4 ms·

Did you read the warrant? They did not demand the judge tell them anything. They knew he was there and were waiting outside the courtroom to arrest him. The

Did you read the warrant? They did not demand the judge tell them anything. They knew he was there and were waiting outside the courtroom to arrest him. The judge confronted them and was visibly upset. She directed the agents elsewhere and then immediately told Ruiz and his counsel to exit via a private hallway. The attorney prosecuting the case against Ruiz and his (alleged) victims were present in the court and confused when his case was never called, even though everyone was present in the court.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
"elsewhere" here means "to the correct location they should have gone in the first place, to give notice of, and gain approval for, their actions" it's a pretty important detail
- dataflow 1y ago
  > it's a pretty important detail It doesn't seem like it matters here. Per 18 USC §1071: 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. Unless you're arguing that the facts are misrepresented, or that the law is somehow unconstitutional, this seems pretty slam-dunk, no? The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest. That's all there seems to be to it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/25/us/judgedugancomplaint.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/25/us/judgedugan...
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    Not sure that applies to arbitrary documents that the bearer claims is a warrant, rather than a judge-signed warrant. Either way, it wasn't illegal to send them to where they needed to go, and it wasn't illegal to let this dude use another door, so the illegality seems to depend on whether the executive can concoct their own warrants without any oversight and gain arbitrary access for arbitrary reasons. > The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest. Was the judge, beforehand, served with a judge-signed warrant indicating that they intended to, and were authorized to, arrest this person? If not, then it wasn't letting them escape arrest, it was letting them escape from 2 random dudes who may or may not even be law enforcement, much less law enforcement judicially authorized to arrest the dude.
    - dataflow 1y ago
      It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process. And "I don't even know if you're actually law enforcement" is not an excuse for ignoring law enforcement; what you do is ask for credentials and verify them. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. We'll see how it plays out in court.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process. Lol: by that logic, Steve who lives in a van down by the river can scribble himself a napkin that says "warrant" on it. After all, "It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process", and Steve who lives in a van down by the river has a process and a warrant. > I don't even know if you're actually law enforcement" is not an excuse for ignoring law enforcement Maybe, maybe not. "You never presented me with a valid warrant" is, though, and a judge would know better than cops what a valid warrant is.
        dataflow 1y ago
        > Lol: by that logic, Steve who lives in a van down by the river can scribble himself a napkin that says "warrant" on it. After all, "It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process", and Steve who lives in a van down by the river has a process and a warrant. What? Did you not read it says a process that "has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States"?
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        The laws of the United States say that Steve can scribble "warrant" on a napkin. Has this judge ruled that this ICE "administrative warrant" is any more valid than Steve's for the purposes of this case? Obviously judges, not the executive branch, are the deciders here. The constitution (which is supreme to laws), along with common law, put restrictions on which pieces of paper that say "warrant" actually get to function as warrants, and judges, like this one, have the last word on interpreting the constitution and laws.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

"elsewhere" here means "to the correct location they should have gone in the first place, to give notice of, and gain approval for, their actions" it's a pretty important detail

dataflow 1y ago
> it's a pretty important detail It doesn't seem like it matters here. Per 18 USC §1071: 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. Unless you're arguing that the facts are misrepresented, or that the law is somehow unconstitutional, this seems pretty slam-dunk, no? The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest. That's all there seems to be to it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/25/us/judgedugancomplaint.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/25/us/judgedugan...
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  Not sure that applies to arbitrary documents that the bearer claims is a warrant, rather than a judge-signed warrant. Either way, it wasn't illegal to send them to where they needed to go, and it wasn't illegal to let this dude use another door, so the illegality seems to depend on whether the executive can concoct their own warrants without any oversight and gain arbitrary access for arbitrary reasons. > The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest. Was the judge, beforehand, served with a judge-signed warrant indicating that they intended to, and were authorized to, arrest this person? If not, then it wasn't letting them escape arrest, it was letting them escape from 2 random dudes who may or may not even be law enforcement, much less law enforcement judicially authorized to arrest the dude.
  - dataflow 1y ago
    It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process. And "I don't even know if you're actually law enforcement" is not an excuse for ignoring law enforcement; what you do is ask for credentials and verify them. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. We'll see how it plays out in court.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      > It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process. Lol: by that logic, Steve who lives in a van down by the river can scribble himself a napkin that says "warrant" on it. After all, "It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process", and Steve who lives in a van down by the river has a process and a warrant. > I don't even know if you're actually law enforcement" is not an excuse for ignoring law enforcement Maybe, maybe not. "You never presented me with a valid warrant" is, though, and a judge would know better than cops what a valid warrant is.
      - dataflow 1y ago
        > Lol: by that logic, Steve who lives in a van down by the river can scribble himself a napkin that says "warrant" on it. After all, "It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process", and Steve who lives in a van down by the river has a process and a warrant. What? Did you not read it says a process that "has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States"?
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        The laws of the United States say that Steve can scribble "warrant" on a napkin. Has this judge ruled that this ICE "administrative warrant" is any more valid than Steve's for the purposes of this case? Obviously judges, not the executive branch, are the deciders here. The constitution (which is supreme to laws), along with common law, put restrictions on which pieces of paper that say "warrant" actually get to function as warrants, and judges, like this one, have the last word on interpreting the constitution and laws.