Administrator’s Note: Our recent Corrupt Judge Series (Turkey Trilogy) has received remarkable interest. For those of you who missed it, this is the link.
By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
This is an open letter to Art Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times from a secondary media dot com. We know you’ll never read it, that’s why it’s being published on the viral internet, a cheap and logical source for all the news today that’s truly “fit to print.”
We’ve had all we can take of the brazen propaganda you’ve been feeding us: the cropping of George Bush from a front page photo of the Selma parade, negative election coverage of Donald Trump, and now the op-ed submissions you’re screening to keep it going.
It is an abuse of free press by the “gray-lady” that would have her predecessor publishers turning over in their graves. After the election of the century that you refused to honor, I came across one opinion after another published by your newspaper containing that anti-Trump venom.
These diatribes from select “experts” followed front page liberal media declaring that “we were all wrong” about election predictions. No YOU were all wrong. We were right, over 62 million of us. How can you purport to speak for such a large number of voters?
So as a good American, I offered my own counter-point with the requisite three day exclusive rights, word limit and timely subject matter. I provided copies to your other departments and two voice mails at your office. Could it be the idea of a long needed expansion of our Supreme Court under a Trump administration that caused you to trash it? Let your readers decide:
November 16, 2016
Re: Election 2016’s “Forgotten Half” and accessibility of our Supreme Court
For all the explanations on the election of Donald Trump as our 45th president, the most accurate one remains off the radar. This was the election featuring our forgotten half, a subject which now binds the president-elect, this newspaper and our Supreme Court in an extraordinary way.
You know the forgotten half. They’re the ones who went into the towers on 9-11, sacrificed their lives in foreign wars throughout our history, protected us daily in our communities, and built this great nation one edifice at a time. They are the men of America.
I happen to be born into that time-honored gender. But hardly a day went by during the elections when we were not forced to endure the constant focus on women: the first female president, pink but not blue ribbons, shattered glass ceilings and my favorite: the fictitious “war on women.”
After the Megyn Kelly debacle, I published a satirical blog, Who Declared the War on Women? Citing a lack of constitutional authority for such a war which nevertheless failed to deter any recent president, I enlisted to defend my daughters, sisters and lovers only to discover I was an unwitting member of the enemy camp.
The woman card became that fanatical, a ploy to sweep Hillary Clinton into office. But a silent half internalized the sexist insults until election day while 42% of all women refused to be the objects for exploitation they had been escaping for decades. They had fathers, sons and brothers to think about.
While that war was being waged, I was filing petitions to shatter a glass ceiling in our family courts. On June 17, 2016, dads from different parts of our country joined me in a news conference at our Supreme Court. No media showed up. All our petitions were denied while a gender confused school girl seeking daily access to a bathroom of choice was accepted.
Reliant on secondary media to promote my cause for parental equality, I published a blog site supportive of shared parenting over Hillary’s “Village,” a subject ignored in both conventions and campaigns. It featured unwavering support for Donald Trump as the only hope for court reform. But the woman card was so brazen that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg conducted her own news interviews from chambers to attack the male candidate as a private citizen.
In a break from the Trump-bashing media frenzy, this newspaper published a bold editorial condemning the aberrant political conduct of a high court justice. That conduct required me to file a motion for disqualification of Justice Ginsburg from my pending case. It was an extraordinary one featuring First Amendment retributions by various judges in New York.
My motion was docketed as a “suggestion” and never mentioned in an October order denying my petition. Undaunted I filed another within 24 hours, but this time I abandoned all hope of parent equality and focused instead on the inaccessibility of the Supreme Court to our common citizenry. Less than one percent of roughly 10,000 petitions are accepted for decision each year.
From all this, a historic proposal has emerged in my latest petition discussed with Mr. Trump’s counsel. It is high time we expand the Supreme Court to conform to population changes so that more people could access it as mandated implicitly by Article III of the Constitution. With all three branches under the same party influence, this can happen with few obstacles.
This is not a “Court Packing Plan.” My petition is properly placed with the Supreme Court to satisfy its separate duties under the same Constitution. St. John’s University Professor Anthony Pappas, a fellow victim, has authored a paper on this very subject, concluding that the reluctance to expand may be due to the attention which Justices derive in smaller numbers, i.e. Ginsburg.
Central to my petition is Marbury v Madison, 5 US 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 in 1803. Two centuries later 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 an (extraordinary) 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).
Freedom of Speech, Press and Petition (Judicial Access) are distinct rights in our First Amendment that bind Donald Trump, this newspaper and our citizenry to support a long overdue expansion of our high court. It is a ready proposition in my pending petition and consistent with a populist mandate achieved by President-elect Donald Trump.
Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
Director, Parenting Rights Institute