Shades of Daniel Penny, with one difference: there's a new sheriff in town. NJ prosecutes Jew acting in self-defense, Feds sue his attacker.
/
Altaf Sharif, Esq., attacking 65-year-old David Silberberg on the grounds of the Congregation Ohr torah synagogue. Video and photos can be seen in the federal government’s suit filed against Mr. Shaif et al.
Feds sue anti-Israel protestors who clashed with Jewish supporters at heated NJ rally that led to dentist’s arrest
“The Jew is here!” one of the defendants in the suit, Eric Camins, allegedly shouted at Jewish worshiper David Silberberg.
That’s when another protester, Altaf Sharif, attacked Silberberg, dragging him to a parking lot — before placing him in a chokehold, the suit alleged.
Glick rushed to help Silberberg and whacked Sharif on the head with a flashlight, according to the court papers.
The dentist has pleaded not guilty to felony assault charges — insisting he acted in self-defense — and cheered the feds’ support Tuesday.
“Today’s filing by the Department of Justice affirms what our community has been saying all along: the real violations were committed by those who intimidated, blocked and attacked a member of the community in front of a synagogue,” he said in a statement.
“The indictment by the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office against me was improperly obtained, and my motion has been filed seeking its dismissal. My defense team is confident it will be dismissed.
“The charges brought against me in Essex County are baseless. I acted in defense of someone being viciously attacked when the police failed to respond.”
The Democrats made a fatal slip 36 years ago: in their eagerness to pass a bill protecting abortion mills from protesters, they allowed the Republicans to include a provision protecting religious facilities too. That clause was never used by the DOJ, of course, until now. Of note, perhaps, is that in the present case, the action being brought is a civil suit, seeking monetary damages and an injunction against further acts of violence, and not a criminal prosecution. That may make a judgement in favor of the government easier to obtain; we’ll see.
(If you’re curious, follow the link to the suit itself, which I’ve included in the photo-caption: it details exactly what these people did, and backs up the suit’s allegations with pictures, videos, victim’ statements and admissions against interest made by the defendants.)
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit: (1) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a facility, or attempting to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a place of religious worship.
Sets maximum dollar amounts of fines (including for exclusively nonviolent physical obstruction) and maximum imprisonment terms. Includes in the available civil remedies injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs.
Authorizes civil actions by aggrieved persons, the Attorney General, and State attorneys general for violations.
Specifies that nothing in this Act shall be construed to: (1) prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) create new remedies for interference with activities protected by free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; (3) provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to conduct prohibited by this Act, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies; or (4) interfere with the enforcement of State or local laws regulating the performance of abortions or other reproductive health services.
DOJ Turns the Tables on the Left, Files FACE Act Suit Against Violent Mob at New Jersey Synagogue
…. Back in June, our own Rick Moran detailed how the Trump administration had planned to turn the left’s strategies on them by using the FACE Act to protect houses of worship — a part of the law the Democrats have conveniently ignored.
Today Trump’s DOJ made good on that promise.
Earlier this afternoon, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint under the FACE Act against “entities and individuals who targeted a synagogue in West Orange, New Jersey, during a November 2024 protest that escalated into violence.”
Those entities and individuals include the Party for Socialism and Liberation of New Jersey; American Muslims for Palestine New Jersey; Tova Fry (aka Terry Kay); Altaf Sharif; Matt Dragon; and Eric Camins.
Last November, members of the Jewish community made plans for two gatherings: an Israel real estate seminar and a celebration. While the original site of the events was to be the home of a community member, it had to be moved to a nearby synagogue due to what the JewishLink news site called “multiple threats from pro-Hamas groups and protesters stalking the (member’s) home.”
The JewishLink report added, “Despite efforts to keep the new location private, pro-Hamas protesters discovered the venue. They stormed the quiet neighborhood, chanting ‘Zionists are Nazis,’ ‘Intifada, Intifada’ and ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.’”The DOJ complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges that certain protesters “engaged in threats of force, intimidation, and violent conduct directed at congregants of the Congregation Ohr Torah synagogue.”
In a statement, the DOJ said, “According to the complaint, the defendants’ actions were intended to interfere with the synagogue community’s right to freely exercise their religion, including gathering for a religious ceremony to honor the life of a deceased rabbi.”
The FACE Act was enacted in 1994 to punish peaceful pro-life demonstrations in what its pro-abortion proponents framed as countering an organized, national campaign of obstruction, destruction, and violence against abortion clinics and their staff members.
What they’ve always had a problem with is that the presence of peaceful pro-life protesters is a usually quiet reminder to expectant mothers that they are indeed carrying a living human being into that abortion clinic.
While the FACE Act was designed to enhance access to the left’s sacred place in the form of an abortion mill, the act’s creators decided to throw a bone to Republicans – obviously, to give them some cover – by adding in “places of worship.” I
The FACE Act makes it illegal to use force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising their rights to seek, provide services, or worship.
The DOJ lawsuit intends to “prevent the defendants from engaging in future violations of the FACE Act at synagogues or obstructing worshipers from synagogues throughout New Jersey — the fullest reach of the District Court. If granted, that injunction will ensure that congregants of the West Orange synagogue may attend religious services without harassment, intimidation, or violence.”