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. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
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?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
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.

  • Haha 2
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 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 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 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
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 2
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 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
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
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

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.  

And the muledick.   Don't forget the muledick.

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

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.  

Sounds like the current President.    But forum posters are much more serious bizness to you, since that is all you ever criticize.   

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 4
Posted

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.

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

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.

 

room something GIF

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

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.

 

Well, here's the thing.  A warrant that doesn't permit entry into private property really isn't much of a warrant.  It's sort of a list of people that you can apprehend, in public, for alleged immigration "offenses."

So it's not conferring any great power on anyone.

If there were no warrants of this type, immigration officials would seem only to be able to arrest those they witnessed committing immigration violations.

They're kind of obnoxious, but we really couldn't have much immigration control without them.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, here's the thing.  A warrant that doesn't permit entry into private property really isn't much of a warrant.  It's sort of a list of people that you can apprehend, in public, for alleged immigration "offenses."

So it's not conferring any great power on anyone.

Bullshit, it let some feds go arrest a judge in their own courtroom. It doesn't matter if it's bullshit, all they need is the sniff of legitimacy and an okeydoke or two.

The warrant that was "toothless" has left damage nonetheless. Strange how the fascists keep finding ways to use the shield of justice as a sword, huh?

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...