Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Nope. She correctly called out a bullshit ice admin warrant that has no legal binding effect.

That's a Twitter opinion.  Such a warrant is fully effective, but doesn't allow officers to enter private property without consent.  Nor do they permit or require non-federal officers to execute them.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a Twitter opinion.  Such a warrant is fully effective, but doesn't allow officers to enter private property without consent.  Nor do they permit or require non-federal officers to execute them.

 

It’s not effective. Ice admin warrants don’t allow you access to homes or property. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, achooloco said:

It’s not effective. Ice admin warrants don’t allow you access to homes or property. 

Which is what I said.

They are effective to authorize ICE officers to make arrests.

I think there's some confusion about search vs. arrest warrants.

Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Which is what I said.

They are effective to authorize ICE officers to make arrests.

I think there's some confusion about search vs. arrest warrants.

There is definitely some confusion. I’m not in the field but close enough to know that Pro bono immigration attorneys across nyc are taught ice admin warrants are full of shit and never let them in. 

now sure, the nuance is there so both viewpoints can be right and thus the confusion exists. But god, the constitution, and ethics should dictate anything magat advocated is wrong. They are the empire. They are wrong. They are wrong here. It isn’t  a debate 

Posted
2 hours ago, cabowabo said:

Lighten up bro. Maybe you should go key a few Teslas to blow off steam. 

Are you the dude whose wife left him for someone she met in rehab?

  • Haha 3
Posted
21 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you the dude whose wife left him for someone she met in rehab?

His wife wears stretchy pants from Lane Bryant so that is a no.

Posted
2 hours ago, cabowabo said:

Lighten up bro. Maybe you should go key a few Teslas to blow off steam. 

You actually think you’re doing well so far 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
34 minutes ago, achooloco said:

There is definitely some confusion. I’m not in the field but close enough to know that Pro bono immigration attorneys across nyc are taught ice admin warrants are full of shit and never let them in. 

now sure, the nuance is there so both viewpoints can be right and thus the confusion exists. But god, the constitution, and ethics should dictate anything magat advocated is wrong. They are the empire. They are wrong. They are wrong here. It isn’t  a debate 

Here's the thing.  Full search and arrest warrants in compliance with the 4th Amendment are signed by a judge/magistrate on a showing of probable cause that a crime was committed (both types of warrant), and for search what premises are to be searched, for what type of evidence, and how the premises and evidence are connected to the crime.  Both include the ability to enter personal property for the search or arrest.

Administrative warrants are for less-than-criminal proceedings, of which immigration is one.  The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-criminal proceedings, per se.  They do authorize officers to make arrests in public places, but in a nod to the 4th Amendment, don't permit entry on private property without consent.

They're not the same as a criminal search or arrest warrant.  But then again they have no application in criminal matters.  And immigration is not a criminal matter in most cases.

But yeah, since they cant' come on private property, you can tell them to fuck off if they knock on your door.

The lawfare article I cited goes through the case law that state officials have no duty to assist federal officials and that extends so far that states can make laws forbidding state officials from cooperating or assisting.

Ironically, Dugan is charged with 18 USC 1505, the Trump 1/6 statute, which the Supreme Court ruled pretty much applies only to documentary/evidentiary obstruction, narrowing the case against Trump, and making it non-viable against Dugan.  The other statute is harboring a fugitive, which probably means something more overt than what she did.

She probably would have been better off to order the agents not to come in her courtroom.  Ultimately what she did didn't hamper his arrest much.

 

Posted
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the thing.  Full search and arrest warrants in compliance with the 4th Amendment are signed by a judge/magistrate on a showing of probable cause that a crime was committed (both types of warrant), and for search what premises are to be searched, for what type of evidence, and how the premises and evidence are connected to the crime.  Both include the ability to enter personal property for the search or arrest.

Administrative warrants are for less-than-criminal proceedings, of which immigration is one.  The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-criminal proceedings, per se.  They do authorize officers to make arrests in public places, but in a nod to the 4th Amendment, don't permit entry on private property without consent.

They're not the same as a criminal search or arrest warrant.  But then again they have no application in criminal matters.  And immigration is not a criminal matter in most cases.

But yeah, since they cant' come on private property, you can tell them to fuck off if they knock on your door.

The lawfare article I cited goes through the case law that state officials have no duty to assist federal officials and that extends so far that states can make laws forbidding state officials from cooperating or assisting.

Ironically, Dugan is charged with 18 USC 1505, the Trump 1/6 statute, which the Supreme Court ruled pretty much applies only to documentary/evidentiary obstruction, narrowing the case against Trump, and making it non-viable against Dugan.  The other statute is harboring a fugitive, which probably means something more overt than what she did.

She probably would have been better off to order the agents not to come in her courtroom.  Ultimately what she did didn't hamper his arrest much.

 

Right so see below…

8 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Twice should be along anytime now to tell us to be patient and let the legal system do its thing.  A furrowed brow should do. 

 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Right so see below…

 

Yeah, except that's not what I said.

I said the Twitter take, like most twitter takes, was shit.

Because Twitter is shit.

I don't really care for counterfactuals from either side.  In that respect, we have to be better.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, except that's not what I said.

I said the Twitter take, like most twitter takes, was shit.

Because Twitter is shit.

I don't really care for counterfactuals from either side.  In that respect, we have to be better.

You’re on the right side of history but if multiple people telling you the below doesn’t register, I don’t know how else to explain it to you. 

8 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Twice should be along anytime now to tell us to be patient and let the legal system do its thing.  A furrowed brow should do. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 hours ago, achooloco said:

You’re on the right side of history but if multiple people telling you the below doesn’t register, I don’t know how else to explain it to you. 

 

I had hoped that the criminal justice system would convict Trump, like everyone.  And believe that it would have had it come to its natural conclusion.

In retrospect, none of us, law dogs especially, should have had any belief that it would come to its natural conclusion, meaning appeals concluded and convictions finally affirmed, in four years, or even five.  Or probably even six.

Of course, that shouldn't have even been an issue except for about 80 million  stupid Americans.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Screenshot_20250426_075932_SamsungInternet.thumb.jpg.f6754af8f2f1d3f296197fa2bc7b995b.jpg

Quit feeding that death panelist troll. Put him on ignore and let him #bothsides on his own

He doesn’t even both sides anymore. It’s nice that he has completely dropped that act. He’s just a full on magat, as we always knew he was. But yes, above is the way. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

I know it’s useless to mention, but consider the complete shitshow / meltdown from the right that would have happened if Obama and Holder did this.

Riots in the streets.

  • Like 1
Posted

The biggest political forum in Texas, yall. In reality, just a smash up of tweets, some ledge fantasizing about shooting and/or hanging your political enemies, and series of ad hominem.  

Posted

Here are the statutes:

Concealing: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1071

Obstruction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

I'm not a criminal lawyer, and have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to federal criminal law in general, but both charges seem tenuous to me. How is what she did harboring or concealing him? Maybe the obstruction charge is better, but how did she act corruptly? 

I wonder if there's a state law civil claim in Wisconsin for malicious criminal prosecution, and if that can be asserted for a federal prosecution. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Here is the criminal complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25919404-complaintuscourtswied11162910/

As summarized by Axios below. Primary thing that Axios appears to have left out is that the defendant was in court that day for their case related to three counts of Battery-Domestic Abuse-Infliction of Physical Pain or Injury.

 

The FBI on Friday arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly trying to help an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest.

The big picture: The complaint filed in U.S. District Court charges the judge with obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the U.S. and with concealing an individual to prevent his discovery or arrest.

The judge has been released from custody and is due back in court for a preliminary hearing and arraignment on May 15.

Zoom in: Dugan, who has served nearly a decade on the court, is accused of trying to help an undocumented immigrant who appeared in her courtroom avoid arrest by immigration officials.

When Dugan learned ICE agents were present at the courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores Ruiz with an administrative warrant, she told them to speak to the chief judge first, according the complaint.

Dugan meanwhile, allegedly took Flores-Ruiz out of the court room through a juror door, per witnesses cited by the FBI.

Agents later arrested Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse.

Edited by Anastasis
Posted
18 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There's going to be a time, years from now, where everyone is going to pretend that they were against this administration.

We're not going to forget.

Brad Pitt Tarantino GIF

  • Like 1
Posted
The biggest political forum in Texas, yall. In reality, just a smash up of tweets, some ledge fantasizing about shooting and/or hanging your political enemies, and series of ad hominem.  

You’re so brave.
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Here are the statutes:

Concealing: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1071

Obstruction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

I'm not a criminal lawyer, and have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to federal criminal law in general, but both charges seem tenuous to me. How is what she did harboring or concealing him? Maybe the obstruction charge is better, but how did she act corruptly? 

I wonder if there's a state law civil claim in Wisconsin for malicious criminal prosecution, and if that can be asserted for a federal prosecution. 

Like I said above, 1505 is the same obstruction statute Trump was charged with for 1/6.  Recall that that was appealed to SCOTUS, who curtailed its reach primarily to obstruction relating to destruction or alteration of evidentiary documents: “that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding.”

Remember how Smith began to focus on the false elector scheme and its document aspects?  So, pretty non-viable against Dugan I think.

1071 may be a stickier wicket.  https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1831-harboring-18-usc-1071-third-element-concealing

I had originally thought that they charged her with the Immigration Act obstruction. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324  But as the lawfare article notes, state officials are virtually immune from that provision.

*NB this is a discussion of the merits of the government's case.  It does not imply approval or legitimacy of the government's prosecutorial decision (henceforth, ,this shall be known as the Captainant/Huckleberry/Wildcat09 disclaimer).

ETA:  Wisconsin does have a malicious prosecution tort, here is a jury instruction on it.  https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/civil/2600.pdf  Unfortunately, it requires that the indictment lack probable cause, which may be tough to prove here.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...