How can Chief Justice John Roberts proclaim integrity after refusing to hear judicial accountability cases?

img_0275
Dr. Leon Koziol and fellow family court victims after a 2016 news conference at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

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!

Best regards,

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

(315) 796-4000

 

An Inspiring Gift to All Loving Dads on Fathers’ Day

img_0476
A friend I made during a documentary excursion in western New York last year

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Well the day has finally come, the earliest release of my startling new book to be formally published later this summer regarding divorce and family court corruption. I am making the opening chapter available at no charge as a gift to all loving dads on Fathers’ Day 2017. Please share it freely.

It is also a release that is highly beneficial as an educational product for all abused parents and families. The background for this book and an excerpt demonstrating its wide appeal were posted here the past two nights. This one will conclude my Fathers’ Day trilogy.

Last year, I was joined at this time by a doctor, dentist and engineer from different parts of the country on the steps of the United States Supreme Court. We conducted a news conference in support of a first-ever shared parenting case.

Today, one year later, fathers continue to be discriminated and oppressed in these courts. Nothing has changed in decades while other equality movements have achieved great strides. Gay-lesbian rights, for example, have long passed us by.

Due to my continuing stand, judicial whistleblowing and a pretend mother seeking to replace me with a millionaire father, I will not be able to see my daughters this Fathers’ Day. I have never been found to be unfit, never charged with any crime, never a child abuse report. The public is witness to my model parenting.

Since my testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption in 2013, I have received no phone calls from my teen daughters. This form of cruel and unusual punishment is un-American and unprecedented from a human rights standpoint. My book is the foundation for a renewed crusade against the injustice.

The pretend mother, Kelly Hawse-Koziol, has gone to the extreme of alienating my children in every way. Sadistic judges and lawyers bent on revenge have joined her sick agenda. Together they have managed to eradicate every aspect of the paternal family in a manner which would impress Adolph Hitler himself.

The opening chapter of this book is my response. It is highly relevant to that alienation and should inspire all to action. The events you will read are shocking but true, backed by footnotes and voluminous files. Help me promote this three year project any way you can for the sake of similar victims. Unity is sorely needed.

The complete 100,000 word manuscript has been offered to New York’s high court for protection from ongoing censorship by an unethical ethics committee whose chief counsel and deputy lawyers resigned quietly due to falsified time sheets. The book relates my ordeal and that of many others I met in a nationwide reform effort.

Nearly every paragraph, phrase and word contained in this literary work carries with it special meaning for the more discerning reader. It can easily be missed. However every segment of this chapter is fleshed out with increased intrigue in the 20 chapters which follow.

Happy Fathers’ Day !

                                                                   Chapter  1

Return to Paris

Cumulous clouds were advancing toward the Maginot Line as our jet engines announced their approach to Charles de Gaulle Airport. Out of curiosity, I squinted northeast toward those extensive fortifications as we made another swing over Paris.

Somewhere out there was a barn where my father had been concealed when that Line proved ineffectual to Hitler’s invasion. Somewhere out there my dad was returned to the war against the Nazis during the liberation of France.

His name was Louis, and after that war he wanted no more of the horrors he had survived in Europe. He ended up raising a family in the United States, land of liberty as he loved to call it, never imagining that his son would one day return here to escape persecution in America.

That may seem implausible to you, but it was occurring on this very flight. I’ll explain as we go along. For now, it’s the paradox of my bizarre journey through a lucrative court system, a conscientious stand against my profession and an evil which has lurked there for too long.

As I peered out the fuselage, thoughts of my predicament overshadowed the grandeur of the city below. Still incomprehensible was my pending status as a fugitive from justice, or more precisely a victim of injustice, a whistleblower not unlike Edward Snowden or Julian Assange. The main difference is that I hadn’t even been accused of any crime. I was no threat to national security.

As insane as that paradox in the clouds, my only crime was that I wanted to spend more time with my precious daughters during a divorce case. While committing that crime, I was forced to expose the real ones in a government industry that was extinguishing parenthood as we know it. The shocking events you will now read about comprise the retributions which followed.

This was a continuing ordeal after ten years. Its perpetrators figured that no human could sustain such abuse for so long. Who would believe it anyway? Like Nazis in the day, they labeled me, seized my children, ruined my livelihood, and subjected me to a form of house arrest. Ultimately I would succumb to a stroke, breakdown or untimely death. I would simply vanish along with my judicial whistleblowing. Judicial waterboarding is the way I put it before the Supreme Court.

My dad endured five years in a Nazi camp after drinking urine from the floor. I’m not Jewish as that might suggest, but between his stories and genetics passed down, he no doubt influenced my own ability to survive. There were gang fights and race riots during my boyhood, high school football when corporal punishment was standard procedure, legal hazing in my college fraternity, law school in greater Chicago, a death defying event on a mountain and the 2016 elections.

Alas, this would be a walk in the park, or so I thought. Instead, with all the trappings of a Dixie lynching, it became anything but a routine divorce, beginning innocently enough in a city called Utica, New York. In my worst nightmares, I never imagined fleeing oppression in my homeland, seeking protection at the United Nations, on the lam in Lake Placid, addressing national media at a murder scene in South Carolina, sheltered on an island in the Pacific Ocean and now here.

I was not on some honeymoon. I had already done that in Paris and could never have planned for this. If only I could’ve avoided it altogether. But a prominent black minister in Manhattan declared this to be my destiny. So here I am, whatever he meant, and it did turn up shocking proof of judicial corruption that would make John Grisham cringe. If there was a destiny, it was shared by every mom and dad descended from the beginning of humanity itself.

For all the injury I sustained, this could have been the ride of a lifetime. But I had stirred a hornets’ nest, and in no small way, exposing the raw underbelly of a child control syndicate, a judicial forum where countless parents were summoned to resolve sensitive family matters only to be treated like common criminals. It took my case to our highest court where I filed for disqualification of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her politicking from chambers.

An accomplished civil rights lawyer, I was naturally drawn to challenge the heartless seizure of children in our third branch of government. That’s the true definition of divorce court. Family court was its evil child where the real carnage occurred. After a two year separation without incident, everything was promising for my daughters. That’s when an invasion was launched by judges and lawyers anxious to conquer my world in a parenting environment they did not belong.

A Supreme Court justice had this to say about America’s family courts: “Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.” [1] But that was 1967. An erosion of parental authority since then has changed his pronouncement to the condition of being a father or career mom which does not justify the stigmatizing classification of “non-custodial parent.” We are now a society living under the yoke of an increasingly fascist system of child control.

Proof of this remains viciously censored or masked by highly convincing propaganda. The state dictates to the parents that it is acting at all times in “the best interests of the child,” an utterly preposterous, if not fraudulent claim, before it bankrupts them in a protracted custody or support battle. It creates and then fuels an incendiary contest over one’s offspring only to reap huge profits from the crimes, domestic violence or emotional trauma which predictably results.  

Victims who oppose this centralized power face the prospect of losing their children, their careers or imprisonment without due process or jury rights, all of it orchestrated under “the law.” It was the common denominator of so many parental advocates I came across during my reform efforts across the country. Victims could not fathom what was truly happening to them while being subjected to investigations and examinations for every indiscretion or human error.

This easily abused “best interests of the child” standard remains the weapon to achieve all sorts of unconscionable outcomes. Our children are effectively controlling their parents now under this system, an inverted order of childrearing as I described it in my reports. Moms and dads under constant threat of losing “custody” are spoiling these children while surrendering their natural authority to parenting figures more focused on self-service than genuine parent-child relations.

That was the essence of my public message and the principal reason for persecution by my own government. It was certainly not a novel message but one which had never been so vigorously promoted by a lawyer and parent singularly qualified to achieve overdue court reform. The targeted evil had roots in feudal England where the King declared his sovereign power over all children. That edict was adopted by divorce courts here despite its clash with our Constitution. [2]

It gives pause for parents to reflect on a state leader who understood this power and exploited it over time to wage the most horrific war in human history:

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

                         Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, pg. 403.

The result here was not so much a military war machine as it was a custody war machine to raise revenues and fees, to invade every aspect of our private lives, exercising power that would make the NSA, CIA and IRS envious. To be sure, a veteran family judge condemned the targeted evil long ago. Judge Dennis Duggan bucked his judiciary by refusing to continue use of degrading terms such as “custody” and “visitation.” [3] Here is how he justified his revolt against the state:

At the outset, the Court notes that the terms ‘custody’ and ‘visitation’ have outlived their usefulness. Indeed their use tends to place any discussion and allocation of family rights into an oppositional framework. ‘Fighting for custody’ directs the process towards determining winners and losers. The children, always in the middle, usually turn out to be the losers…

This Court has abandoned the use of the word ‘visitation’ in its Orders, using the phrase ‘parenting time’ instead. If the word ‘custody’ did not so permeate our statutes and was not so ingrained into our psyches, that word would be the next to go… This misplaced focus draws parents into contention and conflict, drawing the worst from them at a time when their children need their parents’ best.

Duggan evaded the core problem in his decision, that elephant in the courtroom known as “profit motive.” Still he was precipitously close to triggering vital reforms. It was no surprise then that his decision was quickly reversed on appeal, and despite similar condemnations in a 2006 judicial report, [4] the inflammatory depictions of mom and dad have survived. In my own reports, I urged that such terms were more appropriate for prisons and funerals, not parent-child relationships. 

Our federal government remains a major cause. A bevy of bureaucrats has become the super-parent of American society through coercive funding laws. Enamored with wars declared on every kind of issue to incite tax hikes, they have managed to convert sensitive family disputes into rewarding public battlegrounds bleeding with militaristic decorum. These courts are now overflowing, judges so overwhelmed they delegate their entrusted duties to outsiders who complicate ready solutions.

My credible reform message threatened this gold mine. It was one that might take flight with social and secondary media. Hence it had to be eradicated from its inception. Suddenly I was a one man fighting machine according to a talk show host in Florida. I had silent supporters, parents and concerned citizens who could navigate beyond the propaganda of a self-regulating court system. But they were intimidated, and this was also a prophesy of sorts which made me more of a nemesis.

During my reform crusade, I explained how power brokers were laying a foundation for the New World Order through this custody institution. Orchestrated court conflict was being exploited to show parental incompetence and the justification for an eventual state take-over of childrearing. It was following the lead of compulsory education and how that became institutionalized. Along the way, collateral damage to our economy was immeasurable through declines in worker productivity.

They say the pen is mightier than the sword, but here the power brokers possessed both. My message was not extreme as my persecutors would claim. It was backed by true experts unaffected by the bottom line, billable hours or fictional justice. However, it was also a blow to the egos of lawyers who just didn’t get it, infected by a delusional belief that they were protecting children while profiting handsomely from our misfortunes. And that meant I had to be crushed like a bug.

Their agenda began with the usual spineless deflection from duty when a serious wrong is brought before our courts, one which threatens big money interests. Divorce lawyers, child attorneys, diverse psychologists, case evaluators and forensic experts were only some of the beneficiaries I extolled as court predators. They were exacerbating an epidemic for profit, one that was triggering suicides, serious health issues and human rights violations. It was the Goliath I was out to slay.

Unrealistic perhaps, but there were weapons in my arsenal. I had an unblemished professional record, won substantial recoveries,[5] defeated high profile law firms to invalidate a billion dollar casino compact, [6] set free speech precedent as a city corporation counsel,[7] New York Times sent reporters to cover my campaign for Congress, and Morley Safer traveled to my law office for an interview featured on 60 Minutes. [8] How could they discredit all that and more? Well they did.

Still, someone had to make this stand for the sake of our children and future generations, or at least go down for something more than personal gain. It is also said that a hearse comes with no trailer hitch. You can’t take your belongings to an afterlife. In this cause, I had found my life’s purpose, a way of helping people long after my time on this earth was over. Everything in my being had finally come together. Every child in every location was now my moral client.

Unfortunately, Goliath was a trillion dollar industry, and what few protesters I could find appeared traumatized by it. My own ordeal was triggered by a judge who refused to hear my arguments against the antiquated entitlements of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. In lay terms, this was the Child Support Standards Act which required the naming of a “custodial parent” for state courts to receive federal funds. It also incited highly profitable custody wars.

I was shocked by the number of lawyers who had little or no idea how this law operated to fill their bank accounts. More disturbing, I could easily track the severe harm it inflicted upon everyday society, a veritable Titanic yet to collide with destiny and over-occupied by families originating from all parts of the world. They included stowaways from our schools, homes and workplaces routinely hauled into family courts as needless witnesses to the carnage.

Couldn’t these people see the pollution billowing out of those judicial smokestacks? With so much focus on global warming, homeland security and industrial flight, how could they glide so casually over an “inconvenient truth” at the root of so many other societal problems? With more than 300,000 lawyers in New York and California alone, this pollution was growing by the day. These elusive predators made their living selling conflict in a childrearing niche foreign to their trade.

Crucial reform was therefore long overdue, but my divorce judge was nearing retirement. Hence, it was no surprise that he was mired in the stereotypes of a distant past, when moms stayed home and dads worked to support children. He would shoe horn me into the degrading “non-custodial” category and presume that anything else I did was irresponsible. That’s before he was replaced by thirty-five trial level jurists by the time I wrote this book, unprecedented in judicial history.

Due to my exposure of court corruption, a systemic prejudice had arisen, requiring a venue change. When that was denied, it left me no choice but to move for disqualification of each newly assigned judge. I also urged that fathers remained victims to this last bastion of institutional discrimination due to the lucrative nature of the custody mandate. Shared parenting was a preferred model but this judge was not about to risk his reputation to do the right thing.

Instead he punted, referring me to the legislature for reform. Hence, you might say this entire ordeal was court ordered. That I should single-handedly seek a judicial remedy in a legislative assembly was like directing a mechanic to repair a car in a bakery. Any lobbying effort would require my exercise of free speech against my profession. Before a lawmaker could sponsor a bill to change a custody statute, his constituency would need to be convinced the old law was flawed.

When I aspired to do exactly that, it was the judiciary which opened fire on my free speech in the forums where constitutional rights were supposed to receive their greatest protection. My plain exposure of the flaws was so offensive that a family judge threatened to have me removed not only from “his” court room, but the public courthouse altogether. When that failed to intimidate me, he issued a gag order which was removed after I challenged it in New York Supreme Court. 

A legislative solution was a herculean task and my divorce judge knew it. Shared parenting bills had been routinely squashed by powerful special interests because they threatened predator profits. So, like the abortion right, I pursued the fast track through our courts, insisting quite logically that the much older parenting right which enhanced life deserved at least the same protection as the one which destroyed life without having to go before a gridlock legislature. [9]

New York was widely known to have the most dysfunctional legislature in America. [10] Reputable studies declared it, record late budgets proved it, and even legislators sought re-election on that theme, condemning one ethics commission after another for their impotence. I testified before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption seeking to dissolve the “window dressing” Commission on Judicial Conduct. Instead it was the Corruption Commission that was shut down.

The futility of seeking a judicial remedy in our legislative branch was as obvious as the abortion bills were prior to Roe v Wade. No, this was not my Goliath. Such a deflection would not work on a lawyer who had held office in all three branches locally. Defamatory court decisions under the protection of judicial immunity would not dissuade me either. The best way to relate my crusade is by quoting former New York Senate Leader Joseph Bruno from his book, Keep Swinging. [11]

As one of the few survivors of federal criminal prosecutions against prominent state legislators, Joe chronicled thirty years of corruption, dysfunction, and budget impasses during his long tenure. Here is what he concluded before his conviction was set aside due to intervening precedent from the Supreme Court:

You’d get no argument from me that the New York State Senate and Assembly were in dire need of ethics reform. Yet if the citizens of our state ever got around to demanding those changes, it would behoove the people to pay special attention to the behavior of prosecutors and judges who cared more about making a splash in the media than they did about justice.

Well this book is about justice and that “special attention” from our citizenry, a collection of shocking stories which reduced a prominent lawyer and model parent into a bankrupt fugitive. It explains why Joe suffered as he did in court after remaining oblivious to all those citizens who complained before the very commissions he helped create. It details the potential consequences for those who truly care about abused children and seriously act to reform our courts.

It is also a story of love and devotion. You can send a man across the world and he’ll sacrifice his life in the war on terrorism, you can cultivate domestic violence through draconian laws and he’ll risk himself again in the name of public safety, you can even resurrect debtor prisons for child support and he’ll do his time under protest, but never come between a daddy and his little girls. Even when they’re ninety years of age, he’s busy constructing mansions for them in heaven.

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com

(315) 796-4000  

  

[1]   In re Gault, 387 US 1 at pg. 28.

[2]    Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429, 148 NE 625 (1925), quoting In re Spence, 41 Eng. Rep. 937 (1847)

[3]    Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at Fn. 1.

[4]    2006 New York Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Justice (the “Miller Report”).

 

[5]  Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004)($333,820.32 civil rights jury verdict argued before Justice

Sonia Sotomayor)

[6]  Oneida Indian Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp.2d 71 (NDNY 2000)

[7]  Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (2000)

[8]  Morley Safer, Whose land is it anyway? CBS 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 23, 1999

[9]   Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973); Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923)

[10]  Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, The New York Legislative Process: An

    Analysis and Blueprint for reform (2004); Still Broken: New York State Legislative Reform (2008)

[11]  Joseph Bruno, Keep Swinging, Post Hill Press, pg. 253

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

Again We’re Proven Correct, Hillary’s Corruption Leading to Lawless America

2008 television clip depicts David and Goliath battles of Dr. Leon Koziol as a New York trial attorney prior to founding the Parenting Rights Institute

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Over the past week, I have elevated my focus on corruption at the highest levels of government. From the Supreme Court where I filed a motion for disqualification of Justice Ginsburg to Hillary’s Village take-over of child rearing as part of her New World Order. I cautioned my followers about a regime so corrupt that the people will follow the lead of Hillary and begin to take laws into their own hands. And so it happened. FBI agents have revolted against Justice Department politicians like Attorney General Loretta Lynch who is busy protecting Hillary on an Arizona tarmac and now with our nation’s highest office.

If politicians, judges and prosecutors are going to continue to enjoy the benefits of “official” and “unofficial” immunity, why not the rest of us? Are we not a self-governing society? Aren’t they supposed to be our “public servants?” Indeed at least one criminal defendant in Florida has already asserted a Hillary precedent defense. I have formally raised the issue in my latest case before the Supreme Court. And if our standard-bearers of lawyer ethics are not prosecuted (chief counsel and deputy lawyers fired for falsified time sheets during their witch hunt on me), then why should the rest of us follow the rule of law?

I have published so many corruption stories over the past six years on this site that we are about to see an implosion (if not an explosion) in Washington, maybe even our courts. This is where federal funds are being abused to reward family judges and divorce lawyers who incite needless controversy between parents for profit. It’s called Title IV-D funding, a sort of “pay to parent” scandal of unconscionable proportion. How can judges rewarded in this fashion not be disqualified for bias? In my domestic case, 35 trial level judges were disqualified, unprecedented in history. I must have had something right when I set out to reform this corrupt system.

But I cannot do it alone while retributions escalate. So please read on, share and support me while we might still be able to avert further harm to our children and future generations…

Opening News Story at the time Parenting Rights Institute was founded in 2010

From the PRI Administrator

The Parenting Rights Institute (PRI) was founded in 2010 as an advocacy group for moms, dads and families victimized by abusive divorce and family courts across the country. An office was opened in New York with a Court Program to assist poorly represented or self represented parties. It featured a seminar lecture and five part reading program with court forms and transcripts to educate parents and prevent serious financial and personal harm. Its updated version is available at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com or by ordering it from our office at (315) 380-3420.

The work of the Institute expanded in the years since. A planning session was conducted at the Plaza Hotel at Central Park in Manhattan attended by lawyers, former judges and parental advocates. In 2011 we conducted a Parental Rights Convention at a hotel conference room attended by activists from different parts of the country. Five time Super Bowl winner Tim McKyer was a featured speaker. In April, 2012 we sponsored a lobby initiative in Congress. Two months later, a rally was held at the federal appeals court at Foley Square in Manhattan to support the parental rights case, Parent v New York, argued by Dr. Leon Koziol.

In 2013, Dr. Koziol was among those selected to give testimony on behalf of the Parenting Rights Institute before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption at Pace University. That testimony can be found on Leon’s personal website at http://www.leonkoziol.com and it was cited by a lawyer committee in Albany to suppress and censor his reform efforts. Corruption exposed at the Moreland hearings included Leon’s pedophile custody judge, Bryan Hedges, removed from his case for “political espionage” and from the bench one year later for admitting to sexual misconduct upon the judge’s handicapped, five year old niece. He also exposed fictitious college degrees used by his replacement Judge Daniel King to impose draconian support and custody orders in retaliation.

In 2014, Dr. Koziol participated in a video documentary produced by Dr. Joseph Sorge of Divorce Corp focused on child support abuses, judicial corruption and marginalization of parents for profit. These abuses have remained without real accountability and causing taxpayers mounting expenses for their criminal and family court systems. Another censorship process was commenced by a lawyer ethics committee against Leon citing the video as its source. That process was vigorously challenged on First Amendment grounds but it prevented him from making a formal presentation at the Divorce Corp Family Law Reform Conference in Washington D.C.

In May, 2016 gag orders on our public statements were removed after Leon filed an extraordinary mandamus action in New York Supreme Court. We have achieved a record for holding lawyers, judges and family court predators accountable where our political ethics commissions are failing us. We have traveled as far away as Hawaii, California, Nashville, Carolinas, Canada and Paris seeking recourse for parent rights violations. Children are being abused, needlessly alienated and exploited for profit in a manner never seen before in human history. The media is ignoring a growing epidemic at the root of our societal problems, moral decay and worker productivity. Bar associations and special interests anxious to preserve a trillion dollar gold mine are suppressing reform, true accountability and parent advocacy groups such as the PRI.

A documentary published this month by Dr. Koziol and PRI produced immediate reactions from powerful adversaries. Entitled “Family Court Epidemic in Rural America,” it exposed shocking aspects of unmitigated corruption in divorce and family courts which is escalating all over the country. These are plain talk presentations publicized through You-Tube and viral sites everywhere that eventually work their way to the top of Google searches regarding the lawyers, judges and entities we are investigating and exposing. In this way the Parenting Rights Institute has become a citizen’s commission for judicial accountability. We are doing the vital work of those who are neglecting their paid public duties. In short we have become the Judicial Watch or NRA for abused families.

However, we cannot effectively advocate without resources. Currently we refer legal representation to trusted outside attorneys. We would like to hire in-house counsel and investigatory staff to properly assist victims in their individual cases. A professional video crew could bolster publishing efforts while employed to support formal complaints to government agencies. Our goal is to monitor court proceedings, publish books and documentaries and lobby Congress and our courts for reform and proper accountability. We have a petition for writ pending before the United States Supreme Court and are prepared to file another with co-petitioning victims (joiners) from around the country. Indeed we have done remarkable things with a fledgling volunteer staff and nominal donations which cannot keep up with expenses.

These are only some of the strategies underway and detailed in a business plan which is available to potential donors and investors. Accordingly we are appealing publicly to you for help. You may be in a position to join our efforts or invest personally. You may also know of a business, estate or philanthropist who can provide the needed financial support. Our potential cannot be denied. The proof is found throughout our website pages at Leon Koziol.com or the Institute.  As the thirty second television clip here shows, our PRI Director Leon Koziol has won numerous high profile cases, but this “War on Parents” is clearly his greatest challenge. Help us help you. Invest in our Institute. Download, share and e-mail this message. You can also chat directly with Leon at (315) 796-4000.

IMG_0040

Thank You !

Join Supreme Court Petition for Shared Parenting and Judicial Accountability

 

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

I am proposing an extraordinary writ from the Supreme Court to hear its first ever shared parenting case mandated by the Constitution and proper accountability for the routine violations of basic rights in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Unlike the standard petitions for writ under Rule 14 of the Supreme Court, I will be filing under Rule 2o. It is a rarely used form of petition “in aid of the court’s jurisdiction.” In this case I am maintaining that undue obstacles put in the way of parents in our federal and state domestic courts ultimately impair access to our high court contrary to due process and Article III of the Constitution.

I will file for this writ as a parent and victim of retributions by our divorce and family courts but only if a sufficient number join. You don’t have to be a litigant or victimized parent but you must have incurred some kind of harm from this system to justify your participation.You can do so at no charge although we rely on donations or purchases at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. You will join as a separate petitioner and not as a party represented by me. I am not acting as a legal advisor. This is a bold and timely petition seeking greater access for parents before our high court.I will ask that a Special Master be appointed to investigate an epidemic in these courts with hearings held around the country should the Court accept this petition.

I will be publishing a series of posts here at www.leonkoziol.com to explain the content and objectives over the next few weeks. If a sufficient number of parents or court victims join, I will prepare the petition for viewing. You can retain counsel if you like and a period will be set aside from the time of publication here for you to withdraw your participation in the event you disapprove of any aspect of that completed petition. You can also offer input or modifications but keep in  mind that I have little assistance and resources. My time is better spent here and your time can be ideally applied to viral assistance, recruitment and donations.  The tentative issues follow:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1) Has the Supreme Court rendered itself inaccessible to petitioners and the vast majority of our citizens in violation of due process and Article III of the Constitution?

2) Has the Supreme Court erected and ratified onerous obstacles to federal court jurisdiction for parents victimized in divorce and family courts contrary to due process, a fundamental liberty interest and genuine principles of federalism?

3) Has the Supreme Court encouraged or justified private remedies for law abiding citizens to vindicate their constitutional rights when its duties were abandoned here?

Let’s Make History: Parents Joining to File Writ in Supreme Court

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Are you concerned about the state of parent-child relations in our divorce and family courts? Have you gone there trusting that justice will be served only to learn all too late that orchestrated controversy led you to the brink of bankruptcy? Are you aware that your constitutionally protected parental rights are being eroded with an ultimate goal of having the state assume control of our families?

Parents are 150 million strong in this country, yet we have little voice in our government. Not a mention was made of our struggles in either political convention or in any presidential debate. Every aspect of our private lives has been infringed through state power exceeding that of the NSA, IRS or FBI. Our children have lost college funds and their health to lawyers and court appointed psychologists, see i.e. Universal Health v United States, No. 15-7 (6/16/16)(teen girl referred for mental treatment suffered a stoke leading to her death due to incompetent drug administration).

Clearly an epidemic is underway warranting the attention of our high court. There are dedicated advocates doing our best to reverse this trend. However it is a trillion dollar industry protected by special interests. Many parents, fed up with this system of mandatory custody and Title IV-D incentives have turned to our federal courts for relief. But in virtually all courts across the country our cases have been dismissed. The Supreme Court rejected at least three of them at a single conference on September 26, 2016. Over 750 petitions were supposedly reviewed at that conference.

Of the 10,000 petitions filed each year, 9,900 are rejected. While abortion, gun rights and capital crimes are regularly heard, not one shared parenting case has ever been heard. The last time a related issue was taken up, it was to explain how a father could be properly jailed for child support without an attorney, Turner v Rogers, 564 US ___ (2011). The last time custody was addressed, it was in Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000), but that case focused on grandparent rights.

In Michael H. v Gerald D., 491 US 10 (1989), the Court turned down a biological father’s rights despite good child relationships based on a statute which presumed the legal father to be the husband when a child is born during an adulterous marriage. In Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982), the Court ruled unconstitutional a family court process, but that was in the context of terminating parental rights. In Caban v Mohammed, 441 US 380 (1979), the Court ruled that a father had equal rights with a mother to contest adoption. That pretty much sums up the importance of our nation’s moms and dads in the eyes of the Supreme Court in modern times.

As a result I have pressed on with reform efforts despite all the sacrifices and set-backs. Within 24 hours of my latest denial on Monday, I filed for another personal writ before the Supreme Court, raising new issues concerning its accessibility for parents across America. To that end I contacted a Supreme Court clerk in August to confirm that an extraordinary writ could be sought under Rule 20 should my petition be denied. That option is still available but I will not undertake the complexities of filing unless I can get thousands to join. Joinder is not allowed after a petition is filed although supporting briefs can be offered.

Of course we can expect detractors and pontificators. But until the retributions for my reform efforts, I maintained a successful and unblemished constitutional rights practice for more than 23 years. My achievements on 60 Minutes and New York Times can be found at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. Put simply, history can be made with your participation. I will be providing regular updates on this site: http://www.leonkoziol.com. I can be contacted at the PRI offices at (315) 380-3420 or e-mailed at leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com. All joiners must provide an electronic or regular address with phone number for confirmation purposes.

I am asking fellow victims, current and potential family court litigants and concerned citizens to set up and circulate an on-line petition under the following issues which can be modified or supplemented:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1) Has the Supreme Court rendered itself inaccessible to petitioners and the vast majority of our citizens in violation of due process and Article III of the Constitution?

2) Has the Supreme Court erected and ratified onerous obstacles to federal court jurisdiction for parents victimized in divorce and family courts contrary to due process, a fundamental liberty interest and genuine principles of federalism?

3) Has the Supreme Court encouraged or justified private remedies for law abiding citizens to vindicate their constitutional rights when its duties were abandoned here?

Three Parental Rights Cases considered by Supreme Court at same time today

By Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute     http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com

But is access to our nation’s highest court illusory for the vast majority of us?

That is among the questions posed before the Supreme Court today in a mandamus action entitled Leon Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York being considered on the same day as two other parental rights cases. In another mandamus action, Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), the Supreme Court rendered one of its most controversial decisions in which it seized the power to interpret our Constitution and thereby set itself up potentially as a super-branch of government.

The Marbury case has held up to the present day despite much criticism from the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt. But the chance for an average citizen to obtain such an interpretation is next to zero. That is because our high court only accepts roughly 100 of 10,000 petitions filed from around the globe. Perhaps more startling is the fact that our Supreme Court has only two more members today than it did during the time of Marbury while Congress plays politics with a vacancy. Since 1803 our population has grown from about 5 million to over 300 million. You calculate the probabilities.

Congress has adapted with our growth along with the executive branch and their huge bureaucracy, but little has changed with our Supreme Court. That may explain why no shared parenting case has ever been decided by our high court whereas abortion is a regular part of its docket. Against such odds, there are at least three parental rights cases being considered by our high court on the same day, September 26, 2016, and a fourth working its way through our federal courts.

They are all pro se cases due to financial exploitation in the lower courts and professional retaliation for those who challenge the judges who promote it. To make up for a century of void in these cases, I have asked the Supreme Court to order a Special Master to investigate and report on the vast erosion of parent-child rights under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (supports standards and incentive funding to state courts). We are losing our parental rights through conflict profiteering and revenue making practices that violate due process.

As Americans we should all have a reasonable belief that our highest court will hear our concerns. We should not have to expect that a few prominent law firms guard the door to this court. For this reason four professionals from around the country took a stand as victimized parents on the steps of the Supreme Court. They have asked that our parenting rights be heard as abortion, marital equality and other rights have. Here are excerpts. Three presenters have no lawyer background yet in my expert opinion they articulate the core issues better than many trial lawyers with whom I have litigated during my 25 year career. You be the judge:

 

 

 

Here are the opening segment and Part II of my Supplemental Brief accepted by the Supreme Court last week:

For a complete viewing (Click Here)

REASONS  FOR  SUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEF

While children in Allepo, Syria are diving and swimming in a pool created by a missile strike (Associated Press, 9/15/16) respondents are hanging on to a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” as a sufficient danger to petitioner’s children to prevent father-daughter contact here in the United States. That “gesture,” assuming it could be understood at all, was not prohibited by any court order, and it consisted of a 2013 wedding toast with petitioner’s children nearby and no alcohol history of any kind as found by an appellate judge.

Sanity dictates that there is obviously something else driving an absurd process challenged by this precedent seeking action on constitutional grounds. Due to a highly abused pretext of promoting our children’s so-called “best interests,” lawyers and conflict profiteers are concocting endless issues to beat up opposing parents. So bad is it today that the entire divorce industry is coming under serious fire as it drags down a noble legal profession.

This ordeal represents the outcome for a judicial whistle blower, victimized parent and conscientious civil rights attorney who set out to reform this industry. However, absent discovery rights or a reliable self-regulating agency to remedy a colossal failure in human rights, persecution is now the sole outcome. It is being ratified through inaction of our federal courts. This is not petitioner’s first endeavor to access our Supreme Court on a long neglected issue. But it will provide the highest authority either way to justify an escape from the oppression that is undeniably present.

An alcohol gesture remains the reason cited in a December 2, 2013 decision for suspending child contact that continues to this day. It was manufactured after no evidence could be provided to show any parenting problem, consumption of a legal beverage being standard issue for abusing parents in our nation’s divorce and family courts. There are many more, a veritable treasure trove of accusations in a system designed to maximize profits and court revenues at the expense of children and families under a federal statute.

Point Two:  Domestic courts are not constitution-free zones, and routine obstacles to federal jurisdiction can no longer be abused to deny parents basic rights.

Domestic relations courts are no longer matters of local or state interest. Constitutional violations here were fueled by a federal funding statute and a state revenue system based on the magnitude and number of child support orders manufactured under Title IV-D of the Social security Act, 42 USC 651 et. seq.; Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998); Dept of Family v DHHS of U.S., 588 F.3d 740 (1st Cir. 2009)

Beyond that the events occurring since this petition was filed have only proven beyond any remaining doubt that respondents are forever committed to their agenda for censoring and suppressing the petitioner using every means available to them. The overriding reason for denying this public critic his discovery rights in the Northern District of New York was a concern for exposing judges to abuse.

Recognizing this interest, petitioner brought an action for extraordinary relief under FRAP Rule 21 with a request for the appointment of a special master to investigate and report on the complex ordeal inflicted upon this public critic and parents throughout the country as exemplified in the Second Circuit. This was the course of action taken by the same federal court in the Oneida land claim class action of 1998, a case in which petitioner was intricately involved, Oneida Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (2000).

The obstacles to federal court jurisdiction and good faith petitions for accessing this Court can no longer be tolerated or glossed over. This is a nationwide epidemic corroborated by other cases decided by this Court since petition filing. For example, in Universal Health Services v United States, No. 15-7 (June 16, 2016), a teen girl was placed under the care of a counseling center having unqualified staff which administered improper medication resulting in a worsening of a bi-polar diagnosis. She died of a consequential stroke.

This Court allowed the family’s action to go forward under the federal False Claims Act based on an implied false certification theory of liability. In family courts throughout the nation parents and children are being referred by judges and lawyers as a matter of course for psychiatric evaluations on the slightest accusations of a scorned ex-spouse. All too often entire families are over-medicated, bankrupted or permanently harmed by this lucrative referral program in these courts.

In this case, a scorned ex-wife acting on advice of lawyers anxious to harm petitioner, requested and obtained a forensic order in 2011 for the parents and children without cause of any kind. The biased judge who issued that order was disqualified, her replacement was removed from the case on motion of petitioner and removed altogether from the family court bench for admitting to sexual misconduct upon his handicapped five year old niece, In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

On September 23, 2011, the next (veteran) family judge, Michael Hanuszczak, vacated the order on the same record employed by his two predecessors to order and continue the evaluations. This event fully verified in the record shows just how arbitrary these forensic orders truly are and how easily they can be exploited to harm a public critic as respondent Judge Daniel King did only two years later. On July 12, 2016, his replacement Judge James Eby refused to honor that precedent on the case, thereby producing a permanent loss of petitioner’s children.

The DSM-5 manual used to diagnose psychiatric conditions and process insurance claims has at least 300 disorders and 600 conditions that can destroy careers and keep parents and children under state control and medication for many years. It is beyond epidemic and leading to suicides, bizarre activity and needless destruction of parent-child relations in criminal ways. A special master must be assigned to investigate this crisis because it arises exclusively in our judicial branch. It has been a long time since this Court took a bold move to correct a court created injustice of such magnitude, see Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925); Bast, supra and Brown v Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954). The case for extraordinary recourse could not be better.

PLEASE  SHARE  THIS  POST  AND  SUPPORT  OUR  CAUSE ! https://leonkoziol.com/2016/09/26/three-parental-rights-cases-considered-by-supreme-court-at-same-time-today

You can also contact our office at (315) 380-3420