Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: NoBody Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Wisconsin Judge Arrested for Obstruction for Helping Illegal Alien Escape ICE Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 11:16:35 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 138 Message-ID: References: <0ka91kl8ta0uulo192ffuedk9rok3ii1l8@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 17:16:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a0fa6e43d89bff84f9196aae73ea7eb5"; logging-data="2350012"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FbiMWWcpEJ20Z8ssYPNktK6CRDM0oG/o=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:6OUsXi30KPnLny1GEKyBG5dC5EY= X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250504-2, 5/4/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846 Bytes: 7599 On Sat, 3 May 2025 11:30:06 -0400, 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. Nothing to do with her being a >judge, except insofar as that belief was reinforced by her background. Laughter. She used her position to attempt to avoid arrest and activitely committed crimes. Her "personal opinion" is irrelevant. > > >> No wonder court rulings are so screwed up these days. >> >>> >>> Thus, she did what YOU would've done. Presumably. >>> >> >> Nope. I don't decide what is legal and not legal. That's for >> legitimate courts are for. > >You cross a street when you believe it's legal. Daily. > And if you cross against a red light you do so knowing it's illegal. No OPINION changes that fact. Dude your desperation on this matter is really showing.