Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case
By Al Stefanelli
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.
The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.
Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,
“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.
Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,
“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”
But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,
“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”
And,
“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “
And,
“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”
The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.
This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.
Here is a link to the video that includes the audio of the Judge during the trial:
Here’s coverage of the incident from the local ABC affiliate
Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.
This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.
I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not by a long shot.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter

I respect the rights of others to their religious beliefs but cannot comprehend why this judge dismissed a case because the victim who was attacked so happened to be an atheist. It is as if atheists don't have any rights and protections from assault from anyone, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, whatever. This judge needs to be removed from office. His ruling is totally unAmerican.
{double entry}
So in the end, we have here an article which gets every significant fact wrong.
"PERCE ... WAS ASSAULTED BY A MUSLIM"
There is no evidence of an assault and in fact the charge was harassment, which means even the plaintiff was not claiming an assault took place.
"THE ASSAULT WAS CAUGHT ON VIDEO"
The video shows almost nothing, aside from a few seconds of legs in the crowd and what may or may not be the assailant approaching what may or may not be Perce. But the video shows nothing that would qualify as assault.
"THE MUSLIM MAN ADMITTED TO HIS CRIME"
No confession was proferred in court and the defendant specifically denied assaulting Perce in his testimony. The only basis for this assertion comes from a statement made by police sergeant Curtis in a subsequent news interview. No one has seen a copy of the police report, so we don't know what the officer filed or what the judge saw. In any case (see below), the officer was not an eye witness and thus can only report what the plaintiff and defendant told him after the fact. This hardly rises above the level of hearsay, which is inadmissable in a court of law, and doesn't come anywhere near a legally justiciable admission of guilt.
"A POLICE OFFICER ... WAS AT THE SCENE"
The police officer was, in fact, several blocks at the time of the alleged events. The news report the article links to says after the alleged altercation Perce and Elbayomy "kept walking, and a few blocks later found Sgt. Curtis."
"JUDGE MARK MARTIN IS ALSO A MUSLIM"
This is based on a statement Martin made which occurs at 4:56 of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE
This article transcribes the statement as "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." After listening to the audio several times, I'm convinced what Martin in fact said was, "I'm not Muslim, I find it offensive." The audio is, unfortunately, less than crystal clear at this point, and neither interpretation is certain. In context, however, "not" seems the more sensical reading. At the very least, without any other evidence corroborating the assertion that Martin claimed to be a Muslim, this seems very thin ice to be building such a claim on. And elsewhere Martin is quoted as saying he's Lutheran (http://volokh.com/2012/02/25/zombie-mohammed-judge-responds/).
--------------------
After correcting for the errors of the article, what we're left with is no eye witnesses, no video evidence, no confession, a statement from a police officer, blocks away at the time, which amounts to little more than hearsay -- nothing admissable, in fact, beyond the conflicting testimony of the two principles involved, and a Lutheran judge who ultimately dismisses a harassment charge for lack of evidence.
What you also have is Judge Martin's lecturing of the "doofus" victim on the finer points of Sharia law, and his reprehensible notions about the supposed limitations of the First Amendment.
What you have is a judge who attempts to make Perce aware, in a decidedly clumsy manner, of just exactly how offensive his actions were. Though I'm pretty certain Perce was already quite aware of that fact; he seems to specialize in being offensive and obnoxious. The backside of his sign is reported to have read, "Only Mohammed can rape America". And this article curiously omits mention of Perce's disingenuous defense that Islam teaches Mohammed rose from the dead and walked as a zombie (Perce was marching right next to a zombie Pope, and I'm pretty certain Catholicism doesn't teach that popes rise from the dead, zombified or otherwise).
What you DON'T have is anything resembling the situation this article attempts to portray -- a Muslim judge dismissing an open-and-shut case of assault against a fellow Muslim, violating Perce's first amendment rights, or attempting to impose Sharia law. The judge is not Muslim, it was not assault, and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. There was no video, there were no eye witnesses and there was no police officer on the scene.
In other words, the entire incident was manufactured by whomever (*cough* American Atheists *cough*) submitted the article. There is very little truth to the way it was reported.
I don't believe the judge made any comments regarding limitations of the First Amendment. I believe what he was saying is that this is an inalienable right, but that wise people use it judiciously. For example, taunting may be legal, but is it wise?
I fully concur with this assessment. There is a well known movement afoot in some areas of our society to ban Sharia law from being used (considered) in US courts. There is also a general sense among many that Islam should be vilified at all opportunities. This story fits nicely into that narrative until one considers the limited facts that have been made available to us. The audio is just a snippet of a trial that lasted much longer. Why would the person involved not post the whole recording? Might it not have fit into his narrative? It seems entirely possible that the judge ruled, on very solid grounds, that the harrassment (not assault) that was charged could not be sustained, then made some comments in an effort to cool the emotions of all involved. But he said nice things about Islam, so he must be unpatriotic and biased, since some can't imagine there are any nice things to say about Islam. This is a lynch mob mentality.
In a subsequent email, apparently written by the judge, he explains Rule 112 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure bans unauthorized recording of courtroom proceedings, and that this is a textbook example of why -- the use of such recordings to manipulate the truth after the fact.
I would concur with you except that I would substitute "religion" in your comments for "Islam". Perce's organization, and many of the people who left comments here, belong to that militantly fundamentalist branch of atheism which holds as one of its central dogmas the tenet that religion is responsible for almost all the evils of history and that it must be vilified at every opportunity. Even if that means lying about what happened in a Pennsylvania courtroom.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-martin-responds-on-zombie.html
The Judge responds. He is a combat reservist and a Lutheran (not a Muslim convert). He claims that he is being taken out of context. But is he being taken out of context? Do those taped comments we heard from the protester square with what the judge is saying now?
How would we know if he is being taken out of context without having the full context (i.e. tape of the entire proceeding) before us, along with the charging documents, etc? Edited pieces of recordings have been used many times to sell a point of view.
Consider that the original article on the American Atheist website stated, in part, "... a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight." As another poster has pointed out, the police officer was apparently not at the scene and did not witness the incident. We are being manipulated by people who lost a court case and want to blame it on a biased judge.