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.

Thank You to John Parent Supporters in Supreme Court Case

A doctor in Virginia, law partner in Chicago, professor at Columbia University, businesswoman in Syracuse, psychologist from California, fathers rights leader in Pittsburgh, a former congressman, and a retired officer of the United States Marines. These are some of the people who have answered our call for support in the John Parent case docketed for consideration by the United States Supreme Court. There is no guarantee that our high court will hear argument, but there would be no chance of success if someone did not pave the way, a competent advocate who risked his livelihood to make the case for parents victimized in divorce and Family Court.

As we press on by contacting organizations, fellow victims and family sympathizers, it is important to reiterate the uphill battle faced by any lawyer who undertakes a challenge of this kind against his own profession. While moms and dads remain angry and confused over the abuses they incur in these courts, the simple explanation is that they have become a gold mine for lawyers and service providers exploiting their children for money. When family resources run out, so do the intruders with their purported concerns and the needless controversies they perpetuate in countless cases. Our little ones suffer the most.

How did we, as intelligent Americans and loving parents, allow this to happen? How can we go on with our daily lives impaired by the crime statistics, productivity losses and health issues which this child industry has caused? Why are the presidential debates devoid of the most important issue of our day, the need to reform our domestic relations courts so that separated parents can be encouraged to raise their children in cooperative fashion? How can we continue to disregard a parenting rights case in our nation’s highest court which is being trumped by gay marriage advocates seeking the attention of the same court?

It took four years of hard work and sacrifice to get the John Parent case to the Supreme Court. During that time, less than $1,700 was donated to the cause, only $35 since the Supreme Court phase began last month. It cost over $2,000 in filing fees and print requirements alone just to have the case docketed, and even basic lawyer fees for the entire project is estimated to be well into the six figures. Yet many observers, detractors and self made “experts” continue to criticize and pontificate about this case without the slightest positive contribution. Is it no wonder that our family institutions are failing all around us?

A heartfelt thanks to all who have understood the importance of our work and perseverance on behalf of parents, children and families everywhere! We ask you again to get seriously involved in promoting John Parent v State of New York while the Supreme Court still has this case under its microscope. By December, this opportunity may slip by and never return, at least not during our lifetimes. It takes more than words and mere intentions to secure meaningful reform. And when it comes to our most cherished rights under the Constitution, there is no better place than our Supreme Court to make this happen. Just ask Ms. “Roe”, another fictitious plaintiff in the highly unexpected case of Roe v Wade, abortion rights circa 1973.

The staff and supporters at Leon Koziol.com.

Administrators Note: We are asking all followers of this website to kindly help support Dr. Koziol and his efforts to bring forth this precedent seeking case.

Dr. Koziol Interviewed About Parenting Rights Case

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012, Dr. Leon Koziol, Founder and President of the Parenting Rights Institute was the featured guest on tonight’s episode of The Edgington Post, hosted by Mark Edge of the nationally syndicated talk program, Free Talk Live. During the interview, Koziol discussed the John Parent v State of  New York, et. al, case no. 12-350 and what it means to caring parents.

The program can be heard in its entirety on the player below. In addition, please feel free to share the following program link with others at: http://snd.sc/OEpOQ2

If you would like to have Dr. Koziol as a guest on your talk program or would like to interview him regarding this precedent seeking case, please call (315) 796-4000.

Administrators Note: If you’ve been following our hard work and sacrifices on your behalf, you will hopefully recognize the need to secure financial resources. Kindly help support our efforts!

Call To Action: Help Contact Heritage Foundation for Support of Parenting Rights

IMPORTANT – Read this!

Dear Followers of Leon Koziol.Com

Please CALL the Heritage Foundation today at: (202) 546-4400 and ask them to help provide financial and organizational support for the John Parent case since this would more than likely fall under the category of Family and Marriage as listed under the “ISSUES” tab on their website.  The following individuals are listed as contacts under this category: Christine Kim, Jennifer A. Marshall, Katherine Bradley and Robert Rector. Here is a link to Senior Management which also need to be contacted (Click Here). We encourage you to be persistent and relentless in your efforts to reach these individuals for the purpose of developing a meaningful dialogue with this organization. 

Sadly, parenting rights continue to be ignored. However, nothing is going to change unless you decide to take immediate action TODAY!

Thank you in advance for your help!

Very truly yours,

Admin@leonkoziol.com

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

October 2, 2012

Rachel Sheffield
Research Specialist
Heritage Foundation

Rachel,

I am frankly shocked at the dismissive tone of your e-mail today on the subject of a parenting rights case being considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is not simply a “custody” matter. It is a precedent seeking case designed to reduce divorce conflict and child exploitation by lawyers and an overbuilt government bureaucracy. In that vein, it is on all fours with conservative family values and the entire message routinely delivered to the public by your advertised champion, Rush Limbaugh.

You obviously missed the mark on the entire court filing attached to my e-mail after our telephone chat. Is there someone else in your organization that I can speak to on this subject which was referred to your attention? Much like women who secured equal rights in employment with the help of male sympathizers, I am certain that you will agree that discriminated fathers deserve similar support and treatment by our courts. I have successfully represented victims of gender discrimination and sexual harassment to make this fair statement to you as we continue to contact financial supporters of the Heritage Foundation with the help of our followers.

I look forward to hearing from you again, perhaps through a person with more time to devote to this crucial issue. We too are very busy people in our endeavors, as evidenced by the complexity of subject matter embodied by the Supreme Court filing. To reiterate, it took four years to work this case through the federal court system against the odds. Gay marriage activists are working before the same Supreme Court to have their similarly docketed case heard as we speak. Perhaps you will report on their efforts or simply wait to attack an inevitable outcome. Those efforts deserve an appropriate balance which is now found in our John Parent v State of New York case, docket no. 12-350. Please take a further look at our promotional efforts at Leon Koziol.com.

Very truly yours,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
President and Founder
Parenting Rights Institute

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Sheffield, Rachel <Rachel.Sheffield@heritage.org> wrote:

Hi Mr. Koziol,

I just wanted to let you know that I received your email with the attached Petition for Writ. Unfortunately, I don’t believe I will be able to assist you with your endeavors. We don’t generally focus on custody matters, and our workload is currently quite full. I do wish you all the best.

Kind Regards,

Rachel Sheffield


Rachel Sheffield
Research Associate
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002


From: Leon Koziol [mailto:leonkoziol@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:44 PM
To: Sheffield, Rachel
Subject: Privacy Limits and Equality in Divorce and Family Court

Rachel:

Attached is the Petition for Writ docketed by the Supreme Court this past week which we discussed on the phone today. To summarize, this is a federal lawsuit pending before the highest court in our nation which originated in Syracuse, New York. The case has worked its way to Albany, New York City and finally Washington D. C. over a four year period of litigation and its aim is to eliminate unequal classifications (“custodial” and “non-custodial” parents) in most divorce and Family Court cases where parents remain jointly involved in childrearing processes.The fact of divorce or separation should not automatically lead to custody and support battles because such processes not only harm our children but they reward lawyers who orchestrate needless controversies.

It is a problem which is harming our family structure, criminal justice system, worker productivity, health care and moral fiber as a nation. Few cases locally make it this far, and although the high court hears only a small percentage of petitions filed worldwide, this case has a unique appeal given the lack of Supreme Court precedent on the subject of privacy violations. When the state forces parents to war over their own children, it opens the door to a monitoring process which gets into every aspect of our homes, careers and finances. The John Parent case is a classic example which, like Roe v Wade, features a fictitious name allowed by a lower federal judge to represent all “parents similarly situated”. We were unable to convert this case into a class action due to a lack of resources, but it remains a test case for purposes of setting a limit upon the powers of the state to interfere with sensitive childrearing practices in the privacy of our homes. Of course it is not intended to encompass legitimate cases of child abuse or neglect which justify state interevention and custody titles.

Its significance is illustrated by five cases involving gay marriage which reached the Supreme Court recently, but only one (out of New York state) was actually docketed for consideration. This is the only case I am aware of regarding parental privacy and equality which is being considered. A decision should be handed down by Christmas but any story on the subject should be more in the way of a special report or documentary which could easily obtain national attention. The case also features free speech and free press issues after I criticized my own profession for its unethical practices in domestic relations courts. Rather than responding with long overdue reform, the local bar simply turned its guns on the messenger and suspended my law license after 23 successful and unblemished years as a civil rights lawyer. It is an ordeal which reads like a John Grisham novel.

This is not the first time I sacrificed myself for the sake of “the little guy” in race, gender, religion and police brutality cases. For example, I was forced from my position as chief counsel for the City of Utica in 1997 when I declared the mayor’s media gag order at the time unconstitutional. I successfully sued the perpetrators, and you can look up the case on-line by googling Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.Supp.2d 170 (NDNY 2000). I also represented a landowners group and got the Turning Stone casino gaming compact declared unconstitutional in June, 2004 (after appearing on “60 Minutes”), see Oneida Indian Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY 2000); see also Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (CA 2, 2004)(involving $333,000.00 jury verdict on a civil rights case). Simply stated, this is a well prosecuted lawsuit despite the criticisms and retaliations from lawyers and judges. As the victim and sponsor of the John Parent v State of New York case now before the Supreme Court, this is a petition having far reaching potential and implications. Your interest is very commendable and a credit to your profession. Feel free to contact me anytime. Thank you.

Best regards,

Leon Koziol, J.D.

Koziol to Be Interviewed by Host of National Radio Program

Administrators Note: We are asking all followers of LeonKoziol.Com to assist us by sharing this news release with members of the media for the purpose of bringing public attention to this important case as well as seeking donations to help cover the burden of litigation expenses.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LeonKoziol.Com
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13502

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Parental Rights Activist to Be Interviewed by Host of National Radio Program

UTICA, New York (October 2, 2012) – Parental rights activist, Dr. Leon Koziol, the President and Founder of the Parenting Rights Institute will appear as a guest on the Wednesday, October 3, 2012 pod cast edition of the Edgington Post with Mark Edge, the Host of the Free Talk Live national radio program.

Koziol, who has appeared in the past on other news programs such as 60 Minutes, CNN and was also featured in the New York Times, will be discussing a precedent seeking case that he has recently filed with the United States Supreme Court along with other parenting rights related issues. The case, John Parent v State of New York, et.al., was docketed by the Supreme Court under Case Number 12-350 and challenges mandatory classifications of custody and non-custody in all divorce and family court disputes.

“An unequal doctrine of parenting laws in the states causes needless money transfers which harm parent-child relationships through manufactured court room controversies, many of which could otherwise be preventable,” says Koziol.

The Free Talk Live program airs Monday through Sunday from 7:PM to 10:PM and can be heard on the Free Talk Live Website as well as 110 radio and 4 television stations across the United States, including WSYR Newsradio 570 AM and 106.9 FM, in nearby Syracuse, NY.  In addition, pod casts of the The Edgington Post are available as an RSS feed to Microsoft Outlook from the Free Talk Live Website.

LeonKoziol.Com is a nationally recognized blog site dedicated to preserving parent-child relationships. To find out more, please visit www.leonkoziol.com.

Contact:
admin@leonkoziol.com
(315) 796-4000

###

Supreme Court Fi l ing: What it Means to Caring Parents in America

On September 20, 2012, the case of John Parent v State of  New York, et. al., no. 12-350, was docketed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Parents and family advocates are now needed to convince the high court to hear this precedent seeking case. It took four years of sacrifice to get it through the federal and state court system, and it may be many more years before the next opportunity comes along.

We are seeking to stimulate a grass roots effort and fundraising initiative during the month of October, 2012 to bring families together behind a moral imperative at the steps of our nation’s highest court. Already we find gay marriage activists organizing behind a similarly docketed case. Why aren’t mainstream moms and dads getting the same level of support and attention? Are we to blame for our own apathy?

To be sure, lawyers and court beneficiaries are not going to do this for us. Here is what it means to you, so please share it with others:

1)  John Parent is a fictitious name granted by a lower federal court not unlike the petitioner in Roe v Wade to protect the privacy rights of family litigants. It is intended to encompass all parents victimized by abusive divorce, custody and support processes in the states.

2)  The “Parent” petition asks the high court to set a limit upon state interferences in our private lives when it forces parents to war over their own children. For example, court orders without “custody” titles are a less restrictive option which more closely satisfies constitutional requirements.

3)  The case hopes to secure constitutional protection for shared parenting and joint childrearing arrangements after divorce or separation. Such protection will reduce parental alienation, family conflict and child seizures caused by lawyers and evaluators who benefit from needless litigation.

4)  An extraordinary First Amendment question in this case requires Supreme Court review: Are judges and lawyers immune from public criticisms of their childrearing authority? Severe retributions were inflicted upon a conscientious advocate who went against his own profession to bring this long overdue case.

These issues will remain subject to diverse and harmful treatment in our local courts unless you get involved in the John Parent case today. Please contact fellow victims, alert the media, make your donations on our site at Leon Koziol.com and buy our court avoidance program at www.familyretention.com or www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. You can also contact the case sponsor, Leon R. Koziol, J.D. directly at (315) 796-4000.

If you’ve been following our hard work and sacrifices on your behalf, you will hopefully recognize the need to secure financial resources. Kindly consider supporting our efforts!

Parental Alienation the Focus in Supreme Court

Administrators Note: We are asking all followers of LeonKoziol.Com to assist us by sharing this news release with  members of the media for the purpose of bringing public attention to this important case as well as seeking donations to help cover the burden of litigation expenses.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LeonKoziol.Com
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13502

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Supreme Court Dockets Parenting Rights Case

UTICA, New York (September 28, 2012) – After working its way through the federal courts over the past four years, the case of John Parent v State of New York, et.al., was docketed by the Supreme Court under Case Number 12-350 and now awaits decision by the Justices after briefing deadlines set for October 22nd.

This precedent seeking case challenges mandatory classifications of custody and non-custody in all divorce and family court disputes. The plaintiff-petitioner John Parent is a fictitious name granted by a lower federal court to represent parents needlessly abused in our nation’s domestic relations courts and seeks to set a limit upon the states’ widespread intrusions of family privacy and joint child rearing arrangements. Issues presented include:

Have the states treaded too deeply upon the privacy rights of families in divorce and child rearing matters through the creation of a custodial institution and unequal doctrine of parenting?

Whether select treatment of pleadings and facts below foreclosed public interest rulings on important constitutional questions?

Can a state’s judicial process be abused to suppress First Amendment rights and foreclose access to a federal forum on judicial immunity, domestic exception and abstention policies?

Does the Constitution protect a conscientious civil rights attorney who publicly criticized his profession for its harm to American families in domestic relations litigation?

Observers have drawn a striking parallel between Chinese lawyers seeking asylum in this country and the American civil rights attorney behind the John Parent case in view of retributions upon the public criticisms of each nation’s domestic relations practices.

LeonKoziol.Com is a nationally recognized blog site dedicated to preserving parent-child relationships. To find out more, please visit www.leonkoziol.com.

Contact:
LeonKoziol.Com
admin@leonkoziol.com
(315) 796-4000

###