WHY ISN'T THE TRUMP AG BRINGING THE LAW TO THE NYC AREA UNIVERSITY PROTESTERS?

I know I cannot be the only one scratching my head in wonder at the inability of municipal and university police to corral up, arrest and charge this new breed of urban terrorist.

These are not "issues of First Amendment rights" but rather the calculated manuverings of a group of idealogues firmly in line with or acting oon the behalf of Foreign Opposition forces.

Welcome to the world of 5th generation warfare.

"Fifth-generation warfare (5GW), also known as "war of information and perception," is warfare that primarily relies on non-kinetic actions like social engineering, misinformation, cyberattacks, and emerging technologies, including AI and autonomous systems." GoogleAI

While most people are thinking about the physical act of these terrorists goiing into properties and harassing and spewing hate at either students or residents, it is the optics part of it that makes it so much more a part of the modern warfare system.

The battle space is no longer limited to grid points on a map but to the entirety of the internet wasteland and these drones are put into action to bolster resolve of the troops, misinform those who need misinforming and, of course, helping to craft the image of these modern day foot soldiers.

The image that they ae just out using their First A rights to "get out the word" is nonsense. They are being (willingly) used by trained cadre for the reasons stated above and that is to sway opinion in the United States for or against whatever their bosses are involved in.

Much worse they can operate in lockstep with those other "believers" that are alread ensconced in the world of education or government bureaucracy. Anyone reading a news article will find that the university administration is usually there to shield the terrorists in their endeavors even to the point of trying to deny law enforcement access to the perpetrators.

So we are supplying you , the reader, with the following list of law violations and related charges that most, if not all, of the "protesters" that are in the news in the last weeks should have been detained and charged with.

We are taking into account non citizens and citizens as well as the fact that these attacks are not simple First A demonstrations but rather soft kinetic attacks against targets with the help of people on the "inside".

We hope this clarifies the situation. (Ed Note: In the following info. we are using the Columbia U and Trump Plaza attacks as examples. Non citizens section applies to the terrorist advocate arrested at Columbia U and being prepared for deportation. His wife, also a conspirator, should have been arrested and charged under the statutes applicalbe to a US citizen)

In New York State and under U.S. federal law, a person who unlawfully occupies offices or facilities of an office building or a building attached to a publicly funded school while making threats against a minority group or the U.S. government could face multiple criminal charges. These charges would vary based on the nature of their conduct, their citizenship status, and any affiliations with hostile entities. Below is an overview of potential charges and legal implications.

Potential Charges (State & Federal)

1. Criminal Trespass & Burglary (NY & Federal Law)

• New York Penal Law § 140.10-140.17 (Criminal Trespass) – If the individual unlawfully enters or remains in a building, they could face Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree (Class A Misdemeanor) or First Degree (Class D Felony) if the premises are a school.

• New York Penal Law § 140.25-140.30 (Burglary) – If they entered unlawfully with intent to commit a crime inside, it could be Burglary in the Third Degree (Class D Felony) or Second Degree (Class C Felony) if they were armed or used threats.

• 18 U.S.C. § 1752 (Restricted Building or Grounds) – If the property is federally protected (e.g., government-funded school), unauthorized entry could trigger federal charges.

2. Hate Crimes & Terroristic Threats (NY & Federal Law)

• New York Penal Law § 485.05 (Hate Crimes) – If threats target a protected minority group, the crime may be elevated with enhanced penalties.

• New York Penal Law § 490.20 (Making a Terroristic Threat) – A Class D Felony if they threaten mass harm intending to intimidate civilians or coerce government action.

• 18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq. (Federal Terrorism Statutes) – If the act is intended to intimidate or coerce government policy or disrupt public services, federal terrorism laws could apply.

• 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (Interstate Threats) – If threats were made via communication (internet, phone, etc.), federal prosecution is possible.

3. Incitement to Violence & Sedition (Federal Law)

• 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy) – If multiple individuals conspire to overthrow the U.S. government, they could face up to 20 years in prison.

• 18 U.S.C. § 2385 (Advocating Overthrow of Government) – Advocating for or belonging to a group aiming to overthrow the U.S. government could lead to prison and disqualification from U.S. government service.

4. Obstruction of Public Access & Civil Rights Violations

• 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) – If they prevent access to a public facility based on race, religion, or national origin, they could face federal charges.

• 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (Civil Rights Conspiracy) – Engaging in actions preventing equal protection under the law may lead to additional penalties.

5. Weapons & Riot Charges

• New York Penal Law § 240.06 (Riot in the First Degree) – If part of a violent gathering, it could be a Class E Felony.

• 18 U.S.C. § 231 (Civil Disorder) – If violence disrupts government functions or obstructs law enforcement, it could lead to federal charges.

Impact of Citizenship & Hostile Affiliation

1. If the Individual is a Non-Citizen

• They would face deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (Aggravated Felony) if convicted of serious offenses, including terrorism or violent crimes.

• Even lesser offenses, such as trespassing with a hate crime enhancement, could lead to removal proceedings.

• A non-citizen could also be charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry) if previously deported.

2. If the Individual is an Avowed Operative of a Hostile Organization or Country

• 18 U.S.C. § 951 (Agents of a Foreign Government) – If acting as an agent of a hostile state without notifying the U.S. government, it is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

• 18 U.S.C. § 2339A/B (Material Support for Terrorism) – Providing support to designated foreign or domestic terrorist organizations carries severe penalties, including life imprisonment.

• Enemy Combatant Status (Military Detention) – If the individual is tied to a designated terrorist group, they could be detained indefinitely under military law (e.g., NDAA provisions).

Relevant Case Law

• Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – Established limits on free speech, making speech illegal only if it incites imminent lawless action.

• United States v. Rahman (1995) – Conviction of the "Blind Sheikh" for seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 2384.

• Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) – Upheld broad interpretation of material support for terrorism.

Depending on their actions, the individuals in question could face misdemeanor to serious felony charges, including terrorism-related offenses. If they are non-citizens or affiliated with hostile groups, they face deportation, enhanced charges, and even military detention.

If college administrators or building management knowingly allowed or encouraged the occupation of property by protesters who then made threats against minority groups or the U.S. government, they could face criminal and civil liability under both New York State and federal law. Their level of knowledge, intent, and involvement would determine the severity of charges. Below are potential legal consequences:

1. Criminal Charges (State & Federal)

A. Conspiracy & Aiding/Abetting

• 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Aiding and Abetting) – If administrators or building managers facilitated or encouraged criminal acts, they could be charged as if they committed the crimes themselves.

• 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Commit an Offense) – If they conspired to allow trespassing, threats, or violence, they could face up to five years in federal prison.

• New York Penal Law § 105.05-105.15 (Conspiracy) – If they knowingly planned or enabled a criminal act, they could face misdemeanor or felony conspiracy charges, depending on the severity of the crime.

B. Reckless Endangerment

• New York Penal Law § 120.20 (Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree) – If their actions created a substantial risk of serious injury, they could face a Class A misdemeanor.

• New York Penal Law § 120.25 (Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree) – If their actions demonstrably endangered lives, they could face a Class D felony.

C. Official Misconduct (For Public College Officials)

• New York Penal Law § 195.00 (Official Misconduct) – If college officials abused their authority to allow an illegal occupation or threats, they could face a misdemeanor charge.

• 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) – If they acted in an official capacity to facilitate a hate crime or civil rights violation, they could face federal prosecution.

D. Terrorism-Related Charges (If Applicable)

• 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (Providing Material Support to Terrorism) – If they knowingly allowed threats against the U.S. government or minority groups with violent intent, they could be charged with providing material support to terrorism.

2. Civil Liability

A. Civil Rights Violations

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Lawsuits) – Victims (e.g., targeted minority groups) could sue administrators and property managers for violating civil rights by knowingly enabling discrimination or hate crimes.

B. Negligence & Premises Liability

• Negligent Security – If they failed to prevent foreseeable harm, they could be sued for failing to uphold safety standards.

• Wrongful Death or Injury – If threats escalated to violence, victims or their families could file civil lawsuits for damages.

3. Potential Defenses for Administrators & Building Managers

• Lack of Knowledge – If they can prove they were unaware of the protesters' intentions or actions, they might avoid liability.

• First Amendment Concerns – They might argue they were allowing free speech; however, speech that incites violence is not protected.

There are several historical cases where administrators or officials were held criminally or civilly liable for allowing illegal occupations, failing to prevent foreseeable violence, or facilitating criminal activity. Below are key legal precedents that could be relevant to administrators knowingly allowing a dangerous occupation of property:

1. United States v. Bailey (1980) – Aiding and Abetting Unlawful Occupation

Citation: 444 U.S. 394 (1980)Legal Relevance: Established that aiding and abetting a crime, including unlawful occupation, can result in criminal liability.

• Facts: Inmates at a federal prison took over the facility, and outside individuals were accused of facilitating the takeover.

• Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that those who assist or encourage unlawful occupation can be charged as principals, even if they do not directly commit the crime.

• Application: If college administrators knowingly allowed an illegal occupation and threats, they could be charged under aiding and abetting laws.

2. United States v. Rahman (1995) – Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism & Incitement

Citation: 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999)Legal Relevance: Demonstrates liability for encouraging or facilitating violent threats against the U.S. government.

• Facts: Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh,” was convicted for inciting violence and conspiring to attack U.S. infrastructure.

• Outcome: The court held that speech encouraging criminal activity is not protected under the First Amendment when it incites violence or lawlessness.

• Application: If administrators allowed demonstrators to incite violence against the U.S. government or a minority group, they could face conspiracy or terrorism-related charges.

3. Healy v. James (1972) – College Administrators’ Duty to Prevent Violence

Citation: 408 U.S. 169 (1972)Legal Relevance: Colleges must balance free speech with safety concerns, and failure to prevent foreseeable harm can lead to liability.

• Facts: A student group linked to violent protests was denied recognition at a public college. They sued, claiming First Amendment violations.

• Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that colleges must allow free speech, but administrators can deny recognition if there is a clear risk of violence.

• Application: If administrators allowed a protest group that posed a clear danger, they could face negligence and civil rights lawsuits.

4. Doe v. University of Michigan (1989) – Hate Speech & Institutional Responsibility

Citation: 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989)Legal Relevance: Universities can be held accountable for failing to prevent hate speech and discrimination.

• Facts: The University of Michigan’s anti-hate speech policy was challenged, but the case highlighted institutions’ duty to prevent discrimination.

• Outcome: Courts acknowledged that if an institution facilitates threats against minorities, it can face liability.

• Application: If administrators allowed an occupation targeting minority groups, they could face civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5. Charlottesville Lawsuits (2017) – Civil Liability for Allowing Hate Speech & Violence

Case: Sines v. Kessler (U.S. District Court, W.D. Virginia)Legal Relevance: Public officials and property managers can be sued if they fail to prevent known dangers leading to hate crimes.

• Facts: Charlottesville city officials allowed the "Unite the Right" rally, which resulted in violence and the death of Heather Heyer.

• Outcome: Organizers and local officials faced civil lawsuits for negligence and conspiracy to incite violence.

• Application: If college administrators knowingly allowed threats against minorities, they could face civil suits for wrongful death or discrimination.

Conclusion

These cases show that college administrators and building managers can face criminal and civil penalties for allowing unlawful occupations that result in threats, violence, or discrimination.

Don't believe us? Check out the Free Palestine movement's storefront online or look up CAIR

https://freepalestinemovement.org