Charges brought against Massachusetts Judge Shelley Joseph, accused of helping immigrant avoid ICE

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Lol

I'll bet she felt all self-righteous when she did it. I'll also bet she told all her elite friends how she went slumming to help an illegal escape justice. Now, I hope they frog march the judge in an orange jumpsuit.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Not really. They are passing state laws to legalize in violation of Federal law.

Except it is not in violation. There are state laws and federal laws. The state laws have nothing to do with the federal law. Changing state laws so state agents do not arrest people has no bearing on federal agents.
In fact, since there is no Constitutionally delegated power to the Federal Government to outlaw drugs, I would submit that the State Law supercedes the Federal Law, and this should be taken to the Supreme Court and argued as a violation of the 10th Amendment.

Doesn't mean they would win,m but it is still fact.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I find really scary about this is the precedent it sets. Are all of the legislators who voted for legalizing pot in their home states guilty of conspiracy to violate Federal drug laws? Are the mayors of so-called sanctuary cities going to be indicted for the same reasons as the judge? This could open up a flood-gate of prosecutions that could greatly influence local and state politicians. I'm not shedding any tears for this judge as what she did was the height of arrogance and stupidity (two quite common traits in the judiciary) but IMHO the Feds already have enough power that they seem to use quite inappropriately more often than not.

What I find really scary about your post is your faulty logic. It's a very serious issue because what often happens these days with left leaning people (not saying you are but I'm saying they make the same mistake) is that they use faulty logic and they really believe they make sense; when it's clear to anyone who understands logic that they are wrong.

Do you seriously not see a difference between legislators VOTING for something and a judge ORDERING an ICE agent to leave the courtroom; and then conspiring with another officer to ensure that the illegal immigrant avoids being caught by federal agents?

I'm not saying this to be condescending; but if you really can't see the difference in those 2 scenarios then you're just not very bright.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You're wrong, anyone assisting someone to violate a federal law is in itself a crime. The case can be made that by legalizing pot you are assisting people in violating federal law. It seems that the majority of people cannot differentiate between the enforcement of a law in a particular instance and the possible consequences of that enforcement in the bigger picture. Like when RICO was passed to make it easier to go after the mob and then the Feds used it to prosecute all sorts of people they wouldn't have otherwise been able to convict that had nothing to do with organized crime as most people think of it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Please look to my original reply to the OP. I agree, this judge did something illegal and indefensible. But I am worried that this could lead to the Fed's looking to go after say mayors of so-called sanctuary cities, or after legislatures who legalized pot in their state, etc.. It could lead to dangerous expansions of the use of criminal prosecutions to enforce the current regime's political objectives.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Justoneman

Not really. They are passing state laws to legalize in violation of Federal law.

This country allows states to pass their own laws if it does not directly conflict with the COTUS, read it anyway you want these are the facts.

When passed, THEN the gov will have to challenge the law in court. That is how it works. Don't let CNN or BS-NBC, CBS and ABC get away with teaching you lies, stop watching them now and get your own mind back.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You're wrong, anyone assisting someone to violate a federal law is in itself a crime. The case can be made that by legalizing pot you are assisting people in violating federal law. It seems that the majority of people cannot differentiate between the enforcement of a law in a particular instance and the possible consequences of that enforcement in the bigger picture. Like when RICO was passed to make it easier to go after the mob and then the Feds used it to prosecute all sorts of people they wouldn't have otherwise been able to convict that had nothing to do with organized crime as most people think of it.

We can educate you to know the truth if you are willing. I don't see that in you. Why are you not willing?

a reply to: Justoneman

Please educate me, please. I graduated in the top 1/4 of my class at a prestigious law school and have been practicing law for more than 25 years. So please educate me about the law.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ooooo. Poor Judgy looks like she has a tummy ache.




I hope she is convicted and goes to prison along with any other political hack that fails to follow the rule of US law.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson




United States Code of Federal Regulations along with upholding The Constitution of the United States. That also applies to you while working as a lawyer. You can have your beliefs but need to drop your agenda at the door to the courthouse.

I know lots of lawyers and judges whose ideology have morphed into corruption especially the 9th Circuit. I also have first hand experience at the Federal level in the Courtroom being lectured with imprisonment by a Corrupt Judge at the Federal level because I said something when interviewed on MSM so as to protect my life. Hes still on the bench. So lets lite it up. My partner was so threatened by this guy as they got to him and he put a shotgun in his month.

a reply to: Waterglass

I don't think any of you have any reading comprehension at all. Please show me where I've supported this Judge's actions. I DON'T.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Its not about your bait its about your switch. Point one you never answer a question. Here are your inner thoughts below that basically undermine the United States. If that's your real feeling about sanctuary and the mayors then you are nothing more than a radical anarchism thinking lawyer who along with the corrupted Billionaires are attempting overthrow of the United States.

a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy. synonyms: nihilist, insurgent, agitator, subversive, guerrilla, terrorist, bioterrorist, narco-terrorist, ecoterrorist, cyberterrorist, agroterrorist, freedom fighter, resistance fighter, rebel, revolutionary, revolutionist, Bolshevik, mutineer; More

So please educate me about the law.

But I am worried that this could lead to the Fed's looking to go after say mayors of so-called sanctuary cities, or after legislatures who legalized pot in their state, etc.. It could lead to dangerous expansions of the use of criminal prosecutions to enforce the current regime's political objectives.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Please educate me, please. I graduated in the top 1/4 of my class at a prestigious law school and have been practicing law for more than 25 years. So please educate me about the law.

Then I would suggest you are a very poor lawyer.

Anyone with any experience in law should be capable of recognizing the difference between state and Federal law. An offense can be legal according to state law and illegal according to Federal law. In such a case, state authorities are not obliged to act, but neither are they allowed to circumvent Federal authorities in their duties. Doing so is conspiracy. Similarly, a state legislature has no obligation to pass laws in compliance with Federal law, although they cannot pass laws that impede Federal law.

If the state of Alabama passes a law that legalizes a drug, and that drug is still illegal according to Federal law, the local police are under no obligation to arrest someone for use of that drug. Federal law enforcement is under such an obligation, and the local authorities cannot interfere with that obligation. The same thing works in reverse: Federal law enforcement cannot impede the enforcement of state law, but neither do they enforce state law.

You mention your concern about sanctuary cities. If a sanctuary city wishes to legalize illegal aliens, that is their business and local law enforcement cannot then arrest someone for entering the country illegally. However, illegal immigration is still illegal under Federal law, and any sanctuary city that assists a person in violation of Federal law to avoid Federal law enforcement is guilty of violating Federal law themselves. That includes the mayors.

And finally, any person arrested in one state must be extradited to another state with charges against that person. The specific wording, found in Article !V, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution is:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

I would argue that such a requirement exists in respect to the Federal government as well. Therefore, any local official who purposely impedes Federal authority to enforce Federal law is in direct violation of Article !V, Section 2, paragraph 2 and should be tried for Obstruction of Justice and, if found guilty, stripped of the right to hold public office, lose any legal credentials they may hold, and be incarcerated for at least the same length of time as the person they tried to protect may face.

You, sir, are advocating chaos, and are doing so while claiming to be an attorney.

That is your lesson for today. Where may I send the tutor bill?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You just spent 5 paragraphs explaining to me exactly what I've been saying. Congrats.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You just spent 5 paragraphs explaining to me exactly what I've been saying. Congrats.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I don't see how you can make such a statement. You explicitly expressed concern over a state's right to vote in their own laws (so long as those laws do not directly contradict Federal law). I explained why the concern is unwarranted. You also expressed explicit concern over sanctuary cities, many of which are presently engaging in a refusal to honor extradition requests from the US State Department. I explained why that is a violation of law in itself.

For an attorney, you do seem to have this bad habit of jumping back and forth across that fence.

TheRedneck