ZLI Coalition Prosecution Request To AG

Marc@ZachorLegal.
org
March 25, 2024
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland

Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Garland:
On behalf of the undersigned concerned organizations, Zachor Legal Institute submits the
attached prosecution request relating to the deprivation of rights of Jewish students by
Students for Justice in Palestine (“SJP”) and groups aligned with SJP.
SJP has launched a nationwide campaign of violently harassing, intimidating and silencing
voices that are supportive of Israel or Jews, with a particular focus on Jewish university
students.
The objectives of SJP's campaign include preventing American Jews from exercising their First
Amendment rights as well as their rights to participate in federally funded programs such as
public education. Their tactics include brandishing weapons on campuses, physically attacking
Jews and using large crowds to physically prevent Jews from attending classes or using campus
facilities. This constitutes an organized deprivation of rights of Jewish Americans.
The attached prosecution request contains a detailed exposition of what SJP and its allies have
done across the country since the October 7, 2023 terror attack on Israel, a history and analysis
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 245 and a comprehensive application of the law to the facts of this
case. Because the attached contains hyperlinks, we have also posted a copy of this letter at the
following page of the Zachor Legal Institute website: https://zachorlegal.org/wp-
content/uploads/2024/03/ZLI-Coalition-Prosecution-Request-to-AG.pdf.
The country is witnessing an unprecedented and exceedingly dangerous rise of violence and
intimidation directed at Jewish Americans and only the Department of Justice has the power
and authority to protect the country by enforcing these laws.
The undersigned respectfully ask the Department of Justice to enforce 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242
and 245.
Academic Council for Israel

AMCHA Initiative
1
Americans for Peace and Tolerance
ARISE Foundation
Atlanta Israel Coalition
B'nai B'rith International
Club Z
Coalition for Jewish Values
Combat Antisemitism Movement
Davis Faculty for Israel
Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)
Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME)
Hasbara Fellowships
Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel
Israeli American Council
Jewish Policy Center
Middle East Forum
National Jewish Advocacy Center
Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce
Rabbinical Alliance of America
Rhode Island Coalition for Israel
Russian Jewish Community Foundation
Shurat HaDin
StandWithUs
Stop Antisemitism
S.A.F.E. Campus - Students, Alumni, and Faculty for Equality on Campus
The Israel Forever Foundation
Zachor Legal Institute
Zionist Rabbinic Coalition
2
Klansmen in Keffiyehs: The Case for Prosecuting Organized
Hate on Campuses under Federal Civil Rights Laws1
For well over a decade there has been an increasingly violent movement spreading across American
university campuses. The movement, spearheaded by an organization named “Students for Justice in Palestine”
(“SJP”), targets Jews while also working to advance an overtly anti-American agenda. Though this movement is
not new, in the wake of the horrific Hamas terror attack in Israel on October 7, 2023 (referred to herein as the
“October 7 Terror Attack”) it has abandoned all prior claims that it was a civil rights movement and has, instead,
opened up a new front for Palestinian Arab terror on American campuses.
From California to New York, campuses across the country have become no-go zones for Jewish students,
especially those that openly identify as Jews or Zionists. Mobs led by SJP literally hunt down Jewish students to
subject them to assaults, harassment and intimidation, all meant to drive Jews from campus and create Judenrein
public places. Rather than shying away from Hamas, a U.S. designated foreign terror organization responsible for
the universally condemned massacre of civilians, SJP and allied groups have embarked on a public relations
campaign to justify the slaughter, portray Hamas as freedom fighters and further the Hamas agenda in the United
States.
SJP campus hate groups often operate with the support of universities, where these groups are bestowed
with privileges provided to registered student organizations and frequently have university faculty and staff as
advisors.2 Since the October 7 Terror Attack, SJP mobs, often in masks to hide their identities, have targeted Jewish
students with threats and acts of violence. At the University of California, Los Angeles, masked SJP members have
been filmed roaming across campus wielding knives while similar stories of violence and intimidation are common
on other campuses.
Existing federal civil rights laws that protect individuals and groups from exercising their Constitutional
and federally protected rights, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 245 and known as the “KKK Laws”, apply to
the types of campus antisemitic attacks that have been occurring frequently since the October 7 Terror Attack and
must be enforced by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”, “United States” or “Government”) since
there is no private right of action available for those whose rights have been interfered with.
1
Prepared by Zachor Legal Institute, www.zachorlegal.org, March 2024.
2
Zachor Legal Institute represents a UCLA student who has been excluded from classes and areas of campus by
UCLA faculty that advise Students for Justice in Palestine and currently has an active Title VI complaint being
investigated by the Department of Education over this particular situation. The Title VI complaint is OCR Complaint
Number 09-22-2257. The Department of Education has described the complaint as being based on claims that
“…the University has discriminated against students on the basis of national origin (shared Jewish ancestry) by
allowing Students for Justice in Palestine to host events, such as Palestine Liberation Week, that exclude Jewish
students and to engage in harassment of Jewish students, and by excluding Jewish students from
enrolling in a course that teaches antisemitic viewpoints.”
3
Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................5
Summary of Palestinian Arab Activists’ Terror Campaign against American Jews. ....................................................5
Applicable Federal Civil Rights Laws ............................................................................................................................8
Overview of the Text and Elements of the KKK Laws ................................................................................................10
18 U.S.C. § 371 ........................................................................................................................................................10
Elements of the offense .....................................................................................................................................11
Discussion of elements: .....................................................................................................................................11
18 U.S.C. § 241 ........................................................................................................................................................12
Elements of the offense: ....................................................................................................................................12
18 U.S.C.§ 242 .........................................................................................................................................................13
18 U.S.C. § 245 ........................................................................................................................................................15
Application of the KKK Laws to Campus Antisemitism ..............................................................................................18
Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 241 as applied to the Hypothetical. ..................................................................................21
Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 245 as applied to the Hypothetical...................................................................................26
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................30
Exhibit A: Facts underlying the Hypothetical. ............................................................................................................... i
4
Executive Summary
Existing federal laws prohibit individuals and groups from depriving anyone of Constitutional and federally
protected rights, including First Amendment rights to speech, assembly and association as well as the right to
participate in federally funded programs such as obtaining an education at a public university. While these laws
were originally enacted to address coordinated attacks on the rights of freed slaves they are now used in a variety
of scenarios, from election interference to police brutality to extremist groups that target individuals based on
their race, color, religion or national origin.
After the October 7 Terror Attack, extremist groups who were already being investigated for past
oppression of and attacks on Jewish students on American university campuses joined forces to target Jewish
students, using violence, intimidation and harassment to force these students off campus and into hiding. The
goal of SJP is to implement an extremist ideology in American campuses, one that is both anti-American and anti-
Israel, to create a new generation of radical Americans who align with the agenda of terror groups. To do this,
they first silence opposing voices and then, working with university officials and employees, create a totalitarian
environment on campuses where only one point of view can be propagated.
That point of view is distinctly anti-American and focused on promoting the agenda of international
Marxist organizations to “decolonize” the western world, starting with the elimination of the only Jewish state in
existence, Israel.
Indeed, as a group of New York State Legislators recently wrote to New York Governor Kathy Hochul, “The
National Students for Justice in Palestine (National SJP), the umbrella organization which New York chapters are
under, published a “toolkit” that refers to the Hamas operation as “the resistance” and states that “Palestinian
students in exile are PART of this movement, not in solidarity with this movement.” As such, National SJP is
essentially admitting that it is part of a U.S. government-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.”
The mass deprivation of rights is patently in violation of the many federal laws, including the KKK Laws and
must be prosecuted by the DOJ to restore the rule of law and rid American campuses of hate and discrimination.
This memorandum will first provide a summary of the campaign to deprive American Jews of rights, then
briefly describe the KKK Laws, followed by a detailed discussion of the elements of each of the KKK Laws. This
memorandum then applies the KKK Laws to a hypothetical fact pattern based on actual events to determine how
the DOJ should enforce the laws and ends with a call to action.
Summary of Palestinian Arab Activists’ Terror Campaign against

American Jews.
From prowling campuses with weapons to assaults on Jewish students to attacks on Congress and the
White House, Palestinian Arab groups, often led by SJP, have engaged in a coordinated and wide-ranging campaign
of terror against American Jews and anyone who supports Israel. A report by the civil rights watchdog organization
Stopantisemitism recently outlined the extent of antisemitism on campuses in its report “2023 Report Card:
Antisemitism on College and University Campuses.”
A brief review of media coverage since the October 7 Terror Attack reveals the following incidents:
• “Cornell Jewish center under guard after online threats to students.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2023/oct/30/cornell-jewish-student-center-threats
5
• “Colleges braced for antisemitism and violence. It’s happening.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/10/31/antisemitism-college-campuses-jewish-hamas-
gaza/
• “The White House on Monday outlined a slew of actions intended to address what it called an “alarming”
rise in reported antisemitic incidents at schools and on college campuses in the wake of the Hamas
terrorist attack against Israel earlier this month.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4283154-biden-administration-outlines-actions-to-
address-antisemitism-on-college-campuses/
• “Pro-Palestinian rally at Cooper Union leads to tense moments at library.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8s0jORH9Xs
• “3 Jewish students sue NYU, claiming college failed to protect them from antisemitism.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/3-jewish-students-sue-nyu-claim-college-failed-protect-them-from-
antisemitism/story?id=104899747
• “Cornell Prof. Russell Rickford Speaks at Pro-Hamas Rally.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZcG-
ZHOz4
• “Just another battle or the Palestinian war of liberation?” https://electronicintifada.net/content/just-
another-battle-or-palestinian-war-liberation/38661
• “Letter from Columbia College Faculty Supporting Hamas.”
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1cVLg6RTnqd2BTzuouWbfACnFEex7GQeImDZJnMlUReM/mob
ilebasic
• “Free, Free Palestine”: Students gather in solidarity with Hamas.” https://temple-news.com/free-free-
palestine-students-gather-in-solidarity-with-palestine/
• “Jewish William & Mary students say other students verbally assaulted them due to war in Israel.”
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/williamsburg/jewish-wm-students-say-other-students-verbally-
assaulted-them-due-to-war-in-israel/
• “Pro-Palestine Mob Swarms Jewish-Owned Falafel Shop in Philly: ‘You Can’t Hide, We Charge You With
Genocide!’” https://themessenger.com/news/goldie-philadelphia-falafel-shop-protest-pro-
palestinian?utm_source=onsite&utm_medium=trending_story
• “Teachers Union Official Compiled List Of Nearby Wealthy Jews, Calling Them ‘Gluttons And Thieves’”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/teachers-union-official-compiled-list-of-nearby-wealthy-jews-calling-
them-gluttons-and-thieves
• “Four times Jewish students were attacked on campuses in 2023”
https://www.campusreform.org/article/4-times-jewish-students-were-attacked-on-campuses-in-
2023/24482
• “Palestinian Protesters Tell Jews Leaving Israeli Embassy ‘We Will Kill You All, Occupiers.’”
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/12/14/watch-palestinian-protesters-tell-jews-leaving-
israeli-embassy-we-will-kill-you-all-occupiers/
• “‘I won’t sit with a Jew’: Students tell of violence, antisemitism on campus.”
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-780245.
• “Popular Jewish musician accuses venues of antisemitism after they canceled his concerts hours before
showtime.” https://www.foxnews.com/media/popular-jewish-musician-accuses-venues-antisemitism-
after-they-canceled-concerts-hours-before-showtime.
• “‘You Jew!’: UC Berkeley Mob Attacks Jews During Event. https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/02/27/you-
jew-uc-berkeley-mob-attacks-jews-during-event-with-idf-soldier-university-pledges-investigation/
6
• “Swastikas on Lockers, Calls To ‘Kill the Jews’ Are What Pupils Face in Berkeley Public Schools”
https://www.nysun.com/article/swastikas-on-lockers-calls-to-kill-the-jews-are-what-pupils-face-in-
berkeley-public-schools-complaint-alleges.
This is simply the tip of the iceberg in terms of the coordinated and overwhelming antisemitic attacks on
Jews across the country, frequently led by SJP, and doesn’t even include the waves of Palestinian terror supporter
attacks against Congress, the White House and memorials in Washington D.C. or attacks on Jewish religious
institutions.3 A recent report on antisemitic incidents in 2023 showed a year over year increase of nearly 60%, with
university incidents rising in an alarming and coordinated fashion.4
SJP is the most prominent of campus groups focused on promoting terror and attacking Jewish students, as
documented in an Opinion piece by former Assistance U.S. Attorney Paul Moore in The Hill: 5
The sudden campus protests followed the announcement by the national “Students for Justice in
Palestine” that Oct. 12 be “a day of resistance” on campuses nationwide. SJP national called Hamas’s
attack “a historic win for the Palestinian resistance,” and many of SJP’s 200 chapter organizations praised
Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack, condemned Israel, called for its destruction and organized protests of U.S.
support for Israel.
SJP’s University of Minnesota chapter declared on Instagram that “the events of resistance that
transpired on Saturday, Oct. 7, are a result of the brutal settler-colonial ethno-state [Israel].” On Oct. 12, it
held a bake sale “in loving memory of Palestine’s martyrs.” On Oct. 21, it led a march of 8,000 pro-Hamas
protesters at the state capitol. Joined by the university’s Campus Marxists (Students for Socialist
Revolution), the SJP UMN organized an “urgent public meeting” on campus.
It explicitly called for a “communist movement here…to overthrow U.S. imperialism. Intifada until
victory!” In a Nov. 1 post, SJP UMN boasted that “[o]ver 4,000 people marched through downtown…as war
criminal Joe Biden visited the state.”
Despite its clear promotion of violence and overthrow of the U.S. government, SJP UMN remains an
officially recognized, university-supported student organization.
Hamas’s initial attack against Israel was still underway when, on Oct. 7, SJP’s Columbia University
chapter called for students to meet on campus before proceeding to the “All Out For Palestine”
demonstration in Times Square on Oct. 8. On Oct. 11, a 24-year-old Israeli student was physically attacked
by a 19-year-old while handling out fliers on campus, prompting Columbia to close its campus on Oct. 12 –
SJP’s self-proclaimed nationwide “day of resistance.”
Harvard’s “Palestine Solidarity Groups” organized masked student demonstrations chanting
“Intifada! Intifada! Intifada! From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free!” and held a “die-in” while
3
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-theres-nothing-appropriate-about-protesting-at-a-
synagogue-or-place-of-worship.
44
https://combatantisemitism.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Data-Report-2023.pdf (“Over the years, anti-
Israel campus groups have adopted rhetoric grounded in universal progressive ideals, effectively cloaking their
criticisms in broader socio-political frameworks. The use of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism narratives has
been particularly notable and effective in providing a justification for acts of violence against Israelis…The crimes
against humanity carried out by Hamas on October 7th fueled a significant rise of antisemitism in higher learning
institutions, specifically on American campuses.”
5
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4306667-all-colleges-should-be-banning-students-for-justice-in-palestine/
7
holding signs that read “Hold Harvard Accountable for Supporting Genocide.” After the physical assault of
an Israeli Harvard Business School student, Harvard’s president spoke of its embrace of free expression but
noted that Harvard rejects terrorism, hate of Jews and Muslims and of any group of people based on their
faith or national origin.
Stanford’s SJP chapter led students chanting, “Two, four, six, eight! Smash the Zionist settler state!”
This prompted the school’s president to issue a letter acknowledging “expressions of concern” for Jewish
student safety. Stanford’s chancellor wrote that she was “heartbroken by the terrible violence and suffering
in Israel and Gaza” and of Stanford’s resolute commitment to ensuring “freedom of expression.”
On Oct. 9, Binghamton University’s SJP chapter accused Israel of declaring war through its atrocities
against the Palestinian people in the world’s “largest open air prison” and called Israel’s existence “more
than 75 years of ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, pogroms of Palestinian towns and villages.”
George Washington University’s SJP chapter declared that “[a] settler is an aggressor, a soldier, and
an occupier even if they are lounging on our occupied beaches” and posted an image with the words
“GLORY TO OUR MARTYRS” projected onto the side of GWU’s Gelman Library. It then issued a statement
supporting “the liberation of our homeland and our people’s right to resist the violent…colonialization of
our homeland by any means necessary.”
CUNY Law School’s SJP chapter likewise threatened that “if you support Palestine, understand that
necessitates supporting our right to defend ourselves and liberate our homeland by any means necessary.”
The call to attack Zionists and eliminate Zionists is a direct call for genocide against Jews given that Zionism
is the Jewish movement for self-determination in the historic Jewish homeland of Israel.
To eliminate Zionism is to eliminate Jews.
Applicable Federal Civil Rights Laws
After slavery was abolished in the United States, Congress enacted laws to protect freed black Americans
from threats, violence and deprivations of rights at the hands of private parties (primarily the Ku Klux Klan) and
government officials who conspired with those parties. Those laws, beginning with the Enforcement Acts of 1870
and 1871, continue today in the form of, inter alia, the KKK Laws, enforced exclusively by the DOJ.
While slavery and antisemitism aren’t logically connected, the tactics of those who opposed the abolition
of slavery and the codification of equal rights for blacks in America are very similar to modern antisemites,
especially supporters of Palestinian Arab terror. To wit, after reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan, partnered with local
government officials, deprived freed black Americans of their rights to education, free assembly, free speech,
participation in commerce and business as well as basic civil rights, all in an attempt to keep black Americans from
having full and equal participation in American society and institutions. The same is now happening with regard to
Palestinian Arab terror supporters like SJP, who are using violence and threats to deprive Jews of their right to
education, assembly, speech and commercial activity, especially on university campuses and often with the
support of government actors like university staff and faculty.
The Department of Justice has relied upon the KKK Laws in prosecutions ranging from police brutality to
election interference; these laws apply equally to antisemitic activity undertaken by the likes SJP and universities
that enable such groups.
8
In covering the indictment of former President Donald Trump under 18 U.S.C. § 241, the Washington Post
provided a comprehensive summary of the KKK Laws, as detailed below:
The statute, Section 241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, was originally adopted as part of the Enforcement Act
of 1870. It was the first in a series of measures known as the Ku Klux Klan Acts designed to protect rights
guaranteed by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, collectively called the Reconstruction Amendments.
Section 241 makes it a crime to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” exercising
a right protected by the Constitution or federal law.
…
Initially wielded against the Klan for keeping newly emancipated Black people from exercising their right
to vote, Section 241 has also been used to prosecute a wider range of election subversion, including
threatening or intimidating voters, impersonating voters, destroying ballots and preventing the official
count of ballots. It has also become a linchpin of broader civil rights enforcement, used to prosecute hate
crimes and law enforcement misconduct. Derek Chauvin, the police officer who pressed his knee into
George Floyd’s neck in Minneapolis, pleaded guilty in 2021 to violating a related statute, Section 242,
which makes it a crime for public officials, acting in their official capacity, to deny a person’s constitutional
rights.
…
The Reconstruction Amendments, and the legislation passed to enforce them, marked a dramatic
expansion of federal power to protect civil and political rights — a remaking of the Constitution so
profound that historians have called it the nation’s “second founding.”
Courts soon defanged Section 241 and other cornerstones of Reconstruction. In 1876, the Supreme Court
reversed the criminal convictions of several members of a White mob that killed Black men during the
infamous Colfax massacre, an insurrection against Louisiana’s Reconstruction government. The decision, in
U.S. v. Cruikshank, was the most notable in a series of rulings narrowing the scope of rights covered by the
provision.
Expansive civil rights legislation and vigorous enforcement in the mid-20th century breathed new life into
Section 241, which was used to prosecute members of the Ku Klux Klan who carried out the 1964 Freedom
Summer murders. In 1981, four White men, who assaulted a young Black man and his White wife driving
through Alabama, were charged under the statute. A Ku Klux Klan member who oversaw the burning of a
cross in the front yard of a Puerto Rican man and his Mexican wife was indicted in 1999 under the law.
For more than a century, meanwhile, the law has been used to punish election interference, in cases as
disparate as an Oklahoma election board’s omission of precincts in a congressional election and a
Kentucky mayor’s involvement in fraud, vote buying and identity theft.
…
Violations of Section 241 are felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison or longer if someone is killed
and, significantly, don’t require the conspiracies to be successful.
…
Jeannine Bell, a professor at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law who has studied the significance
of the law in penalizing anti-integrationist crimes such as cross burnings, said its application to the former
president is not entirely unorthodox.
9
“The statute is best known in the context of extremists and Klan violence, but it has been used for people
who are not robe-wearing extremists,” she said.
In other words, the violent suppression of rights by keffiyeh-wearing extremists is also prosecutable under
the KKK Laws.
Overview of the Text and Elements of the KKK Laws

The likely parties in a DOJ prosecution would include National Students for Justice in Palestine, the parent
organization of SJP, each campus chapter of SJP, individuals in leadership and other decision-making positions with
SJP, campus groups that affiliate with SJP and share common goals (such as the Muslim Students Association) and
those public officials that work with SJP, which include staff and faculty at public universities (collectively, the “SJP
Parties”6).
As a preliminary matter, while 18 U.S.C. § 371, a conspiracy statute, is not part of the KKK Laws, it can be
used in connection with the KKK Laws to reach those parties who enable the deprivation of rights but are not
direct parties. As such, this section begins with a discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 371 before moving on to a discussion of
the KKK Laws.
The sections in this overview are derived from Department of Justice trial briefs in relevant prosecutions,
Lexis summaries and original drafting. For each law, the text of the statute is presented first, followed by a listing
and then discussion of the elements of each law and citations to relevant cases.
Moreover, it should be noted that that under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, it is a federally protected right to have
equal access to public accommodations, including restaurants, theaters, retail stores, etc., and being denied access
to such public accommodations would trigger the provisions of some or all of the KKK Laws with respect to campus
antisemitic activity. See United States v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 563, 565-66 (1968) (holding that by virtue of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, the right to service in a public restaurant is a right protected by the laws of
the United States, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 241).
18 U.S.C. § 371
Text of the statute:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the
United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any
act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only,
the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
6
Students for Justice in Palestine chapters tend to change their names, create offshoot groups and otherwise act
in a manner as to obfuscate their affiliations and identities. When the Department of Justice investigates the SJP
Parties it should be cognizant of this fact and investigate all groups that act in concert with, or under an affiliation
with, Students for Justice in Palestine notwithstanding the names of the groups.
10
Elements of the offense
In any prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the following elements must be established:
(1) there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit a particular crime charged in the
indictment;
(2) each defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing at least one of its objects and intending
to help accomplish it; and
(3) one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act for the purpose of carrying out
the conspiracy.
Discussion of elements:
Element one: The agreement to engage in criminal activity between the conspirators need not be explicit
but may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. United States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2008);
United States v. Morland, 509 F.3d 1201, 1218 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Thomas, 586 F.2d 123, 127-32 (9th
Cir. 1978). Indeed, the agreement may consist of nothing more than a tacit understanding. United States v. Mohr,
728 F.2d 1132, 1135 (8th Cir. 1984). Proving the crime of conspiracy requires proof of an overt act. Falcone, 311
U.S. at 210. The overt act need not itself be a crime; its function is merely to show “that the conspiracy is
operative.” United States v. Buckner, 610 F.2d 570, 573 (9th Cir. 1979). Knowledge of the objectives of the
conspiracy is an essential element. United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v.
Krasovich, 819 F.2d 253, 255 (9th Cir. 1987)).
Element two: However, similar to the agreement itself, “the government need not prove knowledge with
direct evidence; circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from the evidence can sustain a conspiracy
conviction.” United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000). “Once a conspiracy is established [,] only a
slight connection to the conspiracy is necessary to support a conviction.” United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900, 924
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Herrera-Gonzalez, 263 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2001)). The term “slight
connection” means that a defendant need not have known all the conspirators, participated in the conspiracy from
its beginning, participated in all its enterprises, or known all its details. Id.
Element three: One who joins an ongoing conspiracy is bound by all acts of coconspirators taken in
furtherance of the conspiracy. See, e.g., United States v. Traylor, 656 F.2d 1326, 1337 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing United
States v. Knight, 416 F.2d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 1969)). A co-conspirator is also responsible for all reasonably
foreseeable substantive crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if he or she did not participate in
or have knowledge of their commission. See, e.g., Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946); United States v.
Reed, 726 F.2d 570, 580 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Ferris, 719 F.2d 1405, 1408 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v.
Shaprio, 669 F.2d 593, 596 n.2 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. See, e.g., Phillips v.
United States, 356 F.2d 297, 303 (9th Cir. 1966).
Finally, “[t]he rule is well established that the government in a conspiracy case may submit proof on the
full scope of the conspiracy; it is not limited in its proof to the overt acts alleged in the indictment.” United States
v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011); accord United States v. Montgomery, 384 F.3d 1050, 1061-62 (9th Cir.
2004) (acts that occurred within the temporal scope of the conspiracy and were inextricably intertwined with the
conspiracy are not subject to Rule 404(b) analysis).
Moreover, such inextricably intertwined acts are considered direct evidence of the offense. See United
States v. Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1327 (9th Cir. 1992).
11
18 U.S.C. § 241
Text of the Statute

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured
to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent
or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results
from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Elements of the offense:
In any prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §241, the following elements must be established:
(1) That a conspiracy involving two or more people existed;
(2) That the object of the conspiracy was to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
(3) That the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy with an understanding of its
purpose and unlawful nature.
18 U.S.C. § 241, unlike the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, requires no proof of an overt
act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Skillman, 922 F.2d 1370, 1375-76 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that
no overt act is required for a § 241 conspiracy).
Element one: A conspiracy is an agreement involving two or more people who join together either to
attempt to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to attempt to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means.
United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 695-96 (1975). The crux of the offense is an agreement to violate or disregard
the law. United States v. General Motors, 384 U.S. 127 (1966). The United States does not need to prove that the
agreement between the coconspirators was express or formal. Instead, the evidence must show only that the
defendants came to a mutual understanding - either explicitly or tacitly - to try to accomplish an unlawful plan. See
Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 12 (1954); Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 n.10 (1975) (noting that
the conspiratorial agreement "need not be shown to have been explicit").
Similarly, the United States does not have to prove that each conspirator joined in the conspiracy at the
time of its formation, or that each conspirator played an equal role in the conspiracy. See United States v.
Saavedra, 684 F.2d 1293, 1301 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that a conspiracy defendant is vicariously liable for all acts
taken by her coconspirators, regardless of her role in those offenses); Skillman, 922 F.2d at 1373 (noting that once
a conspiracy has been established, the government need only show a "slight connection" between a defendant
and that conspiracy).
12
Ordinarily, only the results of a conspiracy, rather than the agreement itself, are visible. For that reason, a
conspiracy may be proven through circumstantial evidence. United States v. Garcia, 151 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.
1998) ("[A]n implicit agreement may be inferred from circumstantial evidence."); United States v. Penagos, 823
F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir. 1987) ("The existence of a conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence that
defendants acted together for a common illegal goal.").
Element two: The United States must also prove that the purpose of the conspiracy was to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate the victim in the free exercise of a federally protected right. United States v. Price, 383 U.S.
787, 800 (1966); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 760 (1966); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 881, 881 n.17
(9th Cir. 1993).
In satisfying this second element, the United States is not required to prove that the defendants were
thinking in constitutional or legal terms, or that they knew that a federal law protected the right with which they
intended to interfere. See, e.g., Reese, 2 F.3d at 881. In fact, the defendants need not even have known that their
actions would violate anyone's protected rights. O'Malley, Grenig, and Lee, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions, §
29.05 (5th Ed. 2000). This element can be established by proof that the defendants intended to do an act that
necessarily had the effect of depriving the victim of a federally protected right; a reckless disregard for a person's
rights is evidence of specific intent to deprive that person of those rights. Guest, 383 U.S. at 760; see also United
States v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th Cir. 1986) (approving instruction, in a civil rights case, that it was not
necessary for the government to prove that defendant was "thinking in constitutional terms at the time of the
incident" and noting that "a reckless disregard for a person's constitutional rights is evidence of specific intent to
deprive that person of those rights.").
Element three: Finally, the United States must prove that the defendants knowingly joined the conspiracy
with an understanding of its purpose and unlawful nature. To participate "knowingly" means to participate
voluntarily and intentionally and not by ignorance, accident or mistake. See United States v. Trevino, 419 F.3d 896,
901 (9th Cir. 2005). An act is done knowingly and willfully if it is done voluntarily and with the intent to do
something that the law forbids.
A defendant's intent to join a conspiracy often cannot be proven directly because there is no way of
directly scrutinizing the workings of the human mind. For that reason, circumstantial evidence is admissible to
show a defendant's membership in a conspiracy. This circumstantial evidence includes evidence of the defendant's
relationship with other members of the conspiracy; the length of this association; his attitude and conduct; and
the nature of the crime. E.g., United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Mares,
940 F.2d 455, 458 (9th Cir. 1991).
18 U.S.C.§ 242
Text of the statute:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in
any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments,
pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if
bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such
acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated
13
sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death.
In any prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242, the following elements must be established:
(1) that defendants’ acts must have deprived someone of a right secured or protected by Constitution or
laws of United States;
(2) that defendants’ illegal acts must have been committed under color of law;
(3) that person deprived of his rights must have been inhabitant of state, territory, or district; and
(4) that defendants must have acted willfully.
Element one: It must be shown that there has been a deprivation of the rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by Constitution and laws of United States (but not state laws). Screws v. United States, 325
U.S. 91 (1945).
Both 18 U.S.C. § 241, which makes conspiracy to interfere with citizen’s free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by Constitution or laws of United States federal offense, and 18 U.S.C. § 242,
which makes it a federal offense to deprive any person under color of law of same rights, include, presumably, all
of Constitution and laws of United States. United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966).
Element two: Whether a person is acting under “color of law” means the person has some authority
granted by the state and is acting within that authority when the deprivation of rights occurs, but it often is a facts
and circumstances determination. In general, the phrase “color of law” means pretense of law; it may include, but
does not necessarily mean, under authority of law. United States v. Jones, 207 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1953). 18 U.S.C. §
242 applies to actions taken under color of both state and federal law. United States v. Otherson, 637 F.2d 1276
(9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 840 (1981).
In fact, even if a person acts outside of the authority he has been granted by the state he can be found to
have acted under color of law. Arkansas use of Temple v. Central Surety & Ins. Corp., 102 F. Supp. 444 (D. Ark.
1952). Further, it is immaterial whether the acts committed under color of state law are authorized by state law.
Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915).
The question is not whether state law had been violated but whether a person has been deprived of a
federal right by one who acted under color of any law. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945).
Even a misuse of power made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state law is
action taken “under color of” state law. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, reh'g denied, 314 U.S. 707 (1941).
Element three: “Inhabitant” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 242 refers to any person present within jurisdiction of
United States including aliens. United States v. Otherson, 637 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 840
(1981) but does not extend to temporary foreign visitors. United States v. Maravilla, 907 F.2d 216 (1st Cir. 1990),
app. after remand sub nom. United States v. Dominguez, 951 F.2d 412 (1st Cir. 1991).
14
Element four: When a person acts under color of law to deprive another person of a federal right, it must
be a willful act. This means not merely a conscious purpose to do wrong, but an intent to deprive the person of
right which has been made specific either by terms of the Constitution or federal law, or by decisions interpreting
them. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945).
In order to violate 18 U.S.C. § 242, one must have a specific intent to willfully deprive a person of a defined
right. United States v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 591 F.2d 1343 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444
U.S. 847 (1979).
“Willfulness” requires that a person intended to commit an unconstitutional act without necessarily
intending to do that act for specific purpose of depriving another of a constitutional right; in other words, to act
“willfully” the person must intend to commit act that results in deprivation of established constitutional right as
reasonable person would understand that right. United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 1999).
The requisite intent can be established by all attendant circumstances—malice of defendant, weapons
used in assault, its character and duration, and provocation, if any. United States v. Marler, 756 F.2d 206 (1st Cir.
1985).
It is also possible to establish intent through a showing of bad faith and reckless disregard for constitutional
rights. United States v. Dise, 763 F.2d 586 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 982, (1985).
18 U.S.C. § 245
Text of the Statute

18 U.S.C. § 245 provides, in pertinent part:
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures,
intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any
class of persons from—
(A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or
acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or
administered by the United States;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any
court of the United States;
(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance;
or
(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been—
(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or
administered by any State or subdivision thereof;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency
of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring
hall, or employment agency;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit
juror;
(E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any
common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air;
15
(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel,
motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria,
lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged
in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture
house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves
the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of
any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid
establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments; or
(3) during or incident to a riot or civil disorder, any person engaged in a business in commerce or affecting
commerce, including, but not limited to, any person engaged in a business which sells or offers for sale to
interstate travelers a substantial portion of the articles, commodities, or services which it sells or where a
substantial portion of the articles or commodities which it sells or offers for sale have moved in commerce; or
(4) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any
class of persons from—
(A) participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the
benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F); or
(B) affording another person or class of persons opportunity or protection to so participate; or
(5) any citizen because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such citizen or any other citizen from
lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color,
religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or
subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly opposing any denial
of the opportunity to so participate.
In any prosecution under 18 U.S.C.§ 245, the following elements must be established:
(1) That the person used force or the threat of force;
(2) That the person willfully injured, intimidated, or interfered with the victim, or attempted to do so;
(3) That the person acted because of the victim's race, color, or national origin;
(4) That the person acted because the victim was enjoying the goods, services or facilities of a place or
activity referenced in the statute; and, if a felony is charged,
(5) That bodily injury resulted. This is only for felony charges. For other charges, no bodily injury is
required.
Element one: The plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 245 prohibits interference by both the threatened and
actual use of force. Force is defined as power, violence, compulsion, or restraint exerted upon or against a person
or thing. United States v. McDermott, 29 F.3d 404, 409 (8th Cir. 1994) (similar definition of force used); United
States v. Bamberger, 452 F.2d 696, 699 (2d Cir. 1971) (discussing and relying on Webster's definition of force).
Element two: The words "injures," "intimidates," and "interferes," as used in 18 U.S.C. § 245, are not used
in any technical sense. They cover a variety of conduct intended to harm, frighten or prevent the free action of
others. McDermott, 29 F.3d at 410.
16
"Willfully" requires the United States to establish that the defendants committed the acts voluntarily and
purposefully, rather than by inadvertence or mistake, and that the defendants acted with the specific intent to do
something that the law forbids. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101 (1947); Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury
Practice and Instructions §§ 17.03 .05 (4th ed. 1990). The issue is whether the defendants intended to intimidate
the victim, not whether the victim was actually intimidated. United States v. Redwine, 715 F.2d 315, 322 (7th Cir.
1984) ("interference or intimidation is to be inferred from violent acts or threats, and there is no need to show the
subjective state of mind of the intended victim").
Element three: The United States must also establish that the defendants' actions were motivated by the
victim's race, color, or national origin. So long as the United States proves that the defendants were motivated in
part by discriminatory animus, the presence of other motives, such as personal dislike, anger, or revenge, will not
make the conduct any less a violation of Section 245. See, e.g., United States v. Johns, 615 F.2d 672, 675 (5th Cir.
1980) (rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to 42 U.S.C. § 3631 and 18 U.S.C. § 245 convictions) ("The
presence of other motives, given the existence of the defendants' motive to end interracial cohabitation, does not
make their conduct any less a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3631."); accord United States v. Magleby, 241 F.3d 1306,
1310 (10th Cir. 2001); United States v. McGee, 173 F.3d 952, 957 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hartbarger, 148
F.3d 777, 784 n.6 (7th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. Colvin, 353 F.3d 569 (7th Cir.
2003); United States v. Gresser, 935 F.2d 96, 101 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Bledsoe, 728 F.2d 1094, 1097-98
(8th Cir. 1984).
Element four: 18 U.S.C. § 245 lists a number of federally protected rights, including, inter alia, using public
accommodations, voting, attending a public educational institution. The United States will have to establish that
the defendants acted because the victim was engaging in any of the enumerated activities.
The United States is not required to establish that the defendants were thinking in legal terms to prove the
defendants' intent to interfere with rights. Instead, the United States must simply show that the defendants
intended to do something that would have the effect of interfering with the victim's federally protected right.
Screws, 325 U.S. at 106-07; see also Gwaltney, 790 F.2d at 1386 (approving instruction, in a civil rights case, that it
was not necessary for the government to prove that defendant was "thinking in constitutional terms at the time of
the incident" and noting that "a reckless disregard for a person's constitutional rights is evidence of specific intent
to deprive that person of those rights.").
Moreover, the United States may establish the defendants' intent to interfere with the victim’s exercise of
such rights by circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Black, 995 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. May 27, 1993)
(unpublished) (holding that the defendant's intent to interfere with the victim's use of a gas station/convenience
store was established circumstantially with evidence of the defendant's hatred of African-Americans;
indiscriminate attack on the victim; and of their statements that the victim should get out of the town and the
defendant's "'hood"); United States v. Ebens, 800 F.2d 1422, 1429 (6th Cir. 1986), abrogated on other grounds by,
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (ruling that the defendant's intent to interfere with the victim's
use of a nude dancing lounge could be established by circumstantial evidence, which included the defendant's use
of racial slurs and other remarks to the victim that the jury could infer "were intended to make [the victim's]
remaining on the premises uncomfortable and embarrassing and to intimidate and dissuade him from remaining
on the premises because of that bias").
The defendants' actions give rise to the permissible inference that they intended the natural consequence
of their harassment. United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 198 (2d Cir. 2000) (deciding that proof of the
defendant's intent to assault victim while using public facility sufficient and the United States did not have to prove
specific motive on part of defendant to deny the victim's use of the public facility); cf. United States v. Price, 464
F.2d 1217, 1218 (8th Cir. 1972) (rejecting defendant's contention that his racially-motivated assault of the victim
17
only incidentally occurred on federal property because the defendant knew all of the circumstances surrounding
his assault and the natural and probable consequences of his acts were to prevent the victim from enjoying the
federal recreational facilities) (discussing § 245(b)(1)(B)).
Element five: The last element required for a felony conviction is proof that the offense resulted in bodily
injury to the victim. "Bodily injury means any injury to the body, no matter how minor or temporary, including
pure physical pain." See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992); see also United States v. Perkins, 132 F.3d 1324,
1326 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that an injury that is painful or obvious, or is of a type for which medical attention
ordinarily would be sought, is "significant" bodily injury); United States v. Myers, 972 F.2d 1566, 1572 (11th Cir.
1992) (approving instruction defining bodily injury as "any injury to the body, no matter how temporary" including
"physical pain as well as any burn or abrasion"). The United States does not have to prove that the defendant
intended to cause injury; the United States need prove only that bodily injury resulted [*30] from the defendant's
conduct. United States v. Marler, 756 F.2d 206, 216 (1st Cir. 1985); United States v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811, 820-22
(5th Cir. 1979).
Application of the KKK Laws to Campus Antisemitism
Since the October 7 Terror Attack there has been a rapid and highly organized campaign to deprive Jewish
university students of their Constitutional and federally protected rights. A group of Jewish students published an
op-ed in the New York Times that documents the specifics of what has been happening across the country. This
op-ed, titled “What is Happening on College Campuses is Not Free Speech”, is a contemporaneous account which
serves as a useful introduction to why the KKK Laws apply to campus antisemitism and is reprinted below:
By Gabriel Diamond, Talia Dror and Jillian Lederman
Mr. Diamond is a senior at Yale University. Ms. Dror is a junior at Cornell University. Ms. Lederman
is a senior at Brown University.
Since the Hamas terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, campus life in the United States has imploded into a daily trial
of intimidation and insult for Jewish students. A hostile environment that began with statements from pro-
Palestinian student organizations justifying terrorism has now rapidly spiraled into death threats and
physical attacks, leaving Jewish students alarmed and vulnerable.
On an online discussion forum last weekend, Jewish students at Cornell were called “excrement on the face
of the earth,” threatened with rape and beheading and bombarded with demands like “eliminate Jewish
living from Cornell campus.” (A 21-year-old junior at Cornell has been charged with posting violent
threats.) This horror must end.
Free speech, open debate and heterodox views lie at the core of academic life. They are fundamental to
educating future leaders to think and act morally. The reality on some college campuses today is the
opposite: open intimidation of Jewish students. Mob harassment must not be confused with free speech.
Universities need to get back to first principles and understand that they have the rules on hand to end
intimidation of Jewish students. We need to hold professors and students to a higher standard.
The targeting of Jewish students didn’t stop at Cornell: Jewish students at Cooper Union huddled in the
library to escape an angry crowd pounding on the doors; a protester at a rally near New York University
18
carried a sign calling for the world to be kept “clean” of Jews; messages like “glory to our martyrs”
were projected onto a George Washington University building.
This most recent wave of hate began with prejudiced comments obscured by seemingly righteous
language. After the Oct. 7 attacks, more than 30 student groups at Harvard signed on to a statement that
read, “We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all
unfolding violence.” There was no mention of Hamas. The university issued such a tepid response, it
almost felt like an invitation.
Days later, at a pro-Palestinian rally, the Cornell associate professor Russell Rickford said he was
“exhilarated” by Hamas’s terrorist attacks. (He later apologized and was granted a leave of absence.) In
an article, a Columbia professor, Joseph Massad, seemed to relish the “awesome” scenes of “Palestinian
resistance fighters” storming into Israel. Most recently, over 100 Columbia and Barnard professors signed
a letter defending students who blamed Israel for Hamas’s attacks. To the best of our knowledge, none of
these professors have received meaningful discipline, much less dismissal. Another green light.
Over these last few weeks, dozens of anti-Israel protests have been hosted on or near college campuses.
Many of these demonstrations had threatening features: Masked students have chanted slogans such as
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which many view as a call for the destruction of Israel.
Others have shouted, “There is only one solution, intifada revolution.” The word “intifada” has a gruesome
history: During the Aqsa intifada of the early 2000s, hundreds of Israeli civilians were killed in attacks.
On at least one occasion, these student protests have even interrupted candlelight vigils for the victims of
Oct. 7. And they haven’t been condemned by the leadership at enough universities. In recent days, some
universities, including Cornell, have released statements denouncing antisemitism on campus. Harvard
also announced the creation of an advisory group to combat antisemitism.
The terms “Zionist” and “colonizer” have evolved into epithets used against Jewish students like us. These
labels have been spit at some of us and our friends in dining halls, dorm common rooms, outside classes
and at parties.
Failure by any university to affirm that taunts and intimidation have no place on campus legitimizes more
violent behaviors. We are seeing it play out before our eyes.
At Columbia, an Israeli student was physically assaulted on campus. Near Tulane, a Jewish student’s head
was bashed with the pole of a Palestinian flag after he attempted to stop protesters from burning an
Israeli flag. And students at Cornell live in fear that their peers will actualize antisemitic threats.
All students have sacred rights to hold events, teach-ins and protests. And university faculty members
must present arguments that make students uncomfortable. University campuses are unique hubs of
intellectual discovery and debate, designed to teach students how to act within a free society. But free
inquiry is not possible in an environment of intimidation. Harassment and intimidation fly in the face of the
purpose of a university.
The codes of ethics of universities across the country condemn intimidation and hold students and faculty
to standards of dignity and respect for others. Campuses are at a crossroads: The leadership can either
enforce these ethics codes or these places of learning will succumb to mob rule by their most radical
voices, risking the continuation of actual violence.
19
Simply affirming that taunts and intimidation have no place on campus isn’t enough. Professors violating
these rules should be disciplined or dismissed. Student groups that incite or justify violence should not be
given university funds to conduct activity on campus.
Furthermore, in line with anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, established university initiatives
that protect minority groups must also include Jews. Universities should adopt the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism as a mechanism for properly identifying and eliminating
anti-Jewish hate.
No students should be subject to discrimination, let alone outright threats and hostility, on the basis of
their identity. This standard must be applied to Jewish students, too.
Finally, it is vital that individual campus community members — students, professors, alumni, staff
members and parents — act against intimidation and incivility. Stand with your Jewish friends at peaceful
assemblies. Call on universities via letters and petitions to restore civility on campus.
Although one may think antisemitism has an impact only on Jews, history shows it poisons society at large.
Universities have a moral responsibility to counter hateful violence in all its forms. When they fail to do so,
they fail us all.
For purposes of this analysis, we will use the following structure and assumptions (the “Hypothetical”):
• Primary actors: SJP at the University of California, Los Angeles (“SJP UCLA”) where a Title VI
investigation has recently commenced. At this campus, members of SJP UCLA assault Jewish
students, prevent Jewish students from accessing all of the campus’s facilities and routinely
intimidate Jewish students, including through patrolling campus in masks while carrying
weapons, and prevent Jewish students from obtaining an education. To promote these
strategies, the SJP Parties have even published a guide to coordinate the activities of various
parties, referred to internally as the Fall 2023: Palestine Organizing Toolkit - Palestine Solidarity
Working Group. (the “SJP Parties Manual”) .7
• Secondary actors: members of the university’s faculty, staff and administration (collectively,
“UCLA Faculty”) advise SJP UCLA, prevent Jewish students from enrolling in their classes and
openly support the United States designated foreign terror organization Hamas in concert with
student members of UCLA.
• Tertiary actors: There are a number of documented connections between SJP and other groups
that operate either on private universities, such as Columbia Social Workers For Palestine, as well
as designated foreign terror organizations like Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine. Further, certain non-profit fundraising organizations are believed to be fronts for
foreign terror organizations and they are reportedly funding the SJP Parties.
7
Wearing masks is a strategy that a coalition of Palestinian Arab terror supporters, including Students for Justice in
Palestine, has recommended as part of their post-October 7 attacks on Jewish students: “Mask up and advise any
comrades at heightened risk of doxxing, particularly Palestinians, to mask up and cover identifiable traits such as
tattoos, hair, etc.” https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bit.ly/pali-
toolkit&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1703124526595668&usg=AOvVaw3gYoVApfswblp_pwAqyU8r.
20
• Targets of the SJP UCLA and UCLA Faculty deprivations of rights: Jewish UCLA students who
openly identify as either Zionist or actual or perceived Jewish.8
• Nature of the SJP Parties Actions: Targeting Jewish students with the intent and effect of (i)
suppressing such students’ rights to free speech and assembly; (ii) interfering with the students’
rights to an education at a public university; assaulting such students; and intimidating Jewish
students to prevent them from participating in campus discourse, activities and governance.
The intent of those violating the rights of Jews on campus will obviously vary by case, but the obvious
goals are, at a minimum, to silence and delegitimize Jewish students and their interests. The Hypothetical is
based upon an actual Title VI complaint currently being investigated by the Department of Education and the
details, with names redacted, are presented in Exhibit A hereto.
Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 241 as applied to the Hypothetical.
The elements of 18 U.S.C. § 241 are:

(1) That a conspiracy involving two or more people existed;
(2) That the object of the conspiracy was to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
(3) That the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy with an understanding of its
purpose and unlawful nature.
Element one analysis: As discussed herein, 18 U.S.C. § 241 caselaw provides that a conspiracy is an
agreement involving two or more people who join together either to attempt to accomplish an unlawful purpose
or to attempt to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means. It wouldn’t even be shown that the agreement
was explicit; rather, a mutual understanding - either explicitly or tacitly - to try to accomplish an unlawful plan is
all that is needed and circumstantial evidence can suffice in this regard.
Thus, for the first element, since the SJP Parties generally act in concert with each other and plan their
activities carefully (see the SJP Parties Manual) to deprive Jewish students of Constitutional and federally
protected rights, a conspiracy clearly exists.
Element two analysis: In this case, the SJP Parties have infringed upon the rights of Jewish Students to full
and equal enjoyment of a place of education without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national
origin, which are all rights protected by the Constitution and federal laws, including, but not limited to, Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act. Further, the SJP Parties prevent Jewish students from exercising First Amendment rights,
including the right to speak on campus, the right to assemble on campus and the right to associate with other
Jewish students on campus.
As 18 U.S.C. § 241 caselaw indicated, the DOJ is not required to prove that the SJP Parties were thinking in
constitutional or legal terms, or that they knew that a federal law protected the right with which they intended to
8
Jews are an ethnic and racial category and Zionists are a subset of Jews. Zionists seek self-determination in the
historic Jewish homeland of Israel. For a comprehensive discussion of Zionism on campuses, see Kenneth L.
Marcus, Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J.
837 (2007), available at https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol15/iss3/4. For a detailed discussion of how
Zionists are a subset of the ethnic and racial category referred to as Jews, see Marc A. Greendorfer, Trading Places:
The Intersection of LGBTQ Rights and Zionist Rights under Federal Civil Rights Laws, publication forthcoming in the
Touro Law Review (draft available at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4569945.)
21
interfere. In fact, the DOJ does not even have to show that the SJP Parties knew that their actions would violate
the protected rights of Jewish students on campus; the DOJ can satisfy this element with proof that the SJP
Parties had a reckless disregard for the Jewish students’ rights. Here, the purpose of the SJP Parties in targeting
Jewish students is to prevent them from being engaged in campus activities, from speech to counterprotest to
advocacy for Israel, and Jewish students are being prevented from obtaining an education due to the acts of the
SJP Parties.
Element three analysis: Finally, the DOJ must prove that the defendants knowingly joined the conspiracy
with an understanding of its purpose and unlawful nature. To participate "knowingly" means to participate
voluntarily and intentionally and not by ignorance, accident or mistake. Again, the DOJ can rely on circumstantial
evidence to satisfy element three, meaning that it can make its case based on the individual defendants
relationship with other members of the conspiracy, the length of this association, their attitude and conduct and
the nature of the crimes.
As the SJP Parties Manual and flyers (examples of which are pasted below) demonstrate, the entire
purpose of the SJP Parties campus activities is to “shut down” universities and as this memorandum has
documented, the SJP Parties are aligned with and part of Hamas and its goal to wage war upon Jews worldwide.
The news articles listed above show that when the SJP Parties shut down campuses, they are targeting Jewish
students with this activity. While peaceful protest generally is protected by the First Amendment, the use of
violence and intimidation to prevent others from exercising their rights is not protected by the First Amendment. 9
9
See United States v. Gallagher, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114213, __ F.Supp.3d __, for a recent case where 18 U.S.C. §
241 was found to be applicable in a prosecution against abortion protestors who interfered with the right to enter
abortion clinics without harassment. The right of Jewish students to participate in educational programs at
publicly funded universities should be viewed under the same legal standard.
22
10
Conclusion for 18 U.S.C. § 241.

While prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 242 would have the most comprehensive impact on the coordinated
campaign of the SJP Parties to deprive Jewish students of their rights, not all public universities have the type of
overt alliances between university employees and student groups that attack Jews. As a result, 18 U.S.C. § 241 is
the best option for cases where university employees are not coordinating with student groups.
In many ways 18 U.S.C. § 242 is an analog to 18 U.S.C. § 241 for governmental actors. As such, the
discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 242’s applicability to the fact pattern in the Hypothetical will focus primarily on the
question of whether any of the SJP Parties have acted under color of law.
(1) that defendants’ acts must have deprived someone of right secured or protected by Constitution or
laws of United States;
(2) that defendants’ illegal acts must have been committed under color of law;
(3) that person deprived of his rights must have been an inhabitant of state, territory, or district; and
(4) that defendants must have acted willfully.
10
https://www.shutitdown4palestine.org/graphics.
23
Element one analysis:
The analysis for element of 18 U.S.C. § 242 is identical to the analysis for 18 U.S.C.§ 241.
Element two analysis:
A person is acting under “color of law” when the person has some authority granted by the state and is
acting within that authority when the deprivation of rights occurs but even if a person acts outside of the
authority, he has been granted by the state he can be found to have acted under color of law. Further, it is
immaterial whether the acts committed under color of state law are authorized by state law.
Even a misuse of power made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state law is
action taken “under color of” state law.
Of the SJP Parties, university faculty, staff and other employees are the parties that may act under color of
law. In prosecutions of 18 U.S.C. § 242 the typical governmental actor is a law enforcement officer or an elected
official. Nonetheless, there is ample precedent and exceedingly clear caselaw finding that faculty, staff and other
employees of public universities also act under color of law in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 242.
The case of United States v. Shaw, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215893, is one such case. In Shaw, an employee of
San Jose State University, a public university in California, sexually assaulted a number of students and was
prosecuted under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 242. As the Shaw court explained:
…several courts have held that employees of public universities acted under color of law when they engaged
in misconduct related to their position or duties. See, e.g., Hayut v. State Univ. of New York, 352 F.3d 733,
744 (2d Cir. 2003) (public university professor who "misuse[d] [his] authority in the course of performing his
duties" acted under color of law); Reinebold v. Ind. Univ. at S. Bend, No. 3:18-CV-525 DRL-MGG, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 240127, 2020 WL 7629096, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2020) (two athletic [*8] directors at public
university acted under color of law in making decisions for hiring committee); Thomas v. Pearl, 998 F.2d
447, 450 (7th Cir. 1993) (public university basketball coach recording phone calls with a recruit would act
under color of law for § 1983 purposes); Watson v. Richmond Univ. Med. Ctr., 412 F. Supp. 3d 147, 165
(E.D.N.Y. 2017) (public university professor involved in alleged employment discrimination acted under color
of law). Similarly, courts have held that public school employees who sexually abused students in the course
of performing their duties acted under color of law. W.H. v. Olympia Sch. Dist., No. C16-5273 BHS, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 164766, 2017 WL 4408034, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2017) (public school bus driver who
abused children while transporting and supervising them acted under color of law because the abuse had
"an obvious and real nexus to his obligations and duties as a district employee"); Hackett v. Fulton Cnty.
Sch. Dist., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (public school teacher who abused student on school
property during the school day while the student was under the teacher's authority acted under color of
law). The Supreme Court has held that a government-affiliated healthcare professionals who abused those
they were treating acted under color of law. West, 487 U.S. at 54 (physician employed by state to provide
medical services to state prison inmates acted under color of law when undertaking his duties in treating
prisoner's injury). And finally, a court has held that a soccer coach at a public university who was acting in
his capacity as coach when he allegedly sexually harassed an athlete on his team acted under color of law.
Jennings v. Univ. of N. Carolina, 482 F.3d 686, 701 (4th Cir. 2007).
The Hypothetical does not involve sexual assault, but the law is clear on the underlying question of
whether a public university employee acts under color of law when he or she deprives a student of constitutional
or federally protected rights. The only question is whether a public university employee who discriminates against
24
Jewish students or otherwise deprives Jewish students of rights has done so with the necessary nexus to his or her
obligations and duties as a university employee.
In the Hypothetical, a public university employee refuses to allow a Jewish student to attend a class taught
by the employee and is also a faculty advisor to the university’s SJP chapter, providing members of the chapter
with support, advice and encouragement as SJP UCLA members harass, assault and intimidate Jewish students on
campus and also provides the members of the chapter with access to university resources that aren’t available to
other students. Further, the employee frequently interfaces with university administrators and lobbies them in
support of the activities of the SJP UCLA.
In all respects, a public university employee who uses his or her authority as a university employee to
further or enable the deprivation of rights of Jewish students by the other SJP Parties is unquestionably acting
under color of law, even though the employee’s job duties do not include depriving students of rights. The analysis
is essentially a but-for test: But for the employee’s position, he or she wouldn’t have had the authority to engage
in actions such as denying a student access to classes, advising a student group or lobbying for the interests of the
student groups to university administrators. Thus, a public university employee who engages in the actions set out
in the Hypothetical is acting under color of law for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Just as the university employee
who sexually assaults students isn’t doing so as part of his job duties but is still violating 18 U.S.C. § 242 when he
deprives the students of their right to be free from assault, the same is true of a university employee who acts in
ways to deprive students of their rights to be free from discrimination, assault and intimidation with regard to
obtaining an education at a public university even though these acts are not part of the job description.
Element three analysis: Only those SJP Parties who are present in the United States in a manner other than
being a temporary visitor satisfy the requirement that the party be an inhabitant. Students or university
employees who are not United States citizens may still be prosecuted so long as their presence in the country is
not as a temporary visitor (e.g., if an SJP Party is in the United States on a B-1 or B-2 visa, such a person would not
be prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. § 242 but that person would be prosecutable if he or she was present in the
United States under other types of visas or without documentation).
Element four analysis: In order to be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 an SJP Party must be shown to have
had a specific intent to willfully deprive a person of a defined right, such as the right to speak, assemble or
associate with others or the right to obtain an education free from discrimination. However, it need not be shown
that the motivating factor for the SJP Party was based on an intent to deprive a specific right. Rather, what is
required to be shown is that the SJP Party intended to commit the act that results in deprivation of established
constitutional right as reasonable person would understand that right and this intent can be established by all
attendant circumstances—malice of defendant, weapons used in assault, its character and duration and can even
be established through a showing of bad faith and reckless disregard for constitutional rights.
Consequently, a casual protestor not affiliated with the various groups promoting the interference with
rights of Jewish students who simply happens to be part of a crowd would likely not be prosecutable under 18
U.S.C. § 242 but members of the groups promoting the interference and all those who know the purpose of the
groups’ acts while partaking in the action(s) would be prosecutable, even if they weren’t necessarily aware that the
rights were protected by the Constitution or applicable federal law.
Conclusion for 18 U.S.C. § 242.
A prosecution of members of SJP UCLA and the university employees who enable them would not only be
the strongest case under any of the KKK Laws, it would also have the greatest positive impact on ending the SJP
Parties’ attack on Jewish students’ rights since much of the damage stems from the combination of SJP UCLA
ground action against Jewish students and university support for such action.
25
A prosecution of any of the SJP Parties under 18 U.S.C. §245 would be more limited in scope than
prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 241 or § 242 due to 18 U.S.C. § 245’s requirement that violence must play a role in
the deprivation of rights.
The elements of 18 U.S.C. § 245 as they relate to cases where the SJP Parties target Jews on campuses are as
follows:
(1) That the person used force or the threat of force;
(2) That the person willfully injured, intimidated, or interfered with the victim, or attempted to do so;
(3) That the person acted because of the victim's race, color, or national origin;
(4) That the person acted because the victim was enjoying the goods, services or facilities of a place or
activity referenced in the statute; and, if a felony is charged,
(5) That bodily injury resulted. This is only for felony charges. For other charges, no bodily injury is
required]
Element one analysis: Any time force is used or threatened for the purpose of interfering with certain
enumerated rights the first element of 18 U.S.C. § 245 is satisfied. Force is defined as power, violence, compulsion,
or restraint exerted upon or against a person or thing. The SJP Parties have focused on showing up in great
numbers to interfere with the rights of Jewish students as demonstrated in the SJP Parties Manual, which
admonishes the SJP Parties that “… decolonization is a call to action, a commitment to the restoration of
Indigenous sovereignty. It calls upon us to engage in meaningful actions that go beyond symbolism and rhetoric.
Resistance comes in all forms- armed struggle, general strikes, and popular demonstrations. All of it is legitimate,
and all of it is necessary. "You don't get freedom peacefully. Freedom is never safeguarded peacefully. Anyone who
is depriving you of freedom isn't deserving of a peaceful approach by the ones who are deprived of their freedom”
as well as the social media accounts of SJP chapters which urge groups to band together to fight, as seen in the
post below (while this post was from SJP in Chicago, it shows how SJP chapters, and the national parent
26
organization, coordinate their efforts to interfere with the exercise of rights).
Element two analysis:

The words "injures," "intimidates," and "interferes," used in 18 U.S.C. § 245 cover a variety of conduct
intended to harm, frighten or prevent the free action of others. As shown in the analysis in element one of 18
U.S.C. § 245, the SJP Parties openly acknowledge that they are not interested in peaceful demonstration and
choose to use force, even armed force, to accomplish their goals. The point behind the SJP Parties’ actions is
specifically to intimidate and interfere with the rights of Jewish students and anyone else who interferes with their
agenda.
In addition, the DOJ must demonstrate that the SJP Parties committed the acts voluntarily and
purposefully, rather than by inadvertence or mistake and did so with the specific intent to do something that the
law forbids. The issue that the DOJ will need to prove is whether the SJP Parties intended to intimidate the victims,
not whether the victims were in fact intimidated. As the many media accounts listed above demonstrate, Jewish
students on campuses across the country were so intimidated by the SJP Parties that they had to often hide or be
protected by law enforcement or others and often refused to return to campuses as a result of the widespread and
unchecked intimidation by SJP Parties.
Element three analysis:
In some 18 U.S.C. § 245 prosecutions against the SJP Parties the DOJ will need to prove that the SJP Parties
were motivated by the victim's race, color, religion or national origin. As an initial matter, courts have found that in
the context of antidiscrimination laws being Jewish is a race as well as a religion. Shaare Tefila Congregation v.
Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987) (finding that discrimination against Jews is racial discrimination for purposes of federal
27
law). While the SJP Parties may attempt to claim that theirs is a political, rather than racial, dispute, it is
abundantly clear that their goal is to eliminate the Jewish state, making race the motivating factor in their action.
The fact that there may also be a political or personal element to their actions does not make their actions less of a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245.
Element four analysis:
Relevant for the purpose of the analysis of element four, 18 U.S.C. § 245 enumerates those federally
protected rights the interference with which form a basis for prosecution. The United States will have to establish
that the Jewish students targeted by the SJP Parties were engaging in one or more of such enumerated activities.
Here, the most obvious federally protected right that the SJP Parties interfere with is the right of Jewish
students to receive an education at a federally funded university, free from discrimination. 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(E),
which does not require the DOJ to establish that the interference with rights had a connection to any protected
characteristic of the victims.
Furthermore, under 18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2), the SJP Parties interfere with a number of federally protected
rights of Jewish students due to the race, national origin and religion11 of such students, including the following
rights:
• enrolling in or attending any public school or public college (18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2)(A));
• participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or
administered by any State or subdivision thereof (18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2)(B)); and
• enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn,
hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any
restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the
public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the
premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports
arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of
any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of
any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of
the aforesaid establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such
establishments (18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2)(F)).
As the actions of the SJP Parties clearly interfere with Jewish students’ rights to attend public colleges as
well as their rights to participate in those programs and activities administered by the applicable states where the
university campuses are located, there is ample basis for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 245 (b)(2)(A) and
(b)(2)(B). Further, as the Hypothetical documents, the SJP Parties also prevent Jewish students from accessing off-
campus establishments such as café’s and event spaces12 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2)(F).
To prosecute the SJP Parties under this section of the KKK Laws, the DOJ is not required to establish that
the SJP Parties were thinking in legal terms to interfere with rights; rather, the DOJ only needs to show that the SJP
11
While 18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(1) doesn’t reference any protected characteristics of the victims, 18 U.S.C. 245 (b)(2) is
limited in application to actions that are based on the victims’ race, color, religion or national origin. Importantly,
any of race, national origin or religion of the targeted individuals is a sufficient basis for prosecution of the SJP
Parties.
12
For example, the Hypothetical documents that Students for Justice in Palestine prevented Jewish students at the
University of California, Los Angeles, from entering 580 Hilgard, the location of a café and event spaces frequently
used by the public.
28
Parties intended to do something that would have the effect of interfering with the Jewish students’ federally
protected rights and may use circumstantial evidence, such as statements showing animus against Jews, in this
regard.
Element five analysis:
The fifth element, poof that bodily injury resulted from the actions of the SJP Parties, is only required to
establish the basis for a felony conviction of the SJP Parties. No proof of bodily injury is needed for a misdemeanor
conviction. In this regard, the Supreme Court has found that "bodily injury means any injury to the body, no
matter how minor or temporary, including pure physical pain." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992). The DOJ
does not have to prove that the SJP Parties intended to cause injury so long as it can show that bodily injury did, in
fact, occur.
Conclusion for 18 U.S.C. § 245:
There is a strong case for prosecutions of the SJP Parties under 18 U.S.C.§ 245, but the bulk of such
prosecutions will likely be with misdemeanor charges.
To the extent there are any prosecutions of the KKK Laws against the SJP Parties, additional parties, likely
one or more of the tertiary actors identified herein, that may not have been prosecutable under any or all of the
KKK Laws can be prosecuted as violations of the federal conspiracy laws of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The likely scenario
where 18 U.S.C. § 371 would be relevant is a situation where foreign assistance is provided to the SJP Parties or a
situation where parties unaffiliated with either the relevant university or the relevant SJP chapter provide overt
assistance to support the deprivation of rights by SJP Parties. Furthermore, there are well documented reports
showing that many of the SJP Parties act on behalf of designated foreign terror groups, making such terror groups
prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
The elements of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 371 are:
(1) there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit a particular crime charged in the
indictment;
(2) each defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing at least one of its objects and intending
to help accomplish it; and
(3) one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act for the purpose of carrying out
the conspiracy.
Element one analysis: As a threshold matter, there must be an agreement to engage in unlawful behavior
between one or more of the SJP Parties and the tertiary actor(s). The agreement need not be explicit but may be
inferred from circumstantial evidence and can even be nothing more than a tacit understanding. Because
knowledge of the objectives of the conspiracy is an essential part of this element the DOJ will have to adduce
evidence that there was some form of communication between the SJP Parties and the tertiary actor, which can be
shown from something as obvious as social media posts where the two parties communicate their mutual
objectives and then move forward with the conspiracy to deprive Jewish students of their rights.
Element two analysis: The DOJ can rely on circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from the
evidence that both the SJP Parties and the tertiary actor intended to deprive the Jewish students of their rights.
The DOJ will only need to prove a slight connection between the parties, meaning that the tertiary party does not
29
need to be aware of all the conspirators, participate in the conspiracy from the start, participate in all elements, or
know all the details of the conspiracy. In other words, a tertiary actor can be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 371
simply by seeing what the SJP Parties have already done and acting in a way to support the furtherance of the
deprivation of rights.
Element three: While many third parties may support the SJP Parties in their actions to deprive Jewish
students of their rights, it takes more than mere “cheerleading” for liability under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to attach. The
tertiary actor must engage in some sort of overt action, such as sending money or providing strategic advice, to the
primary and secondary actors, for there to be an actionable conspiracy. In other words, a tertiary actor would not
be a conspirator simply for posting “we stand with the SJP Parties” in a social media account, but if the tertiary
actor were to provide personnel or funding to the SJP Parties for use in the deprivation of rights, it would be
sufficient.
Conclusion:
At this point there is little evidence that tertiary actors are providing the SJP Parties with the type of
cooperation or support that would give rise to liability under 18 U.S.C. § 371, but in a prosecution under the KKK
Laws the litigation process will likely lead to the discovery of definitive evidence that tertiary actors have been
sufficiently involved in the violation of the KKK Laws to support prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Conclusion
SJP is not just a terror supporting radical campus group: it’s an extension of Palestinian terror
organizations that use university campuses as a battlefield. As a recent report by Dan Diker and Khaled Abu
Toameh of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs detailed,
But the Hamas-inspired Students for Justice in Palestine’s public and popular antisemitic incitement across
the United States on some 250 university campuses has not constituted a strategic surprise. SJP has openly
supported Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations under the sanction and protection of some of
America’s leading universities.
As any Jewish student on campus can testify, calls for the elimination of Israel by the SJP Parties is a call
for Holocaust 2.0 and the first tangible step will be the deprivation of rights of Jewish students. In the months
since the October 7 Terror Attack the SJP Parties have only escalated their nationwide assault on the rights of
Jewish students. The idea that in 2024 Jewish students are being hunted down on campuses, violently attacked
and having fundamental rights such as speech, association and assembly, let alone access to federally funded
educational programs, infringed upon surely echoes the purpose for which these laws were created.
Nonetheless, it is indeed happening and without government intervention to enforce existing laws things
will get even worse.
In late February 2024, SJP mobs at the University of California once again attacked Jewish students to
prevent them from hearing a speech:
Footage of the incident shows a frenzied mass of anti-Zionist agitators banging on the doors of the
Zellerbach Library while an event featuring Israeli reservist Ran Bar-Yoshafat — who visited the university
to discuss his military service during Hamas’ massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7 — took place inside.
30
The mob then stormed the building — breaking glass windows in the process, according to reports in the
Daily Wire — and forced school officials to evacuate Jewish students to a secret safe-room.13
Because there is no private right of action under the KKK Laws (see, e.g., Williams v. United States DOJ,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40211, 2009 WL 1313253), it is incumbent upon the United States Department of Justice to
enforce the KKK Laws against the SJP Parties. This is not a call to suppress points of view; it’s a call to protect a
vulnerable minority group against a concerted campaign, often joined in by government actors, that would never
be tolerated were the targeted minority group a more favored constituency.
When university faculty and staff are involved in promoting the deprivation of rights, as was documented
in a March 2024 report from the AMCHA Initiative, 14 students end up with virtually no recourse to protect their
rights other than federal intervention by the Department of Justice.
The KKK Laws must be enforced against the SJP Parties, modern-day Klansmen in Keffiyehs.
This memorandum has focused on a particular case at the University of California at Los Angeles but the
SJP Parties operate on campuses across the country and enforcement of the KKK Laws must be undertaken in a
nationwide fashion across universities to ensure that the deprivation of rights is comprehensively addressed.
13
https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/02/27/you-jew-uc-berkeley-mob-attacks-jews-during-event-with-idf-
soldier-university-pledges-investigation/.
14
https://amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Academic-Agitators-Escalating-Antisemitism-
Report.pdf.
31
Exhibit A: Facts underlying the Hypothetical.
The following consists of a portion of the relevant facts submitted to the Department of Education for a Title VI
discrimination case relating to antisemitic activity on the campus of the University of California, Los Angles, that is
currently under investigation by the Department of Education. Additional facts were submitted subsequent to the
initial submission to describe increasingly violent attacks upon the student and additional deprivations of rights but
for purposes of this Exhibit A only the original submission is included. Names have been redacted. The only
identifying information in the facts below is the name Zachor Legal Institute (Zachor), which is a non-profit civil
rights organization that filed the complaint on behalf of the student.
1. Interaction with UCLA Dean of Students.
Zachor’s initial role with regard to [Jewish Student]’s issues at UCLA was to participate in a video meeting with
[Jewish Student] and UCLA’s Interim Dean of Students. The topic of the video meeting was the incorporation of
the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s definition of antisemitism (“IHRA Definition”) into UCLA’s
student conduct code. The video meeting occurred on December 7, 2021 (“ [UCLA Dean of Students] Meeting”)
and Zachor provided legal backing for [Jewish Student]’s request, explaining what the IHRA Definition means, its
legal effect and its use in other areas. The video call was cordial and [UCLA Dean of Students] was active in
discussing antisemitism generally and how the IHRA Definition could be implemented at UCLA, though she made
no promises and we never heard back from her.
2. Complaint to UCLA’s Discrimination Prevention Office.
After the [UCLA Dean of Students] Meeting, the next interaction Zachor had with [Jewish Student] was reviewing a
letter [Jewish Student] had received from UCLA’s Discrimination Prevention Office (“DPO”), dated November 29,
2021, and attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “DPO Letter”). The DPO letter related to a complaint [Jewish Student]
had made to UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion regarding a UCLA class identified as “ASIA AM 175A,
Topic in Comparative Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Sexuality: Palestine Comparative Ethnic Studies Frameworks”
(“AM 175A”), taught by Dr. [UCLA Faculty Member] (“[UCLA Faculty Member]”). [Jewish Student] had sought to
enroll in AM 175A but was told that it was full, then she was told it was not being offered. Even though [Jewish
Student] received mixed messages about the class, when she discovered that it was being taught, she sought to
audit AM 175A based on its facially discriminatory treatment of Jews and contacted [UCLA Faculty Member].
[UCLA Faculty Member] claimed that the class was full and refused to allow [Jewish Student] to audit it. [Jewish
Student] filed a complaint with DPO, alleging that the AM 175A’s course description (and the course itself) might
incite UCLA students to engage in violence against Jewish students.
DPO rejected [Jewish Student]’s complaint, claiming that the allegations were too broad and noting that since
[Jewish Student] hadn’t taken the class she couldn’t provide evidence that the class is discriminatory. [Jewish
Student] also asked for a copy of the course material for AM 175A to address the lack of evidence she had, but
DPO claimed it didn’t have the authority to obtain that material. Zachor subsequently filed a California public
records request and obtained a copy of the syllabus for AM 175A and found that it was, as [Jewish Student]
reported, likely to incite violence against Jews due to the extremely biased subject matter without any
i
counterpoints provided. It should be noted at this point that [UCLA Faculty Member] likely excluded students who
would challenge the pro-Palestinian Arab bias of the course and this is something [Jewish Student] would like OCR
to investigate, especially in light of evidence [Jewish Student] has found that [UCLA Faculty Member] works closely
with students at UCLA affiliated with SJP, has worked to excluded Jewish students from participation in campus
events and appears to coach SJP in the same biased and inflammatory rhetoric that she teaches in AM 175A.
Please see the following video posted by SJP where [UCLA Faculty Member] is clearly working closely to foment
antizionist activity at UCLA: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cj6vuGuJS1V/.
While the DPO Letter concluded that even though [Jewish Student] explained how the course description was
likely to incite antisemitic violence, DPO refused to examine the course itself and simply dismissed [Jewish
Student]’s concerns by noting that they can’t provide discrimination without evidence. Since [UCLA Faculty
Member] wrongfully excluded [Jewish Student] from the class, only DPO could have adduced such evidence and it
refused to investigate. It would be hard to describe a more classic Catch-22 scenario.
We further note that [Jewish Student] reported a growing problem with antisemitism at UCLA, not just in AM
175A. DPO claimed it lacked jurisdiction to deal with this issue, even though the very name of the department
indicates that DPO should be focused on investigating discrimination, including the type of institutionalized
antisemitism that was the core of [Jewish Student]’s complaint.
3. Palestine Liberation Week at UCLA.
On April 1, 2022, [Jewish Student] contacted Zachor when she received a flyer announcing SJP’s hosting of
“Palestine Liberation Week” at UCLA. Based on what she saw on the flyer and her past experiences with SJP at
UCLA, [Jewish Student] was aware that SJP intended to further incite UCLA students into violence against Jews and
asked Zachor for advice on how to proceed if she wanted to document what was occurring at Palestine Liberation
week. Zachor advised her to not get into confrontations and to follow the rules laid out by UCLA, but to the extent
the events were occurring on campus she had a right to participate and document what happened.
The following are messages [Jewish Student] sent to Zachor during the Palestine Liberation Week event.
Message 1, from [Jewish Student] to the UCLA office that regulates registered campus organizations such as SJP
(Student Organizations, Leadership and Engagement, also known “SOLE”):
Hello,
In short: Does UCLA policy allow SJP at UCLA to treat me unequally because of my political beliefs just
because they are in 580 Hilgard Ave instead of room on campus? Doesn't 580 Hilgard require UCLA
supervision because it's not even half a mile from campus? Can you please send me a document in writing
that says this?
ii
I'm scared this org is using antisemitic trope of Jewish people / zionists are controlling the UC system to
oppress palestinians with their "U.C. Zionism learn-in event".
I was excluded from a private event by SJP, on 4/4 at 7pm in 580 Hilgard. because they didn't want me to
document what they say and they know I have opposing political views so they don't want me to write
about and publish my opinions. They also didn't want me to comment on my political views or debate
during their learn-in event. I called ucpd at 6:23 pm because I'm afraid they are trying to conspire a crime
against Israel students and Jewish students because during their table event they said " They don't want to
say anything against Jewish students specifically... Also some Jewish people are on their side but Israel is
the enemy state" . I'm concerned they made this event private on purpose so that SOLE couldn't do
anything about it . I'm dumb I decided to sneak in because I thought the system
They don't want me to speak but they are misrepresenting me. I should be able to say what I said so they
stop misrepresenting me and my group. They are racializing my ethnic/ancestral/national group.
They are trying to say stuff like UC zionism is killing palestinians but I'm a UCLA zionist and I am not
adequately represented by them.
They are going to create some fabricated reason but saying I'm weird. They also know I am going to say I
think they are discriminating against me.
[Jewish Student]
It must be noted at this point that while SJP and SOLE claimed that 580 Hilgard is not part of the UCLA campus,
there is evidence that 580 Hilgard (aka 580 Café) does in fact, obtain funding from UCLA and is listed as a student
organization. See https://www.wfsucla.org/ and https://sa.ucla.edu/RCO/public/search?q=580. UCLA even
advertises 580 Hilgard as being a communal space for UCLA students: https://basicneeds.ucla.edu/services/580-
cafe.
We ask OCR to investigate whether 580 Hilgard is in fact funded by UCLA and/or is a student organization
funded by UCLA and whether the exclusion of Zionist students was a violation of the University of California’s
regulations (see Section 86.11 in this document: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2710528/PACAOS-80). See, also,
https://sole.ucla.edu/file/cfdd57d7-15e0-4d9d-a6bf-e5ce5e91e385 (“...programs and activities of a Registered
Campus Organization funded by compulsory campus-based fees must be open to
participation by the entire UCLA student community.”) Based on available information, it appears that 580 Hilgard
is both a student organization and funded by UCLA generally, making the exclusion of any UCLA student a violation
of UC PACAOS 86.11. In the past, UCLA has alleged that only specific events that receive funding from compulsory
iii
student fees must be open to all students, but we believe that this interpretation is incorrect and not applicable
when a physical space is so funded.
The exclusion of Zionist UCLA students from 580 Hilgard by SJP members is an ongoing problem, with a new
incident having occurred on November 21, 2022 and UCLA staff claiming that it’s not UCLA property so they can’t
do anything about it. All available evidence indicates that 580 Hilgard is either controlled by a student group at
UCLA and/or funded by UCLA.
Message 2, from [Jewish Student] to Zachor:
Summary:
I wanted to speak up about my counter-views during Palestine liberation week in 2022
I wanted to go to their learn-in event at 5pm called "UC Zionism" to document their ideas but blew my
cover at their tabling event earlier in the day. I also tried to record a few things, so they thought I was a
member of canary mission documenting their events. In other words, they started being mean to me and
excluding me as soon as they found out I had different political opinions. Hence, they wanted to exclude
me.
They said they had the authority to exclude me because their event was on 580 Hilgard Ave instead of
some other place on campus. They are also making up reasons to exclude me by making me look crazy and
I told them I think they are discriminating against me so they probably already have counter arguments for
this view.
I don't think this is fair because I shouldn't be excluded based on my political beliefs as a proxy to silence
my speech. I should be able to participate in UCLA political education events and share my views. I think
this was just the form of silencing my freedom of speech in academia. Furthermore, the prohibition and
making me feel bad for documenting also lowers my freedom of speech because I have less to write about.
I am afraid to use school resources to help with this because I think the school can't help and I might get in
trouble based on how SJP will defend themselves. They are trying to make me look crazy or wrong for
recording.
Full narrative
I went to their first table event on 4/4/22, an event of political anti-zionist propaganda that frames Israel
as the leading cause of Palestinians' suffering. I saw a considerably crowded campus area cluttered with
people walking to and from a lecture and a plethora of anti-zionist art presented by students for justice in
iv
Palestine (SJP). I did not expect privacy in this public area because dozens of people are just randomly on
their phones taking pictures/videos of the campus and probably SJP's art gallery.
I will describe how the art made me feel at a later time.
I went up to the table to take pictures and take notes on their views. Person 1 said traditional antisemitic
lies about Israel like, "There is a blockage around Palestine and Israel isn't providing resources," and "Israel
is an apartheid state." I didn't say anything until he said, "UC is contributing money to pay for rockets shot
at Palestine," I replied, "do you have any evidence to prove that this money is being used for this?" and he
got agitated. He kept trying to provide a rhetorical proof/demonstration, but I kept asking him for direct
evidence that he didn't offer. Person 1 eventually noticed I was recording, so he and his friends started
pressuring me to delete my recordings. They kept saying that I didn't know the policy and was afraid to get
in trouble, so I deleted the recordings. Person 1 was trying to dominate me the entire time when I was at
the table by saying things like "watch your camera," "make sure you are not recording this time," and "You
should know the policy before you come to talk to us." I felt very dominated, which discouraged me from
speaking at the event. I took a break to calm down and continued to try and explain to them that
scapegoating Israel like this was wrong. I did recover my recordings afterwards.
here is another link where they are saying the settlements are illegal but they are not actually illegal and
it's not palestinian land:
I'm afraid they are going to report me to the dean of students for recording. I've had this issue so I really
didn't want to be reported.
I registered for the UC Zionism learn-in event over the weekend, and the event was at 5pm, but I didn't
receive any email of the location or zoom link by 4pm. I worried I wouldn't make it in time to the event
because it wouldn't make sense for them to send the site's address less than 30 minutes before it started
since people had to commute to the venue. Hence, I went back to the table around 4:30 pm to try and
walk with them to their event at 5 pm. Hence, I left for my research lab and returned to their table. They
were trying to act like I was being weird or crazy at this part of their "side of the story," but I was not. I
wasn't harassing anyone or being explicitly told to leave. I just kept asking different people at the table if
they could help me get access to the event because I didn't receive the event. Everyone said I should just
receive the information in my email and that they were not in charge of emailing the q. Person 1 said it
may have been a "glitch in the system," which made me feel confused. I did beg some of the students to
help me. Some students in their group were ok with me walking with them, while the others were busy
trying to plan stuff. Different group members started leaving sequentially until I was just left with person
2. I begged person 2 to change his mind and to provide me with the event information correctly, but he
refused. He apologized to me and told me they really have high security because they don't want "canary
mission" to enter this event and document what was being said and they were suspicious of me because I
v
was recording earlier. I continued the plea by saying I was not part of the organization called "canary
mission". He left me there alone, and I was despondent. I then received the event location and zoom link,
but the zoom modulator left me stuck in the waiting room. (email is attached to the report) Hence, I
walked to the event location at 580 Hilgard Ave next to the campus. The site was less than 1/10th a mile
from campus.
Person 2 and Person 3 were at the event, and they told me they wouldn't let me in because they thought I
was weird since I recorded at the table. They told me I was "following them" from their perspective but my
perspective was that I was just trying to walk with them to the event. A lot of people were saying they
were going home but I thought maybe someone in the group was going to the event and I could go with
them. They have a right to exclude me because the event is off-campus so SOLE cannot do anything. I told
them it was not fair because I was a zionist, and they held an anti-zionist event, so I should have a chance
to speak. They told me that the event was not a place for debate, and they locked me out. I told them I
was recording but they didn't let me. I told them "I was recording now" but I can tell the school I meant
that I was recording in the past but I wasn't going to record. They told me they don't want people to
debate in their area. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1waJPdH8WYp-
s_lfZgrsa4jVtlct7gsyM/view?usp=sharing
I called ucpd at 6:23 pm because I'm afraid they are trying to conspire a crime against Israel students and
proJewish students because during their table event they said " They don't want to say anything against
Jewish students specifically... Also some Jewish people are on their side but Israel is the enemy state" . I'm
concerned they made this event private on purpose so that SOLE couldn't do anything about it. UCPD told
me to email sole. I was hesitant to email because I wanted to ask Zachor first. I ended up sending the email
the next day (attached as ``suspicious activity at UCLA" and emailing sole but they didn't respond yet). I
also called sole and said 580 Hilgard is off-campus and they told me to email their director of SOLE who is
mean to me and their sole advisor.
[Jewish Student]
The next day (April 5, 2022), Zachor received this report from [Jewish Student]:
Hello,
I went to the dean of students to get in writing that I could record them in bruin plaza. They didn't respond
yet but the front desk lady was on my side partially.
vi
Then I tried to go to the event called "anti-colonizer" paint night but they wouldn't let me in. I was scared
to record it because I wasn't sure if I could but they said it was because from our previous conversations
The event was hybrid, meaning that it was also on zoom, so I had a fake name and was added to the zoom
call. I was afraid to speak up because I didn't want to blow my cover. Not as in the person because I could
pretend to be someone else but if I sid "anti colonialism in the context of Israeli Palesti[Jewish Student]n
conflict is an antisemitic idea" then they probably would've kicked me out of the zoom room. This is
because they won't let me in because I am zionist.
I couldn't record the beginning of the zoom meeting but they were all just saying pretty much that anti-
colonizing meant to them "the ability to speak out against colonizing in Palestine" probably because they
want to say the IHRA violates free speech.
I was able to record the rest of the night but I couldn't translate arabic.
Toward the end of the night they kept saying my name, "[Jewish Student] " and they discussed how they
wouldn't let me in. They also said I was a zionist. They then ended the zoom event really because they
were worried I, [Jewish Student] , was Nechama Levinberg.
On April 6, 2022 Zachor sent the following email to UCLA’s administration.
From: Zachor
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 10:41 AM
To: [UCLA]
Subject: Inquiry from Zachor Legal Institute
On behalf of Zachor Legal Institute, a non-profit civil rights organization, we respectfully request
information on an event currently taking place at UCLA, “Palestine Liberation Week”. We understand that
this week-long event is being promoted by Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA and specifically would
like information on whether this event has received university funding and whether it is open to all UCLA
students.
This matter is urgent, as we have been approached by UCLA students who have attempted to attend the
event and were told that they may not attend.
vii
Best regards,
Marc Greendorfer
President, Zachor Legal Institute
The same day, UCLA responded:
Dear Mr. Greendorfer –
Thank you for your email. The registered campus organization Students for Justice in Palestine is holding
their “Palestine Liberation Week” this week. The only on-campus event has occurred yesterday, today and
tomorrow in Bruin Plaza with access by all. Any off-campus event that Students for Justice in Palestine
may have is exclusively controlled by the organization and receives no university funding or other support.
I hope this provides you with the information you have requested.
Be well –
Director
UCLA Student Organizations, Leadership & Engagement
Again, UCLA’s claims are at odds with what we have set out above regarding 580 Hilgard and UCLA funding, as well
as 580 Hilgard itself being a student organization.
[Jewish Student]’s response to Zachor, with details about SJP preventing her from entering 580 Hilgard, follows.
Hello Marc,
I wasn't forced from their area, pe se; however, this one student there would basically get in my face and
tell me to back up. He was like getting in my face and telling me "move back. take ten steps back. we
reserved this space" like he was about to hit me if I didn't leave. He also told me he would lie to say I hit
him and get away with it because there are more of them then us. I think this meant that they would jump
me and get away with it. They were threatening me a lot and making fun of me for my white skin. They
were pressuring us to leave and telling us not to talk. Same thing was happening with the other zionists
viii
there. Ask them. They were all getting in eachothers face telling the zionists to leave because they
reserved the space. I am worried I am going to get jumped later. They were all about to hit them.
As you can see, there were many threats and even assaults by SJP.
[Jewish Student] asked a fellow UCLA student who is also a Zionist to provide Zachor with his description of the
incidents at SJP’s event and this was his email to Zachor:
Good Afternoon [Jewish Student],
Thank you for your email.
*"Arabs" and "SJP members" to be used interchangeably.
Yes, that is absolutely correct: Initially, Aaron ____ and a Jewish female undergrad were peacefully
exercising their First Amendment Right to freedom of speech, mainly by waiving Israel's flag and a letter-
sized colored print out of an Israeli and Israeli Pride Rainbow flag.
Without any provocation, the Arabs called the Jews "occupiers & terrorists." The Arabs also yelled: "from
the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "intifada, intifada."
The Arabs took out their phones (2-3 phones), recording (video & audio) of the pro-Israel students,
intimidating the female brown student, so much so that she was in tears, crying.
The Arabs called security, demanding that the pro-Israel Zionists go elsewhere, despite the Zionists' First
Amendment Constitutional Right.
Due to the Arabs' instimidation, the Zionists left the scene.
Later, Aaron _____, and a few others went back down to have a peaceful conversation with open-ended
questions with the Arabs. The Arabs quickly aggressively told Aaron to stop recording them, even though
he clearly wasn't with a piece of paper behind his cell phone. Aaron, in an attempt to de-escalate, put his
cell phone in his pocket. [Jewish Student] attempted to ask open-ended questions about the Arabs'
position; however, the man refused to answer any question, denying [Jewish Student]'s right to her
indigenous homeland.
ix
Aaron attempted to take photos of the signs, not of the Arab people. However, they quickly literally
blocked his path and physically barricaded him in a threatening manner.
The Arabs spread tons of misinformation, as can be seen in the attached photos.
Please let me know if you need further information or have any questions.
After SJP’s week-long event ended, on April 25, 2022 [Jewish Student] sent Zachor a full writeup of what she
experienced with embedded links to audio/video files she recorded. The following is the writeup.
Hello,
I saw a protest that was advertised on a UCLA affiliated Instagram on 4/19/2021. Here is the ad:
I wanted to safely share my opposing political views but was not eager to go. I did make a sign but I was
about to chicken out. Sign is attached to my email. The protest was at 4/21/22 on 11766 Wilshire Blvd at
12pm.
However, I felt it was especially important to speak up while watching their instagram story which I
recorded parts of and shared below. I posted comments between each link.
Recording 1 of SJP at UCLA story (6:22 minutes)
1) "Israel Israel you can't hide. We charge you with genocide." this is then making the physically different
"Israel race" look like a threat that needs to be actively punished. These people probably are not friends
with Israelis and are prejudiced against them. Plus, palestinian population is not declining. So why is UCLA
associated with inaccurate current events?
2) "Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Zionism has got to go". I am ethnically zionist. It is not something I can just disagree
with. It is a part of my history and why I am even in the United States. This is literally saying that not only
all people should not agree Israel should exist but it is also saying my ethnicity shouldn't exist or should be
seriously disempowered.
3) "Free Free Free Palestine. End end end the occupation" similar to 1
x
4) "Colonizers we don't need em'. What we want is total freedom. Intifada Intifada. Long live the
intifada" This is similar to 1 and 3 because it's treating zionism as a threat that needs to be removed. It's
racist because they are associating our physical cultural differences with the bad that is colonialism and
military occupation. Our zionist names and affiliation with zionist orgs is a physical thing read on paper
and hear by ear. It is not something possible to hide and still live freely. This again is saying their existence
is the problem. Then they are calling for violence against Jewish people and ethnic cleansing.
5) "There is only one solution. Intifada revolution" this is call for violence like holocaust.
6) "We will honor all our martyrs. All our children, sons, and daughters" this is a really facist primordial
nationalist group that wants to kill us. These
7) "Israel Israel what do you say? How many kids have you killed today?" Again, this is racist. People from
Israel may have no ever killed a child. They can see physical difference with Israeli, like Jewish name,
zionist t-shirt, or zionist vocalization and impediately be prejudice and discriminant. So this also from
antisemitism.
8) I saw some of these students in school. Like the girl in the right back
xi
9) " If we don't get it, Shut it down" - this is like a
10) " From the river to the see, Palestine will be free"
11) Towards the end of the recording I start grabbing my keys to go and speak up because it's a school
event. I just need to report my car before shabbat and get a lyft because I was going to sleep at olami.
Recording 2 of SJP at UCLA story (6:25 minutes)
12) "No. No normalization. We demand full liberation" - this mean get rid of Israel
13) "When Palestine is Under attack, what do we do? Stand up fight back" So this means they want to
start a fight now because they have been saying they are under attack this whole time. See #7. Hence,
they are inciting violence.
"Then they follow up with "hey hey! ho ho! zionism has got to go" because they are inciting violence
against zionists.
14) "Not another nickel. not another dime. No more money for Israel's crime" I guess this antisemitic
trope with money.
Recording 3 of SJP at UCLA Story (4:33 minutes)
15) Arabic I don't know
16) "Palesteen Hara Hara" which I don't know I think here it says
burn https://www.lisaanmasry.org/php/user/word.php?id=1828
17) "from the river to the see. Palestine will be free"
18) "The people united will never be defeated" is against nationalist facist antisemitic.
xii
Therefore, I had to enact my first amendment rights because they were inciting hatred and violence
towards my ethnic group. Note that their chants were not transient. Hence, It would be likely for people to
see these chants. I honestly thought they wouldn't
SJP at UCLA story recording 4 (17:06)
19) arabic again
20) ok starting at 9:53 I am at the event in person. My phone is recording my audio and the screen. Cannot
hear the peace officer of their chants
So after 10:11 - 15:15 is when they were all following around me and making
fun of me but my mic didn't pick everything up like they were making fun of me
for being fat and covering my sign. Like I saw UCLA students, they're all trying
to cover my sign. Some people from school I recognize and others were getting
all around me and trying to hide me, shove me, and cover my sign. This is the
only evidence I have of them being mean to me from these recordings so far:
21) 10:11 I am scream "don't listen to them. They are lying" ok so they say Im brain brainwashed .
Ok at this point my phone was in my backpack because i was holding my sign but they were all getting
around me and saying stuff "who told you we are lying" I just don't have an image. I walk away and say
they are lying and they keep following me. They are filing. "They are lying to you" . At this point I am
walking away with my sign but they were following me and
"She was being someone to hump [ or probably honk] and they wouldn't," and the other person said "I
know that's so sad" . This was kinda mean because they are just talking about me around me. I said to
press "don't listen they are lying to you" but the mean girls who were following me said "why don't you
have your mom take the picture" So I am scared they are going to target my mom. They were laughing at
me and saying they are proud of me. Someone took a picture of me.
22) 12:13 I say "They are lying. They are killing us" and they mock me "GURL you're lying to us you are
killing us. They are lying they are lying in a mocking voice. Ya we are totally lying"
"she didn't get a single honk it's fine".
xiii
23) 13:00 I keep talking to the press but they are still talking at me like at 13:08 they are saying "why are
you the only one here" the other mean girl is saying "ya why are you the only one here" "why are the only
one here".
24 Then the police moves me at 13:15 "we want to move where the officers can protect you so you are
not here by yourself"
25) 13:35 they are saying of they killing Jesus first or something
26) After I move I am screaming that they are stunting my speech by covering my sign again like at 14:05
until at 14:20 and the police start coming and separating us at like 15: 14 they move me again. Police keep
trying to keep me away
OK so then I interview the police officer and he allows me to move away from the zone he was protecting:
The location I went to protest in was far enough away from protesters:
While the police were there, Some protesters came up to me nicely asking about my opinion. I told them
that they are not supposed to come to me. I started recording and they walked away.
After the police left the group started coming up to me and messing with me
again. I was able to record better this time. They started getting closer to me so I ordered a
lyft and backed away from them as you can see. Then I started to record again.
--------
So they are approaching me
At first the guy is trying to bait me into engaging with them again. His friend starts heckling me saying I
am alone.
Then at 1:42 the guy starts going in front of my sign and at this point I am explicitly telling them to leave
me alone. They continue to heckle me and stunt my speech. Making fun of what I say.
xiv
Also, "free Jews from zionism... free her from zionism" to heckle me. Call me terrorist again.
---------
I was checking my lyft and I walked away again but they came back up to me in this video
I think at this point they were trying to make me look islamophobic or inciting violence against me when
screem allu ahkbar. They came back up to me after the guy that was getting way too close to me after I
told him to leave me alone.
At this point my lyft was calling me. I thought I was recording but I wasn't. I think if you get the
subpoena of the call you'll hear them following me to my car.
I think they were about to jump me for real when they were following me but I hopped into a lyft and got
away.
--
[Jewish Student
The antisemitic harassment at UCLA was energized by SJP’s event, as demonstrated by [Jewish Student]’s email to
Zachor on May 3, 2022.
From: [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student]@g.ucla.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 8:00 PM
To: Report ZachorLegal <report@zachorlegal.org>
Subject: Re: Antisemitic propoganda at ucla
Jewish centers complained about this protest as antisemitic.
xv
xvi
On Tue, May 3, 2022, 10:39 AM [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student]@g.ucla.edu> wrote:
Hello,
Here is the poster.
On Tue, May 3, 2022, 10:31 AM [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student] @g.ucla.edu> wrote:
There demonstrations are negatively impacting my mental health and course progress.
On Tue, May 3, 2022, 9:55 AM [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student]@g.ucla.edu> wrote:

Hello,
Today there will be more rhetoric and propoganda on campus. It'll just be them saying that our school
funding is being used to kill Palestinians.
As the email indicates, the actions of SJP and inaction of the UCLA administration caused severe emotional distress
to [Jewish Student] and other Jewish UCLA students.
In fact, the antisemitic harassment of [Jewish Student] by SJP accelerated in the weeks and months following SJP’s
Palestine Liberation Week event, as documented in [Jewish Student]’s May 20, 2022 email to Zachor.
From: [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student]g.ucla.edu>

Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 2:33 AM
To: Report ZachorLegal <report@zachorlegal.org>;
Subject: I need help with sjp
Hi,
SJP has been defaming me by making me look antisemitic and racist for arguing against antizionism. They
know my name and I don't know what to do.
xvii
For racist comments:
I was trying to explain to a black person that that he was using his white privilege to hurt Jewish people
when defined what zionism is, and that my definition was wrong. SJP just wouldn't let me explain and only
recorded parts of what I said to make me look bad.
Like white people always oppress minorities by not correctly explaining what they are doing.
A different guy was trying to make it like that a two state solution (Israel and palestine) is not
possible. White protestants history make it seem like helping minorities is bad for all society to main white
supremacy. This happened when I was trying to explain to him that the British mandate was anti-Jewish
Apartheid.
For antisemitic comments:
A lot of Jewish people were saying it's not antisemitic and that IHRA was wrong.
So I said to third parties that I am different because I am a Jewish zionist, most Jewish people are like me,
and we experience more antisemitism because of how zionists are racialized by antisemites.
But they are saying I am antis
The guy who keeps mad dogging me knows mine and I don't feel safe in school.
[Jewish Student]
We ask OCR to take note of the numerous times, as in the email above, where [Jewish Student] explicitly states
that SJP has made her feel unsafe and unwelcome on campus and interfered with her right to speak on campus.
4. Antisemitic incidents prior and subsequent to SJP’s Palestine Liberation Week event.
On November 20, 2022, [Jewish Student] sent the following email to Zachor, which includes testimony from
another Jewish UCLA student. Again, this shows the institutionalized discrimination against Jews at UCLA.
xviii
From: [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student]@g.ucla.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2022 12:46 AM
To: Report ZachorLegal <report@zachorlegal.org>
Subject: Friend's testimony of antisemitic UCLA staff
Hello Marc,
I recieved this stuff from my friend. Person X is this ucla staff

https://www.suitelifesocal.com/categories/magazine/suitecauses/empowered-students-empower-
students-ucla-asu-chair-samone-anderson-holds-administration-accountable
1. When I was running for student government, a prominent person who I’ll just call X said “you’re
committed to justice, unlike some of the other white kids and Jewish kids”. At the time I felt grateful that
she was taking time to talk to me and saying supportive things about my campaign, so I didn’t want to
make a fuss, but I did say a lot of Jews cared about justice and mentioned a Jewish org which is really
committed to social ethics and aligned with X’s political views. X responded by changing the subject
instead of acknowledging that there are lots of Jewish people and organizations who advance justice.
Later when I was talking with a dear friend of mine I mentioned X and my friend told me that X had
repeatedly said the problem with UCLA is that we have a Jewish chancellor and “Jews only care about
money”. My friend repeatedly rebuked X for her antisemitism but X kept saying antisemitic stuff. Later X
and my friend were co-chairing a political party seeking spots in UCLA’s student government and X wanted
the political party to nominate a man who’d sexually assaulted a woman. My friend refused to do this and
X responded by bullying my friend and among other things when my friend said I should be one of the
party’s nominees X denounced my friend by saying it was unjust that she would rather nominate a Jewish
candidate like me than nominate X’s preferred candidate (who didn’t even want the same position I
wanted and *had sexually assaulted someone*).
2. A Jewish student I know (who I’ll call Y) started out living in a dorm, but some of the other people in the
dorm were so antisemitic they made him unsafe. In order to get away from this dangerous environment
and connect with his Jewish identity, he moved into a collective house which is owned by UCLA’s Jewish
community and houses Jewish UCLA students. Y has a serious gastrointestinal problem and in order to get
food which won’t make the problem much worse and ruin his health, he needs to eat in UCLA’s dining hall.
UCLA policy currently restricts access to the dining hall, so Y had to apply to the Center for Accessible
Education (CAE), which is responsible for determining what accommodations students with disabilities at
UCLA get, in order to try to get access to the dining hall. Y sent the CAE documentation from expert
doctors who treat Y’s gastrointestinal condition and testimonies from the people who run the dining hall
all saying that Y had to have access to the dining hall or his health would deteriorate greatly, but the CAE
refused to let Y use the dining hall on the grounds that because he no longer lived in the dorms where he’d
faced horrible antisemitism and instead lived in Jewish community housing which only houses UCLA
xix
students and is just one block from campus, he didn’t qualify as a resident of UCLA housing and therefore
wasn’t entitled to use the dining hall.
xx

ZLI Coalition Prosecution Request To AG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZLI Coalition Prosecution Request To AG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZLI Coalition Prosecution Request To AG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marc@ZachorLegal.

The Honorable Merrick B. Garland

Dear Attorney General Garland:

Academic Council for Israel

Summary of Palestinian Arab Activists’ Terror Campaign against

Applicable Federal Civil Rights Laws

Overview of the Text and Elements of the KKK Laws

Text of the statute:

Text of the Statute

Elements of the offense:

Text of the statute:

Elements of the offense:

Text of the Statute

Elements of the offense:

Application of the KKK Laws to Campus Antisemitism

By Gabriel Diamond, Talia Dror and Jillian Lederman

Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 241 as applied to the Hypothetical.

The elements of 18 U.S.C. § 241 are:

Conclusion for 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 242 as applied to the Hypothetical.

Element two analysis:

Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 371 as applied to the Hypothetical.

2. Complaint to UCLA’s Discrimination Prevention Office.

3. Palestine Liberation Week at UCLA.

Message 2, from [Jewish Student] to Zachor:

I will describe how the art made me feel at a later time.

On April 6, 2022 Zachor sent the following email to UCLA’s administration.

President, Zachor Legal Institute

The same day, UCLA responded:

Dear Mr. Greendorfer –

Good Afternoon [Jewish Student],

Thank you for your email.

*"Arabs" and "SJP members" to be used interchangeably.

Due to the Arabs' instimidation, the Zionists left the scene.

Recording 1 of SJP at UCLA story (6:22 minutes)

Recording 2 of SJP at UCLA story (6:25 minutes)

Recording 3 of SJP at UCLA Story (4:33 minutes)

15) Arabic I don't know

17) "from the river to the see. Palestine will be free"

SJP at UCLA story recording 4 (17:06)

19) arabic again

From: [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student]@g.ucla.edu>

Jewish centers complained about this protest as antisemitic.

Here is the poster.

On Tue, May 3, 2022, 9:55 AM [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student]@g.ucla.edu> wrote:

From: [JEWISH STUDENT] <[Jewish Student]g.ucla.edu>

For antisemitic comments:

But they are saying I am antis

I recieved this stuff from my friend. Person X is this ucla staff

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.