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

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.