Dr. Leon Koziol Submits Expansion Plan for Supreme Court to Transition Team for Donald Trump

images
Our Founding Fathers envisioned a government accessible to the people. That is not the case with a Supreme Court which has only two more members now than it did in 1803. Thomas Jefferson became president at that time with a populist mandate resembling that of today’s Donald Trump.

 

Dr. Leon Koziol has been communicating with Donald Trump’s Special Counsel Michael Cohen since he filed a motion to disqualify Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from his case in Supreme Court three months ago. That motion was based on her unethical public attacks on Donald Trump from her chambers while he was (and is still) a private citizen. Now Dr. Koziol is asking the Supreme Court in a petition filed last month to rule that accessibility to our nation’s highest court is severely compromised by its small number of Justices relative to our population of 300 million. With such a declaratory ruling, it would open the door for a Republican President and Congress to successfully expand the size of our Supreme Court to better serve the people in accordance with its duties under Article III of the Constitution. Here is the text of Koziol’s letter to Cohen:

 

Michael Cohen, Special Counsel                                                        November 11, 2016

and Executive Vice President

Trump Organization

725 Fifth Avenue A

New York, NY 10022

 

Re: Supreme Court Case, Appointments and Expansion Mandate

Dear Mike:

First off, I want to congratulate you on your steadfast opposition to pollsters and the vindication you must be feeling today. On Wednesday, I copied you on my congratulatory e-mail to Donald Trump. He is moving toward unity and continuing to shock the world. Timing of today’s letter is ideal for his transition and can only be described as fateful or extraordinary. Kindly read on.

We conversed in August of this year regarding my case before the Supreme Court docketed on June 17, 2016. It included a First Amendment challenge to a gag order placed upon my website focused on parental equality and judicial accountability. The gag order was removed after I filed a parallel mandamus action in New York Supreme Court, but as relevant here, the same website contained numerous publications vigorously supporting Donald Trump since his announcement in 2015, i.e. a satirical post against Megyn Kelly entitled, Who Declared the War on Women?

Weeks after my case was docketed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg conducted a series of media interviews from her chambers in which she unethically disparaged Donald Trump as a private citizen and candidate for president. Only after widespread public criticism, i.e. “Supreme Bias” and “Darth Bader,” did she issue a public “regret” but never an apology while her media talk continued, thereby evincing a supreme hypocrisy regarding her claims of aberrant behavior.

I filed a motion under Rules 21 and 22 for a stay and disqualification because the content of my pro-Trump website would be inconsistent with her requisite impartiality. On principle alone I risked myself once again for the sake of justice and our First Amendment. With a suppressed secondary and social media, I am sure you will agree that Donald Trump would likely have lost the election given the slim margins in swing states which your supporters and mine targeted.

Three weeks after filing my motion, I contacted the Court to inquire on its progress as election day and my case conference approached. I was informed at first that my motion could not be located, but fortunately I had both a certified mailing and tracking number which proved that the Court had received it. The next morning, I was contacted by a case manager who reported that my motion had been located but that it was being treated as a “Suggestion for Recusal,” a procedure nowhere found in the Rules of the Supreme Court.

My motion and recusal have still not been addressed. Accordingly, I filed another petition last month challenging the inaccessibility of our Supreme Court by common citizens as a violation of Article III of the Constitution. That case has not received a conference date. Hence, supporting briefs can still be filed. As relevant to transition and Donald’s commitment to a government serving all Americans, my petition makes a solid case for expanding the number of Justices.

The case is captioned, Koziol v King, No. 16-512, and as fate would have it, it seeks not only to hold Justice Ginsburg accountable like the judges I exposed in lower courts, but it seeks a declaratory judgment that calls upon the president and Congress to satisfy their own duties under the Constitution by conforming the Supreme Court to population changes since 1803. In this way, President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican Congress can facilitate increased numbers of cases accepted for consideration (roughly only 100 of 10,000 petitions filed annually today).

There may never again be an opportunity like this and it will be well received by the people. Significantly I have the requisite legal standing because I was denied access on four prior petitions since 2011. Moreover, the subject in every one concerned First Amendment retributions I sustained as a judicial whistleblower after 23 highly successful and unblemished years as a civil rights attorney in New York’s state and federal courts. My case reads like a John Grisham novel.

This is not a “Court Packing Plan.” It is a petition properly placed with the Supreme Court to satisfy its separate duties to the people under the same Constitution. I have been working with St. John’s University Professor Anthony Pappas who authored a paper on this very subject, concluding, inter alia, that the reluctance of our high court members to act on this populist mandate may be due to the attention which they each derive in smaller numbers, i.e. Ginsburg.

Central to my petition is Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 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. Today 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 a 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). Please share this with members of your transition team as I share it elsewhere. I am available anytime along with Professor Pappas to provide greater detail.

Best regards,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

 

IMG_1708
Dr. Leon Koziol, Professor Anthony Pappas, Brigid Griffin and other parental advocates attend family court proceedings in Manhattan to support Dr. Eric Braverman. Leon and the professor also support a plan to expand our Supreme Court and make it more accessible to the people.

Is Hillary Above the Law? Should We Follow Her “Lead” to Armageddon?

27741787152_3d8e3b21f8_b

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

From the Whitewater scandal of the nineties to an Arizona tarmac in 2016; Monica Lewinsky in 1998 to the Benghazi hearings of present day, Hillary Clinton has managed to dodge accountability for her crimes time and again.  Meanwhile many around her have been convicted or mysteriously eliminated through death or intimidation. Even her husband, Bill, was impeached, held in contempt and disbarred as a lawyer for perjury after turning our White House into a whore house.

But not Hillary. Her (not our) Attorney General and her (not our) FBI Director violated their public trust by refusing to indict her for misconduct which benefited each politically whereas in other cases it led to resignations and prosecutions, i.e. General Petraeus. The salacious  focus on Donald Trump’s personal life as a private citizen is calculated to deflect attention from Hillary’s horrific scandals as a public office holder at the highest levels. She has only one last “grand jury” to dodge on Election Day, and the world is hers, free of accountability.

So what kind of world will that be? Will it lead to a modern day form of anarchy where the people defend their own crimes and misconduct by citing our first woman president as “precedent?” Is this the kind of president women will be remembered for? Shouldn’t we wait four years? With all the liberal focus on women, did Hillary’s New World Order somehow “terminate” the other half of the human population? Will our children now belong to her “Village” in a complete state take-over as it did to education? How will that help women?

Is it also true as she testified before Congress that “it really didn’t matter” how soldiers died in Benghazi? Will military and law enforcement respect and honor the directives of a “leader” who holds herself above the law without remorse or respect for “men?” Did you ever hear an apology from Hillary on anything? Is she a god in her own mind, the Anti-Christ, the Masih ad-Dajjal or the Armilus of Christian, Islamic and Jewish faiths? Is she a combination of these evil beings who will bring our world to an end or Armageddon?

Perhaps you’ve already asked yourself such questions. Surely it’s on the minds of countless voters. They watched in horror as Hillary Clinton made her way up the political ladder with that bizarre laugh, steroid-level deceit, psychotic look and cruelty beyond conscience. What’s really behind it? Who are the players in her New World Order? How did she manage to trump Trump’s billions in this campaign? Why such a liberal piling-on to get her elected at all costs? Why are our First, Second and Fourth Amendments being viciously suppressed and targeted for extinction? Are you truly aware of our times?

This “Anti-Christ” has been defined as the “single figure of concentrated evil.” It may be an entity we are not meant to recognize, an evil so hidden that its host may not even know it. Originating in the Bible and depicted in religious lore as the ultimate opponent of Jesus Christ, it has parallel figures in Islamic and Jewish religions. This evil adversary brings about Armageddon or the end of humanity as we know it.

Recent documentaries have described how the Anti-Christ is now among us given our capacity to end the world through a nuclear holocaust. Scholars have predicted the end when world conflict centers on the holy land of three major religions. If you watched the presidential debates, isn’t that already happening? Iran versus Israel with nuclear powers taking sides?

We’ve now seen civil wars or nuclear threats in Iran, Israel, Syria, Afghanistan, Gaza, Egypt and Libya. The entire Middle East has become consumed by world politics due to the meddling of Hillary and her liberal-socialists. Perhaps it’s time to move to the Southern Hemisphere before radiation rules the north. Think about it. What targets are down under? Why are so many millionaires moving there?

After the last debate, British news reported the largest movement of military by the Russian government since World War II. Photos showed a new Russian missile with the name “Satan II” imprinted on its side capable of destroying Britain twice over. It was the Russian-Soviets who detonated the largest nuclear device in history known as “Tsar Bomba.” And that was in 1961!  They were the first to put a satellite into orbit.

So is this a government to provoke through escalating involvement by our former Secretary of State in countries around the world? Under her influence in administrations over three decades, American military pressure has arrived at the Russian border with Ukraine. If they respond in Cuba or Mexico, what would happen? Is this the kind of “experience” we need from a power broker committed to long discredited socialist policy for child rearing?” If you think family court is a nightmare today, you won’t want to see how she reforms it.

Even if such a Cuba type response is unlikely, it cannot be denied that we are already in a virtual war with Russia in Syria. A single air clash could provoke an unstoppable wave of escalating retributions in the Israel-Arab world. We would be “terminated” before Donald Trump could deny the latest foolish accusations in his campaign. He wisely wants to pull back from the Middle East as Obama once promised. Is it such a bad thing to have good relations with the only other country capable of ending our world? Not Hillary. She has a world to save, or is the word “conquer?”

The Anti-Christ and Armageddon were central themes in the 1997 blockbuster movie, Devil’s Advocate, starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves. The latter is a successful attorney who never lost a criminal jury case until he discovers his success was influenced by his father, Pacino, the devil itself. He becomes disbarred in the end upon rejecting Pacino and his army of demon lawyers. He openly declined further representation of his guilty client, a bragging child molester. Sound familiar on this site?

So even though the media and electoral college have already dictated your vote, you must be marked and monitored through birth numbers, cell phones, satellites and registrations. Satan’s ultimate deceit in this climactic election may be this: Humanity was expecting a man figure to emerge as the Anti-Christ, but it came in the form of a woman. GOTCHA !

product_thumbnail.php
In this 2014 novel available at Barnes and Noble and other major booksellers, Dr. Leon Koziol applies his political, professional and voyaging experience on the Great Lakes to depict how nuclear terrorism can be executed.

First Amendment Petition Docketed by U.S. Supreme Court in Koziol Case

images

Does the First Amendment apply to our third branch of government, and if so, can the rights found under the Fourteenth Amendment be set aside to suppress the protected activity of a civil rights attorney seeking to reform abusive practices in our states’ family courts?

This is the single compound question placed before the United States Supreme Court in a Petition for Writ filed on December 9, 2013 and formally docketed on December 12, 2013 under Case No. 13-702 entitled Leon Koziol v Committee on Professional Standards. It is an unprecedented filing which squarely confronts that long unwritten rule that our citizens should not criticize our courts, especially those most qualified to do so as civil rights attorneys.

The content of this case is sure to startle any reader. Putting aside the legalese, its fundamental principles make this an important filing for anyone who has found himself or herself abused in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Such victims are likely to find this landscape familiar while those who challenge government abuses may relate on a broader level. Media and public interest groups should find it even more intriguing.

This is a case which truly occurred in the land of equality, liberty and free speech. The Koziol ordeal over an eight year period has been compared to Gao Zhisheng, the civil rights attorney in China stripped of his law license and denied access to his children for criticizing a communist government. It warrants your support and internet sharing efforts. This is our duty as good Americans who will not surrender to such creeping forms of government.

Fortunately, in the days preceding this filing with the Supreme Court, Leon Koziol was able to secure a stay order in a New York appeals court to enforce holiday parenting time while a Family Court Magistrate referred his support case to a higher judge to decide issues of parental alienation as a defense to such obligations. These successes, however, may have come too late as the parents are now financially destroyed and the children harmed beyond measure. Such injuries are common in our nation’s domestic relations courts. It is a trillion dollar industry.

Read the First Amendment Supreme Court Writ: (Click Here)