MRL

TRILOGY of CASES!

 

Lady Judge ruled that under the U.S. Constitution nightclubs can charge men more for admission than females, but in reaching her decision, she had to find that nightclubs cannot charge guys more for a drink.  So if you can make it to the bar, you're home-free.  September 29, 2008.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision.  It's half a victory, since the case can be used as authority to challenge Ladies' Nights that charge guys more for drinks anywhere in the country because of the prestige of the Second Circuit.  September 1, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so their glasses are half full and most likely paid for by a guy.  Since the Second Circuit's decision stands, nightclubs can let girls in for less, but the clubs cannot charge guys more for drinks, assuming the clubs follow the law which they don't.  January 10, 2011.

 

So why are the girls laughing?

A Clinton District Court Judge ruled that the Violence Against Women's Act doesn't injure American men.  Judge William H. Pauley III's decision ignored the democratic and legal standard of fairness, applied the wrong legal test for injury on a dismissal motion, and invented a fact not before the Court.  VAWA allows alien females to acquire citizenship by falsely accusing their American husbands or ex-husbands or even boyfriends of mistreating them.  Homeland Security uses proceedings kept secret from  U.S. citizens to find that they committed "battery," "extreme cruelty," or an "overall pattern of violence," even when no violence has occurred.  December 4, 2008.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the appeal by stating any injuries were "speculative."  VAWA prevented the plaintiffs from finding out what happened in the Homeland Security proceedings or how the secret fact-findings were being used against them, so naturally they were unable to detail the injuries to their rights.  As in Kafka's The Trial, citizens are guilty--but they don't know of exactly what.  The powerful often use such Catch-22s on their road to tyranny.  December 3, 2009.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari.  The case is over and it's clear that to the courts men just don't count.  April 19, 2010.

Federal lawsuit to find that Columbia University violated Title IX and the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by offering a Women's Studies program, but not a Men's Studies program, and that N.Y. State and the federal government aided Columbia's preaching of the religious belief system "Feminism."  Judge Lewis A. Kaplan dismissed the case saying "Feminism is no more a religion than physics," basically ignored the Title IX and Equal Protection claims and called the case "absurd."  April 23, 2009.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the appeal.  The Court ruled that any harm caused by the lack of a Men's Studies Program was "speculative."  Strange that the federal courts don't say the same about the lack of a girls' sports team when a college only has a guys' team.  Apparently, the law is adjudicated one way for girls and another way for guys.  April 16, 2010.

 

Graduate of Women's Studies

In the first Women's Studies case, the Second Circuit also dismissed the claim that New York and the U.S. aided the religion Feminism because I did not state the obvious—that I was a taxpayer.  So in the second Women's Studies case, I stated it four times in the Complaint. 

The Complaint in Women's Studies II also provided an over abundance of detail to show that Feminism is a religion and is promoted and financed by the state and federal governments at Columbia in violation of the Establishment Clause.  N.Y. actually requires all college programs and studies in the state to conform to Feminist precepts.

On All Hallows' Eve 2011, a federal female judge conjured up nonexistent facts to throw the case out on the technicality of collateral estoppel.  The Judge claimed that in Women's Studies I the Establishment Clause issues of taxpayer and non-economic standing were fully litigated and decided as they applied to me, the only plaintiff in both cases.  That's factually wrong, but try telling that to a lady judge if you're a man. 

Two other men then came forward to join the case as plaintiffs.  I made a motion to the same judge to throw out her decision and allow amending of the Complaint to include the two new plaintiffs.  Since the two new plaintiffs were not involved in Women Studies I, the judge couldn't possibly divine facts that the prior case had fully litigated and decided Establishment Clause standing with respect to them--or could she?

She used a different tack by saying the law didn't allow for an amendment to add new plaintiffs after the original complaint was dismissed for lack of standing.  Strange that in the Women's Studies I case, a Court of Appeals Judge admonished me for not trying to amend the complaint in that case after the district court judge dismissed for lack of standing.  Guess what the law is depends on whether it will rid the federal courts of men fighting for their rights. 

The Women’s Studies II case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The three judge panel upheld the district court by saying that the issues of non-economic and taxpayer standing had been “fully litigated and decided” in Women’s Studies I, when they hadn’t, and the complaint could not be amended because the two “new plaintiffs are not new evidence,” even though the two new plaintiffs would have testified to new facts concerning them.  Sounded like new evidence to me. 

The kicker, however, of the judges’ decision was their blatant abuse of power by threatening me with Rule 11 sanctions.  They forever banned me from representing the two new plaintiffs, or in effect anyone, in any case raising the issue of whether Feminism is a religion.  That’s no different than a Jim Crow court in the 1800s threatening the attorney for the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens with fines, license suspension, or disbarment for bringing another Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), suit with a different plaintiff on the same issue—separate but equal.  And no different than at the end of every year sanctioning the American Civil Liberties Union for bringing another action with new plaintiffs against Christmas displays.

So I asked the U.S. Supreme Court to not only reverse the Second Circuit’s decision, but to tell it to rescind its threat of sanctions and to stop acting like King John of England by relying on their divine right of life long tenure to arbitrarily rule in accordance with their personal beliefs instead of the Constitution:  “In the four men’s rights cases, the Second Circuit has acted beyond its authority by deciding in accordance with the current popular ideology Feminism; even though it is the imperative duty of the courts to support the Constitution ‘[The] constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.’  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78.  Supplanting it with the tenets of Feminism is ideologically corrupt and an act beyond a court’s authority and its duty to obey the rule of law—not the rule of the ‘politically correct.’”

Many Feminist organizations receive preferential treatment and much of their funding from all levels of government.  If this case, claiming Feminism is a religion, had succeeded, then all that help would have stopped, which would then allow the Feminists to show that they really were "strong and independent persons."   The Supremes, not surprisingly, chose to deny the Petitions for Certiorari and Mandamus.  The cost just to knock on the Supreme Court's door was over $10,000.  I should have spent the money in a strip club instead--it would have been more rewarding.

This trilogy of lawsuits for men's rights makes clear that there are now two classes of people in America:  one of princesses--females, and the other of servants--males.  Governments, from local to state to federal, treat men as second class citizens whose rights can be violated with impunity when it benefits females.  Need I say the courts are prejudiced, need I say they are useless, need I say it’s time for men to take the law into their hands?

"[H]istory shows that people have a way of not being willing to bear oppressive grievances without protest.  Such protests, when bottomed upon facts, lead almost inevitably to an irresistible popular demand for either a redress of those grievances or a change in the Government."  Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 167 (Justice Black dissenting).

More detailed summary of the three anti- Feminist cases

******

An episode in Australia demonstrates the loss of freedoms for which so many men and very few females have sacrificed.  The University of South Australia was going to offer a men’s studies courses taught by a few professors and myself online.  My section of one course was on men and the law.  As soon as a couple of Feminist reporters heard about the courses, they jumped on their broomsticks and scared the administrators of the University into canceling the courses by ranting we had been “published on radical men’s rights websites” and “linked to extreme views on men’s rights.” 

In 1933 at a university book burning, Joseph Goebbels said, “The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end.”  As this episode illustrates, Western culture is now saying the same about any intellectualism that is not pro-Feminist—assuming there’s anything intellectual about Feminism.

Conclusion

In all these cases, I tried to use the courts to fight the malignant ideology that has mutated half of the American population into automatons of the PC/Feminist collective.  But it was no use--the courts were already infected.

 

Roy Den Hollander, President MR Legal Fund, is available for interviews, debates, speaking engagements, litigation, and civil disobedience.

For more information on protecting your rights, go to

Voice of American Immigration Fraud Victims, http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.org.