Democratic politicians who line up to support Judge Dugan often omit the details of the arrest. It may be worth reviewing a few of those details.
The complaint details how the officers sought to satisfy Dugan who was described as angry and uncooperative. That included (upon Judge Dugan’s insistence) locating the Chief Judge and confirming that they could facilitate an arrest in the hallways as public areas. Here is the account:
After showing ID and badges, [a shift sergeant with Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office] asked that any arrest wait until after the completion of the scheduled hearing before Judge DUGAN. As this was standard practice, Deportation Officer A and CBP Officer A agreed, and they were allowed to proceed unescorted to the public hallway outside of Courtroom 615. . . .
FBI Agent A displayed his credentials to the courtroom deputy and informed him that they were there to assist ICE in arresting Flores-Ruiz. They agreed that the arrest would take place after Flores-Ruiz’s court appearance. The agents then left the courtroom and took positions at different locations in the public hallway.
…
Judge DUGAN and Judge A, who were both wearing judicial robes, approached members of the arrest team in the public hallway. Judge A’s courtroom is located adjacent to Judge DUGAN’s courtroom. Witnesses uniformly reported that Judge DUGAN was visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor. Judge DUGAN addressed Deportation Officer A and asked if Deportation Officer A was present for a court appearance. When Deportation Officer A responded, “no,” Judge DUGAN stated that Deportation Officer A would need to leave the courthouse.
…
Deportation Officer A stated that Deportation Officer A was there to effectuate an arrest. Judge DUGAN asked if Deportation Officer A had a judicial warrant, and Deportation Officer A responded, “No, I have an administrative warrant.” Judge DUGAN stated that Deportation Officer A needed a judicial warrant. Deportation Officer A told Judge DUGAN that Deportation Officer A was in a public space and had a valid immigration warrant. Judge DUGAN asked to see the administrative warrant and Deportation Officer A offered to show it to her. Judge DUGAN then demanded that Deportation Officer A speak with the Chief Judge. Judge DUGAN then had a similar interaction with FBI Agent B and CBP Officer A. After finding out that they were not present for a court appearance and that they were with ICE, Judge DUGAN ordered them to report to the Chief Judge’s office.
…
Deportation Officer A went inside a more private area of the Chief Judge’s office to speak with him on the phone. During their conversation, the Chief Judge stated he was working on a policy which would dictate locations within the courthouse where ICE could safely conduct enforcement actions. The Chief Judge emphasized that such actions should not take place in courtrooms or other private locations within the building. Deportation Officer A asked about whether enforcement actions could take place in the hallway. The Chief Judge indicated that hallways are public areas.
However, Judge Dugan decided that it was now time for her to get down from the bench and actively guide Flores-Ruiz through a non-public door to evade arrest:
The courtroom deputy recalled that upon the courtroom deputy’s return to the courtroom, defense counsel for Flores-Ruiz was talking to the clerk, and Flores-Ruiz was seated in the jury box, rather than in the gallery. . . .
The courtroom deputy then saw Judge DUGAN get up and heard Judge DUGAN say something like “Wait, come with me.”
Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge DUGAN then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the “jury door,” which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse. These events were also unusual for two reasons. First, the courtroom deputy had previously heard Judge DUGAN direct people not to sit in the jury box because it was exclusively for the jury’s use. Second, according to the courtroom deputy, only deputies, juries, court staff, and in-custody defendants being escorted by deputies used the back jury door. Defense attorneys and defendants who were not in custody never used the jury door.
When the team realized that he had escaped, they pursued the suspect and only apprehended him after a chase in the streets of Milwaukee.
What these politicians do not explain is where the line should be drawn if judges can now actively assist in the escape of fugitives or wanted individuals. Could Dugan order court officers to hide Flores-Ruiz? Could she put him in her trunk and drive him out of the courthouse?
Once you leave the bench to assist in alleged illegality, you find yourself on a slippery slope.
This has happened before and, according to judges like Isham, it will happen again.
I previously wrote about the case of Massachusetts judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph who was charged with allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade ICE agents in April 2018. Joseph and court officer Wesley MacGregor were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and obstruction of a federal proceeding.
I was critical of the handling of the case. While Joseph was suspended for three years, charges were dropped in 2022 during the Biden Administration.
Many of us have called for a deescalation of the rhetoric and conflicts between the judicial and executive branches. We need to maintain respect for our courts even when we disagree with their decisions.
However, that is a mutual obligation. Judges have to maintain such respect by honoring their role as adjudicators rather than accomplices in criminal matters.
As Justice Louis Brandeis stated in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).:
In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.
Hannah Dugan has shown precisely how “contagious” such law breaking can become when judges become “teachers” of a “contempt for law.” She yielded to the temptation to “become a law unto herself.” Frankly, it may be difficult to secure a conviction from a Milwaukee jury, but the Justice Department is seeking to offer a lesson of a different kind in bringing these charges.
The defense team for Judge Hannah Dugan is likely thinking, “This is not helpful.” While Dugan initially contested the allegations that she assisted an illegal immigrant to evade federal authorities in her Milwaukee courthouse, Democrats are heralding her as a type of Harriet Tubman guiding illegal immigrants to safety. Democratic State Rep Ryan Clancy even declared to a cheering crowd: “What Judge Dugan apparently did was what all of us should be doing.” That is precisely why federal authorities felt criminal charges were warranted despite Dugan’s judicial title.
“That is precisely why federal authorities felt criminal charges were warranted despite Dugan’s judicial title.”
This statement implies that Turley thinks that federal authorities typically allow anyone who holds the title “judge” to violate the law with impunity. The lack of comment by Turley on that practice at least leaves whether or not he supports that kind of latitude open to question. WTF? Sloppy wording, or a conviction on his part that the law does not apply to judges as it does to us peasants?
It’s just Turley peddling a false narrative for the benefit of Fox News and MAGA readers.
Turley a lawyer should know better than that. He’s no different than any of the other Trump sycophants pushing the narrative and encouraging the ‘rage rhetoric’ that drives the right to rage against the left. He’s doing what he purports to be against.
What false narrative ?
Are you arguing that the allegations are false ?
Or that the allegations are not a crime ?
Judge Dugan is entitle to the presumption of innocence – like all accused of a crime.
But the allegations if proven, and the application for an arrest warrant cites many witnesses, are a crime and are damning.
So what is it that you think is false ?
The allegations against the judge are false.
Allegations are not facts. Even using the charges she’s accused of shows that nothing she did was illegal or criminal. There are very specific things the government must prove in order to charge her with obstruction and concealment. None of what she did meets those requirements.
Is asking for a warrant obstruction? No. An adminstrative warrant is not a mandate to assist them in anything. The judge is not legally required to help them in any way. That’s why she asked if they had a judicial warrant. If that were the case she would have been obligated to assist with their arrest of Ruiz.
You’re right that she’s intitled to a presumption of innocence, but clearly everyone here is already declaring her guilty of a crime.
An adminstrative warrant is issued by the agency. It’s not signed by judge. Meaning the judge is not legally obligated to honor that warrant. How can it be a crime if the administrative warrant does not mandate any judge to assist in enforcing it. A judicial warrant would have required her to assist and if she let Ruiz go THEN it would have been a crime. THAT is why she asked if they had a judicial warrant. Therefore she couldn’t have been obstructing their procedure. She didn’t physically impede their attempt to arrest Ruiz. Letting him go out the jury room door is not concealment since the exit goes right onto the same hallway that ICE was. She didn’t keep Ruiz within the confines of the courtroom either to prevent ICE from arresting him.
What IS false, is the claim that judge Dugan intentionally helped Ruiz escape or avoid ICE. It is FALSE that judge Dugan deliberately sent Ruiz away from ICE. Turley claims Dugan somehow sitting Ruiz on the jury box is odd enough to justify she was deliberately seeking to obstruct ICE. Your wife is a lawyer and I’m sure she’ll tell you judges have full control of what happens in their courtrooms and that includes where they choose to sit people.
Turley is pushing the alse narrative that the judge was helping Ruiz by equating her actions to that of anothger judge who purposefully hid an illegal in a private residence. That false equivalence and conflating them as the same IS the false narrative.
“The allegations against the judge are false.”
You keep saying that but you never identify what that means.
Which allegations are false ?
“Allegations are not facts.”
Allegations are claimed facts. To get a warrant to arrest dugan a federal magistrate had to examine those allegations and determine that there was probable cause to beleive Dugan had committed a crime.
i.e. the allegations as assessed by a federal magistrate are probably true.
That is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is approximately more likely true than not.
You constantly get confused about standards of proof.
Absolutely nothing is true beyond any doubt at all.
Everything – whether facts proving a crime or the axioms of physics are allegations with some probability of being true.
To be held as an axiom in science the probability of being true must be astronomically high.
For a criminal conviction they must be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
For a warrant they most most probably be true.
The most probably true standard has already been met, that is what the arrest warrant for Dugan means.
“Even using the charges she’s accused of shows that nothing she did was illegal or criminal.”
That claim is false and has been rebutted to you repeatedly.
All you are doing is repeating the same lie over and over.
“There are very specific things the government must prove in order to charge her with obstruction and concealment.”
Correct and if the government can advance the standard of proof for the specific allegations in the application for the warrant from probably true to true beyond a reasonable doubt, which will be accomplished if the people named in the warrant application testify as the warrant application alleges they will, and survive cross examination, then the case will have been made.
And the likelyhood of that is extremely high – unless you beleive the FBI agent who swore out the warrant lied about what others claimed to have observed.
I would further note that will magistrates are incredibly deferential in granting warrants, they are supposed to assure that there are allegations in the request for the worrant as necescary to meet all the required elements of the crime.
Assuming the magistrate did that – and it appears clear from the warrant that is true.
Then again all that is necescary for a conviction is to convert the hearsay testimony of the FBI agent into direct testimony by the witnesses they questioned.
“None of what she did meets those requirements.”
So says you. The law itself says otherwise.
“Is asking for a warrant obstruction?”
No, but sending ICE agents off on a tangent while you spirit there person ebing arrested out the back door is.
” An adminstrative warrant is not a mandate to assist them in anything. ”
Again you confuse a non-existant requirement to assist with the crime of interfering.
Not being obligated to assist does not mean you can interfere.
“The judge is not legally required to help them in any way.”
Correct, she is also not allowed to hinder them in anyway, and the charges are NOT for failure to help.
They are for actively hindering.
“That’s why she asked if they had a judicial warrant. If that were the case she would have been obligated to assist with their arrest of Ruiz.” Also false. She is not obligated to assist in the arrest of Ruiz no matter what.
But a judicial warrant would allow ICE to force their way into her courtroom and remove Ruis before the proceedings he was involved in completed. And administrative warrant merely meant they had to wait for the procedings to and and for Ruis to be released from State custody. Had Dugan sent Ruis to jail – there is nothing ICE could have done. But once her proceeding ended
if Ruis was not in state custody, ICE was free to arrest him wherever he was.
“You’re right that she’s intitled to a presumption of innocence, but clearly everyone here is already declaring her guilty of a crime.”
That is what people do. Nothing new – you do it all the time.
“An adminstrative warrant is issued by the agency. It’s not signed by judge. ”
You keep fixating on the administrative warrant – that is a tangential item.
The most important thing about the administrative warrant is that Dugan beyond any doubt was aware that ICE was there to apprehend Ruis. As Turley has noted – Ruis is guilty of felony re-entry. As Turley noted – ICE did not need a warrant.
They can pick him up, and haul him out of the country without any hearing at all. They can put him directly onto a plane.
That is the law, if you do not like it CHANGE THE LAW.
The reason the warrant is relevant is because Dugan asked about it. She verbally noted that it was an administrative warrant rather than a judicial warrant.
At that moment Dugan was fully aware that ICE intended to arrest Ruis. She has no ability to claim from the moment that she asked about the warrant, that she was not aware that ICE intended to Arrest Ruis.
That means she has no ability to claim that actions that impeded that arrest were done without knowledge of the effort to arrest.
ICE could have showed up without even an administrative warrant, and they could have told Dugan nothing and grabbed Ruis on his way out of the courtroom. – they did not need a warrant. The purpose of the warrant was to communicate to Dugan and those at the court that they could not legally interfere with that arrest.
They did not need to cooperate, but they could not interfere.
“Meaning the judge is not legally obligated to honor that warrant.”
What does that mean ? She is not required to stop her procedings and turn ruis over to ice.
But she has three legal choice,
fillibuster in the hearing forever, hoping ICE will go away.
Direct that Ruis be taken into state/local custody which would supercede the administrative warrant.
Or at the end of his hearing expect ICE to arrest Ruiz and take him away.
She need allow NOTHING, but she had only two legal ways to prevent Ruis’s arrest and one of those was only theoretical.
“How can it be a crime if the administrative warrant does not mandate any judge to assist in enforcing it.”
Because no one expected Dugan to enforce it – even if it was a judicial Warrant – Dugan is a state, she has no power to enforce a federal warrant. All she can do in not interfere.
“A judicial warrant would have required her to assist and if she let Ruiz go THEN it would have been a crime.”
No, a judicial warrant would have allowed ICE to interrupt her hearing and take ruis into custody.
Dugan would have no obligation or duty beyond not interfering.
“THAT is why she asked if they had a judicial warrant.”
It does not mater why she asked.
What matters is that because she asked she KNEW ICE was there to arrest Rius.
“Therefore she couldn’t have been obstructing their procedure.”
Of course she can – this is an incredibly stupid argument on your part.
“She didn’t physically impede their attempt to arrest Ruiz.”
Not the standard. Taking a bank robber out the back door is not physically impedign an arrest.
“Letting him go out the jury room door is not concealment since the exit goes right onto the same hallway that ICE was.”
Of course it is, nut more important sending the uniformed ICE agents to the cheif judges chambers was concealing what she was about to do. That FBI and DEA had plain clothes agents observing such that what she was trying to hide was not actually hidden changes nothing.
Taking a bank robber out the back door is still a crime – even if the FBI has Agents in the back – so long as ou do not know that.
” She didn’t keep Ruiz within the confines of the courtroom either to prevent ICE from arresting him.”
The fact that she did not obstruct ICE in a dozen hypothetical ways does not change the fact that her REAL actions attempted to obstruct.
“What IS false, is the claim that judge Dugan intentionally helped Ruiz escape or avoid ICE.”
Nope that is selve evidently true. She KNEW they were there to arrest Ruis. she sent the uniformed ICE agents away, and then tried to sneak Ruis out while they were gone.
“It is FALSE that judge Dugan deliberately sent Ruiz away from ICE.”
She sheparded Ruis out the jury door – that is unusual, it is even more unusual when done by a judge.
Her ACTIONS make her intentions clear.
“Turley claims Dugan somehow sitting Ruiz on the jury box is odd enough to justify she was deliberately seeking to obstruct ICE.”
She did not sit him on the jury box, she exited him through the jury door.
“Your wife is a lawyer and I’m sure she’ll tell you judges have full control of what happens in their courtrooms and that includes where they choose to sit people.” While the hearing is going on. At the end of the hearing a judges official power ends as does her absolute judicial immunity. Actions that the judge takes inside the court but outside the judicial process are subject to the same evaluations as ordinary people.
“Turley is pushing the false narrative that the judge was helping Ruiz by equating her actions to that of anothger judge who purposefully hid an illegal in a private residence. That false equivalence and conflating them as the same IS the false narrative.”
These are each different criminal acts – the AZ judges actions are much more serious.
But conservatives are Correctly citing BOTH as evidence of the lawlessness of the left and particularly judges.
Conduct tends to distribute along a bell curve. The more egregious conduct you can demonstrate of those on the left, the more evidence you have that the NORM for the left is fairly extreme and that lawless and criminal conduct is the norm.
The fact that idiots like you are defending Dugan’s conduct amplifies the argument that norms for those on the left are lawless.
This is important because it further undermines the credibility of left wing judges whose lawlessness has carefully avoided criminality.
Turley and much of the country is drawing a line from the AX judge to Dugan to Boasberg, to Xinis and saying that left wing judges are varying degrees lawless.
John Say, “ What false narrative ?‘
This one,
“ Hannah Dugan has shown precisely how “contagious” such law breaking can become when judges become “teachers” of a “contempt for law.” She yielded to the temptation to “become a law unto herself.”
That’s a false narrative. She didn’t break the law. She hasn’t even been given the opportunity to defend her position and all the accusations against her are allegations right now. Not proof she broke the law. Turley is insinutating without evidence that judge Dugan broke the law.
“John Say, “ What false narrative ?‘
This one,
“ Hannah Dugan has shown precisely how “contagious” such law breaking can become when judges become “teachers” of a “contempt for law.” She yielded to the temptation to “become a law unto herself.””
That is both true and not something Turley said.
“That’s a false narrative.”
Nope
“She didn’t break the law.”
If the facts alleged in the warrant are proven – then she absolutely did.
“She hasn’t even been given the opportunity to defend her position and all the accusations against her are allegations right now.”
Correct, she is being tried in the media – just as you did to Trump, J6’ers, Navaro, Bannon, and any number of others.
“Not proof she broke the law.”
Again by the is there probable cause standard – Dugan broke the law.
The beyond a reasonable doubt standard will be up to a future jury.
“Turley is insinutating without evidence that judge Dugan broke the law.”
He is not insinuating he is saying, and there is plenty of evidence.
Wait.
It all started when not prohibited and fully constitutional secession was disregarded, denied, and nullified by the Supreme Court in 1860.
From that moment, the Supreme Court began arbitrarily amending the Constitution.
It’s been “Progressively” downhill to communism, which has been supported by the Supreme Court, ever since.
Article 1, Section 8, completely denies and precludes the existence of the entire “Great Communist American Welfare State,” and yet there it is, ubiquitous.
American freedom persisted for a mere 71 years.
And second American Revolution will be required to reestablish free America.
____________________________________________________________________________________
“I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
– Patrick Henry, Virginia Legislature, 1775
Anyone with any pretension to common sense drew the immediate conclusion that a judge sworn to uphold the law broke it, broke it deliberately, and, now, needs to face the consequences.
How did the judge break the law? She was under no legal obligation to assist ICE since it’s not a requirement with an administrative warrant.
it will be very hard to prove Judge Dugan committed obstruction. For example in order for the government to prove obstruction they will have to show that judge Dugan knew beforehand that there was a warrant for his arrest. Clearly she didn’t know because she had to ask what kind of warrant ICE had. ICE told the judge they had an administrative warrant and administrative warrants don’t mandate assistance. A key distinction that Turley seems to not know or is simply ignorant of it because his only purpose to to help push the Trump administration’s false narrative.
The requirements to charge judge Dugan for obstruction are;
For 18 USC 1505 require the government prove:
Existence of an Investigative Proceeding: There is, or was, an ongoing proceeding, inquiry, or investigation before a federal department, agency, or any committee of Congress.
Defendant’s Knowledge: You were aware of the pending proceeding.
Obstructive Action: You engaged in one or more of the obstructive actions outlined in the statute, such as withholding or falsifying documents or using threats or force.
Corrupt Intent: You did so with corrupt intent, meaning the actions were taken with a wrongful purpose to disrupt, impede, or influence the proceeding. This ‘corrupt intent’ refers to a deliberate and dishonest motive to interfere with the investigation or proceeding rather than a legitimate or lawful purpose.
It’s going to be very difficult for the government to prove the judge knowingly concealed Ruiz from ICE when she directed him to exit thru a jury room leading right onto the same hallway ICE was.
The government went ahead an posted pics if the judge in handcuffs, FBI director Patel, saying “ No one is above the law.” This taints the case showing the government to be prejudicial. Goating over the arrest before all the facts are presented in court is does not bode well for the governmnent’s case. Turley should know that.
To prove the other charge the offense for concealment from arrest, 18 USC 1071 require the government prove:
a federal warrant had been issued for the person’s arrest;
the person concealing them knew that a warrant was issued;
the person actually concealed the fugitive from law enforcement;
the person acted with intent to prevent fugitive’s discovery or arrest.
There was no federal warrant for his arrest. An administrative warrant is not an arrest warrant.
Judge Dugan had no knowledge there was a warrant.
Judge did not conceal Ruiz since she sent him out onto the same hallway ICE was in their full view.
She did not prevent ICE from arresting Ruiz or find out he already left the court room.
Turley loves to push a narrative that is devoid of details and context because it’s easier to fool MAGAs than to explain the complexity of the issue and why it’s not as cut-and-dry as they want to make it out to be.
“it will be very hard to prove Judge Dugan committed obstruction.”
If the government allegations in the warrant application result in testimony that confirms what the warrant application says that FBI/DEA agents observed or that others in the courtroom told the FBI, then Dugan will easily be convicted.
” For example in order for the government to prove obstruction they will have to show that judge Dugan knew beforehand that there was a warrant for his arrest. Clearly she didn’t know because she had to ask what kind of warrant ICE had. ICE told the judge they had an administrative warrant and administrative warrants don’t mandate assistance.”
So your own remarks PROVE that Dugan KNEW that ICE had an administrative warrant and from that you construe that DOJ will not be able to prove foreknowledge ?
And of court that ignore the fact that the warrant nonsense is a red herring, as is your foreknowledge claim.
You may not interfere in the actions of a law enforcement officer. Your beliefs about their legitimacy do NOT change that.
Judge Dugan was free to disagree with ICE, she was free to not cooperate. She was not free to interfere.
Your statement of the elements is incorrect.
Mens Rae requires that your act is knowing. Judge Dugan KNEW she was interfering with ICE.
That is the only Mens Rae necescary.
Please read USC 1505.
“It’s going to be very difficult for the government to prove the judge knowingly concealed Ruiz from ICE when she directed him to exit thru a jury room leading right onto the same hallway ICE was.”
Your own sentence constitutes sufficient proof. Dugan directed Ruis to exit through a jury room door – NOT a public exit.
Ruis was NOT a juror. Dugan had no basis to direct Ruis to exit through a jury room door, except to conceal him.
It is irrelevant to conviction for a crime that your obstruction was stupid and unlikely to succeed.
“The government went ahead an posted pics if the judge in handcuffs, FBI director Patel, saying “ No one is above the law.” This taints the case showing the government to be prejudicial. Goating over the arrest before all the facts are presented in court is does not bode well for the governmnent’s case. Turley should know that.”
And yet we saw that over and over and over with respect to bogus cases against Trump.
Whether you like it or not criminal procedings are adversarial. The FBI does not arrest people they do not beleive are criminals.
It does not taint a proceding. Absolutely government witnesses can be examined about their predjudices.
That is revelevant when a jury may decide that testimony might be inaccurate due to biases.
I would hope juries ALWAYS questiont he testimoney of law enforcement.
But claims of bias are irrelevant when there are no facts in question that could be altered by bias./
“To prove the other charge the offense for concealment from arrest, 18 USC 1071 require the government prove:
a federal warrant had been issued for the person’s arrest;
the person concealing them knew that a warrant was issued;”
Judge Dugan asked about the warrant – she KNEW about the arrant.
Ruis is guitly fo Felony illegal reentering the US – that raises the penalty for violating 1071 to 5yrs.
“the person actually concealed the fugitive from law enforcement;”
She allegedly attempted BADLY to prevent Ruis’s arrest – that is the requirement of the law.
“the person acted with intent to prevent fugitive’s discovery or arrest.”
She sent ICE away from her courtroom. She eneded the proceeding against Ruis immediately,
she ushered him out an unsual exist – that is all proof of a crime and proof of intent.
“There was no federal warrant for his arrest. An administrative warrant is not an arrest warrant.”
Of course there was besides 1071 says repeatedly “Warrant of process.”
“Judge Dugan had no knowledge there was a warrant.”
False she had detailed knowlege, she had exchanges with ICE, she knew there was a warrant and what type of warrant it was.
“Judge did not conceal Ruiz since she sent him out onto the same hallway ICE was in their full view.”
ICE was not in the hallway – ICE was in the Cheif judges chambers. Other non-uniformed FBI and DEA agents were in the hallway.
Judge Dugan was NOT aware of that. She thought she was sending him into the the hallway while ICE was tied up with the cheif judge.
“She did not prevent ICE from arresting Ruiz or find out he already left the court room.”
She attempted to do exactly that. She Failed because DEA/FBI were prepared and anticipated her criminal action.
All that is required is an attempt – not success.
“Turley loves to push a narrative that is devoid of details and context”
Yet it is YOU that is ignoring the details.
“because it’s easier to fool MAGAs than to explain the complexity of the issue and why it’s not as cut-and-dry as they want to make it out to be.”
This is not complex – Turley covers all the relevant facts.
Ruis is a felon. That agrevates the sentence Dugan faces.
ICE had an administrative warrant and Dugan knew that.
Ruis was subject to arrest without any warrant.
Dugan sent uniformed ICE agents to the chief judges chambers.
Terminated her proceeding and sheparded Ruis to a private exit from the courtroom.
She was observed doing this by her own staff who provided the FBI with statements,
The law does not require Dugan toi succeed, only to attempt.
The law does not require a warrant – it explicitly allows for any “process” that could result in arrest.
The law should be read NARROWLY, but that also means you can not read words OUT of the law.
Courts are required to give meaning to every word in a law.
“ So your own remarks PROVE that Dugan KNEW that ICE had an administrative warrant and from that you construe that DOJ will not be able to prove foreknowledge ?”
No. You’re twisting my words. Dugan ASKED what kind of warrant was issued. I didn’t say she KNEW they had an administrative warrant. She knew by the fact that they had an administrative warrant that she was not legally obligated to assist them in apprehending Ruiz.
“ You may not interfere in the actions of a law enforcement officer. Your beliefs about their legitimacy do NOT change that.
Judge Dugan was free to disagree with ICE, she was free to not cooperate. She was not free to interfere.
Your statement of the elements is incorrect.‘
She didn’t interfere. That’s the problem with the accusation. She’s not charged with interference. She’s charged with obstruction of a proceeding. Having an administrative warrant did not legally obligate her to assist them in anything. Asking one agent to speak to the chief judge did not obstruct or impede their goal of apprehending Ruiz. You seem to be conflating “asking” as obstruction. That does not meet the legal threshold for obstruction.
“ Mens Rae requires that your act is knowing. Judge Dugan KNEW she was interfering with ICE.
That is the only Mens Rae necescary.“
She’s not accused of interferance. Shes accused of obstruction. Two very legally specific charges.
“ ICE was not in the hallway – ICE was in the Cheif judges chambers. Other non-uniformed FBI and DEA agents were in the hallway.
Judge Dugan was NOT aware of that. She thought she was sending him into the the hallway while ICE was tied up with the cheif judge.“
Other agents were in the hallway. One agent was on the phone with the chief judge. There is no rule or procedure that says a judge can only let people through a public exit. The other agents already noticed Ruiz in the hallway. They were completely free to apprehend him while the ICE agent was talking to the judge. How is that obstruction? You have no idea what she was thinking. You don’t get to make up what the judge thinks.
“ She did not prevent ICE from arresting Ruiz or find out he already left the court room.”
She attempted to do exactly that. She Failed because DEA/FBI were prepared and anticipated her criminal action.
All that is required is an attempt – not success.‘
Now you’re making stuff up John. Assumptions are not facts. The DEA/FBI had no idea what the judge was going to do, none. YOU have no idea what they were thinking or planning. Speculating on what they were planning or thinking because you want it to be true is not an argument. It’s a really bad one.
“ Turley loves to push a narrative that is devoid of details and context”
Yet it is YOU that is ignoring the details.”
Nope. I posted what transpired. YOU ar engaging in pure speculation and assumption about events and thoughts that you are not privy to.
“ ICE had an administrative warrant and Dugan knew that.
Ruis was subject to arrest without any warrant.
Dugan sent uniformed ICE agents to the chief judges chambers.”
Wrong. Why do you lie John. Judge Dugan did NOT know ICE had an administrative warrant until she ASKED them. Ruiz was subjec to arrest with a warrant. The administrative warrant is what allowed the authorities to arrest him. Come on johh, you’re starting to sound dangerously close to S. Meyer.
Dugan did not send anyone to the chief judges chambers you idiot. She told ONE agent to talk to the chief judge who WASN’T there. The agent was talking to the chief judge ON THE PHONE while other agents went ahead and pursued Ruiz. Clearly you’re not paying attention to the details and the complexity of the events. Wanting it to be simple is not helping you.
“ The law should be read NARROWLY, but that also means you can not read words OUT of the law.
Courts are required to give meaning to every word in a law.”
Correct, that’s why there is a legal distinction between “interference” and “obstruction”. Judge Dugan was not interfering with agents job of apprehending Ruiz. There’s also a specific meaning between “administrative warrant” and “judicial warrant”. One does not obligate judge Dugan to assist the agents in aprehending Ruiz, the other does.
Asking questions and determining the situation is not obstruction nor is letting Ruiz out through the jury exit onto the same hallway were agents were present. Those are the facts that will be brought up in court. Not speculation or assumptions.
Geo says to John, “YOU have no idea what they were thinking or planning…”
This is a line that I used against Geo and GIGi on numerous occasions. Now the like to hold it over other people. So funny.
Thank you, George, for the compliment. Few things expose a fool more completely than his attempt to insult his betters. John Say, armed with facts and reason, leaves you staggering like a drunk swinging at shadows. Day after day, he dismantles your ignorance with precision while you mistake your confusion for wit.
Your stupidity isn’t accidental: it’s cultivated. You wear it like a crown, parading it proudly as if being oblivious were a virtue. You don’t debate: you babble. You don’t argue: you embarrass yourself. You think your ignorance grants you license to speak among the informed but all it does is mark you as the village idiot in a world that stopped laughing long ago.
I have made a few inconsequential errors addressing this issue.
I assumed the ICE agents were uniformed – they typically are when they make an arrest.
In this case they were NOT.
But 5 of the 6 federal officers present – the ones that a defense attorney who could possibly be charged photographed and provided that photo to the judge – all 5 of them identified themselves to Judge Dugan as federal agents. They presented their badges, and Judge Dugan had JUdge A escort them to the cheif judges chambers.
In doing so she knowingly removed every federal officer she was aware of from outside her courtroom.
And then almost immediately sheparded Ruis out the jury room door.
The affadavit is long and there is ALOT in it.
Some of those on the left are correct – there ARE other charges that fit this case too.
I suspect the “official proceding charge” was a thumb in the eye to the left over J6 defendants.
other charges can be added later.
I do not expect this to result in jail for Dugan. I do not even expect this will result in a permanent felony record.
She is likely to get an offer to plead guilty, accept something like a year of unsupervised probation and on successful completion have her record cleared.
But she is near certain to be removed as a judge and have her law license revoked. She will be able to get it back evenually.
That is appropriate.
Ultimately SHE is not what is important. Nor is convicting her.
What is important is that her conduct is lawless – worse so many are defending it.
They do not understand that when they do so they are undermining themselves and all the other lawless but not criminal conduct of other left wing judges.
John, your rare errors are inconsequential and easily corrected. They do not affect the narrative. How you handle so much of this data is amazing.
As you well know, your discussions with George the Idiot won’t change him. He’ll remain the same fool most people avoid.
“You’re twisting my words. Dugan ASKED what kind of warrant was issued. I didn’t say she KNEW they had an administrative warrant. She knew by the fact that they had an administrative warrant that she was not legally obligated to assist them in apprehending Ruiz.”
Christ almighty
Noo one needs to “twist your words”
You burn yourself to the ground.
She ASKED and the ICE agent ANSWERED – she KNEW.
Regardless, you do not get to have it both ways.
“I didn’t say she KNEW they had an administrative warrant”
“She knew by the fact that they had an administrative warrant that she was not legally obligated to assist them in apprehending Ruiz”
Which is it – did she know or did she NOT know ?
Regardless YOUR nonsense is irrelevant. She asked about the warrant and she asked FOR the warrant and she READ it.
Please read the affadavit.
YOu make constant errors when you make $hit up.
AGain Read the Affadavit. Ruis was to be arrested, and then taken before an IJ judge in a PROCEEDING where the basis for his arrest and the request to deport him would be presented to him and he would have the oportunity to contest it.
You are constantly making guesses and speculating.
But the correct information is in the warrant.
You and others have pointed out that she COULD be charged under other statutes – and she may well be in the future.
The fact that she is likely guilty of multiple charges does not mean she is not guilty of those that has so far been charged.
I suspect at some point later other charges may be added.
But that will not matter much. If she is convicted of ONE or all. most of the additional charges likely merge.
This is ONE set of actions. It is extremely rare for multiple charges stemming from one event to result in consecutive sentences.
The long list of charges does not even result in increasing the severity beyond that of the worst charge for the purpose of sentencing.
“Other agents were in the hallway.”
One
“One agent was on the phone with the chief judge.”
4 other agents were outside the chief judges chambers.
“There is no rule or procedure that says a judge can only let people through a public exit.”
There is no rule or procedure that you can not allow people out the back door of a bank.
But if you let bank robbers out the back door – you have committed a crime.
Many acts that would be legal are illegal when they are done to advance unlawful purposes.
” The other agents already noticed Ruiz in the hallway.”
Agent singular. Read the affadavit.
” They were completely free to apprehend him while the ICE agent was talking to the judge.”
Not relevant.
There is no “I did not obstruct justice even though I tried, because my efforts were ineffectual”.
Merely creating the situation where only one DEA agent was available to arrest Ruis would be obstruction,
Because Dugan is willfully responsible for their being only one agent.
” How is that obstruction? You have no idea what she was thinking. You don’t get to make up what the judge thinks.”
I know what she said and did. Those are compelling evidence of her intent.
Intent does NOT require that you KNOW exactly what the person is thinking.
It requires that her words and actions reasonably indicate that the actions were deliberate, and that by trying to hide Ruis she was aware that what she was doing was wrong. In trial Judge Dugan can offer a different explanation to a jury, and the jury can decide what they beleive.
But this is pretty damning evidence.
John Say
Now that you finally realize your errors and admit that all this ranting and raving you have indulged in is completely irrelevant to the case as charged, you now switch to a flurry of comments consisting of waffling gobbledegook about what you think ought to happen or should happen, or what the case is really about, and how Dugan really did commit crimes, and how she probably is guilty of crimes that have not been charged, and that her acts were obstruction, and where the agents were, and what their location means for the case, and what Dugan’s intent was.
Who cares ???
What’s the point ??
All your ranting and raving is completely IRRELEVANT to the case as charged.
Clement will get the charges dismissed.
Bondi and Patel will be referred for disciplinary proceedings.
Dugan will file a multi-million dollar wrongful arrest suit.
Try to get a grip on reality.
Your obsessive behavior does not speak well about your mental health.
“Now that you finally realize your errors and admit that all this ranting and raving you have indulged in is completely irrelevant to the case as charged, you now switch to a flurry of comments consisting of waffling gobbledegook about what you think ought to happen or should happen, or what the case is really about, and how Dugan really did commit crimes, and how she probably is guilty of crimes that have not been charged, and that her acts were obstruction, and where the agents were, and what their location means for the case, and what Dugan’s intent was.”
What is this nonsensical rant mean ?
“Who cares ???”
A great deal of people. The most important facet of this case is that reflects democrats normalization of criminal conduct to oppose policies they do not like. This damages not merely Dugan but judges whose lawless conduct has been inside the protections of judicial immunity such as Boasberg and Xinis.
“What’s the point ??”
The point is the normalization of lawlessness by prominent democrats.
Dugan is not some antifa member. She is a member in good standing reflecting the majortity of democrats.
YOUR defense of her lawlessness makes the point of how extreme the core – not the fringe of the democratic party has become.
“All your ranting and raving is completely IRRELEVANT to the case as charged.”
Nearly all my comments have been responses to completely stupid claims by left wing nuts misrepresenting the facts and law.
They are absolutely relevant.
“Clement will get the charges dismissed.”
Unlikely. He likely will get Dugan a good deal – but that was likely anyway.
“Bondi and Patel will be referred for disciplinary proceedings.”
ROFL
“Dugan will file a multi-million dollar wrongful arrest suit.”
Dugan will with near certainty resign or be removed as a judge.
She will with near certainty lose her law license – though not permanently.
“Try to get a grip on reality.
Your obsessive behavior does not speak well about your mental health.”
I am not the one arguing total nonsense made up from thin air.
The affadavit is readily available.
If you are going to make factual claims you should be familiar with the details in the affadavit.
The law including annotations is also readily available online from many sources.
I have seen no evidence at all of the tortured and anti-textual claims you have made about court decisons regarding these laws.
It is remotely possible you are right. While I think that is dubious, you are free to present evidence to support your unsubstantiated claims regarding the courts interpretations of these laws.
But you do not have the credibility to make broad claims regarding alleged SCOTUS decisions that contradict the text of the laws, and do not show up in the online annotations of those laws.
I think it is unlikely you are correct.
I would further bet that Bondi and Patel prepared for this in advance.
They were looking for an opportunity like this.
They were prepared in advance with respect to the laws they expected to use to charge.
They likely already know any SCOTUS opinions that run against them and would have avoided using laws that had problems.
I can not prove that – but it is likely.
Democrats have gone all in in lawless conduct to oppose Trump.
I would bet that the ICE ERO team was expecting and hoping for this type of obstructive behavior by Dugan.
I can not prove that – though even many here on the left seem to believe that.
Though they do not know the difference between entrapment which requires law enforcement to persuade you to commit an act you likely would not otherwise do, and patiently waiting for likely criminals to commit a crime and being fully prepared when they do.
What is extremely disturbing that so many of you beleive your own nonsense.
Trumps supposed crash in the polls has stopped, and it is likely his numbers will head up in a few days.
Trump is not the problem. MAGA is not the problem.
The extreme left and the extreme right are not the problem.
There are two problems.
The first is that Trump is fundimentally an uncontroversial centrist whose policies are popular and have been long before he descended the escalator – and yet you on the left rant hitler authoritarian, fascist – when you are the authoritarians.
The second is that atleast half the democratic party is actually EXTREME with respect to the country.
Worse still most of you do not even grasp that.
You actually beleive you are winning when you are digging a deeper hole.
Please give us MORE.
Lets have more democrat judges thwarting the arrest of felons who are in their court after having pummeled the crap out of their girlfriend and roommate.
This is what you want to stand up for ?
Alan Derschowitz (and I) defended the rights of actual Nazi’s – and they we went out and protested their despicable values.
You want to fight for due process for TdA members or MS13 members or various other illegal immigrant criminals.
I MIGHT be able to respect that – even though I do not agree and you misrepresent the due process requirement to send someone HOME
But you are not fighting for due process. you do not care about the actual conduct these people are actually guilty of.
Gerry Spense defended Terry Nichols – because everyone deserves a good defense.
He did NOT argue that people should be able to blow up buildings without consequence.
You are not mostly arguing that Dugan did not do what she is accused of,
You are arguing that preventing ICE from deporting violent dangerous felons is a good thing.
If Judge Dugan did not act as the affidavit alleges she did – then she should be aquited.
But your argument is not that the FBI is misrepesenting the facts.
it is that thwarting the deportation of violent felons is a GOOD thing.
And you are stupid enough to think that the majority of americans agree with you.
Worse – while not even close to a majority – far too many americans DO agree with you.
And that is very dangerous.
The rule of law, requires following the actual law, not making it up as you go.
Without the rule of law – we have anarchy.
Many of us think that is exactly what millions of you on the left want. Anarchy.
All this ranting and raving and huffing and puffing by John Say is completely irrelevant to the case.
This is a very simple and straightforward case that will be dismissed.
There are only 2 charges,
1. 18 USC 1505 Obstruction of an Official Proceeding.
The Supreme Court has defined this statute as ONLY. APPLICABLE. TO. CONGRESSIONAL. PROCEEDINGS.
It fails because it is irrelevant.
2. 18 USC 1071 Concealing or Harboring a Fugitive
This fails because it does not meet the elements required by the DOJ manual to bring this charge.
There has to be a federal judicial warrant signed by a judge.. There was none. They only had a civil administrative warrant.
Dugan must have been aware of the federal judicial warrant. There was no such warrant to be aware of.
The concealment acts have to be physical acts, as per the DOJ manual.
” The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is “any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension.”
She did not engage in a physical act. She simply told the agents to go talk to the Chief Judge.
All this nonsense that John Say is spewing forth is completely and utterly irrelevant.
The case is very simple and easily defended and dismissed
That is why Paul Clement has signed on to the defense team.
Clement recognizes the stupidity of these charges and will easily get them dismissed.
Paul Clement is a superstar, who only takes important high profile cases he knows he can win and set important precedents.
“There are only 2 charges”
Today. as many on the left have noted there are other charges possible.
“1. 18 USC 1505 Obstruction of an Official Proceeding.
The Supreme Court has defined this statute as ONLY. APPLICABLE. TO. CONGRESSIONAL. PROCEEDINGS.
It fails because it is irrelevant.”
You repeat that over and over – but the plain text of the law says otherwise.
YUou have yet to cite this myticial SCOTUS case,
and I have provided the link to the statute at Cornell anotated federal law reference and there is no reference to this hypothetical supreme court case.
There is also no logical reason that SCOTUS would limit the plain text of the law to only congressional proceedings/
“2. 18 USC 1071 Concealing or Harboring a Fugitive
This fails because it does not meet the elements required by the DOJ manual to bring this charge.
There has to be a federal judicial warrant signed by a judge.. There was none. They only had a civil administrative warrant.”
Again you make claims without providing the evidence. Again – this limitation you manufacture is NOT within Cornells anotations on federal law.
“Dugan must have been aware of the federal judicial warrant. There was no such warrant to be aware of.”
18 US 1071
“Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person”
Does not say a judicial warrant, does not even say ONLY a warrant.
“The concealment acts have to be physical acts, as per the DOJ manual.”
Sendi9ng the 5 Agents to the Chief judge and then spirting Ruis out the back door is a physical act.
“” The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is “any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension.”
She did not engage in a physical act. She simply told the agents to go talk to the Chief Judge.”
Removing them from the area near her court. She then ceased procedings and sheparded Ruis out the jury door, those are ACTS and those are efforts to avoid aprhension and detection.
“All this nonsense that John Say is spewing forth is completely and utterly irrelevant.”
So a nonspecific over generalization is meaningful ?
“The case is very simple and easily defended and dismissed”
It is – Judge Dugan knowingly and deliberately attempted to aid a felon in avoiding arrest.
“That is why Paul Clement has signed on to the defense team.”
Clement is formidable.
“Clement recognizes the stupidity of these charges and will easily get them dismissed.”
Gerry Spense singed on to Represent Terry Nichols – he too was very formidable.
He did not do so because he thought he would win, but because Nichols deserved a good defense.
You can not conclude anything from Clement signing on, you can not even conclude that what Clement says about the case is true.
Only that Dugan will have a heavy hitter defending he.
“Paul Clement is a superstar, who only takes important high profile cases he knows he can win and set important precedents.”
Clement is a superstar and he has lost lots of cases.
John Say
” Today. as many on the left have noted there are other charges possible.”
So what?
The courts adjudicate ACTUAL charges, not POSSIBLE charges.
The courts do not consider charges that maybe, or should, or could have been brought.
Get a grip on reality.
You say that the plain text of the law does not limit 1505 to Congressional investigations.
Really ???
Are you actually capable of reading and comprehending.
My reading of 1505 reveals that it deals with obstruction in two situations.
1. Any investigation made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act
OR
2. Any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress–
Clearly this case has nothing to do with the Antitrust Civil Process Act.
That only leaves the second possibility which clearly states that the inquiry or investigation “is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress– ”
I may be wrong, but I don’t think that ICE or the DOJ is a House of government, or a committee or sub-committee of either House.
Clearly 1505 has no relevance to an ICE investigation.
But just to certain SCOTUS has said;
” Section 1505 covers anyone who corruptly obstructs congressional inquiries or investigations”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Page 10
You say: There is also no logical reason that SCOTUS would limit the plain text of the law to only congressional proceedings/ ”
Whether or not it is logical to you is beside the point.
It is what they did.
If you look at the rest of Chapter 73 of which 1505 is a part, there are 20 other defined statutes of Obstruction. For instance 1509 is Obstruction of Court Orders, 1510 is Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
Congress decided to define many different acts of obstruction in separate statutes, which is the LOGICAL thing to do.
1505 deals with Obstruction of Congressional investigations
1509 is Obstruction of Court Orders.
1510 is Obstruction of Criminal investigations.
Why didn’t they charge 1510 Obstruction of Criminal Investigations????
My guess is incompetence.
18 USC 1071 requires a physical act.
The DOJ Manual gives examples of such acts:
“any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension”
The Manual also notes that 1071 does not prohibit ALL forms of aid to a fugitive.
In your twisted mind a verbal instruction by the judge to the fugitive may be a physical act, but it does not comport with the examples in the DOJ Manual.
But this requirement is really not that important when you look at the essential elements necessary for a 1071 conviction in the DOJ Manual.
You claim that 1071 does not require the existence of a Federal warrant.
The DOJ Manual lists this as a required element to bring this charge.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1071, the government must establish the following four essential elements: (1) a federal warrant has been issued for the fugitive’s arrest;
(2) the defendant had knowledge that a warrant had been issued for the fugitive’s arrest;
(3) the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive; and
(4) the defendant intended to prevent the fugitive’s discovery or arrest. United States v. Silva, 745 F.2d 840, 848 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 (1985). Accord, United States v. Udey, 748 F.2d 1231, 1235-36 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1017 (1985); United States v. Bissonette, 586 F.2d 73, 77 (8th Cir. 1978).
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1828-18-usc-1071-elements-offense
The essential elements of a 1071 charge specify the existence of a “federal arrest warrant”.
A federal arrest warrant has several defining features as outlined in the Dept of Homeland security Legal Division Handbook.
fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/legal-division-handbook.pdf
(add https :// www. WordPress 2 link max.)
9.9.3 The Form of a Federal Arrest Warrant
A federal arrest warrant must contain the following:
1. Signature of the Judge. The warrant must be “signed by the magistrate judge” or by whatever judge issues the warrant. For arrest warrants based upon an indictment or information, the warrant “must be signed by the clerk.”
2. Name of the Defendant. “… the defendant’s name or, if it is unknown, a name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty.”
3. The Offense Charged. The warrant must “describe the offense charged in the complaint.” For arrest warrants based upon an indictment or information, the warrant “must describe the offense charged in the indictment or information.”
4. Command to Arrest. The warrant must “command that the defendant be arrested and brought without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer.”
An ICE administrative warrant does not have the signature of Judge.
By definition it cannot be a ‘federal arrest warrant”.
“It is important to keep in mind that the underlying basis for a non-citizen’s removability may be due to some criminal violation, but the removal warrant used by ICE is not a criminal warrant signed by a federal judge. In fact, the removal warrant used to process the non-citizen’s removal is signed by an ICE official based on a finding that the person is removable from the United States.”
fletc.gov/ice-administrative-removal-warrants-mp3
(add https : //www. WordPress 2 link max.)
According to the Criminal Complaint, the ICE agents told Judge Dugan that they had an “administrative warrant”. By the definitions outlined above, an administrative warrant is NOT a federal arrest warrant. It was not signed by a judge.
No federal arrest warrant was produced.
In fact no federal arrest warrant existed.
According to the DOJ Manual the existence of a Federal arrest warrant is the first essential element necessary to obtain a conviction under 1071.
Thus the 1071 charge absolutely fails.
It will be dismissed.
You are living in a fantasy world disconnected from reality.
You seem to think that the case turns on things that should, or could be relevant to the case.
Unfortunately for you, that is not how the law works.
This case turns on the statutes, the facts and the evidence, not the flights of fancy that you constantly embark upon.
Clown, Clement lost two of the biggest cases ever, in the past couple of years. ONe was United States v. Windsor, and the other was about the ACA but I don’t remember the case caption. Stop saying silly stuff before your credibility becomes irreversible error.
“1. 18 USC 1505 Obstruction of an Official Proceeding.
The Supreme Court has defined this statute as ONLY. APPLICABLE. TO. CONGRESSIONAL. PROCEEDINGS.”
You’re just making stuff up, again.
Try obstructing an IRS official proceeding. See what you’re charged with.
Legislators are supposed to make the law. Courts are supposed to uphold the law. If someone doesn’t like the law and they break it rather than seek to change it by legal process, then they are outside of the law. All US citizens should be unified in the position that illegal actions by someone empowered to uphold the law are intolerable in a civilized system of law. That there are judges who feel empowered and even compelled to break the law means we need massive litigation reform.
Litigation abuse is destroying the country.
“ Legislators are supposed to make the law. Courts are supposed to uphold the law.”
Wrong. Legislators make law. Courts Interpret law. The executive upholds the law.
I’ve always wondered where all the Clown’s went after Ringling Barnum Bailey Circus closed. My question was finally answered: to the Court House.
The defendant is indefensible, so Democrats make it about the judge. You see how this works? So much of leftwing politics is about misdirection or good ol’ pettifogging: What is a woman? The tourist is an insurrectionist. The insurrectionist is really a judge. Patient Zero was a pangolin. And those old chestnuts, “racism!!” and “Russian disinformation!!” The list is becoming endless.
The scariest part is that Democrats actually believe this dreck. There’s always been nutties, but why so many now?
When human beings depart from a state of nature for too long, they start to breed regressive genes, and one of those genes enables delusional thinking. We shouldn’t be that surprised.
Human beings are genius creatures because we are on the cusp of madness. It’s the instability in a neural substrate that makes us brilliant, like the instability of a jet fighter makes it maneuverable. If the instability exceeds a critical threshold, people crash and burn. Complexity and true intellect are not always the same thing.
This is why intellectual endeavors like media and academia or so full of it. The more complex the mind, the more susceptible to the mind virus. Vocations of theory and make believe are naturally where many of these defective brains choose to crash and burn. Why is modern art so crazy? Why is Harvard demanding to be defunded? Why does MSNBC exist? The mind virus. I’ve never seen a schizophrenic cat, but I’ve seen Rachel Maddog.
I suspect (or hope) I’m wrong about defective brains, but history keeps proving me right. There is a new wrinkle, however. When a purple-haired, obese, radical feminist whines that she’s not having children because of climate change, what she’s really doing is repairing the gene pool. History hasn’t seen that before, but I welcome it.
Actually, I’m just kidding… or maybe I’m not 😉
Diogenes,
Dont kid! It was a good comment. These people with TDS are obviously broken. They lack common sense, logic, morals, self awareness and sense of reality.
The Democrats are montrously evil as JT’s post readily confirms. Their judges are no different. We’ll all be better off when they are frog-walked into real courtrooms for real justice and then bussed off to those high-walled institutions they so richly deserve to frequent. For many, that first day in the slammer will be the first day any of them ever worked in their lives. Bread and water anyone? Hey, black really is the new black!!
Dear Mr. Turley, as a person who lives in rural Wisconsin, it is hard to understand the morals of those who reside in the larger cities like Milwaukee. Judges there seem to have a contempt for common sense. This illegal immigrant is a danger to our society. This Judge is looking through her “Trump Derangement Syndrome Glasses” and viewing this man as a victim. He is hardly that!!
Anonymous:
“Dear Mr. Turley, as a person who lives in rural Wisconsin, it is hard to understand the morals of those who reside in the larger cities like Milwaukee.”
**************************
Well Anon, you do understand. It’s not a difference in morals; it’s simply having no morals at all. Many decaying societies get these types of miscreants who are hellbent to run a country into the ground. It’s our responsibilityt to stop them lest the flow to cataclysm becme unstoppable. So don’t ponder their depravity. Just oppose it.
So what happens when a Judge breaks the law? I do not know if Judge Hannah Dugan is guilty or not, yet at best this is not good for her. I do not think the Trump Administration is going to let her go with a warning. Dugan is going to be made an example. There are two portions to this we need to understand. First I get Nudge Dugan is against what is happening and she tried to help an illegal due to her personal beliefs. The problem is that she is a Judge and is held to a higher standard. Judge Dugan should know better and she acted this way in spite of her professional oath. If she is guilty, then she needs to be punished and removed from the bench and jailed if it rises to that punishment level. Contempt for the law because you disagree with the law is not an answer.
As important to me as what Judge Dugan allegedly did is how would she have handled her orders or warrants being ignored because someone did not agree to enforce her decision. I am willing to bet she would not be so understanding. I agree with the good professor about contempt of the law. Our legal system is based upon willingness to follow it. If judges are willing to break the law, why should anyone pay attention to the law?
Politicians are making serious mistakes with their statements calling Judge Dugan a hero. While I understand the rhetoric, it is not helpful in the least. I wonder if the politicians even understand how they undermine their own cause by defending lawbreakers that sit on the bench.
@TQM,
No, there is no doubt at to the facts what happened.
There are enough eye witnesses, along w security camera footage in the courthouse.
Once the officers alerted her to the existence of the warrant, she couldn’t feign ignorance.
She knew or should have known what she was doing was illegal. End of story.
-G
Until this is adjudicated, it is alleged. It is evidence until the decider of facts (the jury) have determined what is true. While I fully agree the judge should know better, she has been found guilty of nothing as of yet.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that the judges criminal behavior not only put her in legal jeopardy, but also the defense attorney who aided and abetted the escape and the defendant is now guilty of the additional crime of attempting to escape federal law enforcement. Her criminal actions had collateral damage to those she was trying to assist.
@Tubwater
I don’t think so.
The attorney’s defense was that they were following the judge’s order.
And she does have an obligation to her client.
Consider the fact that the guy was here illegally and that there is an ICE warrant for him. At best the attorney could say ‘please turn yourself in’… but that’s about it.
Dear Prof Turley,
This is not normal. Obviously, Biden was not normal. Trump is also not normal. You can’t make this stuff up.
There is no such thing as Democrat Judges or Republican Judges. .. else you make a mockery of justice itself.
The idea that ‘illegal aliens’ (sic) are the root cause of America’s present malaise is, of course, complete rubbish – a distraction from our more pressing concerns at best. Moreover, I doubt the human beings in this country illegally are more prone to acts of violence – knocking old ladies over the head, rapists, murderers etc., etc. – than any other group of people, including American citizens. In my own personal experience probably less so.
Obviously, there is a big difference between expelling people in this country illegally and sending them directly to a ‘concentration’ prison in El Salvador without any due process. With all due respect to the Executive branch, tattoos are not definitive proof of gang affiliation .. . much less ‘terrorism’.
Lastly, the various government agents sent to arrest and deport Flores-Ruiz could have simply waited outside the courthouse. .. but no, the Trump DoJ wants to make a big show with everything.
“There is no such thing as Democrat Judges or Republican Judges.”
Of course there is
” .. else you make a mockery of justice itself.”
That is correct, and that is precisely the problem.
Justice and the law are no longer the same regardless of the judge.
That is why the judiciary has tanked in terms of trust and respect.
“The idea that ‘illegal aliens’ (sic) are the root cause of America’s present malaise is, of course, complete rubbish”
That is correct – there is no single thing that is responsible for all our problems. There is no single thing that is responsible for all that is good.
We are still expected to follow the law and go after those who we have determined by creating laws, undermine public order.
If you do not like that – CHANGE THE LAW.
There are lots of laws I would like to see change.
I and most americans support LEGAL immigration.
I and most americans even support allowing SOME illegal immigrants to remain in the US.
A recent PEW poll found that americans support for deportation drops below majority support when
The illegal immigrant has been here more than 10 years
AND they have a family and roots in the community
AND they pay taxes
AND they are not on the dole
AND they are not involved in crime.
53% of amercians do not want Illegal immigrants that meet ALL of those criteria deported
“a distraction from our more pressing concerns at best.”
We have alot of pressing concerns. Illegal immigration is in the majority of americans top 10.
“I doubt the human beings in this country illegally are more prone to acts of violence – knocking old ladies over the head, rapists, murderers etc., etc. – than any other group of people,”
That is complicated – there is data both ways on that.
One of the complicating factors is that recent mass illegal immigration has become a buisiness for drug cartels.
They made more money traffiking illegals than they did selling drugs during the biden administration.
When criminal gangs become involved in a lawless but otherwise peaceful activity – crime rises.
Illegal drug uses as an example mostly are not more prone to violence and crime than others.
In many cases they may be LESS prone to – though that varies by drug.
But the process of procuring illegal drugs results in significant violent crime.
Drug Cartels have used the porous border to bring more violent gang members into the US – that raises US violent crime.
Traficing itself means many of those who are illegally brought into the US are either in virtual slavery or owe a debt to drug cartels that MUST be repaid or their will be violence. Often that debt is repaid by crime.
” including American citizens. In my own personal experience probably less so.”
It is likely true that the individual south american gardener or nany or hotel maid that got tot he US completely on their own and owes no one is staying under the radar and trying very very hard NOT to do anything more illegal.
That was the NORM 20 years ago. Today people are shaperded into the country by criminal cartels and that comes with expectations, and those expectations are violently enforced.
“Obviously, there is a big difference between expelling people in this country illegally and sending them directly to a ‘concentration’ prison in El Salvador without any due process.”
The AEA is a war powers act. The Trump administration – with evidence provided by CIA and other national security agencies has determined that TdA is acting in cooperation with the venezeulan govenrment to disrupt the US.
TdA members arrested by ICE are the legal equivalent of prisoners of war.
And countries detain enemy combatants – usually outside the war zone and they do that with very little due process, until after the war is over.
This is similar to the detention of terrorists in Guantanamo – except that these people were not captured in the US, but they were detained in US fascilities.
They WERE entitled to due process, but military due process, not civilian due process.
“With all due respect to the Executive branch, tattoos are not definitive proof of gang affiliation”
Correct – but they are EVIDENCE of gang affiliation.
” .. . much less ‘terrorism’.”
Everybody abuses the term terrorism. What is new.
The KKK engaged in terrorism in the past. They remain dispicable today, but I have seen no KKK acts of terrorism for decades.
Criminal gangs – whether TdA or La Cosa Nostra use Terror for profit and power – that does not make them terrorists.
J6 protestors were not terrorists. Antifa might be a terrorist organization . Their goal is to bring anarchy through violence.
Regardless claims of terrorism are over used.
“Lastly, the various government agents sent to arrest and deport Flores-Ruiz could have simply waited outside the courthouse. .. but no, the Trump DoJ wants to make a big show with everything.”
There are many factors that law enforcement considers in conducting an arrest.
You are not entitled to obstruct an arresst because you think it should have been conducted differently.
You are not free to obstruct law enforcement more generally because you think there is a better way for them to do their job.
You may not do so – even if you are right.
“ The AEA is a war powers act. The Trump administration – with evidence provided by CIA and other national security agencies has determined that TdA is acting in cooperation with the venezeulan govenrment to disrupt the US.
TdA members arrested by ICE are the legal equivalent of prisoners of war.
And countries detain enemy combatants – usually outside the war zone and they do that with very little due process, until after the war is over.”
The government has not provided any proof that TdA is acting in cooperation with the Venzuelan government. That’s complete BS.
Even by definition they do not meet the criteria under AEA.
How is TdA disrupting the US government? What exactly are they doing that is disurptive of the government?
TdA members are NOT legally equivalent of prisoners of war. Not by any stretch of the imagination. We are not at war with the Venezuelan government. Courts are becoming aware of the dubious BS Trump is using to justify using the AEA to bypass due process and unilaterally declare any Venezualan as a member of TdA without giving them adequate time to prove the accusation is not true. Trump is actively trying to avoid that by giving them ridiculously short “notices” (12hrs) instead of a more reasonable 20-30 days.
“ With all due respect to the Executive branch, tattoos are not definitive proof of gang affiliation”
Correct – but they are EVIDENCE of gang affiliation.”
No, given the popularity of tattoos, having them is not evidence of gang affiliation. You’re assuming anyone with tattoos should be suspected of being affiliated with a gang. That’s like saying being black is evidence of being a potential criminal. It’s a pretty stupid argument.
@ John say .. . the loquacious,
You make a lot of interesting points. That I would like to examine in more detail. That I don’t have time to properly address today .. . nevertheless, like The Terminator; I’ll be back.
Briefly, after the AUMF (see Yoo & Karl Rove aka ‘The Turd Blossom’) and Obama’s NDAA, ‘Terrorism’ has become meaningless. Like freedom .. . just another word for nothing left to lose.
Basically, a terrorist is whoever the Executive branch says is a terrorist. .. the Crips & Bloods and the Godfather notwithstanding.
If terrorism is an ‘act of war’ – and you are correct here – I’ve come to the conclusion that only nation-states can be ‘terrorists’ – i.e. acts of violence against civilians to further political goals.
ltr.
ps. everybody else are merely alleged criminals .. . subjects to the rule of law.
Professor Turley is wrong that we need to maintain respect for
our courts even when we disagree with their decisions. But if
their decisions are based on the politization of the law, two-tired
justice and lawfare as is happening in too many courts in this
country, the courts don’t deserve respect.
Given what is happening in too many courts in this country a
lot of judges need to be removed from office and in too many
cases imprisoned
.Too many of our courts are corrupt to the core–no fair judicial
system can countenance our existing degree of court rottenness.
Yes, must always respect and obey our criminal and corrupt judges to preserve and protect our Democracy. They after, after all, only following the edits of their Deep State Democracy-Oriented Criminal Commanders, such as the esteemed George Soros and China, who are only serving the best interest of Democracy.
I am not Anonymous, I wrote the above. John Howard Wilhelm, Ann Arbor, MI
We’re all safer with Dugan off the bench.
Turley forgot to mention two of the people this POS illegal beat to a pulp were in the courtroom and watched the judge release their attacker without a finding. No care if the slug went back and killed his accusers. as tjeu are want to do.
at this point does anyone believe ANY Democrats wants good for America?
The Democrat Party is the party of harm America!
They celebrate crime and enable stealing!
Time to FIGHT BACK!
Give her the due process. Yes, it will be hard to convict her in any court within Milwaukee area but she will be the poster girl of “Above The Law”. Then, make sure to disbar her for judicial misconduct.
“A week after calling for a “civic uprising, New York Times columnist and PBS nominal conservative David Brooks found his first heroine in arrested Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who is alleged to have used her courtroom to help an illegal immigrant, who was in front of her for domestic abuse, escape arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On Friday’s PBS News Hour, Brooks argued if the charges are true, then while Dugan’s actions were ‘illegal,’ they were also a ‘heroic’ form of ‘civil disobedience.’ https://www.mrctv.org/videos/brooks-hails-arrested-judges-heroic-civil-disobedience
Dugan has become the Luigi Mangione of jurists.
MSM will run relentless stories from persons expressing a priori exoneration of Dugan. There will be little if any publications presenting the opposite view.
Accordingly, after a few days of this barrage, Sunday morning hosts George Stephanopoulos, Jonathan Karl, Kristen Welker, and Martha Raddatz, et al. will spend time talking about the WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, NYT polls reflecting that the American public disapprove of any criticism or charges against Judge Dugan.
This has become all too predictable.
lIn, were her actions really illega though? Because it’s all just accusations from the Trump administration right now and they have been known to lie to the public to push their narrative.
You’re supposedly a lawyer. Administrative warrants don’t mandate assistance. So what is the illegal here?
George – make up your mind. It is hypocracy to argue that the alleged acts are NOT crimes, but if they are the Trump administration is lying and Judge Dugan did not do what is alleged.
You say the Trump administration lies all the tie.
About WHAT ?
YOU lie all the time – do you need another list ?
The left lies all the time.
Democrats lie all the time.
As politicians go Trump is incredibly honest.
He is doing exactly what he said he would do,
what the majority of people voted for him to do.
What YOU are trying to stop him from doing.
John Say,
After reading how these Democrats are proclaiming this judge is a hero, and the good professor points out their lies, gaslighting and leaving out relevant facts, they make Trump look incredibly honest.
“ About WHAT ?”
Pretty much about everything. You’re not that ignorant, are you?
“ He is doing exactly what he said he would do,
what the majority of people voted for him to do.”
No he’s not. He was voted into office because he promised to lower grocery prices and make the economy better and reduce inflation on day one. Right? Now he’s engaged in a trade war started all by himself. Burned bridges with our allies, and is supposedly making “deals” which he cannot explain what they are because he’s lying. Trump gave China a HUGE advantage with his stupid tariff policy. So what are we getting in return? What is our leverage in all of this?
Trump promised mass deportations and that millions will be deported by year’s end. Clearly he’s not even close to meeting that goal, not without doing things legally and within the confines of the law which he is desperately trying to bypass thru “emergency” clauses.
The free market is already punishing Trump and Elon for their stupidity and it will continue to do so as long as Trump sticks to his lying.
Trump promised to close the border. Has he done that? Is he building the wall? How is he going to cut the budget by $4 trillion without touching Medicaid and Social security and ADDING to the defense budget to the tune of $1 trillion?
He promised to bring back manufacturing, but we all know that is not going to happen fast enough for anyone to see it come true.
Trump already capitulated on the tariff fight and now he has no idea what to do with Russia and Ukraine. What has he done to improve the situation besdies chastise Zelenzky and kiss Putin’s a$$?
Come on John, I sincerely believev you’re not that naive or stupid. You know Trump is not doing what he claimed he’s going to do. He’s BSing his way around his BS claims and it’s not going to last forever. He’s already painted himself into a bad corner with China and he’s going to look for someonet to blame when it comes crashing down. That will be either Lutnick or Bessent. Trump is no master negotiator. He’s a moron who loves attention, but none of the responsibility of his mess.
Perhaps we should call for the unseating of all judges who advocate rejecting standing law and allow personal feelings/ideologies guide their hand.
Would that not instantly solve this problem?
No, it wouldn’t because we have blurred the line of boundaries in so much that we have no distinct guides to much of anything – just another indicator of the failed concept of multiculturalism.
WordPress’ spam filter errored and marked the above comment as spam. It is now restored.
As a matter of culture and custom, certain professions are accorded a deference for their work that is ordinarily not afforded to others. A plumber, for example, or an automobile mechanic, is given deference in decisions made in the usual course of their work because of their specialized skill. Likewise, doctors and lawyers are afforded deference in their specialized work. A judge, like a clergy member or a medical professional, is given special deference, recognized as having special skill and fidelity to the ancient principles of their profession.
When an exalted professional moves to the dark side and violates the standards they are employed to protect, they lose all right to the deference and respect we give them. They become that which they were hired to judge. Since 1988, Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend increasing a penalty “If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels.” (§3B1.3. Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill)
On April 18, 2025, in a courthouse in Milwaukee, Judge Hannah Dugan voluntarily and forever left her profession as a judge. She became a criminal by: 1) obstructing justice, and 2) concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest. (18 USC 1505 & 18 USC 1071) The evidence against her is indisputable. She may seek a plea deal to avoid prison. On the other hand, she may take the matter to trial in the hopes of jury nullification and acquittal. This, however, carries a significant risk of being a win-all or lose-all gambit. Some will view her as a hero until she is convicted, either by a plea or jury trial, after which she will quickly be forgotten.
JJC,
That was a great comment. Thank you for your legal insight and analysis.
JJC, thank you for your excellent analysis! Dugan may receive some momentary accolades. I believe that she is a disgrace to the legal profession.
We now have 3 democratic judges who stepped own from their bench to take part in a partisan and biased action in regards to immigration. Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. With the obstructionist tactics by democratic appointed judges in Federal District Courts and some Circuit Courts, does it not give pause to the American public about the presumed assumption of equal justice under the law.
In their zest to go by the route of “any means necessary” to fulfill their desired policy, Democratic Appointed Judges are, in fact, fulfilling the observations of many citizens that Democrats feel that they and their party are above the law and any one that comes before them in court will not get justice unless they are associates of the Democratic Party.
A Democrat DA in Minnesota lets a state employee commit $20,000 worth of damage on 6 Teslas and drops all charges but then throws the book at another individual who committed $ 7000 of damage on a non Tesla (both were instances of “keying” a car). Is that justice?
Obviously Justice is no longer blind.
I can sit in a jury box (and have) and vote on a case irrespective of the person’s party and focus on the facts. It’s really not that hard. But I am concerned that too many of our fellow citizens, Attorneys and Judges can no longer make that relatively easy decision and focus on the matter at hand.
It’s called Civics and Citizenship, Ethics and knowing what and when partisanship is appropriate and when it is not. When you have to sit down and think and truly problem solve. None this seems to be taught in any meaningful way at present.
GEB,
Excellent points!
GEB: It’s just another trail on the progressive path to a banana republic. Hopefully, other courts, and Congress, will put an end to it.
They want to break the law? Then let’s imprison every one who does. Maybe we can get back to a normal society, with mutual respect and decency, instead of entitlement and crime.
It is noteworthy that Turley did not attempt to clarify the distinction between an administrative warrant and a judicial warrant. The ICE agent informed Judge Dugan that he had an administrative warrant for Flores-Ruiz. Upon hearing this, Judge Dugan quickly recognized that the ICE agent was not being truthful with her.
A judicial warrant is issued by a judge or magistrate after a showing of probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed, while an administrative warrant is issued by an administrative agency for regulatory inspections or compliance checks, not for criminal investigations. Judicial warrants, like arrest warrants or search warrants, require probable cause and are typically used for criminal law enforcement, according to the LII | Legal Information Institute. Administrative warrants, on the other hand, are used for a broader range of regulatory actions, such as inspections by OSHA, FDA, or the EPA.
If he was being sought for a criminal violation then they should have had a judicial warrant. Judge Dugan correctly called on the ICE agents to speak to the Chief Judge about this discrepancy and the fact that that Flores-Ruiz was in a public space after exiting thru the jury door. You can’t claim obstruction if the agents saw him in the hallway with his lawyer and followed him into the elevator until he got out onto the street. What was the obstruction? Judge Dugan was not impeding their movements or the process of apprehending him. There were more than one agent and any one of them could have gone ahead and sought to apprehend him. Nothing stopped them from doing that.
Turley is just backing up the false story because that’s what he does as a legal analyst for Fox News and a paid yes-man.
George – you are embarrassing yourself again. It seems the thing you’re best at.
Turley states plainly that there was an existing Order for Expedited Removal. Therefore, a judicial warrant was unnecessary as there is an existing Court Order. The proper document was, in fact, an administrative warrant:
“An administrative warrant is a document issued by a federal agency like ICE, authorizing the arrest or seizure of someone deemed removable from the U.S. An order of removal, sometimes called a warrant of removal or deportation warrant, is a document that orders an individual’s removal from the country based on a final order by an immigration judge or other authorized official.”
Good try to spin it as if this Judge didn’t break the law when everyone knows that she clearly did. No one is above the law, right?
Wrong again. Nice try.
“ An ICE administrative warrant is a document, issued by a federal agency such as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), PURPORTING to document their authority to arrest a person suspected of violating immigration laws. These administrative documents are not signed by a neutral magistrate or judge but rather an immigration officer like an ICE agent or immigration judge.”
It’s not an offical arrest warrant. Which is why the judge was right to demand ICE show that it had a proper judicial warrant.
An order of expedited removal is NOT an arrest warrant. You seem to be easily confused about this distinction.
It is YOU who seems confused, mostly from relying on the Internet. The DIFFERENCE is that an ICE administrative warrant does not allow invasion or compromise in areas other than public. In this case, if you read the Complaint rather than media, you would realize that the officers complied with that.
BUT, an administrative warrant is NOT an arrest warrant. It’s just an order from an agency telling them there is an order for removal. That’s why the judge asked them if they had a judicial warrant.
You’re not required to assist ICE in any way when all they have is an administrative warrant. There is no legal mandate to assist them with that warrant. Now, if they had a judicial warrant judge Dugan would have been required to assist them in holding Ruiz. That’s why she asked them if they had a judicial warrant. Obviously they did not.
George. George. George. An ICE administrative warrant is indeed an arrest warrant. I believe you could save yourself a great deal of negative criticism if you would avoid your little media sources and concentrate on actual documents straight from the horse’s mouth, i.e., ICE. That’s what a real lawyer would do.
https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/I-200_SAMPLE.PDF
p.s. Pleases read Para 8 in the above Dugan Complaint. I’ll help you.
” On or about April 17, 2025, an authorized immigration official found
probable cause to believe Flores-Ruiz was removable from the United States and issued a warrant
for his arrest. The warrant provided, “YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and take into custody
for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the above-named alien
[Flores-Ruiz identified on warrant].”
Not even close, George, and definitely no cigar.
Lin,
What a way to own the slow and dumb one! Always a joy to see the slow and dumb one try to take on an actual lawyer with his nonsense MSM logic (lack thereof) and then gets shown his own arse!!!
The issue is accusing Judge Dugan of obsruction of a proceeding. An administrative warrant does not mandate anyone who is not ICE, DEA, or FBI to assist them in executing the warrant. You cannot charge the judge with obstruction if there is no legal mandate to assist. They are claiming the judge prevented the arrest by letting Ruiz out the “back door” which is not true.
Stop changing the issue, clown. You SAID, “BUT, an administrative warrant is NOT an arrest warrant. It’s just an order from an agency telling them there is an order for removal.”
Then you SAID, “It’s not an offical arrest warrant. Which is why the judge was right to demand ICE show that it had a proper judicial warrant.”
The “issue” is not obstruction, clown. The issue is YOU SAYING that an administrative warrant was not an arrest warrant. Whenever you adn gigi get backed into a corner with your WRONG statements, you go to a different corner and try something else. Classic clown.
who’s talking about “assisting?”
NO ONE EXCEPT GEORGIE
I thought the thread was about whether an administrative warrant could be an arrest warrant, which GEORGIE got wrong.
“It is noteworthy that Turley did not . . .”
It is *not* noteworthy that you, and the rest of the Left, use deflection and complexity-worship to deceive people.
Your “scholarly” excursion notwithstanding, the type of warrant is irrelevant. As are: the number of agents, when they could have apprehended the perp after he left the courtroom, what the perp did after he left the courtroom, the motivations of the agents and the Trump administration.
All of that, and much more, is merely Leftist noise to evade the essential fact: Judge Dugan knew that federal agents were present to arrest Ruiz. She knowingly abetted Ruiz’s escape from their capture.
That is a federal crime.
Sam,
Well said and an excellent take down of the slow and dumb one.
I would also like for everyone to note JJC’s comment and citing existing law, and commented, “Since 1988, Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend increasing a penalty “If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels.” (§3B1.3. Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill)”
^^ felony
“ Judge Dugan knew that federal agents were present to arrest Ruiz.”
No she didn’t. That’s the lie being spread around that is being used as pretext to justify calling her actions a crime.
“No she didn’t.”
Really?
So she thought that ICE, et al., were there to set a golf date with Ruiz? And she let him out early (from the state’s *criminal* hearing) so he could get to the course early and warm up?
Sometimes, your rationalizations for Leftist criminal behavior are just dumb.
George, take off your blinders. The man was subject to immediate deportation. The judge tried to block his arrest and helped him avoid the federal agents. That is obstruction pure and simple. It’s also a felony.
When lost in the weeds, it is always best to use weeds for cover, eh Furious George?
George says, “What was the obstruction? Judge Dugan was not impeding their movements or the process of apprehending him.”
clown George, what was the “obstruction” when Trump was so charged when having allegedly classified documents at Mar a Lago?
Georgie boy clearly has no comprehension or understanding of “obstruction” in a legal sense. He must go back to the Internet to figure it out.
I hope you have a good chiropractor to assist you in straightening your pretzel logic.