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: Mon, 5 May 2025 11:17:42 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <vvakqp$o246$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vujb4b$2v233$3@dont-email.me> <vv5lfq$2glq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv5ni2$4645$3@dont-email.me> <vv5q53$6f2i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv5rq1$8e88$2@dont-email.me> <vv5ti5$9g8e$2@dont-email.me>
 <kc1f1kdn53e84rpumdov045amktg88dkfi@4ax.com> <vv89ug$2g8uq$1@dont-email.me>
 <t88h1k10dr0pgh0knvfsl1ni6f6vj0tqkc@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: Mon, 05 May 2025 17:17:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b1ad0e230edcc7793599516d28d8cd97";
	logging-data="788614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19klcpRZcqQZpNwXijWZxVi54tIC/Lcxi4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BhTdyRuS3ZRlXRp0Ld52/AI/Mzc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <t88h1k10dr0pgh0knvfsl1ni6f6vj0tqkc@4ax.com>
Bytes: 6090

On 5/5/2025 7:32 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2025 13:59:43 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/4/2025 11:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 May 2025 16:16:04 -0400, 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.
>>>
>>> Uh yeah it is.
>>
>> Uh, there's a *law* that says she can't send someone out that door?
>>
>> Please show sentience by citing it...
> 
> Tell us what she was arrested for.  You already know the answer.  Your
> continuing evasion of reality is humorous at best.
> 
>>
>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, you
>>>> may contend that her *purpose* was obstructive, but afaics that's
>>>> not sufficient to convict her.  Moreover, there's a broad
>>>> continuum of ways you might similarly contend were meant to impede
>>>> the agents.  E.g., she might have dithered while answering
>>>> questions, or dropped her gavel...
>>>
>>> It was 100% illegal.
>>
>> Uh, there's a *law* that says she can't send someone out that door?
>>
>> Please show sentience by citing it...> So you're saying her arrest was illegal?

No, *I'm* saying that using the side door, per se, is obviously legal.

*You're" saying it isn't ...somehow.


> What weird version of reality are you living in?