Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 4/26/2025 at 6:51 PM, Bookman said:

This is a conclusion. How did you get there? 

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.

 

 

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
12 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Yes you do you stupid fuck

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?  

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
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?  

Lots of words. Cool. Now post the definition of “fugitive”.

Nvm. That term was inserted by you I think and not actually contained within the text of the law that you were “quoting”.
Posted
12 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

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.

 

 

Why do you think she "clearly" aided the defendant? What is your analysis? And what about the rest of the elements? 

Posted
4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

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?  

Go fuck yourself shitbag

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 4/26/2025 at 5:33 PM, Satchel said:

Here’s a thought: this drama has very little to do with the guy charged with domestic violence, and everything to do with intimidating a judiciary that has dragged Trump’s ass for weeks.

It also has almost nothing to do with immigration warrants or judicial criminal arrest warrants.

Yes, immigration warrants have very little force.

But what the judge did, although commendable in some senses, comes pretty close to running afoul of the criminal law, objectively, before you ever consider the Trump administration's policies.

This guy would have been deported to Mexico post-haste by the Obama administration, which still holds the record, and probably would have been detained using a similar warrant.

Posted
7 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Lots of words. Cool. Now post the definition of “fugitive”.

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.

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

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.

So what is the argument that the Judge did violate the statute? 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Why do you think she "clearly" aided the defendant? What is your analysis? And what about the rest of the elements? 

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.

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

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.

Yes I linked the statute earlier. Do you have any analysis to share, or are you just going to keep posting conclusions? 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bookman said:

So what is the argument that the Judge did violate the statute? 

Seems like the key question is going to be whether shuffling a defendant to a private courtroom exit, that still exists to public hallways and elevators, is "harboring or concealing." 

There's possibly a question whether an immigration warrant satisfies the language of the statute, which itself seems pretty broad:

The government must establish that a Federal warrant was issued for the arrest of the fugitive. In United States v. Silva, 745 F.2d 840, 848 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 (1985), the Fourth Circuit stated that the government should prove this element by introducing the warrant itself into evidence. The warrant must, of course, be issued "under the provisions of any law of the United States." It has been held that an arrest warrant issued by a judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court is one issued under a "law of the United States" within the terms of Section 1071. See United States v. Boettcher, 588 F.2d 89 (4th Cir. 1978).

Incidentally, it's a misdemeanor unless it's a felony criminal warrant.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

So what is the argument that the Judge did violate the statute? 

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.

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems like the key question is going to be whether shuffling a defendant to a private courtroom exit, that still exists to public hallways and elevators, is "harboring or concealing." 

There's possibly a question whether an immigration warrant satisfies the language of the statute, which itself seems pretty broad:

The government must establish that a Federal warrant was issued for the arrest of the fugitive. In United States v. Silva, 745 F.2d 840, 848 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 (1985), the Fourth Circuit stated that the government should prove this element by introducing the warrant itself into evidence. The warrant must, of course, be issued "under the provisions of any law of the United States." It has been held that an arrest warrant issued by a judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court is one issued under a "law of the United States" within the terms of Section 1071. See United States v. Boettcher, 588 F.2d 89 (4th Cir. 1978).

 

If I see a guy I know walking down the street and say "hey, there are cops around the corner," did I harbor or conceal him? 

Posted
Just now, sheeeit said:

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.

The part about the chief judge is no big deal.

There are legitimate issues about whether a court should permit another jurisdiction or private party to serve process or warrants IN A COURTROOM.  The judge controls the courtroom and pretty much everything that goes on there, subject to any local rules or practices that emanate from the Chief Judge.

Plus, that is not concealing or harboring the witness.  It may be interfering with the officers, but that's not what the statute addresses.

It boils down to the private exit.

Posted
3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

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.

Yes and I'm not defending her actions. You're claiming what she did violated the statute and you just keep saying it over and over and over and over. 

Posted
Just now, Bookman said:

If I see a guy I know walking down the street and say "hey, there are cops around the corner," did I harbor or conceal him? 

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.

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

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.

Why do you think this is an answer to my hypothetical? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The part about the chief judge is no big deal.

There are legitimate issues about whether a court should permit another jurisdiction or private party to serve process or warrants IN A COURTROOM.  The judge controls the courtroom and pretty much everything that goes on there, subject to any local rules or practices that emanate from the Chief Judge.

Plus, that is not concealing or harboring the witness.  It may be interfering with the officers, but that's not what the statute addresses.

It boils down to the private exit.

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.  

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Why do you think this is an answer to my hypothetical? 

Why do you think your hypothetical has any relation to this case?

  • Fuck You 3
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

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.  

They were talking to the trial judge, who referred them to the Chief Judge.

If they wanted to just loiter in public spaces outside the courtroom, they could have without ever approaching the judge.

Regardless, different jurisdictions attempt to be respectful of each other and their rules for things like serving process, and the Milwaukee County Circuit Court is entitled to establish such rules.

Regardless of how that went down, that is absolutely not harboring or concealing a fugitive.  It could be delaying or interfering with officers, but that isn't addressed by the statute.

Directing him through a nonpublic exit to public areas might be.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They were talking to the trial judge, who referred them to the Chief Judge.

If they wanted to just loiter in public spaces outside the courtroom, they could have without ever approaching the judge.

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.

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

 

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.

Except you don’t follow The law When your shit head side is arguing for the DOJ that ice warrants allow cops to enter homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the 4th amendment, fuck you, and because I’ve been warned I’ll say it like this instead: CHINGA TU REputa-SIMA MADRE. You’re on the wrong side of history and when karma comes for you and your kin I’ll cry tears of joy. 

you have no good will to rely on, it’s scary you’re so goddamn fucking stupid, don’t reproduce, magats like your ilk are the stain of this country and there will be only one solution to it. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Except you don’t follow The law When your shit head side is arguing for the DOJ that ice warrants allow cops to enter homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the 4th amendment, fuck you, and because I’ve been warned I’ll say it like this instead: CHINGA TU REputa-SIMA MADRE. You’re on the wrong side of history and when karma comes for you and your kin I’ll cry tears of joy. 

you have no good will to rely on, it’s scary you’re so goddamn fucking stupid, don’t reproduce, magats like your ilk are the stain of this country and there will be only one solution to it. 

What delusional shit are you responding to? Fucking broken brained posters here don't seem to understand how message boards work. Instead of actually responding to what individuals actually say yall just tilt against the delusional shit yall make up in your own minds. 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Except you don’t follow The law When your shit head side is arguing for the DOJ that ice warrants allow cops to enter homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the 4th amendment, fuck you, and because I’ve been warned I’ll say it like this instead: CHINGA TU REputa-SIMA MADRE.

Heaven forbid you the proper english formulation of behaviour. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Except you don’t follow The law When your shit head side is arguing for the DOJ that ice warrants allow cops to enter homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the 4th amendment, fuck you, and because I’ve been warned I’ll say it like this instead: CHINGA TU REputa-SIMA MADRE. You’re on the wrong side of history and when karma comes for you and your kin I’ll cry tears of joy. 

you have no good will to rely on, it’s scary you’re so goddamn fucking stupid, don’t reproduce, magats like your ilk are the stain of this country and there will be only one solution to it. 

Wow. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted

The most depressing part of this is that the posters here that are not actual lunatics just sit on the side lines silently, hands under their ass. Maybe a stray finger or two cause they are curious. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

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.

According to the arrest warrant, apparently the judge did talk to them in the hallway, rather than the courtroom.  So, I recollected that wrong.

Nonetheless, the point stands that judges, and probably mostly the Chief Judge, are entitled to set rules or protocols for things like arrests occurring on courtroom floors, while the presiding judge of a courtroom is pretty much entitled to exclude offices or forbid arrests in a courtroom.

She could simply say, "I don't want arrests occurring in my courtroom, and probably not even on my floor, but that's ultimately the Chief Judge's call, not mine, so that's why I sent them to the Chief Judge."  And the "cops" would probably admit that they are often deferential to courthouse staff, courtroom personnel, and judges on such matters.

But, it's not directly relevant to the offense, except maybe as proof of an overall intention to interfere with the arrest.

Possibly the most telling part of the prosecution is that this is a misdemeanor offense.  And there's probably some DOJ guidelines on prosecuting judges and a judge might well have official immunity for courtroom decisions and actions, just like they have absolute immunity for deliberative judicial actions.

Posted
59 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The most depressing part of this is that the posters here that are not actual lunatics just sit on the side lines silently, hands under their ass. Maybe a stray finger or two cause they are curious. 


 

image.gif.1da7da29a730810bca9a66c6ef0a1a97.gif

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

image.jpeg.aaf3eb4d66bd140d76ed79db6d2be117.jpeg

 

Photo of Wisconsin judge’s perp walk. Notice the cuffs behnd her back.

The message is not in the details. The message is do not interfere with the gestapo, who are not beholden to the law.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted

The house of cards is tumbling down. It's only shocking it took this long for the corruption and rot to set it for someone to be unscrupulous and evil enough to get it done. 

 

Posted
8 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Why do you think your hypothetical has any relation to this case?

Because to be properly charged and arrested for a crime, there needs to be some indication that the elements are met. My hypothetical is related to what "harbor" and "conceal" mean.  

I'm open to the possibility that she concealed him, but that would be a very broad definition that is troubling to me. You seem okay with it though. 



×
×
  • Create New...