Full Face Photo of Florida Muslim Woman, Who Wears a Ninja Head Dress. And She's a Felon!

smokinggun.com ^ | avemaria

[AveMaria]

MAY 28--Turns out the Florida woman who is suing for the right to wear a Muslim headdress in a driver's license photograph has previously been subjected to an, um, unveiled government portrait. Following her 1997 conversion to Islam, Sultaana Freeman (formerly Sandra Keller) was arrested in Decatur, Illinois for battering a foster child. Freeman, 35, pleaded guilty in 1999 to felony aggravated battery and was sentenced to 18 months probation. As a result of the conviction, state officials removed two foster children from Freeman's care. The mug shot of the felonious Freeman (below left) was taken after her arrest in the Illinois case. Freeman returned to the dock this week--that's her testifying in the below right photo--to challenge Florida rules requiring prospective drivers to submit to unveiled photos for their licenses. Last year, Freeman sued the state after her license was revoked when she failed to allow officials to photograph her sans headdress. State officials contend that, in light of the September 11 attacks, it is crucial that all motorists now be photographed in an unadorned state. (1 page)

[AveMaria]

Here is the link to the full face photo: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html

[AveMaria]

This link should work: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html

[zip]

Yep, sure could recognize her from picture on right. NOT

[homeschool mama]

well well well....:o/

[happygrl]

Keep the veil on.

BTW, this Sultana may be one of those raisens that the homocide bombers get when they get to paradise.

[homeschool mama]

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Let her wear the veil! In fact, make it mandatory!

[Fire_on_High]

Definite 2-veiler, but do NOT insult ninjas like that!

[Paleo Conservative]

Let her wear the veil! In fact, make it mandatory!

I can understand why she wants to cover her face now.

[LibKill]

Eeewwwww!

[BunnySlippers]

Bump

[windchime]

Great find!

FV, wonder if Charlie Crist knows about this?

[Pro-Bush]

Now that her face is exposed, is she going to Muslim Hell now?

[george wythe]

This has been posted several times already.

This information is great gossip but immaterial to this case, that’s why the state of Florida has not brought it up.

Many of the cases decided by the US Supreme Court involved people of dubious reputation as well as staged crimes. (See current Lawrence v. Texas in front of the US Supreme Court.) The purpose of these controversial cases is to convince at least 5 justices to decided on the outer limits of our civil liberties, not to win a popularity contest for purity.

Federal courts have previously decided that Christian fundamentalists have the right to request a driver’s license without a picture.

Whether the same right will be extended to Muslims requesting veiled picture or no picture is yet to be seen, but our current political situation will have more impact on the US Supreme Court than whether a plaintiff has a criminal background, IMHO.

[hattend]

They will give you a $50 ticket you if you are holding a cell phone to your ear but nothing happens to this chick who has no peripheral vision in that terrorist mask.

Wacky.

[Paleo Conservative]

Federal courts have previously decided that Christian fundamentalists have the right to request a driver’s license without a picture.

I bet that decision was also made prior to September 11, 2001. I think that case might have been decided differently if it had the courts ruled after that date.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

driver's license

[george wythe]

. I think that case might have been decided differently if it had the courts ruled after that date.

Correct.

That's why our current political climate will influence how far our civil liberties can go as far as requesting a driver's license with no picture.

During war time, it is more likely to have the outer limits of our civil liberties curtailed.

[chainsaw]

"Now that her face is exposed, is she going to Muslim Hell now?"

Only if she puts bacon on that wart in the middle of her face.

[joebuck]

You gotta wonder who's paying the legal bills for this lawsuit. Competent counsel on a case like this, to do it right, would cost 50 grand easily just getting through the trial court phase. Going into a case like this (ie. a dog) you've got to figure you are going to lose at trial and that any victory will have to be obtained at the appellate level. Even if you win at trial you know the State will appeal, so you've still got an appeal to pay for. The appeal is going to run you 10 to 15 grand. No good attorney takes a case like this on the come, so it would have been about 15 grand up front toward $200 to $300 an hour. Once you've spent your 15 grand you have to come up with another to keep the attorneys working. Somehow I just don't get the feeling that this chick is affluent enough to bankroll this. I wonder just who is realy paying the freight on this one.