These were the words of the judge. How in the world can it be legal for him to find this man guilty on this personal basis?
Is the judge, whose last name is "Martin," a Black Muslim or a Muslim convert? He mentions having spent time in a Muslim country, but it doesn't sound as if he's foreign born.
Our very own elected congress is passing laws including what they would call “hate speech” toward muslims, which is anything that is said to disagree with anything muslim as a hate crime. Im with Newt, we have to reign in these lunatic judges who rule from the bench and we have to remove those in congress who forgot thier oath of office.
He is very white, and former military, where he spent time in the Middle East.
He’s a white soldier who served 2 tours in Iraq and converted to Islam.
He was uncontested in his election and received 97% of the vote, running as a republican and probably campaigning on his record as a military person.
The decision itself was that if the intent of the attack was to harass (as the charges stated) there would have been more of a ruckus than was indicated by the video which I understand he refused to view or the testimony of the cop which he discounted. He called it a he said/she said type situation even though the Muslim admitted to the attack, apparently because the Muslim claimed he didn’t act out of rage or a desire to harm but just wanted to make the mockery stop. And the judge accepted that.
The rationale he used is basically the same that a person might use for justifying a fallen soldier’s family attacking Fred Phelps when he holds a sign up at the funeral saying the soldier will rot in hell because he “tolerated faggots”. The idea is that it is an emotional time, the subject is near and dear to the person’s heart, and the person is asking for trouble by taunting that other person.
And that atheist probably was asking for it, although what he did was legal. The judge might have tried to call it aggravated assault using the logic he did. But instead he basically claimed that it’s not harassment if the intent is to “make the mockery stop”. If that is a fine, legal, justified motive, then every murder in this country is justified.
This judge acted as if only Muslims are cut to their very essence by mockery, but that is a gross misunderstanding of human nature. Does he think Catholics or other Christians are not cut to their very essence if they are required to commit what they believe to be murder? By his ruling it would be legally justified for any Christian to “make the mockery stop” by silencing the people who are forcing them to fund and/or perform abortions. One of the most effective ways to “make it stop” is by bullets. That seems to be what the judge is justifying.
This is very, very dangerous precedent. I really, really hope that this decision is appealed, because the methodology of Muslims when trying to get sharia instituted is to get a judicial ruling in a very local setting and then have another very local setting cite the ruling as precedent, thus putting the precedent in place for the whole country. It’s finding the 2 weakest links and forcing the stupidity of those 2 weakest links - and the unwillingness of people to “make a big deal” out of something everybody knows is stupid because it seems too small to worry about it - to become the precedent for everybody.
This judge ignored probative evidence and substituted his own knowledge (judge’s knowledge). A Youtube containing the audio of the judge’s decision also said that the judge threatened to put the victim in prison if he made public the tape(s) showing what had happened in this case, so not only do we have the accused harassing the victim physically, but we have the JUDGE harassing the victim through threats of legal punishment. This is stuff you would expect to see in Iran, where “judge’s knowledge” substitutes for legally-probative evidence and on the basis of that “judge’s knowledge” victims (such as a 14-year-old girl who was raped by her 34-year-old uncle)are actually executed. The judge in this case mentioned that if this atheist had been in a Muslim country he might have been executed.
What makes this especially chilling to me is the fact that Judge Michael Malihi basically did the same kind of ruling in the GA Ballot Challenge, where he wrote off all the evidence that was presented - even evidence that is normally self-authenticating such as records from a previous court case (passport documents) or mere eyewitness testimony (which doesn’t have to be expert testimony) - and then made a positive determination of Obama’s eligibility based on no probative evidence whatsoever, which appears to be a claim of “judge’s knowledge”.
There are our 2 cases where sharia carried the day, where the use of “judge’s knowledge” prevailed, although the ballot challenge is being appealed. But because it’s about Obama’s eligibility no judge is going to overturn it (since Soros and his minions will simply threaten the judge with the same threats they made to silence the media companies, which is a documented fact) and the precedent will stand - this time in an actual court rather than simply an administrative hearing.
We are in very, very dangerous territory here. Those who poo-pooh both the Obama eligibility issue and his self-stated support of the Muslim agenda are playing with fire that will soon set this whole nation and world aflame if we don’t get serious.
There is much more information on another threat that is about this Pennsylvania case, and how it ties in with a bunch of other stuff we’re seeing in regards to Obama. I suggest that anybody who is interested start reading at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2850278/posts?page=61#61 and follow through to the rest of the thread. Lots of links along the way.
Some links that didn’t get in there were from other sharia-related news stories that came out yesterday, including that:
Radical Muslim groups are now deciding what training materials our FBI uses to train about Muslim terrorism (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2850357/posts )
Obama apologizes for the burning of Korans ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2850382/posts ) - and I read on another thread (that I didn’t ping myself on) that John Bolton says the Korans had been desecrated by Muslim prisoners by writing in them and by taking pages out, and the proper way of disposing of desecrated Korans is by burning them, so Obama is apologizing after 2 of our soldiers were killed by a supposed ally after the US disposed of Muslim-desecrated Korans in the way that Islam requires them to be destroyed.
CAIR is accusing Florida of demonizing Islam by seeking to ban the use of sharia in US courts ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2850399/posts )
Throughout the thread I suggested that people read, there are links to support various claims I have made. There are a bunch more links that could be included as well. One of these days I’ll put this stuff together so people can access it all at once.