If you think Juan Mendez is a complete fool, moron and just unfit to hold public office your not the only one!
In fact, according to the American’s for Parental Equality and men’s rights advocates, you could be right!
Many men’s and father’s rights activist have long held the opinion that Juan Mendez has single-handedly worked against legislation to change bias family court laws. This opinion appears to be true in recent public statements Juan Mendez has made.
Juan Mendez was recently asked,
“What do you plan to do to bring equality to fathers being denied rights to their children in family court when there is no domestic violence or criminal history?”
Juan Mendez looked a little shocked by the question and even asked for it to be repeated so he could compose himself. Then, the idiot (in our opinion) spilled his feminist guts.
At least from his statements…
Mendez openly plans to keep denying father’s rights to their biological children.
A Facebook video of this moron has now reached 34 thousand views of how Mendez side-stepped the entire question while throwing a bone to his liberal-feminist allies.
The only clear choice for the voters of LD26 is to vote for Cara Nicole to unseat Juan Mendez. Cara has spent some time fighting for equal rights for fathers. She knows of the struggles fathers face in divorce and child support cases and firmly backs equal rights.
We need to support Cara Nicole in this year’s November election and remove Juan Mendez from political office once and for all!
Here we are starting another year in the same position as last year and the year before that and the year before that. Three years now since I saw my two children and three more to go if the situation remains the same. My son Scott will be sixteen in three years time and he will instantly have the freedom to choose to find me. Which is why I keep my blog running. I have said this over and over again during the last three years, all we want is equality. Not too much to ask in 2014. A fathers right to see his children and a child’s right to see his or her father. Men are often accused of being controlling, but when a mother denies a father access to his children and a child access to his or father then that is the extreme of controlling behavior. But that seems to go unrecognised. Balanced? I don’t think so. Fair? I don’t think so. Equal? I don’t think so. Children are not tools to be used as a punishment against a father.
Here we are starting another year in the same position as last year and the year before that and the year before that. Three years now since I saw my two children and three more to go if the situation remains the same. My son Scott will be sixteen in three years time and he will instantly have the freedom to choose to find me. Which is why I keep my blog running. I have said this over and over again during the last three years, all we want is equality. Not too much to ask in 2014. A fathers right to see his children and a child’s right to see his or her father. Men are often accused of being controlling, but when a mother denies a father access to his children and a child access to his or father then that is the extreme of controlling behavior. But that seems to go unrecognised. Balanced? I don’t think so. Fair? I don’t think so. Equal? I don’t think so. Children are not tools to be used as a punishment against a father.
Here we are starting another year in the same position as last year and the year before that and the year before that. Three years now since I saw my two children and three more to go if the situation remains the same. My son Scott will be sixteen in three years time and he will instantly have the freedom to choose to find me. Which is why I keep my blog running. I have said this over and over again during the last three years, all we want is equality. Not too much to ask in 2014. A fathers right to see his children and a child’s right to see his or her father. Men are often accused of being controlling, but when a mother denies a father access to his children and a child access to his or father then that is the extreme of controlling behavior. But that seems to go unrecognised. Balanced? I don’t think so. Fair? I don’t think so. Equal? I don’t think so. Children are not tools to be used as a punishment against a father.
Exactly five years after an oppressed father protested discrimination by burning himself alive on the steps of Keene County Family Court, four victimized fathers calmly walked up the steps of the United States Supreme Court to file a writ for parental equality.
Media throughout the beltway were discussing it, news releases were confirmed everywhere, and these four made history outside the halls of our nation’s highest court. And it’s high time. Give dads their due. We sacrifice in the line of duty every day for our children.
Whether it be law enforcement in Orlando, firemen headed into the towers on 9-11, or our military in foreign wars, we are sick and tired of the abuses inflicted upon us in divorce and family courts. We are tired of returning to anything but “equal justice” as promised on the top of the Supreme Court edifice.
These four professionals, a doctor, lawyer, dentist and engineer made their case at a news conference on the eve of Fathers Day. They are Dr. Mario Jimenez, M.D., Dr. Leon Koziol, J.D., Dr. Dan Pestana, DDS and John Bautista, BSME, MBA, sacrificing their professional standings by taking up this cause. They need your help.
Yes it’s Fathers Day again with those worn out stereotypes about manning up. And that’s exactly what these professionals did from New York, California, Florida and Virginia. They asked our government to man up to its responsibilities for equal rights. Being born male does not give our courts a power to denigrate our authority as equal parents under supreme laws.
While other traditionally discriminated groups have made great strides in achieving reform, fathers continue to be remanded by our courts to lower class parent status with all the oppression which comes with it. Fathers remain 85% of all parents paying support, nearly 100% of those sent to a debtor prison for delinquencies and even shot dead in the back by a traffic cop while fleeing unarmed from a support warrant (Walter Scott).
Coined in 1985 by psychiatrist Richard Gardner, PAS describes a set of behaviors exhibited by kids whose parents deliberately turn them against the other parent, through a variety of techniques that are at once coercive, manipulative, vindictive and sociopathic.
“It’s a violent act to a child’s mind,”
Jason Patric tells Newsweek, speaking of PAS, which he says he began investigating following his initial trial to assert his parental rights with Gus. He believes parental alienation is akin to what domestic violence was 40 years ago—a dirty secret that is harming millions but not acknowledged by many mental health professionals.
Distinct from the all-too-common acrimony between divorcing parents, the syndrome is an internationally recognised phenomenon. In America and Canada, “parenting coordinators” are ordered and supervised by the courts to help restore relationships between parents and children identified as “alienated”. In Mexico and Brazil, alienating a child from a parent is a criminal act.
Psychiatrist Richard Gardner developed the concept 20 years ago, defining it as “a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrination and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.”
One of the world’s most respected campaigners on men’s issues believes “dad deprivation” is directly causing what he’s termed “the boy crisis” – and unless society urgently intervenes, we will be in danger of writing off a generation of men.
Dad-deprived boys are less likely to display empathy, be less assertive, depressed, have nightmares, talk back and be disobedientWarren Farrell
Farrell believes modern society is being tangibly eroded by dad deprivation – through increased relationship breakdown, family courts that favour mothers, and fathers denied access to their children after a separation.
He points out that in in every one of the largest 70 developed nations, boys have fallen behind girls, and what they have in common, Farrell says, is divorce.
“Dad-deprived boys are less likely to display empathy, be less assertive, depressed, have nightmares, talk back and be disobedient,” says Farrell, 72.
“At age nine, girls and boys commit suicide in equal numbers, but boys are twice as likely aged 14, four times more likely aged 15-19, and five times more by age 20-25. This is the time when dads drift out of their lives”.
“We need a major overhaul of education system, especially in inner cities where we know dad deprivation is higher,” he says.
“These boys have no positive male role models. That makes them vulnerable to strong, destructive alpha males like gang leaders or drug dealers.”
“These boys are also most likely to be brought up by mums, then move from a mother-centered home to a woman-centered school.
“Boys need to see males caring at every stage of their lives. So we need more male teachers, period. I’d say equal amounts at least, although, in areas where there are 70 per cent single mothers, why not have 70 per cent male teachers?
“We need to encourage men into the caring sectors, to challenge the cliché that caring work is women’s work”.
Farrell also urges dads not to willingly abandon their children, which he sees as a dereliction of duty.
“Men should not withdraw like cowards,” he says. “To an eight-year-old boy, their dad is God. Backing off or abandoning them leaves the child feeling not important. Dads must fight to be a part of their children’s lives, especially if the mother blocks that”.
Here, Farrell urges separating parents to park their own differences.
Boys need to see males caring at every stage of their lives. So we need more male teachers, period. I’d say equal amounts at least ~ Warren Farrell
“Allowing dads in helps both the boy and the mother, as the child will be easier to manage for her as sole carer,” he says. “Data shows divorced mums are five times more likely to bad mouth dads than dads do mums.
As a civil rights advocate, Dr. Koziol has been invited to a family promotion event at the United Nations on Monday. Today he is meeting with father advocates in the New York Metropolitan area regarding a rally on June 10 in New York Supreme Court.
Leon is seeking funding for a shared parenting initiative nationwide. It is important to join this cause if we are ever going to secure long overdue reforms for the sake of families and our children. He has been working with the Trump campaign because his Democrat opponent has been the cause for lucrative and needless parental conflict in divorce and family courts. The fundraising gala here was to promote cutting edge medical breakthroughs which save people from addictions and costly health programs. Our initiative is similar regarding the legal profession. However we remain non funded to date. Call our office at (315) 380-3420 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.
Newt Gingrich at a political conference in Orlando, Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Well you heard it today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, but the question was posed by Leon Koziol publicly the night before at a fundraising gala in Manhattan. After thrilling attendees with politics and his enthusiasm for Donald Trump, keynote speaker Sean Hannity boldly opened himself up to questions. Leon stepped forward and put him on the spot.
“Who should be Trump’s VP and why not you?”
Sean quickly reacted,
“not me, but I can tell you who I think it should be: Newt Gingrich.”
For anyone reading this blog, TFRM does not, I repeat, DOES NOT endorse Donald Trump for president. We have not endorsed a presidential candidate. It is dishonest for Dr. Koziol to make a presidential endorsement using the TFRM logo. Please cease and desist using the logo on this blog.
TFRM is an official nonprofit organization. We have not endorsed Donald Trump, and for very good reason. He has not made one statement for Family Law reform.
In fact, when every single one of the republican presidential candidates were presented a family law reform question that was voted on by thousands, Trump didn’t even bother to answer. Other candidates at least answered the question, albeit poorly.
Fathers and Free Speech Case to be Argued June 10 in New York Supreme Court | Leon Koziol.Com
Divorce and family court victims as far away as Florida and California are already committed to attend public hearing on gag order, equal rights and parental alienation.
After ten years of litigating for parental justice as high as the United States Supreme Court, Dr. Leon Koziol may finally get his day in court on behalf of divorce and family court victims everywhere. A New York Supreme Court Justice has just signed an order to hear arguments in a mandamus proceeding on June 10 at 10:30 a.m. at the Oneida County Courthouse in Utica. Mandamus is considered extraordinary, in this case directed at a family court judge named Daniel King in Lowville, New York, and it is open to the public.
In the past, Leon was bombarded with technical dismissals, jurisdictional chaos and judge misconduct designed to suppress his overdue reform efforts in our third branch of government. Unscrupulous lawyers across Americahave turned our children into a lucrative trillion dollar industry eating alive our life’s earnings, retirement savings, health and college funds. And the corruption is escalating for reasons found in Leon’s ordeal described with horrific detail at Leon Koziol.com.
After 23 unblemished years practicing law in federal and state courts, he was suspended, threatened with contempt, deprived of a livelihood, denied access to (important people in his life) and now they are seizing his home. We can’t disclose who those important people are because this site is still subject to a gag order which Leon seeks to remove on June 10th so that fraud, perjury and judge misconduct can be conveyed to you when government commissions fail us.
The timing before Fathers Day and location of these arguments are also extraordinary. An opportunity like this may not occur for another ten years. Leon has sacrificed too much for this cause and is destined to lose this case because the establishment and gold mine he is seeking to reform are too powerful. But if we can finally rally together at the Oneida County Courthouse in a judicial district which includes the Fort Drum Army Base and former Griffiss Air Force Base, a profound message can be sent to courts all across America.
Leon is highly focused on protecting military, minorities and law enforcement, or those mostly harmed by the antiquated custody system. Instead of promoting shared parenting, our federal government today is obsessed with transgender bathrooms in North Carolina with Attorney General Loretta Lynch accusing us of being racists if we don’t support her. What??? Leon was a highly accomplished civil rights attorney and lawyer for a past president of the National Organization for Women. Racism and religious convictions are not the same. And while everyone else is demanding equal rights, fathers are still discriminated through an abuse of Title IV-D federal funding.
This courthouse in the center of New York state is three hours from New York metropolitan area and Buffalo, two hours from the Canadian and Pennsylvania borders. Already supporters are committed to attend from as far away as Florida and California. Hotel Utica and the Radisson downtown are less than a mile from Thruway Exit 31 (Interstate 90). These were the sites of various civil rights forums sponsored by Leon that were targeted by ethics lawyers engaged in the witch hunt against Leon. They were ultimately fired by a licensing court for falsifying their time sheets. No public charges were ever brought against them.
You may have heard about Arkansas Judge Joe Boeckmann charged this week with sexual predator crimes over a thirty year period through judicial favors. In the mandamus lawsuit and at Leon Koziol.com, you will read about Leon’s custody judge, Brian Hedges, removed from the bench for admitting to sexual misconduct on his five year old handicapped niece, family judges who fabricated college degrees to elevate Leon’s support obligations, and his consequential testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption which led to more severe retributions. You will read about judges sent to prison in Brooklyn and Albany for soliciting custody and divorce bribes, and of course the “Kids-for-Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania.
It’s out of control people. Stop keyboarding in the comfort of your homes to one another and people who don’t care. “Raising awareness” this way is misguided and creates false hope. It’s time to make a stand against parent waterboarding by a corrupted system. Spread the word every way you can. After the June 10 arguments, Leon will file a petition for writ at the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. concerning a similar mandamus action dismissed by a federal appeals court in Manhattan. An opening excerpt is provided below. For more information and desperately needed donations, contact our office, Parenting Rights Institute, at (315) 796-4000 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.
U.S. SUPREME COURT WRIT (OPENING):
While our federal government asserts itself around the globe to advance human rights, its military is returning to divorce and family courts which exploit children for profit. Public safety officers, such as our responders on 9-11, are being hauled into the same courts and subjected to discrimination on account of their gender or line of duty. Many are alienated from their children, committed to debtor prisons or oppressed as inferior parents to feed a trillion dollar industry.
It is a highly protected industry orchestrated under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 USC section 651 et. seq. States are rewarded by the number and size of “child support” orders manufactured by their courts. Superior and inferior custody classifications are essential to these money transfers and mandated by federal statute even when parents with near equal incomes and childrearing periods set up contrary agreements, see i.e. Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998).
Accordingly support judges have been rendered inherently biased against all those classified under the inferior “non-custodial” label with or without justification. Such classifications are arbitrary, stigmatizing and institutional in countless cases, requiring otherwise cooperative parents to compete over their children. Their infringement of a fundamental right to parent one’s offspring is easily replaced by childrearing plans and orders which retain more family oriented labels such as mother, father and parent, see i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at fn. 1(veteran family judge declaring “custody” and “visitation” to be offensive terms in an antiquated system which brings out the worst in parents when children need their best).[1]
However such less intrusive custody substitutes are foreclosed by the blanket classifications and marginalized by overburdened courts committed to the funding scheme. Over time, such injustices have reached constitutional dimension while ever elusive, utopian and overbroad child rearing standards displace parental discretion without compelling state interest contrary to a right declared by the Supreme Court to be the “oldest liberty interest” protected by our Constitution, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000)(prolonged custody case can itself violate parental rights), Parham v JR, 442 US 548 (1979)(fit parents presumed to act in their children’s best interests).
A full range of constitutional rights is easily trampled under principles of equity, or the power seized by family judges to “father” our children, see often cited Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925)(“paternal jurisdiction” derived from feudal common law). In plain terms, the Constitution is being ignored because the custody scheme is lucrative for those who depend upon family controversy for their livelihood. It is being facilitated by judges charged with the highest duty of safeguarding such rights, Federalist Paper No. 78; Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).
Support inequities triggered by this scheme (child support standards act) are typically countered with custody tactics to result in untold harm to our children, i.e.Pearce v Longo, 766 F.Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011)($2 million city liability for police investigator committing murder-suicide with ex-spouse after exiting support court leaving children without parents). In his highly researched study, Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis, Professor Stephen Baskerville places the blame on government: “What many are led to believe is a social problem may in reality be an exercise of power by the state,” Independence Review, vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, at pp 485-486.
Unsuspecting litigants are also exploited by an expanding bureaucracy under Title IV-D to finance welfare costs created by unrelated and irresponsible parents. The ones properly devoted to their children therefore shoulder an unjust burden merely because they reside separately from their partners.[2] These support judges engage in highly abused fictions such as “imputed income” to raise obligations beyond realistic capacities.[3] There is no express provision for shared parenting under the federal entitlement statute, and the regulatory scheme has replaced the child’s needs with “way of life” standards to elevate support even further. It has removed critical discretion from proper decision makers with outcomes that shock the conscience, see fn 3 and 4.
The “band plays on” in our nation’s family courts because civil rights attorneys and parental advocates such as petitioner are subjugated, vilified and punished for their exercise of reform efforts otherwise protected under the American Constitution. Meanwhile, gay, lesbian and trans-gender parents, soon to be victimized by this same lucrative system, have achieved far greater strides in equality with repeat court actions than fathers have over a century of discrimination.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition directed to the federal court of the Northern District of New York. It seeks relief which is central to any self-governing society, namely, the right to seek reforms to this over regulated and oppressive system of child control. In that vein, it matters not whether the decision makers here agree with the foregoing legal posture concerning a federal statute. It matters only that the petitioner is accorded his inalienable human right to express public views and raise his offspring free of the severe retributions he sustained for criticizing our third branch of government, see i.e Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964).
[1] Petitioner’s revenue-bias conclusion was deemed frivolous by the lower court. However it is supported by our nation’s top civil rights experts at the Justice Department. They issued a report on March 4, 2015 after the Ferguson, Missouri race riots concluding that the region’s municipal courts were committing civil rights violations through concocted arrests and excessive fines as part of a revenue generating scheme. There is nothing to distinguish that conclusion from petitioner’s long asserted claims here regarding family courts which incite needless controversy to exact excessive support orders and attorneys fees. Unequal custody classifications are the workhorse behind all this with rampant prejudice against male parents which can no longer be denied or tolerated. The Census Bureau and private entities continue to report that nearly 85% of all support obligors are men. In his court filings, petitioner has described this as “the last bastion of institutionalized discrimination remaining un-checked in America today.”
[2] As this case verifies, money interests have displaced the “best interests of the child” in family court. Financial disclosures are mandatory for gauging child support but exploited by unscrupulous lawyers to concoct needless and even bizarre issues for fee maximization. When resources are exhausted from both parents, they orchestrate cause for settlement or client abandonment. Ethics violations are so numerous and even accepted as part of a litigious child control process that attorney disciplinary agents cannot logistically police all the abuses. Worse yet, these agents are able to abuse their entrusted positions to suppress accountability. This case features a chief ethics attorney and two lawyer subordinates who engaged in the witch hunt against the petitioner-attorney (and father) for his public disclosure of vast misconduct. They were terminated from their court-appointed positions as standard bearers of lawyer ethics after an Inspector General discovered their falsified time sheets. No public charges, ethical or criminal, were ever instituted, see Robert Gavin, Oversight lawyers quit amid inquiry, (Albany) Times Union, July 10, 2013.
[3] The injustices have reached epidemic proportions. Only one month after the Ferguson report, a fit and unarmed father named Walter Scott was shot dead in the back while fleeing a child support warrant during a traffic stop in South Carolina. He had been imprisoned a number of times due to a growing support debt based on imputed income capacities. Under prevailing law, an imprisoned parent for any reason continues to face support obligations at pre-commitment levels. Upon release, the debtor is typically overwhelmed and unemployable. He is nevertheless subjected to a rule that one should not profit from the mis-deeds which caused the incarceration even with full rehabilitation. Only because of the “mis-deeds” of this traffic cop, quickly charged with murder, was it publicly revealed that one out of every eight persons imprisoned in South Carolina resulted from support debts. Nearly all are male parents, and a review of warrants lists across New York reveals a similar pattern. South Carolina boasts one of the strictest support enforcement laws with jail terms of up to one year, yet it reports one of the worst collection rates under the federal (performance) statute, partial source: Robles and Dewan, Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat, New York Times (front page), 4/19/15. Debtor prisons have been invalidated since the mid 19th century but re-introduced through willful support violations. As the case before this court demonstrates, such a contempt avenue is an illusion behind a de facto debtors’ prison due to biased judges having a financial stake in the outcomes of support litigation. Such jurists bring court revenues and personal advancement through support performance measures and payments derived from sources other than the debtor parent, see i.e. Bast, supra. As relevant here, the petitioner-father issued public statements at the Walter Scott funeral before national media, civil rights groups and reporters of the New York Times as part of his ongoing reform efforts. He suffered further retributions in the lower court, state family courts and attorney disciplinary tribunals by actions and decisions beginning only weeks later.
Fort Drum Military Base, one of America’s largest, is surrounded by the judicial district where this case, Koziol v King, is being heard. Isn’t it time we sent a message of support on the home front when our service people return to courts that still discriminate against fathers? Census Bureau reports continue to show that 85% of child support payers are dads who also comprise nearly 100% of those committed to debtor prisons when they cannot hold a good job. Of the 58,000 soldiers who gave their lives for this country on the Viet Nam Memorial Wall in D.C., eight are women.
To end abuse of judicial power through intentional misapplication of the law, preventable errors, and more…
Open and transparent government is only a problem to those with something to hide. There is no way to know if a judge has 5 or 500 similar complaints. The criteria for determining probable cause to investigate a judge is confidential and inconsistently applied.
There is an over abundance of judicial corruption confirming there is a need for open government in the judiciary. Bad judges are moved around like pedophile priests leaving a trail of victims by time they are discovered.Pennsylvaniakids for cash is an example of what confidentiality of all judicial complaints enable.
One of the legal fantasies promoted by governments and officials is the idea of ‘sovereign immunity’… where they are not liable for their…Read More
One of the legal fantasies promoted by governments and officials is the idea of ‘sovereign immunity’… where they are not liable for their corrupt and illegal actions. Unfortunately this lie of ‘sovereign immunity’ is also repeated unknowingly by people who have a real case against government officials and therefore do not pursue very valid…Read More
AMERICA’S MOST FAMOUS judge has told a former Minister for Justice that Ireland should have cameras in every courtroom. Speaking to Nora Owen on TV3’s Midweek, Judge Judy said closed courtrooms protect two things – bad judges and bad lawyers. “They also protect bad institutions that serve those courts, such as social services,” she continued.…Read More
We’re just inviting you to take a timeout into the rhythmic ambiance of our breakfast, brunch and/or coffee selections. We are happy whenever you stop by.
Americans for Equal Rights for Fathers 