Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mark Bochra, Petitioner v. Department of Education, et al.

Supreme Court briefSep 30, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World” Jesus Christ

APPENDIX

Exhibits

Description

A copy of granted in forma pauperis

A copy of Mark’s Original filed Lawsuit ECF 9 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of

Education (l:21-cv-03887)

A copy of Mark’s response objecting to the Justice Department motion to dismiss,

ECF 54 in Bochra v. U.S. Department ofEducation (l:21-cv-03887)

A copy of the Justice Department reply to Mark’s response objecting to their

motion to dismiss without conferring with him, Ms. Sarah Terman said “speaking

with him is futile” ECF Nos. 55 & 60 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education

(l:21-cv-03887)

A copy of the District Court final judgment without a hearing by Judge Sara Ellis in

ECF 84 in Bochra v. U.S. Department ofEducation (l:21-cv-03887)____________

A copy of Mark’s appeal brief filed with the 7th circuit in ECF 29 in consolidated

appeal 22-2903 and 23-1388

A copy of the Justice Department reply to Mark’s brief filed by Ms. Sarah Terman

in ECF 33 in consolidated appeal 22-2903 and 23-1388

A copy of Mark’s appeal reply brief filed with the 7th circuit in ECF 42 in

consolidated appeal 22-2903 and 23-1388

A copy of the lm Circuit Court of Appeals order without 3 panels judges assigned

to the case in ECF 43 in consolidated appeal 22-2903 and 23-1388_____________

A copy of Mark’s petition for rehearing and en banc hearing in ECF 47 in

consolidated appeal 22-2903 and 23-1388

A copy of the En banc denial order

A copy of reporting the threats of Jim Richmond, an employee of the 7th Circuit

who told Mark how his future appeal pertaining to the Department of Education

would be fixed in the middle of a Judicial Misconduct Proceedings and indeed

Mark’s appeal was fixed in the future in appeal 22-2903, 23-1388 with facts not

from the case.

A copy of the Supreme Court order in Brown vs. Board ofEducation_____ ______

A copy of a letter by 180 Israeli organizations lobbying Elon Musk to implement

the IHRA definition on X/Twitter; he rejected.

A copy of a letter by republicans’ governors asking for Senator Chuck Schumer to

put the IHRA definition for a vote on the senate floor. He refused; IHRA is not the

law of the land nor passed by congress.__________________________________

A copy of an article “Congress’ Antisemitism Bill is a Disaster” reporting first

amendment violation and denying biblical truth “Jews killed Jesus Christ” vs.

“Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ” now we have humans revolting against God himself.

EXHIBIT B

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 1 of 36 PagelD #:839

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Mark Bochra, individually and on

Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,

Civil Action No. l:21-cv-03887

Plaintiffs,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Lyndon Baines Johnson Dept. Of Education Bldg.

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20202,

Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis

Hon. Mag Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

And

Miguel Cardona

Secretary of Education

In his Official Capacity

Lyndon Baines Johnson Dept. Of Education Bldg.

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20202,

And

Suzanne Goldberg, in her official capacity as

Acting Assistant Secretary

For the Office for Civil Rights,

U.S. Department of Education, et al.,

Lyndon Baines Johnson Dept. Of Education Bldg.

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20202,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT FOR INJUCTIVF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Mark Bochra, Pro Se. and hereby brings this action against

Defendants, U.S. Department of Education, Miguel Cardona (Secretary of Education), and

Suzanne Goldberg (Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights), in their official capacities, for

the purpose of reforming the Department of Education, and in support thereof states as follows:

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 2 of 36 PagelD #:840

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: THE PARABLE TO A JUSTICE SYSTEM

To The Honorable Court:

And the disciples came and said to him, Master why do you speak in parables

whenever crowds are near. And Jesus answered, the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of

God has been given to you but to others it comes by means of parables, so they may look but not

see, and listen but not understand [Mathew 13]. i

Jesus Christ answered; this is what the parables means. The seed is the Words of

God. (1) The seed that fell along the path stand for those who hear but the devil comes and takes

away the message from their hearts in order to keep them from believing and being saved. (2)

The seed that fell on rocky grounds stands for those who hear the message and receive it gladly,

but they have no root. They believe only for a while, but when time of testing comes, they fall

away. (3) The seeds that fell among thorn stands for those who hear but the worries, and riches,

and the pleasures of this life crowd in and shock them and their fruits never rips. (4) And the

seed that fell in a good soil stands for those who hear the message and retained it in a good and

obedient heart and they persist until they bear fruit.2

No one lights a lamp and covers it with a bowl. Instead, they put it on a stand, so

that those who come in can see the light. Whatever is hidden away will be brought out into the

open, and whatever will be covered up will be found and brought out to light. Therefore take

heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have,

even what he seems to have will be taken from him [Luke 8:16-18].3

To the Honorable Court, these are not just pure words but the parable to the

World we live in.4 And with that, let me seek justice within the walls of this Court in order to

reform the Department of Education because after more than 5 years channeling the hearts of

various mighty proud Jewish-Israeli lobby who gained control within the federal government

such as Kenneth Marcus; stubbornness persisted because no one told them to stop, and they

1 See Mathew 13:1-17 https://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Matthew+13%3Al-17&version=NKJV

2 See https://voutu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=2619

3 See httPs://voutu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=2712

4 See https://voutu.be/A14THPoc4-4 See the change within Justice Clarence Thomas and he did indeed change

recently, you will see him in his recent court rulings that he understood the parable to this World

https://twitter.com/Claremontlnst/status/1262346233328304128

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 3 of 36 PagelD #:841

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

couldn’t reform on their own because they took pride in their own strength; power that was given

to them from above.5 With God’s help, a single Coptic “Blessed is Egypt my people” [Isaiah

19:25] brought to the middle-east, the Abraham Accord when the ears listened in order to learn

about the Children of Abraham.6

But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has

chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the

base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the

things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in

his presence [1 Corinthians 1:27-29].7

I. INTRODUCTION

The Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) within the U.S. Department of Education

(“DOE”) has a special mission: “to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational

excellence through vigorous enforcement of civil rights in our nation’s schools.”

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html. This office serves “student populations

facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil

rights problems.” Id. In fact, Secretary Miguel Cardona takes pride in promoting an agenda to be

a pioneer for “Equity” rather than “Equality.”8 Yet, the reality is nothing more than a PR even

when he advocates for “Equity”; words are one thing but action is another.

To fulfill its mission, OCR notes that “an important responsibility is resolving

complaints of discrimination.” Id. Complaints of discrimination can be filed by anyone who

believes that an educational institution that receives federal financial assistance has discriminated

against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age. The victim

5 See Kenneth Marcus previous Secretary for OCR https://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/marcus.html see his goal

before joining OCR https://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=1958, httPs://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=2504,

https://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=2004 (Leaked videos to the public). See also covert campaigns

https://voutu.be/Mm-Dm4pQ0xY?t=722 . https://voutu.be/ 10gxfCT044?t=929 . https://voutu.be/MmDm4pQ0xY?t=l349 See what was said Kenneth Marcus did it https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165-ce21df3d-al77-cee9649e0000 So he had the intent + action to do evil.

6 See https://www.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/ A Coptic did it

https://trumowhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-message-global-coptic-dav-2020/

7 See httPs://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=l+Corinthians+l%3A27-29&version=NKJV

8 See https://twitter.com/SecCardona/status/1407387Q55953526784 and see

https://twitter.com/usedgov/status/1407095987760476162

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 4 of 36 PagelD #:842

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

himself does not need to file - instead, an advocate or organization can file on an individual’s

behalf or on behalf of a group. The ability to file a complaint and have it thoroughly reviewed is

integral to the mission of the OCR.

Indeed, some claims under the statutes enforced by DOE’s OCR, such as those

alleging disparate impact discrimination, can only be enforced by the federal government.

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (finding that implementing regulation of Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding disparate impact discrimination is only enforceable by the

federal funding agencies).

Contrary to its mission and without any public notice, DOE summarily eliminated

substantive rights of the very people it purports to serve by changing its Case Processing Manual

to abdicate its basic duty to investigate legitimate complaints of discrimination by students and

their parents.

Effective March 5, 2018, the DOE amended the U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights Case Processing Manual (“2018 OCR Manual”). The changes include

new provisions to require mandatory dismissal of certain complaints and the elimination of the

appeal rights of complainants.

This was under Trump’s Cabinet members Kenneth Marcus and Betsy DeVos

leadership. Kenneth Marcus stance was “We Are Law Enforcement Officials, Not ... Social

Justice People.”9 Yet, Kenneth Marcus himself tried to be the social justice warrior when he

infiltrated the Federal Government by adopting the IHRA definition without congress intent

when he personally ruled on Zoa’s appeal without the knowledge of higher ups at OCR.10 At that

time, the Department of Education under Secretary Betsy DeVos released a statement — The

Department has not adopted a definition of anti-Semitism, Hill said via e-mail.11

9 See https://dailvcaller.com/2018/07/31/education-department-social-iustice/

10 See Kenneth Marcus personally approving the appeal

https://web.archive.ore/web/20200316051403/https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165-ce21-df3d-al77cee9649e0000 see Kenneth Marcus leaked videos prior to becoming a secretary for OCR

https://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=1958 . httPs://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=2504 .

https://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=2004

11 See Politico https://www.politico.com/storv/2018/09/ll/trump-anti-semitism-schools-781917

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 5 of 36 PagelD #:843

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

After a public uproar, OCR backtracked by amending their manual and re-opened

all dismissed complaints; see copy of the settlement.12 However, again without any public notice,

discussion, and public comment on the regulation in the Federal Register, Office for Civil Rights

has done two things to the manual under both the Trump’s and the Biden’s leaderships.

(A) Weakening the appeal process by limiting the appeal to 10 page double spaces with

no time frame provided to rule on the appeal, and without mentioning who rules on the

appeal. The appeal procedure is written in a way which makes the appeal process a never

independent process but rather it relays on pleasing the Masters who rules over a federal

building i.e., Office For Civil Rights; here due process was denied again for many; and

(B) Without any public notice or comments, or even congress adopting such definition,

Office for Civil Rights through Kenneth Marcus adopted the IHRA definition, a

definition that makes the Jewish people superior in every way compare to the Gentiles.13

By secretly adopting the IHRA definition with the stroke of a pen, without

congress’ intent or public notice and comments in the Federal Register.14 The Jewish lobby by

and through Kenneth Marcus with intent and malice taught America something very dangerous

i.e., we are all not created equal and not created on the image of God [Genesis 5:1].15

The same mistake the Jewish people did 2000 years ago when they set aside the

children of Abraham i.e., Ishmael and Isaac.16 The result was the birth of Islam. See to Exhibit A

page 31-36, (BAHIRA: THE CHRISTIAN MONK, THE TRUE FATHER OF MUHAMMAD).

The result of separating the children of Abraham (Ishmael & Isaac) is seen to the naked eyes in

the Arab culture throughout their movies and culture; see Exhibit A pages 86-87.17

10.

The result of the IHRA definition is that it never brings protection or blessings to

the Jewish people but rather hate and destruction because when a Jewish person commits

12 See https://browngold.com/news/settle-lawsuit-against-doe/ see settlement https://browngold.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/Countersigned-Settlement-Agreement-ACE-DQE.pdf

13 See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/aa-titleix-anti-semitism-20210119.pdf

14 See https://www.federalregister.gov/

15 Emphasis added https://voutu.be/YbipxLDtY8c

16 See https.y/twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1434662377580945409 and see https://www.haaretz.com/israelnews/.premium-on-rosh-hashanah-iews-evervwhere-are-commanded-to-mark-the-first-nakba-l.10183234

17 See also pride is the root of all evil httPs://voutu.be/97a0fLC4S-0?t=167

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 6 of 36 PagelD #:844

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

wickedness against a non-Jewish person; he or she is still protected under the banner of the

IHRA definition rendering Title VI worthless; see Exhibit A pages 88-95; see also Exhibit G

pages 124-126; and see Exhibit G pages 231-233 (his path as a Jew led him to Jesus).

11.

The IHRA definition has a far more overreaching implication when a Federal

Court reviews the definition one item at a time. It calls for supremacy, power, censorship, and

control in a very deceptive manner; something that is already being discussed among the public

when it comes to who are the top richest people in the world who didn’t pay their fair share of

taxes, the answer is and was the Jewish Oligarch according to Pro Publica and Forbes World’s

Billionaires List; see Exhibit G pages 169-203.18

12.

A clear example of this scenario was Plaintiffs journey in the law school he

attended “Florida Coastal School of Law” and how Office for Civil Rights tried to destroy

Plaintiffs case more than once across a span of 3+ years until the closure of the law school in

recent days in order to try to render Plaintiffs civil right complaint moot; all because the

involved individuals who did evil were Jews; see Exhibit G pages 127-136 (The case of a

Coptic).

13.

It was too difficult for OCR to politically say Jews discriminated and/or retaliated

against a Coptic student. They couldn’t define good vs. evil in simple terms; rather they

perverted everything by calling evil-good and good-evil. It was also too difficult for OCR to also

reach a resolution with a stubborn recipient i.e., Florida Coastal School of Law. And it was also

too difficult for Office for Civil Rights to follow their own adopted manual and enforce it equally

and fairly. Rather, OCR corrupted itself by itself and treated students differently based on their,

race and identities; the adoption of IHRA destroyed title VI.

14.

For the Department of Education senior leadership they aimed at getting rid of the

issue all at once; hitting two birds with one stone by getting rid of Plaintiff s complaint by any

means possible as they tried across the span of the past 4 years, and shutting down Florida

Coastal School of law for good to render the Plaintiffs complaint moot, among DOE holding

18 See https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-thewealthiest-avoid-income-tax see https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1402772111270240256 see Forbes list

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 7 of 36 PagelD #:845

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

FCSL accountable for deception and fraud which was also the result of Plaintiffs initial

complaint back in May 23,2016 to Secretary John King.

15.

After Plaintiffs first letter to President Biden and the Department of Education

senior leadership, on that same day, Federal Student Aid denied Florida Coastal School of Law

access to title IV funds leading it to its closure; see Exhibit G pages 127 - 133.

16.

In return, Florida Coastal School of Law thought to have its way with the

Department of Education just like they did when they lawsuit the American Bar Association to

be placed back in good standing and they were put back in good standing.19 Just like ABA,

FCSL also lawsuit the Department of Education under the APA seeking a judicial review of their

denied Title IV privilege; Case 3:21-cv-00721.20 The result of the lawsuit was different as Judge

Howard denied FCSL sought relief and the last remaining law school of Infilaw’s empire went

into closure.21 Florida Coastal won’t permanently close until 2023 when its admitted class of

students graduate; there is still a chance for OCR to right the wrongs of their wrongdoings with

the recipient i.e., Florida Coastal School of Law; the case is not moot yet.

17.

Plaintiff further contends that Office of Inspector General (OIG) in their recent

May 11,2021 audit report reported that Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is not in compliance when

it leaves recipient in non-compliance; finding the following on page 33.22

Dismissing complaints where investigations have been completed and/or are in resolution

wastes time and effort spent by OCR staff investigating and working with those

recipients, and identified issues that were in the process of being resolved may be left

unresolved and the recipient may remain in noncompliance.

18.

Defendant’s constant modification to the OCR manual without a public notice in

the federal register and comments provided by the public, and to secretly adopt the IHRA

definition without congress’s intent have lead to the destruction of the civil right act.

19 See https://www.biziournals.com/iacksonville/news/2019/02/28/florida-coastal-drops-suit-aeainst-americanbar.html

20 See https://www.abaiournal.com/news/article/after-being-denied-title-iv-funds-florida-coastal-sues-doe see

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/41073459/Florida Coastal School of Law v Cardona et al

21 See https://www.abaiournal.com/files/Florida Coastal SJ order 8.10.21.pdf

22 See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditrepoits/fv2021/al9t0002.pdf

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 8 of 36 PagelD #:846

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

19.

Because these changes violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),

5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq., and are contrary to OCR’s mission, Plaintiff, on his own

behalf and on behalf of other members who are or may be victims of discrimination in the

education system, ask this honorable Court (1) to declare the amendments to the August 26, 2020

OCR Manual in violation of the law23, (2) to declare that the adoption of the IHRA definition by

OCR is unconstitutional24, (3) to enjoin Defendants from enforcing these new provisions of the

August 26, 2020 OCR Manual, and (4) to set aside the changes; and (5) to seek a judicial review

when possible of OCR clear discriminatory and retaliatory behaviors concerning Plaintiffs civil

right complaint and the violations to OCR manual (who watches the watchmen?).

II. PARTIES & JURISDICTION

20.

Plaintiff, Mark Bochra, on his own behalf and on behalf of other members have

been or are being injured by the Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter

5 of the Federal APA.

21.

Plaintiff on his own behalf and behalf of other members have suffered, and

continued to experience injustice by Office for Civil Rights failure to ensure equal access to

education when recipients of federal financial assistance are in violation of federal civil rights

law.

22.

Plaintiff on his own behalf and behalf of other members bring this suit on behalf

of himself and other similarly situated members.

23.

Defendants are the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”), current U.S.

Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, and Suzanne Goldberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Civil Rights. Mr. Cardona and Ms. Goldberg are sued in their official capacities.

24.

As the U.S. Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona is responsible for the

administration of the DOE in accordance with law, including adoption of rules and regulations

pursuant to the rule-making procedures set out in the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5

U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq.

23 See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf

24 See httDs://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/aa-titleix-anti-semitism-20210119.pdf

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 9 of 36 PagelD #:847

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

25.

As the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Ms. Golberg is responsible for

the administration of the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) in accordance with law,

including mandating procedures for the handling and processing of complaints of illegal

discrimination made to OCR for investigation.

26.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§701 - 706; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201; HEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1082; and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23.

27.

This Court has authority to issue declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201-

28.

Venue is proper in this judicial district because Named Plaintiff Mark Bochra

2202.

resides in this district and no real property is involved in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

29.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1)(C), because the United

States, its agencies, and its officials acting in their official capacity may be sued in the federal

judicial jurisdiction in which the plaintiff reside, so long as no real property is involved in the

suit.

30.

On review, the APA empowers courts to set aside agency action that is, among

other things, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with

law.”

III. AT .LEGATIONS COMMON TO THE CLASS:

Administrative Procedure Act

31.

The APA requires a federal agency to render responsive decisions on matters

within its purview in a prompt and definite fashion.

32.

For example, the APA requires that, “[w]ith due regard for the convenience and

necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall

proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 10 of 36 PagelD#:848

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

33.

The APA similarly requires that “prompt notice shall be given of the denial in

whole or in part of a written application, petition, or other request of an interested person made

in connection with any agency proceeding.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(e).

34.

And, the APA requires that “[e]ach agency . . . [g]ive an interested person the

right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” 5 U.S.C. §553(e).

35.

“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected

or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial

review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. §702. “Agency action “includes the “failure to act.”5 U.S.C.§553(e).

36.

A Court “shall - compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably

delayed.” 5 U.S.C. §706(1).

37.

A Court shall also “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and

conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A).

IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND

38.

The head of a federal Executive Department may adopt rules for the conduct and

government of her agency. 5 U.S.C. §301.

39.

Adoption of such rules must comply with the requirements of the rule-making

procedures of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §551, et seq., if the

proposed rules meet the definition of “rule” found in 5 U.S.C. §551(4): “ ... the whole or a part

of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to

implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or

practice requirements of an agency ....”

40.

The APA requires that courts “shall... hold unlawful and set aside agency action,

findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (B).

41.

The APA also requires that rules proposed by a federal agency first be published

in the Federal Register, with the terms or substance of the proposed rule, the legal authority for

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 11 of 36 PagelD #:849

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

the proposed rule, and specific information regarding when a public hearing on the proposed rule

will take place. 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(b), (d).

42.

Under the APA, the proposing agency must consider, prior to adoption of the rule,

all written data, views, or arguments submitted by interested persons regarding the proposed rule.

5 U.S.C. §§ 553(c), (d). This set of APA provisions for publication and consideration of

comments is referred to as the “notice-and-comment requirement.”

43.

5 U.S.C. §702 creates a cause of action in federal court for any person who has

suffered legal wrong because of, or been adversely affected or aggrieved by, an agency action or

failure to act as required by the rule-making statutes. The statute waives the sovereign immunity

of the federal government for such a lawsuit, so long as the lawsuit is against a federal agency or

a federal employee who acted or failed to act in her official capacity or under color of legal

authority, and the suit does not request monetary damages.

44.

28 U.S.C. § 2201 permits this Court to issue a declaratory judgment that the

Defendants have violated 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5 in adopting the IHRA definition as well as certain

provisions in August 26, 2020 OCR Manual, as identified below.

V. RELEVANT FACTS

45.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. (“Section

504”), prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance, including assistance

from the DOE, from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.

46.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. (“Title VI”),

prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance, including assistance from

the DOE, from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

47.

The DOE’s Title VI regulations provide:

The responsible Department official or 'his designee will make a prompt

investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other

information indicates a possible failure to comply with this part.

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 12 of 36 PagelD #:850

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

34 C.F.R. § 100.7(c) (Title 34, Subchapter B, Chapter 1, Part 100: Non-Discrimination Under

Programs Receiving Federal Assistance Through the Department of Education Effectuation of

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) (emphasis added).

48.

Section 504 requires agencies that provide federal funding to apply the same

remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in Title VI to the civil rights of persons with

disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a). DOE adopted the Title VI rights and procedures, including 34

C.F.R. § 100.7, for complaints of violations of Section 504. 34 C.F.R. § 104.61.

49.

In 2015, the OCR issued a Case Processing Manual (“2015 OCR Manual”), which

adopted “procedures to promptly and effectively investigate and resolve complaints, compliance

reviews and directed investigations to ensure compliance with the civil rights laws enforced by

OCR,” including Title VI and Section 504. 2015 OCR Manual, Introduction.

50.

The 2015 OCR Manual set out the process by which OCR staff received and

investigated complaints from individuals who allege that a person or entity that receives funding

from the DOE has violated the civil rights laws by illegally discriminating on the basis of race,

color, national origin, sex, disability, or age. Id.

51.

The 2015 OCR Manual allowed timely complaints that were within OCR’s

jurisdiction to be dismissed prior to opening an investigation in three circumstances, namely, (1)

if the complaint, on its face, failed to state a claim of violation of one of the laws that OCR

enforces, (2) if it lacked sufficient detail for OCR to infer that discrimination has occurred, or (3)

if it was so speculative, conclusory or incoherent that OCR could not infer that discrimination

had occurred. Id. § 108.

52.

The 2015 Manual also provided that, if an investigation concluded that the

preponderance of the evidence did not support a conclusion that the recipient had violated

applicable law, OCR would issue a letter of findings explaining the reasons for its decision. 2015

Manual § 303. The 2015 Manual stated that “OCR affords an opportunity to the complainant to

appeal” such a letter of findings to the Director of the Enforcement Office that issued the letter.

2015 OCR Manual §§ 303(a) and 306.

53.

The appeal process of the Manual was also left untouched with no limits to the

number of pages an appeal needs to be along with the only agency and/or person who rules on

the appeal is OCR Headquarter; mainly the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement; in this

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 13 of 36 PagelD #:851

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

case, currently Mr. Randolph Wills, (See Page 8 of the OIG Complaint against Kenneth Marcus

filed by multiple civil right organizations).25

The unique handling of the ZOA appeal decision is also reflected in its outcome. Of those 183

appeals resolved between September 29,2014, and August 27, 2018, by OCR’s Deputy Assistant]

Secretary for Enforcement, only two were reopened (on April 12,2013, and April 18, 2G13).20

Indeed, if one considers an even broader time period of almost six years (from December 11,

2012, to November 5, 2018) in which 743 appeals were resolved by OCR’s Deputy Assistant

54.

In March 2018 under the leadership of Kenneth Marcus, OCR issued a new “U. S.

Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Case Processing Manual.” The Introduction to

the 2018 OCR Manual states:

The Case Processing Manual (CPM) provides OCR with the procedures to

promptly and effectively investigate and resolve complaints, compliance reviews,

and directed investigations to ensure compliance with the civil rights laws and

regulations enforced by OCR.

2018 OCR Manual, Introduction. Upon information and belief, the 2018 Manual replaces the

2015 OCR Manual.

55.

Unlike the 2015 OCR Manual, dismissal is mandatory §108(t), and there is no

requirement that the previous complaints have been found to be without merit, or even that the

undefined “pattern” involves the same or similar allegations.

56.

The first change (“Rule Change 1”) means that, as of March 5, 2018, OCR will

no longer investigate a claim of illegal discrimination if the claim is part of “a pattern” of

complaints by an individual complainant against multiple recipients. “Pattern” is undefined and

may cover as few as two complaints, involving different allegations against different entities

over an unspecified period of time. This provision, as written, is not limited to those complaints

that would place an “unreasonable burden” on OCR. Nor is this provision limited to instances

where the prior complaints were meritless.

25 See 2015 OCR Manuel

https://web.3rchive.Org/web/20150302165238/httPs://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf See

Complaint with OIG revealing that it is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement who rules on the appeals, in

this case Mr. Randolph Wills https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/contactus2.html,

https://staticl.SQuarespace.eom/static/548748ble4b083fc03ebf70e/t/5ec593062f7cfc3aa7e3deac/159000653463

1/Letter+from+Civil+Rights+Groups+to+Office+of+lnspector+General.pdf

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 14 of 36 PagelD #:852

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

57.

This new restriction affects both individuals who have been subjected to more

than one incident of illegal discrimination and organizations that represent individuals who

cannot afford to bring claims on their own. The latter groups often submit claims over time for

multiple individuals against multiple recipients. These groups include entities like Plaintiffs, civil

rights advocates and attorneys, and the Protection and Advocacy systems, which are federally

authorized and funded to pursue administrative, legal and other claims of discrimination on

behalf of individuals with disabilities under 54 U.S.C. § 15043, 29 U.S.C. § 3004, and 42 U.S.C.

§ 10803-07.

58.

According to the language of §108(t) of the 2018 OCR Manual, such entities will

be blocked from bringing multiple claims on behalf of their multiple constituents. Because DOE

provided no opportunity for notice and comment. In addition, the 2018 Manual precludes any

civil right organization and/or individuals from bringing a single complaint against multiple

recipients (even if those recipients acted together), if OCR, in its sole judgment, and on the basis

of unknown factors, decides that investigating would place an undefined “unreasonable burden”

on OCR’s resources (“Rule Change 2”).

59.

These two distinct and substantive changes mean that, as of March 5, 2018, OCR

has unilaterally eliminated a right of claimants that was created by the DOE’s regulations and

maintained in prior Case Processing Manuals: the right to have one’s claim of discrimination

investigated if it indicates a possible failure to comply with federal civil rights laws.

60.

Rule Changes 1 and 2 to the 2018 OCR Manual were arbitrary, capricious, and

not in accordance with law.

61.

In addition to adding § 108(t), DOE made a third change that eliminated

complainants’ right to appeal OCR findings of insufficient evidence (“Rule Change 3”).

62.

The 2015 OCR Manual included a right for complainants to appeal OCR

decisions to close their complaints for lack of evidence. In the 2018 OCR Manual, DOE

eliminated the entire “Appeals” section. There is no provision in the 2018 OCR Manual offering

an appeal or reconsideration of an OCR determination not to pursue a claim of discrimination.

The appeal right was eliminated without notice and comment and without any stated rationale to

support it.

63.

None of the three 2018 OCR Manual rule changes is merely an interpretative rule,

a general statement of policy, or a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. All the

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 15 of 36 PagelD #:853

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.'''’ Jesus Christ

changes shift and affect rights and interests of complainants, and make substantive changes to

prior rules. Therefore, all three changes were required to be subject to notice and comment under

the APA.

64.

DOE did not comply with the federal APA rule-making procedures set out in 5

U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq., before issuing the 2018 OCR Manual. The proposed 2018

OCR Manual was not published in the Federal Register, nor were public comments on the

proposal sought, received, or considered, prior to the 2018 OCR Manual’s adoption. The public

did not have an opportunity for notice and comment before the Manual was adopted and put into

effect.

65.

After a public uproar and litigation, OCR backtracked by amending their manual

and re-opened all dismissed complaints.26 However, again without any published notice in the

Federal Register, comments and discussion on the regulation, Office for Civil Rights has done

two things to the manual under both the Trump’s and the Biden’s cabinet leaderships; OCR

August 26, 2020 Manual and January 19,2021 the IHRA definition.

(A) Weakening the appeal process by limiting the appeal to 10 page double space with no

time frame provided to rule on the appeal, and without mentioning who rules on the

appeal, yet the appeal is asked to be mailed to OCR headquarter address; never to any

regional offices. The appeal procedure is written in a way that is vague, unclear, and

provides no time frame for ruling on the appeal; rendering due process rights an illusion.

The appeal procedure is written in a way which makes the appeal process a never

independent process but rather it relays on pleasing the Masters who rules over a federal

building i.e., Office For Civil Rights; here due process was denied again for many; equity

and equality was denied for many as well (“Rule Change 4”); and

(B) Without any notice published in the Federal Register or public comments, or even

congress adopting such definition, Office for Civil Rights adopted the IHRA definition,

first by Kenneth Marcus himself when he granted Zoa’s appeal under the definition

without congress intent.27 And later OCR continued and enforced the IHRA definition

under the leadership of Suzanne Goldberg under the Biden’s administration (both

26 See https://browngold.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Countersigned-Settlement-Agreement-ACE-DQE.pdf

27 See https://web.archive.org/web/20200307225539/https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165-ce21-df3d-al77-

cee9649e0000

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 16 of 36 PagelD #:854

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

Kenneth Marcus and Suzanne Goldberg are Jews); a definition which makes the Jewish

people superior in every way compare to the Gentiles (“Rule Change 5”).28

66.

On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff- wrote a direct letter to Secretary Cardona and sends

it his via e-mail Miguel.Cardona@ed.gov along with his entire staff at DOE and OCR. Plaintiff

in a hope for a new leadership, a vision to fix rather than destroys, and after watching Secretary

Miguel Cardona confirmation hearing, especially when he said on his own twitter account “All

means all”, Plaintiff had high hope for a greater change within OCR.29 However, words were one

thing and action was another. See Office for Civil Rights their response to a call for reformation

after Plaintiff’s 1st letter to Secretary Miguel Cardona. OCR outright said the Plaintiff can

complaint to OIG. OCR didn’t care about addressing the context of Plaintiff s letter nor correct

past leadership wrongdoings, to OCR new leadership, Plaintiff was a no one; here you saw the

rise of Goliath taking pride in his own strength.

OCR; <0CR$fedgo*>

W<d|/3V2£n OSS AM

Deaf U:. BOCttfi,

you for wnttng to the U.S. ©epanmortt o? «due*don, Offe* for CM! Rfchti (OCR), Custom*# $i»vm T**m. I arm pleased 10 mpOfid,

OCR is responsible for enforcing several federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and

age by recipients of federal financial assistance. These Saws are:

* Title tf of the Civil Rights Art of 1964 {prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, and national origin}

* Title IX of the education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex discrimination)

* Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Art of 1973 (prohibiting disability discrimination}

* Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (prohibiting age discrimination)

■ Title it of the Americans with Disabilities Art of 1990 (prohibiting disabSity discrimination by public entities, e,g., public elementary and

secondary school systems, postsecondsry schools, and vocational education programs, whether or net they receive federal financial

assistance).

OCR also enforces the Soy Scouts of America fqual Access Act, vmteh addresses equal ecc ess to school fatrfities for the Boy Scouts and other specific youth groups,

since you are not satisfied with OCR's investigation process, you may contact the office of the inspector General (OIG) directly at;

u.S. Oepanmem of education Office ofinspector General

SSO12th street

SW Washington. DC 20202

(202) 24S4$00

if you wob to fife a complaint vmh 0*6, you may use the Ink beta*

https^/www.ed.^ovfo’g/olyaddresses.htmi.

I hope this information provided is of assistance to you.

Sincerely.

Customer Service Team

Office for ChrtJ Rights

US Department of education

OCR said to complaint to OIG.

See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/aa-titleix-anti-semitism-20210119.pdf

29 See https://twitter.com/teachcardona/status/1357181681686437893 see hearing

https://www.helo.senate.gov/hearings/nomination-of-miguei-cardona-to-serve-as-secretarv-of-education

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 17 of 36 PagelD #:855

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World” Jesus Christ

67.

However, on June 7, 2018, Office of Inspector General said the Plaintiff needs to

complaint to OCR, sending the file back to OCR after it was opened for an investigation by OIG.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

June 7, 2018

Mark Bochra

5757 N. Sheridan Road Apt 13B

Chicago, IL 60660

Ref: OIG Complaint C18HQ02716

Dear Mr. Bochra:

I am writing in response to your emails dated June 6,2018 and June 7, 2018, regarding the

status of your Office of Inspector General (OIG) complaint. I am the Special Agent in Charge of

Headquarters Operations. I work closely with Director Yessyka Santana and Special Agent in

Charge Neil Sanchez. I understand you submitted your complaint through various individuals

within the Office of Inspector General, and we have all reviewed the matter and discussed the

appropriate path forward. After review our office determined that is not a criminal matter and

should be handled through the appropriate appeals process with Office of Civil Rights (OCR). As

stated in an email to you dated June 6, 2018, we referred your matter to the OCR, and the OIG

complaint is closed. If you have new allegations, unrelated to your OCR case, please direct them

to our hotline portal, www.oiehotline.ed.gov. for timely and efficient processing.

Respectfully,

Nicole Gardner

Special Agent in Charge

Headquarter Operations

cc:

SAC Neil Sanchez

Director Yessyka Santana

68.

While U.S. Office of Government Ethics, on August 8, 2019, said the Plaintiff

needs to complaint to Office of Inspector General (OIG). The end result is that no one wanted to

take responsibility into reforming Office for Civil Rights. Several Federal agencies all ping17

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 18 of 36 PagelD #:856

“Icame to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

ponged Plaintiffs complaints around; throwing their own responsibilities onto the other. See

further Exhibit A pages 186-190 complaint to Justice Department Senior leadership.

RE: Department of Education - Office For Civil Right

Contact OGE <contactoge@oge.gov>

Fri 8/2/20197:42 AM

To: You

<>«>-»

■

Hello Mark,

While we appreciate your e-mail, OGE was established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to be the office responsible for

setting policies aimed at the prevention of conflicts of interest in the executive branch of the Federal Government. OGE, a small

agency within the executive branch, assists other executive branch departments and agencies to implement ethics rules and policies

that deal with conflict-of-interest laws, post-employment restrictions, the standards of ethical conduct, and the public and

confidential financial disclosure systems for executive branch federal employees.

•(

OGE's jurisdiction extends only to the specific ethics issues described above within the executive branch of the U.S. Government.

OGE does not undertake for investigation the allegations of misconduct of the type you describe in your e-mail. In most cases, it

would be the Inspector General of the department or agency involved who would determine whether to investigate such alleged

misconduct. In addition, in appropriate cases, the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice may determine to

investigate alleged misconduct of federal employees.

Below is the oontact information for the Inspector General at the Department of Education:

Sandra Bruce, Acting Inspector General

(202) 245-6900

55012th Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20024

Hotline Number:

(800) 647-8733

Hotline Website:

https://QIGHotline.ed.gov

Thank you.

Contact OGE

U.S. Office of Government Ethics

Follow OGE on Twitter: @OfficeGovEthics

OGE referring the Complaint to OIG

69.

DOE’s action in adopting the changes to OCR Manual is final. DOE’s action in

adopting the IHRA definition is final. There is no other remedy for this injury except suit in

federal court.

VL WHAT IS THE IHRA DEFINITION & A BACKGROUND CHAIN OF EVENTS

70.

The IHRA definition was a political charged definition by multiple Jewish

lobbyists and advocated by Israel in order to deflect the truth about many realities rather than

seeking reformation. In order to understand what the IHRA is doing to the World, see Exhibit A

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 19 of 36 PagelD #:857

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World'’’ Jesus Christ

pages 88 - 96; see also Exhibit A pages 101 - 103; see also Exhibit A pages 104-111; and see

Exhibit G pages 118-126.

71.

The IHRA definition calls good-evil, and evil-good; it calls light-darkness and

darkness-light; it calls hate-love and love-hate.30 Humanity has lost its path toward identifying

sood vs. evil. See Exhibit A pages 136 - 138, and see also Exhibit A pages 106-112.

72.

The first major issue with the IHRA definition is to claim that Jews did not kill

Jesus Christ and that claiming so is anti-Semitic. Kenneth Marcus himself wrote a distorted

paper on Anti-Semitism under the title “Jurisprudence of the New Anti-Semitism” by attacking

everyone around the World starting with the followers of Jesus Christ who were all Jews and

persecuted by other Jews for their faith in Jesus Christ, yet Kenneth Marcus never blamed

himself once seeing himself as righteous person and no one is righteous.31 Kenneth Marcus on

page 24 wrote the following:

The advent of Christianity radically altered the place of Jews in the world. establishing

the basic themes of anti-Judaism that endure to the present. . . Early Christianity,

however, developed a particular hostility for the Jews, based on a perception that Jews

had rejected Jesus as their savior and been comvlicit in his death.

Kenneth Marcus by his own written words was seeking glory among the nations;

Kenneth Marcus sought earthly glory but if he knew anything about the teachings of Jesus

Christ, he would have learned that Christ came to save the multitudes, starting with the sinners

(The tax collector was one example, and the Prostitute was another).32 See Exhibit G pages 169

- 202; glory was already provided to the Jewish people and they have misused God’s blessings.

74.

Even the foundation of the United States of America was built on the teachings of

Jesus Christ in order to raise a healthy nation; a nation that loves, forgives, and gives chances for

many to change; see Exhibit G pages 229 - 233.33

75.

Plaintiff in order to address Kenneth Marcus’ distorted paper, started by

addressing Kenneth Marcus’ lies first by reaching out to him directly via e-mails in a hope for

30 See the IHRA definition https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

31 See Kenneth Marcus paper https://brandeiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/iurisprudence.pdf vs. see

https://voutu.be/w5GXnM TxSQ

32 See httos://voutu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=4378 and see httPs://voutu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=2256

33 See Thomas Jefferson paper on the Doctrine of Jesus Christ compared with others April 21,1803

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-Q178-0002

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 22 of 36 PagelD #:860

“7 came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World” Jesus Christ

intent violating Title VI and the equal protection clause by enforcing a definition that is

exclusive for the Jewish people. However, with the Plaintiff Mark Bochra’s complaint, equal

protection was denied for him by OCR; raising up the Jews who did evil while stepping on the

Coptic who tried to reform evil hearts.

FACTS CONCERNING NAMED PLAINTIFF

Mark Bochra

80.

Plaintiff Mark Bochra enrolled in a Jurist Doctor degree at Florida Coastal School

of law (FCSL) starting in the year 2014 (summer program called Ample) then continued with an

official admission in the year of 2015.

81.

Plaintiff, Mark Bochra, experienced a chain of discriminatory and retaliatory

events at Florida Coastal School of Law and the truth became a burden first for the for-profit law

school leadership and later for OCR senior leadership.

82.

Former Secretary Kenneth Marcus attempted to destroy Plaintiffs case more than

once by allowing the manual to be applied differently on the Plaintiff compared to the

respondent/recipient i.e., Florida Coastal School of Law. Every time the truth came out, OCR

hated the truth and attempted to destroy the Plaintiffs case by enforcing the manual differently

on the Plaintiff compare to the recipient i.e., Florida Coastal School of Law; see Exhibit B letter

to Kenneth Marcus.

83.

Initially Plaintiffs case was handled by Secretary Candice Jackson, who

instructed Deputy Enforcement Director Randolph Wills by saying “7 need this case to be

handled properly” The case initially was handled by OCR headquarter and OCR Atlanta

Director Melanie Velez, however, the manual kept getting violated face on and applied

differently on the Plaintiff while pleasing the recipient; Florida Coastal School of Law.

84.

Senator Richard Durbin who is currently the Chair of the Senate Judiciary

Committee wrote letters to the Department of Education and OCR seeking a clear response to the

pending status of the Plaintiffs complaint. However, Melanie Velez continued delay and excuses

are shown through her 3 identical responses to Senator Durbin’s office; see Exhibit C.

85.

Until, it came the day during Covidl9 lock down when Melanie Velez saw it was

her best opportunity to retaliate against the Plaintiff by tempering with witnesses and the

evidence and issued a one side finding; destroying completely Plaintiffs file and produced

evidence; something the Plaintiff told her over the phone that she will do a year before her taken

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 23 of 36 PagelD #:861

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

action. Plaintiff also pleaded via e-mail to Secretary Betsy DeVos chief of staff for OCR not to

retaliate; but the senior leadership at OCR i.e., Kenneth Marcus was evil at its core.

86.

In a summary, Plaintiffs Complaint went from: OCR for nearly 2 years

negotiating a resolution with a stubborn recipient to a dismissal rather than pass Plaintiffs case

to the Justice Department for prosecution pursuant to the Manuel section 305 and 602; which

Melanie Velez is very much aware of and discussed it with the Plaintiff over one of many phone

conversations.38

Section 305 states the following in part:

When following the expiration of the 30 calendar day period or the 10 calendar day

period referenced in CPM subsection 303(b) and the issuance of a letter of finding(s), the

recipient refuses to make a commitment to voluntarily resolve the identified areas of

noncompliance, OCR will prepare a Letter of Impending Enforcement Action. . . To

resolve the case after issuance of the Letter of Impending Enforcement Action, any

resolution agreement that the recipient proposes must be approved by OCR.

87.

Florida Coastal School of Law refused to agree to OCR resolution agreement

which OCR spent more than a year trying to negotiate with the recipient, while stopping the

investigation and allowing the recipient to disperse most of the witnesses from the school

including most of the Plaintiffs law school professors; this was a clear violation of section 302

which only provided OCR with a 30 days to negotiate a resolution compare to a year. The next

appropriate step was for OCR to refer the case to DOJ for prosecution or a resolution; see section

602 of OCR Manual.39

When post-Letter of Impending Enforcement Action negotiations do not result in a

resolution agreement, OCR will where appropriate, issue a letter to the recipient stating

that the case will be referred to DOJ in 10 days from the date of the letter.

88.

Several individuals inside the Department of Education tried to help the Plaintiff

like the Communication Director Edgar Mayes, however, the leadership of Kenneth Marcus was

too corrupt, wicked, and evil; see Exhibit D the 20th letter to President Trump; explains in detail

some of the chain of events which took place concerning the Defendant, DOE.

See copy of 2015 OCR manual

https://web.archive.ore/web/20170317213147/http5://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf vs.

see a copy of 2020 OCR manual https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf

39 See past cases resolved jointly by both OCR and DOJ https://www.iustice.gov/crt/file/850401/download

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 24 of 36 PagelD #:862

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

RICHARD J. DURBIN

COMMITTE : on APPROPRIATIONS

♦

COMMITT £ ON THt JUDICIARY

ILLINOIS

Bnitcd States Senate

DEMOCRATIC WHIP

Washington, ©£20510-1301

COM! IITTISE ON KULfc'S

AND; .DMINISTRATION

May 15,2018

Peter Oppcnheim

Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Congressional Affairs :

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue. SW

Washington, DC 20202-3100

Dear Mr. Oppenheim,

My constituent, Mr. Mark Bochra, recently contacted niy Chicago office regarding a pend ng

matter with the U.S. Department of Education. Office for Civil Rights (OCR). I have encl osed

additional information to provide you with a more detailed explanation.

1 would appreciate the U.S. Department of Education looking into this matter at your carli :st

convenience. Please advise my staff, who assists me with these matters, of your findings.

I f you require any further information in order to proceed, or have additional questions, pi ;ase do

not hesitate to contact my Chicago office at 312/353-4952.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

Very truly yours,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

230 South Dearborn St.

Suite 3892

Chicago, Illinois 60604

312/353-4952

RJD/jt

711 MART SENATE OffiCC BUILDING

WASHINGTON. OC 20iil0-130d

<2021224-2152

VRS <2021 540-9782

230 SOUTH DEARBORN, 3S1TH FLOOR

CHICAGO. ILGOCCW

(312 las:3-405?

525 south eighth street

SPRINGFIELD, IL 62703

(237) 492-4062

I504 THIRD AVENUE

SUTTE 227

ROCK ISLAND 1L6I701

(31)91 786-5173

PAULS! MON FEDERAL lBUILDING

2t‘fi W, CHERRY 51 f IEET

SUITE 115 D

CA 1BONDALE. IL 62901

Senator Durbin’s letter to the Department ofEducation

89.

Office for Civil Rights violated their own case processing manual, applied a

different set of rules on the Plaintiff compare to another and caused injustice everywhere in the

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 25 of 36 PagelD #:863

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

way they handled many complaints by enforcing the federal civil right laws unequally. Here

OCR failed its mission in becoming the gate keeper of protecting the civil rights of all students.

The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to

promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of

civil rights, sic.40

90.

Plaintiff as an individual who has been or is being injured by the Defendants’

failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter 5 of the federal APA. Defendants continued

modification to the OCR Manuel without public notice and comments, is clearly shown when the

appeal process was violated by OCR when handling the Plaintiffs appeal. In part, the

Defendants did the following:

a) Any appeal is handled and ruled by OCR HQ i.e., the Deputy Enforcement director. In

one of its kind, Defendants redirected another regional office, OCR Dallas to rule on the

Plaintiffs appeal.

b) OCR Dallas through a series of trials to destroy Plaintiffs appeal, sought from him to

rewrite his appeal by complying with a 10 page double space, in order to destroy as many

evidence produced within the appeal. The Plaintiff complied with OCR Dallas demand

by producing a 10 page double space appeal.

c) OCR Dallas refused to rule on the appeal, sending it back to OCR Atlanta based on Mr.

Gregory McGhee own words to the Plaintiff “Mark if we find that OCR Atlanta

mishandled your complaint, we will send the case back to them.”

d) After Defendants received a copy of Plaintiffs letters to President Biden and Congress;

letter 1 and letter 2. Secretary Suzanne Goldberg redirected OCR Dallas to respond to the

Plaintiff, however, in the response, it showed a new name added onto the e-mail Aaron

Romine without stating at that time who is Aaron Romine; Jewish name that is.

e) Finally, Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff by denying the appeal without any

justification or proper explanation. Furthermore, the appeal denial was written by Aaron

Romine who claimed to be the Acting Director of OCR Dallas; however, Aaron Romine

was always the director of OCR Denver.41 See Exhibit E. Here, the Defendants brought

40 See OCR Mission https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html

41 See Aaron Romine Linkedln profile for 10 years being OCR Denver Director https://www.linkedin.com/in/iaaron-romine-58721316

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 26 of 36 PagelD #:864

“I came to complete not to refute: I came light to the World.'1'’ Jesus Christ

in another director from another regional office to discriminate and retaliate against the

Plaintiff; putting an end to 5 year saga of injustice by continuing to deny justice.

Romine, Aaron <Aaron.Romine@ed.gov>

Sat 7/17/2021 9-25 PM

...

To: You

1 am currently away from die office. If you need Immeldate assistance please contact the OCR Denver Customer Service line at 303-844-5695.

In a bounced back auto e-mail, it shows to this day Aaron Romine is OCR Denver Director

The Department of Education and Office for Civil Rights Concerning Mark Bochra pending appeal

+ The Parable to this World

|1V

Mark Bochra

Dear Acting Secretary Goldberg - Attached herein, please find my 1st and 2nd letter to President Biden. The 1st L.

Thu 5/13/2021 2:56 AM

See 8 more messages

Mark Bochra

Hello OCR Dallas - It mentions to email OCR.Datlas@ed.gov I am forwarding my email Sincerely, Mark

McGhee. Gregory <Gregory.McGhee@ed.gov>

Fri 5/28/2021 10:39 AM

Fri 5/28/2021 11:17 AM

To: You

Cc Romine, Aaron; Wills, Randolph

Mr. Bochra,

OCR Dallas is currently finalizing its review of your appeal (along with the additional information and documentation that you have

provided in support of the appeal). We will provide you with a formal response to your appeal as soon as possible. Thank you.

Gregory D. McGhee

Supervisory General Attomey/Program Manager

U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights

1201 Elm Street, Ste. 1000

Dallas. Texas 75270

Telephone: 214.661.9674

Facsimile: 214.661.9587

What was said via e-mails was never their intention, for many years it was like that.

91.

Defendants continued arbitrary and capricious behavior have not just injured the

Plaintiff but many other Plaintiffs as well; see “Department of Education is stalling Complaints

against race, sex segregation” citing OCR Denver as the worst of all OCR regional offices.42

42 See https://thevirginiastar.com/2021/04/29/deDartment-of-education-is-stalline-complaints-against-race-sexsegreeation-critics-sav/

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 27 of 36 PagelD #:865

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

“The Denver OCR is a notoriously bad actor, much worse than any other regional office

from my experience (and others),” University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark Perry

wrote in an email to Just the News, sic.

92.

After Plaintiffs first letter to President Biden and Congress, Catherine Lhamon

was nominated that same day to take charge of Office for Civil Rights, in a hope of bringing

reforms to OCR. However, can a new Secretary bring reforms to OCR while neglecting injustice

committed by OCR predecessors? ‘Urgent as it ever has been’: Biden pick says she’ll rebuild

civil rights office at critical time.43

INJUSTICE

ANYWHERE

IS A THREAT

TO JUSTICE

EVERYWHERE

-oa MARiminKERK'NG.jn

Martin Luther King learned to speak with parables when he traveled to the East

93.

Plaintiff seeks to reform the Department of Education and Office for Civil Rights

on his own behalf and on behalf of others, while seeking justice for what happened to his life and

legal career at the hands of some Jewish people. Justice heals and injustice feeds on hate.

However, there is the sort of justice which brings love and peace to many. Plaintiff has shown

this through his work when the Abraham Accord came to life; initially it was called “Deal of the

Century” and it was a failure by Jared Kushner. See Exhibit A page 30; see also Exhibit G

Plaintiffs 3rd letter to the White House, Congress, and President Biden’s cabinet members.

“For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or

the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and

slow decay.”

Robert F. Kennedy

Cleveland City Club

April 5, 1968

43 See https://bit.lv/3nkwJCo

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 28 of 36 PagelD #:866

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World ” Jesus Christ

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION

94.

The named Plaintiff file this action on his own behalf and all other individuals

similarly situated. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class § 706 (1) Class and § 706(2) Sub-Class that

has been harmed by the new OCR Case Processing Manuel and the adoption of the IHRA

definition by the Department of Education in term of causing disparate treatment discrimination

to another race outside of the Jewish identity.

95.

The proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure.

The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable

because the IHRA alone separates the Jewish people from the Gentiles,

rendering Title VI on its own moot.

There are questions of law and facts common to the class, including

without limitation, whether the Department of Education can enforce the

IHRA definition without congress intent, and whether the Department of

Education’s adoption of the IHRA definition violates the federal civil right

act, and whether the IHRA definition is unlawful.

The named Plaintiff is proceeding as a pro-se because no one in the United

States so far came to challenge OCR adoption of the IHRA definition

within the Federal Court systems. However at anytime this honorable

court deems a legal representation is necessary for the said class action

lawsuit and in order to protect the interests of the class, the court can

appoint legal presentation to assist the Plaintiff.

96.

A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the claims of Named Plaintiffs, and the class. The Plaintiff and others in the same

situation have been damaged by reason of the Department of Education’s persistent modification

of their case processing manual without public notice and comment in the federal register; along

with the adoption of the IHRA definition.

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 29 of 36 PagelD #:867

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

97.

A class is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because the

Defendants’ action in refusing to adopt a fair manual, especially section 307 appeal process, after

public notice and comment on the changes within the manual. Along with the Department’s

refusal to vacate the IHRA definition because it stands in contrary with OCR mission.44

The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to

promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of

civil rights.

98.

A class is also appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)

because prosecuting separate actions could create inconsistent or varying adjudications that

could establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Department. Similarly, the adjudication

of one class member’s claims would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the

other members not party of the adjudication.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: Violation of 5 USC Chapter 5, §§ 551, etseqAdoption of a Rule that is Not in

Accordance with Law (for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief)

99.

Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

100.

This Court is empowered by 5 U.S.C. § 702 to hold unlawful and set aside agency

action that the Court finds to be not in accordance with law.

101.

This Court is empowered by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to declare the rights of Plaintiff

and other interested parties regarding the issues presented in this Complaint.

102.

OCR Manual changes without public notice and comments wholly and

unequivocally contradict DOE regulation 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(c) and 34 C.F.R. § 104.61, which

provide that DOE “will make a proper investigation” when it receives a complaint that “indicates

a possible” illegal discriminatory action by a recipient of federal educational funds (emphasis

added). Nothing in these regulations permits DOE or OCR to discriminate themselves against

one class compare to another. Here, OCR has destroyed its own dictated mission by adopting the

IHRA definition and weakening the appeal process of the Manuel in order to destroy as many

44 See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 30 of 36 PagelD #:868

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

appeals as possible by means of deception and prejudice; backed up by how previously the

Department removed the entire appeal section from the OCR manual.

103.

The Department passing Plaintiffs appeal from one regional office onto to the

other and re-assigning regional directors with a stroke of a pen whenever they felt like it, does

not only violate the 2020 manual but shows inconsistency in rulings when it is OCR headquarter

deputy enforcement director who rules on the appeals. The Department does not have an

independent body of individuals who rules on the appeals but rather passing appeals from the

Master to the Servant does not render the appeal process a fair and just process because at the

end of the day, the Master serves the Servant; in this parable OCR regional offices do comply

with what OCR headquarter advises them to do.

104.

In addition, Congress appropriated an increase of $8.5 million for DOE OCR for

fiscal year 2018, for a total annual budget of $117,000,000.45 Followed by an increase for a total

annual budget of $125,000,000 for the fiscal year 2020.46 Department of Education Office for

Civil Rights Fiscal Year 2018 and 2020 Budget Requests can be found at Z-7. This shows that

OCR has the budged and the capacity to handle civil right complaints without the need to

eliminate the appeal section or modify it to the point it can eliminate as many appeals as

possible.

105.

Plaintiff on his own behalf and behalf of other similarly situated are entitled to a

declaratory judgment that § 307 of the 2020 OCR Manual is not in accordance with law and

violates Chapter 5 of the APA.

106.

Plaintiff on his own behalf and behalf of other similarly situated are entitled to an

order vacating § 307 of the 2020 OCR Manual along with vacating the IHRA definition and

enjoining the DOE and OCR officials, as named in this suit, from implementing it.

COUNT II: Violation of 5 USC Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq. Adoption of the IHRA

definition that is Arbitrary or Capricious (for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief)

107.

Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

108.

This Court is empowered by 5 U.S.C. § 702 to hold unlawful and set aside agency

action that the Court finds to be arbitrary or capricious.

45 See https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budgetl8/iustifications/z-ocr.pdf

46 See https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget20/iustifications/z-ocr.pdf

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 31 of 36 PagelD #:869

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

109.

This Court is empowered by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to declare the rights of Plaintiff

and other interested parties regarding the issues presented in this Complaint.

110.

On its face, the adopted IHRA definition without congress intent, public notice or

comments in the Federal register by the DOE and OCR, are arbitrary or capricious, or both.

Neither the DOE nor OCR has identified any evidence or rational to support their adoption of the

IHRA definition.

111.

On its face, the amended appeal § 307 of the 2020 OCR Manual without public

notice or comments in the Federal register by the DOE and OCR, are arbitrary or capricious, or

both. The Department reducing the appeal process to a mere process by denying proper due

process by means of using an appeal process that is unclear and inconsistent, when it fails to (1)

recite who rules on the appeals, (2) setting a time frame for when an appeal would be ruled on,

(3) and limiting the Complainants’ appeals to 10 pages double space. Neither the DOE or OCR

has identified any evidence or rational to support reducing the appeal process into a mere

process. None of the essential terms used in § 307 to the 2020 OCR manual is defined, such as

who rules on the appeal, the time frame covered to rule on any appeal, or who falls under the old

appeal process of the 2015 OCR manual vs. the new adopted appeal process in the 2020 OCR

manual i.e., unlimited pages or i0 pages double space.

112.

There is no rational basis for reducing the appeal process after it was previously

eliminated other than to continue to deny many the rights to proper due process which is the

essence of the Civil Right Laws. In addition to the adoption of the IHRA definition which treats

one class of students with a set of rules and privileges that are different from the remaining

classes of students. Because there is no rational basis for the assumptions underlying §307 of the

2020 OCR Manual and the IHRA definition, their adoption were arbitrary or capricious, or both.

113.

Plaintiff on his own behalf and behalf of other similarly situated are entitled to a

declaratory judgment that § 307 of the 2020 OCR Manual, along with the IHRA definition is

arbitrary and capricious and violates Chapter 5 of the APA. Plaintiff on his own behalf and

behalf of other similarly situated are entitled to an order vacating §307 of the 2020 OCR Manual

and the IHRA definition and enjoining the DOE and OCR officials, as named in this suit, from

implementing or enforcing it.

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 32 of 36 PagelD #:870

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World” Jesus Christ

COUNT III: Violation of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq.: Failure to comply with notice

and comment requirements (for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief)

114.

Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

115.

This Court is empowered by 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706 to hold unlawful and set

aside final agency action that the Court finds to have been adopted without observance of

procedure required by law.

116.

This Court is empowered by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to declare the rights of Plaintiff

and other interested parties regarding the issues presented in this Complaint.

117.

DOE and OCR have violated the APA, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq., by

first eliminating the right to appeal in the 2018 OCR Manual without complying with the notice

and comment requirements of the APA rule-making provisions. Then later adopting §307 of the

2020 OCR Manual and the IHRA definition without again complying with the notice and

comment requirements of the APA rule-making provisions.

118.

None of the OCR Manual changes is merely an interpretative rule, a general

statement of policy, or a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. The changes shift

and affect rights and interests of complainants, and make substantive amendments to prior rules.

119.

No public notice of these new rules was provided to interested persons, and

interested persons were given no opportunity to provide comment on them before they were

adopted. No explanation, reason or rationale was provided for the unilateral adoption of these

changes.

120.

Plaintiff on his own behalf and behalf of other similarly situated have been

injured in that the DOE and OCR have adopts rules within the OCR Manual and a definition (the

IHRA) which violates many complainants’ rights and DOE’s own non-discrimination statues.

121. Plaintiff on his own behalf and behalf of other similarly situated are entitled to a

declaratory judgment that the changes to the 2020 OCR Manual described in this Complaint

along with the IHRA definition were adopted without compliance with Chapter 5 of the APA,

and are, therefore, illegal.

122.

Plaintiff are entitles to an order vacating § 307 of the 2020 OCR Manual, along

with the IHRA definition, reinstating the appeal process adopted in the 2015 OCR manual,

enjoining the DOE and OCR officials, as named in this suit, from implementing those changes,

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 33 of 36 PagelD#:871

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

and requiring them, before attempting to adopt any similar provisions, to comply with the notice

and comments requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq.

COUNT IV: Unlawfully Withheld and Unreasonably Delayed Agency Action

APA § 706(1)

123.

Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

124.

Defendants have violated the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) because they have refused

to grant applications from members of the proposed class by failing to adopt a fair appeal process

after public notice and comments in the Federal Register and refuse to vacate the IHRA

definition which conflicts with OCR mission and Title VI of the Civil Right Act.

125.

Pursuant to the APA, a court “shall [] compel agency action unlawfully withheld

or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

126.

The Department has not brought to conclusion the applications presented to it

within a reasonable time, as required by the APA. The Department left the appeal process with

no time frame to rule on the appeals, as shown in this complaint, Defendants used a year

switching between different regional offices to rule on Plaintiffs appeal; to the Department, it

was a power with no boundaries.

127.

Defendants’ inaction has harmed and prejudiced Named Plaintiff and members of

the protected class, including by violating their protected civil rights and the right to a fair due

process.

128.

The Department has acted in repeated bad faith in denying individuals their right

to due process and a fair appeal.

129.

The Court should declare that the Department has violated the APA and compel

the Department to start granting Class Members’ individual appeal applications based on the

2015 OCR Manuel for an independent appeal review free from any conflict of interest.

COUNT V: Arbitrary and Capricious Final Agency Action

APA § 706(2)

130.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

131.

The Defendants amended appeal process and adopted IHRA definition is arbitrary

herein.

and capricious and not otherwise in accordance with the law because Defendants have the legal

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 34 of 36 PagelD #:872

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

obligation to protect the rights of every student; clearly OCR has set a standard of different

application of laws between the Jewish people vs. the Gentiles.

132.

Defendants’ adopted policies runs counter to its own mission. The Court should

declare that the Department’s final agency action is unlawful and vacate the IHRA definition and

§ 307 of the 2020 OCR Manual or alternatively after public notice and comments in the Federal

appeals under the 2020 OCR Manual.

COUNT VI: PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - U.S. CONST. AMEND. 5

133.

Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

134.

The Defendants have deprived the Plaintiff and others of their constitutionally

protected civil rights without due process of law by failing to satisfy their obligation under OCR

mission to vigorous enforcement of civil rights; the violations and amendments to the OCR

manual without public notice and comments, and the adoption of the IHRA definition renders

this vigorous enforcement moot.

135.

The Defendants have deprived the Plaintiff and others of their constitutionally

protected civil rights without due process of law by failing to satisfy their obligation to provide

complainants with a neutral decision-maker on their complaints. The adoption of the IHRA

definition by itself renders OCR mission statement meaningless because each race will seek a

definition by that same standard and ask a simple question “Why not me too?”

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff on his own behalf and behalf of other similarly situated

respectfully request that this Court enter a judgment in their favor, and against Defendants, and:

a) Certify the class and sub-class as defined in this complaint, pursuant to Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

b) Declare that Defendants’ adoption of § 307 of the 2020 OCR Manual and the IHRA

definition was not in accordance with law and was beyond statutory and regulatory

authority, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act;

c) Declare that Defendants’ first eliminating of the 2015 OCR Manual § 307 appeal

right in the 2018 OCR Manual without complying with notice, and comment

requirements and then again bringing back the appeal process but under obscure

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 9 Filed: 09/10/21 Page 35 of 36 PagelD #:873

“I came to complete not to refute, I came light to the World.'’’ Jesus Christ

terms in the 2020 OCR Manual under section 307 again without a public notice and

comment requirements violated the Administrative Procedure Act;

d) Vacate and set aside the challenged provisions of the 2020 OCR Manual, pursuant to

5U.S.C. §702;

e) Vacate and set aside the IHRA definition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702;

f) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, servants, employees,

attorneys, and all persons in active, concert or participation with them, from acting in

accordance with implementing § 307 of the 2020 OCR Manual and the IHRA

definition, and from denying the rights to a proper appeal and due process;

g) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants to comply with DOE regulations

and the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in the

development of any provisions replacing the vacated provisions of the Manual;

h) Retain Jurisdiction as appropriate; and

i) Order such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: September 10, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark Bochra

Plaintiff, Pro Se

5757 North Sheridan Road, Apt 13B

Chicago, IL 60660

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 1 of 99 PagelD #:2906

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.'1' Jesus Christ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Mark Bochra, individually and on

Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,

Civil Action No. l:21-cv-03887

Plaintiffs,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Lyndon Baines Johnson Dept. Of Education Bldg.

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20202,

Hon. Judge: Sara L. Ellis

Hon. Mag Judge: Jeffrey T. Gilbert

Date Filed: February 28,2022

And

Miguel Cardona

Secretary of Education,

And

Suzanne Goldberg, in her official capacity as

Acting Assistant Secretary

For the Office for Civil Rights,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Mark Bochra, pro-se, on his own behalf and all other

individuals similarly situated, hereby oppose the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants U.S.

Department of Education, Miguel Cardona, and Suzanne Goldberg (collectively, “Defendants”),

ECF No. 28 (“Mot. To Dismiss”). Both the changes to the OCR Manual and the adoption of the

IHRA definition were promulgated violation of DOE’s own regulations and were arbitrary and

capricious, in direct violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551,

et seq. These changes were promulgated in violation of the APA’s rule-making requirements.

Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, Plaintiffs have adequately pled that Defendants violated the

APA. Therefore, Plaintiff prays that Defendants’ motion should be denied in its entirety.

Page 1 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 2 of 99 PagelD #:2907

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRE-STATEMENT: THE LAMP ON A STAND

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

II.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OCR COMPLAINTS,

III.

THE OCR CASE PROCESSING MANUAL

The History of the 2015 OCR Manual...........................................................

The Changes to the OCR Manual (2018 version) was Arbitrary and Capricious

Continued Arbitrary and Capricious action taken by OCR..............................

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ON IHRA AND THE SEMETIC TRIBES...................................

THE IHRA DEFINITION & KENNETH MARCUS: OCR MISSION IN LIMBO

The Afro-Asiatic Languages Are Semitic Speaking People

The History of the IHRA Definition.................................

The IHRA Definition and the International Forum..........

The IHRA Definition Destroyed Title VI: Created Equal No Longer is True............

The IHRA Definition is the Use of Soft Power inside the United States of America

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

DISCRIMINATION BY JEWS AGAINST A COPTIC: MARK BOCHRA

Florida Coastal School of Law: Discrimination and Retaliation with Intent & Malice

Office for Civil Rights: Due Process Violations and Equal Protection Clause............

FINDING VIOLATIONS FOR TITLE VI, SECTION 504, AND TITLE IX................................

Title VI 81 Retaliation: The Case of St. John's University:.........................................

Section 504 & Retaliation: The Case of Miami Dade & Southern Technical Colleges

Title IX: Gender Equity [Mark Bochra the Coptic] vs. [Michael Guttentag the Jew]...

III.

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS APPEAL PROCESS..........................................................

IV.

SECRETARY CATHERINE LHAMON AND KENNETH MARCUS: BOTH HATED EACH OTHERS.....48

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Legal Standard for Rule 12(b)(1) Motions to Dismiss

II.

Legal Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss

Page 2 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 3 of 99 PagelD #:2908

“Icame to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

III.

Legal Standard for Pro Se Litigants

ARGUMENT AND LEGAL ANALYSIS..............

Enforcement of Federal Civil Rights Law - The Civil Rights Statutes.......................

II.

The Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction...........................................................

Legal Analysis for the Administrative Procedure Act..........................................

Plaintiffs Do Not Have an Adequate Alternate Remedy.....................................

Congress did not authorize Defendants to adopt the IHRA definition................

A President cannot amend a Regulation through an Executive Order................

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims......................................

OCR does not have jurisdiction to investigate religion discrimination................

The U.S. Solicitor General sided with Free Speech & against the IHRA Definition

The IHRA Definition lacks statutory authority...................................................

The IHRA definition is Arbitrary and Capricious.................................................

Defendants are confused between Jewish Hatred, Anti-Semitism and the IHRA Definition.... 85

The IHRA Definition was adopted in violation of the notice-and-comment requirement........ 86

The IHRA Definition is a major rule that was adopted in violation of the Congressional Review

Act.

The Elimination of the Opportunity to Appeal but later amending it to weaken it not

strengthen it is subject to the APA's Notice and Comment Procedures.....................

Final Agency Action under the APA: Guidance letters vs. Rulemaking........................

The Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA").........................................................

Final Agency Action Under the APA..........................................................................

Ongoing Coercion Doctrine......................................................................................

Procedural Due Process Violation - U.S. CONST. AMEND. 5..........................................

VI.

Class Action Certification.........................................................................................

III.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Page 3 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 4 of 99 PagelD #:2909

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

PRE-STATEMENT; THE LAMP ON A STAND

No one lights a lamp and covers it with a bowl. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that

those who come in can see the light. Whatever is hidden away will be brought out into the open,

and whatever will be covered up will be found and brought out to light. Therefore take heed how

you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he

seems to have will be taken from him [Luke 8:16-18]. i

Defendants’ counsel, Sarah Terman from the Justice Department in her motion to dismiss

Plaintiffs complaint (Dkt 9) followed a specific strategy, that is to discredit Plaintiffs lawsuit by

attacking his character with lies despite her knowing the truth while ignoring all the factual

evidence within Plaintiffs complaint and their exhibits; like for instance failing to answer that

Kenneth Marcus, a member of the Israeli lobby infiltrated the Federal Government to impose the

fflORA definition on behalf of Israel to which has shocked Departments’ Officials at that time.2

At that time, Secretary Betsy DeVos said, “the Department has not adopted a definition

of anti-Semitism” sic, Hill said in an e-mail; see Dkt. 9 f 6.3 This was a clear statement from the

former Secretary of the Department of Education to clarify that the Department of Education,

Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) does not have jurisdiction to impose the IHRA definition; it also

conflicts with OCR jurisdictions because they do not investigate religion discrimination.

Kenneth Marcus adoption of the IHRA definition when he personally granted Zionist

Organization of America’s appeal (a registered foreign agent acting on behalf of Israel)4, not

only ignored OCR Case Processing Manual because nowhere does it mention that a Secretary

can review and grant or deny a Complainant’s appeal; but also Kenneth Marcus adoption of the

IHRA definition opened up Pandora’s box for OCR to investigate religion discrimination which

OCR refused to investigate for the Plaintiff. Hence, one of the many questions before this

Honorable Court is: does the term “Jew” or “Jewish” refers to a race or a religion?5

1 See httPs://voutu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=2712 see httPS://www.copticchurch.net/bible?r=Luke+8%3A1618&version=NKJV&showVN=l

2 See https://web.archive.Org/web/20210812052718/https://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/marcus.html (his

profile was recently deleted but way back machine can restore it) see Kenneth Marcus leaked videos aiming to

enforce IHRA without congress intent https://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=1958 ,

httPs://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=2504 , https://voutu.be/Xvtkl7afHcQ?t=2004 and see Kenneth Marcus personally

granting Zoa's appeal after he gained access to Office for Civil Rights httos://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165ce21-df3d-al77-cee9649e0000 (letter granting the appeal).

3 See https://www.politico.com/storv/2018/09/ll/trump-anti-semitism-schools-781917

4 See https://www.israellobbv.org/2oa/DOJ-149-16Q3-ZOA/default.asp

5 See Scholar Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro https://voutu.be/-l909RWadgk?t=484

Page 4 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 5 of 99 PagelD #:2910

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World” Jesus Christ

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated people, filed a lawsuit (Dkt

9) in two parts, (1) seeking an injunctive and a declaratory relief against the Defendants under

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq., and (2) styled his

complaint in a form of a class action lawsuit under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure when this honorable court permits it because the outstanding questions before this

honorable court affects the entire education system (Dkt 25 Class Certification); either way, a

nationwide injunctive and declaratory relief or certifying a class action lawsuit will remedy the

complaint at hands and bring solace and rescue to America’s entire Education system including

the Plaintiff who suffered valid and clear injuries by Defendants’ own misconducts.6

Defendants’ counsel, Sarah Terman out of the abundance of her heart, in her motion to

dismiss decided to double down on Plaintiffs pain by first defaming his character with lies7 and

later proceeded to make several arguments, that (1) the Plaintiff has no standing to attack the

Department of Education’s adoption of the IHRA definition with all its components and

confused meanings8; (2) that the IHRA definition does not affect the Plaintiff in any way, nor

caused any injuries to the Plaintiff, nor was it recited within his appeal with office for civil rights

(“OCR”); (3) that the changes to the OCR Manual and the adoption of the IHRA definition were

not arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter

5, §§ 551, et seq-, (4) that the Department of Education did not mishandle Plaintiffs complaint

nor retaliated against him claiming that he can file a lawsuit in Florida against the Law School

(which was shut down by DOE — emphasis added)9 in reality rendering OCR mission actually

moot and doubling down on Plaintiffs injuries and financial well being; and (5) that former

6 Motion for leave to amend the complaint was denied without prejudice pending ruling on DOJ motion to dismiss.

7 Ms. Sarah Terman was the version of Ms. Trunchbull who bullies the weak with a pack of lies and relays on her

mighty proud status as a DOJ lawyer to convince others that she is right and others are wrong; providing no mercy

https://voutu.be/leCZaVa7 pY?t=100 Ms. Terman given her family identity of being half Muslim and half Jewish

shows a great conflict of interest as it pleases her to see the IHRA definition getting adopted because partially it

serves her personal interest. See relatives of Ms Terman (Rochelle Terman) the daughter of a Muslim-lranian

mother and Jewish-American father https://www.berkelev.edu/news/students/2010/terman/index.shtml see her

family paper on Iran https://digitalassets.lib.berkelev.edu/etd/ucb/text/Terman berkelev 0028E 16254.pdf

8 See Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, opposition to IHRA https://voutu.be/NGdRzFmStdw see also the far left Jewish lobby J

Street opposing IHRA https://www.ipost.com/iudaism/progressive-iewish-groups-oppose-codification-of-ihraantisemitism-definition-655293 see Kenneth Stern's article, the original drafter of IHRA "I drafted the definition of

antisemitism. Riahtwina Jews are weaponizing it"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chilling-effect

9 DOE denied title iv funds to FCSL https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-educations-federalstudent-aid-denies-reinstatement-application-profit-law-school

Page 5 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 6 of 99 PagelD #:2911

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.'” Jesus Christ

President Trump’s executive order adopting the IHRA definition trumps the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA) process rendering it moot thus claiming that this Court has no jurisdiction

to rule on the IHRA definition; and last (6) Plaintiff has no standing to bring a class action

lawsuit because he is proceeding pro-se and cannot represent others; however, absent this court

exercising its discretion in granting legal counsel representation because the Plaintiff was granted

a forma pauperis status by this honorable court. All of Defendants’ arguments could not stand

because they fail to disclose or discuss the merits of Plaintiffs complaint; rather they navigate

this honorable Court through a chain of narrative arguments which by Defendants’ own words is

actually why the IHRA definition has injured the Plaintiff in many ways, along with others.

In Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt 28 page 3, Defendants’ counsel Sarah Terman first

argument is her objection to the truth (a) the “Parable to the Justice System”10; (b) the validity of

“Jesus Christ” and the Devil’s existence11, (c) and the existence of the “Jewish Oligarchy and the

Jewish-Israeli Lobby”12 as if they are an abnormal subjects that should not be discussed nor

related to the Department of Education’s personal interest at the hands of Kenneth Marcus.13

One blind man cannot lead another, if he does, they will both fall into a ditch [Luke

6:39].14 Emphasis added “anyone who followed Kenneth Marcus’s agenda has lead to

more hate than love” — (will be discussed later in great details in this response).

Former Secretary Kenneth Marcus for Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”), by his own hands

has destroyed the entire Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights mission, ethics, and

their obligation to protect students from discrimination and retaliation when he rendered title vi

moot through his adoption of the IHRA definition; see Dkt. 9

11 -19 and fU 70 - 79; see

Exhibit 1 Declaration of Mark M. Bochra (Bochra Decl).

10 It was taught by the Plaintiff to Attorney General William Barr https://www.iustice.gov/opa/speech/remarksattornev-general-william-p-barr-hillsdale-college-constitution-dav-event (The Parable to the Justice System)

11 Doctrines of Jesus Compared with Others, 21 April 1803 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/0140-02-0178-0002 See President Biden https://voutu.be/IHIoZoluDvE and httPs://voutu.be/4wcS-vFahkM?t=1897

12 Senator Bernie Sanders (Jewish) calling on the Jewish Oligarch: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Jeff Bezos

https://twitter.com/sensanders/status/1201234063106957312 See Forbes List Top Billionaire list

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ and see article by Haaretz: Know Your Oligarch: A Guide to the Jewish

Billionaires in theTrump-Russia Probe https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/know-vour-oligarch-a-guide-to-theiewish-machers-in-the-russia-probe-1.6113189 see also [T]he Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records

Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax (All Jews) https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-filestrove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax see

https://i.imgur.com/Qi08gdm.png and see httPs://i.imgur.com/bV67ZgQ.png

13 The day Kenneth Marcus resigned https://content.govdeliverv.com/accounts/USED/bulletins/294dcbO

14 See the scene https://voutu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=2210

Page 6 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 7 of 99 PagelD #:2912

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Under Title IV of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1070, et seq., the Department is responsible for

overseeing the federal student loan program, including the Federal Family Education Loan

(FFEL), 20 U.S.C. § 1071, et. seq., and William D. Ford Direct Loan Programs, 20 U.S.C. §

1087a, et seq. Under the Direct Loan Program, the Department directly lends money to eligible

student borrowers so that they can attend “participating institutions of higher education,” as

approved and regulated by the Department. 20 U.S.C. § 1087a. Under the FFEL program (under

which no new loans have been issued since July 1, 2010), private lenders issued student loans,

which were then insured by guaranty agencies, and in turn reinsured by the Department. 20

U.S.C. § 1078.

Providing an education free from discrimination and retaliation is the central mission of

Office for Civil Rights (OCR). When an institution of higher education fails to provide an

education free from discrimination and/or retaliation, Office for Civil rights has the duty and the

responsibility to provide an antidote to a virus called “evil”; failure to provide remedies, not only

violates OCR special mission “to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational

excellence through vigorous enforcement of civil rights in our nation’s schools”15 but also

renders the civil right act moot on its face.

One of the many actions, OCR can take is enforcement action which denies Title IV

funds to a specific institution which refuses to reach a settlement agreement with Office for Civil

Rights and send the case to the Department of Justice for proper prosecution and remedies;

Section 602 of OCR Manual states the following.16

When post-Letter of Impending Enforcement Action negotiations do not result in a

resolution agreement and OCR decides, within its discretion, to refer the matter to DOJ, it

will issue a letter to the recipient stating that the case will be referred to DOJ within 10

calendar days of the date of the letter; Section 602 of OCR Manual.

See Exhibit 2, an e-mail from Office for Civil Rights on behalf of Secretary Betsy Devos to the

Plaintiff in regards to remedies which cure a “hostile environment” such as educational

15 See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html

16 See 2015 Manual

https://web.archive.Org/web/20150302165238/https:/www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oci7docs/ocrcpm.pdf vs.

2020 Manual https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf

Page 7 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 8 of 99 PagelD #:2913

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

reimbursement and counseling; see Exhibit 3, an e-mail exchange between OCR Atlanta team

and OCR HQ Mr. Randolph Wills notifying him that the recipient reached a resolution

agreement with OCR.17 At the time of the negotiated agreement, “educational reimbursement”

was excluded but rather based upon Mr. Will’s own words over the phone, to send the Plaintiff

back to the law school; a law school that was destined for closure for committing deception and

fraud against many students to which also the Plaintiff uncovered throughout his experienced

chain of discrimination and retaliation; indeed the law school was later denied title iv funds by

DOE; see Am. Comp

12-14, ECF No. 9; see Am. Comp Exhibit G pages 127-136, ECF No. 9.

The head of a federal Executive Department may adopt rules for the conduct and

government of her agency. 5 U.S.C. §301. Adoption of such rules must comply with the

requirements of the rule-making procedures of the federal Administrative Procedure Act

(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §551, et seq., if the proposed rules meet the definition of “rule” found in 5

U.S.C. §551(4): “ ... the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular

applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or

describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency ....”

The APA requires that courts “shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action,

findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (B).

The APA also requires that rules proposed by a federal agency first be published in the

Federal Register, with the terms or substance of the proposed rule, the legal authority for the

proposed rule, and specific information regarding when a public hearing on the proposed rule

will take place. 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(b), (d). Under the APA, the proposing agency must consider,

prior to adoption of the rule, all written data, views, or arguments submitted by interested

persons regarding the proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(c), (d). This set of APA provisions for

publication and consideration of comments is referred to as the “notice-and-comment

requirement.”

The APA requires a federal agency to render responsive decisions on matters within its

purview in a prompt and definite fashion. For example, the APA requires that, “[w]ith due regard

17 Enforce Director Randolph Wills on or around 6/1/2018 over the phone told Mark Bochra that the recipient

reached an agreement with OCR Atlanta but it doesn't include refund of his student loan back to DOE to which the

Plaintiff relayed that this is not the right policy or remedy which OCR follows based on its resolution agreements

with other complainants. However, in the end and after 2 years, no resolution was reached rather they, OCR aimed

at destroying Plaintiff's complaint and they did so on 3/20/2020.

Page 8 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 9 of 99 PagelD #:2914

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.''’ Jesus Christ

for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable

time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).

The APA similarly requires that “prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in

part of a written application, petition, or other request of an interested person made in connection

with any agency proceeding.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(e). And, the APA requires that “[e]ach agency ...

[g]ive an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.”

5 U.S.C. §553(e). “A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely

affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to

judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. §702. “Agency action “includes the “failure to act.” 5

U.S.C.§553(e).

A Court “shall - compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5

U.S.C. §706(1). A Court shall also “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and

conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A). 5 U.S.C. §702 creates a cause of action in federal

court for any person who has suffered legal wrong because of, or been adversely affected or

aggrieved by, an agency action or failure to act as required by the rule-making statutes. The

statute waives the sovereign immunity of the federal government for such a lawsuit, so long as

the lawsuit is against a federal agency or a federal employee who acted or failed to act in her

official capacity or under color of legal authority, and the suit does not request monetary

damages.

28 U.S.C. § 2201 permits this Court to issue a declaratory judgment that the Defendants

have violated 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5 in adopting the EHRA definition as well as certain provisions in

August 26,2020 OCR Manual, as identified below.

II.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OCR COMPLAINTS

The Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights is responsible for enforcing the

civil rights statutes applicable to educational institutions. (“As the Assistant Secretary for Civil

Rights, Kenneth Marcus at that time before his resignation was responsible for the administration

of the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (‘OCR’) in accordance with law, including mandating

procedures for the handling and processing of complaints of illegal discrimination made to OCR

for investigation.”).

Page 9 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 10 of 99 PagelD#:2915

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World” Jesus Christ

The Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) within the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”)

has a special mission: “to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational

excellence through vigorous enforcement of civil rights in our nation’s schools.”

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html. This office serves “student populations

facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil

rights problems” Id. See Am. Comp | 1, ECF No. 9. Contrary to its mission and without any

public notice, DOE summarily eliminated substantive rights of the very people it purports to

serve by changing its Case Processing Manual to abdicate its basic duty to investigate legitimate

complaints of discrimination by students and their parents. Not only that, but DOE has set out a

special class of race with a special set of treatments compare to another {Jewish Students vs. the

Gentiles) by adopting an obscure definition named (IHRA)18 without congress intent, public

notice, and comments in the Federal Register.19 See Am. Comp f 4 and 1fl| 8-11, ECF No. 9.

Anyone encountering discrimination can file an OCR complaint of discrimination,

including any student or person who believes that an educational institution that receives federal

financial assistance has discriminated against someone on the basis of race, color, national

origin, sex, disability, or age; “religion discrimination” is excluded and not investigated by OCR

but rather the Department of Justice, education section.20

in.

THE OCR CASE PROCESSING MANUAL

The OCR Case Processing Manual (“CPM”) sets out OCR’s processes for investigating

complaints pursuant to the regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et

seq., including the procedural regulations for Title VI, 34 C.F.R. § 100.7, and Section 504, 34

C.F.R. §104.61 (“The procedural provisions applicable to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

apply to this part. These procedures are found in §§ 100.6-100.10 and part 101 of this title.”).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. (“Section 504”),

prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance, including assistance from

the DOE, from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.

18 See IHRA definition https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

19 See OCR notice on IHRA https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/aa-titleix-anti-semitism-20210119.pdf

20 See DOJ jurisdiction https://www.iustice.gov/crt/tvpes-educational-opportunities-discrimination and see OCR

jurisdiction https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/know-rights-201701-religious-disc.pdf

Page 10 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 11 of 99 PagelD #:2916

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. (“Title VI”), prohibits

discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance, including assistance from the DOE,

from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The DOE’s Title VI regulations provide:

The responsible Department official or his designee will make a prompt investigation

whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a

possible failure to comply with this part. The investigation should include, where

appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the

circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part occurred, and other

factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with

this part.

34 C.F.R. § 100.7(c) (Title 34, Subchapter B, Chapter 1, Part 100: Non-Discrimination Under

Programs Receiving Federal Assistance Through the Department of Education Effectuation of

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) (emphasis added).

Section 504 requires agencies that provide federal funding to apply the same remedies,

procedures, and rights set forth in Title VI to the civil rights of persons with disabilities. 29

U.S.C. § 794a(a). DOE adopted the Title VI rights and procedures, including 34 C.F.R. § 100.7,

for complaints of violations of Section 504. 34 C.F.R. § 104.61.

In recent years, schools and universities across the country have witnessed an expansion

in the number, scope and length of investigations conducted by the U.S. Department of

Education's Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”). In particular, OCR often expanded individual

complaints to more broadly investigate evidence of systematic discrimination at schools and

colleges. Also during the course of the investigation if any other violations occurs or reported by

the Complainant, they are also investigated as part of the Complainant’s Complaint. A June 8,

2017 memorandum issued by Candice Jackson, former OCR’s Acting Assistant Secretary for

Civil Rights, indicates that OCR will take a different approach going forward. See Exhibit 4;

Former Secretary Candice Jackson’s Memorandum.

“OCR’s stated goal is “to swiftly address compliance issues raised by individual

complaint allegations, reach reasonable resolution agreements with defined, enforceable

obligations placed upon recipients directly responsive to addressing the concerns raised

in the individual complaint being resolved, and encourage voluntary settlements

wherever possible.”

These instructions were however violated greatly once Kenneth Marcus replaced Candice

Jackson as the secretary for OCR; it was former Secretary Candice Jackson who appointed

Page 11 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 12 of 99 PagelD #:2917

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement Randolph Wills to handle the mishandling of

Plaintiffs Complaint by OCR Atlanta by telling him “I need this case to be handled properly.”

To which in return, Mr. Randolph Wills reached out to the Plaintiff to address his concerns via emails and phone calls. See Am. Comp ff 83-88, ECF No. 9; and Am. Comp Exhibit “D” Pages

9-14; ECF No. 9.

The History of the 2015 OCR Manual

In order to understand the history behind the continuous “arbitrary and capricious”

actions taken by Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) in violation to the APA; one must place a

period at the end of the line and start from the beginning because the origin always reveals the

truth no matter how obscure it might look later.

In 2015, the OCR issued a Case Processing Manual (“2015 OCR Manual”), which

adopted “procedures to promptly and effectively investigate and resolve complaints, compliance

reviews and directed investigations to ensure compliance with the civil rights laws enforced by

OCR,” including Title VI and Section 504. 2015 OCR Manual, Introduction. The 2015 OCR

Manual set out the process by which OCR staff received and investigated complaints from

individuals who allege that a person or entity that receives funding from the DOE has violated

the civil rights laws by illegally discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

disability, or age. Id.

The retelling history of the changes to the Case Processing Manual started with the

coming of former Secretary for OCR Kenneth Marcus. Since the day Kenneth Marcus came to

the Department of Education and chaos ensued, ethics were lost, lawyers committed moral

turpitude, and they all saw Kenneth Marcus’ leaked videos. No reform was applied, in fact under

former President Donald Trump; they wanted to destroy the entire Department of Education by

merging it with the Labor Department.21 But with every evil move, they met public resistance.

The 2015 OCR Manual allowed timely complaints that were within OCR’s jurisdiction to

be dismissed prior to opening an investigation in three circumstances, namely, (1) if the

complaint, on its face, failed to state a claim of violation of one of the laws that OCR enforces,

(2) if it lacked sufficient detail for OCR to infer that discrimination has occurred, or (3) if it was

21 See https://tcf.org/content/commentarv/real-reason-behind-proposed-labor-education-departmentsmereer/?aereed=l

Page 12 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 13 of 99 PagelD #:2918

“7 came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

so speculative, conclusory or incoherent that OCR could not infer that discrimination had

occurred. Id. § 108.

The 2015 Manual also provided that, if an investigation concluded that the preponderance

of the evidence did not support a conclusion that the recipient had violated applicable law, OCR

would issue a letter of findings explaining the reasons for its decision. 2015 Manual § 303. The

2015 Manual stated that “OCR affords an opportunity to the complainant to appeal” such a letter

of findings to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement who issues the letter. 2015 OCR

Manual §§ 303(a) and 306, page 24.22

Case Processing Manual

(Page 24

Notice of the appeal process is provided to complainants in the information sheet, “OCR Complaint

Processing Procedures.” OCR’s appeal process is also available at

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/coniDlaints-liow.html.

The complainant must send a written appeal to the Enforcement Office Director of the Enforcement

Office that issued the determination. All documentation to support the appeal must be submitted with the

complainant’s appeal, hi an appeal, the complainant must explain why he or she believes the factual

information was incomplete, die analysis of the facts was incorrect, and/or the appropriate legal standard

was not applied, and how this would change OCR’s determination in the case. Failure to do so may result

in the denial of the appeal.

The appeal process of the Manual was also left untouched with no limits to the number of

pages an appeal needs to be, along with the only agency and/or person who rules on the appeal is

OCR Headquarter; mainly the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement; in this case,

currently Mr. Randolph Wills, (See Page 8 of the OIG Complaint against Kenneth Marcus filed

by multiple civil right organizations).23 See Exhibit 5, letter to the Inspector General from

multiple civil right organizations against Kenneth Marcus.

Within the OIG Complaint against Kenneth Marcus, a FOIA request revealed a pending

183 appeals before the desk of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, in this case,

Randolph Wills; only two were re-opened for an investigation.24 See page 8 of the complaint.

22 https://web.archive.Org/web/20151103010525/httDs://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf

23 See Complaint with OIG revealing that it is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement who rules on the

appeals, in this case Mr. Randolph Wills https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/contactus2.html See copy of

the

letter

httPs://palestinelegal.org/news/2020/5/20/inspector-general-complaint-zionist-special-treatmentviolates-law.

24 See copy of the complaint, see page 8

https://staticl.sauarespace.eom/static/548748ble4b083fc03ebf70e/t/5ec593062f7cfc3aa7e3deac/159000653463

l/Letter+from+Civil+Rights+Groups+to+Office+of+lnspector+General.pdf

Page 13 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 14 of 99 PagelD #:2919

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

The unique handling of the ZOA appeal decision is also reflected in its outcome. Of those 183

appeals resolved between September 29,2014, and August 27, 2018, b’^O'GR^Deputv^A'ssistm^

SecretaryJforlEntorcement. only two were reopened (on April 12, 2013, and April 18, 2013).20

Indeed, if one considers an even broader time period of almost six years (from December 11,

2012, to November 5, 2018) in which 743 appeals were resolved by OCR’s Deputy Assistant

All these OCR appeals were affected by the arbitrary and capricious changes to the OCR

manual; not counting Kenneth Marcus personally granting Zoa’s appeal on August 27, 2018 and

within it, implementing the IHRA definition, long before the Former President Donald Trump

signed his (Executive Order) on December 11, 2019 to implement the IHRA definition without

congress intent which would not trump the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) process.25

On Dec. 11, 2019 Former President Trump lobbied by right wing Jewish lobby and

Sheldon Adelson (who gave Trump 424 million +100 million)26 issued an Executive Order (EO)

stating that, “[I]t shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI [of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964] against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as

vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.” What is new is

that the EO directs executive branch agencies and departments charged with enforcing Title VI

to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antiSemitism when investigating allegations of anti-Jewish discrimination (i.e., when they review an

Office of Civil Rights (OCR) complaint). See Exhibit 6, Can a President Amend Regulations by

Executive Order?

The Changes to the OCR Manual (2018 version) was Arbitrary and Capricious

In March 2018 under the leadership of Kenneth Marcus, OCR issued a new “U.S.

Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Case Processing Manual.” The Introduction to

the 2018 OCR Manual states:

The Case Processing Manual (CPM) provides OCR with the procedures to promptly and

effectively investigate and resolve complaints, compliance reviews, and directed investigations

to ensure compliance with the civil rights laws and regulations enforced by OCR; 2018 OCR

Manual, Introduction. Upon information and belief, the 2018 Manual replaces the 2015 OCR

25 See https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitisnn/

26 See https://www.newsweek.com/sheldon-adelson-donald-trump-republicans-donations-lS60883 and see

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/10/sheldon-adeison-trump-donation-republicans-congress

Page 14 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 15 of 99 PagelD #:2920

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

Manual. Unlike the 2015 OCR Manual, dismissal is mandatory §108(t), and there is no

requirement that the previous complaints have been found to be without merit, or even that the

undefined “pattern” involves the same or similar allegations.

The first change (“Rule Change 1”) means that, as of March 5, 2018, OCR will no

longer investigate a claim of illegal discrimination if the claim is part of “a pattern” of

complaints by an individual complainant against multiple recipients. “Pattern” is undefined and

may cover as few as two complaints, involving different allegations against different entities

over an unspecified period of time. This provision, as written, is not limited to those complaints

that would place an “unreasonable burden” on OCR. Nor is this provision limited to instances

where the prior complaints were meritless.

This new restriction affects both individuals who have been subjected to more than one

incident of illegal discrimination and organizations that represent individuals who cannot afford

to bring claims on their own. The latter groups often submit claims over time for multiple

individuals against multiple recipients. These groups include entities like Plaintiffs, civil rights

advocates and attorneys, and the Protection and Advocacy systems, which are federally

authorized and funded to pursue administrative, legal and other claims of discrimination on

behalf of individuals with disabilities under 54 U.S.C. § 15043, 29 U.S.C. § 3004, and 42 U.S.C.

§ 10803-07.

According to the language of §108(t) of the 2018 OCR Manual, such entities will be

blocked from bringing multiple claims on behalf of their multiple constituents. Because DOE

provided no opportunity for notice and comment. In addition, the 2018 Manual precludes any

civil right organization and/or individuals from bringing a single complaint against multiple

recipients (even if those recipients acted together), if OCR, in its sole judgment, and on the basis

of unknown factors, decides that investigating would place an undefined “unreasonable burden”

on OCR’s resources (“Rule Change 2”).

These two distinct and substantive changes mean that, as of March 5, 2018, OCR has

unilaterally eliminated a right of claimants that was created by the DOE’s regulations and

maintained in prior Case Processing Manuals: the right to have one’s claim of discrimination

investigated if it indicates a possible failure to comply with federal civil rights laws.

Rule Changes 1 and 2 to the 2018 OCR Manual were arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance

with law.

Page 15 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 16 of 99 PagelD#:2921

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.''’ Jesus Christ

In addition to adding § 108(t), DOE made a third change that eliminated complainants’

right to appeal OCR findings of insufficient evidence (“Rule Change 3”).

The 2015 OCR Manual included a right for complainants to appeal OCR decisions to

close their complaints for lack of evidence. In the 2018 OCR Manual, DOE eliminated the entire

“Appeals” section. There is no provision in the 2018 OCR Manual offering an appeal or

reconsideration of an OCR determination not to pursue a claim of discrimination. The appeal

right was eliminated without notice and comment and without any stated rationale to support it.

None of the three 2018 OCR Manual rule changes is merely an interpretative rule, a

general statement of policy, or a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. All the

changes shift and affect rights and interests of complainants, and make substantive changes to

prior rules. Therefore, all three changes were required to be subject to notice and comment under

the APA.

DOE did not comply with the federal APA rule-making procedures set out in 5 U.S.C.

Chapter 5, §§ 551, et seq., before issuing the 2018 OCR Manual. The proposed 2018 OCR

Manual was not published in the Federal Register, nor were public comments on the proposal

sought, received, or considered, prior to the 2018 OCR Manual’s adoption. The public did not

have an opportunity for notice and comment before the Manual was adopted and put into effect.

Continued Arbitrary and Capricious action taken by OCR

After a public uproar and litigation, OCR backtracked by amending their manual and re

opened all dismissed complaints (reached settlement agreement on February 4, 2020).27

However, again without any published notice in the Federal Register, comments, and discussion

on the regulation, Office for Civil Rights has done two things to the manual under both the

Trump’s and the Biden’s cabinet leaderships; OCR August 26, 2020 Manual (latest version) and

January 19, 2021 the official adoption of the (IHRA definition). The changes were as follows:

(A) Weakening the appeal process by limiting the appeal to 10 page double space with no

time frame provided to rule on the appeal, and without mentioning who rules on the appeal, yet

the appeal is asked to be mailed to OCR headquarter address; never to any regional offices. The

appeal procedure is written in a way that is vague, unclear, and provides no time frame for mling

on the appeal; rendering due process rights an illusion. The appeal procedure is written in a way

27 See https://browngold.com/wp-content/iiploads/2020/08/Countersigned-Settlement-Agreement-ACE-DOE.pdf

Page 16 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 17 of 99 PagelD #:2922

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ

which makes the appeal process a never independent process but rather it relays on pleasing the

Masters who rule over a federal building i.e., Office For Civil Rights; here due process was

denied again for many; equity and equality was denied for many as well (“Rule Change 4”); and

(B) Without any notice published in the Federal Register or public comments, or even

congress adopting such definition, Office for Civil Rights adopted the IHRA definition, first by

Kenneth Marcus himself when he granted Zoa’s appeal under the definition without congress

intent on August 27, 2018.28 And later OCR continued and enforced the IHRA definition under

the leadership of Suzanne Goldberg under the Biden’s administration (both Kenneth Marcus and

Suzanne Goldberg are Jews); a definition which makes the Jewish people superior in every way

compare to the Gentiles (“Rule Change 5”).29

None of the changes to the OCR Manual went through the normal channels of the

regulatory process i.e., the APA. However, some rules were removed due to the past litigation

and others were added after National Federation of the Blind, the Council of Parent Attorneys

and Advocates, Inc., and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc

settled with the Department of Education.30

Even after an agreed settlement was signed and approved by the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland, OCR added rules without again following the proper

regulatory channels such as changing the appeal process entirely; not just restricting the appeal to

a 10 page double space violating Complainants’ due process by limiting their ability to file a

proper appeal, but also failed to disclose who shall handle ruling on Complainants’ appeals; last

time it was Kenneth Marcus personally ruling on Zoa’s appeal and inserting the IHRA definition

without Departments’ higher rank approval, congress intent, or even former President Donald

Trump’s executive order at that time; hence one time the Secretary for OCR will rule on an

appeal and another time, someone else like in Plaintiffs case, OCR Dallas or OCR Denver, a

regional office will rule on the appeal and another time it is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Enforcement. The entire appeal process was destroyed by the Defendants’ own actions and

Defendants’ changes to the Case Processing Manual were arbitrary and capricious to this very

day.

28 See https://web.archive.org/web/20200307225539/https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165-ce21-df3d-al77-

cee9649e0000

29 See https://www2.ed.gov/abput/offices/list/ccr/docs/aa-titleix-anti-semitism-20210119.pdf

30 See https://nfb.org/about-us/press-room/national-federation-blind-and-others-settle-lawsuit-against-unitedstates

Page 17 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 18 of 99 PagelD #:2923

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World” Jesus Christ

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ON IHRA AND THE SEMETIC TRIBES

THE IHRA DEFINITION & KENNETH MARCUS: OCR MISSION IN LIMBO

The Department of Education, Office for Civil rights is responsible for enforcing the civil

rights statutes applicable to educational institutions. Anyone encountering discrimination can file

an OCR complaint of discrimination, including any student or person who believes that an

educational institution that receives federal financial assistance has discriminated against

someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age; (religion

discrimination) is excluded and not investigated by OCR but rather the Department of Justice

(“DOJ”), education section.31

Providing an education free from discrimination and retaliation is the central mission of

Office for Civil Rights (OCR). When an institution of higher education fails to provide an

education free from discrimination and/or retaliation, Office for Civil rights has the duty and the

responsibility to provide an antidote to a virus called “evil”; failure to provide remedies, not only

violates OCR special mission “to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational

excellence through vigorous enforcement of civil rights in our nation’s schools.”

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html but also render the civil right act moot

on its face.

The adoption of the IHRA definition has opened Pandora’s Box for OCR to investigate

religion discrimination which was one of Plaintiff’s requests to investigate Jews discriminating

against a Coptic for hating Jesus Christ; even Plaintiffs initial complaint cited his religion

“Christian Coptic.” See Exhibit 1 Declaration of Mark M. Bochra (Bochra Decl), see Exhibit 23

and Exhibit 24 Plaintiffs discrimination and retaliation complaints with DOJ which was later

handled by OCR.

The Afro-Asiatic Languages Are Semitic Speaking People

To say that the word anti-Semitism is pertaining only to the Jewish people, is the lie of

the century. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator (Wilhelm

Marr)32 to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time.

Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination

31 See https://www.iustice.gov/crt/tvpes-educational-QDDortunities-discrimination

32 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm Marr

Page 18 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 19 of 99 PagelD #:2924

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.''' Jesus Christ

against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of

anti-Semitism as it is usually understood.

Plaintiff has advocated in letters to both the legislative and executive branches to go back

to the origin (good vs. evil) for the eyes to see better rather than being distorted with labels.

However, humans love labels, it empowers their identity. Hence, Plaintiff will disclose who are

the Semitic speaking people because the Plaintiff himself speaks Arabic and that is a Semitic

language; see the Afro-Asiatic Languages, formerly called Hamito-Semitic.33

The Semitic phylum contains some of the most well-known languages to those in western

cultures: Hebrew, Arabic, Akkadian, Phoenician, Syriac, and Ugaritic. Others include Amharic,

Eblaite, ESA, Ethiopic, Gurage, Harari, Harsusi, Lihyanite, Nehri, Moabite, Punic, Sheri,

Soqotri, Tamudic, Tigre, and Tigrina. The Semitic languages are spoken in much of northern

Africa and the Near East.34

ED tAncient Egyptian'H

S3 Omotic

. f

E Cushitic

M Semitic

■ Berber

H Chadic

Throughout antiquity, Egypt was known as the breadbasket of the world. The annual

flooding of the Nile produced rich harvests, and when famine hit neighboring lands, starving

peoples often made their way to the fruitful soils of Egypt. The archaeological record clearly

shows that at least some of these peoples were of Semitic origin, coming from Canaan

specifically and the Levant in general. In fact, the histories of both the Egyptian upper kingdom

(ruled from Thebes in southern Egypt) and the lower kingdom (ruled from Avaris in the north),

33 see https://www.britannica.com/topic/Afro-Asiatic-languages/Proving-genetic-relationship-problems-ofinternal-comparison

34 See https://linguistics.bvu.edu/classes/Ling450ch/reports/afro-asiatic.html

Page 19 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 20 of 99 PagelD #:2925

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.''1 Jesus Christ

and Canaan were intimately tied together. Starting over 4,000 years ago, Semites began crossing

the deserts from Israel into Egypt. The story of Joseph, the King of Dreams, the Hebrew who

married an Egyptian Asenath, from a slave who was sold by his own brothers to a Pharaoh of

Egypt is the biblical proof to the origin.35 A Hebrew married an Egyptian giving birth to a new

child for that same reason “Out of Egypt, I called my son” see Exhibit G pages 89-94, ECF No. 9

And Pharaoh named Joseph Zaphenath Pa'neach, and he gave him Asenath the daughter

of Poti phera, the governor of On, for a wife, and Joseph went forth over the land of

Egypt [Genesis 41:45].36

AFRO-ASIATIC FAMLY

BERBER '

CMADfC CUSHITIC

SEMITIC LANGUAGES OMOTIC

EGYPTIAN

's.

"V,

X..

csNmasMmc

EAST SEM ITE

(Extinct)

NORTHWEST

SEMITIC

1 ARABIC

Aramaic

Amorite (extinct)

Caar, suits

Ufarltlc (extinct)

SOUTH SEMITIC

MODERN

SOUTH'

ARABIAN

ANCENT SOUTH ARABIC

NORTH

Bathari

ARABIAN

Western

Haisusl

Central

Hobyot

Mehri

Northern

Jeballi

Southern

Soqotri

WESTERN

OLD

ETHIOPIAN

SOUTH

ARABIAN

SOUTH

NORTH

ETHOPIC

Sabaean

Minaeic

Madhablc

Ostabamc

Hadramltlc

The word anti-Semitism does not belong to the Jewish people only but the entire North African

region. The Arabs or Arabians are Semitic people so are the Aramaic and many more.

The History of the IHRA Definition

The IHRA definition was a definition used by the U.S. Department of State and later in

expanded form by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the definition itself was

nothing more than a way of using (soft power) to influence other countries. The IHRA definition

35 See https://voutu.be/QWiJ8VQXJzY and see https://voutu.be/ oAmhSm84o4 (From a slave to a Pharaoh)

36 See https://www.chabad.ore/librarv/bible cdo/aid/8236#v45 see httos://iwa.org/encvclopedia/article/asenathbible

Page 20 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 21 of 99 PagelD #:2926

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.''’ Jesus Christ

never allowed the Jewish people to gain the hearts of multitudes, rather it wanted to control

hearts of multitudes.37

The actual IHRA working definition is 38 words long and reads as follows: “AntiSemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.

Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or nonJewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious

facilities.”

It is at best vague and at worst meaningless, failing to identify anti-Semitism as a form of

racism or identifying the actual dangers to Jewish and other radicalized groups. It includes 11

examples which serve to limit discussion of Israel’s violations of human rights, and regards

naming Israel a “racist endeavor” and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign as

anti-Semitic. Crucially, the working definition has been widely criticized by over 40 Jewish

organizations globally, by Israeli academics and by the definition’s author, Kenneth Stern; “I

drafted the definition of anti-Semitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it. ,>38

Indeed, a group of Jewish and Israeli scholars developed the Jerusalem Declaration on

Anti-Semitism to respond to the IHRA definition, which they deemed to have “caused confusion

. . . generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against anti-Semitism.” The Jerusalem

Declaration links anti-Semitism and racism, and argues for freedom of expression. It has more

than 200 signatories. The IHRA definition elevates anti-Semitism over other forms of racism,

thus isolating victims of anti-Semitism and precluding solidarity between radicalized population

groups.39 The true definition is the simple meaning of (good vs. evil), the basic foundation but

humans likes labels because it empowers their identities.

The IHRA Definition and the International Forum

Indeed, the IHRA definition cannot stop the International Criminal Court (ICC)

investigation into Israel war crimes against the Palestinians.40 The same is true, the IHRA

definition cannot stop the current ongoing litigation against the Israeli lobby that was reversed in

37 See httos://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chillingeffect

39 See https.7/rpl.hds.harvard.edu/news/2021/05/17/video-politics-defining-roundtable-discussion-aboutierusalem-declaration-antisemitism

40 See ICC launches war crimes probe into Israeli practices https://apnews.com/article/israel-west-bankpalestinian-territories-courts-crime-19117d4265f5d564256ea7fe75854aa6

Page 21 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 22 of 99 PagelD #:2927

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.''’ Jesus Christ

3-0 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; Al-Tamimi v. Adelson, No. 175207 (D.C. Cir. 2019) 41 In a recent court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

revived a $1 billion lawsuit by Palestinians seeking to hold billionaire (Sheldon Adelson)42 and

more than 30 other pro-Israel defendants liable for alleged genocide, war crimes, and support of

Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.43

The IHRA definition was only a foreign policy used for the purpose of foreign affairs for

the benefit of Israel but it was never a definition to be used domestically because the United

States of America is guided by the U.S. Constitution and more importantly the founding fathers

envisioned America to be build on the teachings of Jesus Christ (see Doctrines of Jesus

Compared with Others, 21 April 1803).44

Directing federal agencies to rely on this framework in enforcing Title VI would

effectively order nearly every campus in the country to censor its students and faculty on the

basis of viewpoints — in this case, and when it came to Plaintiffs protected rights, it wasn’t just

protected speech that was violated but IHRA showed that Jewish Supremacy created an

environment of injustice, Am. Compl.

10-12, ECF No. 9.45 The parable to the world has

shown that when the oppressed gain power, they often become oppressors themselves and all

participate in injustice, actively or passively, even unintentionally.

The IHRA Definition Destroyed Title VI: Created Equal No Longer is True

The IHRA definition provides the Jewish people with a set of privileges above the

Gentiles or students who fit different classes other than a Jewish identity. For example, the set of

provided privileges can be viewed as definitive for the Jewish students compare to the Gentiles

(referred to as Goys by the Jews)46 even if a Jewish student commits evil and wickedness against

a non-Jewish student as it happened to the Plaintiff, who is a Coptic.47

41 See https://law.iustia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/17-5207/17-5207-2019-Q2-19.html

42 See Israeli Lobby Documentary https://voutu.be/Mm-Dm4pQ0xY?t=1531

43 See ongoing litigation https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4214523/al-tamimi-v-adelson/?page=2

44 See https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0178-Q002

45 Haven't we learned anything from history? https://voutu.be/A14THPoc4-4?t=222

46 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gov see also https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-vosefs-mostcontroversial-auotations/ "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world - only

to serve the People of Israel" ... "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will

sit like an effendi and eat... That is why gentiles were created." sic Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.

See Who are the Coptic (Copts) http://www.coptic.net/EncvclopediaCoptica/ see Philos Project

https://twitter.com/philosproiect/status/12675088270308Q2432

Page 22 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 23 of 99 PagelD #:2928

“/ came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

For example:

a) Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.

b) Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any

other democratic nation.

c) Accusing the Jews as a people.

d) Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews

killing Jesus).

(a) The IHRA definition states in pertinent parts “denying the Jewish people their right to

self-determination.” In this instance, Plaintiff, a Coptic Christian student who attended Florida

Coastal School of Law, suffered direct and intentional discrimination and retaliation at the hands

of several Jews, was denied education, was denied the right to self-determination; See Exhibit 7

Plaintiff's memos 1-3 explaining this painful saga. The outcome was the perpetrator, Michael

Roy Guttentag, a Jewish student was able to receive his education, transferred out of Florida

Coastal School of Law, and attended a law school in New York, and was admitted to the New

York Bar, not the Florida Bar because he was reported to the Florida Bar who opened a file

under his name.48 See Exhibit 8, letter from Executive Director Michele A. Gavagni to Mark

Bochra, Florida Board of Bar Examiners. The Jewish person in this case despite being the evil

one, received his education, and the victim, a Coptic person was denied the right to education

and the right to self-determination. To substantiate this fact, OCR never in its findings mentioned

that the involved student was Jewish nor his professor (Benjamin Priester)49 was Jewish either,

nor the dean of student’s affair (Lauren Levine)50 was Jewish. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is the

only Coptic complainant in OCR database and OCR has with intent discriminated and retaliated

against the Plaintiff across the span of 4 years by violating the OCR manual face on; ignoring

Plaintiffs due process rights; destroying Plaintiffs witness list and even the key witnesses who

were interviewed by OCR were never mentioned within OCR findings.

(b) The IHRA definition states “applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior

not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” sic. In this case, the double standards

were already applied against the Coptic student, the Plaintiff Mark Bochra and in favor of the

See Michael Roy Guttentag https://opengovnv.com/attornev/5623384

49 He is in litigation with the school https://www.iacksonville.com/storv/news/education/2020/09/04/floridacoastal-professors-sue-school-saving-pav-illegallv-cut/5709497002/

50 She was replaced with another dean of student affairs and she left the school. Infilaw's board is notorious for

dispersing anyone who brings them liability.

Page 23 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 24 of 99 PagelD #:2929

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

Jewish student. When the Federal Government covered up and protected the perpetrator who was

Jewish, and denied the Plaintiff his right to education free from discrimination and retaliation.

window to define a Jewish person as both a race and a religion. The asked question to this

honorable court is what is the definition of a Jew? Is a Jew who follows Jesus Christ a Jew?51 Is a

Jew who is atheist a Jew?52 Is a Jew who only follows the Old Testament a Jew? Rabbi Yaakov

Shapiro answers the definition of a Jew by explaining the following.53

Jewishness is one consistent definition. It is religious doctrine means as follows: there are

no identifiable characteristics that all Jews share. That means there is no such thing as a

definition of a Jew in terms of characteristics. It is not ethnicity, it is not a race, and it is

not a religion but who is a Jew is a religious doctrine, sic; explained Rabbi Yaakov

Shapiro.

(d) The IHRA definition states “Jews did not kill Jesus Christ” sic, hence it shows a

profound hate, for Jews to hate one of their own; because Jesus Christ is the son of King David,

the seed of Judah; for he is Jewish himself, the true messiah of the Jewish people.54 A clear

example of the Jewish hatred could be directly related to when Senator Graham asked Justice

Elena Kagan “where were you at on Christmas day?” and Justice Kagan replied while grinding

on her teeth “like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.”55 Does the symbol of the

cross, the symbol for salvation to many; according to IHRA is a symbol of anti-Semitism?

Hence, when a Jewish person discriminates and retaliates against a Coptic person because

of his faith in Jesus Christ, how can the IHRA definition stands? By Defendants’ own hands, the

Plaintiff did not only suffer continued discrimination and retaliation in law school, but at the

hands of federal officials at the Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”).

The IHRA Definition is the Use of Soft Power inside the United States of America

The IHRA definition seeks nothing more than power and control; when in doubt, look at

how the Jewish people treat each others in Israel. For example, where would the IHRA definition

stands when a Jewish person accuses another Jewish person of being a Goy i.e., a Gentile?

51 See Jews who follows Jesus Christ https://voutu.be/vnniGKwVTie?t=1688

52 See Elon Musk, Jewish but atheist https://voutu.be/2e7rNbo5Dgg

53 See https://voutu.be/-l9Q9RWadgk?t=484 See also Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro objection toward the adoption of the

IHRA definition https://voutu.be/NGdRzFmStdw He explained "Zionism" is an ideology that people choose to

adopt. Plaintiff with a Coptic root explained who is the real Zion "Jesus Christ." See Dkt 9 Exhibit G pages 104-117.

54 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy of Jesus see diagram httPs://i.imgur.com/EanghlJ.ipg

55 See https://voutu.be/4ac0AcPQLt4?t=1072

Page 24 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 25 of 99 PagelD #:2930

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

Haredi MK Yaakov Litzman calls KarivGilad “this priest” for fighting for the rights of

the Reform community. “You are not a rabbi, you are a priesthe tells Kariv, a Reform

rabbi. “Remove your kippah. Gov (aentile)... Go to America” said in the Jewish congress

Knesset.56

Far right member of the Jewish lobby, Ellie Cohanim, who is a friend with Kenneth Marcus,

said the following behind her ambition for the adoption of the IHRA definition “[T]he antiSemitism czar would be a “domestic diplomat” with the ability to persuade Hollywood, social

media influencers, rap stars, athletes, elected officials, government bureaucrats, teachers,

academics and thought leaders generally, to understand when they have crossed the line into

anti-Semitism through their speech or actions”; sic.51

Many Jews and non-Jews rejected the IHRA definition and warned against using it as a law.

1) Canada: academics vote to reject IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.58

2) I drafted the definition of anti-Semitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it.59

3) Anti-Semitism must not be elevated over other racism. 60

4) Progressive Jewish groups oppose codification of IHRA anti-Semitism definition.61

Former President Donald Trump did not sign the executive order adopting the IHRA definition

out of love for the Jewish people but to expose the Jewish lobby wickedness within their own

hearts; given his recent interview with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, during which Donald

Trump lamented that Israel’s “absolute power over Congress” had declined during the Obama

administration.

In a covert remark, former President Donald Trump asserted Israel power over Congress.62

As quoted by the (Press TV)63 — Trump inadvertently blurted out unmentionable truths

about the outrageous power of the Jewish lobby, which has hijacked not just the legislative

branch, but the whole US government, in part due to its stranglehold over the media [...] The

Jewish lobby has a disproportionate influence over the US government as well as the media.

56 See https://twitter.com/iacobkornbluh/status/1475574743092842502

57 See https://www.newsweek.com/time-has-come-domestic-anti-semitism-czar-us-opinion-1604886

See https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/maior-canadian-academic-group-reiects-israellobbvs-anti-semitism

59 See https://www.theeuardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/antisemitism-executive-order-trumD-chillineeffect

See https://www.irishtimes.com/oDinion/anti-semitism-must-not-be-elevated-over-other-racism-l.4756271

61 See https://www.ipost.com/iudaism/progressive-iewish-groups-oppose-codification-of-ihra-antisemitismdefinition-655293 and see https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-reform-movement-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitismshould-not-be-law/

62 See part of the interview https://twitter.com/LeviYonit/status/1471821911827091459

63 See https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2021/12/19/672982/Trump-trots-out-true-tropes-about-Jewish-iuggernaut

Page 25 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 26 of 99 PagelD #:2931

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

Sociologist James Petras’s book The Power of Israel in the United States explores how

dozens of Jewish billionaires, thousands of Jewish millionaires, and hundreds of thousands of

rabid Jewish foot soldiers have terrorized the United States into submission to the will of

Israel. [...] No well-informed person would dispute Trump’s claim that Israel has something

close to absolute power over the US Congress, thanks to its vast outlays of bribes,

euphemistically described as “campaign contributions.”64 Those interested in the history of

Israel’s takeover of the United States should begin by reading Laurent Guyenot’s books JFK9/11, The Unspoken Kennedy Truth, and From Yahweh to Zion. . . Following up on Michael

Collins Piper’s book Final Judgment, Guyenot shows how JFK was dedicated to forcing the

Jewish lobby to resister as foreisn asents. taking currency creation out of the hands of

private bankers, and shutting down Israel’s nuclear program. . .According to Guyenot,

Kennedy butted heads with David Ben-Gurion and the Kosher Nostra and suffered the

consequences.

Indeed, Israel does have nuclear weapons which are illegal under a law passed in the 1970s that

prohibits aid to nuclear powers who don’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In an

interview in December, President-elect Joe Biden cautioned that if Iran went nuclear, Saudi

Arabia, Turkey and Egypt might too, “and the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the

world is a buildup of nuclear capability” wrote Peter Beinart on the New York Times.65

1) Joe Biden should end the US pretence over Israel’s ‘secret’ nuclear weapons wrote

Desmond Tutu is a Nobel peace laureate and a former archbishop of Cape Town. 66

2) How the Israelis Hoodwinked JFK on Going Nuclear.

All of these recited articles and major world topics were part of a foreign policy to use either

hard power (wars) or soft power (political pressure) for the good of Israel, but with IHRA being

adopted in the United States, it has merged foreign and domestic policies as one. As mentioned

within Plaintiffs amended complaint Dkt 9 and recited by Defendants’ own hands within their

motion to dismiss, they recited the truth, see Dkt 28 page 6 of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

E.g., Am. Comp 71-72, ECF No. 9 (“The IHRA definition calls good-evil, and evil-good;

it calls light-darkness and darkness-light; it calls hate-love and love-hate. [...] The first major

issue with the IHRA definition is to claim that Jews did not kill Jesus Christ and that

claiming so is anti-Semitic”); wrote Sarah Terman, the Justice Department lawyer.

The IHRA definition has itself destroyed the Department of Education, Office for Civil

Rights’ mission, rending it moot and is bringing chaos to college campuses because the main

See Dark Money in congress https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-monev/

65 See https://www.nvtimes.com/2021/08/ll/opinion/biden-israel-nuclear-program.html

66 See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/31/ioe-biden-us-pretence-israel-nuclear-weapons

67 See https://foreignpolicv.com/2016/Q4/26/how-the-israelis-hoodwinked-ifk-on-going-nuclear-dimona-atomsfor-peace/

Page 26 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document#: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 27 of 99 PagelD #:2932

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

issue was Kenneth Marcus wanted to control hearts using his “law” rather than win “hearts”

through hard work and persuasions; Kenneth Marcus wanted to be a master rather than a

servant.68 Not only has the IHRA definition personally injured the Plaintiff but it has destroyed

OCR mission which needs this Honorable Court immediate attention through an injunction and a

declaratory relief. The IHRA definition is not even adopted in Israel.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

DISCRIMINATION BY JEWS AGAINST A COPTIC: MARK BOCHRA

When one looks at Plaintiffs story suffering discrimination and retaliation with intent

and malice; one could say “this is not a story but a tale for God is with a child, named Mark.” At

every comer, the Plaintiff suffered discrimination and retaliation at the hands of evil Jews not

only in law school i.e., Florida Coastal School of Law which was shut down by the Department

of Education, but also when Jews held power and took control of Office for Civil Rights; when

former secretary Candice Jackson left OCR and Kenneth Marcus became the new secretary for

OCR; one was a Christian Secretary and the latter was a Jewish Secretary; a far right, part of the

Israeli lobby.

See Exhibit 9, a letter opposing the nomination of Kenneth Marcus by the Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights dated February 21, 2018. Vanita Gupta the current

associate attorney general, the second highest DOJ official in the Biden’s department of justice

administration was the author of the letter, the president and the CEO of Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights wherein, she was opposing the confirmation of Kenneth Marcus as

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.69

Plaintiff suffered injuries both in law school and by OCR officials and to retell his story,

it needs some close up reading of the facts, the evidence, and the chain of events which OCR

officials tried to destroy many times; it needs a Judge with a kind heart.

7f!

See Jesus Christ answering the Jews "I am the light of the World" https://voutu.be/9R5VwxvUUvl?t=160 and see

httPs://voutu.be/0feZQkHbCkM?t=5175 "The greatest one among you must be like the youngest, and the leader

must be like the servant." Said Jesus Christ.

See Letter http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/policv/letters/2018/Oppose-Ken-Marcus.pdf The letter was headed by

the President and CEO of Leadership Conference who at the time was Vanita Gupta

https://civilrights.org/2018/01/18/civil-human-rights-coalition-urges-senate-reiect-ocr-nominee-kennethmarcus/# who is currently the second highest rank of DOJ official, the associate attorney general

https://www.iustice.gov/asg/staff-profile/meet-associate-attornev-general

70 See httPs://i.imgur.com/A6JfvoN.png and see https://i.imgur.com/xnzdelL.png

Page 27 of 99

Case: l:21-cv-03887 Document #: 54 Filed: 02/28/22 Page 28 of 99 PagelD #:2933

“I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World." Jesus Christ

Within the Department of Education motion to dismiss, they briefly recited lies upon a lie

because they could not disclose the merits of the case before this honorable court that they were

actually negotiating a resolution agreement for nearly 2 years given the egregious set of

discrimination and retaliation that took place. This case was destined to be passed to the justice

department for prosecution pursuant to the OCR manual section 305 and 602 and Melanie Velez

Atlanta OCR director own words over the phone to the Plaintiff, that if negotiation failed,

Impending Enforcement Action will follow. See Dkt. 9

86-88; see also Exhibit 10 (emails

with Prof. Munsterman related to her interview), see Exhibit 11 (email from Atlanta Regional

director Melanie Velez dated 7/12/2018 stating the case is going back into investigation), yet see

Exhibit 12 (3 responsive letters to Senator Durbin’s office showing that the case has been in

negotiation mode from December 11, 2018 to October 31, 2019). See Exhibit 13, yet another

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.