Report a problem
Judy's Book takes violations of our Terms of Use very seriously. We encourage
you to read through our
Terms of Use
before filling report with us.
After careful review, we may remove content or replace a content warning page before
viewing content deemed offensive, harmful, or dangerous.
Additionally, we are aware that there may be content on Judy's Book that is personal
in nature or feels invasive. Please note that Judy's Book is a provider of content
creation tools, not a mediator of content. We allow our users express their opinions,
but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. We strongly believe
in freedom of expression, even if a review contains unappealing or distasteful
content or present negative viewpoints. We realize that this may be frustrating,
and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information
for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this
person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court
order:
Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Political or social commentary
Distasteful imagery or language
If we've read the Terms of Use and believe that this review below violates our Terms
of Use, please complete the following short form.
|
Businiess name:
District Justice Mark W Martin
|
|
Review by:
citysearch c.
|
|
Review content:
District Justice Mark W Martin has committed the following wrongdoings in the case of Ernest Perce vs. Talaag Elbayomy:
1. Justice Martin told Mr. Perce that the First Amendment does NOT allow him to mock a religious/historical figure, in this case a brutal warlord, murderer, rapist, and pedophile from the 7th century. This is blatantly incorrect.
2. Justice Martin allowed Mr. Elbayomy to get away with a violent assault on Mr. Perce. Even if Justice Martin WAS correct about the First Amendment (see above) this would still be no excuse for a violent assault.
3. Justice Martin said that the case was simply one person's word against another, DESPITE the fact that Officer Bryan Curtis (the arresting officer) testified that Mr. Elbayomy admitted to attacking Mr. perce.
4. Justice Martin said that the plaintiff did not prove his accusations beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet REFUSED to allow video evidence that WOULD prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additionally, Justice Martin wrongly took the following into account when delivering his verdict:
1. What the legality and punishment for this incident would have been in Islamic countries. This should be given NO consideration whatsoever in an American court.
2. Accused Mr. Perce of being uneducated when it comes to Islam. This is a false accusation, but more importantly is completely irrelevant to Mr. Perce's First Amendment rights.
3. Gave a rambling, disjointed diatribe full of incomplete thoughts and self-contradictions.
Conclusion:
Justice Mark W Martin should be immediately removed, and a mistrial should be declared.
|
Reasons for reporting (512 characters left):
|
|
Reasons are required.
|
|
or
Cancel
|