Family Court Atrocities: Like the Holocaust, They Never Happened?

IMG_1350

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

As the Nazis retreated from Eastern Europe in the waning months of World War II, they made a last ditch effort to cover up their death camps and war crimes. During evacuations from those camps, any prisoner who could not keep up was summarily executed.

Throughout that war, civilians were shot on sight simply because they failed to step aside for Nazi officers on the streets of Warsaw and elsewhere. And those who exposed the truth about such atrocities were hunted down, subjected to show trials and publicly executed.

Sixteen year old Helmuth Hubenur became the youngest victim of the great cover-up as the accused during a Nazi show trial devoid of due process. His crime: blowing the whistle on Nazi propaganda through leaflets and discreet communications. He was beheaded for his exercise of free speech.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of these atrocities, even today, there are those who assert that the Holocaust never happened. I need no convincing on this or any other atrocity inflicted upon civilians during World War II because I lived it through nightmarish stories my dad gave me at the dinner table as a boy.

My father spent five years in a Nazi camp and was nearly shot on sight by a prison guard whose Luger pistol was pushed aside by a fellow officer just as the trigger was released. These are the sort of games that the SS, Gestapo and Nazi military played on the Eastern Front.

Today’s modern day family courts are engaged in a holocaust of their own. They too are covering up evidence of serious misconduct in a variety of ways far more sophisticated than the Nazis used. Such cover-ups are provoking atrocities such as veteran Thomas Ball who burned himself alive in front of a New Hampshire family court to protest the state seizure of his children.

Countless American veterans are committing suicide for the same reason while other victims turn to murder of their own children. Numerous examples of this were provided in our report delivered to all members of Congress by aggrieved parents during our Parent March on Washington last May. To date, there has been no recognition given to this modern day holocaust. If you don’t acknowledge it, it never happened.

That is why it has become necessary to make a return trip to Washington D.C. for our second annual Parent March on Washington tentatively set for May 27-29 using the same format as last year. We need to grow our numbers into the thousands to impact the presidential and congressional elections this year.

Of course you can continue to complain instead from the comfort of your keyboards at home, but this is the kind of apathy which has fueled the human rights violations in these courts. Indeed my father escaped to America never imagining that a shoot-on-sight threat would be made against his own son. But it did occur to this whistle blower as explained in the opening segment of my brief filed in federal court recently.

That federal court was more obsessed with its technical rules than the human rights violations detailed from my 12-year ordeal. Indeed not a single atrocity received the recognition of a footnote. This is why it will now be presented before a federal appeals court in Manhattan. I am committed to opening our federal court doors to family court victims everywhere.

Here are two excerpts from that court brief which should be of great interest to all Americans who believe in our Constitution and its dictate that no one is above the law, not even life tenured federal judges:

While our national government is immersed with issues of war crimes overseas, the killing of civilians in the Middle East, and human rights violations involving the separation of parents and children unlawfully crossing our border with Mexico, an American citizen, father of two daughters and the plaintiff in this action remains subject to a “shoot on sight” threat by a traffic cop purporting to enforce an unlawfully issued child support warrant. That threat was made to a driver of plaintiff’s vehicle on August 30, 2018 during a traffic stop at the interstate toll booths in Albany, New York. It has not been remedied as an ongoing mode of censorship.  

The chilling and incredulous threat was not isolated. It resembled the police murder of Walter Scott in South Carolina on April 4, 2015. An African-American father, he was fleeing unarmed from a traffic stop to avoid recurring support warrants and jail terms. He was shot dead in the back five times, a horrific event that would have been disbelieved by any prosecutor or judge had it not been captured on a cell phone by a concealed by-stander. Family of the slain dad recovered $6 million in a wrongful death suit, but that method of extracting child support could never bring back to life a loving father. A greed infested government was now killing for cash.

As a parenting rights advocate, the father here attended the funeral of Walter Scott, addressing national media on the need to reform draconian support enforcement practices, never imagining that he could become victim to a similar (but retaliatory) incident three years later. A fatal outcome was avoided by his fateful absence from that vehicle. Seven patrol cars featured armed police seeking to coerce the driver into locating their targeted parent while drug dealers and real criminals were driving by. Reminiscent of Nazi practices in the day, this incident was corroborated by affidavit, recorded interview and presumably a genuine traffic incident report.   

The latter incident becomes more shocking when disclosing that the support warrant, coupled with its secret high alert bulletin, was issued against a prominent civil rights attorney whose law licenses were suspended after a conscientious stand made against court corruption. A $35,500 payment was omitted from a violation petition and support summary offered against this attorney-plaintiff at a hearing on May 17, 2018. Both were prepared by agents of the state’s child support bureaucracy, a behemoth white collar army that few could withstand. They are named in this action as best as can be expected given the obstacles erected that shield their misconduct. 

In short, a giant fraud was exposed by the targeted parent. A substantially inflated support debt would guarantee his incarceration to avenge and suppress public criticisms of a reckless, revenue-lusting state agency. Its agents, and the family courts which effectively employ them, are rewarded by the size and number of support collections under Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act. Apart from a systemic bias which this obviously instills among ostensibly neutral decision makers, the resulting gold mine was protected at the sole expense of the whistle blower.

A calculated scheme of censorship was hatched that could not have been executed unless other state agents acting under pretext of “judicial immunity” were involved. They included a racist city judge, defendant Gerald Popeo, who was improperly assigned to his critic’s family court matters for personal revenge, thereby removing all jurisdiction to issue orders and arrest warrants; a scheming, novice, hearing officer, defendant Natalie Carraway, who displayed utter incompetence as a trier of fact and denied her statutory authority to decide constitutional issues; a chief family court clerk, defendant Barbara Porta, who with defendant Kelly Hawse-Koziol, effected personal jurisdiction over their targeted parent by directing a deputy sheriff (court security) to abuse his limited scope of duties; and the deputy’s superior, defendant Sheriff Robert Maciol, who crafted a high-alert dossier and publicly admitted its unlawful leak to the media. 

Together with earlier actors, the state killed a messenger of court reform by destroying his reputation and credibility. To illustrate, after a television news feature during the Walter Scott funeral, a follow-up interview minutes later focused on the retaliatory license suspensions and defamatory record available to reporters by a simple Google search. It empowered the current defendants years later to conceal their fraud upon this whistle blower and our federal government by denying and/or destroying the inflated summary and hearing record. These were prerequisites for any appeal or report to federal and state authorities. The fix was in and free speech was out.

A threat of death during arrest and harm during incarceration were the proverbial “nail in the coffin” of First Amendment values. This 2018 support violation process ended without a perfected appeal, accountability or transparency by coerced payment of $46,805. Those monies came not from any earnings that were foreclosed by other modes of retribution, but by loans and donations from alarmed family, former clients and intimidated followers. It was and remains a mode of extortion that can scarcely be distinguished from loan sharks in America’s underworld. 

 The foregoing “process” is only one of the many examples of persecution suffered by this conscientious attorney who was acting on his ethical duty to expose lawyer misconduct and related ethical duty to volunteer professional time for the improvement of our judiciary. Other examples include a permanent separation from his precious daughters without any child protection report or finding of unfit parenting; fabricated college degrees to justify “imputed income,” elevated support obligations, and debtor imprisonment without due process or jury rights; and a ten year, indefinite suspension of law licenses needed to make support payments despite 23 unblemished years as a corruption fighting lawyer with no record of malpractice. The corruption reported by this targeted parent involved matters of great public concern.

It featured a pedophile custody judge assigned to this attorney’s child custody case who was permanently removed from the bench; a family judge exposed for his alcohol consumption who suspended his critic’s parenting time due to a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” (wedding toast) when no unfit parenting could be found; the racist judge censured by a commission for threatening violence from the bench who issued warrants to avenge plaintiff’s suspected involvement in that censure; a record 42 trial level jurists assigned since 2006 to an originally uncontested divorce; and a chaotic court structure that New York’s former chief judge declared was “absurdly complex… difficult to understand, hard to navigate and a burden to administer.” 

Shockingly, when proper recourse was sought in federal court, the dysfunction of this court system was blamed on the victim who had nothing to do with its creation. Life tenured judges in the Northern District of New York, charged with a duty of upholding our Bill of Rights, betrayed a greater concern for judicial reputation. Complaints were selectively evaluated to exclude critical facts, law and case citations to achieve adverse outcomes. Utterly disparaged as “rambling,” “incomprehensible,” “frivolous,” and anything contrived from a thesaurus, they were dismissed to convince the public that there was no merit to clear human rights violations.  

Consequently, with each dismissal culminating in financial penalties and an anti-filing order, the retaliation in state court escalated to the outrage of that “shoot on sight” warrant. Yet the federal system had its own dysfunction which closed the doors of all courts to this victim.

Outdated abstention practices which deferred federal violations to state courts were abused. Hence, when the next punitive support petition was filed in 2019, the present action emerged in state court to obtain the 2018 record and related relief. However, after moving to have prior cases filed there, New York’s attorney general removed this one to federal court with defenses that would only remand the same case back to state court. This was chaos on steroids which “shocked the conscience” and defied a rational system of courts under our dual form of government.

Another segment of this brief ignored by a lower federal court emphasizes the founding purpose of our federal courts:

Although the framers of our Constitution vested the judicial power of the United States in “one supreme court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” U.S. Const. Article III, section 1, the immense expansion of our nation, the numbers of its people and the complexities of society have, as a practical matter, left this extraordinary duty to 94 district courts. They are routinely cited as the principal guardians of federal rights established by the People and Congress, see generally publications of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). Federalist Papers No. 78. 

In Sprint Communications v Jacobs, 571 US 69 (2013), the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reaffirming a district court’s “obligation” to hear and decide federal law cases. Citing Colorado River Water District v United States, 424 US 800, 817 (1976), it described this duty to be “virtually unflagging.” Writing for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reiterated that a federal district court has “no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which was not given,” Cohen v Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 404 (1821).  A strong rebuke was sent to lower federal courts which were abusing an abstention rule well beyond its narrow contours to dismiss valid federal court complaints. 

The plaintiff in this case, a 12-year victim of federal law violations of the highest order, has been turned back time and again by the federal district court for the Northern District of New York. An arsenal of abstention practices, jurisdictional limitations and prudential policies was exploited to “decline the exercise of jurisdiction” which was given to it by congressional enactments, i.e. 28 USC 1331; 42 USC 1983. As the preceding sections make painfully clear, the abrogation of duties by this district court to uphold our federal Bill of Rights has left a citizen, father and civil rights attorney without recourse anywhere given the fatal acts of state courts.

Those acts, taken as a whole, have produced an environment more cognizable in the places where our military are sent to depose tyrants and corrupt regimes. Countless deployments have been justified by human rights violations only to have our service men and women return to comparable violations here at home. They are deprived access to their children and committed to prisons for an inability to make support payments. Government studies continue to report that some 22 veterans commit suicide each day with none to show the number traced to family court abuses. The plaintiff here has literally saved the lives of veterans during his decade of reform efforts across the country and can attest that this number is a major percentage of that daily total.

Despite plaintiff’s laudable objectives, such reform efforts have been grievously blocked by state actors under cloak of judge-made immunities. It is beyond dispute that when our courts effectively shut their doors to the grievances of our people, lawlessness, violence and self-help remedies are the natural outcome. Plaintiff’s complaints were not mere “gripes” arising from a “highly contentious divorce” as this court’s Judge Gary Sharpe flagrantly minimized. They went to the core of our Bill of Rights representing the ideals and ordeals of countless victims similarly rejected by our federal district courts. Such rejections have an unmistakable tendency to incite more violations through perpetrator presumptions of legitimacy, precisely what occurred here.

When our federal courts were created, a major fear among the several states was that the new constitution would create an authoritarian central government that would inevitably suppress the rights of the people. Accordingly, among the six publications of the 85 Federalist Papers devoted principally to the judiciary, a bill of rights, trial by jury, ex post facto laws, bills of attainder and judicial independence were major topics. To assuage that fear, it was urged that federal judges be appointed and granted life tenure with undiminished compensation. [1]

Alexander Hamilton justified this position during debates on constitutional ratification with an opening passage to his Federalist Paper No. 79. It is remarkably pertinent to this case:

“Next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support. The remark made in relation to the President is equally applicable here. In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’S SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL. And we can never hope to see realized in practice, the complete separation of the judicial from the legislative power, in any system which leaves the former dependent for pecuniary resources on the occasional grants of the latter.” (capital letter emphasis in the original).

Such pronouncements were at odds with the constitutions of several states. For example, New York had no Bill of Rights unlike today, and its judges were subject to term limits, still in existence. Compensation remains a prerogative of the legislature. The ills of the latter were so pervasive during political gridlocks that aggrieved judges, including a chief judge, filed hybrid actions against the governor and legislature. Known as the Judicial Pay Raise Trilogy, they failed to secure any immediate relief despite a declaratory judgment prosecuted and presided over by the same chief judge. Eventually a compromise was reached where a commission set the pay raises subject to veto by the other two branches, Chief Judge v Governor, 14 NY3d 230 (2010).

Despite the principles of tenure and compensation regarding judicial tenability in our federal and state systems, judges of both failed to countenance the same principles as applied to the viability of liberty in the People they serve, represented here by a model citizen. Somehow those principles incurred a disappearing act when actions were taken to hold members of the judiciary accountable. Plaintiff was stripped of his tenure as an attorney and father on concocted grounds and his “subsistence” was gutted by an indefinite suspension of law licenses. Much more was inflicted to exert a “power over his will,” thereby dictating the relief sought here.

[1] In the first of these publications, Federalist Paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The standard of behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” This pronouncement found its way into Article III, section 1 of the Constitution.