Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
General News

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

By       Message Martin Hill     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 14387
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
- Advertisement -
Compromise Reached In Restraining Order Case Against USMV Vet 9/11 Truther
By Martin Hill


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'.

- Advertisement -

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.

- Advertisement -

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."

- Advertisement -

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,, 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!!


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

  • Police File Restraining Order Against U.S. Marine 9/11 Truther Part 1
  • Police File Restraining Order Against U.S. Marine 9/11 Truther Part 2
  • Muslim USMC Vet Fired From Job For 9/11 Truth Sign


    Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage

    The Murder of Oklahoma City Police Department Sgt. Terrance Yeakey

    The SPLC Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995

    The FBI, the Torture and Murder of Kenneth Trentadue and Advanced Knowledge of the Oklahoma City Bombing
    Paul Craig Roberts | May 27 2005

    Jose Padilla's Oklahoma City Connection

    Tom McVey Bombed OKC 4 Years Prior To Tim McVeigh

    Is Jose Padilla "John Doe Number 2" at the Oklahoma City Bombing? The Oklahoma City Bombing
    There are many unanswered questions about the Oklahoma City Bombing, and many people are convinced that the official explanation omits many important facts.
    Many important issues are handled very superficially by television news shows. If you're looking for details on important stories, you'll find that today's TV news is "all sizzle and no steak." That's because it's safer and easier and less expensive for TV news editors to tell you only the federal or state government's side of each story. It would take a lot of effort and expense to put conflicting viewpoints on television. After all, a documentary is a lot of work. That's especially true with a controversial topic like the Oklahoma City bombing. The official explanation of the Oklahoma City bombing, dispensed with no questions asked by the national news media, just doesn't add up. And there are a number of sidebar issues in this story that are just a little too suspicious. For example, the remains of the half-destroyed Federal building were demolished just a few weeks after the explosion.* What was the rush? A crime scene of this importance is usually pored over for months after the incident. For example, people are still visiting the scene of the Kennedy assassination every day, studying all the distances and angles. Why was the Murrah Building leveled so quickly? This page gets a lot of hits. Apparently there are many people interested in this topic, for a variety of reasons. I suspect there are many people who distrust the national news media and the federal government as a result of the way this incident was reported.

    Istook and the OKC Cover-up: Considerable independent evidence indicates that there was indeed official knowledge of specific prior warning before the Oklahoma City bombing. That evidence includes:

    • Many witnesses who saw bomb squad trucks and personnel around the Murrah Building before the blast.
    • The absence of ATF agents from their offices in the Murrah Building at the time of the blast.
    • ATF-FBI informant Carol Howe-s testimony that she gave specific warning.
    • Federal informant Cary Gagen-s testimony (supported by a corroborating witness) that he warned authorities on April 6th.
    • A U.S. Marshals- memo of March 22, 1995 warning of expected bomb attacks on federal buildings.
    Dr Bill Deagle MD

    New Evidence Further Links FBI Provocateurs Roger Moore, Kevin McCarthy to OKC Bombing
    Author: Patrick B. Briley 4.20.07

    New OKC Revelations Spotlight FBI Involvement In Bombing
    Nichols' claim that McVeigh had government handlers supported by huge weight of known evidence
    Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Prison Planet Thursday, February 22, 2007

    Attorney: Sealed Documents Indicate OKC Inside Job FBI, defense team files identify government informants directing McVeigh
    Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Prison Planet Friday, February 23, 2007

    Establishment Media Blacklists Nichols' OKC Revelations

    Attorney: Ashcroft Gagged Nichols From Exposing McVeigh's OKC Bombing Conspirators
    Trentadue drops new bombshell on Alex Jones Show

    Nichols Fingers FBI Agent Directing McVeigh in OKC Bombing By Name
    Newspaper reported name of Potts before court sealed documents

    The Timothy McVeigh Conspiracy
    What you are about to read is an article based on accounts presented by various factions. Please be advised that there is no SOLID proof that what you read is true. This is merely meant to be an informative piece where you, the reader, are allowed to form your own opinions and conclusions. What the hell happened on 4-19-95?
    Is anyone but me wondering why Timothy McVeigh is going to be executed on May 6 less than 6 years after being condemned? Has anyone else seen these nagging reports and articles about a so-called Mid-East connection? Do you wonder if your government has given you all the information? Do you remember Waco, and the way that, some 9 years after the event, the FBI "remembered" that it had, in fact, used incendiary devices at Waco?

    Nichols: McVeigh Had High-Level FBI Help

    Missing McVeigh Documents May Have Been Shredded

    MORE McVeigh Files FOUND:FBI Orders Massive Search The ghost of Tim McVeigh

    Growing Body Count Of OKC Bombing Witnesses Who Knew Too Much

    Oklahoma Bombing What You Won't Hear In The News!!

    Was Timothy McVeigh Really Executed?


    - Advertisement -

    View Ratings | Rate It

    Catholic paleo-libertarian from California., promotes limited government and civil liberties

    Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

    Go To Commenting
    /* The Petition Site */
    The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

    Writers Guidelines

    - Advertisement -

    Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

    - Advertisements -

    Microsoft Office 365 Project by Apps4Rent to colloborate and manage projects from virtually anywhere, is a proud sponsor of Office 365 Project

    Cloud Desktop Online by Apps4Rent provides managed hosted virtual desktop along with 24 x 7 support, is a proud sponsor of Hosted Virtual Desktop


    Copyright © 2002-2017, OpEdNews

    Powered by Populum