Washington Post Snubs Dr. Koziol For Supporting Trump!

Image result for ban washington post image

Well it happened again! – For months it was President-elect Trump, now Dr. Leon Koziol (also known as the Donald Trump of Upstate New York) has once again been made the latest victim of the corrupt mainstream news media and the collusion that exists between the New York Times and the Washington Post. See related news articles on this subject – (Click Here) (Click Here) (Click Here)

It took less than 1 hour before the Washington Post decided to snub Dr. Leon Koziol and reject his latest oped, a well written submission offering his support for President-elect Trump. The Koziol piece was originally offered to the New York Times and had been previously denied for publication. It was the subject of yesterday’s blog post which triggered an immediate response from the Washington Post shortly after it had first appeared here at LeonKoziol.Com. (Click Here)

You be the judge and decide for yourself just what happened?

See the almost instantmaneous email response Dr. Koziol received from the Washington Post:

From: Editorial Internet DropBox <oped@washpost.com>
Date: November 30, 2016 at 5:00:21 PM EST
To:leonkoziol@gmail.com” <leonkoziol@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Op-ed from leonkoziol@gmail.com: 2016 Election and Supreme Court

Thank you for sending us your oped submission. The column was carefully reviewed, but I’m sorry that The Post oped page won’t be able to use it.

Thanks,

Rachel Manteuffel

Editorial Aide

The Washington Post

From: donotreply@washingtonpost.com [mailto:donotreply@washingtonpost.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 6:17 PM
To: Editorial Internet DropBox
Subject: Op-ed from leonkoziol@gmail.com: 2016 Election and Supreme Court

Your form has received a submission. Click here to view submissions:

https://sub.washingtonpost.com/admin/55b004c0ba38e94009fb6458

This Response:

Author’s name:
Dr. Leon Koziol

Name of submitter:

Contact email address:
leonkoziol@gmail.com

Contact phone number:
(315) 796-4000

Subject:
2016 Election and Supreme Court

Comments:
The news conference on the steps of Supreme Court was discussed by your news team on the referenced date of June 17, 2016

Text of your submission:
Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
Parenting Rights Institute
P.O. Box 8302
Utica, New York 13505
leonkoziol@gmail.com
(315) 796-4000

November 21, 2016

Opinion Editorial
Washington Post
1301 K Street NW
Washington D.C. 20071

Re: Election 2016’s Forgotten Half and accessibility of our Supreme Court

Dear Editor:

During this past election, 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 it backfired terribly as a silent half internalized the sexist insults until election day. Women also refused to be taken for granted as 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, discriminated 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 supporting 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.

In a break from the Trump-bashing media frenzy, major media published bold editorials 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 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 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, the media 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

You are receiving this e-mail message because your form has received a new submission.

If you believe you have received this message in error, please contact the SUB team at it.sub@washpost.com

Washington Post
1301 K St NW
Washington, DC 20071

Please share today’s post: http://wp.me/pXgi5-3ho