What can you do if judges violate the law and threaten to assault litigants in court? Meet Judge Gerald “Neanderthal” Popeo!

“I would love to come off this bench and wipe that smirk off your face!”  City Judge Gerald Popeo to a litigant in his court room, now assigned to Family Court after the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct censured him for a battery of ethical violations but never removed him.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Should you decide to expose corruption in our judicial system, be wary of the immunity which it claims over your First Amendment rights. This immunity and self-regulation power has become so abused that Michigan Family Judge Wade McCree was able to commit adultery in chambers, get a litigant mother pregnant while he placed her adversary on a child support monitor and suffer no monetary liability to his victims.

Now we have another “Acting” Family Judge in upstate New York who threatened a litigant from the bench, was found by an ethics judge to have used racial slurs (“country niggers”) and sent people to jail on serial contempt rulings because they grinned or complained of injustices. Meet Judge Gerald “Neanderthal” Popeo of Utica, New York, a regular standard-bearer for anti-violence groups. Get the details by clicking here.

Because the persecution for my judicial misconduct complaints has become so extreme, I recently filed an extraordinary lawsuit against such judges in New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. There is little expectation of proper accountability, however, because our courts are self-protecting of their revenues, fees and reputation. They would rather excuse, ignore or rationalize racial slurs and judge revenge than accept the public consequences for their actions like they require of the rest of us.

So what can we do? My lawsuit may shed some light. Here is an excerpt of my arguments before that court which may shock you, but it is a sound position based on my 23 unblemished years as a civil rights attorney and successful cases which recovered hundreds of thousands of dollars for my clients. That was before the judicial retaliation began for my whistleblowing activity. These arguments are made to oppose dismissal motions filed by New York’s Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and various inferior judge (respondents) engaged in clear misconduct:

Koziol v DiFiore, et. al.

2)  This is a hybrid declaratory judgment and extraordinary relief action brought pursuant to CPLR Articles 30, 63 and 78. It is otherwise authorized by New York’s high court under a “Rule of Necessity” laid out in another hybrid action, Maron v Silver, 14 NY3d 230 (2010). If the Chief Judge and respondents are to be plainly understood by their motions, a hybrid lawsuit filed by predecessor chief judges challenging legislative dysfunction for pay raise purposes is proper, but if those whom they serve seek to do the same for purposes of protecting their children, livelihood and liberties from judicial dysfunction, they are out of line, subject to summary dismissals or even filing prohibitions of the sort demanded here.

3)  New York’s judiciary clearly had no authority to direct the amounts or timeliness of pay raises absent diminution. It is a subject textually committed to other branches of government under the people’s constitution. Yet the Maron case was filed anyway, by judges no less, and it is still “the law” in this state. It can only be construed as an unconstitutional scheme to politically influence the other branches through an abuse of our courts. If private litigants endeavored to do the very same thing, they would be subjected additionally to fines, sanctions and even contempt.

4)  Both motions have utterly ignored the Maron v Silver case, indeed it is not even mentioned in the joint Memorandum of Law, Table of Authorities. This is because the outcome is already anticipated. There is no neutral and detached arbiter, hence vitiating any good faith effort or purpose for preparing an opposition Memorandum. Ignoring stated precedent is not only unethical but also the tactic employed by most, if not all jurists reviewing this case to date.

5)  In my recent book, Satan’s Docket, I have described this tactic as “Orchestrated Law.”It was practiced in the serial rulings which were, in fact, cited in the moving papers, further confirmation of the systemic bias carefully and convincingly laid out in the petition.  Both motions have also ignored the precedent seeking nature of this case premised on escalating new facts caused by each biased ruling designed to suppress speech directed at judicial misconduct.

6)  The motions continue with their deceptive agenda by totally ignoring salient facts of the petition without facts of their own interposed by any person having personal knowledge. That renders the petition presumptively true for purposes of any summary ruling. Even on technical grounds identified for dismissal, the untwisted facts cannot be silenced on such an extraordinary case. But as practiced here for at least ten years, decision makers have cherry picked only those facts and precedent (if at all) which supports a predetermined outcome and a “law” concocted contrary to our legislated ones.

7)  If you don’t mention material facts or egregious misconduct clearly bearing on that outcome, it simply didn’t happen. This results in a monumental fraud upon the public by that branch of government charged with highest duty of protecting our constitutional rights and “justice for all.” If our courts are bold enough to cover up their own corruption, there is no “law.” It is all the justification needed for victims to take matters into their own hands. We can rightfully conclude that we are living in an increasingly lawless society. Proof is everywhere, from the mass murders by a fatherless teen in Florida to the terrorist threats in daily news reports.

8)  A simple test which bears this out is the perjuries of judge-appointed child lawyer William Koslosky and the state’s “custodial parent,” respondent Kelly Hawse-Koziol. The record clearly shows that they both conspired to conceal the true residence of my daughters, going so far as to serve a Notice to Admit in November, 2015 attaching a purported electronic notice of child relocation with the address “gmai.com.” It constituted an impossible transmission without the “l” character demonstrable from the face of that doctored confirmation notice. The 35th assigned judge, Daniel King, bent on revenge for my testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, simply vacated the notice without any consequence to either co-conspirator. He did so while a gag order was in place in the last decision prior to his removal.

9)  The logical question which then arises is why a lawyer would engage in such clear misconduct. The answer lies in the continuing refusal of our appellate division justices to hold William Koslosky accountable. That failure in duty occurred as recently as February 26, 2018 when Judge Joanne Winslow submitted notice to me declining to sign a show cause order on this case. I am making that application, already served on the parties, a part of this cross-motion. It sought, inter alia, a referral of William Koslosky minimally for disciplinary action stemming from his July 31, 2011 and August 2, 2011 affirmations in support of appeal dismissals.

10)  Those affirmations were re-filed one month later in the Third Department after this court’s transfer order. In that particular scheme, Koslosky stated under oath that I sought to reinstate my law license in a family court cross-motion dated March 3, 2011 before later disqualified Judge Pirro-Bailey. It was obviously orchestrated to discredit me as a parent, lawyer and critic insofar as every sane lawyer knows that a law license cannot be reinstated in that court.

11)  As the petition and show cause application explained, lawyer Koslosky went so far as to assert factually that I was seeking to “revoke” the authority of this court to decide licensing matters. There was no proof of any of this, but the sworn affirmations remain in the records of both upstate licensing/appeals courts. The effectively ratified perjuries have not been retracted or even acknowledged by any judge to date. My answering affidavit and the ones repeatedly filed here contained the Koslosky sworn statements and entire cross-motion showing no such events.

12)  This court cannot deflect by asserting timely recourse to the Fifth District Grievance Committee. Apart from its own duties under the Judicial Code, its appointed Committee has yet to even acknowledge my 2011 grievance against Koslosky and custodial counsel, perhaps due to the simultaneous disqualification and transfer of my disciplinary matters to the Third Department and the witch hunt lawyers there focused on my public criticisms.

13)  These standard-bearers of lawyer ethics were allowed to quietly resign without public prosecution of any kind after an Inspector General discovered their falsified time sheets. As the petition explains with sufficient detail and examples, I was not accorded similar favor after more than eight years of license suspension, one year longer than a disbarment period.

14)  The Third Department misconduct was not much different prior to transfer when Fifth District Attorney Mary Gasparini submitted a false written statement to her Committee that I had not sought an adjournment to better prepare for a first time prosecution of ten grievances in 2008. This lie, in turn, led to “discrepancy” claims elevating a first time admonition to formal charges and my first one year disciplinary suspension by the Third Department (still extant).

15)  The Gasparini lie was fully proven in a March, 2009 motion for discovery and other relief during that prosecution. This court denied my motion in a cursory, confidential decision two months later without any mention of Gasparini’s misconduct. Ten grievances (six later dismissed on their face) comprised this first time prosecution after two decades of unblemished practice. It originated on January 9, 2008, the same day as arguments before Judge John Centra of this court which contained extensive proof of ethical misconduct by Keith Eisenhut, opposing divorce counsel unknown at the time to be a member of that same Fifth District Committee.

16)  These grievances were stale for many years as was the one currently prosecuted by the Third Department involving events of 2008. Hence it cannot be said that timely recourse against Koslosky is somehow stale or waived. To the contrary, the intentional disregard and uneven treatment of lawyer misconduct have only left wide open the door for a series of perjuries that have destroyed all aspects of my former model existence over a half century period, including the gmai.com concoction years later. In the face of all that has been presented and accumulated to date, how can anyone conclude that a rational justice system has been made available to me? The notion that an anti-filing order should now be issued is an even greater farce inasmuch as such an order has been effectively in place since January 9, 2008.

17)  But that corruption pales in comparison to the one which now confronts everyone involved. If lawyers appointed and licensed by this court can freely concoct facts and lie under oath, anything can be contrived against me as long as my reform and whistleblower activity persist. That entitles me to resort to every manner of personal protection at my disposal.

PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE AND SUPPORT OUR CAUSE by donating or investing in our anti-corruption activities on this site. Call our office at (315) 380-3420 or contact me personally at (315) 796-4000.