Federal lawsuit charges parts of the Violence against Women Act are unconstitutional.
Attorney Roy Den Hollander filed on February 14th, a suit in the U.S. Southern District Court of N.Y. attacking sections of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and other U.S. statutes for violating the Constitutional rights of American men who marry alien females.
The defendants are the United States of America, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive Office of Immigration Review, No. 08 CV 01521. Roy Den Hollander is the sole plaintiff. Hollander has also sued in a New York State court to have Ladies Nights declared discriminatory in New York City nightclubs and bars.
The VAWA infringes American mens rights to freedom of speech, freedom of choice in marital relationships, right of access to deportation proceedings, procedural due process, and equal protection under the law in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution. The unconstitutional statutes, enacted at the behest of the feminist lobby, create a fast track to permanent U.S. residency and citizenship for alien wives or ex-wives of American husbands whenever the alien female alleges abuse. Once she mentions the magic words -battery- or -extreme cruelty-, the Government institutes secret, -Star Chamber- immigration proceedings to determine whether the citizen husband is responsible, and, if yes, grants the alien female permanent U.S. residency. The American husband or ex-husband receives no notice of the proceedings, has no opportunity to defend his name, and the Governments findings of abuse are based almost exclusively on what the alien female says. The feminist lobby created the statutes in order to deter American men from looking overseas for wives. If a marriage toa foreign wife does not workout, the alien female can falsely and opportunistically accuse her American husbandof -battery- or -extreme cruelty- and he will have no opportunity to prove his innocence. The husband is barred from the proceedings that are conducted behind closed doors and any evidence that the Government might receive from him is discarded. So not only is the husband presumed guilty, but he is not even allowed to prove differently.
Hollander says -the feminists did not create these statutes out of bleeding hearts for alien wives but to intimidate American men into shopping at home for wives. He notes that, if an American wife accuses her husband of abuse, he at least gets his day in court and the abuse has to fit specific legal definitions. But under the VAWA, a husband can be found guilty of -battery- and -extreme cruelty- for anything from an -offensive- remark to felony assault.
While the VAWA would not send an American man to jail or fine him…not yet anyway, his rights are violated with impunity and his reputation destroyed. Both his alien wife or ex-wife and certain feminist groups can release what happened in the secret proceedings, and in New York State, the husband will have no recourse to a defamation, false light or prima facie tort cause of action no matter how false or harmful the accusations against him. Hollander says that even terrorists have more rights than American men accused of abuse by their alien wives.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
John Dias said,
February 21, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Thank God Someone is finally stepping up to the plate to take on VAWA « Russian Women - The Real Truth said,
February 21, 2008 at 6:07 pm
SeanPatrick said,
Immigration Fraud for Federal Dollars, Socialism and Greencards
A feminist immigration advocacy group called “Civil Society Helps” and attorney Martha J. Sullivan help perpetuate fraud against U.S. citizens and the United States of America for financial, ideological and political gain. Civil Society Helps is funded by government programs such as VAWA ( Violence Against Women Act ). VAWA is commonly used as a business plan to bring federal funds ($3.6 Billion authorized in 2005) to immigration advocacy groups, feminist groups and attorneys who specialize in immigration fraud to expedite a residency seeker’s immigration process. Can you say aiding and abetting? What about embezzlement of federal funds?
With false accusations from an immigrant residency seeker, a stable American citizen can be reduced to living in poverty. All of your assets can be seized and given to the immigrant even if you are not found guilty. You will immediately be forced to surrender a portion of your income to the immigrant. The courts may also order you to turn your motor vehicle over to the immigrant even if the immigrant does not have a driver’s license or insurance.
Under VAWA and false accusations, your immigrant spouse becomes legal and you become illegal. The court system will abuse you and strip you of your rights and assets while social programs that promote immigration fraud thrive.
The primary motivation for these advocacy groups is of course financial gain. However, these groups also have auxiliary political and social agendas as well. Civil Society Helps sounds nice and peachy, but their ideology is skewed towards extreme feminism and socialism. Their goals of “equality” are achieved by unconstitutionally stripping a man of his possessions and home without due process or any finding of guilt. Their support for the immigrant community buys votes for the likes of Hillary Clinton who supports VAWA and immigration which supports the likes of the Civil Society. The court system also recieves VAWA funds which helps cover salaries for judges and other court officials. Are you starting to see the big picture now?
The immigration loopholes VAWA provides were intentionally designed with feminist malice and profits in mind. VAWA is a billion dollar business which oppresses men for financial, political and ideological gain. Supply and demand is important to all businesses and there is a high demand for U.S. residency. Groups that knowingly facilitate immigration and/or VAWA fraud need to be held accountable.
Players in Minnesota
Civil Society Helps
1st National Bank Building
332 Minnesota St, Suite E-1436
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Phone: 651.291.0713
Fax: 651.291.2588
Web: http://civilsocietyhelps.org/
Attorney Martha J. Sullivan
Phone: 651.438.9992
1317 Vermillion Street
Hastings, Minnesota 55033
Web: http://www.marthasullivanlaw.com/
Casa de Esperanza ( Hope House )
1515 East Lake Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407
Phone: 651.646.5553
Web: http://www.casadeesperanza.org/
February 21, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Robert Stevens said,
Those responsible for it will not only have to be stopped, but punished severly for doing what they did. These people did alot of damage and caused alot of suffering and misery to men all across this nation. They need to go to jail and have to pay massive fines, penalties and damages. No punishment is severe enough for these people. We have to not only stop them, but come down hard enough to put the fear of God in them and deter any thought of trying this Bull sh** again
February 21, 2008 at 8:02 pm
amfortas said,
Not that court decisions are worth a pinch of shit these days. Corruption has completely taken over.
You are right Robert. Very Firm action needs to be taken to rid us of the rot.
As I said in my Presidential Candidate interview here on MND some months back, my Administration will get out of the Marriage business altogether. None of my damned business managing the process. Contract law is quite able to deal with it. Break your contract and you have to compensate your partner. There is nothing complicated about it.
Equal dissolution by mutual agreement? Fine. No unilateralism. No VAWA incidentals making Prime accusers more than equal. No more of this corruption by lawyers and judges stripping family assets. No more massive payouts to crooked partners. Kids? You are both wholly, jointly and severally totally responsible. Deal with it. Do it right or I will then step in and whack you. Poison their young minds against one or the other and its out a high friggin? window, coutesy of my new punishment regime (see below)
My first 100 days will see a wholescale dismantling of the anti-Family Court, along with most other Courts too. Judges will wail. DA’s will reach for the bottle. There will be much gnashing of teeth, for those few legal carrion that retain their teeth. Corruption will be severely dealt with. I will be seeking out true men and women but expect to find only a few. There will be Appointments of ordinary sensible people to the Bench. Preferably heavy goods vehicle drivers and electrical linesmen.
The words ?Truth? and ?Justice? will be brought out of retirement. All will be equal before the law and no particular group?s ?interests? will be put above another?s, even if they are only two foot tall or have genitals of a particular kind.
Law will take its place as a subordinate of Justice and be served by Truth.
There will be much rejoicing by those on the Left, just for a moment until it sinks in, as for a short, sharp period I will institute just the sort of Court processes they seem to love.
Just for them : Secret Courts; guilty until they prove themselves innocent (they will get ten minutes) ; the judicious use of accusation from all and sundry, the more ludicrous the better; no need for evidence which will be suppressed in the tradition they have established; blind eye to perjury; lots of whimsical technicalities. Oh my. There will be fun for all. I might even televise some. They love that sort of thing. Reality TV.
Of those that survive, some will be indicted for AgitProp crimes and child abuse. They can join the Professors who have ruined our Universities and for whom I will re-institute defenestration. I have a list ! Some will star in public trials. Should be fun. All those ivory towers put to good use. “Toss a Prof” will be a prime time TV show.
Dispossession will be a normal base level punishment. Restitution and recompense for all those that these parasites and thieves have abused - good people, mainly chaps as it happens - will take some time; the rest of some Judges and lawyers? lives I imagine. Their families and friends are going to be thoroughly pissed off with them.
For the rest of ?We the People? it is back to the Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus. Justice, Truth. Equality.
Vote #1 Amfortas.
Obama? McCain? Gordon Bennett.
Bring in the One who has the guts to divert the East River to hose out the stables.
February 21, 2008 at 9:28 pm
David R. Usher said,
To have standing with respect to IMBRA, all someone would have to do is to sign up with a matchmaking agency and then fill out the stuff they require, and then be refused on the basis of the form.
February 21, 2008 at 11:30 pm
poiuyt said,
February 22, 2008 at 12:39 am
TheManOnTheStreet said,
“? but whose handwork is IMBRA and VAWA ?. Are they not elements of a social structure put in place by males themselves to, exploit, thwart and inhibit themselves as males ?”
Nice try. Blaming men for this rediculous law is only part, a small part, of the issue here.. And I think you know it. The bulk is the covert preceedings and lobbiest pressures, special interest groups, and idiots.
Just take a look at how it was passed… then reauthorized…. with a little femi-pork attached for good measure (IMBRA for one)…..The only people allowed to “speak” (as in lie with false statistics) were feminists, DV industry feminists and their ilk. This is fact. Look it up.
And lastly, going against this pathetic piece of “law” would be political suicide for anyone… male or female..
NYT Headline:
President Bush vetoes VAWA! Bush hates women! President Bush does not support protection for abused women…. blah blah….
Get real….
TMOTS
February 22, 2008 at 7:10 am
Ouderkirk said,
We can start with Joe Biden (D-Del) who Sponsored VAWA, and IVAWA and IMBRA, and countless other pieces of crap legislation that have systematically sought to deprive men of their rights.
February 22, 2008 at 7:37 am
Jim Peterson said,
Even a married grandmother would have standing to challengeIMBRA.
IMBRA makes it so an American who is spending 3 days in a foreign country, probably won’t get permission from the US Government to speak to a foreigner in his or her own city…for 4 days. IMBRA totally blocks communication between human beings.
It’s vicious effects have NOTHING to do with whether the American has something bad in his or her criminal files.
So everyone has automatic standing to challenge IMBRA and I encourage anyone, especially any married or single woman to walk into a courthouse and say “I have the right to cheat on my husband or boyfriend by contacting a foreign man on MeetMenFromEurope.com without having to show my clean background check and identity to anyone”.
Everyone is automatically turned down because tens of thousands of women who don’t have email are NOT being shown the background checks. Some companies take money for contacts that will never happen (the male client is led to believe she was not interested) and others, like Blossoms.com, simply deleted all the women who did not have email (allowing tens of thousands of women applicants to be ignored).
The married grandmother can claim that she has the right to cheat on her husband without US federal gov interference.
She can point to http://www.meetmenfromeurope.com which states that it is out of business because of IMBRA but will allow her to meet men from Europe if IMBRA is thrown out again.
Any American has standing to challenge IMBRA.
The problem is that NOBODY is doing this Pro Se and Jack Bragg of First Dream only has $30,000 of the $50,000 he would need to launch a fully lawyered challenge (nobody is trying to raise that extra $20,000 for some bizarre reason).
This guy Hollander is the only man (as opposed to business) to step up to the plate in 2 years!
The Commerce Clause cannot be used against him.
He does not yet understand that he does have automatic standing to challenge IMBRA and does NOT need to contact an agency or get rejected in order to show that communication between him and women is being blocked.
Does anyone here want to contact Hollander but not have the wits to ask me or do an instant Google search for the contact details?
February 22, 2008 at 11:12 am
Jim Peterson said,
In fact, this would be like a basketball layup. If I were living in the USA or spending anytime there at all, or if I were meeting American women here in Europe, I would ask a young woman to challenge IMBRA pro se herself.
I would write the challenge.
But the problem is: I NEVER MEET AMERICANS HERE IN EUROPE.
You guys who do meet Americans, for instance those of you who have the luxury of being in the USA on evenings and weekends, should be going over to the local university or sub shop and chatting with the coeds and other students and convincing them to challenge IMBRA pro se themselves.
I could do that easily…but only in person…and that is impossible because I never meet Americans.
Additionally, if I were in Hollander’s position, I would chat women up on the streets outside the courthouse and ask them to come in with me to the proceedings and speak out themselves.
I realize that some guys just don’t have the ability to chat with strangers and convince them to do things like that…but I am sure that someone reading this is the kind of guy who CAN convince coeds to fight injustice like this. When I lived in NYC, I was at cocktail parties all the time where I would be bringing great women over to meet Hollander and organizing an appearance in court with at least 12 attractive women letting the judge know that they agree with his challenge.
Remember:
1) the younger women hate feminists or feel sorry for them, knowing that they are for laws like IMBRA because they fear the foreign competition
2) often these women are for Ron Paul…or you can find these women from Ron Paul Meetup groups
When I was in the US for a few days last year, I had lunch twice with a woman blogger who hates feminists.
Those of you who are in the USA every day: Please use the precision time that you are inside the country to take sympathetic women out to dinner, get to know them and ask for help to save your rights.
I assume you guys are already doing that right?
Take up a new policy: only date women who intend to help on this.
February 22, 2008 at 11:24 am
Jim Peterson said,
Everyone is affected and the foreigners basic human rights are violated the most because she has given permission for her contact information to be broadcast but the US is stopping her from doing so even in her own country to a man who is in her country.
IMBRA is extra-jurisdictional as well as unconstitutional.
February 22, 2008 at 11:59 am
fourthwire said,
Or in other words, “extreme cruelty” is anything that a woman claims……….
Any remark can be deemed “offensive” with a liberal enough interpretation.
$1 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to drive the family apart, criminalize more men, and intimidate other men into not searching for wives among those nations less tainted by the toxic nature of feminism………
February 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm