Yoel Ackerman, a 36-year-old New Jersey resident and father of three, who was a first-year law student at Rutgers University until transferring out, was forced to commence litigation against the university after he found himself facing suspension or even expulsion from the school simply for objecting to being subject to antisemitism!
Ackerman has now filed a motion alleging that university officials are in violation of a protective order he was previously granted in his case.
As previously reported here on FAA News, according to the complaint which was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Essex County back in April 2024:
Ackerman was in a group message with a law student who shared an "antisemitic, false video parroting Hamas’ propaganda and misinformation regarding its October 7th terrorist attack."
The video praised Hamas fighters and falsely claimed that no people were raped or killed at the music festival during the attack.
The video was shared on October 12, when Hamas had called for a worldwide "day of rage" against Jews and others.
Law school administrators failed to act in a timely manner to protect him from the "hostile school environment" and instead said they permitted Ackerman to become the purported bully in the situation.
Ackerman felt discriminated against, harassed, and intimidated by the sharing and endorsing of that false video, along with related comments defending the same.
Mr. Ackerman subsequently shared with other Jewish law students the messages that their Law School classmates were publicly spreading and endorsing concerning the antisemitic, false video relating to the October 7th terrorist attack.
These messages went around social media.
Ultimately, his reporting of the video resulted in charges being brought against him.
The Rutgers Student Bar Association began proceedings to impeach Mr. Ackerman so as to remove him as a member of the Student Bar Association.
Their basis is by alleging that Ackerman was “doxing." Typically, doxing involves a person revealing the identity of a person who was anonymous online by circulating to the public the subject’s real name, home address, workplace, phone, financial accounts, criminal history, private photographs/videos, or other private embarrassing personal information without the subject’s permission, typically with malicious intent.
At no time did Ackerman access or disseminate the private identity or information of the law students who posted the videos; rather, he merely shared information that they chose to publicly share to members of the Rutgers community, including speech and their names and photographs attached to such speech. Mr. Ackerman did not “dox” anyone or do anything as a form of punishment or revenge, but rather as a matter of personal and collective safety.
Astoundingly, while Rutgers doubled down and filed charges against Yoel in an effort to suspend or even expel him from the school for objecting to being subject to antisemitism, at the same time they also dropped the complaints against the students who circulated the propaganda video!
Since the commencement of the litigation, Mr. Ackerman served subpeonas on the students involved in harassing him. The subpoenas require the students to produce their communication records during the period of the impeachment proceeding. The students - who are not named defendants in the litigation - have received counsel from Council on American-Islamic Relations, New Jersey Chapter (CAIR-NJ). This attorney has been protecting the students from responding to the subpoenas contending they are: “vague, overbroad, irrelevant, disproportionate and violative of our clients' First Amendment rights.”
In a big win for Ackerman, as previously reported here on FAA News, back in May 2024, Judge Stephen Petrillo granted the motion enforcing most of the subpoenas.
Ackerman further sought a court order to permit him to bring a private attorney to the schools administrative conferences related to the violations hurled against him.
Petrillo denied this request, but did issue a protective order preventing school administrators from asking Ackerman any questions or compelling him to produce any information about subjects alleged in his suit or “collateral issues” arising from his complaint or allegations in the suit until they are obtained in discovery, or exchange between parties about the witnesses or evidence they will present at trial.
Subsequently, an administrative conference was held June 20 with Childerick Barthelus, OSC assistant director of off-campus and organizational conduct for Rutgers-New Brunswick, who issued a July 2 finding that Ackerman was “responsible” for two of the three charges: defamation and bullying, threatening and harassment.
Sanctions imposed on Ackerman were: a one-year disciplinary probation without conditions, compelling him to attend a conflict-management workshop and writing a paper of no less than 250 words after completing the workshop.
These sanctions are in "blatant violation" of Judge Petrillo's protective order, Ackerman's motion contends.
The workshop compels Ackerman to have an “interactive conversation” with someone either from Rutgers or acting on their behalf outside the presence of counsel. His attorneys believe the “conversation” will concern subject matter that is the focus of the lawsuit and/or collateral issues, violating the protective order.
Additionally, the essay is required to include: what Ackerman has learned from the experience; reflections on the program’s materials and offerings; a summary of the information presented and discussed; what was familiar and new and what resonated most with him; an explanation of what he would do differently if placed in the same situation again; and what measures he could incorporate into his daily life to minimize future occurrences.
“Even worse, within this essay, Rutgers precludes Mr. Ackerman from “justify[ing] [his] own actions or evaluate the actions of others,” states the motion. It asks the court to prevent Rutgers from compelling Ackerman to attend the workshop and submitting an essay, and to award him monetary damages.
The motion is currently returnable before Judge Petrillo this Friday, July 19, 2024. The university, which has not yet responded to the motion has just requested that the motion be adjourned one motion cycle, until Friday, August 2, 2024.
Ackerman is represented by Roseland Attorneys David A. Mazie and Cory J. Rothbort, Esq. of Mazie Slater Katz and Freeman, LLC, and Voorhees Attorneys Eric G. Kahn and Heidi R. Weintraub of Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom and Sinis, P.C.
His attorney is one of only a handful of law firms across the United States named to the prestigious Plaintiffs Hot List, and the National Law Journal's Top 50 Plaintiff Law firms in the Country.
To join a FAA News WhatsApp Group, click here.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment