Articles Index Just Another Case Of Sharia In America
Sunday, 26 February 2012 13:25
Judge in Pennsylvania dismisses assault charge against Muslim man who admitted guilt. He then gives the victim a dissertation about Islamic culture, Mohammed and Sharia law. Did I mention the Judge was a Muslim as well?
Quite frankly I am getting a little tired of writing about these stories when all I continue to hear is that “Sharia can never happen in America”.
I have had more arguments with “liberal” attorneys than I care to remember and each time they all say the same thing… “Give me one case, just one example of Sharia in America”. No matter what cases I cite it’s never good enough or it was overturned so it doesn’t count.
I have written about this far too many times, in case you missed any, here are some of my past articles on Sharia in America that never seems to happen here: May 2010, June 2010, August 2010, October 2010, January 2011, February 2011, May 2011, November 2011.
Well, here is yet another to add to the list. Let’s see those who still believe Sharia can’t happen in the U.S. argue their way out of this one.
Last October, the Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim, Talaag Elbayomy while he was participating in a Halloween parade. Mr. Perce was dress as a Zombie Mohammed and Elbayomy was a spectator with his family.
Elbayomy was offended by the Mohammed costume and took matters in to his own hands, literally and physically. Not only was the assault was captured on video, but Talaag Elbayomy admitted to the assault. Charges were filed and the case went to Court.
Talaag Elbayomy is an immigrant and claimed that he did not know that his actions were illegal because he also was under the belief that it was illegal in the U.S. to represent Mohammed in any form. What’s more is that during his testimony he stated that his 9 year old son was present and felt he needed to show his son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
I know I’ve said this before, but the first thing you learn in law school is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. It is irrelevant what Elbayomy thought and any Judge or attorney knows this. All that matters is that he broke the law.
Pretty cut and dry case, the defendant, Elbayomy never denied the assault charge and the whole thing was on video. Slam dunk case right? Not so fast though, as they used to say on ‘Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In’, “here comes de Judge”.
The Judge in this case is Judge Mark Martin who also happens to be a Muslim. But that shouldn’t matter; Sharia can’t happen here, he’s an American Judge who is going to follow Pennsylvania and American laws. At least that’s what Article 6 of the Constitution states,
Article 6 – This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made under it shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound by them. Senators and Representatives, legislative officers, all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and the several states shall be bound by a Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution.
Well, Judge Martin refused to allow the video of the assault in to evidence and not only ruled in favor of the defendant and dismissed the charge, but he then spoke to the victim Mr. Perce giving him a six minute dissertation about Islam, the Islamic culture and Sharia law. During his Islamic rant he called Mr. Perce a “Doofus” and explained that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death for blasphemy.
Judge Martin stated from the bench,
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. It makes you look like a doofus and Mr. Elbayomy is correct, in many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”
But it doesn't end there, oh no. Judge Martin explained about the so-called religion of Islam as well,
“Islam is not just a religion; it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you cannot because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.
Just when you thought you had heard it all from an American Judge on a simple assault case, Martin continued and in doing so throws out Mr. Perce’s First Amendment rights,
“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. When we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say.”
What? Wait a second did he say “But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights.”? Um, Judge, I’d hate to correct you, but you can’t have it both ways, either Mr. Perce had the right or he didn’t. You have just contradicted yourself in one sentence.
After refusing the video and not seeming to care that Elbayomy admitted to the assault Judge Martin gave his reason for dismissing the charge,
“All that aside I’ve got here basically. I don’t want to say he said she said, but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”
“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof…”
“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.”
Interestingly, Sgt. Brian Curtis of the Mechanicsburg, PA Police Department who took the initial report of the incident, was interviewed by WHTM, ABC channel 27 Harrisburg, PA and he stated,
“Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him”.
“I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the case was dismissed and I was disappointed”.
The Sgt. was “disappointed”, that’s not the word I would have chosen, but then again…
Judge Mark Martin actually stated from the bench in a Court of law, “They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.”
Hmmm. I wonder how much of that offensiveness played in your ruling Judge; I thought ‘Justice was blind’, not blind, deaf and dumb. Oh, but that’s right, we are talking about Sharia law here aren’t we?
For all those who are still under the belief that Sharia has never, or can’t happen here, the Center for Security Policy published a report in May 2001 titled “Shariah Law and American State Courts”. The report breaks down a total of 50 cases in the following 23 States,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.
If your State isn’t listed here give it time, it will be eventually. And people still ask why States are writing new laws attempting to ban Sharia from their Courts.
You can contact Judge Mark Martin and tell him what you think of his Judicial or should I say ‘Sharia’ decision.
Mark W. Martin Magisterial District Judge
Contact:
507 N. York St.
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Ph: 717.766.4575
Fx: 717.766.2238
Office Hours:
Monday - Tuesday, Thursday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm
Wednesday: 8:30 am - 6:00 pm
-
2012-02-27 12:06:55 |72.201.122.xxx| EMA - Loads of laughs
Am laughing a la Laugh In. Can't believe that a judge (duly elected/appointed/whatever) can be so blatent in his spoken opinion. Whatever happened to OUR 1st amendment rights? This whole thing is a joke and the judge should be chastised for his action! (wonder what else he's done to infringe on folks' rights!) Guess I won't hold my breath to see him removed from the bench for this action!
At any rate - sigh - onward and forward we go - probably right into Sharia law here in the good ol' U.S. of A! And yes, the state where I reside is on your list - with more to follow, as you have written.
How sad.
-
2012-02-27 16:43:28 |167.206.189.xxx| Christopher Beattie - The first amendment does not mean the right to ins
I am not sure how this is a case of “Sharia” law. This appears to be a question of an offensive act that drove an individual to do something. What that actual “something” was is up for dispute. (I have seen the video in question and it is not a slam dunk by any means.) (Did he actually “choke” him, or did he just touch his fake beard and his sign?) Does this count as “harassment?” It is clearly not a cut and dry case. Now had this been a case of Sharia law, I think the atheist would have been either stoned or beheaded and that would have gotten away with it under the law. That’s not the case here.
Bear in mind that the same Founding Fathers who wrote the amendment for freedom of speech also used to duel each other to the death for verbal offenses against honor. Just as you don’t have the “right” to randomly yell fire in a public space you don’t have the “right” to provoke a person to anger and expect the “first amendment” to shield you from the results of your verbal barbs.
-
2012-02-27 18:38:43 |99.255.188.xxx| Kenneth T. Tellis
When a judge is biased in favour of a fellow Muslim, then the law has been corrupted.
Muslim Judge Mark Martin should have recused himself as his religion came in conflict with American Law. In fact this judge must now be brought before a judiciary hearing to decide whether he is capable of dispensing justice without prejudice.
U.S. law cannot permit anyone to use his treligion as a basis of law. Thus Justice Mark Martin had voided the rights of the victim which are guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION.
-
2012-02-27 23:05:24 |71.108.76.xxx| waynebabbitt
Pennsylvania is in the United Ststes of AMERICA. One nation under God and constitutional law. by the people for the people. And no other kind of law. what has happened to our country
-
2012-03-01 01:28:32 |69.134.74.xxx| jmauchtermuchty - What an utter waste of time
Listen to the testimony of the complainant. Tries to sound erudite, yet there are so many gaping fallacies that Judge Judy would have had Bird kick him out of the courtroom.
The officer probably did feel he brought a good case. He probably did. But,the complainant did not help out at all, and in fact probably hurt is own case by his moronic testimony.
C. Beattie is more on the right track. Free speech does not include hate speech, or speech that would incite others to violence. Muslims CANNOT tolerate even the representation of their prophet in any form. It is part of their very existence. Here, you can turn on South Park and see Jesus as a regular, participating character--one with a talk show, Jesus and Friends. There has to be room for both cultures--the Constitution guarantees it.
If the defendant blatantly struck the complainant, or was more than very mildly violent, the outcome of this trial would have been different. The defendant would have been found guilty.
The judge, in his capacity, saw the complainant for what he is: A tiresome pedant who tries to appear erudite but comes off as a plain fool out to get attention. He also saw the defendant for what he is: A man struck to his very being with a very real and humiliating attack on him and his family.
And as far as the judge finding the complainant in contempt of court for releasing this tape--that is his duty. Just because a judge allows taping of court proceedings does not mean s/he grants unrestricted use.
Get a life.
This shows that there is a systemic problem in the judicial system overall. Judges no longer have to be "fair" or "impartial". We used to have a concept in the law called "isonomy" or "equal standing before the law", but that no longer seems to be the case. Here we have Judge Martin who decides to hear a case, and decides not to recuse himself because he cannot render an impartial judgment based on the objective evidence only. Judge Martin should be removed from the bench immediately, stripped of his license to practice law and be brought before the Bar and charged with Judicial Misconduct.