Weekly Terrorism Spotlight

Volume 1, Issue 8 (May 5)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

CAN littering case dropped

Arrest warrant confusion, alterations, causes Charlotte County littering case against Christian Action Network to fail

Christian Action Network president Martin Mawyer said it was a God thing.

The littering case against him, [a friend, Christian Action Network, or whoever] was thrown out of court Thursday, April 24, because of confusion and alterations on the arrest warrants.

He characterized it as a modern-day example of what in Bible times might be remembered as “confusion in the enemy’s camp.”

The case focused on Christian Action Network’s distribution of fliers in Charlotte County warning against the Muslims of America camp at Red House, and calling for the removal of a street sign in honor of MOA founder, Sheikh Mubrak Ali Gilani.

“I have to wonder if some of our members prayed a prayer for this very thing to happen,” Mawyer said. “It is so obviously a God thing – couldn’t get the warrant right, the case had to be tossed?”

He added, “Give me a break, how obvious does it get, God had his hand in this.”

It was billed a criminal dumping trial against Mawyer as president of CAN, but the warrant had placed “Christian Action Network” first as the defendant.

But Charlotte County said Mawyer dropped 50 of the distributed fliers out of an aircraft, and they landed on private property November 18, 2006, according to prosecution records.

The warrant presented to Charlotte County District Court Judge Joel Cunningham had been altered so Mawyer’s name appeared a second time on the top, in a manual-typewriter font.

It was the case arrest warrant, but not the one served on Mawyer to notify him of the charge, so technically, he had not been properly served.

Charlotte County Commonwealth’s Attorney William E. Green, Jr., said he did not know how the alteration could have happened. “This is the first time I am seeing this,” he said in court.

Green asked Cunningham to allow him to withdraw the case – issuing a “Nolle Prosequi” motion, meaning the case is handled as if never charged.

The trial hearing began with a ruling on U.S. Constitutional First Amendment grounds alleging free speech violations inherent in the Virginia statute against littering.

According to a police report, the fliers “dumped” said, “Sheikh Gilani was a terrorist and it was a disgrace that a lane was named after him.”

Cunningham said the impulse to protect speech would be stronger if the distribution occurred in a public area, but private-property rights are an equally compelling protection issue. “We have to use some common sense,” he said.

“It seems to me a person of normal intelligence would know it is not permissible to fly over a person’s private property and drop papers on it,” he added. “You are not respecting that person’s property…at a point it becomes unsightly.”

He ruled the Virginia statute against littering is not unconstitutionally vague or overly broad, and the case continued to the reading of the warrants.

Mawyer said one might wonder if Charlotte County might try to charge him again, although the November 2006 misdemeanor statute of limitations has probably run out.

“At some point, it has to occur to any reasonable person that the matter being charged over and over is itself a form of punishment,” he said.

The latest case was the second time for the same allegation to go to trial – requiring defense preparation and travel to Charlotte Court House, Virginia, on several hearing dates.