Ladies' Nights

          Complaint

          Press Releases

           

          Media Coverage

         Plaintiff Motion to Disqualify Judge

                     AffirmationMemo of Law

         Defendants Opposition to Disqualify

                     Affirmation, Memo of Law

         Plaintiff Reply

                     Affirmation, Reply Memo

         Defendants Motions to Dismiss I

                     AER Memo of Law

                        Lotus Memo of Law

                        SOL Memo of Law

                        SOL Supp Memo of Law

         Plaintiff Opposition I

                    Memo of Law

            Defendants Replies Motions to Dismiss I

                     Lotus Reply

                       SOL Reply Declaration

                       SOL Reply Memo of Law

           First Amended Complaint

         Defendants Motions to Dismiss II

                     AER Affirmation

                        Lotus Memo of Law

                        SOL Affirmation

         Plaintiff Opposition II

                     Affirmation

                       Memo of Law

 District Court Judge's Decision

         Second Circuit Court of Appeals
                     Plaintiff Appeal Brief
                        Lotus Opposition Brief 
                        Plaintiff Reply
                        Joint Appendix
                        Oral Argument Preparation
                        Oral Argument
                        Second Circuit Decision

           U.S. Supreme Court Petition                     


Female Fraud Act (VAWA)

Complaint

Press Releases

Synopsis

Critique of VAWA for Talk Shows

Media Coverage

U.S. Gov't Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs Opposition

U.S. Gov't Reply

District Court Judge's Decision

Second Circuit Court of Appeals
            Plaintiffs Brief & Addendum
            U.S. Gov't Brief
            Plaintiffs Reply
            Joint Appendix
            Oral Argument Preparation
              Oral Argument
              Second Circuit Decision

U.S. Supreme Court Petition


Women's Studies I
(a.k.a. Miss Columbia)

Complaint & Amended Complaint

Press Releases

Media Coverage   

Defendants Motions to Dismiss

        Columbia First & Second

         New York First & Second

         U.S. First & Second

Plaintiff Oppositions First & Second

Defendants Replies

        Columbia

        New York

Magistrate's Decision

Plaintiffs Objections to Magistrate's Decision

Judge's Decision

Second Circuit Court of Appeals
        Plaintiff Appeal Brief
         Defendants Appeal Briefs
                 Columbia
                 New York
                 U.S.
         Plaintiff Reply
         Joint Appendix
         Oral Argument Preparation
         Oral Argument
         
Second Circuit Decision


Women's Studies II

Complaint

Press Releases

Media Coverage

Defendants Motions to Dismiss
        New York
         U.S.

Plaintiff Declaration, Opposition

Defendants Replies
        New York
        U.S.

Magistrate Converts to Summary Judgment Motion

New York Opposition to S.J.

U.S. Opposition to S.J.

Plaintiff Opposition to S.J.

         Plaintiff Declaration

                    Exhibit 1

                    Exhibit 2

           Plaintiff Statement of Material Facts

           Plaintiff Memorandum of Law

  

Magistrate's Decision

Plaintiff Objections to Magistrate's Decision

Judge's Decision

Plaintiff Motion to Vacate Judge's Decision

        Affidavit

         Amended Complaint

        Memorandum of Law

Defendants Oppositions

        New York

         U.S.

Plaintiff Reply

Second Circuit Court of Appeals
        Plaintiff Appeal Brief
        Defendants Appeal Briefs

             New York
             U.S.
        Joint Appendix
         Plaintiff Reply
         Oral Argument Preparation
         Oral Argument
       
        
Judges Decision

U.S. Supreme Court
        Certiorari Petition
        Mandamus Petition
       

Discrimination by the Obamite Bigots at the N.Y.C. Human Rights Commission and in the Courts

Aministrative Appeal/Complaint against the N.Y.C. Commission on Human Rights for discrimination, which was denied.

N.Y. Court proceedings:

Article 78, Judgment,
Motion to add Section 1983 and to Motion to Reargue, Decision

Appellate Division First Dept.:
Briefs, Appendix, Oral Argument, Decision

Court of Appeals: Roy's Motion to Argue Case, City HR Opposition, Court's Grant to Appeal, City HR Motion to Dismiss, Roy's Opposition to Dismissal Motion, Roy's Appeal Brief and Appendix, Court of Appeals Denies Leave to Appeal, Roy's Motion for Reargument, City HR's Opposition to Reargument, Court of Appeals Denies Roy's Motion for Reargument

Press

Radio
Press Release

Answers to questions

        
        Bimbo Book Burners from Down
        Under

          Yellow, female-dog-in-heat Articles
         
Complaint Original
          Book Burners' First Motion to Dismiss

          Roy's Opposition to First Dismissal Motion

          Roy's First Amended Complaint
          Book Burners' Second Motion to Dismiss
          Roy's Opposition to Second Dismissal Motion

          Roy's Cross Motion for Discovery on Jurisdiction

          Book Burners' Reply

          Roy's Oral Argument
          Roy's Oral Motion Trial Personal Jurisdiction
                    Book Burners' Opposition
                    Roy's Reply
          Roy's Hacking Motion
                    Book Burners' Opposition
                    Roy's Reply
                    Roy's Oral Argument
          Justice Schecter's Anti-Male Decisions
          Roy's Appeal to Appellate Division First Dept.
                    Roy's Appeal Brief
                    Roy's Appeal Appendix
                    Book Burners' Dismissal Motion 1
                    Roy's Opposition
                    Book Burners' Reply
                    Roy's Motion Strike Book Burners' Reply
                    Book Burners' Opposition
                    Roy's Reply
                    Appellate Court Orders
                    Roy's Supp. Appendix
                    Book Burners' Dismissal Motion 2
                    Roy's Opposition
                    Appellate Court Dismissal Order
                    Book Burners' Appeal Brief
         Roy's Motion for Leave to Appeal to Court of 
         Appeals
                    Book Burners' Opposition
                    Court of Appeals Denied Motion
                     
         
Press Release
          Men v. Law Section
                 Outline
                 Full Text

        Media Coverage
    

         Homeland Security Roy is an illegal.

         Homeland and Social Security's determination
         Letter to Soc. Sec. Reg. Admin., no reply
         Letters to others who also did not repond.

        
       Fired for calling an illegal: "illegal."
 

         Correspondence
         Original Complaint
         Settlement with Employer
         Illegal's Answer Demand for Particulars
         First Amended Complaint
         Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaints
              Roy's Opposition
         Second Amended Complaint Motion
         Settlement with Illegal

         Bimbo Book Burners' Lawyers Hack Roy's        
         iCloud

      
  Complaint
         Defendants' Pre-Motion Letter to Judge
         Roy's Response
         First Amended Complaint
         Defendants' Second Pre-Motion Letter to Judge
         Roy's Response
         Defendants want longer brief
         Roy opposes Defendants longer brief
         Judge's decision on brief length
         Early Discovery Dispute
         Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss
            Roy's Opposition
            Defendants' Reply
         Judge grants Roy's request for Oral Argument
            Judge's Questions
            Roy's Prepared Answers
            Transcript of Oral Argument
         Judge's Order and Battle of the Letters
            Second Amended Complaint
            Order to Stay Battle
            New Evidence
         Judge's Order Defendants can move to Strike
            the Second Amended Complaint
         Defendants' Motions to Strike or Dismiss
            the Second Amended Complaint
            Roy's Opposition
            Defendants' Reply


         Tory the Torch 2.0

       
 Summons and Complaint

         Service of Process
         First Amended Complaint NY Court
         Removal to Fed. Court
         Def. Letter Motion
         Roy's Response
         Roy's Motion to Amend Fed. Complaint

         Sanctions

         Girl Jokes

                                                                                                      

Now is the time for all good men to fight for their rights before they have no rights left.

Contact Roy to help battle the infringement of Men's Rights by the Feminists and their fellow sisters the PCers.

TRILOGY of ANTI-FEMINIST 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

 

                             

                              

                                           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.


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 decisionbut 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 are "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

Case against Obamite Bigots

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 and lacking in rights.

Bimbo Book Burners from Down Under

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 course taught by a few professors and myself online.  My section was on men and the law.  As soon as a couple of Feminist reporters heard about the course, they jumped on their broomsticks and scared the administrators of the University into canceling the course’s development 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 is available for interviews, debates, speaking engagements, litigation, and civil disobedience.  Attorney Advertising.

For more information on protecting your rights, go to

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

 

Copyrighted 2019