Posted on 07/26/2010 10:14:31 AM PDT by NYer
From today’s opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:
The record reflects that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant’s employment in this country as an accountant....
[Long discussion of the wife’s allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. –EV]
Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her
this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.
After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. 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....
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. [Footnote: In response to an objection by plaintiff’s counsel, the judge later recognized that the police report upon which he relied in finding no corroboration for plaintiff’s claims had not been admitted in evidence because of its hearsay nature. However, he declined to modify his ruling.]
While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.
Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff’s domestic violence action....
The appellate court reversed, writing (among other things):
Defendant’s conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
The appellate court remanded for entry of a restraining order. Note that the woman was pregnant with the couple’s child at the time of the initial hearing, so that despite the divorce it seemed likely that the man and the woman would remain in contact; this is legally relevant because restraining orders are designed to prevent future harm, not to punish for past misbehavior. The opinion is quite detailed both in its summary of the factual allegations and as to the legal analysis; those who are especially interested in the case may want to read it closely.
Following this logic they would also have impunity to harm/kill infidels.
>Cannot believe a US judge of any sort would allow barbaric, evil Sharia Law into any US court.<
.
What if the US judge is a Muslim? And don’t think that such a situation is unlikely in the not too distant future.
The judge and the husband should be locked up in the same cell together, for 10 years or so.
Hannibal Lecter should have faced this judge. Since the killer saw nothing wrong with his actions, Lecter never would have been locked up to meet Jodie Foster.
Before Judges CUFF, PAYNE and MINIMAN.
All women - hmmmm. Cuff is very smart.
IF this husband/rapist/defendant did not speak a word of English, and when the repsonding police officer arrived at his house, and he was not given MIranda Rights and explanation of possible charges against him in his native Moroccan language, the husband/rapist/defendant would have been exempt from prosecution in the State of New Jersey according to the newly written ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court this summer.
So while this is a minor battle victory for civil law, the state has fallen to new depths of anti-assimilationist Apartheid this summer due to the insane bastards on the NJ Supreme Court.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Shaking my head again ping.
oreilly@foxnews.com;
hannity@foxnews.com;
Greta at ontherecord@foxnews.com
so if my religion says i can have multiple wives and concubines and sex with girls under 12 then it’s... no, wait, i’m sorry... my religion doesn’t allow that...
neither does the law.
teeman
Uh huh. That’s great. My religion says I can dump trash like him in an abandoned mine shaft and forget about it. /semi-s
It is getting dangerous.
I am concerned Sharia Law is coming here. Don’t laugh.
Obama gets list of top Muslim Americans
Denver Post Wire Report
Posted: 03/27/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT
Updated: 03/27/2009 12:58:19 AM MDT
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12006596
More here:
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Obama seeks Muslims for White House posts
45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 execs,government officials submitted for look
Posted: March 28, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93251
Most recently, THIS caught my attention:
Shariah-Compliant Finance Advisor Picked by Obama as White House Fellow
by Zombie
Pajamas Media
June 25, 2010
On Tuesday, President Obama announced the appointment of this year’s “White House Fellows,” a prestigious program in which outstanding Americans are chosen to work in the White House and receive “first hand, high-level experience with the workings of the Federal government.” According to a White House Press release, one of this year’s Fellows is a young lawyer named Samar Ali:
Samar Ali is an Associate with the firm Hogan Lovells US LLP. She is responsible for counseling clients on mergers & acquisitions, cross-border transactions, Shari’a compliant transactions, project finance, and international business matters.
Left out of the press release is that she also previously worked as an intern and received training at the Islamic International Arab Bank; according to her staff bio at the Hogan Lovells law firm,
Samar’s experience includes advising a Middle Eastern university in the potential establishment of a Foreign Aid Conventional and Shari’ah Compliant Student Loan Program. … Before joining Hogan & Hartson, Samar worked as a summer associate for the firm and as a legal intern for the Islamic International Arab Bank.
Read the complete original version of this item...
http://www.islamist-watch.org/4300/shariah-compliant-finance-advisor-picked-by-obama
One state is preparing itself against Shariah Law
Written by Bruce Walker
Wednesday, 09 June 2010 16:10
Oklahoma lawmakers are supporting an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from relying upon Sharia (Islamic law) or international law in deciding cases.
House Joint Resolution 1056 would place the issue before Oklahoma voters in November. This resolution, nicknamed “Save Our State,” has been proposed because of a rising concern with courts citing non-American sources as legal authority. Sharia, in particular, poses a threat to traditional American values. Honor killings and similar crimes are seeping into our nation, with justification under traditional Islamic law an increasingly common concern..
5 Signs Sharia Law Is Coming to a Town Near You
2010 July 14, 2010
Sally Meininger
...
Judicial: Sharia courts are already operating in Britain, but it’s started across the pond too, most recently in Texas, Minnesota, and New Jersey to name a few. This is especially troubling if your president appoints a man sympathetic to Sharia. Harold Koh sees no reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.
Legislative: When I vote, I just care that the person running is committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution. I don’t care about gender, race or religion, but these guys give me pause: the North Carolina congressman who refuses to denounce Sharia in the U.S. courts and the Minnesota congressman who swore his oath of office on the Koran. I’m pretty sure the Koran and Sharia have more than a few points in conflict with the Constitution, specifically the first, eighth and thirteenth amendments.
Executive: Before Obama was elected, he went to Kenya to support Raila Odinga, who ran on the platform of imposing Sharia in that country if elected. Um, why? And since then Obama has given a culturally loaded speech to the Muslim world (why not to Mormons? Hari Krishnas?), and has been not just sympathetic, but aggressive in appointing Muslims to key positions–when he’s not literally bowing down to them.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/07/14/five-signs-sharia-law-is-coming-to-a-town-near-you/6/
NJ gets its first Muslim superior court judge
Posted on February 18, 2010 by creeping
via University professor becomes first Muslim superior court judge | Watan- Arab American National Newspaper.
A University political science professor became the first Muslim ever to be appointed to the Superior Court in New Jersey on Jan. 27 when he was sworn in to the Family Division of the Court in Somerset County.
Hany Mawla, 36, is also the youngest to be appointed to the Superior Court in the state, said Hesham Mahmoud, media chair of the New Jersey chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Mawla was a partner at Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith and Davis in Woodbridge, where he specialized in family law.
Mawla said he and Davis devised the “Islamic Law and Jurisprudence” course at the University after Sept. 11, 2001, with the help of Abed Awad, an attorney who teaches at Rutgers School of Law-Newark.
Mawla said his involvement in Arab, Muslim and minority concerns is important to him because Arabs have called New Jersey home since 1870, and yet, in his view, they are not featured as prominently in the conversation in the state. He said law is a good way to give his community a voice.
“For me, it was an opportunity to make sure Arabs and Muslims are more a part of the political and civic discourse that occurs in the state,” Mawla said.
Will he use his courtship to give the Arab and Muslim community a voice and be featured prominently in Jersey politics?
Update: The attorney with whom Mawla devised the “Islamic Law and Jurisprudence” course – Abed Awad – defended a Hamas-supporting, terror-website-running, convicted tax-cheating imam.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/nj-gets-its-first-muslim-superior-court-judge/
Sharia Courts in...Texas!
Yes, Texas.T
The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within “Seven Days” from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/02/sharia-courts-intexas.html
I'm not laughing. That is why I posted this thread!
Less than 10 years ago, radical muslims flew passenger planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington. Today "moderate" Muslims want to construct a mosque near Ground Zero and have it dedicated on .... September 11, 2011! How is the media playing the objections of American citizens?
In Islamic Center Fight, Lessons in Prepositions and Fear-Mongering
Consider, too, the following ...
The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.
Obama Moves away from 'Freedom of Religion' toward 'Freedom of Worship'?
Buckle your seatbelt. We're in for a rocky ride.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.