• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Milwaukee County Judge Dugan indicted, grand jury meets Tuesday

I am sure they did. That does not have anything to do with what the judge did. She willfully and purposely helped a detainee escape.

I suspect she will argue otherwise. We'll know better then.
 
Not necessarily.

"Factually, it seems extremely difficult to prove the judge’s intent — you would have to show she knowingly and materially obstructed a criminal investigation. Simply using one courthouse door over another, especially when the defendant was immediately apprehended, makes it very hard to argue there was an effort to obstruct justice.

It also doesn’t resemble classic cases of harboring a fugitive, where someone actively hides or protects a known fugitive to prevent apprehension. Here, the defendant remained in a public place — first in the courthouse, then just outside it — and was still in plain view of law enforcement.

Proving the necessary intent on the judge’s part seems highly unlikely. Additionally, the statute being used could be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, depending on how it’s applied here.


In short: this appears to be a tenuous legal and factual case."
Link

This may well be what the judge says she was doing:

"Another Wisconsin judge, Monica Isham (of Sawyer County) has said that unless she gets guidance from the state about how her courtroom will be protected against infringement from federal agents, she will effectively go on strike and shut down her courtroom."
Post #325

"Factually, it seems extremely difficult to prove the judge’s intent — you would have to show she knowingly and materially obstructed a criminal investigation. Simply using one courthouse door over another, especially when the defendant was immediately apprehended, makes it very hard to argue there was an effort to obstruct justice.

It also doesn’t resemble classic cases of harboring a fugitive, where someone actively hides or protects a known fugitive to prevent apprehension. Here, the defendant remained in a public place — first in the courthouse, then just outside it — and was still in plain view of law enforcement.

Proving the necessary intent on the judge’s part seems highly unlikely. Additionally, the statute being used could be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, depending on how it’s applied here.

In short: this appears to be a tenuous legal and factual case."

```````````````````````````

I've asked for particulars re the laws she is supposed to have broken, and which specific actions taken by the judge violated the laws, but....crickets.

Moreover, that it was the judge who directed some of the agents (not all of them) or took them herself to her superior's office for guidance mitigates against an intent to obstruct law enforcement.
 
The former judge didn't dismiss the case. She adjourned the hearing without telling or consulting any of the other parties involved - likely to avoid telling them she was doing so. That was in furtherance of her criminal activity. Now it gets kicked to another judge to handle, and the victims have to wait longer for justice.

Flores-Ruiz didn't just 'use the wrong door'. They were directed to use a jury only door by the judge, who escorted them through a staff area to an exit away from her courtroom. The evidence they have from the complaint was pretty telling - and that was without testimony from the defendant or his attorney.

The problem with this argument is that it all depends on speculation, and the government's word ( :D ) . She may have simply been washing her hands of the whole affair, and I suggest that was within her rights, especially considering that the courthouse had not yet issued instructions on how judges should handle things.
 
Post #325

"Factually, it seems extremely difficult to prove the judge’s intent — you would have to show she knowingly and materially obstructed a criminal investigation. Simply using one courthouse door over another, especially when the defendant was immediately apprehended, makes it very hard to argue there was an effort to obstruct justice.

It also doesn’t resemble classic cases of harboring a fugitive, where someone actively hides or protects a known fugitive to prevent apprehension. Here, the defendant remained in a public place — first in the courthouse, then just outside it — and was still in plain view of law enforcement.

Proving the necessary intent on the judge’s part seems highly unlikely. Additionally, the statute being used could be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, depending on how it’s applied here.

In short: this appears to be a tenuous legal and factual case."

```````````````````````````

I've asked for particulars re the laws she is supposed to have broken, and which specific actions taken by the judge violated the laws, but....crickets.

Moreover, that it was the judge who directed some of the agents (not all of them) or took them herself to her superior's office for guidance mitigates against an intent to obstruct law enforcement.
I am totally fine with the court deciding if she did or did not do as she is charged.
 
Do you really think defending dehumanization rhetoric by lying is a good thing to do?
No idea what dehumanizing rhetoric you're talking about sounds made up.
Now you’re both pretending that Trump doesn’t even complain about undocumented immigrants.
No such thing as undocumented immigrants immigrants are legally here. The term is illegal alien. They are not possibly be immigrants they are not legally here.
Do you think you can gaslight everyone? Nobody believes this shit.
You are one to talk about gaslighting you keep calling illegal aliens undocumented immigrants which is an oxymoron you cannot possibly be an undocumented immigrant in order to be an immigrant you must be documented.

So maybe don't cast stones from your glass house.

Also you made up some nonsense about dehumanizing which is also part of the gaslighting.
 
The problem with this argument is that it all depends on speculation, and the government's word ( :D ) . She may have simply been washing her hands of the whole affair, and I suggest that was within her rights, especially considering that the courthouse had not yet issued instructions on how judges should handle things.
Actually…I believe there are several witnesses that have given written accounts of what happened on that day, and will be in court.
 
Actually…I believe there are several witnesses that have given written accounts of what happened on that day, and will be in court.

Witnesses can't speak to motive.
 
Witnesses can't speak to motive.
Oh and by the way, I look forward to the Judge explaining her ‘motive” which involved showing a man whom was charged with a crime to escape. Before his trial. ;) While his two victims set in the court room. Did they not matter?
 
You two are so focused on President Trump and what you see as anti-Trump sentiment. I have expressed the concerns here purely from a logistical perspective and how that impacts judicial actions. You two seem too involved in feelings about President Trump to look at it objectively.
This is a pretty strange statement. YOU keep bringing up Trump and anti-Trump sentiment, even in this post. I keep saying - focus on this specific case - Trump and the AEA have nothing to do with it.


Why do I keep bringing the AEA up? Because its unintended use creates an unfamiliar legal environment across all immigration enforcement. Judges are expected to work within established legal frameworks, and when a rarely invoked law is suddenly applied in a way that expands executive power, it shifts the landscape in ways courts have to address.
Case in point. There is no 'unfamiliar environment' in this case. It is very straightforward. There was no reason for Dugan to handle this case any differently - in fact, nothing was asked of her with regard to the immigration case. It wasn't her case our jurisdiction. She chose to sabotage the case in her courtroom, and insert herself into the immigration case.


Dugan may have reacted improperly, but dismissing the influence of executive decisions on judicial responses ignores how legal uncertainty affects case law and enforcement procedures. Whether you agree with her or not, the broader implications remain relevant.


Note: I wasn't referring to anxiety in the sense you or I would experience anxiety. It was a metaphorical interpretation of the volatility that currently exists within immigration rulings.

May have? She absolutely acted improperly, and her response had nothing to do with her judicial responsibilities.
 
This doesn’t make sense. If it’s not her job to inform the prosecution etc., then how is it not an official act?

He didn’t evade arrest.
It is her job to conduct hearings in her courtroom with due process - including announcing cases and giving both the prosecution and defense an opportunity to participate.

It is not her job to try to divert federal agents to another part of the building and sneak a fugitive through staff corridors to avoid arrest.

He absolutely attempted to evade arrest - and did for a period of time.
 
So what?

The ICE agents caught their man. (I assume they receive training re HOW to arrest a person in a "non-controlled environment"....)
She created an unnecessary danger, and attempted to allow a fugitive to escape.

Sure, they have training in conducting non-cooperative arrests. That doesn't justify an officer of the court placing the officers, suspect, and public, in unnecessary danger.
 
He was successfully apprehended by ICE. But they want to send a message to all judges to obey our dictator Trump.
This has zero to do with Trump, or 'obeying' anyone. It's about not using your position to help someone evade a lawful arrest - in this case a dangerous criminal who had already been deported under Obama.
 
Post #325

"Factually, it seems extremely difficult to prove the judge’s intent — you would have to show she knowingly and materially obstructed a criminal investigation. Simply using one courthouse door over another, especially when the defendant was immediately apprehended, makes it very hard to argue there was an effort to obstruct justice.
It's pretty clear in this case, especially given the scene she created in the hallway. I expect that the defendant's attorney will be able to provide insight on what she told him as well.

It also doesn’t resemble classic cases of harboring a fugitive, where someone actively hides or protects a known fugitive to prevent apprehension. Here, the defendant remained in a public place — first in the courthouse, then just outside it — and was still in plain view of law enforcement.
Incorrect. The judge escorted him out through a staff area - not a public corridor - to an entrance away from her courtroom. She diverted the arrest team to another office, and checked the hallway before escorting him out. The only reason he was spotted is because agents had the foresight to put a couple of backup agents, apart from the arrest team, in the hallway, and they weren't noticed.


Proving the necessary intent on the judge’s part seems highly unlikely. Additionally, the statute being used could be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, depending on how it’s applied here.

In short: this appears to be a tenuous legal and factual case."
lol. Arguing unconstitutionally vague? Good luck there. I'm sure that's been tried before.


I've asked for particulars re the laws she is supposed to have broken, and which specific actions taken by the judge violated the laws, but....crickets.
Look at the charging document. There are no crickets.

Moreover, that it was the judge who directed some of the agents (not all of them) or took them herself to her superior's office for guidance mitigates against an intent to obstruct law enforcement.
She tried to divert them away, then checked the hallway. She just didn't know they had secondary agents positioned apart from the arrest team in the hallway. That's evidence against her - not mitigation.
 
It's pretty clear in this case, especially given the scene she created in the hallway. I expect that the defendant's attorney will be able to provide insight on what she told him as well.


Incorrect. The judge escorted him out through a staff area - not a public corridor - to an entrance away from her courtroom. She diverted the arrest team to another office, and checked the hallway before escorting him out. The only reason he was spotted is because agents had the foresight to put a couple of backup agents, apart from the arrest team, in the hallway, and they weren't noticed.



lol. Arguing unconstitutionally vague? Good luck there. I'm sure that's been tried before.



Look at the charging document. There are no crickets.


She tried to divert them away, then checked the hallway. She just didn't know they had secondary agents positioned apart from the arrest team in the hallway. That's evidence against her - not mitigation.
It is all going to come out in court. ALL of it.
 
The problem with this argument is that it all depends on speculation, and the government's word ( :D ) . She may have simply been washing her hands of the whole affair, and I suggest that was within her rights, especially considering that the courthouse had not yet issued instructions on how judges should handle things.
lol. No - there were numerous witnesses noted in the charging statement - including the prosecutor and victims. And again, the defendant's attorney was involved - and testified to the grand jury. 'washing her hands' would have been calling the parties up and adjourning the case - not sneaking the person through a staff hallway and continuing with the rest of the docket.
 
It's pretty clear in this case, especially given the scene she created in the hallway. I expect that the defendant's attorney will be able to provide insight on what she told him as well.


Incorrect. The judge escorted him out through a staff area - not a public corridor - to an entrance away from her courtroom. She diverted the arrest team to another office, and checked the hallway before escorting him out. The only reason he was spotted is because agents had the foresight to put a couple of backup agents, apart from the arrest team, in the hallway, and they weren't noticed.



lol. Arguing unconstitutionally vague? Good luck there. I'm sure that's been tried before.



Look at the charging document. There are no crickets.


She tried to divert them away, then checked the hallway. She just didn't know they had secondary agents positioned apart from the arrest team in the hallway. That's evidence against her - not mitigation.
The judge's intent isn't clear, given the fact it was she who made the decision to seek guidance from her superior.

You can make as many claims re her actions as you want, but your word isn't good enough. Same goes for your claims about relevant laws and the Constitution. If you want to show that something is factual, copy and paste excerpts from credible sources to which you provide the links.

(Your assumption re intent - that "she tried to divert them away" - is simply an assumption made by an anonymous poster in cyberspace.)

In the meantime, we're left with the fact the lawless trump administration is targeting and intimidating our judicial system. Why MAGA supports this is unknowable.
 
The judge's intent isn't clear, given the fact it was she who made the decision to seek guidance from her superior.

You can make as many claims re her actions as you want, but your word isn't good enough. Same goes for your claims about relevant laws and the Constitution. If you want to show that something is factual, copy and paste excerpts from credible sources to which you provide the links.

(Your assumption re intent - that "she tried to divert them away" - is simply an assumption made by an anonymous poster in cyberspace.)

In the meantime, we're left with the fact the lawless trump administration is targeting and intimidating our judicial system. Why MAGA supports this is unknowable.
She did indeed seek guidance from her superior. What was that guidance?
I do find this intriguing. Time will tell how this plays out, meanwhile…..this judge will not be making decisions, thankfully.
 
She did indeed seek guidance from her superior. What was that guidance?
I do find this intriguing. Time will tell how this plays out, meanwhile…..this judge will not be making decisions, thankfully.
If you've read this thread, you know what the Chief Judge said.

Btw, I suspect that were the judge in question male, misogynist trump wouldn't have gone after him in this manner.
 
If you've read this thread, you know what the Chief Judge said.

Btw, I suspect that were the judge in question male, misogynist trump wouldn't have gone after him in this manner.
I actually have done a bit of research on this. There IS a reason this judge is being called out for her obvious mistakes. I don’t think her sex had one thing her being a “female” had anything to do with it. The JUDGE screwed up. Doesn’t matter what chromosomes she had. But of course, you are free to now conclude this is sexism. When all else fails. :D
 
Criminal activity involving his son, and completely ignoring the borders.
What crimes did he commit?

And he didn’t ignore the borders. He attempted to honor US law and treaty commitments regarding asylum seekers, even as deportations continued. You wouldn’t know it, but migrants were screened in in much the same way under Trump even as Donald called migrants names.
 
Back
Top Bottom