Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

55 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jesus. You are a kook. I am not defending the arrest of the judge. Not one time did I suggest the judge should have been arrested. Multiple people posted that the arrest was illegal or that the warrant wasn’t legally enforceable or that the agents came into the courtroom to try and arrest the defendant or that they threatened the judge or tried to coerce or influence the judge. None of that is true. I have watched this board go apoplectic when someone posts something that is false. At some point I would think a few of you would care about the actual truth. I pointed out that it is reasonable for people to think the actions taken were over the top or unreasonable or whatever. That’s a decent debate. But the actions were not illegal. Also, you are presumably a doctor and smart and educated yet you go around negging posts on an anonymous message board like a petulant 7 year old. You really need to take some stock.
  2. Obviously there are layers to this thing. If we go back to what Twice originally posted: The third element that the government must prove to establish a section 1071 offense is that the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive. The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is "any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension." This was the general legal break down of how the statute is applied. This is what the lawyers and courts have "generally" found. It is inarguable that the judge violated this. She absolutely had a "physical act" providing assistance to "aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension" The judge knew the parties were waiting outside the courtroom with a legal warrant to arrest the defendant. She snuck him out through a side/back door. There is no other explanation that she did that to "aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension". Some argued she did it to avoid some type of "circus". It still doesn't matter. She knew the parties were there to arrest him. She didn't like it, so she snuck him out. To me, the thing that is so disturbing is that she is a freaking judge. Presumably she knows the law better than most. She absolutely knew what she was doing was illegal but she did it anyway. That to me is worse than if you or I did the same thing. Lets say you own a restaurant and the FBI shows up with a legal warrant for one of your cooks. If you tell them to wait outside and then you go and alert the cook and sneak him out the back door of the restaurant, there is a good chance you will be arrested. To the people saying this was just an example of sending a message. No shit. But to act like it is just one side that does this is just ridiculous on its face. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-life-activist-arrested-swat-171717669.html Obviously that was a "message" designed to intimidate. 25-30 FBI agents with guns drawn to arrest a guy who preached outside of abortion clinics. Guns drawn in front of his wife and small kids. The initial charges were already tossed before the raid and this guys attorney said the guy would help in anyway, including coming in to speak with FBI people. Guy had no weapons and wasn't a threat to anyone. But the DOJ/FBI did it to intimidate other people from speaking out against abortion near abortion clinics. No one here claimed Biden was Hitler and that they were fascists etc.
  3. Wow.
  4. Twice. I am really surprised you keep arguing things that are easily found to be untrue if you cared. The ONLY reason anyone was talking to the "trial judge" is because the "trial judge" LEFT her courtroom and went out into the hallway to confront the agents. She started yelling at them because she knew that they were there to arrest the defendant when the defendant LEFT her courtroom. No one asked the trial judge to help in any way. No one tried or was even considering coming into her courtroom and arresting the defendant. The "trial judge" initiated the contact. Then, after confronting the agents in the hallway, she went back into her courtroom and snuck the defendant out the side/back exit- in the middle of the hearing. She didn't even notify the other parties/lawyers that were there for the hearing. Literally in the middle of the hearing, she just whisked the defendant out of the courtroom and out through the side/back exit. That is why the act of trying to send them to the chief judge is possibly damning. It can be argued (not really an argument I would personally make) that she tried to send them to the chief judge to give her more lead time to sneak the defendant out while the agents were talking to the chief judge.
  5. Why do you think your hypothetical has any relation to this case?
  6. Jesus. Et tu? The agents with the arrest warrant were not attempting, at all, to "serve a warrant IN A COURTROOM." You know this. They were waiting outside of the courtroom to arrest the defendant. They asked for ZERO cooperation from the judge or the judge's staff. Zero. People get arrested outside of courtrooms and courthouses every single day. You know this.
  7. LOL. If my aunt had balls. But to answer your hypothetical, If you knew the person coming towards you on the street had a legal warrant for their arrest and that the cops around the corner were coming specifically to arrest that person and then you warned him that the cops were there, then yes you would/could be subject to arrest.
  8. Seriously? Have you even read about the case? The judge went outside the courtroom to confront the ice/dea/fbi agents. She tried to send them to the chief judge to get rid of them. She then went back into the courtroom and asked the defendant and the defendant's lawyer to come with her out of the courtroom and then she ushered them out through a side/back door. The judge did not even tell the rest of the people in the hearing they were having what was happening. It is inarguable, except for maybe sawbonz, that she tried to aid the defendant in avoiding the agents there to arrest him.
  9. You can do your own searching if you want to. This is the actual language from the statute: Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. It is comical you guys are even arguing this.
  10. LMAO. Good point. You are not smart.
  11. This is the language. I just copied what Twice posted. Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. I can see no argument that the Judge did not violate the statute.
  12. Responding to you is sort of worthless but since you felt compelled to be moronic, show your work. My entire point was that it was perfectly within the law as written for the judge to be arrested. She certainly could be arrested. Was arresting her the right move, that is what I do not know. But she absolutely opened herself up to being arrested. Do you believe her arrest was illegal? What exactly are you arguing?
  13. What are you having trouble with? There is a law, Twice posted it above and I quoted from it. Here it is again: The third element that the government must prove to establish a section 1071 offense is that the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive. The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is "any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension." She clearly "aided" the defendant from avoiding apprehension. I do not think anyone really denies this. Do you? I read the stupid other Wisconsin Judge's letter about halting court procedures going forward and how she "“has no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents] and sent to a concentration camp,” One of the ironies of this ordeal is that it is showing how stupid some of these state judges actually are. No one even considered "taking someone out of my courtroom". No one asked this judge or the other arrested judge to help in any way. The judges got to do whatever they wanted in their courtrooms but once the hearings are over and the defendants leave the courtroom then they are in public areas and are perfectly legally taken into custody based on laws going back to the early 1900s. The fact that these freaking judges do not seem to understand this is kind of scary. It is like Ahoolco is a Wisconsin state judge.
  14. What is your point and what does anything you posted have to do with this case? The ice/dea guys were perfectly within their rights to be at the courthouse and to take the defendant into custody. Do you deny this? The judge stopped the hearing in the middle of it without even telling the prosecutor what was going on and escorted the defendant and his attorney out of a side exit. She did this after she realized that the ice people were there to arrest him. That is a textbook violation of the statute. We can certainly have a legitimate debate over whether it is a bad statute, but we cannot argue that she violated it. You have actual attorneys on this thread advocating for killing people that followed the laws exactly as they are written on the books. Statutes signed by Clinton with a dem controlled congress.
  15. Very interesting response to this situation. Kind of a microcosm of so many issues under Trump. The situation is full of misinformation, no understanding of the law and no understanding of the history of the law. Coupled with Trump's admin pursuing the law to levels generally, but not always, not pursued as aggressively. Considering administrative versus judicial warrants, administrative warrants are 100% enforceable by ICE and have been used to take illegal immigrants into custody by the millions under Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden. Not one single court anywhere has ruled that administrative warrants for illegal immigrants are illegal or unconstitutional. The only real practical difference in the 2 types of warrants is that admin warrants have the caveat that they can not be served on private property and they do not, and this is a biggie in this case, REQUIRE cooperation from other law enforcement agencies or courts. US state and Federal courthouses are absolutely public area and ICE is well within the law to arrest people there on admin warrants. However, while these warrants do not REQUIRE cooperation, it is absolutely against the law to actively try and subvert them. 100%. The language in the statute is very clear. From Twices post: "The third element that the government must prove to establish a section 1071 offense is that the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive. The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is "any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension." The judge had no obligation to help in the arrest of the defendant. She did not have to have her bailiff or other court officers turn the defendant over to ICE. All she had to do was make whatever ruling they were working on in the case before her and then either let the defendant go or have him taken into custody for the crimes he was being accused of in the proceedings they were litigating. Thats it. The issue is that she absolutely knew that the defendant was going to be taken into custody once he left the courtroom. She admits that knew this. She openly challenged the ICE agents. And I do not think openly challenging them is necessarily wrong and she doesn't deserve any punishment, imo, for challenging them. However, because she knew that they were there and, unarguably, knew their intention to take the defendant into custody, by law, what she she absolutely could not do was violate the above statute. I can see no argument that by actively escorting the defendant to a side exit- importantly in the middle of the actual hearing as opposed to after its conclusion to perhaps avoid a circus- that she "aided the prisoner in avoiding detection and APPREHENSION". It is not even a close call. She absolutely aided the defendant in trying to help him avoid apprehension. Should she have been arrested? I don't know. But there seems to be zero argument that she could under existing law be arrested because she did willfully violate the statute/law. Again, whether the law is justified or rarely enforced or whatever is irrelevant. It is the law as written.
×
×
  • Create New...