Trump’s Epic Move to Void Articles of Impeachment

When Donald Trump was nearing his nomination in June, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg began a series of news conferences from chambers disparaging the candidate through an abuse of judicial office. At the time I had a case under consideration before that court and moved for Ginsburg’s disqualification since it featured a family court gag order and violations of my First Amendment rights on the side of the candidate. That motion was accepted but never expressly decided. Ginsburg subsequently acknowledged her indiscretion after liberal media took issue against her. The same court may now be called upon to address crucial issues relevant to impeachment. How can Ginsburg sit in judgment on such matters today?

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

This is the third and last segment of a series I call the Christmas Day Trilogy. It is directed to reforming America’s family courts, ending parental alienation and securing a federal investigation of Title IV-D funding abuses.

Followers know that our lobby efforts in Congress, a march down Pennsylvania Avenue under police escort, and my report discussed personally with Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham have failed to result in any action from any member of Congress. Instead our federal government is focused on parent-child separations at our borders and the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Hence, we parents legally residing here must enter the political fray so that our vital rights are respected. To that end, I was dismayed by White House lawyers who proposed to treat the Articles of Impeachment as a non-event simply because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was holding back on any submission to the Senate.

She was doing so under a condition that she receive assurances of a fair trial there for Trump’s removal. I don’t know how much they pay these lawyers, and let’s face it, Rudy Guiliani is the one who got his client in trouble with Ukraine in the first place, but the timelines are not so much the issue as is her condition.

Understandably our duly elected president wants to derail the agenda of stigmatizing his presidency in the history books. The impeachment vote came along party lines without any criminal charge, thereby sabotaging any principle through a witch hunt.

There are parallels to be made to the witch hunt against me in family court after my run for Congress in 2005. That is why I am publicizing a more viable track for Trump’s objectives, but first, it is necessary to offset the defamation of my character in retaliation for my ongoing exposure of court corruption.

This won’t take long so bear with me. A reading of a high profile case in Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY 2000) will verify the skills I possessed nearly twenty years to invalidate a billion dollar casino compact. I was representing a landowners’ group (UCE) which had been held hostage by a 250,000 acre Indian land claim.

I was up against Cravath, Swaine & Moore, of Manhattan, a global law firm and one of the most prominent in the nation. They represented the Oneida Indian plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit to seize land from 20,000 landowners based on a 1794 treaty.

I counter sued to invalidate the Indian gaming compact which had produced the sprawling Turning Stone Casino and Resort, something which Donald Trump might know something about given his vast casino interests.

My strategy was “in your face” and logical, namely, that if you want to dispossess politically weak and hard-working farmers, small businesses and home owners based on illegal deeds traced to that treaty, we will invalidate your gaming compact and disgorge you of all your wealth you obtained through that void compact.

The compact at issue was VOID because it had been signed by Governor Mario Cuomo but never approved by the state legislature as required by the New York Constitution. To make a long story short, my strategies in both federal and state court cases resulted in success and the land claim was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.

The cited case lays out the complexities which may be compared to the ones I face today in the same federal and state courts regarding a challenge to Title IV-D funding and First Amendment retaliation.

The land claim/casino cases were considered matters reserved for elite firms. A sole practitioner was not welcome here any more than I am in my high profile litigation today.

To illustrate this, my successful representation was reported in the cited case as a lawyer with the prominent law firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King. As my client (UCE president Scott Peterman) later disclosed, he had never even spoken to a lawyer from that firm, let alone retained them for any case. Yet the inaccuracy remains.

With this backdrop, let us now address the current impeachment crisis which is tearing our nation apart and will continue to dominate Congress over our domestic needs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already stated for the record that she is withholding any submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate until she receives unspecified assurances of a fair trial for the removal of Donald Trump. The Constitution is clear that the House of Representatives has the “SOLE” power of impeachment whereas the Senate has the “SOLE” power of removal through a trial.

Here Pelosi is emphatically usurping the power of the Senate. Her condition is already a matter of public record and VOID from its inception. Why bother then with timelines when White House lawyers can already rely on this record for a senate resolution to void the entire process, hence achieving Trump’s objectives more immediately and soundly.

As the media has reported, the impeachment process in the House can be compared to a criminal indictment process before a grand jury. Such indictments can be voided based on facts and charges which do not match, a grand jury improperly constituted or sworn, or a jurisdictional impediment. I have won every grand jury and petite jury I faced in the day. They may not be many but the tactics can be compared to Pelosi’s usurpation of her own jurisdiction under the Constitution.

Speaker Pelosi has no authority to condition articles on the manner in which the Senate proceeds. She has her “handlers,” but not her dictates. Her job was completed on December 19, 2019. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court merely presides over the Senate trial, he too cannot direct any outcomes.

Regardless, because there is little precedent with only two prior trials in the 19th and 20th centuries, and no precedent for withholding Articles, this approach is eminently logical. It can withstand the test of time. A decision voiding the Articles can be offered by Lindsay Graham as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Now these are simply my citizen thoughts related to my currently pending litigation. Given the usurpation of our rights to congressional action on domestic needs, a swift conclusion to this Election 2016 witch hunt would be in America’s best interests.