New York Times Publisher: We dictate news, subscribers go elsewhere if you don’t like it !

IMG_0743
Talk Show Host Sean Hannity, Dr. Leon Koziol and Dr. Eric Braverman at a fundraising gala in Manhattan

Administrator’s Note: Our recent Corrupt Judge Series (Turkey Trilogy) has received remarkable interest. For those of you who missed it, this is the link.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

This is an open letter to Art Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times from a secondary media dot com. We know you’ll never read it, that’s why it’s being published on the viral internet, a cheap and logical source for all the news today that’s truly “fit to print.”

We’ve had all we can take of the brazen propaganda you’ve been feeding us: the cropping of George Bush from a front page photo of the Selma parade, negative election coverage of Donald Trump, and now the op-ed submissions you’re screening to keep it going.

It is an abuse of free press by the “gray-lady” that would have her predecessor publishers turning over in their graves. After the election of the century that you refused to honor, I came across one opinion after another published by your newspaper containing that anti-Trump venom.

These diatribes from select “experts” followed front page liberal media declaring that “we were all wrong” about election predictions. No YOU were all wrong. We were right, over 62 million of us. How can you purport to speak for such a large number of voters?

So as a good American, I offered my own counter-point with the requisite three day exclusive rights, word limit and timely subject matter. I provided copies to your other departments and two voice mails at your office. Could it be the idea of a long needed expansion of our Supreme Court under a Trump administration that caused you to trash it? Let your readers decide:

November 16, 2016

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

Dear Editor:

For all the explanations on the election of Donald Trump as our 45th president, the most accurate one remains off the radar. This was the election featuring our forgotten half, a subject which now binds the president-elect, this newspaper and our Supreme Court in an extraordinary way.

You know the forgotten half. They’re the ones who went into the towers on 9-11, sacrificed their lives in foreign wars throughout our history, protected us daily in our communities, and built this great nation one edifice at a time. They are the men of America.

I happen to be born into that time-honored gender. But hardly a day went by during the elections when we were not forced to endure the constant focus on women: the first female president, pink but not blue ribbons, shattered glass ceilings and my favorite: the fictitious “war on women.”

After the Megyn Kelly debacle, 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 a silent half internalized the sexist insults until election day while 42% of all women refused to be 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, 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 supportive of 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 as a private citizen.

In a break from the Trump-bashing media frenzy, this newspaper published a bold editorial 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 for decision 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 very 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, this newspaper 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

(315) 796-4000

Who Declared the War on Women?

DONALD-TRUMP-MEGYN-KELLY-BLOOD-COMMENTS-618

 

by Dr. Leon R. Koziol

When I heard about Megyn Kelly and this War on Women being waged by Donald Trump, like any conscientious American, I offered to enlist my services to defend our country against a pending invasion. Admittedly I had selfish reasons: two precious daughters, hot girlfriends, the best mom a guy could hope for, and countless women I have protected over the years as a civil rights advocate. God forbid some guy named Trump would harm them in any way.

The problem was I could find nothing to show that this Donald guy harmed any woman, let alone someone I knew. Worse yet, I discovered that I was an unwitting member of the enemy camp, a likely conscript of the Trump juggernaut, a person of opposite gender and a full one-half of the human population. The invaders were everywhere, well beyond the skills of our finest military personnel. It was a war like no other, and I must confess it scared the Hillary out of me.

The first thing I logically did was consult our Constitution to check for veracity. It clearly stated that only Congress could declare this war. Alas there was no such declaration. But because that never stopped any president in recent memory, I knew this war could be occurring without our consent. And that required me to investigate further even if it meant wiping out the other half of humanity and our species altogether. Hey don’t blame me, I had nothing to do with this war.

I then learned that such a war could only be declared by a member of an obscure faction known as IML (Insecure Man-hating Liberals). The other wars included poverty, the environment and the War on Wars (2008 presidential elections). Sadly we lost all of them with the exception of a highly classified War on Fathers in our nation’s family courts. With all of Trump’s wealth and success rates in comparison, I knew we were in real trouble.

So I visited the SWDC (Strategic Woman Defense Command) headed by, you guessed it, Megyn Kelly. Someone named Caitlyn refused entry due to enemy suspicions, but I was able to learn the action plan from e-mails of our former Secretary of State. In a nutshell, it was to fake an attack like Tonkin Bay, alarm the public to expand our federal bureaucracy and raise taxes until the last factory left for China. My gosh, the Soviets were right! We could be conquered from within.

In the end I surmised that Orson Welles must have been a part of all the hysteria. His 1938 radio classic, War of the Worlds, caused widespread panic based on a Martian invasion. Learning from history and the likes of Queen Victoria or Catherine the Great, I concluded that this War on Women was actually a War on Men and an insult to all who served our country in the real wars. Over 58,000 are found on the Viet Nam Wall in Washington D.C. All but eight are men.

August 20, 2015

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

(315) 796-4000

leonkoziol@gmail.com

We ask all of our followers to submit copies of this editorial to your local newspaper for publication.

OBAMA TO CIVIL RIGHTS AUDIENCE: DISMANTLE STRUCTURES OF LEGAL SEGREGATION. PARENTS TO OBAMA: DOES THIS INCLUDE FAMILY COURT?

images

At a civil rights forum held on April 10, 2014, President Barack Obama recounted the trials and tribulations of Lyndon B. Johnson as he crusaded for an end to racial segregation and economic oppression. It was a part of his speech before an audience commemorating the 50 year anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He emphasized that we must “dismantle the structures of legal segregation.” While I could certainly identify with the president’s message, having litigated civil rights causes for more than 25 years, I had to ask whether it applied to the unequal and oppressive legal structure of divorce and family courts in America.

Only one day earlier, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, flanked by a feminist entourage, condemned members of Congress for their failure to pass the Equal Pay Act. Once again, the message appeared sincere on its surface after hearing some statistic about women earning 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. But throughout her own long tenure as a member of the same Congress, Ms. Pelosi never crusaded to rectify the more alarming statistic each year that men are paying 85% of child support orders and losing some 90% of custody cases in divorce and family courts.

Somehow, after successfully advocating for women and minorities for all of my professional life, I could not reconcile these lofty speeches with the reality of parenting inequalities in America. Somehow it was difficult for me to share the enthusiasm of these two civil rights advocates when reviewing the countless horror stories of discrimination, oppression and unjust decision making I have become exposed to in a lucrative Family Court structure which does more to reward politicians and lawyers than it does to promote families and children.

Obviously, in the world created today by Hollywood and Wall Street, traditional family structures will suffer. Parents will separate for the benefit of their children if other worldly interests prevail or if mom and dad simply cannot get along. But such a separation does not lead to the routine conclusion in these courts that dad pays and mom nurtures. Such an archaic result, common to President Johnson’s day, remains the standard for mandatory support and custody orders and the last bastion of institutionalized discrimination left unchecked in America today. “Dead beat dad” remains a sexist slur used by our Justice Department as recently as two years ago to announce a child support sting operation (otherwise known as “The War on Fathers”).

If these two particular politicians were as courageous as Lyndon B. Johnson, they would be calling for congressional hearings and a complete overhaul of our family court structure, its welfare (child support) laws, and practices by unscrupulous divorce lawyers. They would be “dismantling the structures of legal separation” between parents and children which stand in the way of shared parenting, equal access to children and relief from a system of economic oppression caused by a trillion dollar profit industry. State governments will not do this because they continue to benefit from this unequal system of justice through massive federal grants and collection interest revenues based on the number and magnitude of child support orders and family court controversies that can be generated.

It is obvious that parents and families will not see the long overdue reform which is sorely needed in these courts any time soon. Impotent studies, window dressing and lofty commitments to our children (not theirs) remain the lay of the land. So it begs the question: How many more school shootings will it take, how many more poorly educated children will we see, and how much additional breakdown in our moral fiber will occur before our government realizes that a proper commitment to civil rights must include these courts? Their secret proceedings must be opened and made accountable to the people.

The president’s speech has caused me to expand the mission of our parenting rights site, Leon Koziol.com. It will now address “citizen rights” generally and the reform of lawyer abuses in our courts. You will even see a new site, Lawyer Reform. Com, developed to aid us in this mission. It is a renewed commitment sure to result in a new round of retributions by licensing authorities in my state (New York), but this is a civil rights cause that can no longer be suppressed. It must be pursued toward a greater purpose, our children and future generations of Americans. Please stay in contact with this site as we move to daily reports and a more effective movement to assist you in your own trials and tribulations.

Best regards,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Parental Rights Advocate
(315) 796-4000

Learn how to minimize conflict, reduce the unnecessary burden of stress  and save money before using the family court system (Click Here)

Binders Full of Veterans: How Much More Can We Tolerate?

By  Dr. Leon R. Koziol

After the foreign affairs debate, America’s voters should be focused upon an oppressed group of people which neither candidate has mentioned during the presidential campaign. They’re found right here in the states, and for lack of a better term, we’ll call them “binders full of veterans”. These are the fathers returning from military service who have been prejudiced in our nation’s domestic courts. To be fair, we should add our civilian police to their unfortunate lot.

They are prejudiced by their gender, commitment to duty and an antiquated system which makes Mitt Romney’s navy look like star wars. This system alienates parents and children to support a multi-billion dollar industry for lawyers and agencies. Before a divorce or separation is granted, courts require the naming of a “custodial” and “non-custodial” party. This unequal classification is then the workhorse for transfer payments known as “child support”. It produces federal funds and interest revenues for the states.

It’s also the underlying reason why shared parenting is opposed by bar associations everywhere. Custody and support “awards” cause parents to fight regardless of need or preexisting cooperation, and that’s good for lawyers. They are based upon such sexist factors as “primary care giving”. Veterans, police officers and fathers generally are the victims according to Census Bureau reports. If a domestic partner simply decides to move on with a parenting replacement, she can overcome any father’s genuine interests by exploiting the violent nature of his duty to secure these awards.

Forced to endure a stigmatizing and “fatherless” role in the lives of innocent children, our service people are then exposed to imputed income and other maximizing money factors to create obligations that cannot be maintained. Eventually the victim is remanded to prison or influenced to take matters into his own hands. Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama has called for a hard look at the suffering and suicide rates among these parents. Instead, Massachusetts and the Justice Department have maintained files for monitoring and arresting them.

These government binders are markedly different than the ones exploited by feminists after the second debate. Unlike progressive hiring practices, they are designed to perpetuate the archaic notion that mom’s place is with the children and a dad’s purpose is to pay for her services. It was a time when horses and bayonets were still in vogue and schools were segregated by race. These binders also reflect a full range of constitutional violations justified by children as their human shield. Foreign and domestic policy is uniquely merged in these courts, and our voters should look for the candidate who can best lead us to becoming a kinder and gentler nation.

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
President and Founder
Parenting Rights Institute
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, New York 13502
(315) 796-4000
leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Administrators Note: We are calling upon all of our followers at www.leonkoziol.com to help share this message with others including the media and military veterans’ groups.  Also, please support our ongoing fundraising efforts to help preserve parent-child relationships. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.

Parents Recognized In Presidential Debates, But Will Their Rights Be Protected?

By  Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Well it finally happened.  In the third round of debates for president and vice-president, parents were recognized for their importance to American society. It began with Mitt Romney toward the end of the Hofstra engagement with the rights of children to have both parents involved in their lives. This was the closest that any candidate in recent memory has come to recognizing the plight of fathers routinely discriminated in America’s domestic relations courts.

The Republican candidate explained that marriage as opposed to contraceptives should be the preferred agenda of government on social issues, drawing upon a conservative ideology which aligned him with the likes of Ronald Reagan (but not George Bush). However, he wrapped things up with his now infamous “binder of women” approach to equal rights derived from his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.

The Democrat candidate quickly shot back, declaring women to be a family issue and thereby saving himself from a liberal philosophy that essentially declares the other half of the voting population to be evil. It allowed Barack Obama to join Mario Cuomo’s “Family of New York” and Hillary Clinton’s “Village”. He then returned safely to the women’s rights issue by declaring that his daughters deserved equal opportunities.

Nowhere in the debate was the issue of fatherless America raised. Like a sacred cow forever guarded by the same feminists who demand equality in all other areas of “the law”, no candidate for either office dared to confront our last bastion of institutionalized discrimination. Yet most rational minded voters would agree that fatherless families are a leading cause of our social problems today.

We pay for it in the contraceptives supplied through taxation, an escalation of crime, abuse of assault rifles and the rise in health care costs, all issues which dominated the debates. Meanwhile the damage to our productivity goes unmentioned as lawyers and government agents regulate our lives in divorce and Family Court. Indeed it takes no lawyer to conclude that these same issues are the symptoms and not the root of our problems in America today.

Flying well off this radar screen is a parenting rights case being considered by the Supreme Court. It was docketed on September 20, 2012 under the caption John Parent v State of New York, no 12-350. Parent is a fictitious party like the one permitted in Roe v Wade, and it is intended to represent parents victimized in our nation’s domestic relations courts. More than a civil rights case, it is a human rights cause designed to restore protection for the “oldest liberty interest” recognized under our Constitution.

Hopefully, all candidates for public office will take note of this case, if not the greater issue, even if the high court rejects it in favor of gay marriage, funeral protesters and other matters of “national prominence”. It took four grueling years for John Parent to work his way through our federal courts. Now it’s time to give him a chance to be heard. Our viability as a free and civilized nation depends upon it.

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
President and Founder
Parenting Rights Institute
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, New York 13502(315) 796-4000
leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com

Seeking Co-Sponsors of Guest Column for Media Nationwide

Attached as a link is a guest column considered for publication in the New York Times recently.  An editor reported this past week that he has decided not to run it. In that case, I informed them that I would submit the same column for publication nationwide on alternate sites and metro media.  Of course this effort can best be advanced through co-sponsorship and the assistance of our growing numbers of supporters. A copy is attached and available to any interested party who would like to submit it for example to their local press. Kindly return any amended versions for my approval containing new or modified content.  This can be done through same day e-mail at: leonkozioljd@gmail.com. We are hoping to secure growing interest in our cause before the New York meeting.

Leon Koziol, J.D.

Click here to link to guest column