FBI arrests Wisconsin judge for alleged obstruction of ICE agents: Kash Patel

[NxNW]

The judges deliberately took action, no one was out to frame them. They could have simply been uncooperative but instead chose to harbor criminals or help a criminal escape. The left has been championing radical judges and the judges couldn't seem to help themselves and aided and abetted criminals. In this last case the judge made a show by committing a crime in front of numerous witnesses. Many Democrats think that these un-elected judges should command the president.

Every one of those sentences is false.

 

[SimplyMe]

From what I see of this, any attempt at prosecution will fail. The two main issues are 1) it was an administrative warrant instead of a judicial one and 2) they cannot prove motive.

As others have talked about, the ICE agents tried to enter the courtroom and arrest the individuals using an administrative warrant -- which they are not allowed to do. As this explains, "An immigration officer from ICE or CBP may not enter any nonpublic areas—or areas that are not freely accessible to the public and hence carry a higher expectation of privacy—without a valid judicial warrant or consent to enter. An immigration warrant is not the same as a judicial warrant; an immigration warrant does not authorize a search of nonpublic areas."

A courtroom, and even most of a courthouse, are not public -- access is limited (as is shown by things like metal detectors prior to entering). As such, the ICE agents exceeded their authority by entering the courtroom to find the person. From what I read, it sounds as if the ICE agents believed they should be able to make the arrest, despite only have an administrative warrant, and rather than argue with them the judge told them they needed to go and argue with the chief judge; the one responsible for court procedures, policy, and responsible for the courts.

As for motive, it seems logical that the judge decided -- particularly with the aggressiveness of the ICE agents (for them to even enter the courtroom, when they should have known it was not valid for them to enter to search for the individual with only an administrative warrant) -- that she didn't want a "showdown" in her courtroom and decided to get the person out as quickly as possible to avoid further confrontation within the courthouse. There is zero evidence to suggest that she was trying to keep the individual from being captured by ICE (which is supported by the fact he was captured soon after outside the courthouse).

Admittedly, I don't have all the facts but only those that have been reported, so far. As it stands, it seems like it is not likely for the government to get a conviction based on the above "facts," though we'll see what information comes out in the future.

 

[SimplyMe]

"According to court documents, the charges stem from events occurring on April 18, when members of the Milwaukee office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ICE ERO), along with federal partners from the FBI, DEA, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, attempted to execute a lawful arrest warrant for Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national previously removed from the United States and recently charged in Milwaukee County with multiple counts of domestic abuse-related battery.
According to court documents, federal agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse intending to arrest Flores-Ruiz in a public hallway following his court appearance before Judge Dugan. Upon learning of the agents’ presence in the hallway, Judge Dugan allegedly confronted and ordered federal agents to leave the courthouse. After being made aware of a valid immigration arrest warrant, Judge Dugan told agents that they needed a judicial warrant and demanded that they go to the Chief Judge’s office. Once the agents were no longer in the vicinity of her courtroom, Judge Dugan allegedly elected not to conduct a hearing on Flores-Ruiz’s criminal case, despite the fact that victims of his offense were present, and instead personally escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a restricted “jury door” exit not typically used by defendants or attorneys.

From what I have seen, court hallways are not "public," since they are behind the security checkpoint. The agents would have needed to be at the entrances for an administrative warrant to be "valid." Additionally, there appear to have been court policies that stated that the hallways for the courthouse were private and not permissible for law enforcement to make arrests there; that is why the agents were referred to the Chief Judge, who is responsible for the courthouse and the enforcement (and exceptions made) to those policies.

Further, see my prior post -- it seems logical the judge was just wanting to get the defendant out of the courtroom to prevent a "showdown" with ICE over courthouse rules and administrative warrants.

Judge Claims Trump Deported 2-Year-Old American Citizen with "No Meaningful Process" - Here's What Really Happened | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

In a startling claim, a federal judge asserts that a 2-year-old American citizen was wrongfully deported under the Trump administration. Unpack the implications of this controversial ruling and its broader impact.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

My highlighting. As to badges, whether or not to display your badges depends on the situation. If a subject might flee you don't want to display a badge. If you have a residence surrounded and are announcing yourself then you want to wear identification.

In a courthouse it seems it would be proper to show a badge, since they were claiming their federal status but were not known to those in the courthouse.

As to arresting people at the courthouse, this is nothing new, recall such arrests during the Biden regime:

Tulsa Attorney Ron Durbin Arrested At Courthouse On Assault Charge

Attorney Ron Durbin was arrested for a misdemeanor warrant connected to a scuffle with a security guard inside City Hall.

www.newson6.com

Champaign man arrested at courthouse in Friday funeral shooting

A warrant had been issued for Linnell Blount’s arrest Friday following shots that were fired outside an Urbana church where a woman’s funeral was taking place.

www.news-gazette.com

Woman Arrested At Courthouse Found With Drugs and Synthetic Drug - X101 Always Classic - WXHC.com

On Tuesday morning, Officers from the Cortland County Sheriff’s Office responded to the Cortland County Courthouse in the City of Cortland to remand 41 year old Shauna M. Hamilton of[Read More...]

www.wxhc.com

Pair arrested at courthouse

Two Philadelphia men were arrested on drug charges after they were served warrants when they came in for court on Monday.

neshobademocrat.com

Attorney arrested at courthouse for allegedly pistol-whipping man

Shelbyville attorney James Tim Crawford says, "I am innocent, and I will be exonerated. I can promise you that."

www.wdrb.com

And, if you notice reading them, almost all of these arrests were made at the entrance to the courthouse -- where I said ICE should have attempted the arrest. Beyond that, it doesn't matter much because these were judicial warrants and not administrative warrants, including one person being "remanded," meaning it was the judge ordering (an obvious judicial warrant) the person to be arrested.

 

[Valletta]

From what I have seen, court hallways are not "public," since they are behind the security checkpoint.

I've never heard the claim about something not being "public" after passing a security point. Can you cite any case law on that claim?

 

[SimplyMe]

I've never heard the claim about something not being "public" after passing a security point. Can you cite any case law on that claim?

This is where the term "public" gets a bit sticky, as there are so many different definitions. For example, anything owned by the government is technically "publicly owned" but that does not mean accessible to the public, as a person is likely to find out if they try to enter certain military bases (particularly if they don't go through the one of the gates of entry). There are also areas like parks or cemeteries, where they are "publicly owned" and even "publicly accessible", though they may have hours they are open and closed, and being there while it is closed can get you arrested.

Courts are one of those weird cases where they are technically open to the public but with a lot of restrictions. For example, family court and grand jury proceedings are almost always closed to the public. There are other restrictions in terms of recording devices where just carrying a camera or some type of audio recording device can get you blocked or removed from the courthouse. Additionally, despite the fact that you have a Second Amendment right, you can't take your gun into most courthouses. What is more, something simple like deciding to go to the courthouse to eat your lunch while watching a court case is likely to get you removed (if not found in contempt of court). While the public is allowed, they are limited as far as rights, which to my understanding means they aren't "publicly accessible;" there are limitations to public access (no guns, no recording devices, no disruptions, etc).

So, again as I understand it and have read about it, because of the limitations of public access, administrative warrants are not allowed to be acted on in courts (at least as a general rule). In fact, this courthouse appears (per the reporting of the story) to have policies that prevent warrants in general from being served by law enforcement (I suspect there are exceptions for judge mandated arrests in their courtrooms), with a major reason for this rule is that acting on arrest warrants in the courthouse (even in a hallway) because it can cause interruptions and even safety issues with court proceedings -- and this could be doubly true if a person they are attempting to arrest is in a hallway and "runs" and attempts to go through various courtrooms in their attempt to escape law enforcement.

 

[Valletta]

This is where the term "public" gets a bit sticky, as there are so many different definitions. For example, anything owned by the government is technically "publicly owned" but that does not mean accessible to the public, as a person is likely to find out if they try to enter certain military bases (particularly if they don't go through the one of the gates of entry). There are also areas like parks or cemeteries, where they are "publicly owned" and even "publicly accessible", though they may have hours they are open and closed, and being there while it is closed can get you arrested.

Courts are one of those weird cases where they are technically open to the public but with a lot of restrictions. For example, family court and grand jury proceedings are almost always closed to the public. There are other restrictions in terms of recording devices where just carrying a camera or some type of audio recording device can get you blocked or removed from the courthouse. Additionally, despite the fact that you have a Second Amendment right, you can't take your gun into most courthouses. What is more, something simple like deciding to go to the courthouse to eat your lunch while watching a court case is likely to get you removed (if not found in contempt of court). While the public is allowed, they are limited as far as rights, which to my understanding means they aren't "publicly accessible;" there are limitations to public access (no guns, no recording devices, no disruptions, etc).

So, again as I understand it and have read about it, because of the limitations of public access, administrative warrants are not allowed to be acted on in courts (at least as a general rule). In fact, this courthouse appears (per the reporting of the story) to have policies that prevent warrants in general from being served by law enforcement (I suspect there are exceptions for judge mandated arrests in their courtrooms), with a major reason for this rule is that acting on arrest warrants in the courthouse (even in a hallway) because it can cause interruptions and even safety issues with court proceedings -- and this could be doubly true if a person they are attempting to arrest is in a hallway and "runs" and attempts to go through various courtrooms in their attempt to escape law enforcement.

So too realize there in no one interpretation of due process. The Supreme Court has ruled it is not the same for each individual who enters our country. I hope Congress gets active on the issue and passes some legislation.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I will be doing a Zoom deposition soon. Because of what I witnessed and went through in foster care. Many court cases are more important, than ICE deporting some one. And can make a guilty person go free, and commit more violence. Of course Trump doesn't understand that.

 

[Valletta]

I will be doing a Zoom deposition soon. Because of what I witnessed and went through in foster care. Many court cases are more important, than ICE deporting some one. And can make a guilty person go free, and commit more violence. Of course Trump doesn't understand that.

Oh Trump and conservatives well understand the entire situation. The House worked hard and came up with a great border bill and Democrats in the Senate stalled it for over a year. Under fire, Democrats came up with an outrageous bill, codifying 5000 crossing the border a day and allocating more money which they would have used to process more people into the country. They got a few Republican senators to go along so they could call it a "bipartisan bill." Of course such a bill was dead on arrival in the House but when Trump spoke out against it they told their base Trump was against securing the border! Then they said the president could not secure the border without the legislation--another huge hoax, we have seen how Trump secured the border. Democrats created this human disaster and it was deliberate, and now this administration has to clean up the mess. With more than ten million more it hurts those who may have legitimate asylum claims, there are only half the resources per immigrant then there would have been had the Biden administration been honest and obeyed the law. They brought violent criminals into our country and the Democrat policies greatly increased human trafficking.

 

[Belk]

These are not fabricated charges nor twisting of the law. No one is trying to interfere in her running for office nor gag her nor give her a jury of political opponents. In this case there are actual witnesses to a real crime, many witnesses.

Quod erat demonstrandum.