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.