The Anti-Muslim Threads Are Giving ATS a Bad Name

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth

But I suppose that you will summarily dismiss them all as irrelevant or non reputable sources as you always do when someone dares voice their concerns about Muslims or the mosque issue.

This is pure deflection aimed at trying to avoid the fact that you aren't providing actual information or sources, but stories and opinions.

Let me show you how easy it is to find a real source.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52cad53569ee.jpg[/atsimg]

This is a copy of the actual arrest report of a Muslim Traveler at Miami International Airport that intitially was promoted as a 'terrorist' incident because he was a Muslim, and unruly at an airport.

The very same morning the incident occured the police report was online at Miami-Dade County.gov

Available for PDF download, which I scanned and uploaded to ATS media, that in fact contradicted some of the FALSE information already being reported by some members.

The arresting officers report which is four pages long, and I have all four but won't display them for the sake of brevity unless you would like to see them all, cleared up a lot of the controversy.

Within a day when the story never panned out as some imagined it would as a terrorist incident but just an unruly and angry passenger, and the press made no mention of it as a terrorist incident the story went away.

So you see my friend the only thing stopping you from proving your contentions is either them not ever having happened, or you not doing real research to prove your own contentions.

The difference between opinion and fact is proof that events occured as people voicing opinions on blogs claim they have.

It's not your concerns I am objecting to, it's your inability to prove your concerns should be my concerns and are valid and real.

You have no one to blame but yourself for not having real proof to back up your contentions.

So please don't try to blame your inability to do that on anyone else.

Thanks.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.

creepingsharia.wordpress.com...


Of course, the woman's name is being withheld because of the alleged sex crime that took place. Sorry I can not provide you with that.

This is yet another example of how Sharia Law is becoming gradually accepted in this country.

You can turn a blind eye if you wish to, or you can open your eyes and see what is going on all around us.

Google court cases regarding Sharia Law in the United States. There are approximately 186,000 search results.........looks to me like Sharia Law is proliferating at the speed of light .....

But it's not funny.

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


There are 2,000,000 search results for Obama lies!

Wow, now did he lie 2,000,000 times, or did 2,000,000 different articles published on the web about how he might have lied been published on the web.

Search results are not facts my friend, and you have already displayed how those results are not factual with other links.

Once again, no arrests reports, and court proceedings are public records, it's not that the names are being withheld, it's that the people writing your article didn't do the research to prove any of this transpired.

You see they couldn't have known the ruling without a name of a defendant and a court decision.

They couldn't have known about the appeal without a name of the defendant.

The government doesn't do these things in secret and the only time names are withheld in court documents is when they are either minors, or confidential informants, but the names are simply blacked out.

So once again your search results are turning up nothing but highly biased blogs that are preferring opinion and stories without facts to back them up.

You might want to investigate how the American Justice system works and worry a little less about the Sharia Law THAT IS NOT BEING USED and you are UNABLE TO PROVE IT IS BEING USED.

The appeal especially from a three judge appellate court would have been so easy for the author to find and publish and link with the story.

The only reasons they would not have, is because it never existed in the first place, or the actual court documents would debunk the opinions in the blog.

Very simple.

My friend, make no mistake about it, people are allowing themselves to be isolated through fear, and then manipulated through lies and emotion.

Facts are facts, when it comes to the Justice system they are public record and anyone can obtain them as they are public record.

Thanks.

I already proved that to you in the example above. By the way the Miami Herald reported it as an unruly passenger, it was fear mongerers on ATS that wanted to turn it into a terrorist incident simply because he was Muslim.

It took all of 10 minutes to get the police report from that morning online, download it, turn it into a Jpeg format, upload it to ATS media and embed it in a post.



[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by shamus78


I would disagree with you on the premise that this gives ATS a bad name. I live in the United States, and still believe in the ideas of the founding fathers of the US, and the constitution of the US. Of those ideas, that being in the first admentment, the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. It is the right of the citizens to speak and say what they will about anything, believe, lifestyle and other parts of the country that they live in, and it is protected by law. This is nothing new, nor is it going to be silenced. We all have the right to choose to believe what we will, to include what is and is not evil, or wrong, and to state such. To deny such, would violate something far greater, our integrity and the very principles that allow for such sites as ATS to exist without fear and persecution from the government. Most of the arguments are the same, and from what I have read, some are founded in fact, but there is something more there, that is not stated. It is fear.
We often take for granted these freedoms that allow for us to state such, that those who often cry foul, fail to realize that they do have options, one being that they can choose to be free from such. It is a double edge sword. My own personal beliefs, and the logic behind such is that I will never trust someone who is muslim or islamic in belief, as they have not endeared themselves to gather that trust from me or the general population. From my own experience, that is what I have seen, witnessed first hand, and have experienced, from a far greater number of such individuals, about 99% of them, with only 1% showing me that there was more than what the others protrayed. Right now the population believes, and rightly so, that islamic extremist means to do us harm. The PR and words by the main Muslim and Islamic groups frail to endear themselves to the general population, or seek to gather support, rather it causes most people to recoil away from them.
If more on both sides would step back, and those Muslims would understand that we do have the right to speak, say and believe what we do, and not react, then such would no longer be an issue. It takes 2 to have a fight, and if one side choose not to, then it becomes a moot point. Better than people have a means to vent, take that away and then there is a risk of violence against one group or another. The United States, since its very days of independence, has spawned a rougher, less refined individual, and requires that outlet. Those who would live here, who follow Islam, and are muslim, need to take a step back, and stop hanging to the rear on issues that would upset other Muslims and take a firmer stand, showing the world that they can not only be citizens of the country, but are willing to fight and die to defend it. I give for the best example of this being CAIR. Whenever CAIR makes a statement, it is light, and usually does not offend. If they want to gain the support of the people, they need to use stronger language against acts of terrorism and violence, beyond condone.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Alright Proto, I see that it is useless to continue this discussion with you as you will only continue to refuse to accept what is common knowledge.

Here is one last link containing some of the many statutes and laws that are already on the books favoring Sharia Law in the United States.

www.law.emory.edu...

Good day to you sir, and as always, you can have the last word.

[edited link to provide beginning of Law review to introduction.]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth

Of course, the woman's name is being withheld because of the alleged sex crime that took place. Sorry I can not provide you with that.

What you have provided is nothing but a politically and religiously inspired hit piece on a New Jersey Judge with no facts to back up the claims.

Let me provide you with yet another example of a public record, this time from the CIA, released under the freedom of information act.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e19e1a4147de.jpg[/atsimg]

Notice how some sections are blacked out whited out? This is sensitive intelligence sources that are being withheld. This is how they protect annonymity of witnesses and sources in official documents.

So the documents would exist, as public record, in the event that it is a confidential informant or a minor, the name would just be whited and blacked out.

So they could have obtained the proof if the proof existed.

By the way this particular CIA document compiled during the Iran/Iraq war was the Agency advising the President of the United States in an Intelligence report, that the key to Israel maintaining military hedgemony in the Middle East was destroying Iraqs army through attrition, because any combination of 2 or 3 other Arab/Muslim nations aligned with Iraq at the time, could have in theory taken on Israel's military and won.

Now isn't it funny, that after the Iran/Iraq War that Saddam Hussein was tricked into invading Kuwaiit by the U.S. Secretary of State which led to the Gulf War and the further attrition of his army, which was followed by ten years of crippling sanctions, which was follwed by the Second Gulf War to totally dismantle his army and remove him from leadership?

My source for this information is the CIA in their own documents, not JewWatch.com that even though I am against Zionist politics, I would kill myself before I turned to such a prejudicial site for information.

Not interested in unfounded fears and prejudices, I am interested in facts.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Alright Proto, I see that it is useless to continue this discussion with you as you will only continue to refuse to accept what is common knowledge.

Here is one last link containing some of the many statutes and laws that are on the books favoring Sharia Law in the United States already.

www.law.emory.edu...

Good day to you sir, and as always, you can have the last word.

What you have provided is a more credible but very similiar example to Jewish Talmudic Courts which have long existed in the United States, where marraiges, divorces, and businesses disputes are handled by all parties volunteering to allow a Talmudic court to be the mediator.

I have no problems with Jews having Talmudic Courts that handle disputes between them as it pertains to how their religion effects their property and marraiges and business.

Why? Because it's a voluntary process with no enforcement mechanism.

The Mormon's also have some laws regarding marraige that are different than the Governments and they handle those in house too.

Yet as with what Emory is citing, and Talmudic Courts run by the Jews and mediations conducted by Mormon Bishops the people volunteer to allow those systems to be the arbitrator and there is no enforcement mechanism through U.S. law to 'enforce' the ruling.

In other words everyone participating in these alternative courts are doing so voluntarily and they are abiding by these alternative courts voluntarily.

So if Jews can do this, if Mormons can do this, why do you fear Muslims doing this?

They aren't laws of the land, and all the Emory article is talking about is how Religious law is applied in a voluntary setting that is not enforcable through U.S. Statute.

So once again, no, you haven't proven I am being forced to conduct my divorce by Sharia law, Mormon, or Talmudic Laws.

You haven't displayed how I am being forced to disperse my property in a divorce through Sharia, Mormon or Talmudic Laws.

You haven't displayed how this VOLUNTARY process that Mormons, Jews and Muslims participate in is a threat to my rights?

Can you do that?

Thanks.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
So if Jews can do this, if Mormons can do this, why do you fear Muslims doing this?

Because Jews and Mormons are not trying to expand their religious rights, and are not attempting to force them on the rest of society in the way that Muslims are doing today.

What I fear, is the United States inability to prevent this from happening, just like the US is unable to stop the flow of illegals into this country.

While you guys are partying in South beach, our rights are gradually being taken away from us.

I am not disparaging party-goers whatsoever...cheers!...I believe you will find that Muslims will be leading this attack.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
So if Jews can do this, if Mormons can do this, why do you fear Muslims doing this?

Because Jews and Mormons are not trying to expand their religious rights, and are not attempting to force them on the rest of society in the way that Muslims are doing today.

What I fear, is the United States inability to prevent this from happening, just like the US is unable to stop the flow of illegals into this country.

While you guys are partying in South beach, our rights are being gradually taken away from us.

I am not disparaging party-goers whatsoever...cheers...I believe you will find that Muslims will be leading this attack.

Your argument is a logical fallacy.

Our constitutionally protected natural rights - e.g. freedom of religion - cannot be expanded or restricted. By definition any freedom is a right that does not have restrictions, hence cannot be expanded. Should we in anyway restrict ones ability to freely engage in their religion, the US Constitution will have been violated.

Also consider that as natural/inalienable right, this applies to each and every human, culture, and country. Our Constitution simply ensures that the government will not impede or infringe upon this natural right.

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


But you have failed to prove that Muslims are doing this.

I have patiently waited all afternoon for you to so.

What the Emory article that you might not have read is talking about is how Muslim religious divorces are conducted.

Each party is allowed to have a lawyer.

Now here in the United States you can be married administratively or you can be married religiously.

Many people who marry religiously do so in order to uphold the laws that govern their religion, and when they divorce they do the same.

Why? Because they don't want to offend their Lord and be denied entry to heaven.

It's a voluntary process that Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and even some Catholics still go through.

As far as Religious law, most of the original U.S; Laws are in fact Talmudic Laws that date back to Egyptian Judiac Communities known as communitarian-ra. The rest are Roman laws to govern the emprie.

So you are already living under mostly religious laws and may not even be aware of it, those being communitarian-ra laws.

So are you unaware of this? Do you prefer Judaic Religious law, and is your fear that Judaic Religious Law will be replaced with Muslim Religious law.

The truth is you aren't against religious law, if you favor most laws of the land because they are communitarian-ra in their origins and principles.

So you might want to ask yourself if you know you are already living under religious law, that God is actually legally the Pope in Rome, and if you like the system you are presently living under.

If you do, then you shouldn't worry because Rome has this all under control, in fact they are manipulating you through their own religious laws, to get rid of the Muslims and well...sadly yourself too at the same time.

This is why I prefer to stay out of it, and my friends too, because it all is going to end very badly for everyone taking sides in Rome's game.

We aren't going to end up with Sharia law, we are going to end up with a one world Government with Roman Law, because Rome has actually tricked you all into colonizing the world for them, securing all it's resources for the patricians and then setting you up to eliminate one another so they can actually introduce a one world government, where the laws are uniform across the board for complete control of all aspects of your life and everyone elses.

So all most people have done is to blindly allow themselves to be led into a trap and a very bad end, for a promised ticket to heaven, after a lifetime of hell of doing Rome's dirty work.

You might want to look at the bigger picture!

Thanks!

[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by misinformational

Originally posted by misinformational
Also consider that as natural/inalienable right, this applies to each and every human, culture, and country. Our Constitution simply ensures that the government will not impede or infringe upon this natural right.

Thank you for accepting my apology on the other thread. That meant a lot to me.

Don't forget that the Constitution can be amended when enough people desire for that to happen. It seems far fetched that this can happen today, and it is, but some day it might not be.

[edited to add....And also remember that the Constitution started out with slavery,.....and if we are not vigilant, we may very well end up with it again some day.]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


Yes, the Constitution may certainly be amended. In fact, it has been a whopping 27 times. This is a testament to the fact the the Constitution does not define what natural/inalienable rights are, it simply ensures that the government won't infringe upon the ones listed.

I recently read an article that described the debate over the sides of this "mosque" debate. The author subscribed to the idea that there are "two Americas":

There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.

But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.

I highly recommend everyone on the thread read the entire article, as it well illustrates the ATS NYC Muslim community center debates that have been ongoing. I believe its the most unbiased covering of this story that I've encountered:

www.nytimes.com...

Ultimately, however, I believe as a nation we would be much better served with a majority (if not entirety) of the first America as described within the article.

Regarding our other thread: No hard feelings. ATS is a place for many people, for many different reasons. Collectively however, we all come here to express our opinions and to come to a mutual understanding (and hopefully also to learn - although I suspect that many forgo the learning experience, to their own loss).

While we are certainly going to become emotional over certain topics - especially when it hits close to home - we all have to realize that each of us has a reason for our opinions. And it will be through debate and discussion that we are hopefully able to gain some degree of reconciliation for our differences - Reconciliation is always progress and possibly even reform - only if that is on a personal level.

[edit - grammar]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth

edited to add....And also remember that the Constitution started out with slavery,.....and if we are not vigilant, we may very well end up with it again some day

This is a part of Talmudic Communitaria-ra law. When you read the Ten Commandments even though they were allegedly delivered as the Jews were exiting Egypt and Bondage several of the Commandments dealt with how the Jews were supposed to treat their own slaves.

Kind of funny that people just out of slavery already had slaves, and God wanted them to be specifically cared for in ways that honored him huh?

I would like to say that we are evolving away from those laws, but the truth is that the Constitution started out with White Men being sovereign citizens, and the 14th Amendment made all people citizens of the States, and the States Vassals of the Federal Government stripping all people who had sovereign citizenship of it and making all people property of the state. The State property of the Federal Government.

Today over 50% of your income goes to various state, local and federal agencies in a process of free range slavery.

Originally the Constitution allowed for no direct taxation by the Federal Government, the states were charged with funding it through voluntarily contributions.

The Commerce Department Conducts the Census, and in that process makes us all part of the Commerce System and Congress has unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce.

So the truth is the Consitution is a show piece, and most people contractually agree to become citizens of the state, and once doing that, allows the Congress to make unlimited commerce based laws to regulate ever aspect of your existence. With over 600,000 codes on the books, they have regulated every aspect of your existence.

So slavery is alive and well my friend, right here in the United States.

The person who imagines they are most free is the one most enslaved.

It's all black and white, and all in the laws, and anyone who can read and use a dictionary can piece it together.

Sadly some people are too busy visiting Jihad watch dot com to figure out what's really happening to them right here and now.



[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by misinformational

Excellent article, and from the New York Times no less. .....The world is turning upside down.

Thanks for posting it. It echos my concerns.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Here are a couple of more links to the specifics that you have asked me for. I hope I am getting warmer.

njcriminallaw.blogspot.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by misinformational

 

Excellent article, and from the New York Times no less.

.....The world is turning upside down.

The source of information matters not... All that matters is that the information is judged on its own merit.



While I firmly support the right for everyone's ability to freely engage in whatever religious/spiritual beliefs whatever they may choose (including Islam), I can also understand the reason that some are fearful of what is demonized. When analyzed, we realize that this demonization has been the product of very few.

The only possible way to bridge that gap, IMO, is through a mutual understanding. Hopefully, representatives of the west and of the Muslim world are able to foster this behavior - by which both sides of the coin would be required to take steps of mutual significance. Unfortunately, it appears that there are forces at work (on both sides) that wish to prevent harmony and strengthen hate.

reply to post by misinformational


Yes I agree. But for me it is a matter of trust. If many Muslims would speak up and condemn the Extremists, and become activists like Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah have done, I would Happily reverse my views.

But unfortunately, I do not see this happening any time soon, or any time at all for that matter......so I remain suspicious.

www.ottawacitizen.com...

I think that they both have a lot of courage for giving us insight into Muslim attitudes in this country. They have shed light where there was none.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Here are a couple of more links to the specifics that you have asked me for. I hope I am getting warmer.

njcriminallaw.blogspot.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Actually no, Sharia law was not used in that case. Mitigating factors were considered when the judge rendered their original ruling.

Those mitigating factors having to do with whether the Defendant understood if his actions were criminal.

Because the plaintiff did not like the Lower Courts ruling, it was appealed to a higher court.

The ruling was overturned.

So no Sharia law wasn't used, the system functioned exactly as it was designed, with each person using their Constitutional rights to present mitigating circumtances, consider them in the verdict, file an appeal, and get a second ruling on the matter.

Seems like American Justice was working fine in every aspect to me.

Though I honestly do not agree with the lower courts ruling, the restraining order should have been issued.

By the way neither the defendant nor plaintiff are U.S. Citizens, and the Defendant did not testify at his original trial on his own behalf.

FURTHER.

It was the Iman who sheltered the Plaintiff and sought the Restraining order, so the local Muslims in fact sided with the girl and tried to protect her through her Mosque from the man.

So as usual a lot of poorly presented rendering of the facts from Jihad Watch.com.

For the point of sensationalizing and even Fox news says that in the article you linked.

In fact Sharia law was not used at any stage, and the Appeals court ruled that the Judge had ABUSED his judicial discretion in his ruling.

The entire ruling of the Appeals Court and the basic facts of the original trial are available here.


Rutgers.edu

They store all of New Jersey's Appeals Court Cases.

I was able to find it quickly on line once you got to a fairly credible source.

Because the court documents do not substantiate the Jihad Watch.com version of events, and similiar sites, I imagine this is why they didn't provide any detailed information.

So the real information was out there and easy to find, but the sources you were looking at didn't want you to read it, because it doesn't substantiate their own version of events and totally debunks the articles they wrote.

Read the actual Court Documents which are the Source for this incident and you will quickly discover why, the sites you prefer to get your information from provide no sources for that information.

The real events versus their telling of events are two different things and that is usually the case when blogs and opinion pieces present no sources.

Took less than 5 minutes to track down, and less than 15 minutes to read the real story.

I am satisfied with the New Jersey Appeals Courts document as a source, too bad I had to find them myself!

I was curious though.

Thanks.

Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant's mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff.

Plaintiff remained at the Imam's house until January 25, 2009, at which time she filed a complaint in municipal court against defendant and obtained a temporary restraining order. A complaint was also filed in Superior Court on January 29, 2009, and an additional temporary restraining order was issued. The two actions were merged for trial in the Superior Court.

So there you have it, the Iman quickly issued a divorce but...

The mother testified additionally regarding the events of January 22, 2009. She stated that, on that day, she pulled up in front of the couple's apartment and opened the car door to permit defendant to sit in the front and plaintiff to sit in the back seat. When defendant announced that he was going to the Imam to procure a divorce, plaintiff commenced to grab defendant's hair and beard and to "beat" him. According to the mother, defendant then took the car, while she and plaintiff walked to the Imam's house. During their walk, plaintiff allegedly stated that she was going to "destroy" defendant for divorcing her, and that she did not care if she were destroyed in the process, as well. When they arrived at the Imam's house, the mother heard plaintiff say that she loved defendant, that she did not wish a divorce, and that she would do anything for him. She did not hear plaintiff complain about nonconsensual sex. The mother stated that, after the divorce, on January 24, she received a phone call from plaintiff, during which plaintiff accused the family of having no decency and stated that the mother was an old, ugly woman.

I tell you this is more juicy than Jihad watch.com's version.

The nurse who sheltered plaintiff also testified for the defense. She stated that plaintiff's statement that she wanted her baby to be with his father prompted the nurse's attempt to arrange a reconciliation between plaintiff and defendant. However, she admitted that plaintiff had complained of domestic abuse during the course of the reconciliation meeting, and that defendant had been instructed to cease abusing her. The nurse testified further that, during plaintiff's three-day stay with the Imam, plaintiff called her in seeming distress. When the nurse visited plaintiff the next day, plaintiff complained about the divorce but not any mistreatment. Although plaintiff was supposed to make arrangements to go to Morocco, she determined to stay in the United States, saying "after what [defendant] did, I cannot leave his life like that."

Regular little can't make up their mind soap opera here, he beats her, she beats him, he wants a divorce, she doesn't.

This is why the real sources are so much better.

Testimony was additionally offered for the defense by the Imam regarding matters in issue. The Imam testified that defendant sought to divorce plaintiff because she threatened to go to the police, but that she never mentioned to him being forced to engage in nonconsensual sex. According to the Imam, although defendant sought a divorce, plaintiff opposed it. The Imam testified additionally that arrangements were made for plaintiff's return to Morocco, but when he and his wife sought to take her to the airport, she refused.

She really didn't want to go back to Morocco, by the way it was an arranged marraige so they were orginally stuck with each other not by choice, but by their families, in Morocco where they are actually citizens.

On June 30, 2009, the judge rendered an oral opinion in the matter. He commenced his opinion by stating that plaintiff alleged that defendant engaged in conduct that constituted assault, criminal restraint, sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, and harassment under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The judge found from his review of the evidence that plaintiff had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had engaged in harassment, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4b and c, and assault. He found that plaintiff had not proven criminal restraint, sexual assault or criminal sexual contact. In finding assault to have occurred, the judge credited, as essentially uncontradicted, plaintiff's testimony regarding the events of November 1, 16 and 22, 2008. The judge based his findings of harassment on plaintiff's "clear proof" of the nonconsensual sex occurring during the three days in November and on the events of the night of January 15 to 16. He did not credit plaintiff's testimony of sexual assaults thereafter, since there was no corroboration in plaintiff's complaints to the police. The judge also found no criminal restraint to have occurred.

But wait what happend in that first encounter?

As plaintiff described it at trial, the acts of domestic abuse that underlie this action commenced on November 1, 2008, after three months of marriage. On that day, defendant requested that plaintiff, who did not know how to cook, prepare three Moroccan dishes for six guests to eat on the following morning. Plaintiff testified that she got up at 5:00 a.m. on the day of the visit and attempted to make two of the dishes, but neither was successful. She did not attempt the third. At 8:00 a.m., defendant arrived at the couple's apartment with his guests. He went into the kitchen, but nothing had been prepared. Defendant, angry, said to plaintiff, "I'm going to show you later on, not now, I'm not going to talk to you right now until the visitors leave." Approximately two hours later, the visitors departed. According to plaintiff:

And that's how it all began, man brings home friends, for dinner party, wife has nothing to eat.

All cultural and religious differences asides, everyone knows the way to a man's heart is his stomach.

All the case law establishing precedents is there, to understand the original Judge's ruling and what he based it on, and what the Appeals court struck it down on.

Interesting case.

I enjoyed reading it!

Thanks.





[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


But Proto there is always a conspiracy angle somewhere right?

Oh alright proto, yes, there is, and here is the real conspiracy on this one!

Lets look at that judges original ruling again.

Alright Proto lets:

In this particular case, this court does not believe that a final restraining order is necessary under the circumstances. There's no need for the parties to be associated with one another. They are divorced now. They don't live together. They don't have to be together. . . .

[T]his was a situation of a short-term marriage, a very brief period of physical assault by the defendant against the plaintiff and it's now a situation where the parties don't live together, won't be living together and won't have a need to be in contact with one another.

Under those circumstances, the court finds that a final restraining order is not necessary to prevent another act of domestic violence. The Court will not enter a final restraining order.

Now thanks to Jihad Watch dot com's shoddy reporting we don't actually know why the appeal was filed for the granting of a restraining order, was it because the defendant was harassing the plaintiff...

No reports of documentation of any kind regarding that...

Or was it because????

The judge indicated that plaintiff's visa status was unclear, because she was seeking to stay in the United States as a victim of domestic violence

To bolster her own case to stay in the United States as a victim of domestic violence.

So was this woman who at the time of this occurence had only been married to this man for three months and in the United States less time than that who is not a U.S. Citizen, who did not want a divorce from the defendant, but to have an 'anchor' baby in the United States, who sworn testimony displays vowed to ruin the defendant for divorcing her prior to her having that Baby, really just file the appeal as a means to make sure she could have her baby here in the United States confering on it U.S. Citizenship all the while over staying her Visa and using a defense for that with U.S. Immigration of Domestic Violence?

Hard to say but there is a lot to this story.

Was it just a spurned woman who's husband didn't want a woman who can't cook?

Or did he really beat her on that one occassion after the failed breakfast party.

Lots of conflicting testimony and statements from the woman.

Was all this at the taxpayer's expense simply to stay in the United States and have a baby here making it a U.S. Citizen so she would never have to return to Morocco?

What a different picture and questions that emerge once you look at the real source.

No wonder people on ATS want to see sources!

Rutgers.edu

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Thanks for taking the time to check ot those sources, I actually starred both of your replys, excellent work........But I don't know about talking to yourself like that....... ????

The researcher approaching Islam and Islamic law from outside must be careful not to do so from Western human-rights, constitutional-law and philosophical assumptions. Furthermore, the researcher may be confronted with a strict orthodox view and a different liberal interpretation accepted by some but no means by all believers and sympathizers. This is particularly so here since dissent in Islam may be viewed as apostasy or blasphemy severely to be punished, even by death. The distinguished law professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im argues the case for a modernist Islam; this is something he could only do from his exile in the United States, not his native Sudan. In the post-9-11 era Muslim moderates in the United States have been particularly anxious to express themselves, particularly on the subject of terrorism. See, for example, Diane Katz, "Shek: moderate U.S. Muslims have become 'the silent majority', Detroit News, October 11, 2001, detnews.com... See also: Zeeshan Hasan's Liberal Islamic Web Site.

www.llrx.com...

I think that it's time for moderate Muslims, (the silent majority), to rise to the occasion and speak out against the insensitivity of of the proposed mosque before they become subjugated and discriminated against by the rising tide of anger that is headed their way. If this happens, then we will have lost an opportunity to make real progress in thwarting the Extremists who are pushing their Radical agenda.

If Muslims continue to remain silent on this issue, they will ultimately choose to take sides with the extremists. This will be because of the grief that will be heaped upon them by some of those who will become exceedingly angry by the escalation of terror attacks that are sure to be comming here to the United States.

Now is the time for Muslims in the United States to join us. Stand up and speak out against the madness before it is too late.

Now is the time.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]