Staff Counsel for the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Stanley Bass, is using his power as a gatekeeper to the Court to prevent the appeal of two anti-feminist cases. The two cases challenge the denial of equal protection and other constitutional rights to men.
The Ladies' Nights case challenged as unconstitutional charging guys more for admission than ladies in NYC nightclubs. The Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") case charged violations of due process and equal protection by secret Federal Government proceedings in which American men are found to have committed felonies and misdemeanors against their alien wives so the wives can become permanent residents and citizens. The proceedings are kept secret from only the husbands, not the alien wives, various government officials or various Feminist groups.
Mr. Bass, acting on behalf of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, (1) threatened that possible "sanctions" would be brought against attorney Roy Den Hollander if he pursued the appeals and "you [Den Hollander] may be subject to … other disadvantageous action"; (2) tried to have a defendant in the Ladies' Nights case pay Den Hollander monetary damages in return for dropping the case; (3) initially gave both appeals the same briefing schedule, which may end up as the final briefing schedule so as to assure Den Hollander, a sole-practitioner, doesn't have enough time to adequately appeal both cases; and (4) engaged in the usual personal insults by saying Den Hollander was "remiss" in not suing in state court. Mr. Bass also called the cases "absurd" and "offensive"—I've heard that word before.
In addition, Mr. Bass says as to the VAWA case that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to "inject [themselves] into a proceeding where neither the claimant [alien wives] nor the agency [Immigration] welcomes [them]." Of course the American husbands aren't welcome, since then it would be much harder for the Federal Government to find them responsible for felonies and misdemeanors against their alien wives.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, once the court of renown judges such as Learned Hand and Henry Friendly, has forgotten on this Valentine's Day weekend: "The heart of the matter is that democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or unworthy those men may be; a democratic government must therefore practice fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170 (Frankfurter J., concurring)(1951).
Where's Felix Frankfurter when justice needs him?
Mr. Bass made the demands of the Second Circuit in a contentious telephone conference call on Wednesday, Feb. 11, and in his following email: Hollander v. U.S.A., 08-6183-cv
Cc: email@example.com To: Den Hollander, Esq.
In thinking further about this pro se appeal, I can see no point in your further wasting the resources of yourself, the Department of Justice, and the judges of this Honorable Court. The idea that a non-party has a legal right to be a spoiler witness in a claimant's administrative hearing seeking immigration benefits seems not only absurd, but also offensive and mean-spirited. It's one thing for you to offer relevant testimony to the agency if they want it. It's quite another to assert a constitutional right to inject yourself into a proceeding where neither the claimant nor the agency welcomes you.
There is no precedent supporting your position. Common sense and fairness warrant its rejection. Apart from a summary affirmance, you may be subject to imposition of costs or some other disadvantageous action. And, importantly, by persisting in arguing a meritless case, you risk losing credibility when dealing with an truly arguable subject, such as the meaning of "state action".
I recommend that you promptly submit to me a stipulation withdrawing this groundless appeal.
Attorney Roy Den Hollander told Bass, "Go ahead and disbar me, I don't care."
Roy Den Hollander
Attorney at Law
New York, N.Y.