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

On 5/3/2025 1:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 3, 2025 at 8:30:06 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

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.

 Again, her personal belief is of no more consequence than any other random
person on the street. This wasn't occurring in her courtroom and was not
within her jurisdiction as a judge.
 If some random citizen walked up to ICE agents in the middle of an operation
in their neighborhood and demanded to see the warrant (and assuming they
showed it to humor him), his opinion that it isn't valid would make absolutely
no difference and have no relevance to ICE's actions. They'd just say "Okay,
buddy, whatever. Now go away or you'll be arrested for obstruction and
interference."
 This judge is just a random citizen with regard to a federal ICE operation.
Her status as a state court judge gives her no special authority or
jurisdiction to declare warrants valid or invalid and have that somehow affect
what ICE is doing. They are free to completely ignore her, just as they would
that guy I described above and if she takes further action to frustrate or
impede their operation, she goes to jail.

In this example, I'm ascribing to her "personal belief" no more legal authority than I would to yours.  The (hypothetical) fact is that she *believed* the warrant invalid, and acted accordingly, as you would.