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

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.

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...

>