Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vv2qf8$1e24b$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Wisconsin Judge Arrested for Obstruction for Helping Illegal
 Alien Escape ICE
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 12:04:55 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <vv2qf8$1e24b$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vujb4b$2v233$3@dont-email.me> <vus5c0$3d1h5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vus6rp$3cpns$4@dont-email.me> <vutg3n$j462$1@dont-email.me>
 <vutpmm$r254$1@dont-email.me> <vutqlh$r88d$1@dont-email.me>
 <mfm61kdlq5pnc0fuqom631bo5d6aumq55d@4ax.com> <vv07jq$328im$4@dont-email.me>
 <ega91kl6v6ug28qk30i246kf8gtuvtfjh9@4ax.com>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 02 May 2025 18:04:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3c7d9d561e7d16293b637d92edb13b42";
	logging-data="1509515"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JASgbGorMoa0zAy8xs8b8uG+d97K6s4Q="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qsNI4VoofpxrxicROFqcqWckEV8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ega91kl6v6ug28qk30i246kf8gtuvtfjh9@4ax.com>
Bytes: 6384

On 5/2/2025 7:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 12:30:49 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/1/2025 7:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:37:37 -0400, 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>>>>         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.
>>>
>>> She doesn't get to rule on the validity of the warrant.
>>>
>>> Duh....
>>
>> She didn't issue a ruling.  She ignored a supposedly invalid warrant.
> 
> So...how did make the termination it was invalid if she didn't issue a
> ruling?

She consulted her knowledge of the law.  We all think we have some.


> You just made a case for her removal from the bench.  She makes up her
> own law.

You make up your own conclusions.