771–780 of 1001 posts
The irony that the judge would likely have held you in contempt if you didn't obey one of their orders but seems to think it's ok to help people pursued by other law enforcement to skip out. The judge should know that even they aren't above the law and they can't override other judicial and administrative rulings just because they disagree with them.
A key point here, which the judge brought up with the ICE agents, is that they only had an "administrative warrant".[1] An “ICE warrant” is not a real warrant. It is not reviewed by a judge or any neutral party to determine if it is based on probable cause. "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 expectati…
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 th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a crime to harbor or aid illegals in evading federal authorities. So this is a legal obligation of every person.
Except that the authorities didn't have a valid warrant, signed by a judge, to arrest someone. (It's not a crime to aid illegals if the authorities don't have a valid warrant.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no suggestion that the agents conducted a search or entered a non-public area. And this has nothing to do with the claim that the judge actively obstructed their efforts.
The claim is that the judge, upon finding out that they were there to make an arrest, deliberately led the man out a back door which would under almost no circumstances be available to his use (the jury door), allowing him to bypass the officers attempting to make the arrest. If true, that's pretty clearly a deliberate attempt to obstruct their efforts. The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as th…
> The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as the legal offense of obstruction
An important one is "does ICE have the authority to operate in the location they were operating in?" If the answer is no, then Dugan's actions cannot be interpreted as interfering with ICE's official operations. You cannot interfere with official operations when the operations are not official or legal. An extreme example of this would be like police arresting somebody, and in a formal interrogation they admit to murder, but the person was not read their Miranda rights. These statements would likely be inadmissible in a court. But subtle details matter, like if the person wasn't arrested or if they weren't being interrogated (i.e. they just blabbed).
This matters because the warrant. In the affidavit it says Dugan asked if the officer had a judicial warrant and were told they had an administrative warrant.[0] That linked article suggests that an administrative warrant can only be executed in an area where there is no expectation of privacy. This is distinct from public. There are many public places where you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A common example being a public restroom (same law means people can't take photos of you going to the bathroom). So is there a reasonable expectation of privacy here? I don't know.
I think it is worth reading the affidavit. Certainly it justifies probable cause (at least from my naive understanding). But the legal code is similar to programming code in that subtle details are often critical to the output. That's why I'm saying it isn't "the only question", because we'd need to not only know the answers to the above but answers to more subtle details that likely are only known to domain experts (i.e. lawyers, judges, LEO, etc)
[0] https://www.motionlaw.com/the-difference-between-judicial-an...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If ICE wasn't legally authorized to search the premises or arrest the man, then the judge wasn't "obstructing" his arrest.
They didn't need to search, they just needed to wait outside to arrest. That would have worked if the defendant didn't use the backdoor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
[flagged]
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.
A key point here, which the judge brought up with the ICE agents, is that they only had an "administrative warrant".[1] An “ICE warrant” is not a real warrant. It is not reviewed by a judge or any neutral party to determine if it is based on probable cause. "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 expectati…
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 th…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
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 advo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally, I share these concerns. At the same time, this story is very new. In any case, looking at the primary sources is important. See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-... . I'm not a lawyer, but the criminal complaint does appear to be, more or less, within the realm of normal. Now, putting aside that complaint, the decision to arrest Dugan is questionable for sure. My current understa…
Criminal complaints against sitting judges for actions they took in their courtroom are not at all "normal".
> Criminal complaints against sitting judges for actions they took in their courtroom are not at all "normal".
Point taken.
Just so that we're not talking past each other: What I was trying to say is this: as I read the language in the document, it sounded like plausible legal text. I'm not suggesting this is the proper bar. I am saying that I've read other official "legal" documents from the Trump administration that don't even meet the "not batshit crazy" bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if this is intended to be a hypothetical but there is no IRS form where "Drug Dealer" is the correct answer. Drug dealing income would be disclosed as "Other income". If you volunteer "drug dealer" my guess is they could use it against you. Similar to showing up at FBI headquarters and shouting "I'm a drug dealer!"
Schedule C to Form 1040 (self-employment income) asks for your "Principal business or profession, including product or service". It's pretty clear that the only correct answer for some people would be something like "drug dealer".