Happy Thanksgiving to America’s “Family” Court Predators.

 

untitled
The Family Court Turkey: Who Gets That “Award” In Your Case?

Administrator’s Note: This is the first of a three-part series we call the “Thanksgiving Trilogy.” With all the uncompensated work we have put into our joint reform efforts over the years, we have neither the resources nor the time to make it viral. We leave that to you, our fellow victims, tortured as you must be right now. So kindly pick one, pick them all, and make good therapy of your time by sending them out to the world. Send it to your representative in Congress or state legislature, a commission, good government group, your lawyer, even your parent “adversary” on this “thankless” family day. Maybe you’ll be very happy you did.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

You have to wonder how they do it: America’s family court predators. They sit down each year at their Thanksgiving Day tables pretending to be normal and family oriented; the voodoo judges, practitioners and evaluators who have done more to destroy Thanksgiving than Hitler could have hoped for. They are the profiteers of a “custody” racket that would make any underworld figure envious. They are the real turkeys eating their own young.

There has never been a comprehensive study of the vast harm which these predators are causing to parents, children and families, let alone our productivity as a nation. We all know that any such study would be blocked or diluted by bar associations and other special interests. After all, it is a trillion-dollar gold mine they have cultivated and they mean to protect it at all costs (as I learned firsthand).

These predators feed off the almighty “custody” award, a lucrative engine for service fees of all kinds. It is mandated by federal law, Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Nowhere in that law is there any provision for shared parenting, and it has been adopted by states to obtain federal funds for court operations. Such “awards” make the winners feel real special. But in the end, they can become big time losers.

In my travels, I have come across custodial parents begging for the opportunity to turn the clocks back, to save their consciences and children from the harm which these “awards caused them. One of my predecessors, Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer, traveled the country exposing the corruption until 2010 when she was found dead in her bedroom, victim of a highly suspicious murder-suicide by her husband of 51 years.

I have submitted reports to judicial commissions, our Justice Department and a congressional oversight committee. All were ignored, lost or destroyed. In a nutshell, the lucrative “custody” battles fueled by Title IV-D results in creatures of statute known as “custodial” and “non-custodial” parents in place of the traditional mom or dad. Bizarre terms such as “custody” and “visitation” keep this long broken engine running, a Model T in an era of the internet.

Such terms are more appropriate for prisons and funerals. “Non-custodial” dads and moms are treated as visitors in their children’s lives, eventually ousted altogether as truly functioning parents. Meanwhile their “custodial” counterparts are not real “moms” or “dads.” They are doing everything in their “power” to find fake substitutes to keep the tax-free welfare benefits coming (child support).

These “antiquated” terms have been condemned by progressive jurists because they bring out the worst in parents when children need their best, i.e. veteran Family Judge Dennis Duggan in Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (2001) at fn. 1. But such decisions are quickly overturned and suppressed. And so, the band plays on, a regular freak show known as “family court,” a tribunal which one Supreme Court Justice labeled a Kangaroo operation, In re: Gault, 387 US 1 at 27-28.

In the spirit of Stalin and Hitler, we now have children spying on their parents to enrich their court appointed lawyers. It has become so absurd that the tail is wagging the dog, an “inverted order of childrearing” as I have called it in my studies, a formula so psychotic that logical minded “non-custodial” parents are ultimately forced to abandon their time-tested roles. And that’s when the state takes over (refer to your “custody order”).

Welcome to “Fatherless and Motherless America.”

Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

(315) 796-4000

 

 

 

Why Pay A Lawyer If Your Judge Has Been Bribed?

cow lawyer
Judges have been accepting bribes for centuries, pictured here milking the family court “cow” with mom and dad lawyers on either side breaking it in half.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Judicial misconduct is the most censored, least publicized and gravest aspect of our federal, state and local governments. You can simply ignore it and move to your next on-line entertainment, but chances are it will find you especially in our nation’s domestic relations courts. So read on and share this post. It may be the most important one you will read in a long time.

The judiciary is our least accountable branch of government. Anyone who dares to reform it can expect severe retributions with no recourse. Judges enjoy absolute immunity for their reckless and even malicious acts. Judicial conduct commissions from New York to California are window dressing entities influenced by politics, typically investigating less than 10% of complaints.

So what does that mean to you? How do you know if your case is not already fixed, rigged or bought-off? You’re spending thousands, even millions of dollars in lawyer fees while your judge has already decided against you due to a bribe or political influence. Are you shocked by that, naive about the people in robes? Well here at Leon Koziol.com and Parenting Rights Institute, we have generated shocking examples of judicial and lawyer misconduct from our work all across America.

We are an up and coming “Judicial Watch” for divorce and family courts, doing the work where our oversight commissions are failing us. Currently we are soliciting investors and donors to upgrade our effectiveness. We will come into your community, home or court to monitor your case and seek accountability for any misconduct. As Director of Parenting Rights Institute with nearly 30 years of trial experience in both federal and state courts, I am dedicated to exposing corruption. It may be the only way you can secure true justice and turn things around.

We offer a Court Strategy Program to keep you from being abused and a team of experts prepared to expose corruption in your case if it exists. It is well worth your while, for he sake of your children if nothing else, to look us up at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com or call our office at (315) 380-3420. Then take a look at this shocking excerpt of misconduct from a book I have written to be published for divorce victim Tamara Sweeney entitled Jurassic Justice:

Examples of court corruption are provided throughout my work for victims nationwide. Many are quietly suppressed and “read like a docket sheet in any criminal court.” That is what I declared publicly time and again. Yet the public continues to hold judges beyond reproach. The fallacy of that belief was well demonstrated by my custody judge who was also declared by lawyers as  “beyond reproach,” at least until he was removed from the bench after admitting to sexual misconduct on his handicapped five year old niece: In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

One of the shocking cases cited to make my point, and the need for meaningful accountability, involves a New York Supreme Court Judge in Brooklyn caught on camera taking a bribe from a divorce lawyer. It was part of a scam to shift custody from a mother to an influential father. Had the feisty mother not convinced the FBI to act upon her evidence, this judge, Gerald Garson, would still be dispensing “justice.” It begs the question: how many other such judges and cases are there? What can explain Tamara’s bizarre case? We let you decide as our story continues.

The conviction of Judge Garson for federal crimes was actually not the most shocking part of his case. Due punishment was compromised by judges and lawyer colleagues supporting his early release in 2009. Now you have to ponder that for a moment. If Garson’s colleagues are still backing him after a crime which goes to the heart of our justice system, what does that say for their tolerance of corruption generally? Isn’t this where precedent is set and examples are made?

While the “Honorable” “Justice” Gerald Garson was busy generating unreported income through an abuse of judicial office, another New York Supreme Court Judge, Thomas Spargo, was busy securing a bribe against a father arguing a client case before him. At a dinner conversation, he requested $10,000 to help defray the cost of legal fees needed to defend against judicial misconduct charges pending against him at the time.

Like Judge Garson, you have to ponder that as well. Judge Spargo was already being prosecuted for judicial misconduct and resorted to more serious behavior to get out of it. He referenced this lawyer’s own divorce which might be transferred to him. The pressure was not uncomplicated. Play ball or else. I suppose the lawyer could have won his divorce for a nominal “fee” to this judge when compared to a contested case. He was placed in a real quandary, deciding ultimately to report the crime only after taking steps to avoid false claims that could cost his law license.

Chief Justice Sol Wachtler of New York’s high court was imprisoned for numerous crimes during the nineties. In his book, After the Madness, he explained that judges are made to believe that they are gods. Such deep rooted convictions do not disappear. Judge Wachtler went so far as to direct paid court staff to dig up grounds for preventing licensure of a New Jersey lawyer assisting the judge’s mistress to discover a man making extortionist and kidnapping threats involving her daughter. That elusive man turned out to be the judge himself.

Then there’s that family court judge in the state of Michigan, the “Honorable” Wade McCree, whose case defied all manner of ethics. He admitted to adulterous sex in chambers with a litigant mother while presiding over her child support case. Judge McCree was removed from the bench for all sorts of misconduct involving numerous cases only after the affair (and pregnancy) was confirmed. The father, placed on a tether for support arrears during this affair was denied recovery for the horrific misconduct by a federal appeals court on grounds of judge immunity.

These and other cases are easily found on the internet to verify a judicial corruption epidemic of undefined proportion. Most people view judges as honorable office holders committed to justice, equality and all that other good stuff we read about in high school civics classes. But behind the black robes, in the recesses of chambers and among discreet exchanges in restaurants, bars and golf courses, there is often quite another set of characteristics at play.

Bias, coercion, schemes, scams, deal-making and outright crimes are taking place which violate all manner of ethics formally placed in our judicial codes. In our nation’s domestic relations courts, such corruption is taken to the next level under a pretext of family confidentiality, thereby concealing the misconduct and protecting a trillion dollar industry built on needless conflict.

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.