Appeals Court Issues Precedent Decision Expanding Parental Rights in Federal Court

IMG_0910
New York Contingent After a Conference in Senator Chuck Schumer’s Office at the Capitol during Lobby Day, May 2, 2019 and our 3-day Parent March on Washington

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Two weeks ago, a federal appeals court issued a “Precedential” decision which promotes the rights of parents to challenge family court injustices in federal court. I promised you a post on that case and here it is.

In Malhan v Secretary U.S. Dept of State, Attorney General of New Jersey, et. al., Case No. 18-3373 (September 18, 2019), egregious child support enforcement practices were challenged in federal court. The federal district court of New Jersey dismissed the action using abstention and jurisdictional technicalities that have kept family court litigants out of federal court for more than fifty years.

A federal appeals court has now ruled that lower federal courts have been abusing these technicalities for too long, citing more recent opinions of the Supreme Court which condemned such abuses. This comes after three decisions of the federal court of the Northern District of New York which dismissed my similar challenges to family court abuses in 2011, 2012 and 2015.

Indeed the last one was supplemented by a conditional filing order, future filings that have to be pre-approved. Had the recent federal appeals court ruling preceded those decisions, it might have dramatically altered my fate and prevented the alienation of my daughters, retaliation for my judicial whistle blowing activity, and abuses which collectively “shock the conscience of civilized societies,” see Rochin v California,  342 US 165 (1953) and progeny (substantive due process).

A reading of the Malhan decision shows how arguments that I have been asserting for years are now “the law” and helpful to all those who require justice and constitutional protections outside the tyrannical scope of our nation’s divorce and family courts. The interface between state and federal court jurisdiction remains highly complex, this post does not constitute legal advice, and anyone seeking to access the latter should rely on attorneys with expertise in this area (i.e. not family court lawyers).

However, as the Malhan decision was being published, my precedent seeking case filed in New York Supreme Court on August 7, 2019 was removed to federal court by the top attorney in New York, Attorney General, Letitia James. She was a civil rights attorney and New York City Public Advocate prior to election to her high profile position. The basis for removal was a substantial federal question at the center of my lawsuit.

Actually there are three major federal questions, namely, due process, equal protection and First Amendment violations. The stunning removal decision has its greatest irony in the prior attorney general who successfully dismissed my earlier federal cases on grounds that state family courts had a greater interest in domestic matters than our federal courts did in federal constitutional matters.

Put another way, after keeping me out of federal court for over a decade, the ones representing the state, a family judge and support magistrate are now asserting that I belong back in federal court. Don’t try to figure this out. As we have stated often on this site: “You just can’t make this stuff up!” Unfortunately, the damage is already done and may be irreversible. That is why I am seeking additional precedent which compensates the victims of family court abuses in federal court.

The Malhan case was remanded to the lower federal court for further proceedings. Hence, because the appeals court ruling is non-final, it is unlikely that the case will reach the Supreme Court, if ever, any time soon. My case may have a better chance of getting there sooner using the same precedent. You can view my state supreme court complaint, now under federal court caption, by clicking here to an earlier post.

These developments and others have impaired our protest preparations set for this month locally. However, we continue to ask the participants and supporters of our last one in Washington D.C. to submit verbal and written complaints to House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff. He is claiming protection for whistleblowers. Therefore, demand action on the 500-plus whistleblower reports we delivered to every member of Congress on Lobby Day, May 2, 2019 (middle day of our three-day Parent March on Washington).

We cannot sit on our progress lest we lose it altogether. Join our efforts and help make this post viral. Perseverance in the face of horrific odds may finally pay off despite the many critics. For more information or assistance, you can call our Institute office at (315) 380-3420.