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.

 

 

 

Legal Brief Seeking Recourse for Abused Parents Accepted by Supreme Court

children are not for sale

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Throughout the entire 230 year history of the United States Supreme Court, there has never been a case accepted on the issue of parental rights in divorce and family court. There have been decisions on how to properly jail a father for a support debt, Turner v Rogers, 564 US __ (2011); how to protect a custodial mother from grandparent rights, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000); how to prevent a biological father from accessing children who want to be in his life, Michael H. v Gerald D., 491 US 110 (1989);  how to terminate parental rights consistent with due process, Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982); how to assure that a father has the same rights as a mother to oppose adoption of their offspring, Caban v Mohammed, 491 US 380 (1979) and cases all the way to where parental rights were first declared to be the oldest liberty interest protected by our Constitution, Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923).

In divorce and family court, because two purportedly co-equal parents have the same rights to their children, lawyers, judges and hired guns, i.e. child psychologists, can beat up on their parental rights until the custody and support battles bankrupt entire families if necessary. It is this antiquated and lucrative custody law (as opposed to shared parenting) which violates the fundamental rights of both parents more than most other forms of state infringements. But that’s okay because of all the conflict profiteers which keep this a trillion dollar industry at the expense of our children.

Then came Koziol v United States District Court, Case No. 15-1519, a mandamus action which seeks parental justice and real accountability for those who abuse our constitutional rights. I filed it on June 14, 2016 to remedy the horrendous retaliation I sustained for criticizing my profession and our courts for their exploitation of our children for profit. On September 20, 2016, the Supreme Court accepted a Supplemental Brief which I offered to show just how the retributions escalated since the earlier filing and how absurd these processes have become. We all know how impossible it is for anyone to get the Supreme Court to hear a case. Less than 100 are accepted out of some 10,000 filed each year, making our high court an illusion for justice among the vast number of aggrieved commoners.

Parents are batting zero in this regard. So we do not expect anything to change any time soon unless we make ourselves heard. That has simply not happened as parenting victims have preferred to stay on their keyboards in the comfort of their homes instead of organizing and protesting. And so the band (bank) plays on as we gripe incessantly to one another and to no one else who cares. Finally a case has come before our high court where true reform is possible. This is the third in a series of excerpts from that supplemental brief which should be shared and supported by all. Here is our third part for publication:

REASONS  FOR  SUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEF

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

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

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

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

Supplement to Fact Section

 Judge Sharpe’s anti-filing action began on August 25, 2015, A-I at 51. Syracuse media was put on notice prior to petitioner’s knowledge of it to yield a calculated publication that further damaged petitioner’s reputation, credible reform message and employability. It was also caused by a fundamental lack of reporter investigation and knowledge of family court matters which mainstream media as a general rule is avoiding. Hence secondary media becomes a critical by-product which in this case has been gagged and targeted by both domestic and disciplinary agents.

At the time of this anti-filing order, respondent King was reviewing motions properly seeking an order reopening a support violation order obtained through joint fraud, namely the concealment of petitioner’s children at the home of an unfit, childless millionaire on the family court record for at least eight months. He issued a decision only days later without mention of that fraud, committing this father to a maximum six month jail term for support arrears.

An arrest warrant was also issued despite a stay order obtained by agreement with a state Supreme Court Justice on September 8, 2015 to facilitate global settlement under a superior court support order by agreement entered on August 23, 2010. It called for sale of petitioner’s home as the predicate remedy for arrears. Home foreclosure had been underway in the only (Supreme) court with authority to direct a sale, and the parties had reached a tentative settlement for child support through sale proceeds due to the state’s impairment of all of petitioner’s income means.

However Judge King reneged the following day without notice to petitioner, placing him unknowingly in fugitive status while upending the settlement set for September 24, 2015. A satisfaction amount had been held back pending the motion for reopening the violation, but the funds were refused because the prescribed local support agency had no authority to accept it and a central office refused to disclose its confidential location. Judge King refused to amend his impossible order due to his true agenda of censorship and punitive incarceration. He refused despite notice from petitioner’s attorney and his possession of certified funds.

In early October, 2015 the arrears were satisfied by mail, the warrant and commitment vacated, and petitioner’s motions denied despite the respondent mother’s claims to have satisfied her own court ordered obligations to notify the father of residential relocation within 24 hours by e-mail or text. She later testified that such notice had been confirmed on her home computer under address “gmai.com” (“l” character missing unlike other received transmissions).

Petitioner was therefore compelled to file more futile judicial misconduct complaints while exposing the fraud on his website. Judge King answered on November 25, 2015 (after mandamus filing below) with a protection (gag) order on this site based exclusively on non-threatening disclosures of recent events with the following absurd, highly defamatory and overbroad language prohibiting:

“assault, stalking, menacing, reckless endangerment, strangulation, criminal obstruction of breathing, identity theft, grand larceny, coercion, or any other criminal offense” nowhere alleged in an offense petition;

Petitioner was actually being ordered to refrain from strangling his own daughters. The Fourth Department appeals court denied an intervening mandamus as did the Second Circuit but petitioner was able to get a mandamus show cause order signed in New York Supreme Court on May 3, 2016. On the eve of family court trial, Judge King cancelled proceedings for the second time while his gag order was maintained under threat of arrest and contempt for six months. He followed days later by throwing it all out on the face of the original petition and website content.

In June, 2016, one week prior to a public hearing on the mandamus action, Judge King stepped down while continuing his 2013 and 2014 suspensions of fathering periods. The action was then dismissed on the court’s own motion due to relief rendered moot through conduct that can only be described as orchestrated. Necessarily involving respondent Administrative Judge Tormey, it was successful in avoiding a citizen protest set to occur at the courthouse.

The case was then transferred to family Judge James Eby in a more remote county, the 38th trial judge since an originally uncontested divorce was filed in 2006. The latest judge denied an exigent motion for Father’s Day time deprived the prior two years as part of a father replacement agenda. Petitioner nevertheless obtained an afternoon with his daughters through pressure upon the mother. This only infuriated the newest judge at a July 12, 2016 session when he effectively closed all state court houses to petitioner.

He did this through notices conclusively proving systemic bias. Prior to first introduction, they stated, inter alia, that civil practice rules will be strictly observed and telephonic argument will not be considered (contrary to practices). This required an entire day and 140 mile round trip to receive a decision already prepared and provided from the bench without mention of a recusal motion or severe child alienation. He simply stared back at petitioner when basic enforcement of phone contact was requested. Given an ability to control appellate records, such torturing of due process impairs access to this Court on the state track.

Judge Eby engaged in sarcastic lecturing in a manner intended to provoke outrage and contempt. He limited petitioner’s recourse to appellate remedies with full knowledge of their prohibitive time, resources and systemic bias with daily developing children as the subject. It compelled petitioner to reiterate the temporary nature of prior allegedly precluded dispositions and contrary precedent involving the same case and parties.

The recusal of Judge King and pending challenges to his forensic and contradictory parenting conditions could be vacated as it occurred in an identical circumstance by a prior Judge Michael Hanuszczak on the same record used by a predecessor (disqualified) judge, Second Circuit A-222. The invidious treatment here mirrored the retaliation against a chief family clerk of the same court in Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010).

The same chief administrative judge, respondent James Tormey is shown through compelling circumstantial inference to be orchestrating these outcomes through discourse outside the scope of judicial office. This may be the only explanation for absurd orders, assignments to remote courthouses, and reneging of stay orders arranged by judges themselves for logic and economy purposes.

Due to the respondent King’s usurpation of a global child support settlement during the month following Judge Sharpe’s anti-filing action, the prescribed satisfaction pursuant to higher court order of August 23, 2010 was derailed. It caused respondents Hawse-Koziol and Koslosky to pursue another violation petition in their preferred family court which lacked jurisdiction to order a sale of petitioner’s home with equity well beyond amounts owed.

That petition was made subject to a traverse (personal jurisdiction) hearing on September 1, 2016. A city marshal admitted on cross-examination by petitioner that he had lied under oath regarding his purported service. Decision was strangely reserved. On September 16, 2016, it was issued dismissing the petition without prejudice but also without referral of the perjury to a law enforcement agency as required by Judicial Code, Jones v Clinton, 36 F.Supp. 2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 1999)(federal judge referral of President Bill Clinton for ethics prosecution after contempt of court).

Among other issues ignored was the serial misconduct of the attorney continually appointed since 2007 to represent petitioner’s children even after removal by an intervening judge (respondent William Koslosky). Like his predecessors, Judge Eby disregarded the issue, leaving petitioner to futile complaints before an ethics committee engaged in the witch hunt against him. As stated, its chief and deputy counsel were fired for falsifying time sheets without public charges, i.e. respondent Steve Zayas. Hence there is no even-handed lawyer accountability in the peculiar ordeal inflicted here.

 

You may contact us at Parenting Rights Institute at our office : (315) 380-3420 or our website at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.

 

 

 

 

Escalating Violence Predicted: Root Cause Suppressed by Media and Federal Courts

EP-150409468.jpg&MaxW=520&q=85
Rest in Peace Walter Scott

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Civil Rights Advocate

Hardly a day goes by without another fatal clash between police and citizens on the streets of America. Many are quick to blame it on racism, but as a civil rights attorney for over 23 years currently advocating for parental rights in our domestic courts, the root cause can be found in the destruction of fathers, families and parental authority. Escalating crime and violence is the natural outcome beyond the capacity of law enforcement to control. It is a central issue in my case currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown may have summed it up best when he lamented that police cannot be made the repository for all of our societal problems ranging from loose dogs to domestic disputes. Unfortunately conflict profiteers in our family courts are dumping upon society and adding to police burdens every day. It is an epidemic tackled in my case but suppressed and censored by our courts and legal profession to the point of persecution and international protection. And so, while the media squawks about a problem it cannot or will not comprehend, the “bank” plays on.

That root cause has been quietly making its way through our federal courts for the past ten years and now the Supreme Court is being asked to appoint a Special Master to hold hearings and inquiries on the state of American families in divorce and family courts. Call it “families vs fees,” the official title is Leon R. Koziol vs United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It was necessarily filed as an extraordinary action originating with an uncontested divorce in 2006 that escalated to an unprecedented 35 trial judge disqualifications and exposure of some of the most horrific injustices ever to mar a civilized court system.

One key aspect of my case is the murder of an unarmed African-American father in South Carolina named Walter Scott. Unlike other victims of police shootings, Walter Scott was shot in the back five times for fleeing a child support warrant at a traffic stop. There was no crime and the horrific scene was caught on a citizen video. A family lost their daddy due to a debt, nothing more. The money enforcement practices in these courts have become so “draconian” that at least one British court refused to extradict a “dead beat” to the states. As predicted here at the time, terrorism and violence will escalate due to the media and court suppression of this core cause.

As promised this is a continuation of our sequel of publications on relevant aspects of my Supreme Court brief awaiting decision next week. Help us spread our message of court reform and parental equality across America. Look us up at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com or call our office at (315) 380-3420.

Point Three: Persecution inflicted upon this public critic and judicial whistle blower meets the criteria for asylum under United Nations Convention of 1951.

 The fact pattern here is shockingly unprecedented and incredible from a human rights standpoint. It mirrors in many material respects the abuses inflicted upon Chinese lawyer Chen Guangcheng who like petitioner advocated for women’s rights, land rights and parent-child rights. He fled China in 2012 and was accorded protected status in New York with help of then secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

In this case, the mirror mistreatment of an American civil rights attorney and parent entitles petitioner to protected status under the United Nations Convention of 1951 and other human rights protocols. Such protection is accorded to persons persecuted for their political views and free speech. At least one British court denied extradition to a child support obligor due to “draconian” enforcement practices in the states. The case for protection here is detailed in the opening segment of this brief and in petitioner’s motion filed on August 9, 2016 and will not be repeated.

Since that time, petitioner was improperly served with an amended petition for enforcement of a child support order and willful contempt. It contained language in boldface capital letters on its Notice face page which is far more threatening than the original one allegedly served on petitioner prior to petition filing here. As explained in the fact segment of this brief, the original service was made fraudulently with a city marshal admitting on the witness stand at a September 1, 2016 hearing in Syracuse Family Court that he had lied under oath. Critical to the service that never occurred is a shocking criminal sentence now being threatened in the amended version yet to be served:

YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY SUBJECT YOU TO MANDATORY ARREST AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WHICH MAY RESULT IN YOUR INCARCERATION FOR UP TO SEVEN YEARS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND MAY SUBJECT YOU TO FAMILY PROSECUTION AND INCARCERATION FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR IN COURT WHEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO SO, THIS ORDER MAY BE EXTENDED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND CONTINUE IN EFFECT UNTIL YOU APPEAR IN COURT.

On April 5, 2015, an unarmed African-American father was shot dead in the back five times by a traffic cop while fleeing a child support warrant on a routine stop. Although both white and black officers were charged in the murder, the children forever lost their dad for a money debt arbitrarily inflated to maximize federal incentive revenues under Title IV-D and to feed family court beneficiaries. It is a situation well out of control and leading to increased instances of violence across America.

Respondents have successfully destroyed petitioner and his reform efforts through a seizure of his licenses, income capacities and disparagements of his reputation and public message. Petitioner’s background was omitted from the original petition for the sake of substance. However in this supplemental brief it is required to repair to the extent possible the false depictions ascribed to the judicial whistle blower here while further solidifying the conscience shocking misconduct of respondents for substantive due process purposes and extraordinary relief.

Petitioner is a civil rights lawyer still registered with the New York Bar during an indefinite suspension period which began on February 5, 2010. This is when he took a conscientious stand against father discrimination and corruption generally consistent with his professional oath. In front page news of the day, he compared his refusal to pay gender biased support orders to the refusal of Susan B. Anthony to pay her fine after being convicted of the crime of voting in the 1872 presidential elections.

It must be emphasized that petitioner never refused support of his children or compliance with agreements when honored by the “custodial parent.” Ironically the court in Rochester, New York where the arguments and suspension occurred is dedicated to Susan B. Anthony due to location of her trial.

Petitioner was known in the Northern District of New York as an attorney willing to take on cases which few others would for fear of government retribution or public condemnation. His achievements include legal precedents and six figure recoveries for victims of government abuse. All the while, he was self trained, generating a perfect record of acquittals in criminal cases. A sampling of news articles ignored in the record below is appended to the lower court record at A-91.

Petitioner’s civil rights work earned him interviews on the CBS Program 60 Minutes and introductions on the front page of New York Times, among other major media. A published book was discussed on CNN and his candidacy for United States Congress was a headline story in 2006. After years of complex litigation against high profile firms, he secured final judgment in New York Supreme Court invalidating the largest casino gaming compact in the state on constitutional grounds.

In education, a Juris Doctor was conferred by Northern Illinois University, College of Law with an award from the American Bar Association in State and Local Government. Petitioner received a Bachelor of Professional Studies from the State University of New York, College of Technology, thereafter joining the management team of a Fortune 500 manufacturer. Later he served as a corporation counsel, school board attorney and city councilman with a focus on risk management.

Petitioner’s many published cases include Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004)($333,820.32 civil rights verdict argued before Justice Sonia Sotomayor); Oneida Indian Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY 2000)(successful casino challenge in defense of landowner rights) Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000)(free speech challenge as city corporation counsel invalidating mayoral gag order); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994)(successful sexual harassment case), Palaimo v Lutz, 837 F. Supp. 55 (NDNY 1993)(brutality and unlawful confinement claims allowed for 72 year old woman).

Rounding out his scholarship, community service awards and dedication plaques on a new city courthouse is his latest published novel regarding nuclear terrorism. It can be found at major bookseller sites entitled Voyage to Armageddon. Within two years of law school graduation in 1985, petitioner obtained a restraining order on a $30 million school project. Today he is unable to get a family court order to enforce a single phone call from his daughters. Much of petitioner’s unyielding quest for justice derives from his own father who shared horror stories of his five years spent in a Nazi internment camp.

img_0298

 

 

 

Supreme Court Asked to Appoint Special Master to Benefit Parents in Court

img_0278
From left, Dr. Leon Koziol of New York, John Bautista,  of Virginia, Dr. Dan Pestana of California and Dr. Mario Jimenez of Florida hold news conference on steps of Supreme Court to announce the filing of petitions to rectify constitutional abuses in family courts.

Dr. Leon Koziol announced today the filing of a Supplemental Brief with the Supreme Court in the case of Leon Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York pending since June 17, 2016. On that day, four parents from different parts of the country held a news conference in Washington D.C. to help persuade the high court to give us meaningful accountability and constitutional protection of our parental rights.

The Brief dated September 17, 2016 was submitted this week to alert the court to escalating retributions from the states to our reform efforts. Interestingly three of the four parents who filed their petitions in May, June and July, 2016 are having their cases considered on the same day. The fourth parent received a decision this month in his federal case allowing him to go forward on certain of his claims in the California system, a rare event.

Significant to all victimized moms and dads, the Supplemental Brief asks the Supreme Court to order appointment of a Special Master to hold hearings and investigate Title IV-D funding of our state courts, erosion of parental rights and its adverse impacts on our children. It is part of a mandamus and prohibition action which Dr. Koziol filed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan against judges of the Northern District of New York due to a half century of undue deference to our nation’s divorce and family courts.

A complete copy of this Brief can be downloaded: (Click Here)

FOR  YOUR  SAKE  AND  THAT  OF  OUR  FAMILIES,  HELP  US  MAKE  THIS  POST  VIRAL: If you have a judge or lawyer engaged in the kind of conduct challenged here, your community and judicial accountability agencies should know about it. If you need help in this regard, check out the range of services we offer here at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.

Parenting Rights Institute

Office: (315) 380-3420

leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com

Your Documentary Can Achieve Justice and Court Reform: Take Action Now.

Presentation1

NO  ONE  IN  THE  COUNTRY  IS  DOING  THIS 

Welcome to an extraordinary opportunity to obtain justice on your case.

Let’s face it, mainstream media is ignoring corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. That’s because bar associations across America are suppressing a trillion dollar industry. Tremendous harm has resulted throughout today’s society. So as parents, we have a duty to publish our own documentaries through secondary and social media. Here at Parenting Rights Institute, we are a part of that movement. You can be too.

Anyone can slap together a home video and throw it up on You-Tube. But without expertise connected to it, why waste time. Such a video could do more harm than good. Even major media can fall short of an ideal product because the sponsors are unfamiliar with these courts. Time and again we have seen shows that promote propaganda of the child “experts” who have never had children as they profit from our misfortunes.

Here we do much more through follow-up and professional reports. Dr. Leon Koziol has been featured on 60 Minutes, front page of the New York Times, CNN and other major media. You can view some of it on our  media page at http://www.leonkoziol.com. So we certainly have the expertise to do your documentary right and in a way that meets your needs because he is a parent and legal expert. It’s why he founded the Parenting Rights Institute.

For the past 30 years, Dr. Koziol and his staff have brought major lawsuits against government, corruption cases against judges,  malpractice actions against lawyers and precedent seeking cases docketed by the United States Supreme Court in response to an anti-filing order. In May, 2016 he obtained a state Supreme Court order resulting in the removal of a family court gag order. Despite all First Amendment suppression, he perseveres with the citizen challenges for preserving our constitutional rights.

Few others have proven to be so bold and tenacious. If there is a will, there is a way, and together we strive for success. We have sponsored parenting conventions upon reviewing countless cases of government corruption. In 2005, Dr. Koziol secured final judgment in New York Supreme Court invalidating a billion dollar gaming compact of the Oneida Turning Stone Casino, largest in the state. Learn of other achievements on this site.

More recently Dr. Koziol’s skills have been applied exclusively to assist moms and dads victimized in divorce and family courts. He has traveled as far away as Hawaii, San Francisco, Nashville, Washington, Philadelphia, even Paris, France performing investigations. His work was then incorporated into formal reports and documentaries for media, public agencies and watchdog groups. He has also published three books.

We begin our assignments with an inquiry at no charge from a victimized parent, grandparent or family member. An estimate for services and expenses is provided. Next we receive electronic and paper records to be reviewed. As a defamation expert, Leon will not expose himself to libelous reports, yet another benefit for you. We follow with a trip to your community to get a critical assessment of the environment. That trip is concluded with a video interview and options for a more comprehensive documentary if warranted.

You are in command of the options insofar as a given case may prove to have an extraordinary dimension to it. The extent of the assignment can vary as circumstances dictate. It can be a villain’s worse nightmare and your finest hour, maybe even an autobiography for future generations, simply priceless. Below is a raw sample of a book documentary sent to CBS 60 Minutes. One of Leon’s submissions was recently sent to production for a possible show. It would not be his first.

So call our office at (315) 380-3420 for an interview and quote or Leon directly at (315) 796-4000. It could be the call of a lifetime.

 

 

Your Workplace, Community or Church Group Will Benefit From Dr. Leon Koziol and the Parenting Rights Institute

 

We are living in an increasingly litigious society. There are over 300,000 lawyers in New York and California alone with as many attorney candidates as there are those in practice across the United States. That’s a lot of lawyers seeking work. But in divorce and family court the participants are creating their own employment at your expense through needless, lucrative and contrived controversy that has generated no accountability.

Everyone is adversely impacted, from the innocent child to diverse employers who suffer the health and productivity consequences in the workforce. It is truly a silent epidemic suppressed by bar associations everywhere.  You need to learn more about it, identify the issues as they affect you and improve the condition of your home, family, workplace and community. You need to sponsor Dr. Leon Koziol, Director of Parenting Rights Institute,  for a speaking engagement or consultant for your organization or personnel department.

Here you get the real deal. They have done everything they could to censor this vital reform message and yet Dr. Koziol has persevered. Together with fellow consultants and staff we offer non-lawyer services to a variety of persons and entities. Church groups can gain immeasurable insights. Our professional background is detailed elsewhere on this site together with our services that include investigation and research of court corruption.

Dr. Koziol brings together a diverse and accomplished background for your benefit. As a published author, he has provided valuable writing and editing services for those who wish to share their ordeals with the world. A Court Program was developed over a period of years to assist others contemplating or already engaged in litigation. It is designed to avoid costly disputes and is available on this site as well.

Mediation services and litigation alternatives are highly recommended. If we cannot do it we will recommend a party near you. Such unique assistance is provided to victims of the court process because lawyers are not inclined to do so out of a fear of professional retribution. Such fears are understandable based on Dr. Koziol’s experiences after 23 unblemished years of practice in federal and state courts.

Therefore, he and his associates are able to develop strategies to suit victims from around the country. Tell us your issues and objectives, and we can provide a course of action based on many years of professional writing, drafting, lobbying, trial and appellate court experience. Often times, parents who choose our services include their lawyers in our strategy sessions.

We have helped organize rallies, conferences and parenting conventions while joining those who seek reform through network publicity and website development. Each case calls for a different approach using a wide range of proven or creative means. Call our office for a free consultation at (315) 380-3420 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.

Will Donald Trump File a Brief on Supreme Court Case No. 15-1519 Re: First Amendment and Justice Ginsburg?

 

donald-trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg2

The following e-mail submitted to Michael Cohen, Chief Counsel for Donald Trump is self-explanatory:

September 12, 2016

Michael Cohen
Chief Counsel
Trump Organization
725 fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Re:  Donald Trump’s position on Supreme Court issues

Dear Mike:

Weeks ago you and I discussed the motion filed on my pending case before the Supreme Court regarding a disqualification of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That motion was accepted as a “Suggestion for Recusal” on August 9, 2016 under Case No. 15-1519; Leon R. Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It will be decided on or after September 26, 2016. That gives Donald Trump exactly two weeks to submit a formal position directly to our nation’s high court in the way of an amicus brief, even if limited only to his campaign issues.

Because Justice Ginsburg opened the Trump campaign to public criticism, it is only fair that Mr. Trump seize the opportunity which I have uniquely provided for him. This is truly an extraordinary case. With professional football players exercising their First Amendment rights on 9-11 without retribution, my case features a civil rights attorney punished for his accurate criticisms of our Third Branch of Government. My mandamus action is directed to a federal judge removed from a case because of a human gene he used to decide cases which the scientific community will purportedly not discover for 50 years (Northern District Judge Gary Sharpe in United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82).

I am once again sending you a copy of my motion. Please contact me at your earliest convenience at (315) 796-4000.

Very truly yours,

Leon R. Koziol

 

Please share today’s post: http://wp.me/pXgi5-2tf

Video footage taken from a Donald Trump rally held earlier in the year at Albany, NY. The event was attended by staff members at Leon Koziol.Com