Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Sat, 3 May 2025 13:58:17 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <vv5lfq$2glq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vujb4b$2v233$3@dont-email.me> <vv2q9f$1e24b$1@dont-email.me>
 <q77c1kliusb91mv6592k7rndve41b7c2u0@4ax.com> <vv5cpv$3o7t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv5i8n$3v9fm$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 May 2025 19:58:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="92b50b280d1dbb30020fd99067a4ebd2";
	logging-data="82618"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dU0m/wfcVbNhrQfwflG16//o9gQ+wYRY="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qilUzd7hhumr0QSDFI4ZnuLp9+A=
In-Reply-To: <vv5i8n$3v9fm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8461

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:
>>>   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.
> 
> 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.