Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge

[JB]

So after reading some sources that aren't dedicated to anti-Muslim hysteria, I get a slightly less upsetting picture.

Please link your sources. You have a bad habit of not doing so.

You know, at the time of the attack, the muzzie told the cops he attacked Zombie Mo guy for being dressed as Mo. You did read that part, right?

[Wei Wu Wei]

Please link your sources. You have a bad habit of not doing so.

You know, at the time of the attack, the muzzie told the cops he attacked Zombie Mo guy for being dressed as Mo. You did read that part, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ge_goes_viral/

[fettpett]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ge_goes_viral/

ok, so the daily mail says the Judge is a recent Muslim Convert and the Boston.com says he's Lutheran...so which is it?

Boston.com ~

"In actuality, I'm a Christian," Martin, a Lutheran, told The Associated Press. "Does that mean I should recuse myself in all cases that involve Christians?"

Daily Mail

Judge Mark Martin - a recent Islam convert - ruled there wasn't enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of harassment as it was one man's word against other's

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1njiHjFga

[NJCardFan]

If the case is based on hearsay and his word against hers, yes, that's an extremely dangerous precedent to convict a man of rape simply because he was accused.

Stop the presses. Me and Wee agree on something.

[Wei Wu Wei]

ok, so the daily mail says the Judge is a recent Muslim Convert and the Boston.com says he's Lutheran...so which is it?

Boston.com ~

Daily Mail

There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.

Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..

[MrsSmith]

There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.

Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..

Exactly how did the judge know the video was too dark to see anything?

And when was the last time you saw a rapist get off the charge after admitting in court that he had committed the rape?

[JB]

...

From your boston.com link:

Martin said he dismissed the case for lack of evidence after Elbayomy testified that the confrontation was not physical, an apparent contradiction of what he told police the day of the parade.

"The judge dressed (Perce) down, (and) as far as I was concerned, that was the right thing to do," Thomas said. "This guy was obviously the antagonist."

---> Perce was dressed as Zombie Mo. So not only are there judges in Pennsylvania that forgot the text of the 1st Amendment, there are lawyers that have forgotten too.

And as someone already pointed out your other link has the judge as a muzzie convert, which the judge denies, so that story lacks credibility.

[Odysseus]

So after reading some sources that aren't dedicated to anti-Muslim hysteria, I get a slightly less upsetting picture.

The video wasn't allowed in the court because it was ruled as inconclusive. You can't see any indication of violence whatsoever in it. The supposed scene is almost entirely dark and consists of the guy screaming "he's attacking me!"

If it's inconclusive, it's still evidence. The judge was obligated to admit it and then allow the jury to determine if it was conclusive.

Without the video, the only evidence left in court was one guy's word vs the other guy's word. That's hardly enough to decide a case on. When you have a case that is nothing more than he said, he said heresay, what else can you do besides dismiss it?

In that case, you've got both sides agreeing to the assault, as that was what Elbayomy told the cops when they initially responded to the complaint. Remember, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".

That is hardly a case of "sharia judge" imposing islamic law onto Americans.

As for the judge scolding the guy about offending other cultures. It is not unusual that judges take the chance in court to lecture the people who enter their court on doing the right thing, It's not officially part of the legal process, it's an informal gesture that is pretty common. Young men in inner-cities often get stern-talking to's about right and wrong, respect, and making good decisions when they find themselves in front of a judge.

I agree his opinions about multiculturalism are irrelevant in the application of US law, but there's no evidence that those opinions influenced the application of the law.

Here is what the judge actually said:

'I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we could speak what's on our mind, not to p*** off other people and cultures, which is what you did.

'You are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.

'You've completely trashed their essence, their being. I'm a Muslim. I find it offensive.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1njxXoLGn

The first statement is pure multicultural blather, but the second and third statements are clearly at issue. In the second statement, the judge is stating that the victim of the assault doesn't have a First Amendment right to mock Islam. In fact, he does, just as his pal had the right to mock the Pope. There is only one legal code in which Islam cannot be criticized or mocked, and that is Sharia. However, with the third statement, the judge clearly expressed bias in favor of the defendant. The judge's statement that he found Perce's expression of his opinion offensive, and therefore not worthy of protection, was completely indefensible.

If the case is based on hearsay and his word against hers, yes, that's an extremely dangerous precedent to convict a man of rape simply because he was accused.

But it's not based simply on hearsay. There were witnesses to the crime, as well as the defendant's own statement, made before he realized that he'd confessed to assault.

There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.

It mattered enough to the judge for him to bring it up in court.

Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..

Uh, no, the judge's statements made it quite clear that he was interpreting the First Amendment as not protecting statements that offend Muslims, such as himself. One of the critical things that the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree on is that any criticism, mockery or derogatory statements about Islam are criminal conduct. OTOH, US law holds the exact opposite. The judge's commentary demonstrated that he could not dispassionately apply US law, and he had a clear conflict of interest in the case. He should have recused himself if he was offended, but since he didn't, he violated his duty to apply the law.

[fettpett]

---

The very point of the First Amendment is for people to do and say what they believe in politically with out fear of repercussions. It was the very BASIS of why many MANY came to the New World, to escape political persecution for their beliefs.

[JB]

---

The very point of the First Amendment is for people to do and say what they believe in politically with out fear of repercussions. It was the very BASIS of why many MANY came to the New World, to escape political persecution for their beliefs.

fett, please...don't ruin a good weewee defense of lunatic muslims, while we watch him circle the drain, with a dose of common sense. You'll frighten him off.