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.
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.
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.