|Roy Den Hollander | "ANTI-FEMINIST LAWYER"--N.Y. Times|
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
So why are these girls laughing?
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.
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.
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 whatever it will rid the federal courts of men fighting for their rights. The Women's Studies II case is now on appeal.
Many Feminist organizations receive preferential treatment and much of their funding from all levels of government. If this case claiming Feminism is a religion succeeds, then all that help will stop, which will allow the Feminists to show that they really are "strong and independent persons."
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).
In a corollary proceeding against the N.Y.C. Commission on Human Rights, or HR, middle-aged Euro-American guys fair no better before government agencies that are suppose to protect human rights. Even though all our ancestors originated in Africa and none of us have control over the passage of time, PC ideology deems those whose ancestors spent more time in a temperate climate than a tropical climate and any middle-aged guy chasing a pretty young skirt as nonhuman, therefore, no rights.
Roy Den Hollander is available for interviews, debates, speaking engagements, litigation, and civil disobedience.
For more on protecting your rights, go to
Marc Rudov's NoNonsense Territory, http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com
Voice of American Immigration Fraud Victims, http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.org and
The National Coalition for Men, ncfm.org