Online Dating Rights. Mail Order Brides
PragueVietnamMoscowGuatemala

FOUR REASONS American men seek romance abroad: Prague, Ha Long Bay, Red Square, small villages in Latin America. Somehow meeting a Czech, Vietnamese, Russian or Peruvian/Colombian/Brazilian woman for a date at one of these exotic places is incomparably more exciting than meeting a hometown girl at the local coffeeshop. Opponents of a man's right to meet foreign women online never stop to consider how enjoyable it is to travel/work/live abroad and learn new cultures and languages while seeking a marriage partner.
Online Dating Rights
July 20, 2017, 10:39:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: AODA Case Review: Failed IMBRA Strategy or Brain Dead Judge: You Decide  (Read 5487 times)
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« on: December 17, 2006, 08:06:46 AM »

Note: This Topic was posted before AODA ditched their case because of the mental illness of Judge Thomas Rose who had said men on dating sites could be compared to products and that Americans had "no fundamental liberty interest to contact foreigners".

In any event, Judge Rose did agree to let the case go on January 17th, one month after Tahirih and the Keystone Cops agreed to let the case die a merciful and quiet death before trial.

I don't think the enemy can point to the TRO denial as a valid document in the future

Here is the post as it was written before the case was dropped in December:

With the AODA vs Gonzales May 2006 Case due to return to court next month, I would like to see some lawyers take what is happening there very seriously. The judge is a Bush appointee who used the excuse that, because the AODA lawyer mentions "Lawrence vs Texas" (the right of gay men to have sex), she didn't provide a reason "to create a new fundamental liberty interest" for heteresexuals.

Here is the money quote from the Denial of TRO document from Judge Thomas Rose on May 26th that I have posted at www.veteransabroad.com/denied.pdf

As regards their substantive due process claim, Plaintiffs recognize that “the Supreme Court
has never explicitly held that a person has a fundamental liberty interest in contacting a person from
another country in order to develop an intimate relationship....” Doc. 3 at 28. Nevertheless, they
urge the Court to recognize the denial of a fundamental liberty interest based upon the autonomy
Case 3:06-cv-00123-TMR Document 21 Filed 05/25/2006 Page 5 of 7

-6-
passages of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562, 574 (2003). The Supreme Court, however, has
often stated its reluctance to recognize new “fundamental liberty interests.” Chavez v. Martinez,
538 U.S. 760, 776, 123 S. Ct. 1994, 2006 (2003).


Judge Thomas Rose is correct that the Plaintiff's lawyer did say that she recognizes no fundamental liberty interest. Please read the www.veteransabroad.com/troREQ.pdf document:

--------------------------------------------------


I have a copy where the AODA lawyer (Jennifer) DOES STATE ON PAGE 25 (on the web version you can find the passage in section 3) that the "Supreme Court has never explicitly held that a person has a fundamental liberty interest in contacting a person from another country"...and then Jennifer does not immediately follow this up with the 1st Amendment Right to Assemble, but waits a paragraph before doing this. This "One Paragraph Delay" gave Judge Thomas Rose the excuse to ignore the Right to Assemble.

Here is the entire text put into the context of the rest of the document:

If an American shares certain sensitive, private information which is compelled by the statute, but that he
or she does not want to reveal, then the IMBRA infringes upon that person’s right to initiate and
develop an intimate relationship. A fortiori, the statute unconstituitonally impinges upon that
person’s fundamental right to marry.
The Supreme Court has “long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage
and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment,” Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974); and “has
consistently acknowledged a ‘private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.’” Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly held
that a person has a fundamental liberty interest in contacting a person from another country in
order to develop an intimate relationship, “unless we close our eyes to the basic reasons why
certain rights associated with the family have been accorded shelter under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause, we cannot avoid applying the force and rationale of these
precedents to the family choice involved in this case.” See Moore v. City of East Cleveland,
Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 501 (1977). This is because, under our Constitution, the freedom to marry
and the freedom to form intimate relationships with the person of our choice resides with the
individual, not the government. See Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. The IMBRA usurps that right by
intervening in a private relationship, before it is formed, in a manner that frustrates even basic
communication. This contravenes basic principles of substantive due process, requiring the
IMBRA to be enjoined.
4. The IMBRA violates the right of association.
The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to freely associate with one another.
See U.S. Const. amend. I; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Invest. Committee, 372 U.S. 539 (1963).
Where the association is for the purpose of expression or communication, the degree of First
Amendment protection is heightened all the more. See, e.g., Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530
U.S. 640, 659 (2000). In addition, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to associate
and the right to privacy are inextricably linked, for the exposure of private relationships to
government intermeddling can discourage the relationship from forming at all. See NAACP v. State
of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958). For this reason, regulations that impact the ability to form
private associations are viewed with strict scrutiny. See McConnell v. Fed. Elections Comm’n, 540
U.S. 93 (2003).

-------------------------

www.veteransabroad.com/complaint.htm

The above link is the main complaint of AODA against IMBRA. It is a critical document to show journalists and lawyers.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2007, 04:31:47 PM by VeteransAbroad » Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2006, 08:38:53 AM »

"A fortiori" means "Even More so" in Latin.

The misspelling of the word "unconstitutionally" is part of the original document submitted.
Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2006, 02:23:20 PM »

-----------------------

If you read the above Denial of TRO from Republican Judge Thomas Rose, you will clearly see what an idiot this man is and how nothing can convince this fool that Americans have a right to assemble.

He is saying that American men are products that can be dangerous and must come with warning labels...but not just warning labels on the description of the product itself (the man's first letter) but warning labels that must be presented before the product can EVEN BE DESCRIBED to the "customers" (before a photo can be presented for instance).

Since I've read this idiot's mind for the first time, I've been of the opinion that the AODA needs to drop this case, rewrite it without Lawrence vs Texas and Roe vs Wade, and open a case in the 9th District where human rights are considered.

Judge Thomas Rose will NEVER see our point of view. The 6th Circuit judges don't have a great human rights record and I say that as a recent Republican.

At the least, it may be apt for others to intervene in this case.

Editors Note: The case actually was dropped a few day after this post was written, but not apparently because of the above reasoning.

Apparently it was dropped because "our law firm" (Sirkin Pinales) was going to charge us money to prosecute the case, despite saying that it was such an "important constitutional issue" for them.

It was also apparently dropped because the radical feminist Tahirih Justice Center, unlike the Attorney General's Office who was supposed to be defending the law, was planning to bully the Attorney General's Office into agreeing to a strategy of making all the Plaintiff dating agencies go bankrupt by dragging the case out and examining every dating transaction they had ever made with details of each client, etc.

Himmler would have been proud of the left wing Tahirih Justice Center and their ultra right wing backer Senator Brownback (who is so far to the right that he came full circle to the far left).
« Last Edit: January 25, 2007, 04:44:22 PM by VeteransAbroad » Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2007, 02:34:35 PM »

Notice, by the way, how sarcastic Judge Thomas Rose is, especially when he says "The Plaintiffs recognize there is no right to meet foreigners yet they ask the court to grant that right".

What. a. jackass.
Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2007, 02:36:39 PM »

Not that it wasn't true that Jennifer K., the AODA lawyer, had openly stated in her brief that the right to meet foreigners didn't really exist but could the judge create it please.
Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
Taylor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2007, 03:16:30 AM »

-----------------------
Editors Note: The case actually was dropped a few day after this post was written, but not apparently because of the above reasoning.

Apparently it was dropped because "our law firm" (Sirkin Pinales) was going to charge us money to prosecute the case, despite saying that it was such an "important constitutional issue" for them.

It was also apparently dropped because the radical feminist Tahirih Justice Center, unlike the Attorney General's Office who was supposed to be defending the law, was planning to bully the Attorney General's Office into agreeing to a strategy of making all the Plaintiff dating agencies go bankrupt by dragging the case out and examining every dating transaction they had ever made with details of each client, etc.
People who would engage in this type of behavior (Tahirih) do not believe in the law that they are defending.  This type of tactic is just plain mean.

As far as Judge Rose comparing men to a commodity, that speaks quite well to the type of society that we live in.  If my memory serves me correctly, he acknowledged that the feminist theory that male “mail-order bride” clients are more likely to commit violence was, for the most part, successfully debunked.  And yet he was still apparently in favor of the law (IMBRA).

Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page June 30, 2017, 11:29:13 PM

MKPortal ©2003-2006 mkportal.it