Good News For Abused Litigants: Supreme Court Makes Judge Removal Easier

On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Rippo v Baker which reiterated that a litigant should have discovery rights in a proper case to remove a judge from his or her case. Should that right now be given to President Donald Trump to address the liberal bias of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg after she conducted anti-Trump news conferences from her Supreme Court chambers? What a fascinating turn of events when the next anti-president case reaches our high court.


By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Once again, I am proven correct in my constitutional arguments seeking recourse for abused litigants in my personal cases. The Supreme Court issued a decision only days ago which makes it easier to remove judges from such cases. Before getting to the specifics, some background is in order.

For the past eight years, I have filed civil rights actions against judges and lawyers who abused parents and children for profit in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Repeatedly I raised Title IV-D incentive grants and bizarre rulings which showed a systemic prejudice against “non-custodial parents.” Repeatedly I was turned down with defamatory decisions condemning my arguments or ignoring them altogether.

It was a judicial scheme to discredit my previously unblemished reputation and alarming (but accurate) public messages. For example, remember the bizarre gene theorist, Gary Sharpe, a federal judge in Albany, New York? He’s the one I asked to be removed from my 2014 case due to a human gene he announced to decide his cases, a gene he claimed would not be discovered by the science experts “for another fifty years.” Again, I am not making these things up, verify it by Googling: United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011).

Gary was removed from that case by a federal appeals court in Manhattan because his shocking gene concoction was deemed a disgrace to the judiciary. I took the position that a judge infected with such a mental defect should have had the self-respect or dignity to resign altogether from the bench because we could never know what other undisclosed gene discoveries may be floating around in his mind, i.e. a race, ethnic or gender gene which removes the need for juries. The federal appeals court simply did not go far enough in its decision. It should have recommended Sharpe’s resignation or impeachment.

Imagine if you or I showed up in family court claiming our discovery of a gene which caused judges to seek bribes. We would be committed on the spot. Yet Gary is still presiding in federal court and could easily become the next judge dictating how national security should be handled by our new president. The retaliation on my parent-child relations and license reinstatement applications began within weeks of my testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption where I exposed judicial misconduct that “read like a docket sheet in any criminal court.”

Judge Sharpe denied my motion for his disqualification and then went on to dismiss my case at its inception, thereby depriving me of my discovery rights which could have further proven the collusion and misconduct, i.e. documentary demands, pretrial interrogatories. Such rights are not automatic, but because a judge will rarely admit his or her misconduct, I had a heightened right to show systemic or personal prejudice through circumstantial facts and inferences. Removal could then be required based on a “totality of circumstances.” I also argued that under state law, a judge is generally the “sole judge” of his own impartiality, a bizarre self-serving rule if there ever was one.

Judge Sharpe utterly ignored my arguments and case citations, choosing instead to attack the messenger of reform, depicting my complaint and papers as “rambling” and “incomprehensible,” among other deflecting terms plucked from a thesaurus. Well I was proven correct again this month when the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Rippo v Baker, No. 16-6316 (March 6, 2017). It ruled that a convicted murderer sentenced to death could have a judge disqualified from his case based on a “totality of circumstances” even where actual bias for the state could not be shown. You will see the “totality of circumstances” argument throughout my filings over the years.

Significantly the opinion was less than three pages in length and issued without any briefing. It was based on pauper status and a petition for writ of certiorari. That should be very encouraging for those parents deprived of resources who continue to seek precedent at our nation’s highest court. It is a shame that a convicted murderer was given priority over my two petitions pending the same year which were both denied. I guess a non-criminal civil rights case to advance First Amendment and parenting liberties in addition to due process was not as high as a murderer on this Supreme Court’s agenda.

For now, it is critical that our high court reiterated the rule that federal due process allows a litigant in a proper case to obtain discovery rights to prove a bribe, misconduct or a pattern of rulings that would convince a reasonably objective person that a particular judge should be removed. Judge Sharpe denied both my discovery and due process rights despite powerful evidence of systemic prejudice which no reasonable person could accept consistent with impartial decision making.

This website, is filled with postings that explain how viciously I was treated due to my judicial whistleblower activity. Just one undisputed fact should have been sufficient to have my personal cases moved to a district where my free speech had less likely impacts on my parent-child relations. That fact is the disqualification of 35 trial judges from my family court proceedings over the past ten years, a likely record in American judicial history. Many of these disqualifications occurred without correction to the damage inflicted prior to removal.

My “totality of circumstances” included a pedophile custody judge (Bryan Hedges), fictional college degrees for elevated child support and Title IV-D revenue purposes, and bizarre parenting conditions such as “prohibited alcohol related gestures” (a wedding toast). What we have, my friends, is a judiciary in this country which is getting increasingly out-of-control and ever abusive of the people they are sworn to serve under our Constitution. They have assumed the role of “gods” as convicted ex-chief judge Sol Wachtler disclosed in his book, After the Madness.

We see federal judges today, never elected by anyone, with life terms and no relevant qualifications, dictating national security to our elected Commander-in-Chief. We have family judges doing the same with childrearing. Well here is a decision which should make all moms and dads happy. It’s not something I haven’t already been saying on this site and in my court filings, but at least my followers will have a further understanding why these parent-child predators are working overtime to destroy me and my highly qualified disclosures on this site, i.e. I had to file an action in New York Supreme Court last year to remove a family judge gag order against this same site. He stepped down weeks later (Judge Daniel King of Lowville, New York).

Here you will continue to learn what they do not want you to know. What you do with that information and your lawyers is your business. I am only the messenger, your modern day Paul Revere if you will, because they are coming for you, like it or not, in one way or another, through legalized kidnapping, tax hikes, overmedicated children, bankrupted litigants, “child support” debtor prisons, the list goes on.

My recent report which explains this Title IV-D funding epidemic is now in the hands of our new administration. I will have much more to report, including my shocking book to be published in coming months. Justice sometimes arrives in ways we never expect. Please support our cause financially on this site. Do it for the sake of your children and future generations. And as always, call me direct in emergency situations at (315) 796-4000.