Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Wisconsin Judge Arrested for Obstruction for Helping Illegal Alien Escape ICE
Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 20:19:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vv5tok$aa0n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vujb4b$2v233$3@dont-email.me> <vv5q53$6f2i$1@dont-email.me> <vv5rq1$8e88$2@dont-email.me> <vv5ti5$9g8e$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 May 2025 22:19:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="327c8109ff8b9573a69e71a3967cab78";
	logging-data="337943"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tMjj2kYR5y8guD9mZLCNY"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mZ8tVRkzM+LXsDUUbKnGeSB1qos=

On May 3, 2025 at 1:16:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 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.  Now, you
> may contend that her *purpose* was obstructive, but afaics that's not 
> sufficient to convict her. 

LOL! Whatever, man. Continue to deny reality.