The following message was published today on the Divorce Coro website, BASE CAMP:
To all victims of court corruption:
Periodically I’ve been checking commentary on this Base Camp since Dr. Joe Sorge created it after the great reform conference he hosted in Washington DC in November 2014. I could not risk disbarment by sponsoring a workshop there due to a suspension (gag) order, and Joe opened the three day event with public disclosure of the witch hunt against me and another New York attorney.
On the last day I threw caution to wind and gave a complimentary rendition of the conference which drew a standing ovation. I’m still fighting this record 9 year suspension because I refuse to surrender my rights and
whistleblower activity. Plus, they seized my children without any unfit parenting or CPS report of any kind which made it personal.
Only yesterday I had to reply to another anonymous lawyer complaint made through a third party regarding statements I made at a town board meeting. I was seeking to open public access to a state owned lake in my home county, and it upset an elite group of property owners engaged in a lawsuit to protect their shoreline sanctuary. The complaint was made to intimidate a whistleblower of corruption even in a non-legal setting.
Imagine that? How bad does it get with these lawyers bent on protecting their gold mine? They will suppress public opinion and accountability to such extremes that their own clients will now suffer escalating conflict and court costs, all for lawyer profit. Family courts do the same to parents who struggle to make sense of child alienation and debtor prisons. Such calculated attacks also lead to censorship of the good people here.
But as much as I support you as a reform group, trust when I say there’s some really crazy stuff being discussed on this site. Maybe it’s good therapy but you could do yourselves a favor by helping me organize a rally on the Supreme Court steps this spring. Victims can present their cases in summary fashion to be recorded and spread virally with or without mainstream media coverage. Imagine your judge or lawyer being exposed nationally in this manner!
We can present for as long as it takes, like an “occupy court” mission, so that our nation’s high court can finally direct administrative and substantive accountability and reform. Without a unified national event, these lawyers and judges you all complain about see no problem with business as usual, and it’s only getting worse. I’m a man of action, not words, as my ten year ordeal proves (to the point of life threatening sacrifice not unlike Nancy Schaefer).
Details at www.leonkoziol.com.
FYI: David Ring has made some outstanding contributions here recently which triggered my first comment on Base Camp today.
Good luck to all.
Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute. New York.
CHECK OUT OUR INSTITUTE WEBSITE TODAY: http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com
By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
A lot of unexplained events have occurred during my 10 year crusade to expose court corruption, funding abuses and father discrimination in our nation’s divorce and family courts. You might say I’m lucky to be alive today when considering the recent targeting by a local sheriff and the suspicious death of one of my predecessors, Nancy Schaefer, when I first got started.
And so it shocked me again when I picked today to publish my next plan of action. For awhile now I wanted to bring focus to the blockbuster movie, Mrs. Doubtfire, to underscore the lack of progress made in parental equality since the day it was released. I even used it in court filings, and seriously, I did not know that today marked the 25th year anniversary of the movie’s release. Many cast and crew celebrated with a reunion.
The prejudice against dads in these courts has actually gotten much worse since that movie was produced. The late Robin Williams played the role of Mrs. Doubtfire, a dad desperate to see his children after his wife (Sally Fields) lied about his character and conduct in court, humiliating and alienating him to the point of severe desperation. So he dressed up as an elderly nanny and was hired to babysit his children with great success.
Doubtfire backfired when Robin Williams was exposed for his ruse and banned altogether from his children’s lives. Today, Mrs. Doubfire would have been jailed for violating a custody order, (s)he would have been subjected to costly forensic evaluations and committed to recurring terms in a debtor prison despite being unable to make child support payments. (S)he would have been convicted of a felony for moving to another state in search of better employment prospects.
Robin Williams took his life in 2014 at age 63 after a long battle with depression. It is an outcome which is increasingly common among the many good dads persecuted in these courts. 22 veterans are committing suicide each day, many as a result of parental alienation and child support debts, see i.e. Purple Heart’s Final Beat, Second Class Citizen.Org. Over the past 25 years, Census Bureau reports continue to show that nearly 85% of all parents paying child support are men, nearly all committed to jail terms for custody and support violations are men, and roughly 20% of all local arrest warrants are family court dads.
These ominous facts are aggravated further by a man-hating mission promoted by feminist-socialists bent on destroying parent-child relationships in favor of a state take-over of childrearing. It is following the same trend that education became institutionalized. Start with the dads, pit them against the moms, then take their children after blaming both parents for their custody “wars” and “battles.” This “War on Women,” the “Violence Against Women Act,” the “Future is Female,” and even the very phrase “Women’s Rights” prove that we are no longer a nation promoting equal rights but one engaged in a race for superior rights.
The latter statement was a featured argument in my recent case docketed by the Supreme Court seeking parental equality and legal protection for judicial whistleblowers (Leon Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, Case No. 18-278). But the case was denied without so much as an opinion or dissent, proving once again that our high court is suppressing judicial misconduct, meaningful reforms and parental equality in favor of lawyer enrichment, federal funding abuses and political posturing.
I was appalled at the abuses inflicted upon Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings, but when he was narrowly approved, the newest member of our Supreme Court shocked me when announcing that an all female staff would be hired as his law clerks. This hiring move violates everything that the principle of equal rights stands for. Does an aspiring Harvard law graduate now have to masquerade as a woman to get Brett’s attention? Where does the victim go to file a sex discrimination claim?
Ironically, there was to outcry regarding this sexist hiring decision by the same feminists who were busy attacking Brett during his confirmation process. Apparently sexist practices are fine so long as women are the beneficiaries. Such a double-standard and double-cross by Brett Kavanaugh only adds now to the grounds for impeachment which had been promised by his adversaries. Today the men who were sympathetic to Brett’s ordeal have good cause to join the mission to remove him. A Democrat House of Representatives might be widely supported with Articles of Impeachment.
But apart from the Kavanaugh debacle, a counter-mission must be undertaken to defend against this man-hating onslaught which has reached a level of insanity. Men everywhere stood by as if helpless to the disgusting tirades and outright killer threats of so-called “women professionals” during that Supreme Court confirmation process. On September 18, 2018, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono had a message for all men who dared to defend against false allegations in this “Me-Too” movement. She told the men of America to “Just shut up!”
Georgetown Professor Carol Christine Fair went much further. Emboldened by the sexist attack from a U.S. Senator, she tweeted, “Look at (this) chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to the swine? Yes.” Brett Kavanaugh was never even accused of a single rape by anyone despite the feeding frenzy of fame seeking liars. This freak of nature, Carol Fair?, should have been promptly committed to a mental institution or imprisoned for inciting the most serious kind of “Violence Against Men.” Instead she was rewarded with a sabbatical in Europe.
Imagine if a white male professor made such statements. More ominous, what exactly is being taught and promoted at these liberal elite universities? As a white male, I was and remain anything but entitled. My dad spent five years in a Nazi camp, I was raised in a violent, poor neighborhood, and I worked my way up the hard way, working odd summer jobs to pay my state college tuition. Even now I am being persecuted much like Susan B. Anthony was in her day. In my day, I successfully prosecuted sexual harassment cases, saved the careers of discriminated women and even represented a former president of the National Organization for Women.
The bottom line here is that this man-hating mission is only going to grow unless we victims respond. To that end, I am proposing a protest rally at the same Supreme Court attacked by these feminists-socialists during the Kavanaugh hearings. It can occur during the week before Fathers Day, 2019. Unfortunately, by my experience organizing prior rallies, the victims are more interested in ball games with the kind of apathy which these feminists depend on to advance their agenda. Beginning today, I will be contacting veterans groups, police benevolent associations, biker groups, NAACP, and even bowling groups if necessary to make this happen. But I cannot succeed without your support.
Please make this message viral, make a donation to the cause on this site, and contact me in any manner possible to make this happen. Every man in America is a potential victim of this growing insanity. And every woman has a dad, brother, son or friend who can be victimized as well. It’s time to take back our families, our nation, and our minds !
Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
(315) 380-3420 (office)
Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Constitutional Rights Advocate
It’s probably never crossed your mind but how do the People hold our nation’s highest court accountable? In this country no one is above the law, not the president, not a member of Congress and certainly not anyone in our third branch of government where the standard-bearers of law and ethics preside. Given the events of recent months involving Supreme Court nominee (and now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh and this past week’s public debate between President Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts, this question looms high in minds of many.
Indeed a deputy attorney general and other experts around the country have outlined a path for impeaching Justice Kavanaugh based on perjury, sexual abuse and other allegations emerging from his Senate review process. That path is no different than the one used to remove the president and other members of the federal judiciary. With a new Democrat majority, the impeachment half is plausible, but with an increased majority in the Senate and a two-thirds vote to convict the newest member, removal is highly unlikely.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution limits grounds for impeachment to “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” But what about ethics violations which fall short of those grounds? Where do the People go to hold our highest judges accountable? There is a federal code of ethics which applies to district judges, appeals judges and other federal judges, however, notably absent from its scope and application is the Supreme Court. Are they above the law? Do they have any ethics to observe?
Under Canon 3A(6) of that federal code of ethics, a judge is prohibited from public comment regarding the merits of any “pending or impending case” (emphasis added). Impending means any case which may ultimately come before a judge on appeal. Did Chief Justice Roberts violate that ethical code when he gave a public rebuke of President Trump’s allegations of political bias regarding a federal immigration ruling. It came in a case clearly “impending” for high court review. The wisdom behind the code provision was demonstrated by the volley of insults which followed.
In an October 8, 2018 public address, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the kind of political battle which surrounded the Kavanaugh hearings was undermining “the legitimacy” of our nation’s high court. Yet Justice Kagan did nothing to counter or rebuke her colleague on the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when she repeatedly lashed out at Donald Trump from her chambers during the presidential elections. She was obviously endeavoring to exploit the stature of our highest court to influence the outcome only days before the Republican National Convention. Even the liberal media condemned her antics, and it compelled me to file a motion for her disqualification in a case I had then pending before the Supreme Court.
Which brings us to another ethical provision. Canon 2B of the federal code prohibits a judge from “lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.” Is that not precisely what Justice Ginsburg was doing in 2016? And why did the Chief Judge John Roberts not issue a public rebuke of her presumptive comments and attacks in the manner he did to President Trump? Even with the Chief Justice’s neglect of duty, why did no other member of the Court call for a vote of censure as they do in Congress and other bodies of government throughout the United States? In this way the public could be assured that the Court as a whole does not share Ginsburg’s views.
There are many other subjects which the citizenry has a right to bring up in an ethics complaint demanding rebukes, censures or admonitions in our highest court. For example Canon 6A(4) requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.”
This rule of ethics is in line with constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and the right to petition government for a redress of grievances, or our “supreme” laws of the land. Yet in 2013, the Supreme Court promulgated a rule prohibiting self-represented litigants from arguing their cases before the justices. Did not the Court create a two caste system of justice, one for the chosen ones and the other for the low life proletariat?
There is much irrationality to this rule considering my position as a self-represented litigant repeatedly denied access to the Supreme Court despite an unblemished and successful career as a trial and appellate attorney in federal and state courts prior to the retributions I sustained as a judicial whistleblower. Indeed I successfully argued a case before Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she presided on the federal Court of Appeals in Manhattan. It can be Googled at Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004). Am I suddenly unqualified to present argument to the same Justice Sotomayor ten years later simply because she ascended to another building?
The Supreme Court may be our highest court but it is not an elite or royal tribunal without any obligation to comply with ethics. And it has a duty to give whistleblower protection to a lawyer who exposed widespread misconduct as I did but was consequently subjected to a witch hunt by ethics lawyers. Only weeks later those same lawyers were allowed to resign (and never prosecuted) for falsifying time sheets. They essentially stole money from their court employers (Torncello, Zayas and Devane).
The public does not expect our high court to be perfect but we do expect that they abide by the same rules applied to the rest of America. When Barack Obama was first inaugurated as president in 2009, Chief Justice Roberts improperly administered his oath of office. When the error was discovered, a duplicate ceremony was conducted at the White House with participation limited to the media.
In his most recent public rebuke of President Trump, Roberts proclaimed that “what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal rights to those appearing before them.” How can that be when this same Court created an elite group to make those appearances with one member (Ginsburg) sleeping during an Obama state of the union address?
Oh, but that’s right, there is no code of ethics here.
Dr. Leon R. Koziol
CONCLUDING NOTE: It is important that you promote and share this message with fellow court victims, media and good government groups. We must organize and rally for accountability in Washington next year! It’s our duty and defense of our eroding rights.
By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
In a recent public debate regarding political bias in our federal courts, Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer unwittingly supported Donald Trump by agreeing that many of our high court’s decisions “seem highly political.” Schumer was adding his views to that of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who publicly rebuked the president by denying any politics in our high court. He proclaimed that “what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal rights to those appearing before them.”
Never mind the grammatical peculiarity of that statement, his rebuke of Trump is contradicted by his consistent refusal to hear judicial accountability cases submitted to him throughout his long tenure as Chief Justice. In my own efforts to expose and rectify judicial corruption over the same period of time, I sought review seven times. All were denied without comment. These cases presented subjects ranging from family court gag orders to a pedophile judge removed from my custody case and ultimately from the bench altogether (Bryan Hedges).
As a general rule of ethics, judges should avoid public comment particularly on cases which are under consideration or which may ultimately come before them. An example where a violation of that rule got out of control is when Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg conducted a series of news interviews in 2016 against then private citizen Donald Trump. She did so before he earned his party’s nomination and it sucked her into an elevating extrajudicial controversy. Even the liberal media condemned her antics, and it compelled me to file a motion for her disqualification in Koziol v U.S. District Court (Gary Sharpe), Case No. 15-1519 (2016).
At first the motion in a case then under consideration could not be found ten days after receipt. Upon further inquiry, the properly filed motion was located by a court clerk but treated as a “Suggestion” by the judges. It was never ruled upon. This was a judicial accountability case (extraordinary writ) which sought to open our federal courts to parents victimized by constitutional violations in our nation’s domestic courts. It also sought First Amendment protection for judicial whistleblowers and websites promoting Donald Trump’s candidacy. By denying writ on that case, the issue of judicial integrity in our nation’s highest court was avoided.
I sought to test that proposition by following with a case that challenged the composition of the court as ineffectual under Article III of the Constitution. The current nine-member court has only three more than it did in 1789 when the Supreme Court was created. At that time, our nation’s population was less than 4 million, the justices traveled by stage coach to their chambers and the law was delivered on parchment paper. Today our population is over 300 million, travel can be accomplished faster than the speed of sound and decisions are issued globally in a fraction of a second. Writ was denied in that case too (Koziol v King).
Most recently, I presented a case docketed by the same high court on September 5, 2018 which sought to condemn corruption that was rampant on my support and custody cases (and those of other victims), Koziol v Chief Judge DiFiore, Case No. 18-278. A motion for stay was denied by Judge Ginsburg without mention of the earlier undecided recusal motion. A supplemental brief followed to emphasize the life threatening consequences arising from a judicial whistleblower denied all legal protection over a ten year period. The brief was accepted but the entire case was denied the next day. Now how can it be that Judge Ginsburg, found snoozing at an Obama state of the union address many years ago, could have reviewed the case personally without so much as an adjournment?
This brand of judicial integrity and commitment forces people to seek relief elsewhere for constitutional violations. When the judicial system breaks down as severely as it did in my case, and that of countless others in our divorce and family courts, the victims take matters into their own hands. Domestic violence escalates, mass murders and suicides grow, worker productivity declines and our societal problems magnify many times over. In place of self-help remedies of the violent kind, I have developed a self-representation program designed to reduce court costs, promote parental integrity and get the victims out of these courts as quickly as possible for the true “best interests” of our children.
It is urgent that you share this message, promote my program to help finance reform efforts and earn a $50 finder’s fee with every purchase. Order it yourself now on this site!
Dr. Leon R. Koziol
From Dr. Leon Koziol and the
Parenting Rights Institute:
Learn how our divorce and family courts truly operate. Save yourself lawyer fees, get tips on how to represent yourself, find out if your lawyer is abusing you, and for every referral of this program, you will earn $50 for each purchase or $100 for an organizational buy !
America’s leading authority on family court reform with over 25 years of trial experience has developed a Family Court Program specifically for you – regardless of how far along you may be in the process.
Having previously appeared on the television news program 60 Minutes, CNN and in the New York Times, Dr. Leon Koziol, J.D., wants to help you take control of your family court case.
After hearing ordeals from countless unsuspecting victims, their financial and emotional devastation by the lucrative family court machine, Dr. Koziol knew that he could no longer just sit back and watch these atrocities continue.
“We have an epidemic here in America and no one is doing anything to cure it. There’s a direct correlation between family courts and suicides among parents, veterans and children. And the statistics show it is occurring at an alarming rate. If I can save one person from taking his or her life, then I have made my contribution to society,” Dr. Leon Koziol, J.D.
Dr. Koziol is giving you the tools to protect yourself and keep your family smiling during these difficult times!
“If you decided to take up a sport such as football, you wouldn’t just walk onto the field without knowing how the game is played. Why is family court any different? Yet thousands of people walk into family court expecting justice, only to discover just the exact opposite.” ~ Dr. Leon Koziol, J.D.
With the Family Court Survival Program here’s what you can expect:
Preparing yourself for the court room battlefield
The truth about who your lawyer is really working for
Educating you to “due process”
Identifying dirty custody tactics before they occur
Why psychological exams and supervised visits will come back to haunt you
Protecting yourself against false allegations
Avoiding sleazy lawyer tactics
Understanding the trillion dollar family court industry
The gender disadvantage and what it means to you
Strategies to minimize conflict
How to prevent yourself from going broke
What your lawyer probably isn’t telling you
Save time, money and eliminate unnecessary stress
Discover alternatives to litigation
Don’t miss out!!! You’ve heard all of the horror stories about the dysfunctional family court system. Now, more than ever, parents are getting wise and no longer fighting each other through the purchase of a Family Court Survival Program designed to educate divorce and Family Court candidates before they are turned into victims.
The Family Court Survival Program was developed by Dr. Leon R. Koziol, parental advocate and founder of the Parenting Rights Institute (PRI). It consists of a seminar DVD and multi-part reading program, it walks you through the court process and promotes alternatives to litigation.
Going to court is serious business. In divorce and Family Court, your children and livelihood are at risk. Yet many parents proceed recklessly with little understanding of the system until the money runs out for their lawyers. Make life easier with the purchase of this program. Based on decades of court experience, it may save you thousands of dollars in legal expense. The DVD lecture should be viewed before the multi-part reading.
Here’s What You Will Receive:
Part One: The Lawyer. We begin with hypothetical consultations featuring abuses which may occur on both sides of a court process. You are shown crucial subjects to look out for when involving a lawyer in divorce, custody and support matters.
Part Two: Self Representation. Here we give you confidence to represent yourself. If you cannot afford litigation or a lawyer proves ineffective, you are not alone. This handbook walks you through a court process with forms offered in Part Five.
Part Three: The Judge. Because this is the person who may decide how your children are raised, you need to understand the realities of your court system. This booklet conveys valuable insights on the decision process common to most states.
Part Four: Transcript. We continue to build your confidence with portions of a real trial transcript. You are introduced to an unprepared judge and two parents who were needlessly forced to litigate. It can avert lifetime harm to extended families.
Part Five: Court Filings. This folder supplies partially completed forms which serve as flexible templates for filing petitions and motions in a domestic relations court. Our forms are more detailed than others offered in most court clerk offices.
Part Six: The Appeal. Many victims are forced into appellate courts after losing their children, parental rights or support. This reading provides useful experience.
Here’s what one of our many successful participants had to say:
“After running out of money for my lawyer, I discovered the program offered on-line by the Parenting Rights Institute. I digested it in my spare time and was able to go confidently into court and win a motion against my adversary. This was the same lawyer that was costing my ex-husband so much money. I wish I had access to this program before I hired my own lawyer. I could have saved myself and my children so much money and grief. It was worth every penny. If you would like to know more about my experience with this program as a parent, contact me through the Institute at (315) 380-3420.” ~ Cindy H., Syracuse, NY.
WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
IT’S TIME TO GET A GRIP ON FAMILY COURT BEFORE IT GETS A GRIP ON YOU!
A $10,000 VALUE FOR A ONE-TIME COST OF ONLY $299, less than the cost of a single session with an endless fee generating divorce lawyer
Just Click on to our Self-Representation Program on this site to order your program now !
DISCLAIMER: This program is not a substitute for legal advice. It is designed to stimulate network assistance and options to litigation. All Rights Reserved: No part of this program may be used or sold contrary to these terms or express authorization of the Parenting Rights Institute.
U.S. Copyright Registration No. TXu 1-832-192