By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
In a recent public debate regarding political bias in our federal courts, Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer unwittingly supported Donald Trump by agreeing that many of our high court’s decisions “seem highly political.” Schumer was adding his views to that of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who publicly rebuked the president by denying any politics in our high court. He proclaimed that “what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal rights to those appearing before them.”
Never mind the grammatical peculiarity of that statement, his rebuke of Trump is contradicted by his consistent refusal to hear judicial accountability cases submitted to him throughout his long tenure as Chief Justice. In my own efforts to expose and rectify judicial corruption over the same period of time, I sought review seven times. All were denied without comment. These cases presented subjects ranging from family court gag orders to a pedophile judge removed from my custody case and ultimately from the bench altogether (Bryan Hedges).
As a general rule of ethics, judges should avoid public comment particularly on cases which are under consideration or which may ultimately come before them. An example where a violation of that rule got out of control is when Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg conducted a series of news interviews in 2016 against then private citizen Donald Trump. She did so before he earned his party’s nomination and it sucked her into an elevating extrajudicial controversy. Even the liberal media condemned her antics, and it compelled me to file a motion for her disqualification in Koziol v U.S. District Court (Gary Sharpe), Case No. 15-1519 (2016).
At first the motion in a case then under consideration could not be found ten days after receipt. Upon further inquiry, the properly filed motion was located by a court clerk but treated as a “Suggestion” by the judges. It was never ruled upon. This was a judicial accountability case (extraordinary writ) which sought to open our federal courts to parents victimized by constitutional violations in our nation’s domestic courts. It also sought First Amendment protection for judicial whistleblowers and websites promoting Donald Trump’s candidacy. By denying writ on that case, the issue of judicial integrity in our nation’s highest court was avoided.
I sought to test that proposition by following with a case that challenged the composition of the court as ineffectual under Article III of the Constitution. The current nine-member court has only three more than it did in 1789 when the Supreme Court was created. At that time, our nation’s population was less than 4 million, the justices traveled by stage coach to their chambers and the law was delivered on parchment paper. Today our population is over 300 million, travel can be accomplished faster than the speed of sound and decisions are issued globally in a fraction of a second. Writ was denied in that case too (Koziol v King).
Most recently, I presented a case docketed by the same high court on September 5, 2018 which sought to condemn corruption that was rampant on my support and custody cases (and those of other victims), Koziol v Chief Judge DiFiore, Case No. 18-278. A motion for stay was denied by Judge Ginsburg without mention of the earlier undecided recusal motion. A supplemental brief followed to emphasize the life threatening consequences arising from a judicial whistleblower denied all legal protection over a ten year period. The brief was accepted but the entire case was denied the next day. Now how can it be that Judge Ginsburg, found snoozing at an Obama state of the union address many years ago, could have reviewed the case personally without so much as an adjournment?
This brand of judicial integrity and commitment forces people to seek relief elsewhere for constitutional violations. When the judicial system breaks down as severely as it did in my case, and that of countless others in our divorce and family courts, the victims take matters into their own hands. Domestic violence escalates, mass murders and suicides grow, worker productivity declines and our societal problems magnify many times over. In place of self-help remedies of the violent kind, I have developed a self-representation program designed to reduce court costs, promote parental integrity and get the victims out of these courts as quickly as possible for the true “best interests” of our children.
It is urgent that you share this message, promote my program to help finance reform efforts and earn a $50 finder’s fee with every purchase. Order it yourself now on this site!
Dr. Leon R. Koziol