Judge Alan Jaroslovsky's Many Atrocities

________________________________


"I have never,
in the 12 years I have been on the bench,
given a man back his business
over the objection of his ex-wife."
__________________________________________________
Judge Alan Jaroslovsky
US Federal Bankruptcy Judge
Santa Rosa | Eureka California

Is that so your Honor? The business wasn't yours in the first place, so how could you "give it back?" Do you think that for every man that comes before your elevated bench, seeking his right of protection of his assets guaranteed to him through the US Constitution, which you have sworn to uphold, you can decide whether or not to "give it back?" When did you earn the right to take it away? It certainly wasn't you who put in the blood, sweat and tears it takes to build up a business and it certainly wasn't you who risked your finances to fund his business. And it certainly wasn't you, who gets his generous salary every month, the salary paid for by men just like the men whose businesses you take away, who had the entrepreneurial skills it takes to build a business. You are beholden to the very men whose businesses you take away, not the other way around. Who do you think you are?


Why did you take it away? Because his wife objected? His wife says, "I object your Honor?" And you automatically reply, "Objection sustained?" Isn't that bias against men contrary to the oath of office you swore to uphold?

Federal judicial oaths

In the United States, federal judges are required to take not just one, but two oaths. The first oath is:

I, Alan Jaroslvsky, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Federal Bankruptcy judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God. 28 USC 453

I've highlighted the part of the oath that you've admitted to violating for over 12 years. Quite a dishonorable thing for you to do, violate your oath of office so many times over so many years.

The second oath that federal judges must take is:

I, Alan Jaroslovsky, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. 5 USC 3331

Aren't you violating the man's right to equal protection under the law as provided by the US Constitution when you "take away a man's business" simply because his ex-wife objects? Equal protection under the law is a fundamental component of the rule of law and ensures that all federal and state laws are applied to citizens of the United States equally, regardless of their race, religion, gender or minority status. Apparently, you have violated this fundamental component of the rule of law the entire 12 years you've been "on the bench."

In 12 years, of all the divorcing and bankrupt men who came before you "on the bench" and not one of them was allowed to maintain his business, if his ex-wife objected? You kept every single one of these men's livelihood - who just might have happened to be married to a vindictive wench - away from him? For what reason? Because his wife requested you ruin his life? Or did you take away his business based upon his wife's desire for revenge? The business he no doubt worked hard for, the business he needed to provide for his children - children that he quite likely lost to his wife in a divorce - the business he needed to provide for himself, not only for today but for the many tomorrows he will no doubt face as well? Simply because his ex-wife requested he not be allowed the federal protection he had every right to, you denied him that right? And by denying him his right of protection, you pushed that man toward destitution? Toward homelessness, toward perhaps even suicide?

And you are proud of the multitude of your atrocious decisions?

What gives you the right to deny federal protection of a man's assets and business based upon the whims of his ex-wife?

You're not 'on the bench' to serve the interests of the feminists that you obviously cater to. You've been appointed to the bench to administer the US Federal Bankruptcy laws, in a professional and non-biased manner - "without respect of persons" - not the dictates of women diseased with misandry.

Do you have any idea how many lives of decent men you've ruined? How many families have been wreaked because of your actions? You've been on the federal bench since January 1987. That's 21 years you've been screwing men out of their right to federal protection of their assets and livelihood. My guess is, over a 21 year period of time, the men and lives you've ruined runs into the several hundred.

You are a disgrace to the American judicial system. You are a tyrant. You don't deserve your position of trust, your position 'on the bench,' doing the bidding of disgruntled ex-wives, simply to pander to the politically correct feminist crowd way too many of you political appointees are beholden to.
_________________________________________________

Apparently, others agree.
Courthouse Forum