Dr. Leon Koziol has been communicating with Donald Trump’s Special Counsel Michael Cohen since he filed a motion to disqualify Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from his case in Supreme Court three months ago. That motion was based on her unethical public attacks on Donald Trump from her chambers while he was (and is still) a private citizen. Now Dr. Koziol is asking the Supreme Court in a petition filed last month to rule that accessibility to our nation’s highest court is severely compromised by its small number of Justices relative to our population of 300 million. With such a declaratory ruling, it would open the door for a Republican President and Congress to successfully expand the size of our Supreme Court to better serve the people in accordance with its duties under Article III of the Constitution. Here is the text of Koziol’s letter to Cohen:
Michael Cohen, Special Counsel November 11, 2016
and Executive Vice President
725 Fifth Avenue A
New York, NY 10022
Re: Supreme Court Case, Appointments and Expansion Mandate
First off, I want to congratulate you on your steadfast opposition to pollsters and the vindication you must be feeling today. On Wednesday, I copied you on my congratulatory e-mail to Donald Trump. He is moving toward unity and continuing to shock the world. Timing of today’s letter is ideal for his transition and can only be described as fateful or extraordinary. Kindly read on.
We conversed in August of this year regarding my case before the Supreme Court docketed on June 17, 2016. It included a First Amendment challenge to a gag order placed upon my website focused on parental equality and judicial accountability. The gag order was removed after I filed a parallel mandamus action in New York Supreme Court, but as relevant here, the same website contained numerous publications vigorously supporting Donald Trump since his announcement in 2015, i.e. a satirical post against Megyn Kelly entitled, Who Declared the War on Women?
Weeks after my case was docketed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg conducted a series of media interviews from her chambers in which she unethically disparaged Donald Trump as a private citizen and candidate for president. Only after widespread public criticism, i.e. “Supreme Bias” and “Darth Bader,” did she issue a public “regret” but never an apology while her media talk continued, thereby evincing a supreme hypocrisy regarding her claims of aberrant behavior.
I filed a motion under Rules 21 and 22 for a stay and disqualification because the content of my pro-Trump website would be inconsistent with her requisite impartiality. On principle alone I risked myself once again for the sake of justice and our First Amendment. With a suppressed secondary and social media, I am sure you will agree that Donald Trump would likely have lost the election given the slim margins in swing states which your supporters and mine targeted.
Three weeks after filing my motion, I contacted the Court to inquire on its progress as election day and my case conference approached. I was informed at first that my motion could not be located, but fortunately I had both a certified mailing and tracking number which proved that the Court had received it. The next morning, I was contacted by a case manager who reported that my motion had been located but that it was being treated as a “Suggestion for Recusal,” a procedure nowhere found in the Rules of the Supreme Court.
My motion and recusal have still not been addressed. Accordingly, I filed another petition last month challenging the inaccessibility of our Supreme Court by common citizens as a violation of Article III of the Constitution. That case has not received a conference date. Hence, supporting briefs can still be filed. As relevant to transition and Donald’s commitment to a government serving all Americans, my petition makes a solid case for expanding the number of Justices.
The case is captioned, Koziol v King, No. 16-512, and as fate would have it, it seeks not only to hold Justice Ginsburg accountable like the judges I exposed in lower courts, but it seeks a declaratory judgment that calls upon the president and Congress to satisfy their own duties under the Constitution by conforming the Supreme Court to population changes since 1803. In this way, President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican Congress can facilitate increased numbers of cases accepted for consideration (roughly only 100 of 10,000 petitions filed annually today).
There may never again be an opportunity like this and it will be well received by the people. Significantly I have the requisite legal standing because I was denied access on four prior petitions since 2011. Moreover, the subject in every one concerned First Amendment retributions I sustained as a judicial whistleblower after 23 highly successful and unblemished years as a civil rights attorney in New York’s state and federal courts. My case reads like a John Grisham novel.
This is not a “Court Packing Plan.” It is a petition properly placed with the Supreme Court to satisfy its separate duties to the people under the same Constitution. I have been working with St. John’s University Professor Anthony Pappas who authored a paper on this very subject, concluding, inter alia, that the reluctance of our high court members to act on this populist mandate may be due to the attention which they each derive in smaller numbers, i.e. Ginsburg.
Central to my petition is Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), that historic case familiar to every law student in which the Supreme Court seized the power to interpret our Constitution and thereby set itself up as a super-branch of government. That Court had six members with an elitist plan in Congress to reduce it to five. Our population was under six million. Today it exceeds 300 million. Horse-drawn buggies brought our leaders to Washington and much of the world was unknown. Today our President-elect arrives in his own jet with instantaneous global communications. Our Congress had 141 voting members. Today it has 535.
Adding to history, intrigue and logic, the Marbury case, like my earlier petition and motion, involved a mandamus action to compel the filling of a magistrate vacancy during a transition between President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson (perhaps our most populist president). Please share this with members of your transition team as I share it elsewhere. I am available anytime along with Professor Pappas to provide greater detail.
Leon R. Koziol, J.D.