Hillary’s New Village Police Chief Speaks Out, Warns Parents to Protect Children and Constitutional Rights

Parenting Rights Institute


It Takes A Village is  Hillary Clinton’s 1990s book unveiling her plan to remove our children from traditional parenting to an institutional form of child rearing. She authored it as First Lady while meddling in all sorts of issues to promote a liberal New World Order. Despite its propaganda, in plain terms, this means that we will all systematically surrender our Constitution to a new world government. It is a plain talk and startling video by  Dr. Leon R. Koziol, Director of the Parenting Rights Institute in New York. Here he assumes a fictional role as Hillary’s new Village Police Chief to reveal what this new world order truly means to you, your children and our families. Produced in casual and candid terms from his home, Leon relates an ominous message that is being suppressed by media, bar associations, special interests and the courts. It is a “must-see” for moms, dads, religious institutions, law enforcement, family advocates and patriotic Americans everywhere. You can contact Dr. Koziol at Parenting Rights Institute at (315) 380-3420.

Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump Wedding, Self Assignment, January 22, 2005
PALM BEACH, FL: Newlyweds Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at their reception held at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 22, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Maring Photography/Getty Images/Contour by Getty Images)

Family Court Epidemic in Rural America

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Would you like to save yourself thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs? Would you like to save your children from the psychological harm arising at epidemic levels in our nation’s divorce and family courts? How about the drug industry which is reaping huge profits through excessive court referrals? Then this documentary is for you. It will provide a treasure trove of information thanks to the contributions of two concerned parents. It is important to view it to its conclusion for a surprise guest and shocking revelation.

As part of our continuing series of documentaries on the subject of divorce and family court abuses, I left the tropical climate of Hawaii earlier this year and the hectic environment of Manhattan, Washington D.C. and suburban Philadelphia this past summer to find myself pleasantly situated in a farm community in western New York. This community consisted of horses, cows, chickens and a pair of cuddly newborn kittens which greeted me at the country home of Melissa Hayes and Michael Bennett.

We are doing these documentaries because mainstream media is failing its duties to expose the vast harm which is occurring to our children, families and parents in America’s divorce industry. Shared parenting is the presumptive mandate under our Constitution but it is being suppressed in favor of the lucrative custody process mandated by federal funding laws. Family courts and their growing number of parenting substitutes are profiting from our misfortunes and turning our offspring against us. It is a trillion dollar epidemic at the root of our nation’s health, productivity and social ills.

Melissa and Mike are “non-custodial” parents from separate divorces who are struggling to maintain a horse farm and blended child rearing homestead under very trying circumstances. Both are victims of the industry, constantly under scrutiny to a human breaking point when every aspect of their parenting styles are reported to their “custodial supervisors” and socialist government agencies. All too often, as you will see, this is done not for our children’s “best interests” but for the ultimate goal of achieving “full custody” and government “kidnapping” as Melissa describes it. We are exposing the grotesque underbelly of a system that is destroying the moral fiber of an entire nation. Time and again I have gone all the way to the Supreme Court to do so.

Mike was understandably skeptical of any reform effort. He had seen it all upon being reduced to a non-entity in his son’s life. I had the pleasure of meeting his boy on my arrival,  witnessing immediately the wonderful father-child relationship which had developed there. It was not a show. It was genuine. His boy quickly fell in love with the two kitties left for dead on a nearby country road which a neighbor had brought to their home. But after dinner it was time for his single weeknight “visitation” to end, that offensive institutional term for child rearing condemned by veteran family jurists everywhere, see i.e. Webster v Ryan, 189 Misc.2d 86 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at footnote 1.

Perhaps it was that separation anxiety which followed and the continuing abuse of his “joint custody” that motivated Mike to join this documentary with greater enthusiasm. Not a man with a lot of useless talk, he was a practical minded dad who knew the score but felt powerless to change anything. His partner, however, was not one to give up. In her commitment e-mail, she described her choices as “fight, flight or fall down.” She then declared: “The latter two have never been my style.” Come hell or high water, she was going to reform this corrupt system, and to my surprise she was doing it as a fathers’ rights advocate.

Melissa has been permanently alienated from her older children. She hangs on dearly to the teen she has left and hopes to prevent other moms and dads from becoming swallowed whole by this antiquated custody system. She was moved by a prior book and documentary completed this past summer in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania involving Tamara Sweeney. As a parental advocate and alienation expert, Melissa added valuable insights for families victimized in these courts. From her interview on those subjects we made a segway to Mike and his views on the drug industry which is also profiting greatly off the costly evaluations ordered by judges with little or no accountability.

Welcome to the New World Order of child rearing coming to a school, church, workplace or community near you. Learn of it through reports I have submitted to Congress, United Nations and these mainstream parents in the heartland of America. Far removed from the hustle and bustle of skyscrapers in the Big Apple, you will feel their patriotism, high flying flags and  9-11 reminders everywhere. They work endless hours to feed families in all parts of this great nation. Along roadsides in the backdrop of autumn farm fields extending to the horizon, you will even find an occasional Hillary campaign sign. But these are not folks you can fool easily. They all bear a circle-slash or “x” on the face of those signs.

This video commentary provides immense detail in a short period of time. It is worth your while to discover what the judges, lawyers and media are not telling you. It has a shocking ending which you should share virally so that reform can be made possible. Here at Parenting Rights Institute, we offer valuable programs, books and referrals. Look us up at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. You may wish to have a similar documentary of your ordeal in your home town. If so, contact me directly at (315) 796-4000 for cost estimates. We are are being monitored by high profile people, both in favor and against us. This is evidenced by Google searches of the judges and entities we target and a family court gag order which I had removed recently by suing a judge in New York Supreme Court.

We’re serious about our public message despite the extremes to which they have gone to discredit it. They’re our children. They do not belong to pedophile judges or the state. But we can’t do it alone. Our courageous work depends on your donations to this site. If you or someone you know can invest in our cause, kindly have them contact me directly at (315) 796-4000. Because when it’s all said and done, regardless of the powers abused against us, all our time on this earth is coming to an end. Through this reform effort you can have a long term impact. As they say, no hearse comes with a trailer hitch. Leave behind a real treasure for future generations.

God bless you, your family, our veterans, public safety officers, and God Bless America !

Melissa gave me a tour of her farm where I got to meet some of her horses.

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:


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:


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?

Documentary Preview on Parent Alienation in Divorce and Family Court


A book and documentary are coming to fruition regarding the parental alienation epidemic in our state domestic relations courts. Sponsored by the Parenting Rights Institute, they seek to expose the underbelly of a child control industry which is being suppressed by government and media. The mission focuses on a well concealed federal law that rewards state courts by the number and extent of lucrative conflict generated at the expense of parents and children. Indeed parental rights are being eroded systematically by the day.

The brainchild of Dr. Leon Koziol, renowned civil rights advocate, this mission also seeks to grow the number of documented ordeals across the country in order to secure long overdue reforms. Leon has successfully litigated on behalf of those victimized by abusive government practices for more than 23 years until he became a target of retribution himself. If you have an ordeal you would like to add to this mission, contact the Institute office for a cost estimate based on your location and case complexity at (315) 380-3420. Get more details at:  http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.

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)


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



While Abortion Rights are Routine in our Supreme Court, Shared Parenting Rights have never been heard.

Now there’s a headline you’ve never seen. But it is shockingly true and a reflection of how insignificant we are as parents in this country. Every year our constitutional right to raise our children is being further eroded without so much as a footnote in the decisions from our high court. For the past ten years I have done everything legal and humanly possible to reverse that trend, to give you human dignity as a loving mom or dad, but sadly, due to an utter lack of funding, I have failed.

Meanwhile the right to abort children and market their body parts has been well funded and well received during that same period. Indeed only a few months ago, among the most recent cases heard and decided by the Supreme Court, you will find a pro-abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt and Texas, et. al. Case No. 15-274 (June 27, 2016). Meanwhile three of the four parents who announced their filings at the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016 are being considered for the same day. Yours is destined for the same fate.

Nevertheless it is too important an issue to surrender. If you’ve been following my petition now being considered by the Supreme Court you know that a Supplemental Brief was recently accepted to provide additional support for such a case, a historic first which I sacrificed everything to achieve. Among other things, due to the severe neglect of this right in recent decades, I have asked for appointment of a Special Master to investigate and report on parent-child abuses in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

Yesterday we gave you a summary of cases over the past 100 years since the parenting right was first announced. Today we show you what happens when a judicial whistle blower, civil rights attorney and model parent tries to reform a lucrative divorce industry which is producing damaged children, unprecedented immorality and the kind of crime our society can no longer control. Government simply throws more tax dollars at this epidemic while profiting off our misfortunes.

We hope you will join our cause by contributing to this site or sponsoring any of our services at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. You can also call our office, Parenting Rights Institute at (315) 380-3420. Here is a modified segment from my Brief:

Point One:  Based on this Court’s recent decision in McDonnell v United States, the respondent district court committed an egregious abuse of discretion by suppressing challenges to vague, absurd and retaliatory court orders.

Petitioner has been exposing court corruption and misconduct for ten years in virtually every state of the union, even Hawaii when President Obama visited. It has reached epidemic proportions with no sign of reform or shared parenting structure mandated by our Constitution. That is because the suppression of speech, press and organizing efforts is so profound in our judicial branch of government that relevant experts and civil rights lawyers such as petitioner are persecuted beyond conscience.

In McDonnell v United States, No 15-474 (June 26, 2016), decided after the originating petition here was filed, this Court vacated a conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell based on jury instructions and a statute which was found to be overly expansive. The definition of an “official act” for purposes of criminal liability was deemed to have serious constitutional infirmities.

Whether petitioner’s ordeal is analyzed from a First or Fourteenth Amendment standpoint, or some other federal right such as the parenting liberty, the result is the same. A public critic is being subjected to something far more egregious than an over inclusive statute. He is being pounded by orders laced with such absurdity that no conduct provides a safe harbor. The opening segment of this brief is ample demonstration of this…

At the same time, petitioner is being victimized by …vague and overbroad orders in New York’s domestic courts with undue, unfair and excessive scrutiny by attorney disciplinary agents. Indeed this is by far an unprecedented case. The state has usurped the self-governing rights of a democracy in order to profit off our children. The atrocities over a natural right tracing itself to the beginning of civilization are being perceived as everyday oppression by an increasing variety of terrorists, criminals, protesters and mainstream parents.

A remedy is now required to show that our system of American justice works after all, even if petitioner can never be made whole again. The “prohibited alcohol related gesture” finding was never prohibited previously and concocted from a wedding toast. It was conceded at a “mini-hearing” without due notice, ten minute limits for case presentation and no recording for appellate purposes. On such a hearing, petitioner lost his children potentially forever in light of the severe and un-remedied alienation underway over the past three years. Other than pure evil and the violation of a fundamental right, what else can explain the concoction?

On the last weekend together in January, 2014, there was happiness, sharing of plans, hugging and promising father-daughter relationships to last a lifetime. But the quest for money and revenge was so prevalent that these girls were brainwashed and made to shut out all trace of their natural father without so much as an allegation of abuse. This evil course of action was pursued not by a natural mother but a creature of statute known as a “custodial parent” trained to war against her counterpart. Dads, moms and children are increasingly viewed as objects instead of dignified human beings under this “opposition framework” for parenting.

It was sufficient to cause respondent appellate Judge John Centra to issue a stay order on December 13, 2013 on grounds that the proceedings here were “structurally flawed” with petitioner having no record of abuse. That order facilitated the last weekend petitioner spent with his girls before being vacated by the same Judge Centra and his panel only days after exposure of related misconduct.

It occurred on petitioner’s website which has become the target of censorship by all respondents due to a tagging of publications relating to individuals. Petitioner’s global following has become so impacting that these publications can arise on a first page Google search of a judge or lawyer. Sufficiently offensive as it is protected by our Constitution, this has set in motion very alarming reactions. Oppression is otherwise corroborated by such cases as Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011). A police investigator committed a murder-suicide after exiting support court, a key factor that was ignored, leaving three children without parents and the city with a $2 million liability.

Respondents have been exploiting judicial weapons to punish these publications. They have all but stated this in decisions, actions and defamatory orders throughout the record. With an arsenal at their disposal perceived as sacrosanct by an unsuspecting public, they have been able to shut down reform as their public critics emerge in courts throughout the country. Indeed at least two other pro se parent petitions are pending for conference on the same day as this one. Dr. Mario Jimenez and John Batista joined petitioner at a news conference outside this Court to announce our filings only to incur further retributions.

Truth itself is ever elusive in these courts because offspring are made the prize or “award” in custody wars. In this case, respondents exploited the patent fabrications of Judge King and the brazen perjuries of William Koslosky and Hawse-Koziol. This is well established in prior filings here and the records below. These frauds remain so pervasive and even encouraged for retribution purposes that almost anything can be conjured up to finish off this public critic. But only the public critic was prosecuted with non-criminal and inflated support obligations based on a highly abused “imputed income” practice. This was in lieu of reliable evidence and a proper distribution of the burdens of proof.

Terminology routinely employed in these courts is more relevant to a Syrian war zone than a forum for raising America’s children. This is not merely your petitioner’s position. It is shared by esteemed jurists and experts of the Miller Commission in its 2006 report to New York’s Chief Justice. It is also shared by veteran jurists such as Dennis Duggan in Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS 2d 315 (Fam. 2001):

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.”

The disrespect increasingly directed at parental rights is corroborated by the July 7, 2016 summary order of the Second Circuit. It affirmed Judge Sharpe’s August 10, 2015 decision denying leave to file an appeal pursuant to FRAP Rule 4(a)(5). The frauds and perjuries in family court became so insurmountable that petitioner’s children could have their residence concealed on the family court record for a period of eight months without any accountability.

Such callous disregard was clearly retaliatory. Devastation to petitioner when this scheme was discovered on Fathers’ Day 2015 was so severe that it forced him to escape the region and miss a next day filing deadline regarding Judge Sharpe’s May 22, 2015 decision. Such devastation mattered not at all for “good cause” or “excusable neglect” and was sadistically cast aside without so much as a footnote. Judge Sharpe concluded instead that petitioner “had only himself to blame.” A-I at 68. See also Kirtsaeng v John Wiley 15-375 (June 16, 2016) on Sharpe’s abuse of fee sanctions.