Boston area judge charged for helping an immigrant evade ICE. - Polidicks

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/boston-area-judge-charged-helping-undocumented-immigrant-out-courthouse-elude-n998546 Judge Shelley Joseph and court officer Wesley MacGregor were hit with federal obstruction of justice charges for allegedly aiding the defendant, who was arrested in March 2018 on charges of drug possession and being a fugitive from justice, according to an indictment by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston. The man, identified as A.S., was allowed to dash out of a rear sally port entrance at the state courthouse in Newton, Massachusetts, on April 2, 2018, after a plainclothes immigration enforcement agent identified himself to the judge and other courtroom personnel, federal prosecutors said. "The Department of Justice's decision to bring this case is preposterous, ironic, and deeply damaging to the rule of law," said executive director Carol Rose. "This decision seems to have little to do with the actual facts, and everything to do with enforcing the president’s anti-immigrant agenda. This prosecution is nothing less than an assault on justice in Massachusetts courts, and it will further undermine community trust and safety."

A true hero standing up for real justice. We need more of these, regardless the consequences.

Nice to have a story for once that shows Americans have not lost their humanity and that there are just a select few cunts in the higher offices.

"Judge Shelley Joseph and court officer Wesley MacGregor were hit with federal obstruction of justice charges for allegedly aiding the defendant, who was arrested in March 2018 on charges of drug possession and being a fugitive from justice, according to an indictment by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston." So what are the full charges? Considering drug possession is separately listed here. Not to mention this guy was already twice deported which implies he had prior charges. If he was actively breaking the law here in the United States, he should be dealt with in the same manner as any other criminal breaking similar laws. I don't agree with drug possession related laws, but if you get twice biten, you probably have a rap sheet.

Don't make me say it again buddy

The Department of Justice's decision to bring this case is preposterous, ironic, and deeply damaging to the rule of law," said executive director Carol Rose. "This decision seems to have little to do with the actual facts The facts are that the judge was caught on recording deliberately helping a previously-deported illegal immigrant avoid ICE, and then apparently lied about it to the court to cover it up. Seems cut and dry. If anything here's 'deeply damaging to rule of law', it's a judge of all people deciding to actively obstruct federal law enforcement. Local law enforcement and judicial systems have no responsibility to do ICE's job for them, but preventing them from doing their job is too far.

Jury Nullification 'prevents them from doing their job' in the respect of Judges. In the rule of law there must always be made available room for civil exception to abuse of the law to unduly harm or hold hostage those who have not earned such harm or confinement. Sometimes to preserve people's faith in Justice you must defy the Law. If people do not believe the Law is Just then you are seen as enforcing Unjust Laws; under such auspices people may be inclined to take the 'law into their own hands' as it is no longer serving the common interest. Effectively: sometimes preventing some people from 'doing their job' is done to ensure that something socially abhorrent or intolerable does not occur. The reason for doing so is to ensure people continue to have faith that 'the law is just' as the moment they do not believe the law is just the entire Justice System fails for it. Without people's faith that Justice will be served, all they're left with is the tools of violence and mobs to ensure the social order they wish to see.

That's an opportunistic appeal considering your past threats about the necessity of revolution in light of disrespect for the rule of law.

Revolution is a response to a systemic breakdown of law and order. If revolution becomes necessary it's because people have lost faith entirely with the rule of law. I'm not there yet -- but we're very close right now to it. The President is openly telling people to violate the law and that he will pardon them for it and the Law's response has been to bite its fingers and try to ignore it. If the Rule of Law becomes so compromised that it no longer serves the public interest then, yes, you should fight against it until order can be restored. That doesn't mean there should be constant rebellion and revolution; rebellion and revolution are the 'nuclear option' where the harm caused by rebelling against the law is far underneath allowing the law to continue to be enforced. So, no, I don't see how that's 'opportunistic'. I'm not an anarchist calling for constant large-scale rebellion and revolution. I respect the idea of the law. I also respect that the law is imperfect and sometimes is overly burdensome or applied too broadly or too harmfully and that citizens should have a say in that if the law is acting in such a way.

I stated that I do not agree with drug charges, but I'm curios about the other charges as it's implied they were not the only charges. I have talked to Code about it over Discord, and if what I'm understanding from him and some other sources, yeah what ICE is doing here is some entrapment-tier bullshit. Sadly, the Judge will catch flak for this for going against several procedures set by the legal system, most notably telling the Court Recorder to go offline.

Good to see the local status quo fellow is not getting the entire picture to why the judge let him go. ICE has been stalking law related agencies constantly since the orange fuck's appointment, looking to nab any kind of brown person who comes in as a victim/suspect/witness when they are most vulnerable. Its causing waves of distrust to the point of immigrants not talking to the police period and allowing much more dangerous activities to happen out of fear of ICE catching them. This includes the man in this article, since the judge/prosecution/defense all agreed there was no charges period. Think of OD laws with some states/countries, person overdoses and their friend doesn't get help out of fear of being arrested for having narcotics. Same shit, different law. A good example was one of my friends/coworkers getting nabbed by ICE after living here illegally for 20+ years when he has been paying his taxes and following the law. Where did he get nabbed at? When he went to visit his parole officer to give her the child support for his two daughters and ex who were legal citizens. So, now we have a mother with two kids and zero child support, less income tax from him working full time, have to pay to move him back across the border, and has no idea what the border is like after growing up here since he was a kid. All this so ICE can stroke their cocks for "getting rid of one of dem illegal fellers".

Other "criminals breaking similar laws" aren't exiled alone to the third world.

Yes, sometimes defying the law is the right call when it serves the public interest. I am not convinced that preventing the detention of a known unlawful resident serves the public interest. Deporting people who are legally not entitled to be in the country is the most basic element of immigration control. This isn't like the situation at the border, where there are human rights abuses occurring that might make non-enforcement preferable. All that would happen if this guy were taken into custody would be that he would be quickly deported. For the third time.

Except they didn't have drug related charges to put on him, if you would read the article you would know this. The only crime he had was coming here illegally before which is about as harmful as jaywalking.

Deporting a nonviolent immigrant is not serving public safety. It's a scare tactic being used by the DOJ's hard right immigration policy. Stalking people outside of courthouses is the biggest threat to the "rule of law" and creates a culture of fear and disrespect for these institutions. What incentive do these immigrants have to actually do the nominally right thing and show up to court if ICE is just going to wait outside the doors and deport them? This helps absolutely no one.

I feel like deporting people who are found to be in the country illegally is a completely reasonable standard for immigration policy, and once you give that up you effectively no longer have immigration control at all. Literally no Western nation will let you stay indefinitely even after being caught, let alone have members of the judiciary help you to evade law enforcement. I recognize the arguments about there being a chilling effect. Go figure that enforcing the law against people who are breaking it might dissuade other people who are breaking the law from cooperating with police. That's not a sufficient justification to effectively declare open borders, which is what non-enforcement amounts to.

I'm shocked ICE is even allowed to enter court houses to begin with, let alone a court room while in session, I thought the former was illegal and the latter being basically a cornerstone of English and American law that the judge's court room is his to command.

On the opposing end: What if the litmus test for 'who is a citizen' becomes 'who is loyal to the President/government'? Trump's already considering such mechanisms. He's already calling anyone who rides against him 'enemies of the people' - by which he means 'enemies of the state'. Even beyond that: You're stating that 'refusing to deport people who haven't done anything illegal' is 'effectively no longer having immigration control at all'. That's just not true. Just because we don't arrest and prosecute every single person who jaywalks doesn't mean 'we effectively no longer have control over traffic laws'. Literally no Western nation is actively engaging in genocide as a pretense to 'immigration reform' -- except the United States. You can tell the difference because it's not 'let's fix the laws' it's 'let's build walls and kick out the illegals'. I'll remind that the President's wife 'has been caught' as an illegal immigrant and is immune from being deported because the man saying 'we have to deport illegals' refuses to allow her to be deported. So let's not engage in the whole 'well it's for the rule of law' shit because you have the President actively engaging in disregarding the rule of the same law he is over-enforcing. I doubt Judges would be acting in defiance of ICE if ICE was conducting itself in a way that didn't harm the legal system in general.

What a ridiculous strawman. I'm saying ICE posting outside courthouses like the Gestapo to snatch and deport immigrants is harmful and wrong, and you think that amounts to open borders? There are ways to enforce immigration policy without terrorizing by and large harmless and exploited people.

The image you're painting in your last post sounds like non-enforcement, so what exactly do you want? Are you saying that arresting and deporting nonviolent illegal immigrants just for being in the country is okay with you in general, but it's only if it's within a hundred feet of a courthouse that it's bad? Tell me how you'd like to see immigration policy enforced.

Are you okay with ICE waiting to ambush people outside of courthouses? According to the article, both the suspect's defense attorney and the prosecutor charging him agreed that ICE was targeting the wrong person. If you're such a stickler for the rule of law, don't you think that the state courts should be allowed to do their jobs? Surely the federal authorities have better things to do, like deporting actual violent immigrants, and not prey on nonviolent offenders who are already in the fucking court system.

I'm not them, but here's my take: Over-enforcement of the law to use it as a political weapon harms the law. If people see that the law is using any and every excuse to add extra harm to people who are otherwise trying to live civil and good lives then respect for the law will be eroded. Literally it harms the law to over-enforce the law: immigration policy should be enforced as it has been -- through tips and investigatory research rather than effectively 'random stop and search where are your literal papers' activity.

Okay, so you only want violent illegal immigrants to be deported? So anyone who isn't violent, or otherwise breaking 'serious' laws, is free to come and stay? So effectively open borders? You called it a 'ridiculous strawman' but so far you've said nothing to indicate that I was wrong in characterizing your position. Feel free to state your position clearly at any time, rather than forcing me to infer it from these rhetorical questions. Look, I agree with that approach to law enforcement, but that direction has to come from the top. Over-enforcement harms the law, but so does federal and local authorities actually fighting it out when they conflict in policy. The court system can turn a blind eye to crimes that are considered to be generally harmless, but at the point where someone has been identified as having committed a crime, a judicial official actually helping them to escape law enforcement does more harm to the integrity of the law than any overzealous enforcement possibly could. This is how every other first-world country works. They might not go door-to-door looking for illegal immigrants, but if you're found to have overstayed your visa, you get deported without debate. Put anyone on a ballot who wants immigration reform, a fast-track to citizenship or at least legal residency for people who are already here, and to force ICE to stand down from their current aggressiveness, and I'll vote for them in a heartbeat.

The top that is literally protecting an illegal immigrant from being deported while over-enforcing the law regarding deportation of illegal immigrants? That depends entirely on the crime and whether people feel that crime is backed by a just law and just enforcement of that law. This is literally one step away from door-to-door looking. No other country since 1940s Germany literally stops citizens on the street in the course of their normal lives and demands to 'see their papers' and then throws them into detention without due process while their papers are 'evaluated' because 'they looked foreign'. If you would vote for anyone who would force ICE to stand down from their current aggressiveness: do you see them as faithfully executing the law? If not: why are you defending them unfaithfully executing the law?

My immigration policy isn't relevant to the topic. Feel free to ignore the discussion actually at hand in favor of trying to smear me, though. If you aren't going to answer fair, non-rhetorical questions about ICE's enforcement discretion and their interference in state politics on flimsy charges I don't see what the value is even having a discussion at all.

The office that those treasonous assholes represent, yes. Can you maybe think of a better gotcha than 'if you support the legal process, you endorse Trump'? Terrible analogy, because the law here is 'being in the country illegally will result in deportation', which is both reasonable and the standard for every single civilized nation on the planet. You're trying to conflate the conditions under which the law is enforced with what the law is to begin with. I can support laws against possession of narcotics and still be opposed to stop-and-frisk. Good thing I've never said I wholeheartedly approve of ICE and want to see their current policies continue, I guess? Exactly the same way that I can see my local police as faithfully executing laws against drug possession without expecting them to adopt an aggressive policy of stop-and-frisk. I expect them to enforce the law, I don't expect them to take undue measures to do so.

Trump doesn't support the legal process. He is actively defying the legal process while demanding everyone else be subject to the most over-zealous versions of it. That's the 'gotcha'. If you want 'legal process' then you don't support Trump. If you don't support Trump, why are you defending his policies? So it would be 'reasonable' in your estimation that, if Trump declared that all citizens who do not register as Republican will have their citizenship revoked and they shall be subject to deportation? That these would be the actions 'every single civilized nation on the planet' would engage in? The problem isn't that 'being in the country illegally will result in deportation'. The problem is 'what is illegal is up to anyone's definition if they're bold enough'; what is 'reasonable' today could very well be 'unreasonable' tomorrow without a single letter of the immigration laws being changed. Is it also the reasonable standard for every single civilized nation on the planet to deliberately inflict harm on those who enter its borders seeking asylum as the country agreed to allow as part of a compact that every other single civilized nation on the planet agreed to? If you feel that the Judge in this case 'did more harm than ICE' then you want ICE's current policies to continue because you are defending such policies simply and flatly because 'but the law'. And what do you do when they do take undue measures to do so?

Your immigration policy became relevant when you got on my case about strawmanning you. You're the only one to throw insults so far so don't give me this shit about smearing. If those questions really weren't meant as rhetorical then it's an obvious no, yes, and yes respectively. If you actually want a discussion, then participate.

There's that good old centrism shining. You don't support ICE, but are more than willing to berate the judge for trying to protect the legal system from these vultures who are interrupting it with their agenda. Which is it?

So you don't think ICE should camp outside of courthouses, you think they should let the state courts do their jobs, and you think they have better things to do in general? Great, then we agree this incident is a miscarriage of justice and a stupid execution of the law. Have a pleasant day.