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 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: References: 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: 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" wrote: > >> On 5/3/2025 9:43 AM, NoBody wrote: >>> On Fri, 2 May 2025 12:01:49 -0400, moviePig >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/2/2025 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 1 May 2025 12:28:27 -0400, moviePig >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/1/2025 7:28 AM, NoBody wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 22:30:29 -0400, moviePig >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/30/2025 5:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2025 at 2:16:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2025 3:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2025 at 11:37:37 AM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2025 2:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2025 at 8:37:27 AM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2025 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2025 at 8:28:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2025 11:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2025 at 7:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2025 10:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2025 at 1:32:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.