Why is Congress and the DOJ ignoring whistleblowers of court corruption? Edward Snowden weighs in

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Former litigation attorney and founder

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

NSA WHISTLEBLOWER EDWARD SNOWDEN has weighed in on the presidential document scandal by citing lawyers in the Department of Justice (DOJ) as the real culprits given their select treatment of influential officials. Along with a hopelessly divided Congress, their focus remains on career advancements and notoriety to the detriment of those exposing court corruption.

In contrast, low level whistleblowers face immediate prosecution and punishment. As one such victim, a civil rights attorney who fled to Paris for asylum in 2014, I blew the whistle on criminal activity in our justice system. Yet no one to date has reported on my shocking ordeal repeatedly litigated and made public at www.leonkoziol.com.

Help us do the job which our oversight officials are not by supporting our nonprofit organization, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc. Visit our website at http://www.citizencommissionagainstcorruption.org.

And spread the word.

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. A former city councilman, school board attorney and corporation counsel, he developed a diverse professional background to become ideally suited to exposing corruption. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the billion dollar Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in domestic relations courts. It was part of a bold and complex challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO COME OUT, ALONG COMES ANOTHER UNIMAGINABLE SCANDAL IN AMERICAN POLITICS.

YOU JUST CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

TODAY, LONG ISLAND DIGNITARIES RANGING FROM STATE SENATORS TO LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES HELD A STANDING-ROOM-ONLY NEWS CONFERENCE TO DEMAND THE RESIGNATION OF THEIR NEWLY ELECTED CONGRESSMAN GEORGE SANTOS.

THEIR PUBLIC MESSAGE FOCUSED ON THE BAD EXAMPLE SET BY A DERANGED FRAUDSTER WHO HAD BECOME THE LAUGHING-STOCK OF THE WORLD.

SANTOS HAD SO DRENCHED HIMSELF WITH IRREPARABLE LIES ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND DURING HIS CAMPAIGN THAT HE WAS NOW DISABLED FROM GOVERNING.

BUT UNDERLYING THAT MESSAGE WAS THE BIGGER ISSUE OF HOW SANTOS GOT OVERLOOKED BY SO MANY VETERAN POLITICIANS PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY?

DID THEY ALL BRING THIS UPON THEMSELVES, AND DESERVEDLY SO, DUE TO A GROSS LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE, SELF-ABSORPTION AND ULTIMATELY BLIND ENDORSEMENTS TO EARN THEM THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION AS A NATIONAL DISGRACE?

MORE TROUBLING, HOW MANY MORE FRAUDSTERS LIKE SANTOS ARE LURKING AMONG US IN PUBLIC OFFICE?

THIS LATEST SCANDAL, EMERGING AMONG SO MANY OTHERS IN THE DAILY NEWS THESE DAYS, SUPPORTS THE WORK OF THE CITIZEN COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION, INC,

THIS IS A NONPROFIT ACTION GROUP FORMED IN 2021 TO DO THE JOB THAT OVERSIGHT OFFICIALS ARE NOT.

CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE AT http://www.citizencommissionagainstcorruption.org.

AFTER ALL, IT WAS THE PURE FATE OF A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE THAT EXPOSED GEORGE SANTOS IN THE FIRST PLACE. OTHERWISE, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MIGHT STILL BE UNAWARE OF HIS MASSIVE BACKGROUND FABRICATIONS THAT OFFENDED SO MANY CONSTITUENT GROUPS.

Hearings Sought Before House Oversight and Judiciary Committees for Systemic Targeting of Whistleblowers

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former Litigation and Human Rights Attorney

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Release Date: January 10, 2023

Contact Author at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com

It goes without saying that any lawyer who regularly exposes judicial misconduct will eventually be targeted. But none more than I was after exposing corruption ranging from my pedophile child custody judge (Bryan Hedges) to a city court jurist found guilty by a state commission of making racial remarks, physical threats and wrongful incarcerations from the bench (Gerald Popeo).

In the end, due to resulting systemic bias, my health, unblemished law practice and nearly my life were taken from me in retaliation. It mirrored the kind of persecution endured by human rights attorneys such as Chen Guangchen who secured refuge in the United States after he was targeted for his criticisms of the Chinese government.

Accordingly, I took on a cause to make systemic bias more transparent. It led to a form of “Innocence Project” that remains unfinished. In whistleblower cases, such bias is highly elusive from a proof standpoint. Public critics are made to appear incompetent and subjected to a form of gang assault. It is routinely dismissed as a fringe accusation devoid of support.

To debunk this myth, I have endeavored to secure legal protection for conscientious whistleblowers beginning with a precedent-seeking case filed with the Supreme Court under docket no. 18-278 and captioned Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, et. al.  Ahead of its time, it sought to permit circumstantial proof as a conventional means for establishing unlawful retaliation by judges.

Fearless reporting by those most qualified to expose corrupt jurists would be incentivized by carving out an exception to the court-created doctrine of judicial immunity. To be sure, unless caught red-handed, a judge is unlikely to admit wrongdoing. Inasmuch as courts have long preferred circumstantial proof as a more reliable mode of truth-seeking, there is no reason to avoid application of this rule to judge misconduct cases.

Presently, when jurists are the subject of misconduct, two unwritten rules of evidence invariably emerge, one for judge defendants and the other for the complainants. Under the first, damning evidence is blocked in both overt and discreet ways ostensibly to protect the reputation of our judiciary, i.e. United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir, 2010).

The DiFiore filing sought to remedy this dichotomy, representing a check on the persecution of attorney whistleblowers. The protracted and depraved manner in which unlawful retaliation was carried out necessitated my alarming memoir entitled, Whistleblower in Paris. As detailed therein, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized to achieve illicit outcomes.

But my disclosures were so justifiably offensive that the wrongdoers went to the unconscionable extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in simultaneously pending family court proceedings. My petition for declaratory relief eventually fell victim to the Supreme Court’s practice of denying roughly 99% of all that are filed. Proceedings included a stay motion denied by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Despite all this, my crusade lives on, having been vindicated when the main defending party, New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, was forced to resign after being investigated by a state judicial commission for misconduct. DiFiore was reported by a non-lawyer for a letter she sent to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of the court officer’s union. She did so in retaliation for his criticisms of her safety practices during the pandemic.

This audacious act shows how readily a judge will misuse authority behind the scenes to punish public critics. It is far from isolated. A predecessor chief judge, Sol Wachtler, may have mentored such elitism with brazen crimes committed 30 years earlier. He served a mere seven years in a medium security facility after being arrested for extortion, racketeering and blackmail.

Like DiFiore, Wachtler used high office to interfere with a licensing process of the attorney exposing his misconduct. It featured Wachtler’s debutante mistress. Under a fictitious name, he made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child. Ironically, Wachtler was renowned for an opinion criticizing prosecutors who could “indict a ham sandwich” if they so targeted.

Wachtler was reinstated after his disbarment, hired as a law school professor, and rewarded with book royalties from his prison memoir, After the Madness. In it, he defended his misconduct because judges are supposedly trained to think of themselves as gods. This was a man being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment.

Yet another example lies with a middle-level appeals court judge, Nancy Smith, who earned the dubious distinction as the first jurist above trial level to be publicly disciplined in New York. It featured a glowing reference to benefit a prisoner convicted of vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of two people. Not long after, Judge Smith was elevated to presiding justice of that court.

Taken together with more than 40 trial level jurists removed from my case for diverse reasons, this undeniable record provides sufficient circumstantial proof of systemic bias against those who criticize our judicial branch of government. However, such a record would not be admissible in any single case. The question then emerges: how many DiFiores, Wachtlers and Smiths are lurking among us?

That number may prove to be staggering. Misconduct is only a matter of what a violator can get away with. In Dobbs v Jackson, No. 19-1392, 597 US ____ (2022), the abortion rights case, Roe v Wade was overturned. A version of this opinion was leaked followed by commitments to apprehend the wrongdoer. Months later, no progress has been announced with the apparent hope that this will blow over.

Such elitism sets a poor example for lower judges, attorneys and litigants. It calls for an overhaul of our justice system beginning with oversight and judiciary committee hearings in Congress. This is not a gender, race or political issue but a profound effort to repair a crevice in our constitutional framework.

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. A former city councilman, school board attorney and corporation counsel, he developed a diverse professional background to become ideally suited to exposing corruption. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the billion dollar Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in domestic relations courts. It was part of a bold and complex challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Proving systemic bias of unethical judges offended by public criticisms: The ordeal of an attorney whistleblower

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former Litigation Attorney

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Accountability Pursued for Unrestrained Judicial Misconduct and Whistleblower Retaliation

Release Date: January 8, 2023

Contact Author at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com

It goes without saying that any lawyer who regularly exposes judicial misconduct will eventually be targeted. But none more than I was after exposing corruption ranging from my pedophile child custody judge (Bryan Hedges) to a city court jurist found guilty by a state commission of making racial remarks, physical threats and wrongful incarcerations from the bench (Gerald Popeo).

In the end, due to resulting systemic bias, my health, unblemished law practice and nearly my life were taken from me in retaliation. It mirrored the kind of persecution endured by human rights attorneys such as Chen Guangchen who secured refuge in the United States after he was targeted for his criticisms of the Chinese government.

Accordingly, I took on a cause to make systemic bias more transparent. It led to a form of “Innocence Project” that remains unfinished. In whistleblower cases, such bias is highly elusive from a proof standpoint. Public critics are made to appear incompetent and subjected to a form of gang assault. It is routinely dismissed as a fringe accusation devoid of support.

To debunk this myth, I have endeavored to secure legal protection for conscientious whistleblowers beginning with a precedent-seeking case filed with the Supreme Court under docket no. 18-278 and captioned Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, et. al.  Ahead of its time, it sought to permit circumstantial proof as a conventional means for establishing unlawful retaliation by judges.

Fearless reporting by those most qualified to expose corrupt jurists would be incentivized by carving out an exception to the court-created doctrine of judicial immunity. To be sure, unless caught red-handed, a judge is unlikely to admit wrongdoing. Inasmuch as courts have long preferred circumstantial proof as a more reliable mode of truth-seeking, there is no reason to avoid application of this rule to judge misconduct cases.

Presently, when jurists are the subject of misconduct, two unwritten rules of evidence invariably emerge, one for judge defendants and the other for the complainants. Under the first, damning evidence is blocked in both overt and discreet ways ostensibly to protect the reputation of our judiciary, i.e. United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir, 2010).

The DiFiore filing sought to remedy this dichotomy, representing a check on the persecution of attorney whistleblowers. The protracted and depraved manner in which unlawful retaliation was carried out necessitated my alarming memoir entitled, Whistleblower in Paris. As detailed therein, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized to achieve illicit outcomes.

But my disclosures were so justifiably offensive that the wrongdoers went to the unconscionable extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in simultaneously pending family court proceedings. My petition for declaratory relief eventually fell victim to the Supreme Court’s practice of denying roughly 99% of all that are filed. Proceedings included a stay motion denied by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Despite all this, my crusade lives on, having been vindicated when the main defending party, New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, was forced to resign after being investigated by a state judicial commission for misconduct. DiFiore was reported by a non-lawyer for a letter she sent to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of the court officer’s union. She did so in retaliation for his criticisms of her safety practices during the pandemic.

This audacious act shows how readily a judge will misuse authority behind the scenes to punish public critics. It is far from isolated. A predecessor chief judge, Sol Wachtler, may have mentored such elitism with brazen crimes committed 30 years earlier. He served a mere seven years in a medium security facility after being arrested for extortion, racketeering and blackmail.

Like DiFiore, Wachtler used high office to interfere with a licensing process of the attorney exposing his misconduct. It featured Wachtler’s debutante mistress. Under a fictitious name, he made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child. Ironically, Wachtler was renowned for an opinion criticizing prosecutors who could “indict a ham sandwich” if they so targeted.

Wachtler was reinstated after his disbarment, hired as a law school professor, and rewarded with book royalties from his prison memoir, After the Madness. In it, he defended his misconduct because judges are supposedly trained to think of themselves as gods. This was a man being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment.

Yet another example lies with a middle-level appeals court judge, Nancy Smith, who earned the dubious distinction as the first jurist above trial level to be publicly disciplined in New York. It featured a glowing reference to benefit a prisoner convicted of vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of two people. Not long after, Judge Smith was elevated to presiding justice of that court.

Taken together with more than 40 trial level jurists removed from my case for diverse reasons, this undeniable record provides sufficient circumstantial proof of systemic bias against those who criticize our judicial branch of government. However, such a record would not be admissible in any single case. The question then emerges: how many DiFiores, Wachtlers and Smiths are lurking among us?

That number may prove to be staggering. Misconduct is only a matter of what a violator can get away with. In Dobbs v Jackson, No. 19-1392, 597 US ____ (2022), the abortion rights case, Roe v Wade was overturned. A version of this opinion was leaked followed by commitments to apprehend the wrongdoer. Months later, no progress has been announced with the apparent hope that this will blow over.

Such elitism sets a poor example for lower judges, attorneys and litigants. It calls for an overhaul of our justice system beginning with oversight and judiciary committee hearings in Congress. This is not a gender, race or political issue but a profound effort to repair a crevice in our constitutional framework.

                                  

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. A former city councilman, school board attorney and corporation counsel, he developed a diverse professional background to become ideally suited to exposing corruption. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the billion dollar Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in domestic relations courts. It was part of a bold and complex challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Overdue justice sought for attorney whistleblower persecuted by unethical judges

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former Litigation Attorney

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Accountability Pursued for Unrestrained Judicial Misconduct and Whistleblower Retaliation

Release Date: January 3, 2023

Contact Author at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com

After more than two decades as a civil rights attorney, I left the profession to engage in a very unique line of work exposing judicial misconduct. Predictably, this incited horrific retributions from highly influential agents which cost me my health, unblemished reputation and nearly my life in 2020.

In response, I have endeavored to secure legal protection for attorney whistleblowers beginning with a precedent-seeking case filed with the Supreme Court under docket no. 18-278 and captioned Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, et. al. 

Ahead of its time, it sought to permit circumstantial proof as a conventional means for establishing unlawful retaliation by judges against conscientious attorneys. Fearless reporting by those most qualified to expose corrupt jurists would be incentivized by carving out an exception to the court-created doctrine of judicial immunity.

To be sure, unless caught red-handed, a judge is unlikely to admit wrongdoing. Inasmuch as courts have long preferred circumstantial proof as a more reliable mode of truth-seeking, there is no reason to avoid application of this rule to judge misconduct cases. This is especially true given the advances made in forensic science, recording devices and public awareness.

Presently, when jurists are the subject of misconduct, two unwritten rules of evidence invariably emerge, one for judge defendants and the other for the complainants. Under the first, damning evidence is blocked in both overt and discreet ways ostensibly to protect the reputation of our judiciary, i.e. United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir, 2010).

The DiFiore filing sought to remedy this dichotomy, representing a check on the persecution of attorney whistleblowers. The protracted and depraved manner in which unlawful retaliation was carried out necessitated my alarming memoir entitled, Whistleblower in Paris. As detailed therein, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized to achieve illicit outcomes.

But my disclosures were so justifiably offensive that the wrongdoers went to the unconscionable extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in simultaneously pending family court proceedings. It reflected the kind of persecution inflicted upon human rights lawyers by tyrannical regimes. Chinese attorney, Chen Guangchen, who fled to the United States in 2011, is only one example.

At the very core of a properly functioning justice system is the mandate of impartiality. In any non-judge case, whistleblower protection would be readily acknowledged as a means for advancing fair outcomes even if relief was ultimately denied. But here silence prevailed as evident in the denial of a stay motion by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the DiFiore case.

My petition for declaratory relief eventually fell victim to the Supreme Court’s practice of denying roughly 99% of all that are filed. But my crusade lives on, having been vindicated when the main defending party, New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, was forced to resign after being investigated by a state judicial commission for misconduct.

DiFiore was reported by a non-lawyer for a letter she sent to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of the court officer’s union. She did so in retaliation for his criticisms of her safety practices during the pandemic. In contrast, lawyers exercising First Amendment rights have had to conceal their identities through third parties, i.e. Supreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980).

This audacious act shows how readily a judge will misuse authority behind the scenes to punish public critics. It is far from isolated. A predecessor chief judge, Sol Wachtler, may have mentored such elitism with brazen crimes committed 30 years earlier. He served a mere seven years in a medium security facility after being arrested for extortion, racketeering and blackmail.

Like DiFiore, Wachtler used high office to interfere with a licensing process of the attorney exposing his misconduct. It featured Wachtler’s debutante mistress. Under a fictitious name, he made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child. Ironically, Wachtler was renowned for an opinion criticizing prosecutors who could “indict a ham sandwich” if they so targeted.

Wachtler was reinstated after his disbarment, hired as a law school professor, and rewarded with book royalties from his prison memoir, After the Madness. In it, he defended his misconduct because judges are supposedly trained to think of themselves as gods. This was a man being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment.

Yet another example lies with a middle-level appeals court judge, Nancy Smith, who earned the dubious distinction as the first jurist above trial level to be publicly disciplined in New York. It featured a glowing reference to benefit a prisoner convicted of vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of two people. Not long after, Judge Smith was elevated to presiding justice of that court.

The question then emerges: how many DiFiores, Wachtlers and Smiths are lurking among us?

That number may prove to be staggering. Misconduct is only a matter of what a violator can get away with. In Dobbs v Jackson, No. 19-1392, 597 US ____ (2022), Roe v Wade was overturned. A version of this opinion was leaked followed by commitments to apprehend the wrongdoer. Months later, no progress has been announced with the apparent hope that this will blow over.

Such elitism sets a poor example for lower judges, attorneys and litigants. It calls for an overhaul of our justice system beginning with hearings in Congress. This is not a gender, race or political issue but a profound effort to repair a crevice in our constitutional framework.

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. is a human rights advocate who practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the 1993 Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in divorce and family courts. It was part of a bold challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Overdue accountability sought for unrestrained judicial misconduct and whistleblower retaliation in the New Year

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former Litigation Attorney

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Accountability Pursued for Unrestrained Judicial Misconduct and Whistleblower Retaliation

Release Date: January 3, 2023

Contact Author at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com

After more than two decades as a civil rights attorney, I left the profession to engage in a very unique line of work exposing judicial misconduct. Predictably, this incited horrific retributions from highly influential agents which cost me my health, unblemished reputation and nearly my life in 2020.

In response, I have endeavored to secure legal protection for attorney whistleblowers beginning with a precedent-seeking case filed with the Supreme Court under docket no. 18-278 and captioned Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, et. al. 

Ahead of its time, it sought to permit circumstantial proof as a conventional means for establishing unlawful retaliation by judges against conscientious attorneys. Fearless reporting by those most qualified to expose corrupt jurists would be incentivized by carving out an exception to the court-created doctrine of judicial immunity.

To be sure, unless caught red-handed, a judge is unlikely to admit wrongdoing. Inasmuch as courts have long preferred circumstantial proof as a more reliable mode of truth-seeking, there is no reason to avoid application of this rule to judge misconduct cases. This is especially true given the advances made in forensic science, recording devices and public awareness.

Presently, when jurists are the subject of misconduct, two unwritten rules of evidence invariably emerge, one for judge defendants and the other for the complainants. Under the first, damning evidence is blocked in both overt and discreet ways ostensibly to protect the reputation of our judiciary, i.e. United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir, 2010).

The DiFiore filing sought to remedy this dichotomy, representing a check on the persecution of attorney whistleblowers. The protracted and depraved manner in which unlawful retaliation was carried out necessitated my alarming memoir entitled, Whistleblower in Paris. As detailed therein, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized to achieve illicit outcomes.

But my disclosures were so justifiably offensive that the wrongdoers went to the unconscionable extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in simultaneously pending family court proceedings. It reflected the kind of persecution inflicted upon human rights lawyers by tyrannical regimes. Chinese attorney, Chen Guangchen, who fled to the United States in 2011, is only one example.

At the very core of a properly functioning justice system is the mandate of impartiality. In any non-judge case, whistleblower protection would be readily acknowledged as a means for advancing fair outcomes even if relief was ultimately denied. But here silence prevailed as evident in the denial of a stay motion by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the DiFiore case.

My petition for declaratory relief eventually fell victim to the Supreme Court’s practice of denying roughly 99% of all that are filed. But my crusade lives on, having been vindicated when the main defending party, New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, was forced to resign after being investigated by a state judicial commission for misconduct.

DiFiore was reported by a non-lawyer for a letter she sent to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of the court officer’s union. She did so in retaliation for his criticisms of her safety practices during the pandemic. In contrast, lawyers exercising First Amendment rights have had to conceal their identities through third parties, i.e. Supreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980).

This audacious act shows how readily a judge will misuse authority behind the scenes to punish public critics. It is far from isolated. A predecessor chief judge, Sol Wachtler, may have mentored such elitism with brazen crimes committed 30 years earlier. He served a mere seven years in a medium security facility after being arrested for extortion, racketeering and blackmail.

Like DiFiore, Wachtler used high office to interfere with a licensing process of the attorney exposing his misconduct. It featured Wachtler’s debutante mistress. Under a fictitious name, he made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child. Ironically, Wachtler was renowned for an opinion criticizing prosecutors who could “indict a ham sandwich” if they so targeted.

Wachtler was reinstated after his disbarment, hired as a law school professor, and rewarded with book royalties from his prison memoir, After the Madness. In it, he defended his misconduct because judges are supposedly trained to think of themselves as gods. This was a man being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment.

Yet another example lies with a middle-level appeals court judge, Nancy Smith, who earned the dubious distinction as the first jurist above trial level to be publicly disciplined in New York. It featured a glowing reference to benefit a prisoner convicted of vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of two people. Not long after, Judge Smith was elevated to presiding justice of that court.

The question then emerges: how many DiFiores, Wachtlers and Smiths are lurking among us?

That number may prove to be staggering. Misconduct is only a matter of what a violator can get away with. In Dobbs v Jackson, No. 19-1392, 597 US ____ (2022), Roe v Wade was overturned. A version of this opinion was leaked followed by commitments to apprehend the wrongdoer. Months later, no progress has been announced with the apparent hope that this will blow over.

Such elitism sets a poor example for lower judges, attorneys and litigants. It calls for an overhaul of our justice system beginning with hearings in Congress. This is not a gender, race or political issue but a profound effort to repair a crevice in our constitutional framework.

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. is a human rights advocate who practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the 1993 Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in divorce and family courts. It was part of a bold challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Circumstantial evidence proved judge targeting of a whistleblower attorney in Supreme Court case, Leon Koziol v Chief Judge DiFiore

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former Civil Rights Attorney

Founder, Parenting Rights Institute

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Unless caught red-handed, a judge is unlikely to admit ethical misconduct. Accordingly, courts are preferring circumstantial proof as a more reliable mode of truth-seeking given the advances made in forensic science, recording devices and a growing propensity of witnesses to lie without fear, shame or moral fiber. To hold perjurers liable today would be to fill our jails beyond capacity.

When jurists are the subject of misconduct, however, two species of rules invariably emerge, one for judge defendants and the other for the rest of us. It is an unwritten practice designed to protect the reputation of our judiciary more than it is to achieve justice, see i.e. United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir, 2010). We need go no further than this case to prove its existence, again circumstantially.

The DiFiore filing featured a demand for attorney whistleblower protection whenever judges are the government actors retaliating against exercises of critical speech outside the courtroom, see i.e. Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964). This is typically carried out through concocted disciplinary violations which our courts control exclusive of our other branches. In this victim’s case, the actors went to the extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in family court.

There has been no official protection for this category of reporters most qualified to expose misconduct at the very core of a properly functioning justice system. In any non-judge case, such a right would be readily acknowledged even if relief was ultimately denied. But here it was met with silence including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her ensuing denial of an interim stay motion.

This sort of clandestine activity is more prevalent than what is publicized. Witnessed first-hand over a stellar 23-year career in chambers, public venues and country clubs, this attorney finally went public due to the growing harm to countless unsuspecting victims. And as a whistleblower inching closer to conspiratorial activity, I was widely targeted, thereby undermining accountability, discouraging competent investigations, and scaring off news agents.

The record in my civil rights litigation proves this, and it remains unprecedented. On August 14, 2018, the Supreme Court docketed Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, No. 18-278. Ahead of its time, it sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment granting whistleblower protection. Given the escalating misconduct among jurists, an absolute immunity from civil liability, and the dearth of complaints investigated by authorities, this proved to be a watershed case ripe for review.

But alas, like the other 99% of petitions dismissed, this one fell victim, in part, due to its potential of igniting reputational harm to our judicial branch of government. The following excerpt taken from page six of my petition adds to the rampant nature of circumstantial evidence showing serious misconduct over and beyond that documented in my 12-year record:

An unblemished civil rights attorney (and model dad) was persecuted for exposing corruption and seeking reforms to child custody and support laws, 13-a. 

It all began on January 9, 2008 when a judge in Syracuse heard argument during an appeal of four decisions arising from three trial courts regarding his family matters.[1] Petitioner exposed the corrupting of parents and children by domestic courts for fee and revenue purposes. This included an opposing divorce lawyer who was later learned to be a member of the district ethics committee appointed by the same judge’s appeals court, 18-a. On the same day, a first-time ethics prosecution was opened against petitioner under circumstances of illicit directive by that judge. 

It featured ten grievances over eight years, six of which were later dismissed on their face but only when a license suspension could be orchestrated through false statements made by the committee’s attorney. That Committee was disqualified in 2010. Replacement lawyers in Albany finished the job using anonymous complaints and solicited ex-clients, 86-a. Three resigned in 2013 for falsifying time sheets. 

All discovery requested as early as March 2009 by motion was denied. Over the next several years, it was confirmed through third parties and court records that petitioner’s secretary was solicited in 2008 to tamper with office mail, court calendars and bank accounts to cause ethics violations while concealing file material needed for a proper defense, 70-a. Circumstantial proof strongly suggested that she was granted prosecutorial immunity, 21-a. 

Examples include petitioner’s internal report and criminal complaints neglected by county prosecutors and city police until all relevant limitations periods had expired. This secretary was ultimately indicted for crimes committed on later law office employers and sent to jail on multiple felony convictions in 2016, 21-a. Both law enforcement agencies were the subject of successful client cases and civil rights forums, i.e. Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004).


I was resoundingly vindicated, albeit belatedly, when circumstantial evidence showed again how judges were perfectly willing to misuse their positions to punish critics behind the scenes. While in office, New York’s top jurist, Janet DiFiore, sent a letter to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of the court officer’s union. She did so in retaliation for his criticisms of her safety practices.

But before she could be exposed by inquiring media, Chief Judge DiFiore resigned, as she had to, faced with an indefensible position that would assure protracted ethics deliberations harmful to the reputation of the same court system she swore to administer. Appointed by disgraced ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo, DiFiore evinced no shame as she was exposed again for her misuse of security after leaving office.

The audacity of this high-level judge, exercised contrary to additional principles of ethics, was not isolated. A predecessor chief judge, Sol Wachtler, may have mentored such elitism with brazen crimes committed 30 years earlier. Appointed by Andrew’s father, Mario Cuomo, Wachtler served a mere seven years in a medium security facility after being arrested for extortion, racketeering and blackmail.

Like DiFiore, Wachtler used high office to interfere with a licensing process of the attorney exposing his misconduct. It featured Wachtler’s debutante mistress who ended their affair. He made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child under a pseudonym. Ironically, Wachtler was renowned for an opinion wherein he criticized prosecutors who could “indict a ham sandwich” if they so targeted.

Wachtler was reinstated after his disbarment, hired as a law school professor, and rewarded with book royalties from his prison memoir, After the Madness. In it, he defended his misconduct because judges are supposedly trained to think of themselves as gods. This was a man being groomed for a possible run for president and Supreme Court Justice.

From the top down, our nation’s most esteemed public servants are committing misconduct at unprecedented levels. An appeals court judge in Rochester, New York, Nancy Smith, earned the dubious distinction as the first jurist above trial level to be publicly disciplined by a state commission for submitting a glowing reference to benefit a prisoner convicted of vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of two people. Not long after, Judge Smith was elevated to presiding justice of that court.

These are jurists who have upheld an absolute immunity for themselves that finds no authority in our Constitution. It is routinely applied to civil actions raising the most reprehensible conduct. I sought to limit such immunities in my precedent-seeking case, Parent v State, 786 Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011). However, this valiant effort was derailed by retributions carried out by the very subjects of litigation.

Given the vast number of state agents effectively substituting as parents in our nation’s family courts, I raised a collective violation of our parenting right which the Supreme Court has declared to be “the oldest liberty interest protected by our Constitution,” Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000). It has become a highly lucrative industry yielding widespread collateral damage which has yet to be exposed.

Conscientious attorneys are justifiably reticent to assume the risk of incurring retributions especially with no financial rewards. That fear has not subsided much since 1980 when attorneys raising advertising rights hid behind a consumers group to achieve some success and then only to advance their profit interests, see Supreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980).

The question then emerges: how many DiFiores, Wachtlers and Smiths are lurking among us?

That number may prove to be staggering. Systemic bias and unconstitutional targeting are only a matter of what a violator can get away with. In Dobbs v Jackson, No. 19-1392, 597 US ____ (2022), the abortion rights case, Roe v Wade was overturned. A version of this opinion was leaked followed by commitments to expose the wrongdoer. Months later, the insider remains at large with the apparent hope that this will blow over. Instead, it has only bred more distrust.

The late Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was more public in her violation of judicial ethics. She launched attacks from chambers disparaging a private businessman’s run for president in 2016. Donald Trump was ultimately successful. Yet she betrayed no guilt or shame until pressured by media criticism. Justice Brett Kavanaugh drew similar criticism by attending a 2022 holiday party hosted by Trump supporters.

Such egotism sets a poor example for lower judges, attorneys and litigants. It calls for an overhaul of our justice system beginning with hearings in Congress. This is not a gender, race or political issue. It is a crevice in the foundations set by the framers of our Constitution. We must all join in a demand for that overhaul with the same kind of chastising dispensed by these same jurists from the bench.

[1] In a June 27, 2017 report of the New York Bar Association, the state’s 11-court trial structure was condemned as chaotic and antiquated particularly when compared to our nation’s largest state of California which features one trial court. The bar overwhelmingly supported a constitutional convention, but voters turned it down the same year.

Visit the censored blog site where this column originates at www.leonkoziol.com

And share this post!

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. is a human rights advocate who practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the 1993 Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in divorce and family courts. It was part of a bold challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Leon Koziol can be reached at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com.


While rabid football fans filled our stadiums on Christmas, half-empty churches featured an immaculate sermon: “God made himself human so humans could be more like God.”

Donald Trump: G.O.A.T. or G.L.O.A.T.?

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Parenting Rights Institute

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

In recent weeks, ex-president and recently announced candidate, Donald Trump, has been declaring himself as the greatest president of all time, even greater than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

He remains committed to this bizarre image despite its clearly false nature, thereby corroborating the lies which media have attributed to him regarding the supposedly stolen 2020 elections. And he does so against the weight of every federal and state judge considering this issue.

Most, if not all of us sane-minded voters, did not know what to make of these declarations, but we reserved judgment to see if the Don would awaken from his fantasies and move on to the real issues facing Americans in this all-important race for our nation’s highest office.

But alas, no such reprieve greeted us. Instead, the Trump declarations resurfaced time and again as if to promote a Fifth Avenue advertising scheme to cram this same delusion down the public’s throat.

This is not simply a sales pitch, harmless entertainment or fiction from Trump’s show, The Apprentice. It is the real-life manifestation of an unrestrained politician working his way up the ladder to dictator status.

Any doubt regarding this was removed when Trump tweeted his position that our Constitution could be set aside to overturn the 2020 election results. His obsession endures to the extreme today where he faces a referral from a House panel for criminal charges connected to the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

To put this comical depiction in perspective, consider the following irrefutable facts from our history:

George Washington was not a spineless politician, and he rejected calls to become America’s first king, thereby setting precedent to deter future hopefuls exactly like Donald Trump from gladly accepting a role as tyrant.

George Washington was present with his fledgling army at Valley Forge freezing in the Pennsylvania mud when brave members of the Oneida Indian tribe, the only one of the six-nation Iroquois Confederacy to side with the patriots, journeyed across two states to deliver food and supplies to our militia.

In contrast today, the fight to preserve our basic constitutional rights has featured Donald Trump hiding behind his sprawling, luxury and highly-guarded compound at Mar-a-lago in sunny Florida where he stores secret documents that remain the envy of our enemies.

Indeed, Benedict Arnold himself could not be more impressed with such audacity prior to his treason and betrayal in favor of the British juggernaut boasting the most powerful army in the world at the time.

Trump shamelessly insults a wide-range of American heroes, the vast majority of which will remain forever unrecognized, when he elevates himself above Abraham Lincoln. Our 16th president, like our first, has a national holiday dedicated to him.

Lincoln prevails as one of the most courageous of all statesmen in history, not just among presidents. He delivered the Emancipation Proclamation at great risk while the Civil War was still raging. It became the centerpiece of all civil rights since that time.

Again, in marked contrast, Donald Trump orchestrated great hype surrounding a public announcement this past month which proved to be a real dud. He again proclaimed himself as the greatest of all time (G.O.A.T.) behind a pathetic sales pitch for duped followers to purchase his newly “minted” NFTs (Non-fungible tokens).

He was undoubtedly impressed with the overnight success of Sam Bankman-Fried who swindled gullible investors to the tune of $16 billion behind his worthless cryptocurrency bitcoins. At age 30, he became one of the most notorious fraud artists of all time prior to his arrest in the Bahamas this month.

Still undeterred, Donald Trump continues to lobby for his puss to deface one of our most cherished national heritage sites, Mount Rushmore. He even held a high-profile rally there near the end of his term to plant into the American psyche that he deserved to be added to that mountain face.

Never mind the monumental cost, which would likely be passed on to taxpayers, how could this politician, with a straight “face,” assume the pedestal of history with the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt?

In the end, this is only a tiny portal into the actual “heritage” of Donald Trump and his short political career. It has made our government a circus show unprecedented in world history. And, it has not steered “The Don” in the direction of the “Greatest Of All Time,”{G.O.A.T.) but the Greatest Liar Of All Time.” (G.L.O.A.T.).

In Webster terms, gloat is defined as “to observe or think about something with triumphant and often malicious satisfaction, gratification or delight.”

WE RELY ON DONATIONS TO ADVANCE OUR VITAL WORK ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS OF GOVERNMENT ABUSE.

WE ARE NEITHER GOVERNMENT FUNDED NOR SUPPORTED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS. PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITES OR CONTACT THIS AUTHOR AT (315) 796-4000.

Highly intriguing memoir of persecuted civil rights attorney Leon R. Koziol published in 2021

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. is a human rights advocate who practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the 1993 Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in divorce and family courts. It was part of a bold challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Leon Koziol can be reached at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com.

Sample Achievements

As appointed special master by a federal judge, Seton Hall University Law School Dean, Ronald Riccio, attempts to mediate Indian land claims with enraged landowners represented by civil rights attorney Leon R. Koziol
World renowned media icon, Morley Safer, interviews Leon Koziol at his law office for a feature on CBS 60 Minutes
New York Times front page article quoting attorney Leon R. Koziol as representative of landowner groups aggrieved by Oneida Indian Nation class action seeking their ejectment from aboriginal tribal lands pursuant to a 1794 treaty violation.
The tide turns against hypocrite land claim sponsors when citizen protests get high court attention
Trillion dollar Turning Stone Casino Resort built on the addictions of gamblers, alcoholics, drug users, underworld operators and greedy politicians
Audacious scammers like Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes get their inspiration from fictional movies and casino glitz
Leon Koziol, father of two precious girls, successfully moved for disqualification of Syracuse child custody judge, Bryan Hedges, declared by opposing lawyers to be a jurist “beyond reproach.” Two years later, Hedges was permanently banned from the bench by New York’s high court upon his admission to sexual abuse of his handicapped five-year-old niece
Considered the “Father of the American Revolution,” Thomas Paine risked his life to distribute pamphlets across the 13 states to stem the growing tide of desertions in George Washington’s army. His writings contributed to the drafting of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution
Dedication plaque in lobby of the new courthouse in downtown Utica, New York made possible by city councilman Leon R. Koziol who lobbied for the long-sought majority votes for its construction, also recognized as city corporation counsel on the right when completed

Help us overcome political and high-tech censorship by promoting and sharing this post

Please Share:

Sam Bankman-Fried and Family Court: The characteristic they share in defrauding the public

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Parenting Rights Institute

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc

IN ANOTHER PREDICTIVE POST A FEW WEEKS BACK, I HIGHLIGHT SAM BANKMAN-FRIED AND HIS MADOFF-STYLE PONZI SCHEME CARRIED OUT AT AGE 30. NO ONE SHOWED ANY INTEREST.

NOW THIS SCAM ARTIST HAS FINALLY BEEN ARRESTED IN NASSAU, THE CAPITAL OF THE BAHAMAS, JUST IN TIME TO AVOID HIS PLANNED FLIGHT TO DUBAI WHICH HAS NO EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW SCAMS ARE COMMITTED BY THOSE OF INFLUENCE, IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR EXISTING AND POTENTIAL VICTIMS OF A MONEY-DRIVEN FAMILY COURT SYSTEM TO READ, COMPREHEND AND SUPPORT QUALIFIED WHISTLEBLOWERS.

THIS IS HIGH-RISK ACTIVITY AS MY ORDEAL OVER A TWELVE-YEAR PERIOD HAS DEMONSTRATED. AND YET IT IS SO BENEFICIAL TO MOMS, DADS AND FAMILIES ESPECIALLY DURING THE HOLIDAYS. SO GET INFORMED ON SUCH ACTIVITY AT www.leonkoziol.com.

THERE IS A LOGICAL REASON WHY THIS BLOG SITE IS SO CENSORED, AT ONE TIME EARNING AS MANY AS 2,000 REACTIONS TO A SINGLE POST.

BOTH FAMILY COURT AND WALL STREET ARE BIG MONEY INDUSTRIES, AND THEY SHARE A GROWING INFLUX OF SCAM ARTISTS DURING DESPERATE ECONOMIC TIMES PROTECTED BY SECRETIVE POLITICIANS AND SPECIAL INFLUENCE GROUPS.

SO YOU CAN JUST KEEP SCROLLING TO SOCIAL GOSSIP SITES, ENTERTAINMENT VENUES OR TROLLING FOR FREE “VOO-DO” ADVICE FROM SELF-APPOINTED LAWYERS WITH GED LAW DEGREES. OR YOU CAN JOIN OUR CAUSE. AS A PRIME MOVER, I SACRIFICED EVERYTHING. AND STILL, THE BAND PLAYS ON.

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. is a human rights advocate who practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the 1993 Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in divorce and family courts. It was part of a bold challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Leon Koziol can be reached at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com.