CASE BY ATHEIST DRESSED AS MOHAMED ATTACKED BY MUSLIM THROWN OUT BY SHARIA COMPLAINT JUDGE……..

 

To those of you who still believe that creeping sharia in the US is not a real, identifiable problem, watch this video. It’s about a case in which a man dressed up as Mohamed, in accompaniment with others also dressed up as other religious founders was attacked by a Muslim bystander watching the demonstration.

The ruling by the judge mirrors the sharia complaint ruling by a German judge who ruled that a wife had to share her pension with a second wife in accordance with sharia law. Or the Swedish Chancellor of Justice ruling in favor of a mosque who sold tapes advocating hatred of, and violence against, the Jews, because that is how the dialogue goes in the Middle East.

People have to start waking up and demand that the law of the land be equally applied to everyone in society. There is no room for sharia in the west.

UPDATE: The judge is a muslim! He then went on an apologetic of the desert warlord’s creed! Call his office at: 717-766-4575

UPDATE: II The Volokh Conspiracy vis: WTD, say otherwise: Judge responds.

NOTE: Check the comments to this post, WTD has some very interesting information about the judge in question.

This entry was posted in ISLAM IN THE USA, Islamization, Sharia. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to CASE BY ATHEIST DRESSED AS MOHAMED ATTACKED BY MUSLIM THROWN OUT BY SHARIA COMPLAINT JUDGE……..

  1. wtd says:

    As if it wasn’t bad enough Judge Mark Martin conducts dawa whiled robed at the bench, he compounds his anti-constitutional fiat with alternate venues for imposing sharia on this atheist:

    ‘Zombie Mohammad’ Ernest Perce threatened with jail for releasing audio of trial

    Note: Martin was reelected after running unopposed in 2011. He cross-filed with the Republican and Democratic parties with his term expiring in 2018 if this judgement is permitted to pass.
    Cumberland County, Unofficial 2011 Municipal Election Results

    Consider also, the case against this atheist is NOT the first time this robed ‘judge’ mentioned his military experience/familiarty in the Middle East.
    *****
    Also useful is this comment from another blog which puts the authority of this Magistrate in perspective:

    “. . .in Pennsylvania, these low-level judges are NOT required to be attorneys. This judge is simply a military cop (and perhaps a former civil cop….I’m not sure about that) who was elected by a patriotic (mostly Republican) electorate subject to “soldier sympathy”). Curiously, in this mixed up world of Mechanicsburg, PA, the Chief of Police *is* a lawyer, but the judge is not. Additionally, when the TV reporter wanted to interview the judge, the judge declined, but told the reporter to call the defense counsel, who could speak for the judge!!” link

    Confirmed:
    Low-level judges such as Magistrates are NOT required to be attorneys. A bachelor’s degree and work experience usually constitute the minimum requirements for judges and magistrates, but most workers have law degrees and some are elected [link].

    In the State of Pennsylvania, Magistrate Judges have certain rules to follow and Mark Martin either is unfamiliar with these rules or blatantly ignored them as demonstrated below with Rules 2, 4, & 8

    Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges

    2. Magisterial district judges shall respect and comply with the law and shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

    4. Magisterial district judges shall be faithful to the law and maintain competence in it. They shall be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism. . .Magisterial district judges shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom they deal in their official capacity,. . .

    8. Magisterial district judges shall disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . .(1) they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;(c) is known by the magisterial district judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
    ************
    Martin consistently references his ME military experience, so in light of his dual allegiance, I’ll take it one step further . . .his dual allegiance begs the question about his military service and whether his dual loyalty presented any safety/logistical concerns to our men/women serving with him in uniform. Particularly as he practices (pun intended) law in Pennsylvania, home of another reprehensible representative named Murtha who upended the lives of the Haditha Marines.
    lan astaslem

  2. wtd says:

    Another interesting tidbit from the comments at JW:

    ” wonder if the tautological Mark Martin is his original name? Both these names are derived from the Latin Marcus, which means “belonging to the god Mars”. And who is Mars?

    The god of WAR.

    If this name was not deliberately selected to indicate a jihad agenda, then it is a very fine joke.

  3. joy52 says:

    If he can appeal, the atheist should appeal. Otherwise, the atheists should get together and march in force, all wearing what the origional atheist was wearing! Let themselves be arrested and then twice as many again come back..if the atheists really believe in their cause. Time for them to do something besides complain about creches and menorahs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by sweetCaptcha