Judge to Commissioner Holly Muhammad: “Democracy Works” Motion To Dismiss Anti-Stalking Case Against Constitutent Granted.

Listen to Judge Kenia Seoane Lopez

ANC 8A03 Commissioner Holly Muhammad lied. She made up fake instances of ‘stalking’ with nothing to corroborate her stories no police report – nothing. My GPS positions compared to the places Holly clains I was indicate I was no where near her. She lies. She continues to lie about where she lives. It’s a damn shame.

Tom Dopnohue, defendant

In a case where lies were the basis of a anti-stalking claim from Commissioner Holly Muhammad, the Judge read right though them and dismissed Commissioner Muhammad’s anti-stalking case against him. After Ms. Muhammad’s attorney completed her side Donohue asked the Judge how he should proceed in introducing his side thats when the Judge proceeded to make her decision on Donohue’s already filed Motion to Dismiss. This Judge could not have read this case any better, She understood the right of a voter and see saw right through the lies Ms. Muhammad attempted to put against Donohue. Donohue was prepared to counter each claim by showing his GPS location via Google location which tracks Donohue’s every move and has for years. There is no possible way Donohue was where Ms. Muhammad says he was she simply was lying lying in order to endanger Tom’s career and well being. The Judge saw right past her. She went on to say…

Okay, so I, I I, I am looking at the testimony in the, in the light, most favorable to the petitioner. And I know Mr. Donohue was self-represented, but, uh, I do know that there, both parties have filed motions to dismiss. I am looking at the statute, um, even looking at the evidence most favorable to the petition. I don’t see how counsel will make a case for stalking. First of all, counsel’s exhibit number one shows that the school is directly in front of the respondent’s home.

He comes out of his home, he sees the school, the camera is on the opposite angle of the corner where everything as apparently happened. Don’t see, you don’t see the, uh, petitioner in any of the videos. What you see is the respondent coming on it with his dog walking across the street, stay, staying in the street, now going on 22nd, turns into his street, the dog goes to the bathroom, he picks up the dog poop.

He continues to walk, and he puts the dog back into his apartment. Um, appears to head towards the school. It appears that that may be a voting site. This was a public event. It was open to the public. Uh, she is a, um, public figure. She’s on the ballot, she’s campaigning. Um, and he says statements to her, which I don’t believe could be interpreted as a threat, uh, given the fact that she’s on the ballot and he’s telling her like, what’s gonna happen later on tonight? Meaning, that’s when the results are happening from the elections.

It’s a, it’s a completely understandable meaning of that. Um, but even if it was a threat, one threat does not really make a course of conduct. Um, and so assuming it was a threat, and I don’t believe it was, um, but assuming in the light most favorable to the petitioner that it was a threat, that doesn’t necessarily mean stalking the other two incidents of the Safeway.

They li apparently live in the same community. He happens to go in the Safeway. There is no, uh, corroborating evidence regarding that. There’s no corroborating evidence of him showing up at the home. She wouldn’t say what, where she resides. There was an objection. So it was really difficult for the court to even know how he would know where she resides at. Um, there’s really no, nothing on the record. There is no, um, allegation that there has been anything other than, you know, constituents not agreeing with their elected official, maybe going toe to toe, making some sort of civil complaint.

As, um, Mr. Donohue alluded to, um, as, as the, um, basis for this, uh, filing, which is, uh, context, which is, uh, in, in retaliation for him taking some steps. I don’t understand what that is, but, um, it’s pretty clear that there, there’s not a course of conduct.

And even if there were, there’s really no intent for Mr. Donohue who he appears to live in the community. He’s obviously engaged, uh, civilly in his, uh, form of government and is, uh, um, at the convention center during a public event. Uh, uh, well, um, he alleges to take pictures of he was hired even if it, that wasn’t the case. I mean, this is a big event in DC The mayor’s being sworn in, the, uh, public is invited. Parties can’t appear with cameras. Uh, the, uh, petitioner, in this case, is a public figure.

People are gonna take pictures, uh, of public figures. They’re gonna disagree with their, our stance on certain, um, certain topics. And, um, believe that that’s kind of like who here, democracy works. I don’t believe that in this case, the petitioner, even in the light, most favorable to her has been her burden with the four allegations of the court of conduct, assuming that she had, I don’t find that the intent for Mr.

Donohue, whether she’s proving any **unknown few words** to cause her to fear for her safety, safety of another person, feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened, or suffer emotional distress. Uh, there’s just nothing to indicate that or that Mr. Donohue would have, or any reasonable person would have conceived that to be the reaction given the interaction. Um, at a voting poll, people are going in to vote. They may not like the candidate. They may say some things. It wasn’t, even if it was a threat, it wasn’t reported to the police. None of these incidents were reported to the police.

Um, and for two of them, there’s really no corroborating evidence. So at this point, I don’t believe that the petitioner has made a burden. I am gonna grant Mr. Donohue his motion to dismiss.

Judge KENIA SEOANE LOPEZ