UC Berkeley student sues Antifa member over threats and harassment

A student at UC Berkley has filed a lawsuit against Yvette Felarca (leader of a group called By Any Means Necessary) relating to a "frivolous restraining order" that allegedly infringed on his civil rights.

The former president of the Berkeley College Republicans at the University of California, Berkeley said Wednesday he is suing a prominent member of an Antifa group for allegedly threatening and harassing him and others on campus.

Mark Meuser, one of the lawyers representing Troy Worden, announced the lawsuit seeking more than $100,000 of damages against Yvette Felarca in a press release, The Washington Examiner reported.

Felarca is the leader of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), an Antifa, or anti-fascist, group.

“Felarca filed a frivolous restraining order that restricted Worden's First and Second Amendment rights and made it difficult for him to move around the campus to attend classes. The restraining order was dismissed on Oct. 27, 2017," Meuser said.

In a previous interview with Fox News, Worden he's had to face months of "talking, harassment and even violence," along with other UC Berkeley College Republicans (BCR).

SOURCE: www.foxnews.com...

Felarca allegedly abused the legal system to obtain a restraining order with the intention of infringing on the plaintiff's civil rights. If substantiated, I am happy to see someone facing personal jeapardy for attacking the Bill of Rights.

Here is a link on social media depicting Berkley Antifa's call to action regarding the plaintiff: twitter.com...

It is clear they intended to disrupt and otherwise infringe upon his free speech. Although it isn't illegal for a private citizen to do this to another, it is unlawful to abuse the legal system by obtaining frivolous restraining orders for any purpose (especially to deprive someone of a civil right). Will be interesting to see what other evidence comes to light.

Im shocked she could get a restraining order signed when women who serve as punching bags for their husbands struggle to get the same.

This lady is a nutcase. If you get a chance to catch some of her interviews, do so.

She belongs locked away somewhere. A danger to society, never mind the children she teaches.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Judges are bought and paid for, or too many of them are.

What's the restraining order over...?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Judges are bought and paid for, or too many of them are.

What's the restraining order over...?

Here are the claims:
gotnews.com...

The restraining order was so frivolous that the court reduced it down to 10 yards without the defendant having to submit any evidence.

www.eastbaytimes.com...

Looks like she made this one up, as he has video to prove otherwise.

"Felarca, a middle school teacher at Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School, gained notoriety after she was filmed hitting a man during a June 26, 2016 melee in Sacramento, where she was part of a counter-demonstration against a rally by the Traditionalist Worker Party, a white supremacist group. She was charged over the summer by the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office with inciting and participating in a riot and assault likely to cause great bodily injury."

Sounds a bit of a passive-aggressive, attacking people then playing the victim type of person...
freestartr.com...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


That is a fact Texan

Things like this tick me off because there are indeed plenty of abused women out there unable to get help from the legal system. False accusations (of anything) harms the real victims of crime and violence.

I think the domestic violence laws making arrest mandatory when evidence of assault or battery exists between domestic entities is one thing they have gotten right. They have basically made it so officers can make warrantless arrests for a misdemeanor without witnessing it. Back when I started out as a LEO, there were no specific laws for domestic violence so a lot of abused women were afraid to call us, because they knew their husband was only going to get a misdemeanor battery or assault charge and they'd be back out of jail in a day or two. They knew it would only serve to enflame the situation, without providing any real protection. Of course by the end of the 70s they stopped lumping domestic violence in with other kinds of physical violence, and in the 80s they started keeping an eye on domestics a lot more carefully.

At one point domestics were considered one of the most dangerous calls you could go on, because the emotional aspect combined with the violence created a real officer safety issue. I have daughters, and I am thankful for strong laws punishing domestic abusers and spouse beaters we have today.

a reply to: stormcell

Thanks!

Ten yards? Why even bother. It should have been tossed.

See that kids?
Being a stupid bully can cost you a hundred grand.
Now I know what antifa means and I find it disgraceful.

This seems to be adopted by people taking money (gullible paid activists) so as to protest government?

Scary news that bully teaches kids in a classroom, she'll be terminated or resign any day now?

troy is a snowflake and a pussy

a reply to: magnetik


Well, that was certainly a well thought out and articulated argument.

Wtf is happening on our campuses?

yet another case of liberals abusing legal system to further their cause,and the slime that support them,about time the shoe goes on the other foot,these libtards are out of control

a reply to: JBurns

I heard somewhere she's born in the Philippines. Someone say that she should have been deported back to the Philippines.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: magnetik


Well, that was certainly a well thought out and articulated argument.

Look out! There's an internet hard ass on your thread! Everybody run and hide.

a reply to: starwarsisreal


I don't know if I support deportation, that is a bit extreme IMO. But I do think some penalty should be levied for such an abuse (if true & proven). I don't think that a $100,000 award is appropriate either, but clearly some degree of damage has allegedly been incurred by the plaintiff in this instance.

I suppose an exact figure could only be determined with more information, such as what losses (including his reputation) he incurred as a result of her purportedly arbitrary and false allegations (leading to a restraining order).

Sadly, not everywhere has criminal laws to punish this behavior (some do, others use filing false reports, etc) but the standard of proof is considerably higher for a criminal trial as opposed to this civil action.

We will see though. If the allegations true, it is a pretty terrible thing to do as it discredits & distracts from the plights of true DV victims.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Heh, no big deal

I suppose everyone is entitled to their own POV, but I have to laugh when people that hate Sean Hannity parrot newspeak popularized (if not created) by Sean Hannity

The word "snowflake" for example

A Hundred Grand sounds O.K. One year there probably runs over $50K. So Treble damages like in an anti Trust ( pun intended). If his legal fees come in on top of this amount, then He's loaded for Bear.

Felcarca is a well-known violent, repeat offender. There are multiple videos of her assaulting different people. And she is a teacher in the area, a middle-school teacher I think.

Sounds a bit of a passive-aggressive, attacking people then playing the victim type of person...

That's classic personality disorder. The hallmark of personality disorders are 1) people playing the victim or enabling others to do so, 2) blaming others for their own poor choices.

a reply to: bulrush


Ah, I was not aware of that.

Why on Earth is she still on the street then? Those who engage repeatedly in the same offense show they can't/won't learn to change their incorrect and improper behavior. Throw the book at her, then.

Sadly there are few criminal penalties that apply to this crime. Doesn't stop people from jumping on the lawsuit bandwagon, especially after the first one is proven. Can always be used to demonstrate a pattern of unacceptable behavior, which courts always take into consideration.