6 ms·

Another key point is that generally speaking the charge of obstruction of justice requires two ingredients: 1) knowledge of a government proceeding 2) action

Another key point is that generally speaking the charge of obstruction of justice requires two ingredients: 1) knowledge of a government proceeding 2) action with intent to interfere with that proceeding It doesn't especially matter in this case whether ICE was entitled to enter the courtroom because she's not being charged for refusing to allow them entry to the room. The allegation is that upon finding out about their warrant she canceled the hearing and led the defendant out a door that he would not customarily use. Allegedly she did so with the intent of helping him to avoid the officers she knew were there to arrest him. The government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent (1). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

ivape 1y ago
The government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent She is brave. I suspect we will look back on this one day if it goes that far. Even if you are staunch anti-immigration advocate, I would ask everyone to do the mental exercise of how one should proceed if the law or the enforcement of it is inhumane. The immigrant in question went for a non-immigration hearing, so this judge was brave (that's the only way I'll describe it). Few of us would have the courage to do that even for clear cut injustices, we'd sit back and go "well what can I do?". Bear witness, this is how. Frontpage of /r/law: ICE Can Now Enter Your Home Without a Warrant to Look for Migrants, DOJ Memo Says https://dailyboulder.com/ice-can-now-enter-your-home-without-a-warrant-to-find-migrants-doj-memo-says/ https://dailyboulder.com/ice-can-now-enter-your-home-without...
- lolinder 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ivape 1y ago
    The headline did not appear inaccurate to me, but I'll confess I'm not as great of a reader as some of you. The article seems to indicate the headline is correct from my reading comprehension. I always scored well on reading comprehension tests so I don't know, did I get dumber? Someone else read the article and settle it between me and the GP so we can get a conclusive answer. With that said, do you believe the Patriot Act was used only for terrorists? Great little scene from The Departed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAKPWaJPR0Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAKPWaJPR0Y Gangs and Terrorists are bad, but I believe we as a country went through this once already and you cannot create these precedents because they stick around. They're literally reusing Guantanamo Bay.
  - jshen 1y ago
    What's the lie? Who is lying?
  - lobotomizer 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - RajT88 1y ago
      Indeed. And they have floated "deporting" citizens for "crimes". They have made it clear how they are treating immigrants is how they want to treat citizens. If you think the citizens they are targeting are "the bad ones", you just wait. Soon the "bad ones" category will get wider was well. Someone wrote a poem about this once. Their back story is very, very relevant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came
    - justin66 1y ago
      Hey, it's not arbitrary. They know how to interpret the secret meaning of your tattoos.
ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
[flagged]
- Jensson 1y ago
  Almost every single country on earth? Illegal immigrants are hunted down and deported everywhere and it is illegal to hide illegal immigrants. USA is an exception here where local authorities doesn't govern immigration laws so you get "sanctuary cities", in almost every other country this sort of thing doesn't happen so illegal immigrants just get arrested and deported.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    I said minorities, not "illegal immigrants" many minorities otherwise here legally are also being persecuted
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > many minorities otherwise here legally are also being persecuted Can you name one minority group that is being persecuted and have to hide? If you mean people critical of Trump then that is not a minority group, at least not in this context. It is wrong to deport them for that, but that isn't the same as "hunting down minorities".
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > Can you name one minority group that is being persecuted Sure: Immigrants. Also: International students, especially Palestinians who support their friends and family in Palestine.
- c_exclu 1y ago
  [flagged]
mrandish 1y ago
Yes, I agree. Setting aside the macro issues of A) The current admin's immigration policies, and B) The current admin's oddly extreme strategies involving chasing down undocumented persons in unusual places for immediate deportation. From a standpoint of only legal precedent and the ordinance this judge is charged under, the particular circumstances of this case don't seem to make it a good fit for a litmus test case or a PR 'hero' case to highlight opposition to the admin's policies. At least, there are many other cases which appear to be far better suited for those purposes. To me, part of the issue here is that judges are "officers of the court" with certain implied duties about furthering the proper administration of justice. If the defendant had been appearing in her courtroom that day in a matter regarding his immigration status, the judge's actions could arguably be in support of the judicial process (ie if the defendant is deported before she can rule on his deportability that impedes the administration of justice). But since he was appearing on an unrelated domestic violence case, that argument can't apply here. Hence, this appears to be, at best, a messy, unclear case and, at worst, pretty open and shut. Separately, ICE choosing to arrest the judge at the courthouse instead of doing a pre-arranged surrender and booking, appears to be aggressive showboating that's unfortunate and, generally, a bad look for the U.S. government, U.S. judicial system AND the current administration.
hayst4ck 1y ago
This is the constitutional crisis. You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US. The administration is in open violation of supreme court rulings and the law. They have repeatedly shown contempt for the constitution. They have repeatedly assumed their own supremacy. People responsible for enforcement are out of sync with those responsible for due process and legal interpretation. That is true crisis. These words are simple, but the emotional impact should be chilling. When considering the actions of the ICE agents, it seems very reasonable that aiding or abetting them would be an even greater obstruction of justice if not directly aiding and abetting illegal activity. America is being confronted with a very serious problem. What happens when those responsible for enforcing the law break it or start enforcing "alternative" law? If the police are breaking the law, then there is no law, there is only power. Law is just words on paper without enforcement. If the idea sounds farfetched, imagine if KKK members deciding to become police officers and how that changes the subjective experience of law by citizens compared to what law says on paper. Imagine they decide to become judges to. How would you expect that to pervert justice?
- lolinder 1y ago
  > You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US. No I'm not. I'm taking the facts as they're presented by the AP (which is famously not sympathetic to this administration) and saying that nothing in the facts that I'm seeing here in this specific case serves as evidence of a constitutional crisis. This is a straightforward case of obstruction: either she did the things that are alleged or she didn't. If she did, it's obstruction regardless of who is in the White House, and we have no reason to believe at this time that she didn't! We have better litmus tests, better evidence of wrongdoing by the administration, and better cases to get up in arms about. If we choose our martyrs carelessly we're wasting political capital that could be spent showing those still on the fence the many actual, straightforward cases of overreach.
  - deleted 1y ago
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent (1) Dude used a different door so the FBI arrests a judge in a court room? At that point we should be charging ICE agents with kidnapping.
ocdtrekkie 1y ago
> The government has to prove intent here Technically all the government has to do is get her on a plane to El Salvador in the middle of the night. Which is to say, this arm of government has not followed any semblance of due process so far, and is currently defying a unanimous order of the Supreme Court even in a Republican supermajority, pretending due process is something they "have to" do is very much ignoring where we are.
fc417fc802 1y ago
Notably the examples on the page you linked appear to involve illegal acts (tampering, threatening, etc). Letting someone out a different door (neither party is trespassing) doesn't seem to rise to that bar. Just as I'm not obligated to call the police to report something I don't see how I can be obligated to force my guest to use a particular door for the convenience of the police. It isn't my responsibility to actively facilitate their actions. It would never have occurred to me (and doesn't seem reasonable) that obstruction could involve indirect (relative to the government process) actions. I could understand "aiding and abetting" if I was actively facilitating the commission of a crime but I don't want to live in a country where mere avoidance is considered a crime. "Arrested for resisting arrest" gets mocked for good reason.

ivape 1y ago

The government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent She is brave. I suspect we will look back on this one day if it goes that far. Even if you are staunch anti-immigration advocate, I would ask everyone to do the mental exercise of how one should proceed if the law or the enforcement of it is inhumane. The immigrant in question went for a non-immigration hearing, so this judge was brave (that's the only way I'll describe it). Few of us would have the courage to do that even for clear cut injustices, we'd sit back and go "well what can I do?". Bear witness, this is how. Frontpage of /r/law: ICE Can Now Enter Your Home Without a Warrant to Look for Migrants, DOJ Memo Says https://dailyboulder.com/ice-can-now-enter-your-home-without-a-warrant-to-find-migrants-doj-memo-says/ https://dailyboulder.com/ice-can-now-enter-your-home-without...

lolinder 1y ago
[flagged]
- ivape 1y ago
  The headline did not appear inaccurate to me, but I'll confess I'm not as great of a reader as some of you. The article seems to indicate the headline is correct from my reading comprehension. I always scored well on reading comprehension tests so I don't know, did I get dumber? Someone else read the article and settle it between me and the GP so we can get a conclusive answer. With that said, do you believe the Patriot Act was used only for terrorists? Great little scene from The Departed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAKPWaJPR0Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAKPWaJPR0Y Gangs and Terrorists are bad, but I believe we as a country went through this once already and you cannot create these precedents because they stick around. They're literally reusing Guantanamo Bay.
- jshen 1y ago
  What's the lie? Who is lying?
- lobotomizer 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - RajT88 1y ago
    Indeed. And they have floated "deporting" citizens for "crimes". They have made it clear how they are treating immigrants is how they want to treat citizens. If you think the citizens they are targeting are "the bad ones", you just wait. Soon the "bad ones" category will get wider was well. Someone wrote a poem about this once. Their back story is very, very relevant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came
  - justin66 1y ago
    Hey, it's not arbitrary. They know how to interpret the secret meaning of your tattoos.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

[flagged]

Jensson 1y ago
Almost every single country on earth? Illegal immigrants are hunted down and deported everywhere and it is illegal to hide illegal immigrants. USA is an exception here where local authorities doesn't govern immigration laws so you get "sanctuary cities", in almost every other country this sort of thing doesn't happen so illegal immigrants just get arrested and deported.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  I said minorities, not "illegal immigrants" many minorities otherwise here legally are also being persecuted
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > many minorities otherwise here legally are also being persecuted Can you name one minority group that is being persecuted and have to hide? If you mean people critical of Trump then that is not a minority group, at least not in this context. It is wrong to deport them for that, but that isn't the same as "hunting down minorities".
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      > Can you name one minority group that is being persecuted Sure: Immigrants. Also: International students, especially Palestinians who support their friends and family in Palestine.
c_exclu 1y ago
[flagged]

mrandish 1y ago

Yes, I agree. Setting aside the macro issues of A) The current admin's immigration policies, and B) The current admin's oddly extreme strategies involving chasing down undocumented persons in unusual places for immediate deportation. From a standpoint of only legal precedent and the ordinance this judge is charged under, the particular circumstances of this case don't seem to make it a good fit for a litmus test case or a PR 'hero' case to highlight opposition to the admin's policies. At least, there are many other cases which appear to be far better suited for those purposes. To me, part of the issue here is that judges are "officers of the court" with certain implied duties about furthering the proper administration of justice. If the defendant had been appearing in her courtroom that day in a matter regarding his immigration status, the judge's actions could arguably be in support of the judicial process (ie if the defendant is deported before she can rule on his deportability that impedes the administration of justice). But since he was appearing on an unrelated domestic violence case, that argument can't apply here. Hence, this appears to be, at best, a messy, unclear case and, at worst, pretty open and shut. Separately, ICE choosing to arrest the judge at the courthouse instead of doing a pre-arranged surrender and booking, appears to be aggressive showboating that's unfortunate and, generally, a bad look for the U.S. government, U.S. judicial system AND the current administration.

hayst4ck 1y ago

This is the constitutional crisis. You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US. The administration is in open violation of supreme court rulings and the law. They have repeatedly shown contempt for the constitution. They have repeatedly assumed their own supremacy. People responsible for enforcement are out of sync with those responsible for due process and legal interpretation. That is true crisis. These words are simple, but the emotional impact should be chilling. When considering the actions of the ICE agents, it seems very reasonable that aiding or abetting them would be an even greater obstruction of justice if not directly aiding and abetting illegal activity. America is being confronted with a very serious problem. What happens when those responsible for enforcing the law break it or start enforcing "alternative" law? If the police are breaking the law, then there is no law, there is only power. Law is just words on paper without enforcement. If the idea sounds farfetched, imagine if KKK members deciding to become police officers and how that changes the subjective experience of law by citizens compared to what law says on paper. Imagine they decide to become judges to. How would you expect that to pervert justice?

lolinder 1y ago
> You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US. No I'm not. I'm taking the facts as they're presented by the AP (which is famously not sympathetic to this administration) and saying that nothing in the facts that I'm seeing here in this specific case serves as evidence of a constitutional crisis. This is a straightforward case of obstruction: either she did the things that are alleged or she didn't. If she did, it's obstruction regardless of who is in the White House, and we have no reason to believe at this time that she didn't! We have better litmus tests, better evidence of wrongdoing by the administration, and better cases to get up in arms about. If we choose our martyrs carelessly we're wasting political capital that could be spent showing those still on the fence the many actual, straightforward cases of overreach.
- deleted 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent (1) Dude used a different door so the FBI arrests a judge in a court room? At that point we should be charging ICE agents with kidnapping.

ocdtrekkie 1y ago

> The government has to prove intent here Technically all the government has to do is get her on a plane to El Salvador in the middle of the night. Which is to say, this arm of government has not followed any semblance of due process so far, and is currently defying a unanimous order of the Supreme Court even in a Republican supermajority, pretending due process is something they "have to" do is very much ignoring where we are.

fc417fc802 1y ago

Notably the examples on the page you linked appear to involve illegal acts (tampering, threatening, etc). Letting someone out a different door (neither party is trespassing) doesn't seem to rise to that bar. Just as I'm not obligated to call the police to report something I don't see how I can be obligated to force my guest to use a particular door for the convenience of the police. It isn't my responsibility to actively facilitate their actions. It would never have occurred to me (and doesn't seem reasonable) that obstruction could involve indirect (relative to the government process) actions. I could understand "aiding and abetting" if I was actively facilitating the commission of a crime but I don't want to live in a country where mere avoidance is considered a crime. "Arrested for resisting arrest" gets mocked for good reason.