Re: Wisconsin Judge Arrested for Obstruction for Helping Illegal Alien Escape ICE

On 5/3/2025 9:43 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Fri, 2 May 2025 12:01:49 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
 

On 5/2/2025 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2025 12:28:27 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/1/2025 7:28 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 22:30:29 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 4/30/2025 5:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 30, 2025 at 2:16:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 4/30/2025 3:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

     On Apr 30, 2025 at 11:37:37 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
    

     On 4/30/2025 2:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

       On Apr 30, 2025 at 8:37:27 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
      

       On 4/29/2025 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

         On Apr 29, 2025 at 8:28:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
        

         On 4/29/2025 11:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

           On Apr 29, 2025 at 7:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
     wrote:
          

           On 4/29/2025 10:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

             On Apr 29, 2025 at 1:32:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
       wrote:

>
           As he was merely accused, any "shoulds" are all in one's
biases.  I.e.,
           he's entitled to the same "help" as an innocent you would be.

                      I wouldn't be entitled to a judge running cover for me while she
       directs me
         to
           a back door to evade the cops, either.

>
         *If* she thought you were illegally pursued, it'd be her *duty*.

                  No, it wouldn't.

>
       Sure it would, if not legally then ethically.

              Well, ethical civil disobedience comes with a price. MLK and Gandhi both
       recognized that and did their time for breaking the law in pursuit of
their
       higher cause. This judge should be prepared to do the same.

>
     But if she believed the warrant invalid then, civil or uncivil, her
     disobedience would be inadvertent.

          She had *no business* checking the warrant in the first place. She has no
     jurisdiction over federal immigration law. She's no different than any other
     citizen with regard to the ICE arrest. John Doe on the street can't walk up
to
     an ongoing ICE operation and start demanding to see paperwork and neither
can
     a state court judge. And if either one of them do so, they can be arrested
and
     charged with obstruction.

>
How does that work, then?  Can you be having dinner at home with your
wife and, when a knock at the door turns out to be a stranger claiming
to have a warrant to take her away, you can't say "Show me"?

>
You can ask it, but they don't have to show you. They will have to show *her*
and her attorney (and the court) at some point to validate the arrest, but you
don't have any legal standing to demand it.
>
And this is just a state court judge in the lobby of a courthouse, not some
family member in their own home, so whatever standing the husband in your
scenario may have, it certainly wouldn't apply to Judge Busybody.

>
So, "at some point" would seem to mean 'whenever we feel like it'.
Thus, if some random guys show up claiming to have a warrant ("back at
the station") for your arrest, you'd better simply let them spirit you
away while try to assure yourself they're not actually kidnappers...
>

>
She's a judge.  She should know she has no authority in this matter.
Ridiculous how you continue to defend an obviously illegal act on the
judge's part.

>
She's saying the warrant was improper, and her act thus not illegal.
>

>
So now you ARE saying she issued a ruling?
>
Make up your mind dude.
>
She either issued a formal ruling that the warrant was "improper"
>
OR
>
She made up her own interpretation without authority and then acted
illegally  based on her unauthorized interpretation.
>
Which is it?

>
She (is saying) she believed the warrant invalid, not declaring it so.

 You are attempting to draw a distinction with no difference.  You
think that, because she's a judge, she can disregard a legal warrant
based solely on her personal opinion of it.

Again... she allegedly believed the warrant invalid, not as a matter of "personal opinion" but as one of fact.  Nothing to do with her being a judge, except insofar as that belief was reinforced by her background.

No wonder court rulings are so screwed up these days.
 

>
Thus, she did what YOU would've done.  Presumably.
>

 Nope.  I don't decide what is legal and not legal.  That's for
legitimate courts are for.

You cross a street when you believe it's legal.  Daily.