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

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.

>
To me, it's all cockeyed, and I'd like to hear her perspective.
>