Court Cases Many of these court cases concern explicit gender discrimination, the rest concern implicit gender discrimination and the gender the decisions primarily impact are men, one way or another. Some of the cases correct the gender discrimination while others reinforce it. Some of the court decisions here are wholly unbelievable but the law of the land. Scroll down to find your area of interest, that is, general cases of explicit gender biased cases, paternity cases, domestic violence cases, child support, child custody, and so forth. Unpublished cases are so noted; otherwise the case is published and sets a precedent. Cases are regularly added to this list. If you know of other such cases, published or unpublished, please use the "email" button to the left and send them to us. If you don't want to read the whole case, but just want some general information about it, use your search engine by putting in quotation marks the full name of the case and follow the links to the various articles. The Germans know how to protest re child custody, something Americans shun. And the Brits, Aussies, and South Africans, well they make things happen. Worldwide chapters of Fathers4Justice are listed on the South African's webpage. In June 2006 the South Africans passed legislation dealing with crucial divorce issues and offers presumptive joint custody as a starting point in all divorces. Of particular importance is the absence of the term "custody" from the Bill. "Yes, our children are not possessions to be awarded to either parent. Instead, every parent will be the Co-Holder of Parental Rights and Responsibilities, unless a competent court strips a deviant parent of those privileges." So join an adovacy group and be somebody that makes a difference rather than just bitching and moaning about injustice.Theoretically our Courts act on the will of our legislatures; so, changing legislation directs judges to do the will of the people. Get busy there's much work to do.

CASES OF EXPLICIT DISCRIMINATION

People v. Alexis Luz Garcia, Riverside Appellate Case Number APP004054

September 11, 2007 From Marc A.: On August 28, 2007, the Appellate Division of the County of Riverside in California reversed the sexist decision of Judge Robert W. Armstrong that held the crime of indecent exposure only applies to men and not women. The case is People v. Alexis Luz Garcia, Riverside Appellate Case Number APP004054. The defendant, an adult female, was charged with indecent exposure (Penal Code § 314(1)) after she allegedly unclothed in front of a boy because the boy continued playing basketball when she told him to stop. Judge Armstrong said the conduct may have been 'very silly and illegal' but that it did not warrant having to register as a sex offender. He also held that indecent exposure cannot apply to women because the statute says 'exposes his person.' On that basis, the trial court dismissed the case. The appellate division reversed, holding there is no logical reason why a woman cannot commit indecent exposure, and citing numerous authorities interpreting the statute to be gender-inclusive despite the word 'his.' If an adult man unclothed in front of a young girl for playing basketball, anti-male sexist Judge Robert W. Armstrong would not call it "silly" an  say the mane does not deserve to have to register as a sex offender. Sexist judge Robert W. Armstrong should be disbarred for his obvious\misandry. Note: Link to the ruling on-line is not yet available , so it isn't included here.

Marc Angelucci, Elton Campell, and Pacas vs. Century Supper Club, decision released May 5, 2007 HUGE VICTORY FOR PROPONENTS OF EQUAL RIGHTS

WE WON! A lower court basically ruled that gender specific business promotions and pricing were not discriminatory unless the party being discriminated against, that is men, first asked for the same consideration given the gender being offered the special promotion or pricing, that is women, and the business then denied those men the same promotion or pricing. Or, the judge ruled, it's Ok to discriminate against men unless they ask not to be discriminated against. All judges should be required to take annual "Stupid Tests"; though in this case the California Supreme Court overturned the lower court!!! Read the entire decision by clicking on the link below: Marc Angelucci, Elton Campell, and Pacas vs. Century Supper Club

Dubay v Wells

Dubay told Wells that if they had sex he did not want a baby. She said not to worry, she could not have children and just to be sure they could use birth control. She got pregnant anyway now the State wants is ten pounds of flesh from Dubay, $500 a month in child support. This may very well turn out to be the most important case concerning children since Roe v Wade, in fact someone nicknamed Dubay v Wells "Roe v Wade for men". This case was filed March 2006 and the media went nuts. It will be talked about and debated for years to come. Dubay brought father's rights center stage and out in the open for all to see. You can get a t-shirt, cup, or whatever with the "Women's Choice Women's Responsibility..." logo here: http://www.cafepress.com/mensbiz/580779 Related Articles Response to Dismiss and brief in opposition to intervening-defendant's motion, meaning: Dubay's response to Michael A. Cox, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Intervening-Defendant.  This is a MUST READ and perhaps the best summation ever written of the lack of men's choice and reasons why. May 31, 2006. Supreme Court debates admissibility of statements to 911, Toni Locy, The Seattle Times, March 20, 2006 Abortion, Authority, and Responsibility, Selwyn Duke, MichNews.com, March 19, 2006 Father seeks right to cut ties with chile he didn't want, James Langton in Washington, News Telegraph, March 19, 2006. Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers, Tamar Lewin, New York Times, March 19, 2006. Matt Dubay and eminent domain, Steve Kellmeyer, Renew America, Steve Kellmeyer, March 17, 2006 A Man's Right to Choose, Nancy Gibbs, Time Magazine, March 15, 2006 Right Cause, Wrong Approach, Wendy McElroy, FOXNEWS.com, March 14, 2006 The Right to Abandon Your Child, Mona Cheran, Townhall, March 10, 2006 Read Dubay v Wells

Woods, Neff, Bowman and Blumhorst v State of California and others

Filed in October 2005, this class action lawsuit challenges the State of California and their representatives' policy and practice to deny services to male victims of domestic violence, since to do so is a blatant violation of equal protection provisions of the State Constitution. This case has the potential for changing the inequitable gender biased way domestic violence services are provided throughout the United States, if not the westernized world. The link below takes you to the WRIT OF MANDATE filed October 1, 2006. Read Woods, Neff...

Koire v. Metro Car Wash
	Helds that "ladies' discounts" at a car wash and a night club violate the California Unruh Civil Rights Act by discrimating against men. Read Koire v. Metro Car

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
	Held that a state-sponsored nursing school established by statute that excludes men violates equal protection of 14th amendment under intermediate scrutiny. Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Rostker v. Goldbert
	Upheld mandatory draft registration only for men on the ground that, since women are not allowed in combat, men and women are "not similarly situated" with regard to the draft, and thus no equal protection violation exists. Rostker v. Goldberg

Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court
	Upheld statutory rape law making men but not women liable for sex with minors (stupid). Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court

Stanley v. Illinois
	Held that unwed fathers’ kids being automatically wards of the court violates equal protection. Stanley v. Illinois

Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et. al. v. Salfi et al.
	Held that SSI (Supplemental Social Secruity) letting widowed mothers but not widowed fathers receive benefits violates equal protection. Weinberger v. Salfi

Kahn v. Shevin
	Upheld statute allowing property tax exemption for widows but not widowers because marketplace is harder for women (more stupid). Kahn v. Shevin

Craig v. Boren
	Held that law forbidding sale of Near Beer to males under 21 and females under 18 violates equal protection. Establishing intermediate scrutiny. Craig v. Boren

PATERNITY, PATERNITY FRAUD and DEPENDENCY CASES

Paternity fraud is also known as "child identity theft". Numerous states are in the midst of reforming paternity laws and many are leaning toward allowing the disestablishment of paternity for men who were duped into parenthood, which is only fair, particularly when they have never seen the mother (that's right never seen her, never had sex, don't even know her name) or children for which the men are required to support. Second, fathers are often denied parentage because women don't tell the men they are or may be fathers, an equally appalling circumstance, particularly for men who wish to be fathers. This section is dedicated to important court decisions after January 2005. Baby Boy V. v County of Los Angeles Department of Child Support Services June 26, 2006: This decision is a must read. It just came down yesterday from the 2nd District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) and overturns a disgusting decision by a dependency court judge, making it very clear how shocked the appellate court is a the lower court judge's attitude toward this potential father who wanted a DNA test before the child was permanently placed in foster care. A drug-addicted mother couldn't care for the child, so the child was placed in foster care temporarily. Mother didn't give names of possible fathers, but later told Jesus H. he might be the dad. Jesus immediately comes to the DCFS, just before the child turns 1 and just before the court permanently places the child in foster care. DCFS refuses to let Jesus see the child but tells him to appear at the upcoming hearing. He did. Ultimately the court refuses him a DNA test, treats him like garbarge, and acts like he should have come forward sooner. Even the child's own attorney waffles on its position. Jesus appealed on his own with a handwritten notice of appeal. DCFS fought him and even tried to argue his notice was insufficient. The appellate court wrote this scathing decision reversing the judge's order and repeatedly quoting the judge to show how outrageous her reasoning was. (Synopsis by Civil Rights Attorney Marc Angelucci, President NCFM-LA).

Taron James Appellate Brief 2007
	The California Appellate Court heard Taron James paternity fraud case March 28, 2007. Though the decision, as of this writing, is pending there is hope that the Court will grant further relief to Mr. James. Regardless, for anyone interested in or a victim of paternity fraud this brief is a must read. Taron James Appellate Brief 2007

Navarro v County of Los Angeles

The court found that the County, in this case Child Support Services, legally followed the letter of the law by refusing to disestablish paternity for Navarro. However, the court was so offended by the onerous tactics of the County that they set Navarro free from wrongful paternity. The Court told the County in no uncertain terms that even though they followed the letter of the law, as a public entity the County had an absolute obligation to protect the rights of all citizens, including Navarro and men like him. Navarro v County of Los Angeles

County of Fresno v Sanchez

California's Fifth Appellate District basically neutered Navarro in Fresno v Sanchez. In January 2005 California's Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB-252, which made modest paternity fraud reforms and set the stage for many men to become free of wrongful paternity. Navarro in effect strengthened AB-252. Sanchez did the opposite wherein the court ruled that AB-252 superceded Navarro since AB-252 became law before the Navarro ruling. Unfortunately, Sanchez represented himself and it appears that in so doing he inadvertently undermined Navarro. County of Fresno v Sanchez

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

Cauley v. Cauley In this April 4, 2006 California Sixth Appellate District case, Gerald Cauley v. Eileen Cauley , an ex-wife is convicted of horrendous domestic violence and stalking. She contended that the divorce settlement precluded the termination of her over $5,000 per month alimony, which she used to stalk and harass her ex husband. The Appellate Court disagreed finding that the trial court did not err in terminating spousal support under Fam C §4325, despite provision in MSA and disso judgment precluding modification or termination (of spousal support), where recipient-spouse was convicted of domestic violence against payor.

Crawford v Washington

For years the Domestic Violence Industry thwarted the Constitution by denying a suspect's right to confront his accuser in court. This landmark case put the DV Industry in a tailspin by affirming a person's Constitutional right to confront their accuser. As a consequence hundreds, if not thousands, of questionable cases were thrown out throughout America and the DV Industry set about finding other ways to circumvent the Constitution and deny our inalienable rights and freedoms. UPDATE: On June 19, 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court set back Crawford v Washington and made it easier for primarily women to falsely allege domestic violence. In effect, in the joined cases of Davis v Washington and Hammon v Indiana the Court in effect ruled that 911 tapes under certain circumstances are admissible evidence without a defendant having the right to cross examine the person calling 911. Consequently, all a person now has to do is fabricate a violent incident and call 911. Emergency services will record the call and the prosecution can use it to prove domestic violence occurred without the defendant having the ability. Related Articles Duke Law, Davis v Washington & Hammon v Indiana, synopsis. Justices May Further Restrict Domestic Violence Testimony, David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, March 20, 2006 When Words Bear Witness, Michael Rips and Amy Lester, New Your Times, March 20, 2006 Crawford v Washington

CHILD CUSTODY AND MOVE-AWAY CASES

For an overview of guiding court rulings re child custody and move-aways in California see the LaMusga Information Page at the lizlibrary.org. CBrief of AMici on Behalf of Fathers and Families, Inc. This extraordinay brief well argues that the importance of the "breadwinner" is no less or more important to the well being of children than the "primary caregiver." Anyone interested in shared or "equal" parenting needs to read and understand the arguments in this case.October 2006. Osgood v Landon On March 7, 2005 THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT in Julie Osgood v Thomas Landon allowed custodial parent Osgood to move-away finding that the non-custodial parent Landon failed to show that the move-away would cause detriment to the child under the holding of the guiding California case law of LaMusga. Ragghanti v Reyes On Noverber 1, 2004 THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH DISTRICT inKenneth Ragghanti v Star O. Reyes that the lower Court properly used the "best interest" (Burgess) standard in dealing wtih custody since the parents agreed that no final custody agreement had been made.

COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION

Ricotta v State of California In 2000 the United States Supreme Court denied pro se litigant Thomas D. Ricotta's WRIT OF CERTIORARI seeking relief from what can only be described as an incredible miscombobulation of consequences or what appears to be collusion and corruption by attorneys, judges, the State of California, and his estranged ex spouse. (Search for "thomas ricotta v california" reveals numerous links regarding pro se litigants and may be useful for anyone representing themselves.)