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

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.

Will Donald Trump File a Brief on Supreme Court Case No. 15-1519 Re: First Amendment and Justice Ginsburg?

 

donald-trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg2

The following e-mail submitted to Michael Cohen, Chief Counsel for Donald Trump is self-explanatory:

September 12, 2016

Michael Cohen
Chief Counsel
Trump Organization
725 fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Re:  Donald Trump’s position on Supreme Court issues

Dear Mike:

Weeks ago you and I discussed the motion filed on my pending case before the Supreme Court regarding a disqualification of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That motion was accepted as a “Suggestion for Recusal” on August 9, 2016 under Case No. 15-1519; Leon R. Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It will be decided on or after September 26, 2016. That gives Donald Trump exactly two weeks to submit a formal position directly to our nation’s high court in the way of an amicus brief, even if limited only to his campaign issues.

Because Justice Ginsburg opened the Trump campaign to public criticism, it is only fair that Mr. Trump seize the opportunity which I have uniquely provided for him. This is truly an extraordinary case. With professional football players exercising their First Amendment rights on 9-11 without retribution, my case features a civil rights attorney punished for his accurate criticisms of our Third Branch of Government. My mandamus action is directed to a federal judge removed from a case because of a human gene he used to decide cases which the scientific community will purportedly not discover for 50 years (Northern District Judge Gary Sharpe in United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82).

I am once again sending you a copy of my motion. Please contact me at your earliest convenience at (315) 796-4000.

Very truly yours,

Leon R. Koziol

 

Please share today’s post: http://wp.me/pXgi5-2tf

Video footage taken from a Donald Trump rally held earlier in the year at Albany, NY. The event was attended by staff members at Leon Koziol.Com

Dr. Leon Koziol Featured on Justice Served News Program

images

Listen to Dr. Leon Koziol on the Justice Served news program with show host Andy Ostrowski

Visit: http://www.justiceserved.online/

Click the Archives tab at the top of the screen and select Justice Served, scroll down to the Justice Served listing for July-August- September 2016 and listen to Episode 130 – August 25, 2016.

 

Please share today’s post: http://wp.me/pXgi5-2kM

Ginsburg-Trump Conflict Docketed for Decision by Supreme Court

img_0278
Civil Rights and Parental Advocate, Leon Koziol, is joined by a Florida doctor, California dentist and Virginia engineer to announce the filing of a petition for First Amendment protections and parental equality on the steps of the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016.

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

I have practiced law in both federal and state courts at all levels for nearly 30 years, and I have never seen anything like this. After exposing corruption in our third branch of government as a judicial whistle blower, I was targeted by family court and ethics lawyers to a point where access to my daughters and law license  were harmed.

As a civil rights advocate in 2009, I logically sought recourse for constitutional violations in federal court but was repeatedly thwarted by selective treatment to suppress my reform message. I finally reached the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016 in a case docketed as Leon Koziol v United States District Court, No. 15-1519. Three weeks later, Justice Ruth Ginsburg launched a campaign from chambers attacking Donald Trump in the presidential race.

Mr. Trump had not yet been endorsed by any political party. Hence his free speech had come under fire as a private citizen while my case was focused on a censored website that supported his campaign. Justice Ginsburg was important to my case because it relied upon a number of her decisions. But having come this far, I could not contradict my own principles by ignoring the debacle which played out during the week of July 14, 2016.

So I filed a motion for her recusal (disqualification) together with other necessary relief. It was received on August 9, 2016 but never publicly docketed until today, August 22, 2016, after inquiries I made last week. I was informed that my motion had not yet been located. When it was found, a decision was made to treat it as a “suggestion for recusal.” The other relief sought by my motion under Rule 21 would have to be re-filed separately.

Included in that relief was a requested adjournment of the Court’s conference on my petition until after the elections to permit interested third parties, including Donald Trump, to file briefs in support of my case or to otherwise present their positions. I spoke to Michael Cohen, attorney for Donald Trump, who expressed interest in its outcome. A copy was e-mailed  to him but it had not been docketed at the time. Now we await decision.

This is a case important to the presidential race for other reasons. Shared parenting and equality in our nation’s family courts have not been addressed by any candidate even though they impacted everything from Hillary’s Village to Trump’s reforms. These courts have been transformed into a trillion dollar industry at the heart of so many of today’s social, health and productivity issues.

The last time our Supreme Court squarely addressed a parenting issue was in the 1989 case, Michael H.v Gerald D., 491 US 10. This may be our best chance in decades to make a long overdue mark in domestic relations. Hence,on September 17,2016 (Constitution Day), a rally has been proposed at Lincoln Memorial to support this case and oppose corruption. We encourage all victimized families to join us in a message to our national leaders.

Please help us get this message viral. We have been ignored for too long. Get involved. It’s now or never to make this stand for justice and our children.

Dr. Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

(315) 796-4000


Please share this post – Here is the short link: http://wp.me/pXgi5-2hC

Motion Asks Justice Ginsburg To Step Down From Judicial Whistle Blower Case

index

Extraordinary Case Focuses on Judicial Ethics and Court Abuses

An unprecedented case docketed in the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016  became more extraordinary when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lashed out at a presidential candidate one month later. After working its way through federal and state courts, the judicial whistle blower action, Leon Koziol v United States District Court, finally reached our high court.

At the core of the case is a targeted website which exposes corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Maintained by a parental advocate with over 25 years of litigation experience, it exposes corruption in our third branch of government and resulted in severe retributions for the sponsor and judicial whistle blower, Dr. Leon R. Koziol.

The website, http://www.leonkoziol.com was subjected to a variety of discreet and overt forms of government retaliation including an unconstitutional gag order imposed by a family judge eventually lifted when a mandamus action was filed in New York Supreme Court. This site also featured a number of anti-liberal posts defending Donald Trump since August, 2015.

The action seeks recourse for political activity outside the scope of judicial office which is then applied in decision making processes beyond the knowledge or fair input of adversely impacted litigants. It is a First and Fourteenth Amendment case committed to improving the conduct of our justice system through the supervisory jurisdiction of our highest court.

With a conference date now set by the Justices for September 26, 2016, Dr. Koziol was forced to file a motion on August 9, 2016 seeking disqualification of Justice Ginsburg from Case No. 15-1519. It also seeks an adjournment until after election day to permit good government groups and interested parties including Donald Trump to file amicus briefs.

(Click Here to Download August 5, 2016 Motion for Disqualification from Scribd)

Such a motion is not new but rarely employed as it was by the Sierra Club in the 2004 case of Cheney v United States District Court, directed to Justice Scalia. The opening statement of the motion here is reprinted below:

On June 17, 2016, this Court docketed Case No. 15-1519 entitled Leon R. Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It is an extraordinary action based, inter alia, on this Court’s ruling in Cheney v United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 US 367 (2004). It seeks vital recourse for civil rights violations by judges and their agents who impeded access to this Court. These violations were conceived beyond the scope of judicial office and executed through an abuse of such office. They comprise retributions for petitioner’s ten year exposure of corruption in our third branch of government.

It is an ordeal that reads like a John Grisham novel but plays out in real life as a dark side to justice meted out against judicial whistle blowers as a way of covering up serious misconduct. It is a lesson for advocates of free speech and press everywhere who dare to risk their families and livelihoods on the misplaced notion that those entrusted with the highest duty of safeguarding our constitutional rights will do so even when they are themselves the necessary subjects of public criticism.

Quite apart from the unconscionable injuries inflicted upon a native born American, these violations have serious implications for all citizens in that they usurp the self-governing authority of a free society, they make the case that other whistle blowers such as Edward Snowden can never expect fair treatment in the states, and that money and influence will invariably prevail over the rule of law in our nation’s courts. Indeed, on all fronts and in all branches of government, we are at a crossroads in that never ending quest to guarantee “liberty and justice for all.”

img_0278
A Florida doctor, California dentist and Virginia engineer join Dr. Leon Koziol on June 17, 2016 at the United States Supreme Court to announce the filing of a case seeking parental equality and judicial accountability in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

(Click Here to Download June 17, 2016 Petition for Writ from Scribd)

 

Please Share Today’s Posthttp://wp.me/pXgi5-2bj

 

News Update: Was Justice Scalia Murdered?

antonin-scalia-memorial-from-media-general
In light of recent news reports surrounding the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there is a developing story that is raising many serious questions. It should not be hard to believe that a scandal of horrific proportion may have occurred to a Supreme Court Justice much like other famous Americans such as JFK, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, all victims of politically motivated assignation. It is well known that Justice Scalia was a pivotal vote on crucial issues coming before the high court such as abortion, guns, immigration and the environment.

Michael Savage: ‘Was Scalia murdered?’

Talk-radio giant calls for ‘Warren Commission’: ‘This is serious business

(Click Here to Read Story)

Please Share Today’s Post: http://wp.me/pXgi5-1cX