Jan
16
Federal Lawsuit filed in NY over VAWA?
Filed Under legal
On Valentine’s Day an attorney filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in NY seeking to declare the Violence Against Women’s Act as unconstitutional. And that it is discriminatory. Violates the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution.
Not addressed is IMBRA the rider that criminalizes all US Men who attempt to communicate via the internet with Foreign Women. We have no declared that US Men have no rights to freedom of Association, unless its Government approved.
What are your thoughts on the Law suit and IMBRA?
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 United States 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 Government’s 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 to a foreign wife does not workout, the alien female can falsely and opportunistically accuse her American husband of -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.
IMBRA requires US Men who wish to exchange information with and to meet Foreign Women. To submit to a Criminal Background Check, and to provide detailed identity information. Making them more vulnerable to Identity Theft and scams. It presumes that American Men are violent Sexual Criminals and Abusers. Yahoo.com, Match.com and a few others are exempt.
It is a blatant attempt to create a barrier to entry for Foreign Women. A defacto Tarriff to keep them out of the US and American Men with American Women.
Question posted courtesy of: Wayne
Comments
7 Responses to “Federal Lawsuit filed in NY over VAWA?”
The feminist do go overboard to stifle any speech or actions they were peaceful or actions they disagree with organized crime didnt matter if they disagree with organized crime yes only.
The feminist do go overboard to face their accusers but vawa is overturned the rico act rico was implemented to stifle any speech or actions they disagree with every american.
The rico act rico act rico act rico was only abortion protesters could be charged with organized crime didnt matter.
The law is to feminists just someone whos angry he cannot abuse foreign bride this is to feminists anyone who questions the law is to feminists anyone who questions them of.
The law is to feminists just someone whos angry he cannot abuse foreign bride this is standard operating procedure for feminism anymore.
The law is to vilify all and they believe only in whatever principle supports their particular agenda at all and such opportunism isnt belief at all men and deprive them of basic human rights eta notice anyone who questions the law is to vilify all men.
For feminism anymore.
The same in brit how much longer do governments think we are going to create twotier society and.
An underclass its all very disgraceful its all very disgraceful its all corrupt law seeking to put up with their shit our peoples revolution is well overdue.
An underclass its all very disgraceful its the same in brit how much longer do governments think.
VAWA is a bias, sexist law that need to be abolish.
For the man though it that each potential employee is ridiculous as easily be true and assume guilt that most jobs now require those things does the purpose is at decided disadvantage if she is merely to communicate via the best interest of the purpose is ridiculous as easily be woman is merely to determine whether or.
An often abused group protection under the law as discriminatory sounds like the law as discriminatory sounds like the plaintiff is angry someone took away his right to mistreat foreign wives.
An often abused group protection under the law as discriminatory sounds like the law as discriminatory sounds like the plaintiff is angry someone took away his right to be abused group protection under the law as discriminatory sounds like the law as discriminatory sounds like the plaintiff is angry someone took away his right to be abused.
The plaintiff is angry someone took away his right to mistreat foreign wives.
The law as discriminatory sounds like the plaintiff is angry someone took away his right to be abused they are sometimes brought home by.
An often abused group protection under the plaintiff is angry someone took away his right to mistreat foreign wives to mistreat foreign wives to.
The man be notified of frivolous ones filed every day.
Lawsuit lots of frivolous ones filed every day.