Milwaukee County Judge Dugan indicted, grand jury meets Tuesday (1 Viewer)

[TamleeB]

I think the same of this indictment that I thought of all of Trump's indictments.
They all worked for me, he got his day in court on some of them, and lost, bigly.
Time will tell if the Judge loses her case. Either way, her career is over.

I do agree, chances are her career is indeed….over.

 

[dcsports]

The administration's handling of the judge has a classic Fascist angle to it. They all try to destroy the independence of the juducuary. For obvious reasons.

How so? She injected herself into the federal case - on behalf of a defendant in her courtroom. She didn't just advocate for her courtroom or even the defendant - but actively helped him evade a lawful federal arrest. That's stepping WAY over the line.

 

[AZRWinger]

Who, exactly, were his victims?

Try to obtain at least a cursory understanding of the case.

 

[Xilnik]

That was a non-issue in this case. No one even suggested he would go there, or even be deported before facing trial for his current crimes.

The flip side of advocating for this person is that he was a defendant in her court. She's supposed to be a neutral judge of the facts in that case - not an advocate for the defendant. He literally had his attorney with him, who's there to protect his rights. She could have let the attorney know, and told him to let her staff know if he needed anything from HER court, then proceeded with the hearing as scheduled.

I agree with your suggestion, and if she wanted to make sure everything went smoothly beyond that, she had the option to ask federal judges to follow-up. I understand her trepidation after hundreds of illegal immigrants were renditioned to the El Salvador prisons despite having no criminal record or proven gang ties, but she still should have followed the law.

 

[TamleeB]

I agree with your suggestion, and if she wanted to make sure everything went smoothly beyond that, she had the option to ask federal judges to follow-up. I understand her trepidation after hundreds of illegal immigrants were renditioned to the El Salvador prisons despite having no criminal record or proven gang ties, but she still should have followed the law.

And not following the law is what this case is about. And is why she was charged.

 

[Josie]

It’s wild that there are people who think judges can legally break the law because they don’t like this president. Do you really want that precedent to be set?

 

[Hello My Son]

That's silly.

The goal is to arrest him after he's been screened, in a controlled environment. Again, they were bending over backward to NOT interfere with Dugan's hearing - which arresting him would have done. And again, they were following the draft policy (being used by the courthouse as an interim process) - which includes not arresting until after the hearing is complete.

Exactly. First, she sought out conflict with the agents. She went to them, not the other way around.

Then, when the person in charge overruled her complaints and corrected her errors, she defied the protocol that was dictated by her courthouse’s own Chief Judge and chose to undermine the process.

In a nutshell, she threw a hissy fit tantrum like a 5 year old and obviously broke the law in the process.

Everyone can see the obvious here, of course, but the usual suspects are pretending to not get it because that’s what they do when they know they’re wrong. Judge Dugan would approve!

 

[Xilnik]

It’s wild that there are people who think judges can legally break the law because they don’t like this president. Do you really want that precedent to be set?

I'm not in the group you referenced, but do you support federal judges' rulings that the President and his administration are breaking the law, or do you feel that precedent is somehow different?

 

[eohrnberger]

No, not "everything I don't like."

Yet the constant accusation of Nazi belies that assertion of yours.

Just you guys.

Rather tribal.
It bothers you that some have the temerity to have differing opinions and positions than yours?

I understand it's hard to wrap your head around the fact that you're the bad guys, but it's ok. You'll figure that out soon enough.

Your first assertion is in conflict with observed posts.
The second is tribal politics.

We are to take your third assertion because your first too 'were just so good'?
Hard pass.

The first two points there are reasons to disbelieve your third. In fact, I see the left and their public policy prescriptions, at least where they are at this moment in time, as everything that's wrong for America. The 'bad guys', in your terminology.

I'm sure you have some more memes to comfort you in the meantime.

Keep making baseless Nazi accusations and you'll see more of them.
OR
Stop making baseless Nazi accusations and you'll see fewer of them.

 

[Elmo]

I did fully read and comprehend your post, including the last paragraph.

The reason I asked you to read the charging document is because it refutes significant elements that you got wrong, and I thought you’d be interested in knowing.

No, it doesn't. You're probably thinking of this: "law enforcement routinely executes warrants and makes arrests in the public areas of buildings such as the Milwaukee County Courthouse". The phrase "buildings such as" are what I would describe as weasel words in this context. Meant to imply that the action of the sentence applies specifically to the courthouse without saying any such thing. If this conduct was commonplace at the courthouse, they could simply say that. The fact that the chief judge was still in the process of developing policy on the subject further indicates that it has not been a common occurrence for long.

Now I will say it again, the judge behaved badly and should not have interfered. She should have followed the Chief Judge's lead.

Milwaukee County is not a “sanctuary county”, and does not have any local laws/ordinances, like in established sanctuary locations, to protect illegal migrants from arrest inside courthouses, so the FBI, DEA, and ICE agents in the courthouse that day had every right to be there to arrest Ruiz.

Also of significance, the Chief Judge explicitly stated that the various law enforcement agents were permitted to wait for and make arrests in public spaces throughout the courthouse.

If the information contained in the sworn affidavit is true/accurate; it very much does look like Dugan deliberately interfered with the proper lawful arrest of Ruiz.

The legality of ICE's actions does not mean they are without harm to the state court system.

 

[Hello My Son]

It’s wild that there are people who think judges can legally break the law because they don’t like this president. Do you really want that precedent to be set?

They’ll pretend like they do and as soon as it’s inconvenient to them in the future, they’ll claim they were never in favor of it. Just like they’ve done many times before.

Remember when Harry Reid stupidly, against all warnings, still opted to invoke the nuclear option on judges?

That single decision has had so much political fallout for the left ever since, but they flat out refuse to even acknowledge its implications.

 

[eohrnberger]

The administration's handling of the judge has a classic Fascist angle to it. They all try to destroy the independence of the juducuary. For obvious reasons.

Only a judiciary which obstructs the executive branch from enforcing existing federal law is independent?
Only a judiciary which isn't held accountable to federal law is independent?
Only a judiciary which supports and enforces laws which you agree with is independent?

Good God do you post some rubbish sometimes.

 

[AZRWinger]

Her concern was he would face rendition to El Salvador's prisons. That's why I mentioned she should have taken it up with federal courts if that was her primary concern instead of taking matters into her own hands. I'm fine with deportation that follows the legal process. The renditions are what need to stop, and those are primarily occurring under the Alien Enemies Act.

Here is the definition of rendition in this context.

"the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners."

Legal deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are not renditions.

The sovereign government of El Salvador gave Abrego Garcia treatment consistent with the other citizen gang members.

Reading up on this, it seems Eduardo Flores-Ruiz faced expedited deportation to Mexico, so her concerns were unfounded. It's unfortunate she made such a mistake with no real reason for her fears.

A judge deliberately breaks the law to aid a twice deported illegal alien with a long criminal history in an attempt to evade ICE agents executing an arrest warrant. She just presided over a motion hearing and berated ICE agents in the hallway outside her courtroom but somehow didn't know the defendant was in danger of deportation to Mexico? Nonsense.

Yes or no, if the defendant was being deported to El Salvador could the judge make up her own law?

 

[Xilnik]

Here is the definition of rendition in this context.

"the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners."

Legal deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are not renditions.

The sovereign government of El Salvador gave Abrego Garcia treatment consistent with the other citizen gang members.

A judge deliberately breaks the law to aid a twice deported illegal alien with a long criminal history in an attempt to evade ICE agents executing an arrest warrant. She just presided over a motion hearing and berated ICE agents in the hallway outside her courtroom but somehow didn't know the defendant was in danger of deportation to Mexico? Nonsense.

Yes or no, if the defendant was being deported to El Salvador could the judge make up her own law?

Abrego Garcia is only one case in hundreds where illegal immigrants were renditioned without being charged criminally. I argue its rendition under the guise of the Alien Enemies Act because that law does not fit the circumstances, and the deportations did not fit the President’s Proclamation used to invoke the act.

Your second argument creates a strawman. You can read my previous posts for the answer.

 

[eohrnberger]

Abrego Garcia is only one case in hundreds where illegal immigrants were renditioned without being charged criminally.

The above statement is confused. Illegal immigrants aren't 'renditioned', they are deported.
Illegal immigrants can be deported without criminal charges, should their immigration hearing result in that ruling.
I further believe its true that Illegal immigrants can be deported even if they have criminal charges.

I argue its rendition under the guise of the Alien Enemies Act because that law does not fit the circumstances, and the deportations did not fit the President’s Proclamation used to invoke the act.

Your second argument creates a strawman. You can read my previous posts for the answer.

 

[Xilnik]

The above statement is confused. Illegal immigrants aren't 'renditioned', they are deported.
Illegal immigrants can be deported without criminal charges, should their immigration hearing result in that ruling.
I further believe its true that Illegal immigrants can be deported even if they have criminal charges.

Your argument overlooks the distinction between deportation through due process and rendition under executive authority.

Deportation follows a formal immigration hearing where a judge rules on legal grounds for removal. Rendition, on the other hand, bypasses judicial review, removing individuals based on executive discretion rather than legal proceedings.

The Alien Enemies Act is being used beyond its intended scope to justify removals that do not align with standard deportation procedures, making them functionally indistinguishable from extrajudicial transfers rather than lawful expulsions.

You're correct that illegal immigrants can be deported even if they have criminal charges but the concern here is whether those removals are legally justified or if they circumvent due process entirely. The difference matters.

 

[AZRWinger]

Abrego Garcia is only one case in hundreds where illegal immigrants were renditioned without being charged criminally. I argue its rendition under the guise of the Alien Enemies Act because that law does not fit the circumstances, and the deportations did not fit the President’s Proclamation used to invoke the act.

Words have meaning, kindly explain within the context of the definition presented how these deportations are actually renditions. Garcia wasn't secretly deported. Deportation is an administrative matter handled by immigration courts not a criminal matter. Additional criminal charges aren't neccessary to deport illegal aliens.

Your second argument creates a strawman. You can read my previous posts for the answer.

A question is not a strawman. You refuse to answer because it would strip away the excuses for the judge's illegal act.

 

[Absentglare]

Still it are you talking about the Haitians in Ohio

No scapegoated is when you accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit.

I think it's you thinking this dehumanized them.

Do you really think defending dehumanization rhetoric by lying is a good thing to do?

You are confusing enforcing immigration law and obstructing its enforcement with 'attack an outgroup scapegoat'.

That you appear to view the world in terms of 'outgroup' and 'ingroup' already demonstrates identify politics thinking.
If you frame your world view by identify politics thinking, that's all you'll ever see.

Now you’re both pretending that Trump doesn’t even complain about undocumented immigrants. Do you think you can gaslight everyone? Nobody believes this shit.

 

[Absentglare]

Try to obtain at least a cursory understanding of the case.

Who, then? Explain a little please, if this understanding is so obvious.

 

[Absentglare]

Only a judiciary which obstructs the executive branch from enforcing existing federal law is independent?
Only a judiciary which isn't held accountable to federal law is independent?
Only a judiciary which supports and enforces laws which you agree with is independent?

Good God do you post some rubbish sometimes.

You’re making excuses for dictator Trump to control the entire country all by himself.

Congress has our elected leaders, they are the ones who should be writing the rules, not Trump. The judiciary has our judges, they are the ones who interpret those rules, not Trump.

Trump is trying to overthrow that- what makes you think letting Trump dictate by executive order and arrest political opponents is a good thing?

 

[eohrnberger]

Your argument overlooks the distinction between deportation through due process and rendition under executive authority.

Your argument seems to ignore that Flores-Ruiz has had illegal immigration the due process, per 'notice and order of expedited removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013'.

Flores-Ruiz lived in the United States and was issued a notice and order of expedited removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013. He was arrested and deported to Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry shortly after.​

What to know about Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the man who appeared in judge Hannah Dugan's Milwaukee courtroom

Why Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was in Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan's courtroom, where he's from and answers to other questions.

www.jsonline.com

The due process that you seem to believe wasn't executed stems back to how this expedited removal order was arrived at back in 2013. He's been living in the US illegally for over 10 years.

Deportation follows a formal immigration hearing where a judge rules on legal grounds for removal. Rendition, on the other hand, bypasses judicial review, removing individuals based on executive discretion rather than legal proceedings.

The Alien Enemies Act is being used beyond its intended scope to justify removals that do not align with standard deportation procedures, making them functionally indistinguishable from extrajudicial transfers rather than lawful expulsions.

You're correct that illegal immigrants can be deported even if they have criminal charges but the concern here is whether those removals are legally justified or if they circumvent due process entirely. The difference matters.

 

[j brown's body]

That's silly.

The goal is to arrest him after he's been screened, in a controlled environment. Again, they were bending over backward to NOT interfere with Dugan's hearing - which arresting him would have done. And again, they were following the draft policy (being used by the courthouse as an interim process) - which includes not arresting until after the hearing is complete.

He can be arrested just as easily as he's headed into a controlled environment. Arresting him in the courthouse isn't necessary.

In fact, if the government inisists on arresting undocumented immigrants in courthouses, they will stop going there, defeating the purpose.

It's simply Trump exercising power over the state for the sake of exercising power over the state.

 

[j brown's body]

Try to obtain at least a cursory understanding of the case.

Feel free to provide it, if you can.

 

[Xilnik]

Your argument seems to ignore that Flores-Ruiz has had illegal immigration the due process, per 'notice and order of expedited removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013'.

Flores-Ruiz lived in the United States and was issued a notice and order of expedited removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013. He was arrested and deported to Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry shortly after.​

What to know about Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the man who appeared in judge Hannah Dugan's Milwaukee courtroom

Why Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was in Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan's courtroom, where he's from and answers to other questions.

www.jsonline.com

The due process that you seem to believe wasn't executed stems back to how this expedited removal order was arrived at back in 2013. He's been living in the US illegally for over 10 years.

None of what I was saying was about Flores-Ruiz's specific case. I was speaking to the judge's overreaction.

Words have meaning, kindly explain within the context of the definition presented how these deportations are actually renditions. Garcia wasn't secretly deported. Deportation is an administrative matter handled by immigration courts not a criminal matter. Additional criminal charges aren't neccessary to deport illegal aliens.

A question is not a strawman. You refuse to answer because it would strip away the excuses for the judge's illegal act.

I mentioned criminal charges because hundreds of immigrants were renditioned guised by the Alien Enemies Act without showing they were covered by the President’s Proclamation of being in Tren de Aragua. A criminal hearing or trial would be the best way to procure such evidence.

I didn't respond to your question because I already covered it. Your argument was a strawman because you assumed I was defending the judge's actions. See my quoted post below. I hope you didn't waste too much egg on your face.

I agree with your suggestion, and if she wanted to make sure everything went smoothly beyond that, she had the option to ask federal judges to follow-up. I understand her trepidation after hundreds of illegal immigrants were renditioned to the El Salvador prisons despite having no criminal record or proven gang ties, but she still should have followed the law.

 

[j brown's body]

I do agree, chances are her career is indeed….over.

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."