Shop Owner Claims FBI Raided His Store Over His Offensive Murals, But Details Suggest Otherwise
from the because-not-everything-is-a-Zionist-conspiracy dept
Copblock is dishing some dirt on a "warrantless" FBI raid in Cleveland, purportedly over a convenience store owner's controversial murals.
The FBI recently raided a small gas station in Cleveland, Ohio for apparently no other reason than having a controversial mural painted on the wall.Here's some video of the raid, which apparently concluded (the video, not the raid) when FBI agents shut down the recordings.
The SWAT team, armed with rifles, handguns, and bulletproof vests, stormed through the store without showing any warrants or answering any questions about why they were there according to the store’s owner, Abe Ayad.
According to Cleveland’s NewsNet5, Ayad demanded to see a warrant from the agents, but they were never able to show him one.
Over the years, Abe Ayad has displayed a number of potentially-offensive murals on the outside walls of his convenience store. These were painted by artist Harry Bell and have depicted, among other things, Israel's prime minister bending Uncle Sam over a pile of dead soldiers, a rabbi fellating* an infant and, in slightly less inflammatory (but potentially infringing) manner, Joe Camel giving Abe Ayad a thumbs up for… I guess, selling lots of cigarettes.
*While this sounds entirely despicable, there is a small bit of truth underlying the depiction of a rabbi with his mouth on an infant's penis. Here's a description of the circumcision process, as practiced by some Orthodox members of the Jewish faith. It's short, but says all it needs to say.
Under Jewish law, a mohel must draw blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohels do it by hand with a suction device, but some Orthodox groups use their mouth to draw blood after cutting the foreskin.Abe Ayad "identifies" as a Muslim, which probably makes him a Muslim (distancing use of "identifies" courtesy of Cleveland.com), which probably explains why so many of his murals target Jews. That these are displayed on the outside of his business sort of makes it a civic issue. In all fairness to the city, it has never demanded a removal of the murals. It has only asked that they be made smaller and thus less visible from the road.
Ayad has refused. And if a man's home is his castle and his licensed business his castle with an ROI, then he should -- for the most part -- be free to decorate it with images others might find offensive. (Obviously, actually obscene images would be another issue altogether.) Those offended are free to tell Ayad he's a racist and a fool and spend their money elsewhere. It's not as though Ayad is the sole provider of anything in Cleveland. But considering the issues at the center of the artwork, the city has responded in a mostly commendable fashion. There seems to be nothing approaching a heckler's veto being humored here.
That's the good news. Here in the US, people are free to display their irrational hatred and ignorance. If Ayad isn't actually committing violence against Jews or imploring others to commit criminal acts, then his artwork is just a two-party wall of shame that should be pitied for its deep-held ignorance, rather than booed off the face of the planet by the offended.
As is the case with many anti-Semites, Ayad feels any harassment he experiences as a result of his murals is linked to a "Zionist conspiracy." He has also been represented by a now-permanently disbarred attorney who, not coincidentally, claims his disbarment is the result of a "Zionist conspiracy."
Ayad also claims to have been raided by local police in 2009. He doesn't specifically say it was because of the murals (it's implied) but law enforcement seized money, guns and an apparently very expensive stamp collection. Most of it was subsequently returned.
"They can’t arrest me. For what?” said Ayad. “2009 they raided me too. No charges. They gave me back my guns, they kept my money and then they gave me back my money minus the coin collection, which was valued over $3 million.”Similar items were seized in the recent raid. But this doesn't have anything to do with the murals, even if Ayad is skewing it in that direction. Cleveland.com has, simultaneously, no details and more details.
FBI spokeswoman Vicki Anderson said agents surrounded and sealed off the East 55th Street gas station about 10 a.m. to execute a warrant.Ayad, however, did.
She would not provide any other details.
The store's owner, Abe Ayad, said agents were looking for evidence of food stamp fraud and illegal gun sales. Ayad said no such activity has taken place in the business.Which is not the same thing as being raided for controversial murals. Ayad may believe this is part of a conspiracy to shut down his business and save the city from having to field more mural-related complaints, but it appears the issues at hand in this raid (and the 2009 raid as well) are unrelated to the paintings on the exterior walls.
Now, it may be possible that two raids with six years between them are both a part of a larger plan to disrupt and destroy Ayad's business. It could be Ayad's multiple appearances in court for civil lawsuits are also instrumental to the city's long-term plan to be rid of his murals forever. Or it could simply be that neither of these are related to the artwork, but rather inextricably tied together because the murals on the outside can't be separated from the interior of the business endorsing these viewpoints.
It may be that someone in Cleveland's law enforcement community has it in for Ayad, possibly because of the murals, but there doesn't appear to be a sustained history of harassment. While the city would undoubtedly enjoy a respite from Ayad's "antics" and the complaints that follow them, there's very little here to justify any claims that the FBI raided Ayad's store over the murals. Free speech (mostly) lives here and Ayad's contentious relationship with a great many people has yet to see his store shut down for any reason, legitimate or not.
As for Ayad not being allowed to see the warrant, that's perfectly legal as well. Law enforcement officers are under no obligation to present the warrant before performing searches or seizures. It's simply enough that the warrant exists and is presented to the raided party at some point during the search. A "warrantless raid" -- as this has been portrayed -- means the absence of a warrant, not just that the raided party wasn't presented with a warrant before it commenced. Any number of exigent circumstances exist that allow for the presentation of a warrant after a search/seizure has already commenced. In this case, paperwork was handed over to Ayad at the time of the agents' departure. So, while a bit on the shady side morally-speaking, the entire operation clearly falls within the legal bounds.
I'm all for a "bad cop/censorship" narrative, but one doesn't exist here. I prefer the ones where the official parties have buried themselves, rather than grab a shovel and start hurling dirt when in possession of only a bare minimum of facts. So, score one for the good guys, I guess -- pending any further details that point to the FBI being pointed in the direction of Ayad because (a) he's Muslim and (b) he owns guns.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've read an increasing number of stories each year, for the past few years, of police raiding people without warrants, then getting the warrant to raid hours or days later.
If they say they have a warrant, I'll demand to see it. If they can't provide it, then it is reasonable to assume they lack one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm... No, sir. Warrant first, then search the premises. No argument. No discussion. No excuses.
I know it's a hassle doing what it says, but the Constitution does exist for a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> I know it's a hassle doing what it says, but the Constitution does exist for a reason.
You might want to get real advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your state before you do too much insisting beyond asking for evidence of a warrant. Police do carry weapons, and have fewer restrictions on using them in that situation that you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What if agents have a search warrant?
If you are present when agents come for the search, you
can ask to see the warrant. The warrant must specify in detail
the places to be searched and the people or things to be taken
away. Tell the agents you do not consent to the search so that
they cannot go beyond what the warrant authorizes. Ask if
you are allowed to watch the search; if you are allowed to,
you should. Take notes, including names, badge numbers,
what agency each officer is from, where they searched and
what they took. If others are present, have them act as wit-
nesses to watch carefully what is happening. If the agents
ask you to give them documents, your computer, or anything
else, look to see if the item is listed in the warrant. If it is not,
do not consent to them taking it without talking to a lawyer.
You do not have to answer questions. Talk to a lawyer first.
Cops or FBI are not allowed to just use lethal force when they want, yes we know they do but it is still against the law. This also answers the question that yes they have to show you the warrant, it specifies what they are looking for, you know so they can not go on a fishing trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do I say this? Because both are bound to obey statutory law, but police are public officials, who are bound by the constitution in ways the general public is not.
The fact that the system is corrupt and does not apply the law to its friends doesn't abolish the law. If a system being corrupt abolished laws, then bribery would not be illegal because it has the approval of a government official.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You do realize that obscene just means "seen as offensively dirty to the community" right? 'How dare you draw a line in the sand on what you're allowed to say! Now, excuse me while I go back to drawing lines in the sand on what you're allowed to say.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for not showing him the warrant , how would he know one even exists if not presented with it in the first place It could be for somewhere else or someone else .. I call foul .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True enough. We currently have a papal portrait made of colored condoms hanging in our art museum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are not allowed to see the warrant, you can't challenge it and it stands by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this "tech" or "dirt"? No. So why this article? Part of ongoing "all Muslims are crazy" propaganda here.
Next, a SWAT team for alleged food-stamp fraud and illegal gun sales, but they leave empty-handed? That's sheer intimidation, then.
If was an alleged drug dealer, Techdirt would be ranting at police over-reaction. But because the victim is guilty of being Muslim, police tactics are approved and the victim is held to be crazy.
The "not everything is a Zionist conspiracy" sub-head implicitly states that many other events are.
And details on barbaric Jewish ritual genital mutilation absolutely clinches the biased viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this "tech" or "dirt"? No. So why this article? Part of ongoing "all Muslims are crazy" propaganda here.
And Tim can you point to the federal law that states they do not have to show him the search warrant until after the search is done? I think you got that wrong as stated by Quiet Lurcker above.
Tim this is your worst article ever, I have been reading techdirt for years now and well if this keeps up your going to lose a long time reader. No more crappy article like this ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Israel's prime minister bending Uncle Sam over a pile of dead soldiers" Ummmm. OK. And? Are you trying to say Merkia isn't Israels bitch? Oh, and before I get called an anti-Semite I am Jewish. AIPAC owns more politicians than you can imagine.
"Abe Ayad "identifies" as a Muslim, which probably makes him a Muslim (distancing use of "identifies" courtesy of Cleveland.com), which probably explains why so many of his murals target Jews." - Wow you really hate Muslims huh Tim?
"enjoy a respite from Ayad's "antics"" Ahhh I see. When its an "anti-Semite" exercising his first amendment right all of a sudden it becomes antics. Hypocrite much?
"The store's owner, Abe Ayad, said agents were looking for evidence of food stamp fraud and illegal gun sales. Ayad said no such activity has taken place in the business." I am guessing he got this from the warrant. And because he is a "Muslim" with "Antics" you are just going to believe the cops even though they left with no guns or food-stamps. Double standard much?
This is one of the shittiest articles I have seen come from TD in a while.
Typical bullshit as soon as someone says or expresses negativity on Israel they are immediately an anti-Semite (Or a self hating Jew), and god forbid if that person also happens to: "associate" themselves as Muslim. Its immediately assumed he "hates" Jewish people, but it couldn't be that he is unhappy with The State of Israel and what they do. Nah, couldn't be that, they are angels.
Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2015 @ 5:21pm is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you've got some evidence that the police didn't actually have a warrant, then by all means present it. Otherwise, you're just full of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I am guessing he got this from the warrant."
com·pre·hend - grasp mentally; understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
QFT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
QFT
But let us not forget that we tend to hold Techdirt to a higher standard than most blogs and basically all of main stream media. Both because Techdirt is and have been better than most, and because main stream media is so bad.
Also, attacking religion and ethnicity tends to hurt people. For many it is vital for their self image, and how they define themselves.
Techdirt writers is people too. As is we all. Those images force unwilling people to choose if they belong to a group of "bad people" or choose that it were "bad images" and a "bad cartoonist". Would we fare better if thus challenged?
I believe that most of us believe we would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But there's a dirty little secret most pro-Israel types don't want you to think about: The main difference between a native Israeli and a native Palestinian is religion -- one is Jewish and the other Muslim. Both are of Semitic ancestry.
If you're pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian you are every bit as antisemitic as someone who is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [unclear]
Good, then you will be able to explain: what is a ``Palestinian''. It cannot be based on geography unless you carve out an exception following WW2. And it cannot be based on religion, unless it excludes Mohammadens, because many of them live in Israel.
Used to be, it was loosely defined as being a member of the PLO, a group whose main stated goal was the destruction of Israel. But that group has largely folded.
So, pray tell us, what is a ``Palestinian''.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you identify as a badger, that doesn't make you a badger. But if you identify as a Muslim, that pretty much does make you a Muslim. I mean, the belief is the defining characteristic of the group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's OK to be Anti Semitic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Law enforcement officers are under no obligation to present the warrant before performing searches or seizures."
Why don't you go ahead and delete this one, Tim? You seem to be quite a bit off on the actual narrative here. This is pretty clearly political intimidation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Normally when police turn off the video its because they do not want their illegal actions being recorded. I would be interested to know a logical reason for removing a video feed that would back up whatever they said they did unless of course said video would contradict their actions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah totally irrational and ignorant to bring up issues like Israel mass-murdering civilians and the media turning a blind eye because its owned by people from Israel.
Just call him a tinfoilhat wearing idiot, that will solve all the issues in the world.
fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like a jew painting anti nazi slogans on his shop windows in the 40'ties
Just look at the reactions against Sinéad O'Connor when she protested against the Catholic church and the former Pope for letting people raping children on a regular basis, and sabotaging investigations.
Whenever religion is the issue, many seam to believe things and simply choose to ignore actual facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like a jew painting anti nazi slogans on his shop windows in the 40'ties
seam -> seem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And please don't say the timestamp on the warrant. I'm sure those can be fudged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"score one for the good guys"? Think again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlie Hebdo and coverage of religious terrorism
Your post could be read as Charlie Hebdo singled out Islam. Charlie Hebdo didn't. Charlie Hebdo targeted everyone. Violent right wingers, nutty religious people of all dominions, shady politicians, main stream media, and the power. They stepped on many toes.
But yes, their "offense" were identical. (Your point, I presume)
Though almost all main stream media's coverage on the terror were "criticize Islam, terrorists kill", from before any identification had been made at all.
It mimicked the early coverage of Anders Behring Breivik's terrorism closely. It too were "Islam Islam Islam, terrorists kill", until he were identified and his manifest known. Then he were an "lone wolf" and an immediate and total suppression of any talk of religious terrorism in the mass medias followed. The reason is profoundly clear. Anders Behring Breivik is an anti Islam, pro Israel and pro USA terrorist. He is also a right wing ultra Zionist, and a back-to-the-roots Christian. Thus "lone wolf".
Pointing this out is not popular. Several scientists have been completely steamrolled by the mass media over this. Actual scientists damage the narrative that it is a struggle between the free world with tolerance of expressed views against fundamentalist Islam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legit or harrasment?
Food stamp fraud by it self shouldn't require a swat raid and as for the illegal gun sales, unless they have used an undercover and successfully purchased a weapon or at the very least can show a reasonable attempt to determine the validity of that charge before the raid. Then you would have to question there motivation regardless of legality.
As for the murals, some may take offense, some may see them as true. But everyone should defend his right to display them, because that's as American as apple pie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legit or harrasment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legit or harrasment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legit or harrasment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legit or harrasment?
And human beings originated in Africa. So there are no human Americans either, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do You Really Need the Rest of the Article to Decide
That ought to tell you pretty much all you need to know about the legitimacy of the raid.
The fact that the FBI neither records nor permits recordings of their interrogations of suspects may also be instructive as to their reliability. FBI agents rely on their notes rather than biased sources such as recordings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]