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.

Parents Recognized In Presidential Debates, But Will Their Rights Be Protected?

By  Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Well it finally happened.  In the third round of debates for president and vice-president, parents were recognized for their importance to American society. It began with Mitt Romney toward the end of the Hofstra engagement with the rights of children to have both parents involved in their lives. This was the closest that any candidate in recent memory has come to recognizing the plight of fathers routinely discriminated in America’s domestic relations courts.

The Republican candidate explained that marriage as opposed to contraceptives should be the preferred agenda of government on social issues, drawing upon a conservative ideology which aligned him with the likes of Ronald Reagan (but not George Bush). However, he wrapped things up with his now infamous “binder of women” approach to equal rights derived from his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.

The Democrat candidate quickly shot back, declaring women to be a family issue and thereby saving himself from a liberal philosophy that essentially declares the other half of the voting population to be evil. It allowed Barack Obama to join Mario Cuomo’s “Family of New York” and Hillary Clinton’s “Village”. He then returned safely to the women’s rights issue by declaring that his daughters deserved equal opportunities.

Nowhere in the debate was the issue of fatherless America raised. Like a sacred cow forever guarded by the same feminists who demand equality in all other areas of “the law”, no candidate for either office dared to confront our last bastion of institutionalized discrimination. Yet most rational minded voters would agree that fatherless families are a leading cause of our social problems today.

We pay for it in the contraceptives supplied through taxation, an escalation of crime, abuse of assault rifles and the rise in health care costs, all issues which dominated the debates. Meanwhile the damage to our productivity goes unmentioned as lawyers and government agents regulate our lives in divorce and Family Court. Indeed it takes no lawyer to conclude that these same issues are the symptoms and not the root of our problems in America today.

Flying well off this radar screen is a parenting rights case being considered by the Supreme Court. It was docketed on September 20, 2012 under the caption John Parent v State of New York, no 12-350. Parent is a fictitious party like the one permitted in Roe v Wade, and it is intended to represent parents victimized in our nation’s domestic relations courts. More than a civil rights case, it is a human rights cause designed to restore protection for the “oldest liberty interest” recognized under our Constitution.

Hopefully, all candidates for public office will take note of this case, if not the greater issue, even if the high court rejects it in favor of gay marriage, funeral protesters and other matters of “national prominence”. It took four grueling years for John Parent to work his way through our federal courts. Now it’s time to give him a chance to be heard. Our viability as a free and civilized nation depends upon it.

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
President and Founder
Parenting Rights Institute
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, New York 13502(315) 796-4000
leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com

Is Chen Guangcheng Really Any Safer in the United States?

Recently we featured a blog entry in regards to Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese legal activist who fled house arrest and sought refuge with U.S. diplomats after local officials waged a vendetta against him for exposing a campaign of forced abortions and other abuses of China’s harsh birth control policy. Over the weekend we learned from the Los Angeles Times that Chen Guangcheng is now safe in the U.S.

Read full story (Click Here)

We are asking our followers here at www.leonkoziol.com, to contact the following reporters (both email and follow-up telephone calls) whose names appear in this article and let them know the truth about how non-custodial parents are treated here in the United States. They may be surprised to learn that those who dare challenge our very own current domestic relations policies are often treated in a similar manner much like that of Chen Guangcheng. Perhaps these reporters could provide a sufficient explanation as to why this is?

Furthermore, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney also appears to need some schooling on our nation’s domestic relations policies. Mr. Romney was quick to criticize the Obama administration for its handling of this particular matter, however, in the next breath he stated, “This episode underscores the need for the United States to forthrightly stand up for the human rights of the Chinese people,” when referring to Mr. Guangcheng’s safe arrival in the United States. In our opinion here at www.leonkoziol.com, we believe that Mr. Romney would be wise to educate himself in advance with respect to the hypocritical state of human rights here in the United States faced by non-custodial parents, before attacking his political adversaries and advocating  for the rights of foreign countries in an effort to garner political support.

Los Angeles Times
Mailing Address:
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 237-5000

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

barbara.demick@latimes.com

andrew.tangel@latimes.com

Mascaro reported from Washington, Demick from Beijing and Tangel from New York.

Staff writers Paul Richter and Christi Parsons in Camp David, Md., contributed to this report.