Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Wisconsin Judge Arrested for Obstruction for Helping Illegal Alien Escape ICE
Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 11:16:35 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <n21f1k9aoimt0vsarhsa3qu7ls4fquopr3@4ax.com>
References: <vujb4b$2v233$3@dont-email.me> <vutqlh$r88d$1@dont-email.me> <vutte4$ua4t$1@dont-email.me> <vuu3v8$130tj$2@dont-email.me> <vuu5bo$15336$1@dont-email.me> <vuumc7$1n48i$1@dont-email.me> <jjm61ktet06mequsrrrneo4cn5gjaj2ibu@4ax.com> <vv07fc$328im$3@dont-email.me> <0ka91kl8ta0uulo192ffuedk9rok3ii1l8@4ax.com> <vv2q9f$1e24b$1@dont-email.me> <q77c1kliusb91mv6592k7rndve41b7c2u0@4ax.com> <vv5cpv$3o7t6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 17:16:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a0fa6e43d89bff84f9196aae73ea7eb5";
	logging-data="2350012"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FbiMWWcpEJ20Z8ssYPNktK6CRDM0oG/o="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6OUsXi30KPnLny1GEKyBG5dC5EY=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250504-2, 5/4/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846
Bytes: 7599

On Sat, 3 May 2025 11:30:06 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 5/3/2025 9:43 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 May 2025 12:01:49 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/2/2025 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 May 2025 12:28:27 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/1/2025 7:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 22:30:29 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2025 5:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2025 at 2:16:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2025 3:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>      On Apr 30, 2025 at 11:37:37 AM PDT, "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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            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 had *no business* checking the warrant in the first place. She has no
>>>>>>>>>>      jurisdiction over federal immigration law. She's no different than any other
>>>>>>>>>>      citizen with regard to the ICE arrest. John Doe on the street can't walk up
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>      an ongoing ICE operation and start demanding to see paperwork and neither
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>      a state court judge. And if either one of them do so, they can be arrested
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>      charged with obstruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How does that work, then?  Can you be having dinner at home with your
>>>>>>>>> wife and, when a knock at the door turns out to be a stranger claiming
>>>>>>>>> to have a warrant to take her away, you can't say "Show me"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can ask it, but they don't have to show you. They will have to show *her*
>>>>>>>> and her attorney (and the court) at some point to validate the arrest, but you
>>>>>>>> don't have any legal standing to demand it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this is just a state court judge in the lobby of a courthouse, not some
>>>>>>>> family member in their own home, so whatever standing the husband in your
>>>>>>>> scenario may have, it certainly wouldn't apply to Judge Busybody.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, "at some point" would seem to mean 'whenever we feel like it'.
>>>>>>> Thus, if some random guys show up claiming to have a warrant ("back at
>>>>>>> the station") for your arrest, you'd better simply let them spirit you
>>>>>>> away while try to assure yourself they're not actually kidnappers...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She's a judge.  She should know she has no authority in this matter.
>>>>>> Ridiculous how you continue to defend an obviously illegal act on the
>>>>>> judge's part.
>>>>>
>>>>> She's saying the warrant was improper, and her act thus not illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now you ARE saying she issued a ruling?
>>>>
>>>> Make up your mind dude.
>>>>
>>>> She either issued a formal ruling that the warrant was "improper"
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> She made up her own interpretation without authority and then acted
>>>> illegally  based on her unauthorized interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>> She (is saying) she believed the warrant invalid, not declaring it so.
>> 
>> 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.  Nothing to do with her being a 
>judge, except insofar as that belief was reinforced by her background.

Laughter.  She used her position to attempt to avoid arrest and
activitely committed crimes.  Her "personal opinion" is irrelevant.

>
>
>> No wonder court rulings are so screwed up these days.
>> 
>>>
>>> Thus, she did what YOU would've done.  Presumably.
>>>
>> 
>> Nope.  I don't decide what is legal and not legal.  That's for
>> legitimate courts are for.
>
>You cross a street when you believe it's legal.  Daily.
>

And if you cross against a red light you do so knowing it's illegal.
No OPINION changes that fact.

Dude your desperation on this matter is really showing.