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: Mon, 5 May 2025 11:17:42 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 114 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: 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: Bytes: 6090 On 5/5/2025 7:32 AM, NoBody wrote: > On Sun, 4 May 2025 13:59:43 -0400, moviePig > wrote: > >> On 5/4/2025 11:20 AM, NoBody wrote: >>> On Sat, 3 May 2025 16:16:04 -0400, moviePig >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/3/2025 3:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> On May 3, 2025 at 12:17:54 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/3/2025 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> On May 3, 2025 at 10:58:17 AM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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?