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

On Sun, 4 May 2025 13:59:43 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
 

On 5/4/2025 11:20 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2025 16:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/3/2025 3:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 3, 2025 at 12:17:54 PM PDT, "moviePig"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 5/3/2025 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 3, 2025 at 10:58:17 AM PDT, "moviePig"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

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:

>
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.

>
Even if I thought they were operating with bad paper, I
would no more take active measures to interfere in an ICE
operation than I would litigate my case on the side of the
road with a cop during a traffic stop.
>
In both instances, I would recognize that issues like the
validity of warrants and whether I came to a complete stop
or not are matters for a court to decide, not for me to take
into my own hands at the scene.

>
But if, for whatever reason, considerable damage would be done
by a successful apprehension, you might be more stinting in
your cooperation.

>
Which is not what we're talking about here. This judge wasn't
asked for her cooperation and she wasn't arrested because she
refused to give it. She took proactive measures to obstruct and
interfere. That's what put her in handcuffs.

>
She sent them out a "side door", which wasn't illegal, per se.

>
Uh yeah it is.

>
Uh, there's a *law* that says she can't send someone out that door?
>
Please show sentience by citing it...

 Tell us what she was arrested for.  You already know the answer.  Your
continuing evasion of reality is humorous at best.
 

>
>

Wow.
>
>
Now, you

may contend that her *purpose* was obstructive, but afaics that's
not sufficient to convict her.  Moreover, there's a broad
continuum of ways you might similarly contend were meant to impede
the agents.  E.g., she might have dithered while answering
questions, or dropped her gavel...

>
It was 100% illegal.

>
Uh, there's a *law* that says she can't send someone out that door?
>
Please show sentience by citing it...> So you're saying her arrest was illegal?

What weird version of reality are you living in?