By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

This past week, a federal judge directed attorneys defending my civil rights case to present their positions regarding an amended complaint drafted to meet federal court standards. The amended version was made necessary by the New York Attorney General who removed my case from state supreme court to federal court on August 29, 2019.

To be sure, this is a complex case but no small matter as a “shoot on sight” threat was made against me by a traffic cop claiming authority of a high alert support warrant. That alert was secretly crafted and unlawfully “leaked” to media according to a local sheriff. The threat was made to a driver of my vehicle on August 30, 2018, and it was eerily similar to the police murder of Walter Scott in South Carolina on April 4, 2015.

That murder was caught by a hidden by-stander using his i-phone, otherwise it would not have been believed. I addressed national media and a member of Congress at the Walter Scott funeral to shift attention from race relations to federal funding abuses under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 651-669b. That Act incentivizes parental conflict, aggravates domestic violence and causes needless murder-suicides.

Walter Scott was shot dead in the back unarmed while fleeing a support warrant at a traffic stop. Fortunately I was not present in the vehicle when the “shoot on sight” threat was made to my driver three years later. In my amended complaint, I compare the abusive proceedings in retaliation for my whistle blowing activity to the show trials, death threats and child propaganda of Nazi Germany.

The fact that no judge to date has shown any concern for these draconian, Nazi style enforcement practices should make every good American very alarmed. It could be you or a loved one under attack tomorrow. I endured 12 years of persecution due to my exposure of this human rights crisis, one that now supports a conclusion that our government will kill for money, i.e. the Title IV-D scheme rewards family courts by the number and size of support orders they issue.

Here is the opening segment of my amended complaint:

     Leon R. Koziol, as and for his amended complaint, sets forth the following:

                     PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT

   1)  The United States Supreme Court has long declared that the right of parents to raise their children is the “oldest liberty interest protected by the Constitution.” This right is not lost or waived when two parents decide to raise their children in separated environments.

   2)  However, in the State of New York, this parenting right has been dismantled in countless ways through an antiquated system of custody, support and visitation processes that can permanently and needlessly separate parents from their children. For parents to legally divorce or separate, they must expose themselves to these unduly adversarial processes to a point of being forced out of their children’s lives. Parental rights are effectively terminated through overregulation and invasive conditions imposed on a substandard level of proof.

   3)  While our national government focuses on parent-child separations at our borders, wrongful separations among legal residents are occurring on a far greater scale. They are highly influenced by federal incentive (performance) grants which reward the states by the number and size of support orders issued. Under this scheme, parents are forced to name a “custodial parent” or war over that title for states to receive billions of dollars in aid for their court operations. This, in turn, creates a systemic bias among decision makers against the noncustodial parent.

   4)  In addition, a 12-court trial level structure has been erected, in part, to maximize these revenues. As this case will demonstrate, a parent could be forced to litigate in three separate trial courts at the same time with evidentiary fictions that expedite support orders in violation of basic due process. The state’s top jurists have condemned this structure with a former chief judge depicting it as “absurdly complex… difficult to understand, hard to navigate and a burden to administer.” The state’s bar association has repeatedly issued reports calling for major overhauls.

   5)  The U.S. Supreme Court has also declared that the right to exercise free speech is more than public expression, it is a right of self-governance critical to any free society and it deserves special protection by our judicial branch. Despite practices to the contrary, that protection is not limited to speech directed at our executive and legislative branches.

   6) Against this backdrop, plaintiff, an attorney and parent victimized by this system, set out in 2008 to reform it through community forums, lobbying initiatives, news conferences, public protests, editorials, website postings and formal complaints. With each event, there arose a corresponding act of retaliation continuing to the present day. Over time, it resulted in the loss of plaintiff’s livelihood, licenses, law practice, motor vehicles, bank accounts, established credit, personal health and precious daughters, among many other liberties, without any criminal charge, moving violation, child protection report, malpractice or evenly applied ethics violation.

   7)  For example, before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption in 2013, plaintiff reported judges who fictionalized college degrees to inflate his support obligations for punitive incarceration purposes. Only weeks later, plaintiff lost all meaningful contact with his two daughters based on such concoctions as a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” (wedding toast) when no unfit parenting could be proven. The retaliation has escalated to the extreme now where plaintiff is prohibited from contact at school events under penalty of criminal contempt.

   8)  Plaintiff’s website continues to feature the Moreland testimony and reports to various commissions regarding judicial misconduct. In 2016, Family Judge Daniel King issued a gag order disguised as a protection order on this website. It was removed only after a show cause order was signed against him by a state supreme court judge. Judge King then dismissed the tactical family offense petition on his own motion and recused himself without explanation.

   9)  Plaintiff’s pro bono efforts were consistent with ethical duties to improve our judiciary, but he was targeted by system beneficiaries to the extreme of a “shoot on sight” threat by a traffic cop purporting to enforce an unlawful child support warrant in 2018. It mirrored the police murder of Walter Scott three years earlier in South Carolina, leading the public to conclude that our government is now killing for money. Like Nazi practices in the day, plaintiff was subjected to show trials, death threats and propaganda which exploits the child for money.

   10)  Unlike other types of whistle blowers, attorneys who expose corruption in their profession have no legal protection. They are isolated in a way that impedes genuine reform and accountability. This action seeks precedent, declaratory relief and compensation for a level of persecution over a twelve-year period that “shocks the conscience.” When addressing the totality of structural, financial, systemic and retaliation flaws with a permanent loss of children and an ultimate death warrant, that standard is easily satisfied by the extraordinary facts of this case.

                    JURISDICTION  AND  VENUE

   11)  This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC 1331, 1343 and 1441. It is authorized by 42 USC 1983. A private right of action is inferred under 42 USC 669b.

   12) Venue is proper under 28 USC 1391(b) because all parties are in the Northern District of New York, and the events giving rise to this action occurred here.

   13)  This action is also brought pursuant to the Title IV-D scheme, more particularly 42 USC 651-669b. Under the latter provision, federal funds are earmarked to assist noncustodial parents to improve child access and mediate disputes. No such programs were provided here.

   14)  Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is authorized by 28 USC 1367.

THE REST OF THIS 26-PAGE AMENDED COMPLAINT WILL BE SOON MADE AVAILABLE ON THIS SITE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS LITIGATION MAY SET OVERDUE PRECEDENT HELPFUL TO VICTIMIZED PARENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IT IS BEING OPPOSED BY BIG MONEY INTERESTS. WE NEED YOUR FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL MEDIA SUPPORT TO BRING CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION BACK TO THE PEOPLE. KINDLY DONATE TO THIS CAUSE FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR OWN FAMILIES.

TO THE EXTENT WE CAN TAKE CALLS REGARDING THIS EXTRAORDINARY CASE, OUR PRI OFFICE NUMBER IS (315) 380-3420.