Commissioner bullies MRA attorney

Carlos Velez

Anti-feminist attorney Roy Den Hollander served a complaint today, Aug. 20, with the N.Y.C. Commission on Human Rights against the Commission’s Executive Director of Law Enforcement—Carlos Velez (212 306 7765) for discriminating against Den Hollander, in part, because he is a Euro-American. (Then again, maybe Velez discriminated against him for being an African-America. After all, everyone’s ancestors originated in Africa.)

Anyway, on July 27, 2012, Velez issued a Determination and Order that Den Hollander charges was motivated by Velez’s prejudice against Euro-Americans of protestant ancestry,divorced husbands who criticize their ex-wives, and men who choose not to meekly submit to feminist and political correctionalist totalitarianism by prosecuting anti-feminist lawsuits of which Den Hollander has done a few times.

“Totalitarianism!” That’s a little strong, or is it? “To exalt as an absolute is the mark of totalitarianism, and it is possible to have an atmosphere of totalitarianism in a society that has many of the attributes of democracy.” ~ Howard Zinn.

Believing that certain political beliefs are the only “correct” ones sounds absolute. Not good enough, how about a feminist and PCer “tyranny.”

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ~ James Madison, Federalist Paper 47.

So what ideology rules over the actions of most government officials—feminism and PC.

Velez’s Order dismissed Den Hollander’s age discrimination complaint against the nightclub Amnesia based on various extra-legal and bigoted reasons that expose a discriminatory intent by Velez in investigating, writing, and issuing the Order.

Amnesia refused to admit Den Hollander and his equally older attorney friend and former Democratic State Committeeman unless they bought a $350 bottle of watered down, brandless vodka. They declined. Den Hollander then filed a sex discrimination complaint with the State Human Rights Division. The State said no sex discrimination but looks like age discrimination. The State, however, lacks jurisdiction over nightclubs for age discrimination but NYC Human Rights has such jurisdiction, so off Den Hollander righteously went to complain.

At NYC Human Rights, Velez refused to accept Den Hollander’s complaint by communicating through another employee that there was no discrimination because had Den Hollander and his friend agreed to buy a $350 bottle, they could have entered. Duh, that can’t be right; otherwise years ago in the Deep South it would have been okay to require people with relatively darker skin color to enter a public bus so long as they sat in the back. The U.S. Supreme Court kicked that looney-tune reasoning out of the law in Browder v. Gayle, 352 U.S. 903 (1956).

A letter to the Commissioner forced Velez to accept the case but didn’t reign in the prejudice that colored his investigation, reasoning, and Order. Among the reasons for dismissing the age discrimination complaint Velez wrote:

Complainant [Den Hollander] is a self-professed advocate for men’s rights who identifies himself as an ‘anti-feminist lawyer’ on his website. He has filed a number of lawsuits against bars and clubs that have ‘Ladies Nights,’ and admits in several online publications that he is ‘bitter’ from an ex-wife who used him for his US citizenship and money. Complainant’s description of himself is consistent with his pattern of filing several gender discrimination suits.” Velez Determination and Order, Ex A. at p. Tres.

So what’s that got to do with an age-discrimination complaint? Sounds like the typical feminist and PC’er tactic of discrediting someone by pegging them as a member of a currently disfavored group. In Den Hollander’s case, a member of the last remaining 200 men in this country willing to fight for their constitutional rights against the feminists and PCers. Although some, such as Marc Rudov, think that number is too high.

“Discrimination itself, by perpetuating ‘archaic and stereotypic notions’ or by stigmatizing members of the disfavored group as ‘innately inferior’ and therefore as less worthy participants in the political community, … can cause serious noneconomic injuries to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment….” ~Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 739-740 (1984).

Roy's complaint here

Source:click here

Give him hell,Roy. Roast his hide royally,bro. This Velez asshole looks like another UN twerp to me. Fuck you,Velez.

Another word from Roy

I just received an email from Roy Den Hollander,attorney for men and he informs me he took on VAWA in the 2nd appellant court and lost. The "justices?" ruled in favor of VAWA,citing past judgements as their reason for dismissal. I hope Roy appeals this.

Another word from Roy (Judicial corruption)

Federal Court of Appeals trying to coerce lawyer into giving up on anti-feminist lawsuits.

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
Stanley_Bass@ca2.uscourts.gov Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM
To: rdhhh@yahoo.com
Cc: natalia.oeltjen@usdoj.gov 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.
rdhhh@yahoo.com
(917) 687-0652