Path: 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: Sat, 03 May 2025 09:43:44 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <q77c1kliusb91mv6592k7rndve41b7c2u0@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 May 2025 15:43:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="262399b0b1d44ffc3e07209a0ea26151";
	logging-data="3784556"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZZb0qZadxM7LLAZAUsUT8Z1DHxlMb0/Y="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fC2ck1HCUSREyRcfWKwmL18W4Og=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250503-2, 5/3/2025), Outbound message
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

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.

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.