5 ms·

At the moment we don't have a lot of the facts. All we seem to have at this moment is a (since deleted?) post from the head of the FBI. There's a ton of context

At the moment we don't have a lot of the facts. All we seem to have at this moment is a (since deleted?) post from the head of the FBI. There's a ton of context that is missing. Like what does "intentionally misdirecting" mean? Does that mean saying "he went that way" when he really went in the opposite direction? Does it mean not answering questions about this person, or being obtuse? I'd also like to know more of the circumstances here. Did ICE agents literally walk into court and question the judge while sitting on the bench?

kemayo 1y ago
Article has been updated with more context in recent minutes: > ICE agents arrived in the judge’s courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who is facing misdemeanor battery charges in Wisconsin. > Dugan asked the agents to leave and speak to the circuit court’s chief judge, the Journal Sentinel reported. By the time they returned, Flores Ruiz had left. So, yeah, sounds like they literally walked into court and interrupted a hearing. Given the average temperament of judges, I think the least immigrant-friendly ones out there would become obstructionists in that situation...
- dmix 1y ago
  That still sounds pretty vague.
- sixothree 1y ago
  Are these the agents that were recorded last week not wearing uniforms and not presenting identification?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  Or they walked into the hearing, sat in the back, and didn't interrupt it. These proceedings are almost always public, and theoretically you or I could walk in and sit quietly without violating any rules. Without knowing more, they could have just been waiting patiently for the hearing to end, and they would have arrested him outside the courtroom after he had left. In that case, what the judge did does amount to willful obstruction.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > they could have just been waiting patiently for the hearing to end, and they would have arrested him outside the courtroom after he had left Still doesn’t justify arresting a judge in a court house. This is incredibly close to where taking up arms to secure the republic starts to make sense.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - openasocket 1y ago
    That would really depend on what the judge did, though. If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with the chief judge, that sounds like obstruction. If the judge said, “the chief judge wants to talk to you”, and the chief judge really did want to talk to the ICE agents, is that obstruction? In that scenario, ICE could have just not gone to see the chief judge until after arresting the suspect, or just sent one of their agents to talk to the chief judge and leave the rest in the courtroom.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      >That would really depend on what the judge did, though. It would, of course. But we don't know what the judge did, and yet everyone here is interpreting the events in the least generous way possible. Next week, when there is another incident, they'll use their least generous interpretations of what happened here as fact to justify their least generous interpretations of that incident. >If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with the chief judge, Or, if he just said "you all need to leave, none can stay" with the intention of hurrying the proceeding along so that the immigrant could leave before they could possibly return, that too is willful obstruction. >In that scenario, ICE could have just not gone to see the chief judge until a The other comment says they were "asked to leave and talk to him for permission". Ask is courtroom code for "do this, or you'll be arrested for contempt and spend at least a few hours in a holding cell in the other part of the courthouse building". There was no "they could have just not gone".
- openasocket 1y ago
  Devil is always in the details. But judges have a ton of discretionary power, and in fact obligations to, maintain order in their courtroom. Someone who disrupts a hearing can be forcibly removed by the bailiffs, can be fined, and can even be found in contempt and summarily jailed. I mean, what’s next? If a judge doesn’t sign off on a warrant because they don’t find probable cause, is that obstructing justice?
bloopernova 1y ago
[flagged]
- ericras 1y ago
  No one is above the law.
  - bananapub 1y ago
    I'm sorry, have you been in a coma the last 8 - 50 years?
  - MiguelHudnandez 1y ago
    If only that were true
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    No one poor is above the law. As autocracy expands, so does the definition of "poor". "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Wilhoit's Law
  - timeon 1y ago
    How about president with felonies?
  - baby_souffle 1y ago
    > No one is above the law. unimaginable wealth has entered the chat...
  - MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
    How many lawsuits were dropped and people pardoned at the discretion of the sitting president? Wasn't he the target of many legitimate lawsuits that were dropped? Didn't he pardon a bunch of people, including convicted fraudsters who grifted millions of dollars, relatively recently? Somebody in particular is above the law, as are all his cronies.
  - 1y ago

kemayo 1y ago

Article has been updated with more context in recent minutes: > ICE agents arrived in the judge’s courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who is facing misdemeanor battery charges in Wisconsin. > Dugan asked the agents to leave and speak to the circuit court’s chief judge, the Journal Sentinel reported. By the time they returned, Flores Ruiz had left. So, yeah, sounds like they literally walked into court and interrupted a hearing. Given the average temperament of judges, I think the least immigrant-friendly ones out there would become obstructionists in that situation...

dmix 1y ago
That still sounds pretty vague.
sixothree 1y ago
Are these the agents that were recorded last week not wearing uniforms and not presenting identification?
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
Or they walked into the hearing, sat in the back, and didn't interrupt it. These proceedings are almost always public, and theoretically you or I could walk in and sit quietly without violating any rules. Without knowing more, they could have just been waiting patiently for the hearing to end, and they would have arrested him outside the courtroom after he had left. In that case, what the judge did does amount to willful obstruction.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > they could have just been waiting patiently for the hearing to end, and they would have arrested him outside the courtroom after he had left Still doesn’t justify arresting a judge in a court house. This is incredibly close to where taking up arms to secure the republic starts to make sense.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    [flagged]
- openasocket 1y ago
  That would really depend on what the judge did, though. If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with the chief judge, that sounds like obstruction. If the judge said, “the chief judge wants to talk to you”, and the chief judge really did want to talk to the ICE agents, is that obstruction? In that scenario, ICE could have just not gone to see the chief judge until after arresting the suspect, or just sent one of their agents to talk to the chief judge and leave the rest in the courtroom.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >That would really depend on what the judge did, though. It would, of course. But we don't know what the judge did, and yet everyone here is interpreting the events in the least generous way possible. Next week, when there is another incident, they'll use their least generous interpretations of what happened here as fact to justify their least generous interpretations of that incident. >If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with the chief judge, Or, if he just said "you all need to leave, none can stay" with the intention of hurrying the proceeding along so that the immigrant could leave before they could possibly return, that too is willful obstruction. >In that scenario, ICE could have just not gone to see the chief judge until a The other comment says they were "asked to leave and talk to him for permission". Ask is courtroom code for "do this, or you'll be arrested for contempt and spend at least a few hours in a holding cell in the other part of the courthouse building". There was no "they could have just not gone".
openasocket 1y ago
Devil is always in the details. But judges have a ton of discretionary power, and in fact obligations to, maintain order in their courtroom. Someone who disrupts a hearing can be forcibly removed by the bailiffs, can be fined, and can even be found in contempt and summarily jailed. I mean, what’s next? If a judge doesn’t sign off on a warrant because they don’t find probable cause, is that obstructing justice?

bloopernova 1y ago

[flagged]

ericras 1y ago
No one is above the law.
- bananapub 1y ago
  I'm sorry, have you been in a coma the last 8 - 50 years?
- MiguelHudnandez 1y ago
  If only that were true
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  No one poor is above the law. As autocracy expands, so does the definition of "poor". "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Wilhoit's Law
- timeon 1y ago
  How about president with felonies?
- baby_souffle 1y ago
  > No one is above the law. unimaginable wealth has entered the chat...
- MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
  How many lawsuits were dropped and people pardoned at the discretion of the sitting president? Wasn't he the target of many legitimate lawsuits that were dropped? Didn't he pardon a bunch of people, including convicted fraudsters who grifted millions of dollars, relatively recently? Somebody in particular is above the law, as are all his cronies.
- 1y ago