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

On Sun, 4 May 2025 11:21:11 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
 

On 5/4/2025 11:13 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2025 11:37:09 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/3/2025 9:45 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Fri, 2 May 2025 12:04:55 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/2/2025 7:20 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2025 12:30:49 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/1/2025 7:25 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:37:37 -0400, 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:
          

           On 4/29/2025 7:35 AM, NoBody wrote:

             On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:46:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
             wrote:
            

             On 4/28/2025 7:28 AM, NoBody wrote:

>
             Actions always speak louder than words.

>
             And both afford ample opportunity for (mis)interpretation.

                          Nothing in her actions can be interpreted as anything other than
             violating the law.

>
           ...except for failing to honor a bogus warrant.

                      Except, as it turns out, it wasn't bogus. It was an administrative
       warrant,
           which is perfectly sufficient for arresting someone in a public place,
       like
         a
           courthouse. The judge was insisting on a judicial warrant, but
that's only
           necessary if making entry on private property to effect the arrest
against
         the
           consent of the owner.
                      So it turns out the judge was wrong, either because she's a state court
         judge
           and doesn't have knowledge and expertise on federal law, or, more
likely,
         she
           was just fucking around and delaying things to give the illegal time to
           escape.

>
         Ironically, that increases the chance she made an honest mistake.

                  An honest mistake wouldn't involve sticking her beak into things that are
       none
         of her business in the first place.
        

             So, this whole action was all about taking down a known "activist"...

>
             No, it is about arresting a judge who broke the law by letting an
             accused criminal loose from her court.

>
             Yes.  'Accused' is different from 'convicted', you see...
>

                          Which has  NOTHING to do with what I said.

>
           What you said is that an *accused* criminal should be locked up.

                      No, he didn't. He said an accused criminal should not be helped to
escape
         law
           enforcement by a judge who is sworn to uphold the law.

>
         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 doesn't get to rule on the validity of the warrant.
>
Duh....

>
She didn't issue a ruling.  She ignored a supposedly invalid warrant.

>
So...how did make the termination it was invalid if she didn't issue a
ruling?

>
She consulted her knowledge of the law.  We all think we have some.
>

She had no authority to do so and inserted her personal opinion to
disregard law.

>
We all have the "authority" to disregard an illegal order.

>
We do??? Do cite that claim for us won't you.
>
>

>
    >>> You just made a case for her removal from the bench.  She makes
up her

own law.

>
You make up your own conclusions.
>

>
Yes I do and I don't break a law just because I disagree with it.
>
It's amazing what you will say to attempt to justify her illegal
behavior.

>
What I will say is that she may have thought the warrant invalid.  Any
discussion proceeds from that point, and not from your presumption of
premeditation and guilt.
>

>
What she thought was irrelevant since she had no jurisdiction in the
matter.  She was properly arrested and should be removed from the
bench.
>
Amazing you're still attempting to defend her illegal actions.

>
What she thought may be relevant to any penalty.
>

 Laughter.  You just can't admit when you're wrong.
 Got it.