Divorce and family court victims as far away as Florida and California are already committed to attend public hearing on gag order, equal rights and parental alienation.
After ten years of litigating for parental justice as high as the United States Supreme Court, Dr. Leon Koziol may finally get his day in court on behalf of divorce and family court victims everywhere. A New York Supreme Court Justice has just signed an order to hear arguments in a mandamus proceeding on June 10 at 10:30 a.m. at the Oneida County Courthouse in Utica. Mandamus is considered extraordinary, in this case directed at a family court judge named Daniel King in Lowville, New York, and it is open to the public.
In the past, Leon was bombarded with technical dismissals, jurisdictional chaos and judge misconduct designed to suppress his overdue reform efforts in our third branch of government. Unscrupulous lawyers across America have turned our children into a lucrative trillion dollar industry eating alive our life’s earnings, retirement savings, health and college funds. And the corruption is escalating for reasons found in Leon’s ordeal described with horrific detail at Leon Koziol.com.
After 23 unblemished years practicing law in federal and state courts, he was suspended, threatened with contempt, deprived of a livelihood, denied access to (important people in his life) and now they are seizing his home. We can’t disclose who those important people are because this site is still subject to a gag order which Leon seeks to remove on June 10th so that fraud, perjury and judge misconduct can be conveyed to you when government commissions fail us.
The timing before Fathers Day and location of these arguments are also extraordinary. An opportunity like this may not occur for another ten years. Leon has sacrificed too much for this cause and is destined to lose this case because the establishment and gold mine he is seeking to reform are too powerful. But if we can finally rally together at the Oneida County Courthouse in a judicial district which includes the Fort Drum Army Base and former Griffiss Air Force Base, a profound message can be sent to courts all across America.
Leon is highly focused on protecting military, minorities and law enforcement, or those mostly harmed by the antiquated custody system. Instead of promoting shared parenting, our federal government today is obsessed with transgender bathrooms in North Carolina with Attorney General Loretta Lynch accusing us of being racists if we don’t support her. What??? Leon was a highly accomplished civil rights attorney and lawyer for a past president of the National Organization for Women. Racism and religious convictions are not the same. And while everyone else is demanding equal rights, fathers are still discriminated through an abuse of Title IV-D federal funding.
This courthouse in the center of New York state is three hours from New York metropolitan area and Buffalo, two hours from the Canadian and Pennsylvania borders. Already supporters are committed to attend from as far away as Florida and California. Hotel Utica and the Radisson downtown are less than a mile from Thruway Exit 31 (Interstate 90). These were the sites of various civil rights forums sponsored by Leon that were targeted by ethics lawyers engaged in the witch hunt against Leon. They were ultimately fired by a licensing court for falsifying their time sheets. No public charges were ever brought against them.
You may have heard about Arkansas Judge Joe Boeckmann charged this week with sexual predator crimes over a thirty year period through judicial favors. In the mandamus lawsuit and at Leon Koziol.com, you will read about Leon’s custody judge, Brian Hedges, removed from the bench for admitting to sexual misconduct on his five year old handicapped niece, family judges who fabricated college degrees to elevate Leon’s support obligations, and his consequential testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption which led to more severe retributions. You will read about judges sent to prison in Brooklyn and Albany for soliciting custody and divorce bribes, and of course the “Kids-for-Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania.
It’s out of control people. Stop keyboarding in the comfort of your homes to one another and people who don’t care. “Raising awareness” this way is misguided and creates false hope. It’s time to make a stand against parent waterboarding by a corrupted system. Spread the word every way you can. After the June 10 arguments, Leon will file a petition for writ at the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. concerning a similar mandamus action dismissed by a federal appeals court in Manhattan. An opening excerpt is provided below. For more information and desperately needed donations, contact our office, Parenting Rights Institute, at (315) 796-4000 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.
U.S. SUPREME COURT WRIT (OPENING):
While our federal government asserts itself around the globe to advance human rights, its military is returning to divorce and family courts which exploit children for profit. Public safety officers, such as our responders on 9-11, are being hauled into the same courts and subjected to discrimination on account of their gender or line of duty. Many are alienated from their children, committed to debtor prisons or oppressed as inferior parents to feed a trillion dollar industry.
It is a highly protected industry orchestrated under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 USC section 651 et. seq. States are rewarded by the number and size of “child support” orders manufactured by their courts. Superior and inferior custody classifications are essential to these money transfers and mandated by federal statute even when parents with near equal incomes and childrearing periods set up contrary agreements, see i.e. Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998).
Accordingly support judges have been rendered inherently biased against all those classified under the inferior “non-custodial” label with or without justification. Such classifications are arbitrary, stigmatizing and institutional in countless cases, requiring otherwise cooperative parents to compete over their children. Their infringement of a fundamental right to parent one’s offspring is easily replaced by childrearing plans and orders which retain more family oriented labels such as mother, father and parent, see i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at fn. 1(veteran family judge declaring “custody” and “visitation” to be offensive terms in an antiquated system which brings out the worst in parents when children need their best).
However such less intrusive custody substitutes are foreclosed by the blanket classifications and marginalized by overburdened courts committed to the funding scheme. Over time, such injustices have reached constitutional dimension while ever elusive, utopian and overbroad child rearing standards displace parental discretion without compelling state interest contrary to a right declared by the Supreme Court to be the “oldest liberty interest” protected by our Constitution, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000)(prolonged custody case can itself violate parental rights), Parham v JR, 442 US 548 (1979)(fit parents presumed to act in their children’s best interests).
A full range of constitutional rights is easily trampled under principles of equity, or the power seized by family judges to “father” our children, see often cited Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925)(“paternal jurisdiction” derived from feudal common law). In plain terms, the Constitution is being ignored because the custody scheme is lucrative for those who depend upon family controversy for their livelihood. It is being facilitated by judges charged with the highest duty of safeguarding such rights, Federalist Paper No. 78; Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).
Support inequities triggered by this scheme (child support standards act) are typically countered with custody tactics to result in untold harm to our children, i.e. Pearce v Longo, 766 F.Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011)($2 million city liability for police investigator committing murder-suicide with ex-spouse after exiting support court leaving children without parents). In his highly researched study, Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis, Professor Stephen Baskerville places the blame on government: “What many are led to believe is a social problem may in reality be an exercise of power by the state,” Independence Review, vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, at pp 485-486.
Unsuspecting litigants are also exploited by an expanding bureaucracy under Title IV-D to finance welfare costs created by unrelated and irresponsible parents. The ones properly devoted to their children therefore shoulder an unjust burden merely because they reside separately from their partners. These support judges engage in highly abused fictions such as “imputed income” to raise obligations beyond realistic capacities. There is no express provision for shared parenting under the federal entitlement statute, and the regulatory scheme has replaced the child’s needs with “way of life” standards to elevate support even further. It has removed critical discretion from proper decision makers with outcomes that shock the conscience, see fn 3 and 4.
The “band plays on” in our nation’s family courts because civil rights attorneys and parental advocates such as petitioner are subjugated, vilified and punished for their exercise of reform efforts otherwise protected under the American Constitution. Meanwhile, gay, lesbian and trans-gender parents, soon to be victimized by this same lucrative system, have achieved far greater strides in equality with repeat court actions than fathers have over a century of discrimination.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition directed to the federal court of the Northern District of New York. It seeks relief which is central to any self-governing society, namely, the right to seek reforms to this over regulated and oppressive system of child control. In that vein, it matters not whether the decision makers here agree with the foregoing legal posture concerning a federal statute. It matters only that the petitioner is accorded his inalienable human right to express public views and raise his offspring free of the severe retributions he sustained for criticizing our third branch of government, see i.e Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964).
 Petitioner’s revenue-bias conclusion was deemed frivolous by the lower court. However it is supported by our nation’s top civil rights experts at the Justice Department. They issued a report on March 4, 2015 after the Ferguson, Missouri race riots concluding that the region’s municipal courts were committing civil rights violations through concocted arrests and excessive fines as part of a revenue generating scheme. There is nothing to distinguish that conclusion from petitioner’s long asserted claims here regarding family courts which incite needless controversy to exact excessive support orders and attorneys fees. Unequal custody classifications are the workhorse behind all this with rampant prejudice against male parents which can no longer be denied or tolerated. The Census Bureau and private entities continue to report that nearly 85% of all support obligors are men. In his court filings, petitioner has described this as “the last bastion of institutionalized discrimination remaining un-checked in America today.”
 As this case verifies, money interests have displaced the “best interests of the child” in family court. Financial disclosures are mandatory for gauging child support but exploited by unscrupulous lawyers to concoct needless and even bizarre issues for fee maximization. When resources are exhausted from both parents, they orchestrate cause for settlement or client abandonment. Ethics violations are so numerous and even accepted as part of a litigious child control process that attorney disciplinary agents cannot logistically police all the abuses. Worse yet, these agents are able to abuse their entrusted positions to suppress accountability. This case features a chief ethics attorney and two lawyer subordinates who engaged in the witch hunt against the petitioner-attorney (and father) for his public disclosure of vast misconduct. They were terminated from their court-appointed positions as standard bearers of lawyer ethics after an Inspector General discovered their falsified time sheets. No public charges, ethical or criminal, were ever instituted, see Robert Gavin, Oversight lawyers quit amid inquiry, (Albany) Times Union, July 10, 2013.
 The injustices have reached epidemic proportions. Only one month after the Ferguson report, a fit and unarmed father named Walter Scott was shot dead in the back while fleeing a child support warrant during a traffic stop in South Carolina. He had been imprisoned a number of times due to a growing support debt based on imputed income capacities. Under prevailing law, an imprisoned parent for any reason continues to face support obligations at pre-commitment levels. Upon release, the debtor is typically overwhelmed and unemployable. He is nevertheless subjected to a rule that one should not profit from the mis-deeds which caused the incarceration even with full rehabilitation. Only because of the “mis-deeds” of this traffic cop, quickly charged with murder, was it publicly revealed that one out of every eight persons imprisoned in South Carolina resulted from support debts. Nearly all are male parents, and a review of warrants lists across New York reveals a similar pattern. South Carolina boasts one of the strictest support enforcement laws with jail terms of up to one year, yet it reports one of the worst collection rates under the federal (performance) statute, partial source: Robles and Dewan, Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat, New York Times (front page), 4/19/15. Debtor prisons have been invalidated since the mid 19th century but re-introduced through willful support violations. As the case before this court demonstrates, such a contempt avenue is an illusion behind a de facto debtors’ prison due to biased judges having a financial stake in the outcomes of support litigation. Such jurists bring court revenues and personal advancement through support performance measures and payments derived from sources other than the debtor parent, see i.e. Bast, supra. As relevant here, the petitioner-father issued public statements at the Walter Scott funeral before national media, civil rights groups and reporters of the New York Times as part of his ongoing reform efforts. He suffered further retributions in the lower court, state family courts and attorney disciplinary tribunals by actions and decisions beginning only weeks later.