2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Flapp_Jackson on April 30, 2025, 11:08:33 AM
-
At least she can't do more damage in her courtroom unless she avoids being convicted.
i guess the WI Supreme Court are now MAGA members since they sided with the Trump FBI and DOJ. :crazy:
For those here who said Trump was just attacking judges he disagreed with, the state supreme court is not under the jurisdiction of the federal justice system. There must be some truth to the alleged crimes she committed, not just a difference of ideologies.
Wisconsin high court suspends Milwaukee judge
accused of helping man evade immigration authorities
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a judge accused of helping a
man evade immigration authorities, saying Tuesday that it is in the public
interest to relieve her of her duties as she faces two federal charges.
The FBI took Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan into custody
Friday morning at the county courthouse. She has been charged with
concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest and obstructing
or impeding a proceeding.
In its two-page order, the court said it was acting to protect public confidence
in Wisconsin courts during the criminal proceedings against Dugan. The order
noted that the court was acting on its own initiative and was not responding
to a request from anyone. Liberal justices control the court 4-3.
“It is ordered ... that Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C. Dugan is
temporarily prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the
state of Wisconsin, effective the date of this order and until further order of the
court,” the justices wrote.
https://apnews.com/article/milwaukee-judge-arrested-supreme-court-suspended-49f25ea7702d3211719f926f8cfc90b7
-
Judge Dugan has been indicted by a federal grand jury.
:geekdanc:
Federal grand jury indicts Wisconsin judge
Hannah Dugan in immigration case
A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted a Wisconsin judge accused of
helping a man evade immigration authorities, allowing the case against
her to continue.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin confirmed the indictment to CBS News.
The arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan escalated a
clash between President Trump's administration and local authorities over
the Republican's sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused
the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to
chill judicial opposition to the crackdown.
Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via a complaint with concealing an
individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. In the federal criminal justice
system, prosecutors can initiate charges against a defendant directly by filing
a complaint or present evidence to a grand jury and let that body decide
whether to issue charges.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin-judge-federal-grand-jury-hannah-dugan-immigration/
-
Dugan's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the charges filed against her on the grounds that the judge was acting in an official capacity and has immunity.
Her official act was intended to deny ICE access to an illegal immigrant appearing in her courtroom, but the lawyers argued "that her conduct on the day in question amounted to directing people’s movement in and around her courtroom."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
As if we needed another reason to despise lawyers.
if this is the best defense they can muster, she's toast! :geekdanc:
-
https://youtu.be/tuKvHD9THvo
-
Looking at the facts of the case there may be some plausible deniability so I don't think this will be a slam dunk case but seems like enough to charge her. Curious to see how this turns out.
Smart of ICE to have plain clothes guys stationed in the hall and court room to see what she did after they went to find the head judge after she told them to leave though
-
Looking at the facts of the case there may be some plausible deniability so I don't think this will be a slam dunk case but seems like enough to charge her. Curious to see how this turns out.
Smart of ICE to have plain clothes guys stationed in the hall and court room to see what she did after they went to find the head judge after she told them to leave though
Once the agents in the hall were asked to talk to the chief judge (I'll let mac school you on the word you used), Dugan went back to court and "pushed" the lawyers and clerk to get to the Flores-Ruiz case -- a behavior characterized as trying to expedite it. She then motioned for just the defense attorney to talk to her at the bench, as Flores-Ruiz sat in the jury box (that's not done, as only jurors are allowed in there). The prosecutor said he thought they were discussing a new trial date.
As soon as the judge and defense lawyer stopped talking together, "she escorted or directed Flores-Ruiz to exit through a nonpublic jury door and continued with other proceedings." it wasn't until later the prosecutor and clerk realized the judge never called the Flores-Ruiz case officially, even though she pretended she'd worked out a postponement date -- all without including or notifying the prosecutor.
A foot chase followed inside the courthouse. The non-public exit Flores-Ruiz took from the courtroom lead to the public hallway further down from the courtroom entrance. Agents saw the attorney and defendant briskly walking past the elevators closer to the courtroom and continued to a different bank of elevators that were closer to the courthouse exit.
The DEA agents alerted the other federal agents, and one of them,
DEA Agent A, got onto the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and his attorney.
The FBI agents “scrambled to locate” Flores-Ruiz, which ultimately
resulted in Flores-Ruiz fleeing, a “foot chase” for the “entire length of
the courthouse,” and Flores-Ruiz’s apprehension and arrest—all of
which took place while the ICE agent and the CBP agent were still
speaking by phone with the chief judge.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems
Few cases are a slam-dunk because "lawyers." However, to spin the judge's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct federal immigration officers trying to make an arrest is dishonest. Maybe she takes a plea deal to avoid prison, or maybe she doesn't care because she's an activist judge who abused her position.
I bet she acted this way during the Biden years, too, but figured she could get a pardon if anyone in the federal gov't actually did their job and charged her with any crimes.
-
Once the agents in the hall were asked to talk to the chief judge (I'll let mac school you on the word you used), Dugan went back to court and "pushed" the lawyers and clerk to get to the Flores-Ruiz case -- a behavior characterized as trying to expedite it. She then motioned for just the defense attorney to talk to her at the bench, as Flores-Ruiz sat in the jury box (that's not done, as only jurors are allowed in there). The prosecutor said he thought they were discussing a new trial date.
As soon as the judge and defense lawyer stopped talking together, "she escorted or directed Flores-Ruiz to exit through a nonpublic jury door and continued with other proceedings." it wasn't until later the prosecutor and clerk realized the judge never called the Flores-Ruiz case officially, even though she pretended she'd worked out a postponement date -- all without including or notifying the prosecutor.
A foot chase followed inside the courthouse. The non-public exit Flores-Ruiz took from the courtroom lead to the public hallway further down from the courtroom entrance. Agents saw the attorney and defendant briskly walking past the elevators closer to the courtroom and continued to a different bank of elevators that were closer to the courthouse exit.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems
Few cases are a slam-dunk because "lawyers." However, to spin the judge's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct federal immigration officers trying to make an arrest is dishonest. Maybe she takes a plea deal to avoid prison, or maybe she doesn't care because she's an activist judge who abused her position.
I bet she acted this way during the Biden years, too, but figured she could get a pardon if anyone in the federal gov't actually did their job and charged her with any crimes.
So EEF"s whataboutism was wrong again.
-
So EEF"s whataboutism was wrong again.
I found several videos posted from Wisconsin courtroom security cameras. I will assume those cameras are in all the courtrooms to document the proceedings as well as to be used as evidence if anyone acts up.
If Dugan's courtroom was being recorded, she has very little chance of disputing the facts as they occurred. All she can do is argue immunity (fat chance) and intention. bypassing the prosector entirely just before letting the defendant go out a private door while she thinks the agents are tied up talking to the other judge to me indicates intent.
-
If Dugan's courtroom was being recorded, she has very little chance of disputing the facts as they occurred.
She will argue like how EEF does. Goal post moving, whataboutism, bringing up other irrelevant issues, etc...
-
So EEF"s whataboutism was wrong again.
You still don't understand what that word means. :stopjack:
-
You still don't understand what that word means. :stopjack:
You keep using that image for others to stop thread-jacking ==> :stopjack:
I don't think you have the slightest clue what that actually means.
If you do know, then you're a self-centered hypocrite.
-
Once the agents in the hall were asked to talk to the chief judge (I'll let mac school you on the word you used), Dugan went back to court and "pushed" the lawyers and clerk to get to the Flores-Ruiz case -- a behavior characterized as trying to expedite it. She then motioned for just the defense attorney to talk to her at the bench, as Flores-Ruiz sat in the jury box (that's not done, as only jurors are allowed in there). The prosecutor said he thought they were discussing a new trial date.
As soon as the judge and defense lawyer stopped talking together, "she escorted or directed Flores-Ruiz to exit through a nonpublic jury door and continued with other proceedings." it wasn't until later the prosecutor and clerk realized the judge never called the Flores-Ruiz case officially, even though she pretended she'd worked out a postponement date -- all without including or notifying the prosecutor.
A foot chase followed inside the courthouse. The non-public exit Flores-Ruiz took from the courtroom lead to the public hallway further down from the courtroom entrance. Agents saw the attorney and defendant briskly walking past the elevators closer to the courtroom and continued to a different bank of elevators that were closer to the courthouse exit.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems
Few cases are a slam-dunk because "lawyers." However, to spin the judge's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct federal immigration officers trying to make an arrest is dishonest. Maybe she takes a plea deal to avoid prison, or maybe she doesn't care because she's an activist judge who abused her position.
I bet she acted this way during the Biden years, too, but figured she could get a pardon if anyone in the federal gov't actually did their job and charged her with any crimes.
I recommend this podcast which had a good in depth discussion about this case including the strengths and weaknesses of the case.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/the-arrest-of-judge-hannah-dugan/
A prosecution of the judge needs to prove mens rea and that is where the prosecution will have the most difficulty. The judge put Flores-Ruiz into the jury room and that jury room has a door to the public hallway which Flores-Ruiz used to try escape. If the prosecution can prove the judge gave some sort of direction on how to escape then it is a solid case, but without that she can claim she was absent minded, forgot there was another exit in the room, and he escaped of his own decision. If you think this is a spin then you don't understand how criminal cases work.
-
I recommend this podcast which had a good in depth discussion about this case including the strengths and weaknesses of the case.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/the-arrest-of-judge-hannah-dugan/
A prosecution of the judge needs to prove mens rea and that is where the prosecution will have the most difficulty. The judge put Flores-Ruiz into the jury room and that jury room has a door to the public hallway which Flores-Ruiz used to try escape. If the prosecution can prove the judge gave some sort of direction on how to escape then it is a solid case, but without that she can claim she was absent minded, forgot there was another exit in the room, and he escaped of his own decision. If you think this is a spin then you don't understand how criminal cases work.
Her words to the agents before having them distracted by the chief judge sink any excuses that she didn't intend to help him escape. She erroneously asked if the agents had a judicial warrant, in which case she seemed to be willing to abide by that. She knows immigration agents use administrative warrants. The agents told her that's what they had.
Putting him in the jury room was also a red flag. Nobody goes in there except the jurors and court officers.
Her entire demeaner when confronting the agents was one of defiance. I don't see any question as to her intentions.
-
You still don't understand what that word means. :stopjack:
You just posted 2 things you don't understand. This is funny.
-
Her words to the agents before having them distracted by the chief judge sink any excuses that she didn't intend to help him escape. She erroneously asked if the agents had a judicial warrant, in which case she seemed to be willing to abide by that. She knows immigration agents use administrative warrants. The agents told her that's what they had.
Putting him in the jury room was also a red flag. Nobody goes in there except the jurors and court officers.
Her entire demeaner when confronting the agents was one of defiance. I don't see any question as to her intentions.
I never looked into this at all. But it seems like you got more info to back up your statements. And EEF keeps trying to move goal post so he doesn't have to admit that he was wrong again.
-
I never looked into this at all. But it seems like you got more info to back up your statements. And EEF keeps trying to move goal post so he doesn't have to admit that he was wrong again.
If nothing else, why, after talking to the agents, would she bring only the defense attorney to the bench to talk and not the prosecutor? Why did she not formally call the case, but still felt the need to talk to the attorney before sending them both to the jury room?
She had full "mens rea". If not, she would have not pretended to be the defendant's lawyer and advocate. The man was already represented by counsel, so there was no reason for the judge to interfere with the agents who, by the way, were courteous enough to wait until the judge could have completed the man's case before taking him into custody.
If not for the fact the agents saw the man AND HIS LAWYER fast-walking to escape the building, he would have made it. Luckily there were enough agents to have the place covered even while some were being distracted.
Does anyone think the lawyer will cover for the judge and risk losing his license to practice? if the judge instructed them what to do, i think we'll be given a first-hand account of that conversation. Conversations between judges and lawyers of record are not considered privileged.
-
You just posted 2 things you don't understand. This is funny.
So I rebutted you by accident? Not that hard I guess
-
Her words to the agents before having them distracted by the chief judge sink any excuses that she didn't intend to help him escape. She erroneously asked if the agents had a judicial warrant, in which case she seemed to be willing to abide by that. She knows immigration agents use administrative warrants. The agents told her that's what they had.
Putting him in the jury room was also a red flag. Nobody goes in there except the jurors and court officers.
Her entire demeaner when confronting the agents was one of defiance. I don't see any question as to her intentions.
I very much suspect she knew exactly what she was doing but the prosecution needs to but the prosecution still needs to make their case that this was her intent. The evidence against her is circumstantial so the prosecutors need a way of overcoming a plausible deniability defense. If I was the prosecutor I would try to anticipate what claim she might put forth and have a way of countering it. I think one likely defense would be for the judge to claim she put him in the jury room to wait until the matter was figured out but that she forgot the jury room has another exit.
Most cases don't go to trial so normally a plea deal would be likely however given the fact she is a judge, and thinks she has some moral high ground here, maybe she will fight it? If it does go to trial then we can see if my defense prediction comes true.
-
I very much suspect she knew exactly what she was doing but the prosecution needs to but the prosecution still needs to make their case that this was her intent. The evidence against her is circumstantial so the prosecutors need a way of overcoming a plausible deniability defense. If I was the prosecutor I would try to anticipate what claim she might put forth and have a way of countering it. I think one likely defense would be for the judge to claim she put him in the jury room to wait until the matter was figured out but that she forgot the jury room has another exit.
Most cases don't go to trial so normally a plea deal would be likely however given the fact she is a judge, and thinks she has some moral high ground here, maybe she will fight it? If it does go to trial then we can see if my defense prediction comes true.
Explain how her conversation with the man's defense lawyer just before the two left the court to flee is categorized "circumstantial." We can assume she told the lawyer the agents were in the courthouse, that they had a warrant for their client, and that they could leave the courtroom through a private route.
I doubt they were discussing golf and their grandkids. :geekdanc: :rofl:
If the defense lawyer tells investigators the truth about what the judge said, that's not circumstantial. That's direct evidence based on statements made by the robe-wearing Liberal activist.
-
So I rebutted you by accident? Not that hard I guess
Not by accident. More like you're unaware.
-
Explain how her conversation with the man's defense lawyer just before the two left the court to flee is categorized "circumstantial." We can assume she told the lawyer the agents were in the courthouse, that they had a warrant for their client, and that they could leave the courtroom through a private route.
I doubt they were discussing golf and their grandkids. :geekdanc: :rofl:
If the defense lawyer tells investigators the truth about what the judge said, that's not circumstantial. That's direct evidence based on statements made by the robe-wearing Liberal activist.
I don't recall seeing a mention of what specifically the judge said to the defense attorney. Are you assuming what they spoke about or is there an account of what was said?
If the defense attorney did say what the judge told him then that would not be circumstantial.
-
I don't recall seeing a mention of what specifically the judge said to the defense attorney. Are you assuming what they spoke about or is there an account of what was said?
If the defense attorney did say what the judge told him then that would not be circumstantial.
Explain how her conversation with the man's defense lawyer just before the two left the court to flee is categorized "circumstantial." We can assume she told the lawyer the agents were in the courthouse, that they had a warrant for their client, and that they could leave the courtroom through a private route.
I doubt they were discussing golf and their grandkids. :geekdanc: :rofl:
If the defense lawyer tells investigators the truth about what the judge said, that's not circumstantial. That's direct evidence based on statements made by the robe-wearing Liberal activist.
More evidence that you're illiterate.
English comprehension classes are available. Just ask at your local community college (cheaper than most 4-yr schools). Or you can go online, but I feel you might need "special" attention.
-
The left and weaponized DOJ has shown that "the process is the punishment" can be used. And with this judge, there is more evidence that she's guilty than the others who the DOJ tried/did prosecute.
So good for her, let her stress out about this.
-
More evidence that you're illiterate.
English comprehension classes are available. Just ask at your local community college (cheaper than most 4-yr schools). Or you can go online, but I feel you might need "special" attention.
Hahaha, thank you for making my point. You are making a hypothetical argument about what you assume the judge said to dispute my statement that the case is circumstantial. You can't point to evidence you assume exists as proof not all the evidence is circumstantial. If we actually knew the judge said something THEN the case would have non-circumstantial evidence.
-
Hahaha, thank you for making my point. You are making a hypothetical argument about what you assume the judge said to dispute my statement that the case is circumstantial. You can't point to evidence you assume exists as proof not all the evidence is circumstantial. If we actually knew the judge said something THEN the case would have non-circumstantial evidence.
There's been no trial and no confession. but you want to ignore the events that transpired in the courtroom as if they can have more than one reason for unfolding as they did.
"Useful idiot" doesn't even begin to describe....
-
Well, now .... isn't that special?!
https://youtu.be/Z9F0BADUYTI
-
Well, now .... isn't that special?!
https://youtu.be/Z9F0BADUYTI
They were talking about like u said, grandchildren and fishing. #objective
-
They were talking about like u said, grandchildren and fishing. #objective
The main facts I see --
- He had a scheduled court appearance that he showed up for.
- His case was not called before or after he fled.
- His lawyer had a conversation with the judge AFTER the judge got rid of the agents waiting for him. Turned out not all were distracted by the diversion.
- Immediately after the judge talked to his lawyer, the lawyer and Ruiz exited the courtroom via the jury door -- again his case was never called.
- The prosecuting attorney wasn't aware of anything happening with Ruiz. The judge never talked to the prosecutor, which has to be because nothing the judge was doing had to do with the case before this court that day.
- The man and his lawyer exited the courthouse and the man took off running. How did either of them know agents were there to arrest him unless the judge told them?
This is all circumstantial the same way evidence of gravity is circumstantial.
-
Video LEAKS Of Woke Judge AIDING
Criminal Alien ESCAPE, Claims IMMUNITY
| Timcast IRL
https://www.youtube.com/live/_1ZKzH3eKdM
-
There's been no trial and no confession. but you want to ignore the events that transpired in the courtroom as if they can have more than one reason for unfolding as they did.
"Useful idiot" doesn't even begin to describe....
No trial and confession but you seem to be trying to show guilt based on your assumptions of what the judge must have told the attorney... Are you arguing hypotheticals?
Do you understand how the presumption of innocence works? Do you know how to build a criminal case?
-
No trial and confession but you seem to be trying to show guilt based on your assumptions of what the judge must have told the attorney... Are you arguing hypotheticals?
Do you understand how the presumption of innocence works? Do you know how to build a criminal case?
Not assumptions. Facts.
God gave man intelligence for a reason. Do you always need 100% concrete proof before you believe what's in front of your eyes?
-
Not assumptions. Facts.
God gave man intelligence for a reason. Do you always need 100% concrete proof before you believe what's in front of your eyes?
Not assumptions? You literally said it was an assumption earlier, but now it is not an assumption of what was said? Make up your mind.
-
Not assumptions? You literally said it was an assumption earlier, but now it is not an assumption of what was said? Make up your mind.
That was before the video evidence was released. Now we have a recorded timeline of what took place.
I might have assumed what she told the defense lawyer, but there's no need to assume that what she said directly resulted in the lawyer and defendant attempting to elude the agents serving a warrant.
Just stop arguing. You've lost.
BTW, the judge never denied what she did. She's instead claiming qualified immunity shields her against prosecution.
A Federal Grand Jury indicted her, meaning they believed they had probable cause.
The video backs up the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to reasonable minds).
She was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court until the case is decided because "it is in the public interest to relieve her of her duties as she faces two federal charges."
The only way the defense can win is if the video is lost or excluded from trial. Juries love to see video when they can. It paints a picture of reality instead of trying to picture in their minds the description being given by the lawyers and witnesses.
-
No trial and confession but you seem to be trying to show guilt based on your assumptions of what the judge must have told the attorney... Are you arguing hypotheticals?
Do you understand how the presumption of innocence works? Do you know how to build a criminal case?
U dont undersrand what a hypothetical is.
U dont understand no one here is a judge or part of a jury over there.
U dont understand logic.
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, might be a horse until a judge rules so.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
U dont undersrand what a hypothetical is.
U dont understand no one here is a judge or part of a jury over there.
U dont understand logic.
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, might be a horse until a judge rules so.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
He doesn't understand how to read. The video evidence is now proof the judge misdirected the agents to another judge's chambers then took that opportunity to speak to the defense attorney without actually calling Ruiz's case. The judge then directed them both to leave out the non-public exit (jury door) after which the two used an elevator further from the courtroom, then went out of the building, at which time Ruiz took off running but was still caught.
The story of what happened when is captured as evidence against the judge. She's not even denying she did it. She's invoking qualified immunity which wouldn't apply because (1) she knowingly broke the law and (2) she wasn't rendering a verdict or deciding on a motion or objection. Nothing about her actions had anything to do with the case before her in that courtroom, so immunity has no bearing.
-
That was before the video evidence was released. Now we have a recorded timeline of what took place.
I might have assumed what she told the defense lawyer, but there's no need to assume that what she said directly resulted in the lawyer and defendant attempting to elude the agents serving a warrant.
Just stop arguing. You've lost.
BTW, the judge never denied what she did. She's instead claiming qualified immunity shields her against prosecution.
A Federal Grand Jury indicted her, meaning they believed they had probable cause.
The video backs up the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to reasonable minds).
She was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court until the case is decided because "it is in the public interest to relieve her of her duties as she faces two federal charges."
The only way the defense can win is if the video is lost or excluded from trial. Juries love to see video when they can. It paints a picture of reality instead of trying to picture in their minds the description being given by the lawyers and witnesses.
Such dishonesty. I pointed out the case was circumstantial and you couldn't admit that it was so you had to point to what you assumed was said to suggest otherwise. Now you point to the video as if it proves I was wrong when clearly my comment was made within the time frame of what was known to us at the time. You have to play a time travel game to try and be right.
Now you make an argument as to her guilt as if I had asserted her innocence (I didn't). Sounds kind of like another Flapp strawman argument.
-
Such dishonesty. I pointed out the case was circumstantial and you couldn't admit that it was so you had to point to what you assumed was said to suggest otherwise. Now you point to the video as if it proves I was wrong when clearly my comment was made within the time frame of what was known to us at the time. You have to play a time travel game to try and be right.
Now you make an argument as to her guilt as if I had asserted her innocence (I didn't). Sounds kind of like another Flapp strawman argument.
Video evidence is not circumstantial.
-
Video evidence is not circumstantial.
Video evidence can be circumstantial.
-
Video evidence can be circumstantial.
And here's the goal post moving and deflection.
-
And here's the goal post moving and deflection.
Queue the attack lap dog.
-
Queue the attack lap dog.
And more evidence showing he's wrong. What else you gonna reply with next?
-
Video evidence can be circumstantial.
Have you bothered to watch the video is this case?
Circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence used in criminal cases that
suggests a fact or event rather than directly proving it. Unlike direct evidence,
such as an eyewitness account or a video recording, circumstantial
evidence requires the jury to draw inferences about a defendant’s involvement
based on related facts.
https://budalaw.com/blog/2024/december/what-is-circumstantial-evidence/
So, once again, you just argue to argue.
-
Have you bothered to watch the video is this case?https://budalaw.com/blog/2024/december/what-is-circumstantial-evidence/
So, once again, you just argue to argue.
The nuance escapes you.
The video shows the conversation, that part is not circumstantial, it is hard evidence the judge had a conversation. The circumstantial aspect is that pertaining to what was said in the conversation.
If a video shows you at the scene of a store robbery the video is hard evidence but can circumstantial if it doesn't show you committed the crime and is just part of the overall case.
The video I saw didn't have any audio, if the video did have audio and it catches what was said then it isn't circumstantial.
-
The nuance escapes you.
The video shows the conversation, that part is not circumstantial, it is hard evidence the judge had a conversation. The circumstantial aspect is that pertaining to what was said in the conversation.
If a video shows you at the scene of a store robbery the video is hard evidence but can circumstantial if it doesn't show you committed the crime and is just part of the overall case.
The video I saw didn't have any audio, if the video did have audio and it catches what was said then it isn't circumstantial.
Flapp addressed what they were talking about already. THey were talking about her grandkids and fishing.
-
The nuance escapes you.
The video shows the conversation, that part is not circumstantial, it is hard evidence the judge had a conversation. The circumstantial aspect is that pertaining to what was said in the conversation.
If a video shows you at the scene of a store robbery the video is hard evidence but can circumstantial if it doesn't show you committed the crime and is just part of the overall case.
The video I saw didn't have any audio, if the video did have audio and it catches what was said then it isn't circumstantial.
Wrong!!
The video shows much, much more than a conversation. it shows everything the judge did in sequence, and the court reporter has everything that transpired regarding the cases called. It shows her distracting the agents by moving them to another judge's chambers while she had a conversation with the defense attorney after which the attorney and defendant tried to flee. There was no case called for that defendant, and the prosecutor was not involved. That's evidence that the conversation was NOT related to the domestic violence charges he went to court to address. It's not circumstantial. it's a fact.
So, yeah, you want everything to be according to your definitions, but a video tape is actually physical recorded evidence. It's not circumstantial.
If you can find a case where a video tape was labeled circumstantial evidence where it showed the actions of the defendant even though there was no audio, I'd be happy to take a look. What I found is video is NOT considered circumstantial.
Circumstantial evidence for example would be you walk into a bathroom and see the defendant standing over a dead body holding a bloody knife. Then you find a blackmail letter from the victim to the suspect demanding money for their silence in some matter.
Since you didn't see the actual killing, everything i just stated is circumstantial evidence.
If there was a video camera outside the bathroom showing nobody other than the victim and suspect entered that bathroom before you walked in, are you still going to call the video circumstantial? It's DIRECT evidence showing only the suspect could have committed the murder. Period.
Direct Evidence Examples
1. Video Evidence: This is one of the most clear-cut forms
of direct evidence. If a surveillance camera catches a person
entering a restricted area, the footage serves as direct
evidence of that person’s trespass. Unlike second-hand
accounts or fingerprints, video evidence typically doesn’t
require interpretation or inference—it shows what happened
in a straightforward manner.
In my example, the video showing the 2 actors enter the restroom is direct evidence directly proving only the suspect could have had the opportunity to commit the crime. It doesn't have to be evidence of the charged crime itself -- that being the murder -- to be direct evidence.
Evidence stacks one piece upon the next to create a case proving the suspect committed the crime. That doesn't mean if there are no direct witnesses or video of the killing that all the evidence is circumstantial. Each element of a crime requires evidence. Some elements like means and opportunity are where video is powerful. Motive would be based on the blackmail letter. Nothing in the video is needed to prove motive.
By the way, a photograph is also direct evidence. It isn't a video tape or audio recording of the crime, but it can be used to place the parties together just prior to the crime, useful for countering an alibi.
Do some more reading and get back to me. You don't get to argue any further unless you can show credible sources to back you up.
If you bother to read this link, you'll see the conclusion -- "Direct evidence leaves no room for doubt. It directly proves an assertion – there’s no “connecting the dots” or “reading between the lines.” Remember, direct evidence isn’t about what’s likely, it’s about what IS."
You don't have to prove verbatim what the judge said to the lawyer. Her actions and the resulting attempt by the lawyer and defendant to flee from the agents serving a valid warrant are all that's needed. Of course, maybe another explanation is the defendant was able to read minds (like you) and became aware that he was going to be arrested by ICE. So, nothing the judge said to his lawyer caused what happened? :geekdanc: :rofl: :crazy:
https://helpfulprofessor.com/direct-evidence-examples/
-
Wrong!!
The video shows much, much more than a conversation. it shows everything the judge did in sequence, and the court reporter has everything that transpired regarding the cases called. It shows her distracting the agents by moving them to another judge's chambers while she had a conversation with the defense attorney after which the attorney and defendant tried to flee. There was no case called for that defendant, and the prosecutor was not involved. That's evidence that the conversation was NOT related to the domestic violence charges he went to court to address. It's not circumstantial. it's a fact.
So, yeah, you want everything to be according to your definitions, but a video tape is actually physical recorded evidence. It's not circumstantial.
If you can find a case where a video tape was labeled circumstantial evidence where it showed the actions of the defendant even though there was no audio, I'd be happy to take a look. What I found is video is NOT considered circumstantial.
Circumstantial evidence for example would be you walk into a bathroom and see the defendant standing over a dead body holding a bloody knife. Then you find a blackmail letter from the victim to the suspect demanding money for their silence in some matter.
Since you didn't see the actual killing, everything i just stated is circumstantial evidence.
If there was a video camera outside the bathroom showing nobody other than the victim and suspect entered that bathroom before you walked in, are you still going to call the video circumstantial? It's DIRECT evidence showing only the suspect could have committed the murder. Period.
In my example, the video showing the 2 actors enter the restroom is direct evidence directly proving only the suspect could have had the opportunity to commit the crime. It doesn't have to be evidence of the charged crime itself -- that being the murder -- to be direct evidence.
Evidence stacks one piece upon the next to create a case proving the suspect committed the crime. That doesn't mean if there are no direct witnesses or video of the killing that all the evidence is circumstantial. Each element of a crime requires evidence. Some elements like means and opportunity are where video is powerful. Motive would be based on the blackmail letter. Nothing in the video is needed to prove motive.
By the way, a photograph is also direct evidence. It isn't a video tape or audio recording of the crime, but it can be used to place the parties together just prior to the crime, useful for countering an alibi.
Do some more reading and get back to me. You don't get to argue any further unless you can show credible sources to back you up.
If you bother to read this link, you'll see the conclusion -- "Direct evidence leaves no room for doubt. It directly proves an assertion – there’s no “connecting the dots” or “reading between the lines.” Remember, direct evidence isn’t about what’s likely, it’s about what IS."
You don't have to prove verbatim what the judge said to the lawyer. Her actions and the resulting attempt by the lawyer and defendant to flee from the agents serving a valid warrant are all that's needed. Of course, maybe another explanation is the defendant was able to read minds (like you) and became aware that he was going to be arrested by ICE. So, nothing the judge said to his lawyer caused what happened? :geekdanc: :rofl: :crazy:
https://helpfulprofessor.com/direct-evidence-examples/
You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge, it does not. The question in the end remains the same, whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the judge helped him escape or whether there is some plausible defense that she was doing something else. That is how a prosecutor needs to think and build a case.
What I was explaining to you was about how what is on a video can be circumstantial and the limits of what video evidence can show. A video showing you and me shaking hands and I give you something is hard evidence that we met and I gave you something. Now if you were soon after caught by police and they find drugs on you, the video is not hard evidence that I gave you the drugs. However that bit of video could be part of a circumstantial case showing me to be a drug dealer. If the video caught me saying here is your cocaine and the baggie can be seen on video then it isn't circumstantial anymore
-
You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge, it does not. The question in the end remains the same, whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the judge helped him escape or whether there is some plausible defense that she was doing something else. That is how a prosecutor needs to think and build a case.
What I was explaining to you was about how what is on a video can be circumstantial and the limits of what video evidence can show. A video showing you and me shaking hands and I give you something is hard evidence that we met and I gave you something. Now if you were soon after caught by police and they find drugs on you, the video is not hard evidence that I gave you the drugs. However that bit of video could be part of a circumstantial case showing me to be a drug dealer. If the video caught me saying here is your cocaine and the baggie can be seen on video then it isn't circumstantial anymore
"You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge"
Show me where I said (or even indicated) that was what I think.
And why do you feel the need to use a hypothetical to try and lecture me? Use the damn facts as they are presented. Otherwise, you're just deflecting and obfuscating to pretend you aren't wrong.
-
"You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge"
Show me where I said (or even indicated) that was what I think.
And why do you feel the need to use a hypothetical to try and lecture me? Use the damn facts as they are presented. Otherwise, you're just deflecting and obfuscating to pretend you aren't wrong.
That's one of his tactics he uses instead of admitting he was wrong. Lets see how many more will enter today.
-
"You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge"
Show me where I said (or even indicated) that was what I think.
And why do you feel the need to use a hypothetical to try and lecture me? Use the damn facts as they are presented. Otherwise, you're just deflecting and obfuscating to pretend you aren't wrong.
That seemed to be the nature of your response because you kept trying to make the case for the judge's guilt using the video. If you did not have the notion that's fine.
I am trying to educate you on legal concepts, perhaps I should have known by now you aren't that interested in learning, you just want to argue.
-
That seemed to be the nature of your response because you kept trying to make the case for the judge's guilt using the video. If you did not have the notion that's fine.
I am trying to educate you on legal concepts, perhaps I should have known by now you aren't that interested in learning, you just want to argue.
Admit it. You’re just mad that you’re losing illegal voters and now the Democratic Party is toast.
-
Admit it. You’re just mad that you’re losing illegal voters and now the Democratic Party is toast.
I would not be mad because I don't subscribe to the belief that there are large numbers of illegal voters but mostly I wouldn't be mad because I am not a democrat.
I support the decision to arrest the judge.
-
That seemed to be the nature of your response because you kept trying to make the case for the judge's guilt using the video. If you did not have the notion that's fine.
I am trying to educate you on legal concepts, perhaps I should have known by now you aren't that interested in learning, you just want to argue.
How are you going to "educate" me on legal concepts when you don't even understand what you're saying?
This is not one of your "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" thought experiments. I tried more than once to guide you back to talking facts -- not hypotheticals -- pertaining to this one issue. If you could do that, then maybe someone would be willing to listen to what you say. but you can't stay focused. You have to deflect, obfuscate and obscure the actual discussions with your fantasy world where whatever you post can't be wrong.
-
How are you going to "educate" me on legal concepts when you don't even understand what you're saying?
This is not one of your "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" thought experiments. I tried more than once to guide you back to talking facts -- not hypotheticals -- pertaining to this one issue. If you could do that, then maybe someone would be willing to listen to what you say. but you can't stay focused. You have to deflect, obfuscate and obscure the actual discussions with your fantasy world where whatever you post can't be wrong.
When one is wrong and lies to avoid admitting it, this is the result. They cannot stay focused.
-
I would not be mad because I don't subscribe to the belief that there are large numbers of illegal voters but mostly I wouldn't be mad because I am not a democrat.
I support the decision to arrest the judge.
it's not just the perception of illegals voting. But if you were honest, you wouldn't ignore the real issue.
The more illegals transplanted into various states, the more representatives the state has in the House.
Also, Electoral votes are apportioned in the same manner, so those states will have more of a say in the general elections.
Direct polling is state by state, so the number of illegal votes is immaterial at the federal level unless a state's general election results are razor thin. Those votes can, however, effect the outcomes of races such as US Reps and Senators, governors, mayors, city council seats, and state & local ballot measures such as constitutional amendments and adoption of laws on the ballot.
Focusing in on whether there is a "large number of illegal voters" means you don't understand the very real problems illegal aliens pose to our political system.
-
That seemed to be the nature of your response because you kept trying to make the case for the judge's guilt using the video. If you did not have the notion that's fine.
I am trying to educate you on legal concepts, perhaps I should have known by now you aren't that interested in learning, you just want to argue.
Still waiting for you to provide actual facts that dispute my facts.
I've shown where video evidence is considered DIRECT evidence in court.
So far, you've been unable to show where video evidence constitutes CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence in court.
I won't hold my breath, since we all know you can't.
-
Focusing in on whether there is a "large number of illegal voters" means you don't understand the very real problems illegal aliens pose to our political system.
Maybe he thinks that since it's not large enough, it doesn't matter. Like how in the other thread about how bribing a government official is illegal. He didn't confirm my statement and instead shifted it to getting caught.
-
How are you going to "educate" me on legal concepts when you don't even understand what you're saying?
This is not one of your "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" thought experiments. I tried more than once to guide you back to talking facts -- not hypotheticals -- pertaining to this one issue. If you could do that, then maybe someone would be willing to listen to what you say. but you can't stay focused. You have to deflect, obfuscate and obscure the actual discussions with your fantasy world where whatever you post can't be wrong.
You are conflating two different aspects of the discussion. One aspect was the case against the judge, the other aspect was what constitutes circumstantial evidence.
When you said video evidence is not circumstantial I corrected you and showed you how it can be circumstantial depending on the case. At that point it was necessary to talk in hypotheticals because the issue was not the judge's conversation but helping you understand the concept of circumstantial evidence.
Then to circle back I illustrated how the video is hard proof of what the judge did but since it doesn't catch audio of what was said there is still a circumstantial aspect.
-
it's not just the perception of illegals voting. But if you were honest, you wouldn't ignore the real issue.
The more illegals transplanted into various states, the more representatives the state has in the House.
Also, Electoral votes are apportioned in the same manner, so those states will have more of a say in the general elections.
Direct polling is state by state, so the number of illegal votes is immaterial at the federal level unless a state's general election results are razor thin. Those votes can, however, effect the outcomes of races such as US Reps and Senators, governors, mayors, city council seats, and state & local ballot measures such as constitutional amendments and adoption of laws on the ballot.
Focusing in on whether there is a "large number of illegal voters" means you don't understand the very real problems illegal aliens pose to our political system.
I have no interest in getting into a long discussion/argument about the position that illegals are voting or your non-sequitur insults of my understanding. :stopjack:
-
Still waiting for you to provide actual facts that dispute my facts.
I've shown where video evidence is considered DIRECT evidence in court.
So far, you've been unable to show where video evidence constitutes CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence in court.
I won't hold my breath, since we all know you can't.
I gave you example and explanation but you ignored it. Why would I bother putting more in front of you?
I see no point in going down this path further.
-
You are conflating two different aspects of the discussion. One aspect was the case against the judge, the other aspect was what constitutes circumstantial evidence.
When you said video evidence is not circumstantial I corrected you and showed you how it can be circumstantial depending on the case. At that point it was necessary to talk in hypotheticals because the issue was not the judge's conversation but helping you understand the concept of circumstantial evidence.
Then to circle back I illustrated how the video is hard proof of what the judge did but since it doesn't catch audio of what was said there is still a circumstantial aspect.
Don't pretend i didn't know what you meant to say. The issue is not that you are a poor writer (even though you are). The problem is you have not yet offered any proof of your belief that video is anything other than direct evidence.
An example and explanation that is wrong is still not proof that video evidence can be circumstantial.
You have a problem understanding plain English.
Video evidence is considered direct evidence in trials.
Period. End of discussion.
-
As Hardy explained, “a particular piece
of evidence is not required to be wholly dispositive of guilt in order to constitute
direct evidence, so long as it proves directly a disputed fact without requiring an
inference to be made. In other words, even if a particular item of evidence does not
3
conclusively require a guilty verdict, so long as the evidence proves directly a fact
in question [in Hardy, the actus reus], the evidence is direct evidence of guilt” (id.
at 248, 250-251; e.g. People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992 [1993]
https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.02_Direct_and_Circumstantial_Evidence_Defined.pdf
In other words, just because the video doesn't capture the words the judge spoke to the lawyer doesn't make it circumstantial. Direct evidence establishes facts where those facts may have been disputed if not for the video.
The entire case does not have to rest on a single piece of evidence to make it direct.
The video shows without question what transpired in the courtroom in sequence and specifically who was involved. You don't get more direct than that.
if someone else on the jury thinks like you, then i'm sure they might argue that without an audio recording, the tape doesn't carry the weight for a conviction. but you're ignoring the defense lawyer's testimony, anything the court recorder or bailiff overheard, etc.
Witness testimony is also direct evidence.
-
And a federal jury found her guilty. Looks like there was enough evidence.
Looks like someone was wrong again, like usual.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
And a federal jury found her guilty. Looks like there was enough evidence.
Looks like someone was wrong again, like usual.
The news played the courtroom videos. The judge let them leave through a restricted part of the courtroom and then tried to distract them with discussions with another judge. Had their not been plainclothes officers watching quietly, the illegal aliens would have escaped.
The evidence is clear to anyone who bothers to be objective and not be so argumentative while staring at the facts.