COLUMBIA, 2/20/10 (Beat Byte) -- About
a so-called "Terrorist Manifesto" that accuses University of Missouri curators
of felony terrorist activity, Columbia mayoral candidate Paul Love -- who
authored the document -- recently requested space to clarify it.
Love provided the one-page document to Columbia City Council members during a September 2009 meeting in which
he alleged City and MU police "initimidated" him at his home when they arrived
to deliver a "no-trespass warning" related to a decade-old dispute with
University officials.
The Columbia Heart Beat earlier covered the issue in a Nov. 2009 story.
The Columbia Heart Beat earlier covered the issue in a Nov. 2009 story.
A former employee at MU's Missouri Research and Education
Network (MOREnet), Love sued the University in Federal court seven years ago,
alleging University lawyers violated terms of a "forced resignation" agreement,
the Columbia Tribune reported.
Love was allegedly forced to resign after fellow employees said he threatened to "blow up the workplace and shoot them," an accusation he strongly denies.
Love was allegedly forced to resign after fellow employees said he threatened to "blow up the workplace and shoot them," an accusation he strongly denies.
When University of Missouri lawyers included the
accusation in court filings -- which Love claims was an attempt to sanction
a falsehood -- he then accused MU Curators of also violating a Missouri statute entitled "Making a Terrorist Threat," which
prohibits false allegations of bomb threats and other terrorist activity.
Love cited the statute, reiterated his position, and asked
several rhetorical questions in a January 29, 2010 email to the
Columbia Heart Beat.
"Perhaps after reading that statute, you might be willing
to comment on if, as noted in the Curators defense as filed by Marvin “Bunky”
Wright, they might 'knowingly, willfully, and maliciously' have falsely made
these accusations.
In these falsified accusations, they allege
information about both the types of explosive devices and where they were to be
placed to blow up buildings and kill people; and further, that I was in the
military and had access to explosives. I have to ask if, as an objective
individual, you believe that would satisfy the condition of:
Communicates a knowingly false report of an incident or condition
involving danger to life, or knowingly causes a false belief or fear that an
incident has occurred" as identified in the very first paragraph of the
statute?
I ask you -- as an individual who has a reputation for asking questions
when the government misbehaves -- if you believe that the MU Curators who made
these false accusations should be exempt from the law?
Moreover, should I as an American citizen accused of a crime by an
instrumentality of the state should be denied trial as outlined in the Bill of
Rights of the Constitution of the United States?
Additionally, if I had a detailed plan regarding the type of explosives and
where they were to be placed, and access to those explosives with the knowledge
to use them, do you suppose I would still be walking free?
While I think it would be better to focus on the issues facing our city and
the solutions to those issues, it appears these false allegations may be an
issue that needs to be resolved. I would point out that the guarantee of a
trial under the constitution is supposed to prevent this sort of issue from
arising, but as the Constitution seems to have been successfully circumvented,
if you like we can cover it here.
Paul Love
:) Mike, Mike, Mike
ReplyDeleteA terrorist manifesto, as well you know when you chose the title is generally something written by the terrorist not the victim. An item of correction the council was provided with a 2 page document the second page was a highlighted copy of the statute to which you separately provided the link. Your sympathies in the campaign are well known, but hey it’s your blog and your prerogative.
The questions were not rhetorical and specifically I notice you did not answer them. I understand, honestly answering those questions would require many people to do some self examination and they might not like what they found.
I do wish to note that traditionally when people become afraid of asking and answering questions tyranny is only a short step behind, but our nation is what we make or allow it to become. You either believe the Constitution and the law applies to everyone, or you don't. Make of the nation what you will. I have expressed my opinion on the matter.
Paul Love
Columbia Mayoral Candidate 2010
www.love4mayor.org
love4mayor@gmail.com
love4mayor on facebook and twitter
The title seems fair and accurate to me.
ReplyDelete"A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature."
The definition doesn't specify who writes a "manifesto."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto