable cause, I have probable cause to believe that Judge Dugan violated these two statutes, section 1505.
and section 1071 of title 18 that we discussed in the first portion of the broadcast today.
That's the criminal complaint.
That's the substance of what the government alleges.
Again, these are allegations.
It is the basis upon which to be clear once again, the federal magistrate judge has found probable cause, the first step in this process to initiate a criminal action of this nature and also plainly authorize
an arrest warrant based upon that same affidavit and giving authorization to the agents to go last Friday morning to the courthouse to affect the arrest of the circuit court judge as she was arriving there.
Now once again, as we said during the course of our first hour here on the broadcast, there is more process to come.
What happens, of course, is that in the wake of this, the government now does have an obligation.
to participate in a probable cause hearing.
The magistrate judge has scheduled that, other proceedings from May 15th, just a few weeks from now.
The government also has an obligation of the Constitution, as we said, if it chooses to do so to seek a formal indictment before a grand jury.
Again, a criminal complaint of this sort, basically in existence for 30 days.
It is intended, not as a stopgap, but to address
instances of criminal conduct that need immediate attention because there's something about them that requires that the defendant or defendants be brought into the custody of the court.
When we come back, we'll talk about what happened from the magistrate judge, we'll talk more about that arrest in particular, and my own observations and criticisms and objections to the way in which the Department of Justice executed on these documents.
All of that when Emakas Halaraview continues.
you
This is Amica Salarov you necessarily spending a great deal of time in our weekend broadcast talking about this major rule of law justice issue this development this event having to do with the arrest getting national indeed worldwide attention the arrest of Hannah Dugan a Wisconsin circuit court judge last Friday upon this criminal complaint these initial charges by the Justice Department by the US Attorney's Office by prosecutors federal criminal prosecutors who believe based upon the affidavit and the
provided that Hannah Duggan has violated the federal criminal law, and this is how the process begins.
Well, how does that process continue?
Well, we know that after the magistrate judge, again, found probable cause, issued this criminal complaint, also issuing an arrest warrant, and that is the authorization by which the federal agents actually arrested the judge in the parking lot on Friday morning, brought her back in custody.
Significantly, very troublingly, the director of the FBI, his name is Kash Patel, posted a picture of the judge in shackles on social media.
He also posted other things, which we'll talk about also equally troubling, but as a result of the issuance of that arrest warrant, the agents have judicial authorization to bring her back to the federal courthouse.
That happens, and indeed promptly she appears before a federal magistrate judge.
He is the same one who issued the arrest warrant and the underlying complaint.
At that time, of course, the judge appears, she is represented by counsel, the government is represented by
to assistant United States attorneys from the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
And among other things, the charges are read.
The affidavit, again, part of the public record, which I've just described, not in complete detail.
There is more to that, which you can also read.
It's a part of the public domain.
That's a part of our process in the federal system in America.
As a part of the system and the hearing in particular, the allegations, the charges on this criminal complaint are read.
The plea is entered and significantly, one of the other most important things that happens in a situation like this is the judge, the magistrate judge addresses what we do next.
The defendant, in this case, a Wisconsin Circuit Court judge, is in custody.
Does the judge release her?
Does he continue her detention, her custodial status?
What does he do?
Well, again, here is where the civics, here's where the law school portion of this comes in.
There are rules and there are statutes that specifically describe how this is to play about.
And the fundamental notion behind Section 3142, that is the statute that talks all about release or detention,
of a defendant pending trial.
It is a lengthy statute, all sorts of subsections, but the fundamental notion behind it is that the judge, the magistrate judge, has a number of different alternatives.
The judge can either release that person on personal or cognizance bond, upon a particular variation of that, the execution of an unsecured bond, can secondarily release that defendant.
on a combination of conditions, circumstances under which that release will be accomplished, can temporarily detain that person to remit revocation of some other conditional release, other things out there, or forth can detain that person going forward.
Many alternatives presented to the magistrate judge.
Here's the one that's most important.
And the thing that animates not only me when I was an assistant US attorney, also those assistant US attorneys who plainly were
handling this case on Friday.
The question is this, does this particular defendant pose a risk of flight, a risk of flight, and or a danger to the community?
That's the question that's asked in all of these post charging, post complaint, even post grand jury indictment proceedings.
It is set forth in
subsection C of section 3142 commands the magistrate judge to make an assessment of the extent to which this person, this defendant now charged, is either a risk of flight, you're going to leave if I don't detain you, you will not return for future proceedings, and second, determining whether or not that person poses some affirmative danger, some threat.
to the safety and security of the community.
Those are the two analyses that are set forth in the statute issued by the Congress, returned by the Congress legislatively, and that is the standard by which federal judges, magistrate judges, and indeed state court judges and others operate.
danger to the community?
What threat will this person pose if indeed they are released?
And will they return?
Are they a risk of flight?
Will they get on a plane?
Will they leave the community?
Will they leave the state, the country?
Will we never be able to get them again?
And that is the analysis that again prompted this particular magistrate judge plainly, plainly appropriately, reasonably, to release Hannah Dugan promptly.
Why?
Why?
on this record.
And again, as I said at the outset, knowing well who she is, knowing things that frankly, the broad legal community in Milwaukee knows about her.
We know these things.
This is her community.
This is where she has lived.
This is plenty where she works.
She is of this community.
And as I said, when I provided you with my own sense of my professional relationship with her, and yes, even a small friendship with her, a small F friendship with her.
Plainly, she is out there in this community committed to the issues and events of this community.
This is where she lives, this is where she works.
The chances that she would flee are virtually nonexistent, existent at all.
She is not a risk of flight.
Absolutely not.
And secondarily, a risk of danger, safety and security of the community being compromised by releasing her?
No.
And there you make references to other cases.
Are there situations where, for example, someone who's just been arrested on a criminal complaint, returned on a grand jury indictment, who's engaged in gun dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering, other things that may compromise the safety and security of the community, sex trafficking, labor
trafficking, all kinds of things out there that indeed pose threats to the continuing safety and security of the community necessary to detain them because if they are released, they are in fact a threat to the community.
Not Hannah Dugan.
plainly not not a threat to the community plainly not a risk of flight and we notice well other circumstances in our recent events and and memories of history of judicial proceedings in our nation when Donald Trump in recent years was indicted four different times he had appearances in front of the various federal and state court judges who were presiding over those cases in every one of those although one could make an argument as deed the government did the
federal government did, that there were concerns about the extent to which Donald Trump at that time, of course, private citizen, would return questions raised about whether or not he should surrender his passport.
But the reality was that in the end, Donald Trump was released.
Why?
Because he was not perceived as a danger to the community and a risk of flight.
Likewise, likewise, when others, including, for example, Eric Adams,
the mayor of the city of New York, likewise charged by a federal grand jury with corruption.
That case ultimately dismissed, as we know, without a huge amount of controversy and ended up with the resignation of a U.S.
attorney in Southern District of New York when he was indicted.
Likewise, he appears in front of the federal magistrate judge and applying Section 3142 and these basic standards, no risk of flight and no danger to the community going forward.
That is not only significant with respect to this decision of the magistrate judge as Hannah Duggan is appearing in front of him last Friday, but also also, and this is where the objection and the concern comes, the decision to arrest her in the first place.
When Amicus Alarvig comes back, I'll tell you more about that.
And then we'll also be taking any comments, questions that you've got again here on Amicus Alarvig.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel, and here with Max, my producer in the studios of Civic Media, taking your phone calls as well at 855-752-4842.
We'll get to at least one, if not more of those in the coming segments.
Talking necessarily this weekend about the decision by the Department of Justice not only to prosecute, to bring charges initially again subject to a return of a grand jury indictment if that happens by a grand jury in eastern Wisconsin, that decision obviously the focus of an awful lot of attention, decision to choose and to prosecute at all, but also the mechanisms by which this was accomplished.
Again, focusing upon the prerogatives,
that federal prosecutors have about accomplishing the bringing into the system of defendants.
That can be done in a number of different ways.
And in white collar cases, in situations where there is no credible belief that the defendant, whether indicted on a criminal complaint or indicted by a grand jury or charged under a criminal complaint, poses a risk of flight, no danger to the community, it is routine.
It is regular for assistant US attorneys, for US attorney's offices around the country to reach out to that defendant often through her or his attorney and say, the grand jury has indicted your client or is about to indict your client.
And we would like to talk about the circumstances under which there is a voluntary appearance, a voluntary surrender even to the US Marshal without the need for an arrest warrant.
Why?
Why?
Because your particular client
Whoever they may be, whatever they have done, the criminal nature of that, typically nonviolent, not in the nature of guns or drugs or gangs or human trafficking, those kinds of things, of a nature that does not pose an immediate threat of violence to the community, doesn't compromise the safety and security of the community, and there's no risk of flight, fairly routine.
Very routine as a matter of fact for assistant US attorneys to reach out to the defense counsel to the defendants themselves and say let's talk about making this work Let's talk about bringing the defendant in in a obviously it's still adversarial but in a circumstances where arrest is not important not in a custodial situation if you agree for example to show up next Tuesday morning next Thursday morning we will schedule that on before
for the magistrate judge, no need for an arrest, no need for custodial situations in advance of that.
And presumably, we will also agree that you can leave afterwards, pursuant to the invocation of again, section 3142, contemplating that a particular defendant does not pose a risk of flight, does not pose a continuing, if ever,
threat to the safety and security of the community.
Many situations where indeed that does not happen.
We think again about recent history in American jurisprudence.
Luigi Mangione who just on Friday pled not guilty in the federal court in the southern district of New York to the offense conduct charged by a grand jury against him.
appropriate there to issue a restaurant.
Absolutely.
Why?
He's a risk of flight.
He fled the scene of that horrific alleged murder.
But the event happened, we know, on the streets of New York, plainly identifying him as the very, very likely responsible party that offended in that case.
And also posing a threat to the community.
Why?
He's got a gun.
He did this incredibly violent thing under those circumstances where you've got a risk of flight.
You've got a risk to the safety and security of the community.
Do you issue an arrest warrant and you execute it by bringing that person in in shackles and in a custodial situation, detaining them?
The answer is absolutely yes.
You do that because of the nature of the violent crime and because of the threat of
continued violence, the threat also that if that person is not brought in an arrest warrant, they will continue to flee.
The Mangione situation is just the opposite and it underscores my great concern, my great objection to the way in which this particular matter involving this judge was pursued.
If indeed, and it has been made by the folks internal to the U.S.
Attorney's Office and presumably by the Department of Justice as well, the strong sense is that Pam Bondi
and the director of the FBI, Cash Patel, having a major role to play in this, Pam Bondi also troublingly indicating that this prosecution is a part of the president's plan, his policies, his practices with respect to immigration.
Those kinds of things should not be mixed up.
She is saying that plainly the director of the FBI, posting almost immediately.
information that may or may not have misdescribed exactly what's going on here but indicating that this is more than just a local prosecution a decision presumably having been made to prosecute
Judge Dugan at the highest levels of government as a part of the president's immigration policies to crack down on immigrants and to address immigration issues according to the way that he sees them being addressed.
We know he's talked about this in other settings and even inside that decision, even if the decision is made in the end.
with probable cause to believe that there has been a crime committed here.
Once you make that decision, then the question necessarily has to come, how do we accomplish this?
And the decision was apparently made that Hannah Dugan somehow immediately poses a risk of flight, a threat to the community.
There's nothing, there's nothing in this record, nothing even about the affidavit itself that describes her alleged criminal conduct would suggest that.
And yet the decision was made to arrest her.
and bring her in to the federal custody, doing the one thing that is, as I've often repeated in other settings, the single most significant thing that a government can do, which is deprive you of your liberty, detain you, even if it's only for an hour or two, even for minutes.
In custody is the most significant thing a government can do to you, of course, inside that imposition of the death penalty, the larger issue that a government can impose.
That's not here.
That's not implicated by this at all.
But it also indicates and also reflects upon the important discussion that needed to be had prior to the decision to issue and seek an arrest warrant for her to bring her in under those circumstances.
The apparent decision
confirmed by the director of the FBI when he posts a picture of the judge in shackles being brought into the federal courthouse.
And one has to wonder aloud about deterrence, right?
Deterrence, as we've talked an awful lot on this broadcast, is the kind of thing that you do by virtue of the prosecution itself.
The decision is made to indict Hannah Dugan.
By a grand jury that is the decision of a grand jury that is a decision plainly
embraced and promoted by the present Department of Justice, the present Interim United States Attorney.
And there can indeed be strong disputes about that.
Indeed, yesterday afternoon on the steps of the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee, I happened to be coming from a class at the time.
Great numbers of people there congregating to oppose the very decision that had reached internal to the Department of Justice to seek this prosecution in the first place.
I would like to add to that.
the concern about the mechanism by which Judge Dugan was brought into the system, this arrest in particular.
We know as well that there's an awful lot of public response to this.
We know that Mayor Cavalier Johnson said it sends a chilling effect to other people who participate in our judicial process.
When folks do not participate in the judicial process, that makes our community less safe.
David Crowley, the Milwaukee County Executive, has said in a statement that Judge Dugan is entitled to her constitutional right to do process.
And then it goes on to say this.
He says, however, it is clear that the FBI is politicizing this situation to make an example of her and others across the country, an example that you can now see visually by virtue of what the director of the FBI did, who opposed their attack on the judicial system and our nation's immigration laws.
And again, that protest outside the federal courthouse
Friday afternoon, people gathering there carrying science reading.
hands off our judges.
We know as well that even the governor, even the governor of the state of Wisconsin, Tony Evers said, unfortunately, we have seen in recent months, the president and the Trump administration repeatedly use dangerous rhetoric to attack and attempt to undermine a judiciary at every level, including a flat out disobeying the highest court in the land and threatening to impeach and remove judges who do not rule in their favor.
Pam Bondi.
and the director of the FBI in just the opposite direction, defending the arrest, telling the news outlets that escorting a criminal defendant out of back door will not be tolerated.
It doesn't matter who you are, she says, you're going to be prosecuted.
And indeed, no one is saying, no one is saying that judges, presidents, members of Congress, prosecutors should be above the law.
No one should be above the law.
And if indeed, if indeed, there is a basis for
This return of this criminal complaint may be a grand jury indictment as well.
That is what the process will contemplate.
The concern, of course, is what is the underlying purpose of this?
What is the use for which it's being put?
And indeed that is underscored again by the mechanism, the very mechanism for bringing Judge Duggan into the system once that very controversial decision is made.
Arrest did not have to happen here.
All that had to happen was to reach out from the U.S.
Attorney's office to her attorney, to her directly, and say we have in our hands a criminal complaint.
What can we do?
How can we accomplish a reasonably peaceful and uneventful initial appearance?
And there is no doubt that Judge Dugan herself, through the attorneys that she has now hired to represent her, would have accomplished that absentee need to put her in shackles and bring her back back to the federal courthouse in the way
that they did to face these charges.
That again, important to understand today as we go through all of this and I know it's a lot.
It's important to understand beyond that that these are charges.
They represent a finding by an initial finding by a magistrate judge that there is probable cause.
But that's what you get when you even present a case to a grand jury.
An indictment is not a final judgment.
It is allegations that there is probable cause to believe that conduct of a criminal nature has happened.
And that's where we are right now.
Judge Dugan has said in very measured statements that she will fight these charges that she believes strongly, as is her
as the right of every single criminal defendant in America to maintain as she does her innocence.
That's a part of our process as well.
And that's the reason why this matter is significant in a rule of law analysis as we think about what our government does and does not do.
And ultimately, ultimately,
the real purposes behind this.
We've talked at great length about the concern that I have had about the erasing of the connection between the Department of Justice, Maine Justice, U.S.
Attorney's offices, and the White House.
That has been completely erased.
We know even in the past weeks, the President has referred for investigation to people previously a part of his administration.
Justice last past week, Act Blue, an entity that provides mechanisms for financial
support of Democratic candidates and causes, referring routinely now individuals and entities for investigation and presumably criminal prosecution as well.
Here, here, we have the Attorney General of the United States of America who should be apart from that, arms length as has virtually every other Attorney General now embracing this particular arrest.
as a codification of the president's policies with respect to immigration.
And the picture of the judge presented by the FBI director, the other things that he has said online, variously online, removed and then replaced there, all of those suggesting that this is not truly about.
the pursuit of justice.
This is not an investigation of genuine criminal activity that is prompted by the interest of the rule of law to ensure that we are all in compliant with it, but rather a product of a political avenue, a political purpose, which is to support the president in his political views.
That, that.
if indeed that is the purpose and the process behind this particular arrest and this prosecution.
Should be the focus of condemnation not just by me an objection not just by me But by everyone who is concerned about the future of America and the future of justice in our land again important to understand all of this Important to appreciate what the criminal complaint says what it doesn't say and know as well that there will be more May 15th is the next hearing date the judge has an opportunity plainly to be present for that She will be as will his or her attorneys and at that time
There'll be a hearing about whether or not probable cause can be found.
And at some point, if this matter goes ahead, a grand jury, the 23 people convening in private in the federal courthouse, they also have to pass on whether or not this case should be charged to the point of a grand jury indictment.
All of that's still coming up.
And in the meantime, again, the appropriate in the public domain discussion
about the role of the Department of Justice, the role of U.S.
attorneys, the role, yes, that they have necessarily to enforce the law, to invoke the statutes that are passed by the Congress to ensure that we are safe and secure, and also in the midst of all of that.
This is Amicus.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Jim Santel, and we have spent the entire broadcast appropriately talking all about this very local, very important issue that raises issues about how our Justice Department works, decision-making process internal to U.S.
Attorney's offices, and at, presumably, the highest levels of our Department of Justice, the significant takeaway, the importance that
Decisions about process whether to arrest or not to summon in a nonviolent non fleeing defendant into court in a non arrest type situation those issues Decisions about whether to charge at all all of those properly vested in a Department of Justice and in US attorneys who should apply the law to the facts and the facts of law and not in any way in any way shape or form be impacted by the whims of
political issues and political debate partisan views and disagreements out there including including things advocated by the president with respect to larger policy issues deterrence absolutely deterrence comes as I've said before through the very prosecution itself and it will come if this if this particular prosecution advances not by virtue of a photograph of the
defendant, the judge in custody, but by virtue of what the government says in its pleadings in court to establish if it does that indeed there's been a violation here and sending the message not only to this defendant but to future defendants about deterrence.
That can still happen here and that is a legitimate purpose of the Department of Justice.
It is not to be an arm, to be an avenue for the president or even the attorney general.
to advocate for partisan policies that are the subject of what legislative debate and executive debate and yes indeed sometimes review by appellate courts.
We appreciate so much as always those who view have been a part of our conversation including those of you calling in let's get to some of those callers let's begin with you Cornel you've been on the line for a while thank you for your engagement in our broadcast.
Thank you, Jim great show.
I just want to say I think was a terrible statement Bondi said that The judge was deranged which means Mentally ill and I think that's a horrible statement due to a outstanding judge and I hope she files a lawsuit a defame defamation
that it's really terrible and Bondi should really resign because she's violated the due process over 200 times and I'll listen to your comment.
Again, should be nowhere in our system.
I think you're making reference to the Attorney General and certainly the President of the United States of America have attacked other federal judges out there for their conduct in, again, providing judicial service to America.
and the name calling of people like Judge Zinnis in Maryland, Judge Bozburg in the District of Columbia who are presiding over these immigration cases.
Again, the intrusion of partisan politics and policy about which we can all disagree into the judicial process, that's the problem.
Cornelia, your point could not be more importantly made, and thank you for making it again on our broadcast today.
Joe from Madison, calling in.
and Joe, appreciate your participation as well.
Thanks, Jim.
Terrific show.
A couple of two points and then one question for you.
First off, and from now on, this is how I'm going to lead every discussion about immigration.
We could have had a conservative bipartisan agreement on immigration, but
didn't want it because he wanted to run on immigration.
All of this hoo-ha, all of the money that's being spent on this stuff that we're all so concerned about money, is a result of that guy's decision.
absolute agreement among the Republicans and Democrats during the campaign to get this done, and it was a done deal.
Again, the vote hadn't taken place, but as you just note so accurately, it was ready to go, and the President said, no, this is not helpful in my campaign, and the Republicans backed out.
Stunning,
stunning.
even though it was a conservative approach toward the issue of immigration, and those are hard to get, and he got it, and they threw it away.
Secondly, I'm wondering, Attorney Matt Flynn had said in a previous conversation, another show, that in terms of how the Judge Dougan acted, once it's in her courtroom, she's the one who decides what...
who and while, how things can go in her courtroom.
So if she wants to let somebody in a side door, if she wants to drop a rope out of a window to get them out, that it's her courtroom.
It's not the court, the court house is not her place, but the courtroom is very much her place.
And she can make the decisions about that.
I'd like your response to that.
And the second thing I'd like to ask you about is that Governor Evers apparently sent out a memo to state employees just about five days ago, four or five days ago.
I didn't get the exact number.
There's Scott.
has written about this, so you can look it up if you want to, folks.
But it basically offered information to state employees just deciding, stating what they had to do if ICE agents came into the workplace in terms of what they, they didn't have to deliver computer files or data or anything.
And it also talked about judicial areas and said, unless there is a judicial warrant, and it said specifically in Evers Memo, it's a judicial warrant, you do not have to pay
Don't give it any mind.
What you need is a judicial warrant.
And the question I would ask for you is number, the, as I understand it under the 10th amendment, that question about what happens in state places, whether it be, you know, city, county or, you know, state courtrooms, that is an issue for state management,
federal management.
love your response to that.
Joe, appreciate it.
As always the comments you've got, got them all right.
Absolutely.
And so some commentary in our last few, few moments here, Judge Ashley is working on just that very issue, right?
That's the policy in which.
She basically embraces that notion.
My judges have the right to manage their own courtrooms.
Hallways, different situation.
The governor's efforts also to ensure that there is a sense of regularity in all this.
Do law enforcement have the capacity to make arrests?
Absolutely they do.
The question is under what circumstances can we ensure that those things are done with safety and security in agencies of the state government, federal government, and all of that animated appropriately by a sense of the rule of law.
That's what it's all about, to appreciate so much the call
appreciate this opportunity to come to you today.
Next week, again, more about the rule of law, the administration of justice in Wisconsin and throughout our nation.
Come back for that discussion.
Thanks again.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.