Wow, maybe Judge Mark Martin really is a Muslim. It appears that even after 'Rita', who works in the judge's office, stated blatantly that he isn't, his own words may just prove to come back and bite him. In case you haven't heard by now, and you really already should have, the dishonorable Mark Martin dismissed a case of harassment (which should've been assault) against a follower of Islam who attacked an atheist marcher in Pennsylvania. The victim of the assault, Ernest Perce V, is an atheist who marched in a Halloween parade in the town of Mechanicsburg dressed as a zombified version of Muhammad.
Everyone should know by now that in the United States of America, this was a completely acceptable expression of one's First Amendment rights. However, Judge Mark Martin made light of the entire Constitution when he dismissed this "harassment" case against the Muslim attacker after lecturing Perce for several (and I do mean several) minutes about Islam. At one point he challenged the victim of the "harassment" to a debate on Islam. Sound biased to ya?
Yesterday Mark Martin's office responded to the simple question asking if he is a follower of Islam. The office, representing Mark Martin by answering, stated that he absolutely is not. Well, then why did Judge Mark Martin say the following shortly before dismissing the case:
"I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive."
Listen to the audio transcript below. The judge makes the blatant admission at time mark 31:25:
So this leaves a few questions. Why, would the office of this so-called "honorable" magistrate judge say he isn't, when he obviously admitted to being Muslim in the above transcript? Perhaps they're trying to do damage control? Perhaps the clerical people aren't familiar with what happened in court?
Maybe this also why Judge Mark Martin is threatening the atheist victim of "harassment" (assault is a better term!) with "contempt of court" charges if he continues to share the transcript. Maybe Mark Martin realizes he did a bad thing and wants to bully that problem out of the way. Well guess what: That's not going to happen.
Judge Mark Martin is perfectly free to be whatever religion he wants to be. If he wants to be a Muslim, that's fine. If he wants to be Christian, that is fine too. But he is in absolutely no position whatsoever to use his religious beliefs as a way to rule on court proceedings. This is a blatant abuse of power and the complete disregard of a person's rights. Basically, in a trial presided by this guy you can be attacked for expressing only your First Amendment rights and you'll still be the bad guy while the attacker walks free. It appears, and this is just to be opinionated, that either Mark Martin is Muslim like he states blatantly in the transcript, or he at the least hates atheists enough to disregard their rights in the name of whatever nonsense is in opposition at the moment. The first choice is probably the correct one.
Chelsea Hoffman is a prolific crime writer and fiction author with several works published. Her writing has been recognized by such entities as NBC Dateline and several others. Contact her directly by visiting ChelseaHoffman.Com.Or follow her on Twitter @TheRealChelseaH.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 34
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos272.htm#training
Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges in PA
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;
"Mark D. Martin is the Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. With over fifteen years of service in the North Carolina judiciary, Martin is the only active member of the state judiciary with experience on the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and the North Carolina Superior Court. At the time of his installation in 1999, he was the youngest Supreme Court Justice in North Carolina history. He was also the youngest person ever elected to the state Court of Appeals.[1]
"Martin received his J.D. degree, with honors, at the University of North Carolina School of Law and received a B.S. degree, summa cum laude, from Western Carolina University. He also has a Master of Laws (LL.M.) Degree in Judicial Process from the University of Virginia. During law school, Martin served as Editor-in-Chief of the North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation and was inducted into the Davis Society."
Of course, he should have said(no if) "I'm a lousy judge, I let criminals walk"
Next this nut that choked the atheist protestor will try and take four wives as Islam allows and this spineless judge will allow it.
If the dismissal occurred at the beginning of the process during a pre trial motion it can be appealed. If the dismissal occurred in the middle of the trial it can't be appealed since a new trial would be required putting the defendent in jeopardy. The third case is if the dismissal occurred at the end of the trial when all evidence has been heard. In this case an appeal is possible.
District Court: 09-3-05
Mark W. Martin
Barclay Building
507 North York Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Phone: 717-766-4575
Fax: 717-766-2238
FWIW, I'm a "liberal" and it's stories like these that make me understand why people are so against Muslims living in the U.S. They're more than welcome here, but this attack was unnecessary and the fact that he got away with it just infuriates me.
The views contained in the judge's extemporaneous rant about the victim's incitement, according to the judge's words, did not form the basis for his decision. He stated that the plaintiff had not proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
That said, the judge seems clearly to be out of line in his comments, regardless of the marchers' actions.