Reem Assil abandons her assault on the first amendment

Since the summer, there have been a series of vigils at Reem's California, an Oakland bakery that features a floor to ceiling mural of convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh.

Rasmea Odeh, a member of the PFLP terrorist group was recently deported from America for not disclosing her role in a grocery store bombing that led to the deaths of Leon Kanner and Edward Joffe.

In true "progressive" fashion,  the initial response to these vigils was a physical attack on the participants.  There were multiple attempts to harass and intimidate the participants. Mall security and the Oakland police department were repeatedly called. When that failed to stop the vigils, libelous reports about the participants began appearing across the web.  

The vigils continued.

The "progressive" response from bakery owner Reem Assil, a self described "community organizer" was to file for a restraining order, which was ultimately denied by the court. Twice.

Reem Assil's assault on individual rights and freedoms has been documented by the good folk at  Legal Insurrection:

Anti-Israel activists try to shut down protests over California bakery honoring Palestinian terrorist

Reem’s Oakland bakery seeks Ct order halting protests over terrorist mural

A participant in the vigils has written about her experience in the Times of Israel:

Reem’s Cafe Owner Has a First Amendment Problem

This week, Reem Assil dismissed the case against journalist Michael Lumish and two others

From Mintz Levin, the law firm handling Michael Lumish's case:

The lawsuit against Mr. Lumish has been dismissed by the plaintiff, Reem Assil. Early yesterday morning, we provided notice to Ms. Assil’s counsel that we were going to appear in court ex parte on Wednesday to adjust certain pending case dates because we would be filing later that day – on behalf of Mr. Lumish – a motion to strike Ms. Assil’s case as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP” suit) designed to chill Mr. Lumish’s exercise of his free speech rights. A few hours later, while we were waiting for the Court to provide a hearing date for our Anti-SLAPP motion, we received word from the Court of the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal.

Because Ms. Assil’s lawsuit against Mr. Lumish was precisely the type of effort to use the courts to try to obtain a content-based prior restraint on political speech, which California law does not countenance, we are very pleased that Mr. Lumish is no longer facing the burden of having to deal with such an action and attempt to intimidate him and others from engaging in peaceful protest. In light of the time and effort that we were required to invest in order to vindicate Mr. Lumish and to stand up for his free speech rights, we are considering the possibility of recovering defense fees and costs from Ms. Assil and/or her counsel in connection with this action and with their effort to silence protest against Ms. Assil’s own political speech and choice to use her restaurant to honor a convicted murderer and terrorist.

The take home lesson is that when we fight back, we win. This path is not easy, but this is the path. We can not let ourselves give in to threats and intimidation.

UPDATE

Mike Lumish has issued a statement, in a post chag spirit of t'shuvah.

Reem Assil and her malicious, anti-Zionist friends challenged the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and promptly got their legalistic butts kicked.

{Good for them.}

Anyone who followed the story of Assil's extremist and terrorist-admiring restaurant at the Fruitvale BART Station in Oakland knows that her attorneys dismissed her malicious "lawfare" action against Bob Pave, Robin Dubner, and myself.

This was due to the insightful work of Mitch Danzig, Evan Nadel, and Paul Huston of the law firm, Mintz Levin.

Speaking strictly for myself, I owe those gentlemen a significant debt of thanks.

There are, however, a few loose ends dangling that I want to tie up.

The first is that I owe an apology to StandWithUS, particularly Randy Kessler, Executive Director of the Northwest chapter.

And I owe a big tip 'o the kippa to Yael Lerman, Director of the SWU legal department.

{Were I her I do not know that I would have been quite so nice to me.}

When, during the vigils, it looked as if we would get zero support from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Jewish community, I lambasted that organization and stormed into Kessler's Facebook space with a self-righteous fit.

It was inappropriate, unfair, and I was wrong to do it.

Nonetheless, despite my bad manners, SWU did more to help the ongoing vigils at Reem's than any synagogue or other Bay Area Jewish organization.

First National Bank of Northern California no longer listed as sponsor of Reem's food n' farm tour

Reem's Bakery in Oakland, notorious for its mural glorifying convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh is being featured on a new food & farm tour, with the theme Crickets and Community: Women Changemakers Food Tour. CUESA - the Center for Urban Education About Sustainable Agriculture is sponsoring the event.

As of yesterday, the First National Bank of Northern California was also listed as a sponsor. After a letter writing campaign that appears to have originated here, their name has been taken off the page promoting the event.

.

Its not clear if the First National Bank of Northern California has actually pulled their sponsorship of the event or has simply removed their name from the event page. In either case, they've recognized that they don't want to be publicly associated with the toxic plume of Reem Assil, and that is a good thing.

Its not over yet. Please contact the Center for Urban Education About Sustainable Agriculture's facebook page for the event, and let them know why hate, bigotry and intolerance will never be accepted in our community.

UPDATE:
The Center for Urban Education About Sustainable Agriculture has cancelled the event.

Reem's: Quashing constitutional rights in the name of "Community"

On July 25, another vigil was held at Reem's, in what appears to be the latest in an ongoing series of actions. The peaceful low-key lunch hour event was again disrupted by a blatant attempt to infringe on the groups constitutional rights of freedom assembly and freedom of expression

And again, Reem Assil's reaction to a non-violent protest was to call  "security"

However, there are no trained security guards at Fruitvale Village.

According to the East Bay Express, several years ago, the Unity Council, the non-profit that owns Fruitvale Village decided to end its contract  with Universal Protection Services, a unionized security company. Instead, the trained guards were replaced with "neighborhood ambassadors" -workers without guard cards or formal security training.

Reem Assil and the Unity Council are now relying on these "neighborhood ambassadors" to curtail the civil rights of the lawful protesters. The ambassadors from the Safety Neighborhood Ambassador Program (SNAP) are employees of Peralta Service Corporation, a subsidiary of the Unity Council, and are clearly uncomfortable being asked to infringe on people's constitutional rights

UPDATE:
Legal Insurrection posts more details of the legal protections afforded to the vigil in California in their article Anti-Israel activists try to shut down protests over California bakery honoring Palestinian terrorist

In an important 1980 case, Pruneyard Shopping Center vs. Robins (447 U.S. 74, 80), the SCOTUS upheld the general claim that citizens have no free expression rights in private shopping centers, but found that state constitutions could confer broader speech rights, if they so desired, permitting free speech in these private arenas.

Pruneyard involved a group of California high school students who were denied permission by the manager of a private mall in Campbell to man a table, hand out leaflets, and collect signatures for a petition against the virulently anti-Israel and antisemitic UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, which determined that ‘Zionism is a form of racism’.

The Court stated that the student group had the right to set up a table, and approach passersby in order to solicit names for their petition, discuss the issue, and distribute their literature because the broadly worded California Constitution does in fact give citizens the right to speak and assemble freely, and to petition, including in private malls.

That is, the Supreme Court recognized that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution does when it comes to speech in privately-owned malls.

The subsequent history of the decision bears out the free speech rights of the vigil participants

Again, from Legal Insurrection

Thirty-seven years later, another group of pro-Israel protesters stand to benefit from this SCOTUS ruling, and other subsequent California Supreme Court decisions upholding free speech rights at shopping malls.

Particularly relevant for Reem’s protesters is a 2007 case (Fashion Valley Mall, LLC vs. NLRB, 42 Cal. 4th) which held that the state’s constitution even protects “non-commercial expressive activity” in shopping centers that involves advocating for the boycott of a store or business there. More recently, a 2013 court of appeal decision held that

"a shopping mall must allow protests within aural and visual range of a targeted business whenever the mall is open to the public.”