Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

General News

Compromise Reached In Restraining Order Case Against USMV Vet 9/11 Truther

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (1 fan)

opednews.com

Compromise Reached In Restraining Order Case Against USMV Vet 9/11 Truther
By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
6.26.09

 

Muhammed Abdullah had his hearing June 26, 2009 in Pomonr Superior Court. The Pomona City Attorney had filed a restraining order barring Abdullah from coming in contact with any one of hundreds of Pomona Police and City employees. This was done at the request of some employees of the Pomona Police Dept. who alleged that Abdullah's comments about 9/11 and war crimes against Iraqi women by U.S. soldiers 'scared them'.

If the restraining order had been granted, Abdullah, a USMV Vet and convert to islam, would have been barred from owning guns. Abdullah had been standing outside the Pomona Police Dept. for several months with a sign and dvds alleging that 9/11 was an "inside job" orchestrated by criminal elements within the U.S. government. When he started talking about war crimes including the rape and torture of Iraqi Muslim women and children, he had, according to the restraining order, gone too far.    

David King, Deputy City Attorney for Pomona, attended the hearing on behalf of the city. King acknowledged to the presiding judge Steven D. Blades that "the defendant has not expressed threats", but referencing regarding Abdullah's behavior, insisted "does that constitute harassment? yes your honor". King also referenced CA Penal Code 527.6 , which outlines outlines harassment involving 'credible threats of violence'.

Seemingly addressing the broader issue of free speech, Judge Blades at the start of the hearing asked King "what if someone held a sign, F--- the police. does that constitute harassment?"

"Probably not", King replied.

King went on to argue that Abdullah was standing "where he was seen by people driving by" ... "The Police dept. asked him to move"... "they felt that the defendant had crossed the line" (referenced 527.6) ..."they don't know what he's going to do", he was "directing his comments directly to employees", adding "we respect his beliefs, opinions, and views"... we are "asking for a buffer zone."

Abdullah responded "I never forced or impeded anyone. they were within earshot".

The judge had previously tried to get the two sides to come to a compromise, but one could not be reached because Abdullah insisted he did nothing wrong and did not want any sort of restraining order on his record, which might impede his ability to work as an armed guard. The initial restraining order had also prohibited Abdullah from coming in contact with City Hall and any city employees, despite the fact there were no complaints filed from city employees. Judge Blades once again tried to get the two parties to come to an agreement. The parties discussed limiting Abdullah's proximity to the Police employee parking lot.

King conceded "we believe he has the right to an audience at the police dept.", but "he might yell out the window" (when driving by). "I'm just thinking this out as an act of retaliation he might go to city hall." Judge Blades responded, "the inclusion of city hall (in the restraining order) is a prophylactic - seeks to regulate his speech."

Three of the seven witnesses who had filed declarations seeking the restraining order were then called. Witness one was a senior 9/11 dispatcher and trainer, who claimed she understood the "potential for violence in people, how can you tell when people are getting ready to 'do something' 'irrational'". When cross examined by Abdullah, who represented himself, the witness answered his questions about the boxcutter he had held in his street presentation.

"I try to tune you out, to be honest with you, but I remember specifically you had a boxcutter". She went on to relay how she had seen Muhammed for "4-5 months", "then he starts talking about "sex crimes. It made me fearful, if he's gonna try to make me understand what the Iraqi women suffered; talking about sex crimes is not Ok to me. and it made me fearful".

Witness 2 was a young woman who had been a dispatcher for 6 months, and was trained at the department by witness number one. "Well your voice is very projective," she relayed to Abdullah on cross examination. Referring to the first day she had heard him refer to Iraqi war crimes and the rape of Iraq civilian women and children, the witness exclaimed, "Your voice actually followed me that day" I remember specifically how I felt that day. I was wearing a skirt. I wanted to cover up this much of my leg that I was showing I wanted to curl up and run inside the police department."

This writer could not help but notice that those emotions seem to be a damning reaction to U.S. foreign policy and criminal elements within the armed services, rather than an admonition to Abdullah himself.

The third witness was a woman who had been a "community services officer" for 6 years. "Oh, you've never said that before", she replied on cross examination regarding Abdullah's mention of sexual war crimes committed by U.S. Soldiers. Questioned about the unopened boxcutter, which Abdullah had held inside it's packaging to illustrate a point about 9/11, the witness said "I was concerned because I'd never heard you mention a weapon.. until I heard from the other dispatcher did it heighten my fears" Asked if she remembered the words he had said, she replied "could you believe that a boxcutter caused that damage?"
Your voice is very loud and booming. You were directing them (comments) toward me."
'How does that make you feel?', Abdullah asked.
"I know it takes 2 seconds to hurt someone with a boxcutter", she replied.

In a shocking reference to what represents the general public's shocking lack of knowledge about the OKC bombings, the witness then referred to "my knowledge of incidents at Oklahoma City" and how "no one was able to do anything about it because of first amendment rights". [Note: See numerous links and evidence of government involvement in OKC below.]

Towards the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Blades commented "Whether you or I agree" (that Muhammed was a threat,) "they (the women who testified) seem genuinely concerned.. I'm dealing with their reaction". "I'm balancing everyone's rights"

The judge once again suggested the two parties come to an agreement which would not be a 'restraining order', but rather an agreement prohibiting Abdullah from standing on the specific south corners of Park Ave. and Mission Blvd, near the Police Employee parking lot. He is allowed to stand on the NorthEast and Northwest corners of park and Mission, which are across the street from the Police Dept. If they could not reach that agreemnent, "based on what I've heard I'd grant that Restraining order". Responding to City Attorney King's objections that the agreement should prohibit Abdullah from even seeing Police Employees, Judge Blades responded "he can see them walking, but so what. it's a couple hundred feet away." Referring to the city attorney's attempt to include all city employees and city hall in the agreement, the judge also removed them from the agreement entirely, stating "I think it's over-broad to extend this". Judge Blades also stated that he believed Abdullah exhibited a "course of conduct that constitutes harassment".

King then told the judge he was concerned that this would be "just an agreement" with "no enforcement mechanism". "That's true at least for the first time" Blades replied, specifying that if Abdullah broke the conditional agreement, the city attorney could file another restraining order, which he would be more likely to issue.

Regarding political expression in this case, Blades continued "waving a boxcutter does cause some people to be concerned. You don't have a restraining order on your record. it's a one free shot so to speak. You can still make your message, just temper it a bit. "Call it a stipulation. TRO still in effect till I get the stipulation. (next week)".

Concluding the hearing with a statement that seemed ironic given the outcome, Blades assured Abdullah, "you have a right to say things that are offensive to people".

To the supporters, who came from as far as Los Angeles, Orange County and San Bernardino, Abdullah said, "I thank everybody for taking their time, for their support and for witnessing the proceedings - it's greatly appreciated. I believe your presence had an impact; and hopefully everybody benfitted in their own way from observing."

Regarding the case in general, Abdullah said, "I'm very passionate about these issues - sometimes people mistake passion for anger or aggression". Using the example of a fundraiser car wash in comparison, Abdullah explained "If someone standing on the corner is having a car wash and wants customers, he's not gonna say it with a melancholy or monotone voice, he's gonna put some passion into it. People are so brain dead nowadays, it's all about work, pay bills, work, pay bills. People don't have a passion unless it's football or basketball. But things that really screw up our world? It's like 'yeah I heard about that'. That's what I was trying to convey to the court. I was not trying to intimidate, harass or scare anyone."

In closing, Abdullah opines, "We wouldn't even be in court if it wasn't for the fact that the government engineered and orchestrated 9/11. The truth is the best defense".

NOTE: Previous links regarding this story are below. Thanks to OpedNews, waronyou.com, David Icke, abovetopsecret, Muslims for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and many other alternative sites for carrying this story as it developed. Special thanks to all those at We Are Change L.A. and Orange County 9/11 Truth for their steadfast dedication to truth and defense of liberty. It will not be forgotten. God bless you all.


Some of the attendees who witnessed the hearing had the following comments to add.

Dan said:

About Muhammed's hearing & situation, here are some notes, which you are most welcome to spread with my name...
As I said, what a shame that Muhammed did not have an attorney, or at least some close friend who would be knowledgeable enough to dissect the incriminating testimonies and coach him into cross-examining. The witnesses would have gone underground under questioning by even an amateurish lawyer, and the city attorney would have backtracked as fast as he could. Once again, a court illustrated that money makes a lot of difference. Indeed, the testimonies were, at best, very week:
  • The ladies related single, one-time incidents.
  • Their feelings were subjective.
  • Much of the fear had a sexual overtone, yet there was no mention of any practical action on Muhammed's part that could be construed as sexual harassment (looking at breasts or crotch or high heel shoes, suggestive postures or gestures, etc.).
  • The ladies were afraid enough to launch a legal action, but not enough to consult a psychotherapist; kindly note that public servants, unlike most of us, benefit from socialized or quasi-socialized medicine.

Had Muhammed known how to cross-examine, the 3rd lady may not even wanted to testify:

  • He would have asked detailed questions to establish the weakness of their testimonies (see above). In fact, when the 2nd witness mentioned that she vividly remembered the dress or skirt she was wearing, he could have asked what else she was wearing, and then what sexually suggestive attitude he adopted, if any.
  • Since the witnesses had criminal expertise, they had undoubtedly some training on how to handle dangerous people. If they were afraid of Muhammed, how did they handle truly dangerous situations within the scope of their jobs?
  • This would have allowed him to legitimately raise the question as to whether they believed he was making up his allegations - "Your honor, I'm trying to make sense out of the witness' fear; maybe she thinks I am inventing what I claim."
  • He would have asked the ladies why they were not afraid enough to formulate their complaints right away.
  • He would have asked why they supported a legal action for a one-time problem instead of having the police give him a formal complaint and an invitation to use more restraint. In fact, wouldn't this have been an elementary action on the part of public servants bent on serving the public?
  • He would have stirred the debate away from the fact that he was speaking and into the fact that a small aspect of his speech bothered a few people on one occasion.
  • This would have made it obvious that the City's court action was a waste of public resources and that the solution was just a bit of dialog between the Police Department and Muhammed. The judge would have ended up wondering why the City did not initiate that dialog rather than waste his time.
  • The judge's "compromise" is what the French would call the use of a hammer to kill a fly. The judge - as a good cross between a politician and an attorney, with a limited sense of ethics like most public officials -probably knows very well what he is doing: giving Muhammed enough help so he cannot argue on appeal that the judge was unfair to him, but not enough to make the case against him crumble; he is earning some points with his Masters while appearing as a defender of the right to free speech.
  • The judge took pride in his blissful ignorance, giving Muhammed his materials back under the pretext that they were irrelevant to the case rather than accepting a challenge to learn something.

Love, Dan Noel
var sc_project=4862729; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_partition=57; var sc_click_stat=1; var sc_security="1e888e60";

Linda said:

"This was my first attendance for any event related to WACLA. I think it is important to show support, even to complete strangers. When we lose that dedication to and for humanity, WE ALL SUFFER! Self-preservation mean(s) that I must care as much for you as I do for myself. That will always involve sacrifice, speaking out on someone's behalf, showing up for support when someone is being hurt by the 'establishment' or society's ignorance in general. I just think of the moral obligation to HUMANITY. One thing that did strike me as being needed is a full and complete understanding of the 'rule of law', the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all of it's Amendments. I have a real simple rule that I think is reasonable...My freedoms possibly end when and if you feel you are being violated ACCORDING TO THE LAWS IN PLACE. In our passion to get our message out to others...let us always approach that FREEDOM with the utmost respect for others and their right not to listen. Thanks!!

PREVIOUS:

Here is part one of the video outside the Pomona Police Dept. after the 6/12/09 Court hearing.

Part 2: Public Supports 9/11 Truther Outside Police Dept

PREVIOUS VIDEOS: