Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
In 2016, a Florida doctor, New York lawyer, California dentist and Virginia engineer joined efforts at a news conference on the Supreme Court steps to announce a case docketed there by civil rights advocate Leon Koziol. It challenged the high court’s repeat denials of petitions filed by aggrieved parents who were wrongfully separated from their children in our nation’s divorce and family courts. It can be found on the Supreme Court website under docket no. 16-512.
The historical refusal to hear such cases led to an opening point seeking a declaratory ruling in support of the court’s expansion. It was based on Article III of the Constitution together with First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of judicial access and due process. The case was turned down on January 9, 2017. The greater history of this case features a horrific ordeal of a judicial whistleblower and civil rights attorney which reads like a John Grisham true story.
Like so many other publications here at Leon Koziol.com, our positions are repeatedly vindicated. It happened again today, five years after the Koziol v King case, when members of Congress announced a plan to expand the Supreme Court. Such expansion has also been advocated by Dr. Anthony Pappas, retired professor of St. John’s University, who has written reports on the subject. He was the Republican-endorsed candidate against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) in her first race for Congress. In a 6-1 Democrat voting district, Dr. Pappas was barely able to make the radar. However, he used his public platform to boldly challenge judicial immunity and widespread injustices in our nation’s domestic relations courts.
Site Administrator’s Note: The opening argument in Koziol v King is presented below. Note its startling relevance to current events. Also note, at the time of filing, a vacancy had the Supreme Court functioning with only eight members. For more information, contact Dr. Koziol, Director of the Parenting Rights Institute, at (315) 380-3420. You can also contact him directly at (315) 796-4000 or his e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. Given the censorship we have endured over the years, we ask our many followers to share this post with media and interested parties.
In its present form, the Supreme Court has rendered itself inaccessible to petitioner and the vast majority of Americans through artificial barriers to federal court jurisdiction in violation of due process, its duties under Article III of the United States Constitution and genuine principles of federalism.
During the period when Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), was issued, the Supreme Court had six members. The population of the United States was little more than 5 million, and global complexities were utterly unimaginable. Today with the politics being played over the Court and presidential campaigns, there are only two additional members despite a population of over 300 million.
There are some 10,000 petitions filed annually with this Court and about 100 that are granted, less than one percent of the total petitioners seeking proper relief under Article III of the Constitution. Against this backdrop alone it can plainly be seen that our Supreme Court has been transformed from a constitutionally prescribed role to an elite tribunal inaccessible to all but the most fortunate of litigants. When petitioner’s last filing was considered, there were over 800 petitions reviewed by this Court’s eight members on the same conference day of September 26, 2016.
Three fathers’ rights cases were among them, all denied on the same day. It is ludicrous to expect the American people to believe that every judge read all 800 petitions with any meaningful comprehension. It is more plausible to conclude that the vast majority of these petitions were never even examined directly. The insult to the people served lies in the futility of their hard work, expense and good faith in the current petition process particularly with the rigid rules for production, filing and standards for consideration.
In order to limit the unmanageable influx of meritorious petitions, this Court has had to erect artificial barriers to exclude a statistical 99% or more of petitioners and potential filers who neglect to seek recourse on futility grounds. They include such well known and formidable obstacles as Younger abstention, Rooker-Feldman doctrine, subject matter jurisdiction, judicial immunity, res judicata, collateral estoppel, waiver, pleading requisites, deference policies, factual insufficiency or excess, statutes of limitations and domestic relations exception.
If a pro se litigant lacks sufficient means to continue his or her pursuit of justice after relinquishing them to lawyers, they have a virtual zero probability of access to their nation’s high court…. (This case) is now ripe for a declaration of candid limitation … so that reform might be influenced. This was the approach taken by former chief justices of New York’s high court when they brought a hybrid mandamus-declaratory judgment action in their own lower courts for pay raises naming executive and legislative leaders as defendants, see Maron v Silver, 14 NY3d 230 (2010).
The relevant “Issues Presented” found on the third page of this filing reads as follows:
1) Has the Supreme Court rendered itself inaccessible to petitioner and the vast majority of our citizens in violation of due process and Article III of the Constitution?
2) Has the Supreme Court erected and ratified onerous obstacles to federal court jurisdiction for parents victimized in divorce and family courts contrary to due process, a fundamental liberty interest and genuine principles of federalism?
3) Has the Supreme Court encouraged or justified private remedies for law abiding citizens to vindicate their constitutional rights when its duties were abandoned here?