Weekend Update: The Contagion of Government Lying


Administrator’s Message: Dr. Koziol continues to take a break from New York’s dysfunctional divorce and family court system as he relaxes in the pristine surroundings of New York’s spectacular Lake George and Saratoga regions.

It may be a long holiday weekend, however, it’s time to get off your butts as Dr. Leon Koziol will be arguing a case against father discrimination, court corruption and parental alienation on June 22, 2016 at the Oneida County Courthouse in Utica, New York. A rally is planned for 10:00 AM sharp!

This is your opportunity to be heard or stop your bitching!

The Contagion of Government Lying

“Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” — Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941)

Last week, this column chronicled the startling admissions of lying by White House senior adviser Ben Rhodes. Rhodes readily acknowledged to The New York Times that he lied to the public and to members of Congress during the negotiations that produced the recent Iranian nuclear deal so as to temper the “irrational” fear that some senators and representatives had of the mullahs who run the government in Iran.

He was asked — not subpoenaed — to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about his lying, and he refused to show up, claiming his lies were protected by executive privilege. Because he spoke publicly about this, he has no privilege, yet nothing further happened. The committee gave up the ghost.

Also last week, in a federal court in Brownsville, Texas, the government was caught lying again — this time by a federal judge. Here is the back story.

In 2012, President Barack Obama issued numerous executive orders directing the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to enforce a version of immigration law that the president himself had scripted after Congress declined to pass it.

The president crafted a path to permanent residence in the United States for undocumented immigrants who are the parents of children who were born here or are otherwise residents lawfully.

The president’s plan would add between 4 million and 5 million people as lawful residents. That would add to the financial burdens of the states where these folks reside, because they are required by federal law to provide a social safety net — health care, education, safety, welfare — to all legal residents.

Hence, 26 states sued the federal government, arguing in effect that the president exceeded his constitutional powers when he issued his executive orders and that the immediate effect of their enforcement would be massive, unplanned, unfunded financial burdens on the states.

A federal judge agreed with the states and enjoined the president from enforcing his orders. During the course of the oral arguments in the case, the judge asked the lawyers from the Department of Justice who were representing the president whether the programs his executive orders established had yet begun. The lawyers replied that they had not.

On three more occasions, one orally in the same public courtroom and twice in written submissions to the court, the DOJ lawyers insisted that the president’s programs had not yet begun. In reliance upon those assertions, the states asked only for an injunction going forward, not for an injunction on any applications being processed by the feds, because they were told that none existed. The government lawyers lied.

Last week, we learned that the Department of Homeland Security has surreptitiously accepted applications from more than 100,000 undocumented immigrants for permanent residence under the terms of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders.

The orders may be characterized as unconstitutional because the same federal judge to whom the DOJ lawyers lied, as well as a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to which the DOJ appealed the injunction against the president, found them so. Those findings await a determination by the Supreme Court, which is expected by the end of next month.

The problem of lawyers lying to judges is extremely serious. Our system of litigation — lawyers present facts and argue about laws, and judges rely on the truthfulness of what the lawyers have told them — is built on trust. Because lawyers know the facts in their cases more intimately than judges do, judges rely on lawyers to tell them the truth.

At first, these DOJ lawyers lied. Then they lied about their lying. Then they reluctantly acknowledged that they had momentary lapses in understanding, an argument that the court rejected because of the repeated nature of their lying. The lawyers said the programs had not begun, when in fact they had — to a large degree.

The judge’s response in the case was curious. He ordered the DOJ lawyers to take ethics classes. I would have done differently. Lying to the court is so severe a violation of the ethical rules, so disruptive of the moral order, that its significance is diminished by the so-called cure of ethics classes.

I would have barred all lawyers who lied to me from ever appearing in my courtroom, and I would have removed them from the case. I would also have referred what I knew about them to ethics prosecutors in the states and federal districts where they are admitted.

Lawyers have an obligation of candor to the judges before whom they appear. That duty is no less serious when the lawyers work for the government than when they work for private clients.

Because the government prosecutes people who lie to it and its liars almost never can be prosecuted, government lying is grave. It is equivalent to government lawbreaking because when people to whom the government lies — judges or litigants or members of Congress or the public — rely on those lies, they often do so to their detriment. They lose a right or an opportunity that often cannot be recaptured.

I have often asked rhetorically whether the government works for us or we work for the government. The answer to this inquiry is obvious. It is only a fiction that the government works for us.

Yet fear of the consequences of government lying should terrify anyone who believes in the rule of law and fair play. Those consequences can be as contagious as government lawbreaking.

Please share today’s post: http://wp.me/pXgi5-1M2

Time to enjoy life as Leon and friends are doing here at Blue Water Manor in New York’s Adirondack Mountains. After that, let’s face it, judges or gerbils we’re all food for maggots. Have a great Memorial Day weekend.

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.

Parenting Rights Institute Responds to Anti-Parent Newspaper Columns

family-gold-mine-tour

The following editorial was submitted on behalf of outraged parents in response to a series of columns entitled Terrific Parenting by Dr. Randy Cale, published recently in an upstate New York newspaper. Please share it with fellow parents as it presents a watershed example of the attacks we are incurring on all fronts in the state’s ongoing seizure of our constitutionally protected parenting authority. We also ask you to join us in reform efforts including another rally and lobbying initiative in Washington on Constitution Day, September 17th. We need committed participation and donations to make this possible. Also don’t forget to order our PRI Court Program for your own benefit. Proceeds are reinvested to finance this site. The entire editorial response by Dr. Leon Koziol is reprinted here due to its compelling content.

 

Defense of Parents in Divorce and Family Court

Enough is enough. After reading a pair of columns by a court appointed psychologist in the April 6th and 13th editions of this newspaper, I am compelled to present a counter-point to the worn-out theme that parents are to blame for the harm caused to children in divorce and family courts. It is a theme which can be likened to a discussion of our solar system without any mention of the sun.

Here on planet earth, in today’s mainstream world of separated parenting, it is crucial that we get one thing straight. The principal reason for harm to children, families and yes parents too, in divorce situations is an antiquated court system which follows the money. Only when the core reason is properly recognized, can we take a meaningful course of action to correct needless injuries to children.

This core cannot be denied. Despite its liberal lead on gay marriage, New York was the last state to adopt no-fault divorce. This is because contested divorces reaped great benefits for lawyers, politicians and yes psychologists too. Add the fact that our federal government rewards the states based on the number and magnitude of support orders generated from court controversies, and we have a trillion dollar gold mine.

We need go no further than our custody statutes to see how this works. As a condition for divorce, judges are required to enter an order of “custody.” Shared parenting is not even mentioned. Instead “joint custody” is deceptively employed with placement preferences and support orders retained even where incomes and residences are proximate to one another. Parents are therefore compelled to war over their offspring as part of an unequal and oppositional framework which rewards it.

This framework has been criticized by veteran judges and New York’s own matrimonial commission. Yet corrective legislation continues to be blocked, reformists face severe retributions, and lawyers profit from the act of throwing gas on the fires of parental conflict. In today’s world, separation may be an optimal solution for children, especially when parental conflict is more injurious to them in married settings. Still, the status of separation is treated prejudicially.

Unlike corporate environments, a childrearing system which follows the money impairs optimal solutions. Shared or equal parenting means vastly reduced fees and fewer courts. Consequently a race to the courthouse is prompted to secure that winner-take-all custody mentality. False accusations are routinely employed as tactical weapons behind such awards. No one asks whether their absence might truly promote long term cooperation with more money in the end for children instead of the outsiders.

All of the resulting chaos is justified by the state’s declared superiority over our children. Using familiar doctrine exploited by Adolph Hitler to wage a foreign war, the state here is effectively seizing children to wage a domestic war. Both have economic pretexts which rely upon diminishing the parental role. The notion that family conflict requires state intervention is not only a misnomer but contrary to practical competencies and limited powers under our constitutions. Resolution properly facilitated between parents better prepares our children for the real world.

Dr. Cale focuses upon the symptoms of a court system which allows its lawyers to wrangle profitably over every ridiculous detail of parental shortcoming without any reliable, let alone utopian, standard of conduct. They simply argue what they believe is in the child’s best interests, something which any half-baked pontificator can do. Many wonderful parents therefore walk away from such lunacy rather than apply any more resources to it. When the money runs out, the lawyers run as well to their next victims.

This may explain why the same lawyers are overlooking the last bastion of discrimination remaining in America. How unfortunate that we live in a country which guarantees equal rights because it all gets in the way of this lucrative custody system. Recently the failure of congress to pass the equal pay act was decried by a feminist group using a statistic of 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Yet nowhere was the more alarming report publicized that 85% of parents paying child support are men who lose roughly 90% of custody battles.

Against this backdrop, it was painful for any parent to read about impacted “families who often cause the most distress for court judges, law guardians, matrimonial attorneys, and mental health professionals.” If half of our parenting population could simply accept the true law that women still nurture and men still pay, we could all just get along better for the sake of children who act upon such “principles.” After all, this is the kind of reasoning once applied to slavery, military service and segregated schools. And we all know where those “conflicts” took us.

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parental Rights Advocate

www.parentingrightsinstitute.com