Here is the relevant portion of his notes where the judge is discussing his view that it's too easy now to ruin some one's character without ever having met them, which he's under the mistaken impression is what Walker has been doing.
"Where I grew up in Brooklyn those things—when that stuff was pulled, it was dealt with quickly. I’m not gonna talk about those ways. In my community you wanted to date an Italian girl, you asked the permission of the Italian boys. When someone did something unfair to your sister or girlfriend, you got your friends to take him for a ride. And that stopped it. You guys have got this new electronic stuff and you can just ruin somebody without doing anything. But you (Walker) started it."
Now, I don't disagree that it's gotten much too easy to ruin someone by remote-control, after all that is what has happened to Walker. Someone he'd never met, who lived in a different state, decided to ruin him for helping a completely different person and has done a fair job of it to this point. That being said, what. the. heck. is a judge, even a retired one, doing suggesting extra-legal remedies that would absolutely result in further criminal charges if Walker were so mad as to attempt them against a convicted bomber and terrorist?! I realize that this is probably more "pining for the good old days" than an actual suggestion, but it still seems to have been a terribly stupid thing to say. I can only hope that the clear unfitness of this judge, leaving aside his complete ignorance of digital media, will make it easier for Walker to get his case reviewed as it is clear that justice was no where near to being served on Tuesday Morning.
This post at OpenMarket.org gives a very thorough link-up of many of the blogs that have written about the hearing.