Milwaukee County Judge Dugan indicted, grand jury meets Tuesday

[eohrnberger]

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

No, I'm stating that all of the judiciary need to comply with existing laws, including ones about NOT obstructing federal agents from legally and lawfully executing their duties.

That you are confused about this only shows that you'd want the judiciary to comply with laws you disagree with, placing them above the law, which is BS.

Congress has our elected leaders, they are the ones who should be writing the rules, not Trump.

Which rules do you believe that Trump has written or re-written?

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]

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

We can agree that Judge Dugan overreacted. OK.

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.

 

[TamleeB]

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."

Your link is not allowing me to click on it?
We all will find out more details when it goes to court. Many witnesses have already given statements as to what they personally witnessed on the day in question.
It’s all good. Let it play out.

 

[j brown's body]

Your link is not allowing me to click on it?
We all will find out more details when it goes to court. Many witnesses have already given statements as to what they personally witnessed on the day in question.
It’s all good. Let it play out.

Sorry, it appear I neglected to add this link, which is rather interesting, pointing out the problem with using the courts to arrest undocumented immigrants because of the unfortunate consequences of the policy, specifically, it will make it harder to find them and deport them.

Arrest of Wisconsin judge could affect how justice system operates, political scientist argues

Judge Hannah Dugan's arrest could pose complications for both federal law enforcement and local judges around the country.

www.wpr.org

'It is unusual to have federal authorities arresting state court judges, and politically, this could very well be a sign of a significant locus of resistance to the Trump deportation policies. State and local judges may turn out to be an unexpected line of resistance to that policy. 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.

One is there are some illegal immigrants who have committed crimes and are threats to public safety. If you cannot bring them to court, if you can’t get them to come to court, if every single one of them has to be chased down, that makes it much harder to enforce relevant laws. And we’re not necessarily talking about murder and kidnapping, but we could be talking about drunk driving or domestic violence or any number of things.

More generally, it’s a policy that drives everybody underground, and that goes to the arrests at churches as well. And the more you drive this population underground, the more difficult it is to find them, the more draconian the police tactics have to be in order to find them. This is an approach that ratchets up the degree of conflict and the degree of potential violence that’s involved in carrying out this policy."

 

[dcsports]

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.

Did you even read my post? That you quoted? The issue isn't that it's the only place that they 'can' arrest him.

This is a common practice that pre-dates Trump. And of course where they 'could' arrest him doesn't excuse the former-judge's actions.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Pay attention:

I have from the beginning.

I am not disputing what the Chief Judge said.

What I've done is point out the fact it was DUGAN who took or sent them there. And that this action taken by Dugan seems to me to indicate a lack of intent to obstruct.

Dugan sent the agents to talk to the Chief Judge, then went back to her courtroom, moved Ruiz up on the docket, adjourned his case to a later date (without notifying the state’s attorney, victim, and witnesses that came later that morning for the scheduled hearing), then personally led Ruiz and his attorney to an inner hallway not normally used by other than court staff.

 

[Xilnik]

We can agree that Judge Dugan overreacted. OK.

Alright, but you're ignoring the greater issue that led to Judge Dugan's mindset. Judge Dugan’s intervention and the Alien Enemies Act (AEA)’s overreach both eroded due process and judicial integrity; you're addressing the former while dismissing the latter. The misuse of the AEA led to deportations without proper legal safeguards, fueling Dugan’s concerns about unjust removals. However, her attempt to obstruct federal agents was not the solution. By overstepping her authority instead of pursuing legal challenges, she weakened the very judicial oversight that could have addressed the issue. Just as the administration’s broad use of the AEA undermines constitutional protections, her actions did the same by disregarding established legal procedures.

 

[j brown's body]

Did you even read my post? That you quoted? The issue isn't that it's the only place that they 'can' arrest him.

This is a common practice that pre-dates Trump. And of course where they 'could' arrest him doesn't excuse the former-judge's actions.

Post #329 points to the stupidity of the policy and helps us understand why it was seldom done - its self-defeating, unless your goal isn't to arrest undocumented immigrants but is to intimidate the judiciary

.

 

[dcsports]

I have from the beginning.

Dugan sent the agents to talk to the Chief Judge, then went back to her courtroom, moved Ruiz up on the docket, adjourned his case to a later date (without notifying the state’s attorney, victim, and witnesses that came later that morning for the scheduled hearing), then personally led Ruiz and his attorney to an inner hallway not normally used by other than court staff.

One correction. The state's attorney, and victims / witnesses, and a specialist assisting the victims were IN the courtroom when this all occurred. It was a morning docket with a list of motions and hearings to be heard. She spoke to the defense attorney, and adjourned the case without any input from the prosecutor or announcement from the bench.

 

[j brown's body]

One correction. The state's attorney, and victims / witnesses, and a specialist assisting the victims were IN the courtroom when this all occurred. It was a morning docket with a list of motions and hearings to be heard. She spoke to the defense attorney, and adjourned the case without any input from the prosecutor or announcement from the bench.

I think she basically went on strike, washing her hands of the whole sordid deal.

 

[dcsports]

Post #329 points to the stupidity of the policy and helps us understand why it was seldom done - its self-defeating, unless your goal isn't to arrest undocumented immigrants but is to intimidate the judiciary

.

So, did you not read the post, or just chose to ignore it?

I understand that opinion - which would actually appear be against arresting the person outside the courthouse as well. It's been discussed, and was considered in both the current ICE policy and courthouse policy of only targeting specific people accused of crimes, and not those who are witnesses, victims, or bystanders at a courthouse.

There is always a balance to be struck, and this is a compromise that errors on the side of safety, rather than what people accused of crimes might do.

 

[dcsports]

I think she basically went on strike, washing her hands of the whole sordid deal.

lol. No, she did just the opposite. She ignored the crime before her - including the state and the victims - to help someone evade arrest. The 'sordid deal' [sic] was a person charged with three counts of domestic battery for beating his roommate and his girlfriend over loud music. She abdicated her responsibility to her own court and jurisdiction. Which is why she's no longer a judge.

I doubt she was thinking at all, and let emotions and politics get in the way of her duty.

 

[dcsports]

Alright, but you're ignoring the greater issue that led to Judge Dugan's mindset. Judge Dugan’s intervention and the Alien Enemies Act (AEA)’s overreach both eroded due process and judicial integrity; you're addressing the former while dismissing the latter. The misuse of the AEA led to deportations without proper legal safeguards, fueling Dugan’s concerns about unjust removals. However, her attempt to obstruct federal agents was not the solution. By overstepping her authority instead of pursuing legal challenges, she weakened the very judicial oversight that could have addressed the issue. Just as the administration’s broad use of the AEA undermines constitutional protections, her actions did the same by disregarding established legal procedures.

With due respect, that makes no sense. If former judge Dugan's 'mindset' - concern over some perceived social injustice in another case with a different set of circumstances - led her to think it was ok to break the law in a different case and set of circumstances - it' was her judicial integrity that was eroded.

This criminal's case had ZERO to do with the AEA. Again, he was previously deported - under Obama - and came back into the country illegally. His fingerprints raised red flags when he was arrested for beating the crap out of two people over loud music. That has nothing to do with the AEA or gang affiliation.

 

[Xilnik]

With due respect, that makes no sense. If former judge Dugan's 'mindset' - concern over some perceived social injustice in another case with a different set of circumstances - led her to think it was ok to break the law in a different case and set of circumstances - it' was her judicial integrity that was eroded.

This criminal's case had ZERO to do with the AEA. Again, he was previously deported - under Obama - and came back into the country illegally. His fingerprints raised red flags when he was arrested for beating the crap out of two people over loud music. That has nothing to do with the AEA or gang affiliation.

Judge Dugan’s mindset was shaped by the broader misuse of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), which led her to believe that due process was being bypassed in deportation cases. While I don’t support her decision to obstruct federal agents, her concerns about how the administration applied the AEA weren’t baseless.

You’re focusing on one specific criminal case while dismissing how the overreach through the AEA influenced Dugan’s reaction. The AEA has been used to deport individuals without clear evidence tying them to criminal activity, which undermines the integrity of legal enforcement. That precedent fed into Dugan’s decision-making, even though her response was still improper.

Her failure was not following established legal channels to address her concerns. Just as the administration’s use of the AEA has undermined judicial oversight, her actions did the same by disregarding proper legal procedures.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

One correction. The state's attorney, and victims / witnesses, and a specialist assisting the victims were IN the courtroom when this all occurred. It was a morning docket with a list of motions and hearings to be heard. She spoke to the defense attorney, and adjourned the case without any input from the prosecutor or announcement from the bench.

You’re right.

The state’s attorney and witnesses were present, but not informed that Dugan had moved Ruiz up on the docket and had adjourned the case.

 

[dcsports]

Judge Dugan’s mindset was shaped by the broader misuse of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), which led her to believe that due process was being bypassed in deportation cases. While I don’t support her decision to obstruct federal agents, her concerns about how the administration applied the AEA weren’t baseless.

Again, if her judicial judgement was impacted by political concerns and rhetoric, she has no business being a judge. She did the citizens of her county and state a favor here.

You’re focusing on one specific criminal case while dismissing how the overreach through the AEA influenced Dugan’s reaction. The AEA has been used to deport individuals without clear evidence tying them to criminal activity, which undermines the integrity of legal enforcement. That precedent fed into Dugan’s decision-making, even though her response was still improper.

The discussion is ONE SPECIFIC CRIMINAL CASE - actually two, but one defendant. The state case for domestic battery, and the federal case for illegal re-entry. Again, the concerns over the AEA have zero bearing on the case at hand. If Dugan's decisions were influenced by other cases, that's a problem with her judgement.

Her failure was not following established legal channels to address her concerns. Just as the administration’s use of the AEA has undermined judicial oversight, her actions did the same by disregarding proper legal procedures.

Not just not following established legal channels, but willfully and intentionally helping a person evade arrest, plus the disregard of her judicial responsibility in the case she actually had before her.

 

[eohrnberger]

Alright, but you're ignoring the greater issue that led to Judge Dugan's mindset.

A judge's mindset determines whether they need to comply with existing laws? I don't think so.

Judge Dugan’s intervention and the Alien Enemies Act (AEA)’s overreach both eroded due process and judicial integrity; you're addressing the former while dismissing the latter.

Isn't the supposedly missing judicial integrity a pending case before a higher court?

I don't see the justification for claiming that the Alien Enemies Act has eroded due process.
Why do you want to keep illegal criminals in this country?
Deportation seems the most appropriate response.

The misuse of the AEA led to deportations without proper legal safeguards, fueling Dugan’s concerns about unjust removals.

I'm not seeing the application of AEA to deport criminal illegal aliens as 'unjust removals'.

However, her attempt to obstruct federal agents was not the solution. By overstepping her authority instead of pursuing legal challenges, she weakened the very judicial oversight that could have addressed the issue. Just as the administration’s broad use of the AEA undermines constitutional protections, her actions did the same by disregarding established legal procedures.

All this just sure sounds like you are trying to rationalize her actions away with 'it's not her fault', or something.

 

[j brown's body]

lol. No, she did just the opposite. She ignored the crime before her - including the state and the victims - to help someone evade arrest. The 'sordid deal' [sic] was a person charged with three counts of domestic battery for beating his roommate and his girlfriend over loud music. She abdicated her responsibility to her own court and jurisdiction. Which is why she's no longer a judge.

I doubt she was thinking at all, and let emotions and politics get in the way of her duty.

That sounds exactly like a judge going out on strike.

 

[j brown's body]

Again, if her judicial judgement was impacted by political concerns and rhetoric, she has no business being a judge. She did the citizens of her county and state a favor here.



The discussion is ONE SPECIFIC CRIMINAL CASE - actually two, but one defendant. The state case for domestic battery, and the federal case for illegal re-entry. Again, the concerns over the AEA have zero bearing on the case at hand. If Dugan's decisions were influenced by other cases, that's a problem with her judgement.



Not just not following established legal channels, but willfully and intentionally helping a person evade arrest, plus the disregard of her judicial responsibility in the case she actually had before her.

The feds may have a hard time proving that her sending him down a hall that led to a public lobby was intended to help him escape.

 

[gman]

She screwed up. Put emotion ahead of the law. But Righties will twist this into some sort of conspiracy involving Globalists, George Soros, Liberal Elites, Leftwing Wokism, Anti-American Commies or some such nonsense.

You should’ve stopped after your first 2 sentences.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.

Although law enforcement does have some history of arresting suspects on courthouse grounds and inside courthouses, I haven’t been thinking that it’s been a longtime routine practice for ICE, or other agencies to stake out courthouse hallways waiting to arrest suspects.

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

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

Other than in select instances where the individual is suspected of serious/violent crimes, it hits me as common sense that ICE (or other agencies) making a habit of waiting in courthouse hallways to make arrests will actually end being counterproductive, as suspects will stop showing for court appearances in order to avoid being arrested on other charges.

 

[Xilnik]

Again, if her judicial judgement was impacted by political concerns and rhetoric, she has no business being a judge. She did the citizens of her county and state a favor here.

The discussion is ONE SPECIFIC CRIMINAL CASE - actually two, but one defendant. The state case for domestic battery, and the federal case for illegal re-entry. Again, the concerns over the AEA have zero bearing on the case at hand. If Dugan's decisions were influenced by other cases, that's a problem with her judgement.

Not just not following established legal channels, but willfully and intentionally helping a person evade arrest, plus the disregard of her judicial responsibility in the case she actually had before her.

We're mostly on the same page, and I agree that Judge Dugan had an obligation to follow the law regardless of external factors. Her interference was unjustifiable. She should have handled concerns about broader immigration policy through legal avenues instead of obstructing federal agents.

While this specific case is separate from the AEA, the administration's overreach in other deportations created the conditions that led to her reaction. That context is worth considering even if it doesn’t justify her actions. That's the crux of my argument.

Ultimately, judicial integrity depends on adherence to legal process. When federal enforcement sidesteps due process, it erodes trust in legal institutions just as much as judicial overreach does.

 

[dcsports]

The feds may have a hard time proving that her sending him down a hall that led to a public lobby was intended to help him escape.

A back hallway that connected to the main one further down the corridor.

Doubtful, especially given that the attorney with the defendant testified. Not to mention she sent away the primary arrest team and looked around to make sure they were gone, etc. The agents were fortunate that they had some backup that didn't appear to be with them.

 

[Xilnik]

A judge's mindset determines whether they need to comply with existing laws? I don't think so.

Isn't the supposedly missing judicial integrity a pending case before a higher court?

I don't see the justification for claiming that the Alien Enemies Act has eroded due process.
Why do you want to keep illegal criminals in this country?
Deportation seems the most appropriate response.

I'm not seeing the application of AEA to deport criminal illegal aliens as 'unjust removals'.

All this just sure sounds like you are trying to rationalize her actions away with 'it's not her fault', or something.

I never said a judge’s mindset allowed for actions that undermine the law. The point is that Dugan’s reaction was influenced by broader concerns over how the Alien Enemies Act has been used, even if those concerns don’t justify her response.

The judicial integrity issue is pending before a higher court, but that doesn’t mean the conversation around its implications for immigration enforcement should be ignored.

Regarding deportations, my argument isn’t about keeping criminals in the country; it’s about ensuring due process is followed when determining someone’s status. The Alien Enemies Act has been used to deport individuals without clear evidence tying them to criminal activity or gang activity, setting a precedent that bypasses legal safeguards. That kind of executive overreach weakens legal governance, regardless of whether the specific case in question involved the AEA.

The discussion shouldn’t be framed as either supporting judicial misconduct or opposing deportation; the focus should be on ensuring that both judicial actions and federal enforcement remain legally accountable.

 

[Lutherf]

I never said a judge’s mindset allowed for actions that undermine the law. The point is that Dugan’s reaction was influenced by broader concerns over how the Alien Enemies Act has been used, even if those concerns don’t justify her response.

The judicial integrity issue is pending before a higher court, but that doesn’t mean the conversation around its implications for immigration enforcement should be ignored.

Regarding deportations, my argument isn’t about keeping criminals in the country; it’s about ensuring due process is followed when determining someone’s status. The Alien Enemies Act has been used to deport individuals without clear evidence tying them to criminal activity or gang activity, setting a precedent that bypasses legal safeguards. That kind of executive overreach weakens legal governance, regardless of whether the specific case in question involved the AEA.

The discussion shouldn’t be framed as either supporting judicial misconduct or opposing deportation; the focus should be on ensuring that both judicial actions and federal enforcement remain legally accountable.

To the best of my knowledge this particular individual was not being removed subject to the AEA but, rather, the INA.