Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "" video.

  1. Funny. That is not what the Supreme Court said.
    5
  2. I see you know nothing whatsoever about Dugan's case. Well, to be fair, maybe this video won't inform you particularly well.
    4
  3. @TravisMay-l9g  Not what the Supreme Court JUST SAID.
    3
  4. She has every right to control her courtroom and avoid the possible intimidation of witnesses, victims, potential jurors, or the public, were they to see an arrest take place right in front of her courtroom. The judge in the courtroom next to hers had the same view. There is no criminal intent here, and none evident in the "probable cause" affidavit. She didn't want a public arrest right in front of her courtroom. He was arrested a short time later when he was spotted in the building getting off of an elevator. Before January, arrests were never made in or near courtrooms, and now arrests in or near courts and churches are still disfavored. So, where is her "crime?" If she abused her discretion, that's a matter for the state of Wisconsin, not DOJ or FBI.
    3
  5. @rollyvincoy3848  Did she have a duty to deliver a defendant in her court to the custody of a different sovereign? Her intent was to protect the process in her own court. If there was some better way to accomplish that, it does not make the way she chose, when confronted with an unheard-of situation, a crime. That's something that is supposed to be discussed with the states, not imposed. Arresting her is performative, an intimidation tactic. At MOST she should get a reprimand from her own state. At MOST.
    3
  6.  @realitybob2  Who do you think has this information and is sharing it with you? 😂
    2
  7.  @HughRGlen  I just did. I wonder whether it will stay up. Or if you'll bother to read it. EDIT: Well, what did you expect?
    2
  8.  @HughRGlen  They won't let me provide a point-by-point analysis.
    2
  9.  @BearKlaw-c4d  Look, I'm censored here, so why talk to me? I can say nothing. Typical of this channel.
    2
  10. @targgthewise2892 There are options. For example, a parent could petition for them to stay with an aunt who is a citizen. Try to imagine, say, a Polish or Lithuanian couple and their adorable blond gamine. Then you'll see the options clearly.
    2
  11. @EngineMedic7  And you've read the cases from a few days ago? And you know what I'm referring to?
    2
  12. He knows nothing about the law. Neither does the other anchor, so . . . 🤦‍♀️
    2
  13. @realitybob2  I don't have a television, and if I did, that would be the last show I'd watch. I'm a lawyer, so I read the probable cause affidavit and the official government policies on effectuating INA arrests. Courts and churches are still disfavored locations. Television, videos, and even major newspapers are very poor sources of information. They get most things wrong.
    1
  14. @docclovve447  Oh, I see. You were talking about the two-year-old girl. No, the child is an American. Her fate needs to be addressed individually, with the possibility of a guardian ad litem appointed. Immigration court has no jurisdiction over American citizens. Yet, lol.
    1
  15.  @realitybob2  Lawyers are a dime a dozen. But thanks for comparing me to an astronaut. I used to dream about it as a third grader.
    1
  16. @waynemorgan6153  Yes it does. She's a citizen and her father has some rights in the matter, though at that age and all other things being equal, the mother generally prevails.
    1
  17.  @realitybob2  Right, and both of these anchors are wrong again.
    1
  18. This has become the worst news show. Both of these people know zero about the law. It's ridiculous.
    1
  19.  @targgthewise2892  I suggest you read the two cases. And Boumediene while you're at it.
    1
  20. @carryonjeeves  That's a possible grounds for reprimand or removal. It's not a crime.
    1
  21. @carryonjeeves  Our court? I'm not a Wisconsin resident.
    1
  22. Both of them clearly know nothing about what they're talking about, at all. If I am forced to pick who is worse, that's tough. I think I have to pick her. The two of them know zero about the law and just repeat catch phrases and memes for clicks.
    1
  23. Of course she's not a lawyer. Good lord. Well, possibly divorce and DUI? 😂😂😂
    1
  24. NO IT IS NOT "normal" to arrest anyone at or near a courtroom. Robby is an utter ignoramous. It was never done before January 2025. She has every right to control her courtroom and avoid the possible intimidation of witnesses, victims, potential jurors, or the public, were they to see an arrest right in front of her courtroom door. The judge in the courtroom next to hers had the same view. There is no criminal intent here, and none evident in the "probable cause" affidavit She didn't want a public arrest right in front of her courtroom. He was arrested a short time later when he was spotted in the building getting off of an elevator. Before January, arrests were never made in or near courtrooms, and now arrests in or near courts and churches are still disfavored. So, where is her "crime?" If she abused her discretion, it's a matter for the state of Wisconsin, not the DOJ or FBI.
    1
  25.  @EngineMedic7  But they are both ignorant of basic principles of law. How is that helpful?
    1