My name is Jim Santel.
You're host this hour and next hour as well.
Delighted to have with me in the Racine Studios as well, my producer Kelvin.
And together, we're bringing to you this discussion about late breaking and concurrent news in the areas of law and government and the aspiration for justice in America.
Taking and addressing at the start of our broadcast this weekend, some follow up questions that you have had about this major decision issued by a federal district court judge in California finding that the president does not, does not have the authority to federalize the California National Guard for all sorts of reasons set forth in his opinion.
That now, that now responding to the questions from some of you, the subject of review.
by the next higher court, that's the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that entertained oral argument.
That's where the parties again come before the court and argue quite literally orally before the court, answering questions, proposing propositions to the court about the ways in which the case should be addressed.
And so entirely possible that sometime soon the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, at least the three judge panel of that multi-member court,
will issue its decision, either affirming or reversing or some way affecting the decision made by Judge Charles Breyer in recent times.
That coming up.
And again, as always, other options down the road.
Plainly, there could be an en banc, E-N-B-A-N-C proceeding.
At some point in the future, that's where all of the judges of the Ninth Circuit would hear the case again.
If somehow there is a disagreement,
or a feeling that the entire panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit should hear the case that could happen, there could also, depending upon the results of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, be a further appeal, where you know well to the United States Supreme Court that could ultimately decide this case, along with the many others that it is also deciding in these important and yes challenging times in the history of our nation.
Many of you have also raised questions and follow-up comments about the reporting here on this broadcast and others here on Civic Media about the recent indictment of Abrego Garcia and his return to this nation as announced by the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Badi, specifically focusing upon my commentary about what is called surplusage in this indictment.
The indictment, once again, charging is through Abrego Garcia.
by a federal grand jury with conspiracy to transport aliens that's in one count and then also actually the transportation the illegal the illegal illegal movement of those aliens pursuant to the the actions of the defendant as set forth in that indictment basically two counts in that indictment as described by the Attorney General of the United States of America unlawful transportation
and then also conspiracy to do the same.
I noted with great particularity all of the other things alleged in that indictment returned by a grand jury, a kind of finding a probable cause, including all sorts of crimes that are not specifically charged in that indictment.
All of those kinds of things highlighted with great drama by our Attorney General at the time that she announced the unsealing of this indictment.
It was returned on May 21st
finally unsealed when Abrego Garcia was returned to this country and is now incarcerated, now detained in the middle district of Tennessee, the Nashville division.
Why?
Because of some of the allegations specifically one that alleges that on November 30th of 2022, he and some other nine individuals were engaged once again in matters related to
the unlawful transportation of undocumented persons at that time.
Along the way, in this indictment, charging those two principal counts, those two principal allegations against him, and off a lot of other things, arguably including gang membership, including firearms and transportation of drugs, including as well things like wire fraud and money laundering, all kinds of things related
to matters outside of the specific charges, the described charges, along the way at the time of the announcement of this indictment.
Pam Bondi, our Attorney General, also indicated that there was information provided by one of the conspirators, the associates now working with the government providing this information, that Mr. Abrego Garcia might also be involved in child pornography.
And even the murder of the mother of a fellow gang member, none of that, none of that in the indictment at all.
And I commented at the time about the significance of that, not only in terms of the impropriety, the violation of the Department of Justice policy when it comes to that kind of announcement by any official, whether it's the attorney general or a United States attorney, but also the impropriety as a matter of pure law.
and justice and advancement of the rule of law, because in effect you are accusing someone of additional crimes, additional criminal conduct, but not providing them with a forum to respond to those crimes, aside from the specific counts set forth in the indictment.
Many of you have asked, what is the result of all that?
Well, once again, it could and probably will be the subject of an awful lot of attention by the judge in the Middle District of Tennessee, attending to this case.
assigned to the trial down the road, he or she may well find that this is indeed surplusage inside the indictment.
Difficult to imagine that all of these extraneous things charged in the indictment will be presented to the trial jury.
And beyond that, beyond that, the comments made by our Attorney General may well fall in the category of problems for the government itself, not only in ceding an unbiased trial jury.
that can look at this evidence without hearing these additional things, without consuming and making sense of the additional allegations made by our Attorney General.
All of that could very well be the basis for a motion for prosecutorial misconduct, seeking sanctions against the government, seeking even to dismiss the indictment.
We don't know.
We don't know exactly what the Defense Council will be doing here, but the actions of the Attorney General, of the Department of Justice,
announcing this indictment and describing it in the way she did, also posing financial problems down the road to right at the start of this prosecution.