Categories
Uncategorized

Did Roy Den Hollander also kill fellow Men’s Rights lawyer Marc Angelucci? Signs point to “yes”

Marc Angelucci: Shot dead by a man reportedly wearing a FedEx uniform

By David Futrelle

Was Men’s Rights attorney Roy Den Hollander, who on Sunday night gunned down a federal judge’s husband and son, also the man who shot fellow Men’s Rights lawyer Marc Angelucci dead a little over a week ago?

It’s looking a lot like it. Let’s consider some of the facts of the case as they are now emerging.

Den Hollander had a motive — professional and personal jealousy. According to the Daily Beast,

In one of his online screeds, “men’s rights” lawyer Roy Den Hollander made it clear he blamed U.S. District Judge Esther Salas for robbing him of a legal victory that instead was claimed by activist California attorney Marc Angelucci.

Den Hollander did not name Angelucci in his bile-filled memoir, but law-enforcement sources told The Daily Beast that papers mentioning Angelucci were found in or around the car where Den Hollander killed himself on Monday.

The Daily Beast has more on the case and Den Hollander’s feelings about it.

He was apparently targeting various people he considered enemies.

The New York Times notes that he had the name and a photo of New York State chief judge, Janet M. DiFiore in his car.

In a lengthy screed he left behind he mused about revenge. “The only problem with a life lived too long under Feminazi rule,” he wrote, “is that a man ends up with so many enemies he can’t even the score with all of them.”

Den Hollander had cancer and had apparently decided he had nothing left to lose.

“Death’s hand is on my left shoulder,” he wrote, “nothing in this life matters anymore.”

In both cases, the shooter reportedly wore a FedEx uniform as a ruse to get his victims to open their door.

This is the detail that absolutely clinches it for me; there’s no way this could be mere coincidence.

On the A Voice for Men website, a eulogy for the murdered Angelucci declares him a “modern martyr like ancient Saint Vincent.”

Now it appears that he was martyred by one of his own. Not only by a fellow Men’s Rights attorney but one who had once published an article on A Voice for Men and who had been described by AVFM founder Paul Elam as a hero. “[A]s much as I loathe the idea of anyone claiming authority on what a “real” man is, ” Elam wrote in a post on the site, “if I had to venture a guess, it would be men like Hollander.”

I would call this a great irony except that there’s really no irony here at all. The Men’s Rights Movement attracts desperate, delusional, angry and unhinged men (and some women fitting the same general description); it’s really not a shock to learn that one of these men decided to take revenge on those considered his enemies. Indeed, I’ve been expecting to see someone with ties to A Voice for Men lose it like this for years; I’m just a little surprised that it turned out to be Den Hollander and not one of the other seemingly more likely candidates.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 month ago

supposed to get “trickle down” money

“Trickle-down economics” is a new term for what used to be called “horse and sparrow economics” or “cow and sparrow.” The analogy being that if you want to feed a hungry sparrow by the side of the road, clearly the most efficient way to do this is to stuff your horse with so many oats that some pass out whole on the other side, which the sparrow can then pick from the horse dung.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
1 month ago

@Catalpa

Ah, again we see the poor reading comprehension so rampant in this community. That line is just noting that more recent popular presidents (Clinton, Reagan, maybe now possibly Obama) tend to be ranked as “the greatest” by the less-informed public, whereas historians tend to be a little less presentist in their thinking. I find this utterly unsurprising.

But I didn’t say that historians rank Reagan among the greatest presidents ever, if by that we mean something like the top 5 out of 44. They don’t (nor should they). But historian do consistently rank Reagan in the top quartile, and arguably the highest since Truman (he seems about even with Eisenhower). You can verify that here, which lists and sources major polls of trained historians over the past fifty-odd years.

You’re entitled to your wrong opinion about Reagan. But trained historians do, in fact, disagree with you.

Lainy
Lainy
1 month ago

@Motte

Wow, feel like a big man do you ya? make you feel big and strong? feel dominate? cause it was really poor display of it. makes me want to pinch your cheek.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 month ago

There go those goalposts again … skittering away …

Lainy
Lainy
1 month ago

@Policy

It’s almost cute isn’t it. He thinks he has a point! he thinks he can hurt people here! he thinks he’s a big strong dominating man! it’s so cute its almost adorable.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 month ago

@Lainy

He’s just MansVoice. He just admitted it in the other thread. I emailed David to let him know so he can take whatever action he deems appropriate.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Friendly reminder that Reagan was president for Iran-Contra. Bill Barr pardoned those involved in that crime and is now assisting Trump in ushering in fascism.

In other words, Reagan can eat shit and Trumpism is the end result of the actions of conservatives these past decades, not an aberration.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
1 month ago

Wow, feel like a big man do you ya? make you feel big and strong? feel dominate? cause it was really poor display of it. makes me want to pinch your cheek.

What are you talking about? Like, seriously. What is this referring to?

Lainy
Lainy
1 month ago

@motte

The sad little boy that you are and the fact I’m playing with you. You get off thinking superior to other when you are just sad little boy trying to be a dom. Its really cute. Makes me want pinch your cheek.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
1 month ago

There go those goalposts again … skittering away …

Likewise, Policy of Madness. What are you talking about?

This community is just as illiterate and tedious as always.

Lainy
Lainy
1 month ago

@mottie

What’s the matter? You don’t like flirting? You can always leave baby boy

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 month ago

This community is just as illiterate and tedious as always.

And yet you decided to evade a ban to come back. That’s a non-trivial amount of effort to go to, just to hang out with us tedious illiterates.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 month ago

@WWTH
This is what a lot of people closer to the center don’t get. They think getting rid of Trump will magically fix everything, when really it’s the whole system that has problems and he’s just a symptom.

@Lainy

you are just sad little boy trying to be a dom

So, a standard conservative.

@PoM

That’s a non-trivial amount of effort to go to, just to hang out with us tedious illiterates.

He must have missed us.

Anyway, Motte, you sound cranky. Maybe take a nap, get your diaper changed, and come back later.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 month ago

They don’t (nor should they). But historian do consistently rank Reagan in the top quartile, and arguably the highest since Truman (he seems about even with Eisenhower).

Your last claim was that:

Taken as a whole, Reagan was a great president, and certainly one of the best, if not the best, since FDR. Historians agree.

Not since Truman or Eisenhower or Kennedy.

And aside from that, the whole point of my initial post was that there are plenty of shitty, shitty people who are well-remembered despite the atrocities they commit. I don’t know why you think I don’t believe that there are historians who have the same bias.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 month ago

They think getting rid of Trump will magically fix everything, when really it’s the whole system that has problems and he’s just a symptom.

Things weren’t quite so … in the open, however, before he got into office. On the one hand, that’s bad, because it makes white supremacists think that what they believe is A-OK and gives them a courage to act that they didn’t have before. Giving aid and comfort to Nazis is never a great thing.

On the other, it’s really ripped the bandaid off and revealed the rot underneath. A lot of (white) people didn’t previously understand how incredibly racist this country still is. Some of them still don’t – my dad recently admitted that racism was a thing when he was a kid, but he claims that was over and done with in the 70s and racism has been solved ever since. But a non-trivial number of white people are seeing that my dad’s position is bullshit, because the cops are suddenly giving white people a similar treatment to how they’ve always been encouraged to treat black people. When peaceful white people are tear gassed for the crime of thinking black people might be human, the racism is nakedly there for all to see and can no longer be glossed for the comfort of whites.

So there are pros and cons. I think it’s time for him to go regardless, because the damage he’s doing to real individual people is intolerable, but I hope the conversation around racism doesn’t stop just because he leaves office.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
1 month ago

@Catalpa:

OK, that’s pathetic.

I said that Reagan was “certainly one of the best, if not the best” since FDR; I was not claiming that he was unequivocally the best. Indeed he is “one of the best” since FDR, and historians do agree.

I’ll cop to a little bit of rhetorical sloppiness, though. I was giving you my own view (best president since FDR), and then saying that “historians agree” with the general sentiment, which is that he was a very good president.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 month ago

@PoM

Things weren’t quite so … in the open, however, before he got into office.

True, but there remains more to be done than just getting a new president in order to fix things. There still are many goals which remain.

I hope the conversation around racism doesn’t stop just because he leaves office.

This was what I was trying to say earlier. Too many older white liberal voters seem to think Obama getting elected means racism is over, when that is certainly not the case.

Lainy
Lainy
1 month ago

And he’s still trying to dom but he’s an idiot so it doesn’t work. Stick to bottom dude

Lainy
Lainy
1 month ago

@david

I like to play but that’s just me. If no one else is comfortable with it. Then keep him banned

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Bill Barr pardoned those involved in that crime

Ugh. I meant he orchestrated the pardon, not that he did the actual pardoning. That was Bush Sr.

I have a bad headache and got no sleep last night, so coherent writing is just too big an ask today.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 month ago

I personally find MV/M&B to be tedious and boring, but won’t argue if everyone else wants him unbanned.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 month ago

I’m not a huge fan of the guy but I get the feeling we’ll be seeing more of him at some point in the future given his ban-evading tendencies. Honestly I don’t really care one way or the other.

@Lainy

And he’s still trying to dom but he’s an idiot so it doesn’t work. Stick to bottom dude

I feel like then he’d just be a really bratty guy who tops from the bottom too much (or tries, anyhow).

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 month ago

The troll is tedious, I won’t miss him. Thanks for the ban, David.

Crip Dyke
1 month ago

I missed the fun, but i don’t want them unbanned either.

They earned a ban before, why allow them to come back after they deliberately circumvented that ban?

Nope. They got banned for a reason. Even banned people don’t deserve banning for literally every word they type. In this case one could argue that their behavior in this thread isn’t enough to warrant banning on its own, but that’s the point. This behavior isn’t isolated.

Rebanning was a good choice. +1

Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meanie
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meanie
1 month ago

Once upon a time, the old Manboobz forum (the precursor to the current Discord group) had a list of all the Mammoth trolls (to a certain point), including all the known socks they had. While those forums still exist, I think, they don’t seem to be very accessible to anyone who didn’t get an account there before they were abandoned. Because it looks like you had to have a moderator approve of anyone joining, and those mods don’t look like they’re still active here anymore (that I can tell, anyway).

Which is a pity if true, because there was a fair bit of discussion that happened there that was only alluded to in comments here, that had some very direct outcomes on the culture here. Like, at least one of the early mass exodus of commenters here was a direct result of something that happened there, but if a current reader wasn’t a member then, then the ‘why’ will always remain a mystery for the ages. If that makes sense.

Tovius
1 month ago

@Redsilkphoenix

Like, at least one of the early mass exodus of commenters here was a direct result of something that happened there, but if a current reader wasn’t a member then, then the ‘why’ will always remain a mystery for the ages.

Is that something you can elaborate on? I’ve heard there was a mass exodus of terfs way back when, but this sounds like something else.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 month ago

@Tovius
I’m not familiar with the mass exodus as it was before I started commenting here, but every once in a while we get a TERF who claims to be an early commenter angry about how this blog is trans-inclusive. I’m not sure why it took them so long to figure out, AFAIK it has always been trans-inclusive, but some then drop by to call out their displeasure and argue with commenters. For example, Croi here.

Aaron
Aaron
1 month ago

There’s a We Hunted the Mammoth Discord group? Is it open to the public, or is it just for a specific group of people?

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 month ago

There have been two Threads of Doom since I’ve started reading WHTM, though both before I started commenting. Both were caused by debates about trans rights, or, more particularly, the right of one particular (and toxic) trans commenter to act as the Inquisition here, leading to accusations that this space was transphobic. The second time involved a concerted attack on the part of this commenter and some friends (who had never even here before) against certain people here, including one of the moderators. This is when we lost the moderators, and several valued members of the community.

It was… unpleasant.

Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meanie
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meanie
1 month ago

@ Tovius, Rabid Rabbit,

Either Policy of Madness or Weirdwoodtreehugger – or both – can likely give more information about the various toxic Threads of Doom (oomoomoom) that have occurred on this site over the years than I ever could. They’ve been here longer than I have, so they would know more about things than I would.

The one I was referring to occurred a few years before the one(s) with Ally. Based on references in other threads after that time, whatever went down was bad enough to chase off Cliff Pervocracy and Aimee Angelwings, amongst others, both of whom are trans.

I cannot say how bad WHTM ever got with the TERF bits (I’m not trans, so my radar detection on those issues is not very good :/ ), but based on some of the comments I’ve read during my archive crawl it was a very bumpy road getting this blog to the point it is now regarding trans issues. Hopefully things can/will stay better so everyone can enjoy each other’s company in safety. And who knows, maybe some of those old commentators will show up again and feel it’s safe enough for them to start posting again.

@Aaron,

I think anyone in good standing here can join the Discord, but I don’t immediately recall who is allowed to issue the invites to it. Sorry. 🙁

Aaron
Aaron
1 month ago

@Redsilkphoenix, thanks. It’s no big deal, I was just wondering. I know I’ve gotten into a few arguments here before, so maybe I wouldn’t be welcome anyway, which is fine.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 month ago

@Redsilkphoenix

whatever went down was bad enough to chase off Cliff Pervocracy

So that’s why he stopped commenting here. I had been wondering about that, seeing as he’s still active on Twitter and, judging from Twitter interactions, seems to still be on good terms with David. Maybe one day he’ll feel safe enough to come back, I enjoyed his blog even though I discovered it after he stopped posting.

Observer
Observer
1 month ago

Apparently if I’m correct some ‘Men’s Rights’ Advocates have begun to actually lean to the left because of this or if they suspect he is behind this due to Hollander’s links to alt-right ideology, like ‘male only drafting’ etc.

There’s now even some new ‘Baxist’ one on reddit as of lately also. Can’t exactly remember but they are lead by this YouTuber and others. Incel MRAs have bashed on them before as ‘being a mix of MensLib and MGTOW’.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 month ago

@Rabid Rabbit

… My memory of the Threads Of Doom are a bit foggy, but I’m not sure I like the implication that the root cause of all the conflict was apparently due to “A Trans Commentor Being Too Aggressive”.

That sounds a bit too much like the “why are black people so aggressive and angry and causing problems for everyone else” comments that I’ve heard from the white people around me in the last few months.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 month ago

@Catalpa

Sorry — not my intention at all. Maybe I should have said that it was issues related to that commentor that set things off, bringing the rest of the conflicts to the surface. Clearly there were things that needed to be worked out.

I don’t think she was necessarily the root cause, but the toxicity created by her constant tone policing clearly played a big role in the original blowup, as revealed by how many people finally felt able to admit how terrified of making a misstep around her they were. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with making people think twice about how they say things, that’s how we get rid of ableist language and the like, but leaving people nervous about saying anything is not a good look. (I actually stopped reading that particular person’s posts after a while, because reading the responses to them was enough. Normally I only do that with trolls.)

Anyhow, I don’t want to dredge this whole thing up again, it did enough damage last time. But I wasn’t trying for an equivalent to the “why are black people…” nonsense; it was more “Why is this one, particular individual, who happens to be trans, making this blog unliveable?” Which was particularly heartbreaking to watch because the blog had helped her get out from her horrific family situation.

In any case, my apologies again if I came across as being reductive.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 month ago

Missed the edit window — just one other clarification, it wasn’t a matter of “A trans commentator being too aggressive,” but of being too controlling.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 month ago

@Rabid Rabbit
Sorry about that. Please let me know if I’m being too controlling or tone policing too much, I don’t want to cause a thread of doom.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 month ago

My recollections of the Threads of Doom are vague, as my memory frankly doesn’t work very well, and if information isn’t constantly reinforced I tend to lose it. I know I didn’t participate really, because both threads blew up after I went to sleep and so I was perceived as being “above it all” but really I was just zonked out when it was happening.

I could probably dig them up if anyone is interested in them but otherwise can’t really describe what happened beyond “lots of feelings were hurt and several people left either immediately or in the aftermath.” Sorry about that, my memory just doesn’t work anymore the way it used to. Thank Lamictal for that.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 month ago

@Rabid Rabbit

All right, fair enough. I suppose it’s probably best to let sleeping dogs lie when it comes to this history.

@Naglfar

There certainly isn’t anything for you to apologize for. You had no part in anything to do with the Threads, and if I thought that Rabid Rabbit was suggesting that ALL trans people are more at risk of being controlling on this site, then I would have taken significantly more umbrage with the post. But we’re talking about an individual’s actions, not a group’s.

Also, you’re probably one of the most even-keeled commentors I’ve interacted with on WHTM, if a little too quick to apologize sometimes. I don’t think you need to worry about causing any significant drama.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 month ago

@Catalpa
Alright, I just wanted to make sure I’m not inadvertently causing issues.

Also, you’re probably one of the most even-keeled commentors I’ve interacted with on WHTMAlso, you’re probably one of the most even-keeled commentors I’ve interacted with on WHTM, if a little too quick to apologize sometimes.

Thank you. I try to be balanced where possible.

if a little too quick to apologize sometimes.

That’s how I am IRL as well. I figure it’s better to apologize for something I didn’t need to apologize for than to not apologize for something I should, if that makes sense.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 month ago

@Naglfar:

Oh God no! You are nothing like that particular commenter. (I don’t think I’ve seen you tone-police once, and I’ve certainly never seen you automatically call anyone disagreeing with you transphobic.) As Catalpa says, you’re a valuable and valued addition to the community.

Though as a Canadian, I can’t say I’ve noticed any propensity to apologize too often (except in this one case). Isn’t that just normal? :p

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 month ago

@Rabid Rabbit

As Catalpa says, you’re a valuable and valued addition to the community.

*blushes*
Thank you.

I have on occasion politely suggested minor changes to language (i.e. suggested that people say “trans woman” instead of “transwoman”, etc), but I don’t think that qualifies as tone policing.

And the only commenters here I’ve called transphobic were transphobes who came in attacking (like Croi or Amy). The former dragged it out into a long thread which ended with her getting banned after misgendering all the other commenters in the thread in sequence, while the latter ran off claiming to be the victim when people responded.