Leon R. Koziol, J.D.                                                                                          

Former litigation attorney

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

President, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Author’s Note:

This is the third in a series that together constitutes my Law Review and News Alert focused on the continued dilution and eventual termination of the fundamental right of parenting. This right has long been recognized as the “oldest liberty interest” protected by our Constitution. But ominously, it is following the fate of the fundamental right of privacy (abortion) with the surprising decision of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June, 2022.

Both “fundamental” rights were made vulnerable by their express absence from the text of the same Constitution. Apathy of the mainstream in preserving the parenting right has led to the break-down of family values, vast harm to society, and the protests we see today in our school systems. Once again, ahead of the times, I acted to forestall this ominous trend in my putative class action lawsuit, Parent v State, filed in federal court in 2009 and decided in 2011.

This law review brings you up to speed on my precedent-seeking litigation and our cherished right with a sophisticated analysis from an aggrieved father and accomplished attorney. Highly educational, it is a rare publication designed to benefit those who would seek constitutional recourse for abusive family court treatment in federal court. If you would like a complete copy of this 12-page document, e-mail me at leonkoziol@gmail.com or call our office at (315) 380-3420.

Spread the word and kindly consider a donation to our cause.

PART THREE:

B) The parties could have been placed under jurisdiction of a special master to navigate complexities, avert politics and achieve a just outcome for all victims.

If this federal judge was truly committed to his oath of office, he would have dispensed with political obstacles by appointing a special master to investigate the case while proceedings were held in abeyance. Precedent for this already existed in the one belatedly appointed to the highly lawyered Oneida Indian land claim spanning more than forty years in the same district court.

Assigned to a different presiding judge, that claim began as a widely neglected filing deemed to lack merit due to demands over tracts of land as large as 6 million acres and based on treaties violated as early as the 18^th century. But its status changed dramatically when the Supreme Court gave approval in a 5-4 ruling in County of Oneida v Oneida Indian Nation, 470 US 226 (1985).

That change morphed into a string of Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Indian gaming facilities across upstate New York authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). The first among them was the Oneida Nation Turning Stone Casino constructed by the only tribe of the six-nation Iroquois Confederacy which sided with the patriots during our Revolutionary War.

Opened in 1993, Turning Stone was marketed to surrounding landowners as a modest enterprise serving no alcohol and committed to weeding out criminal activity and gambling addictions. However, like the broken treaties at the core of its land claim, these promises were soon cast aside in favor of the Vegas-style, mega-resort with state-of-the-art sports betting that it is today.

Meanwhile, the 250,000-acre land claim languished with state and local officials balking at such high settlement figures as $500 million and 15,000 acres taken off the tax rolls after transfer to the Oneidas. Emboldened by their 1985 Supreme Court decision and growing influence, they moved to convert their federal suit into a class action to eject 20,000 landowners from that tract.

Outraged occupants countered with an intervention motion and later an original action in state court challenging the validity of the 1993 gaming compact. Like the 1794 land treaty violated by New York due to lack of federal approval, the counter-suit was based on the compact’s lack of approval by the state legislature. That compact had been financing the high cost of litigation.

As a prominent attorney beholden to no political interest, I was retained solely to strategize this counter-move. However, knowing the ominous challenges, I organized landowner assemblies to update thousands of organizational clients on our proceedings. This grew exponentially into protest caravans that surrounded the resort and, months later, the steps of the state Capitol.

It resulted in a 60 Minutes feature and the collapse of a pending settlement being nursed by this court-appointed special master, dean of Seton Hall law school, who had joined me on a tour of the region. The Indian-landowner war then escalated with Nation and United States attorneys moving to extinguish my challenges to the gaming compact in their now complex federal action.

In a highly unexpected decision, the judge denied that move and authorized me to proceed with my state case, Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY 2000). But the success did not come without its elitism. I was inaccurately aligned with the law firm, Bond, Schoeneck and King, in that decision when published. This has remained a mystery to this day.

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.                                            

Former litigation attorney

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

President, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

This post is committed to further prove how I was ruthlessly persecuted for exposing corruption in New York’s family courts in particular and nationwide in general due to my reform efforts. It also refutes critics focused on harming my reputation for illicit or deranged purposes.

That persecution featured an attack upon my 23-year, unblemished reputation as a civil rights trial attorney and parenting record which contained no unfit finding or child agency report. In short, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized against me along with our family courts.

This persecution remains without long-deserved recourse, a veritable “Innocence Project” still awaiting justice. It has been detailed in my book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021, available at Barnes and Noble, Amazon and major bookseller sites.

On February 3, 2023, I released a Law Review and News Alert (12-page summary) intended to generate a mainstream report and docu-series. Already it is under review by a major news medium. Your assistance in promoting this objective is not only urged but it will benefit victims everywhere. It is an ordeal that cannot be swept under the carpet or concealed in corrupt manner.

The reproduced pages above are taken from official reports published by federal and state courts in New York. They are intended to back up my record and resulting retaliation. As represented in my biographical summaries found on my social and secondary sites, I boldly took on a cause (along with so many others) on behalf of politically disadvantaged constituencies including landowners victimized by the Oneida Indian Nation (class action) land claim in 1998.

As part of my legal strategy, I secured a final judgment invalidating the Oneida’s Turning Stone Casino gaming compact. This opened the door to closure of its billion-dollar, mega-resort. That success required authorization from the federal court where the land claim was pending and state court decision thereafter which declared that compact void. As a sole practitioner, I accomplished both against some of the most elite law firms in America, i.e. Cravath, Swaine & Moore in midtown Manhattan.

The record speaks for itself and months later led to the persecution exposed in my civil rights lawsuits and publications. The first (top) reproduced page shows the federal court decision that denied the Oneida Nation motion to place an injunction upon my state court casino challenge. The two pages below it verify the state court judgment four years later which declared that casino compact void.

Needless to say, this result outraged public officials and private investors dependent on casino operations. However, the strategy was successful in helping end the land claim altogether in 2011, the same year that Parent v State was decided. This was the case I brought (unsuccessfully) to secure ultimate recourse as a conscientious attorney and whistleblower. It is analyzed in my recent news alert.

The Oneida Nation class action litigation sought to eject innocent landowners (my clients) from a 250,000-acre tract found to have been unlawfully seized by the State of New York in violation of a 1794 treaty. Also, needless to say, this highly unexpected outcome made me a target, and it nearly ended my life in 2020. Yes, this is a real-life John Grisham story if there ever was one.

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.                                                                                          

Former litigation attorney

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

President, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Author’s Note:

This is the second in a series that together constitutes my Law Review and News Alert focused on the continued dilution and eventual termination of the fundamental right of parenting. This right has long been recognized as the “oldest liberty interest” protected by our Constitution. But ominously, it is following the fate of the fundamental right of privacy (abortion) with the surprising decision of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June, 2022.

Both “fundamental” rights were made vulnerable by their express absence from the text of the same Constitution. Apathy of the mainstream in preserving the parenting right has led to the break-down of family values, vast harm to society, and the protests we see today in our school systems. Once again, ahead of the times, I acted to forestall this ominous trend in my putative class action lawsuit, Parent v State, filed in federal court in 2009 and decided in 2011.

This law review brings you up to speed on my precedent-seeking litigation and our cherished right with a sophisticated analysis from an aggrieved father and accomplished attorney. Highly educational, it is a rare publication designed to benefit those who would seek constitutional recourse for abusive family court treatment in federal court. If you would like a complete copy of this 12-page document, e-mail me at leonkoziol@gmail.com or call our office at (315) 380-3420.

Spread the word and kindly consider a donation to our cause.

PART TWO:

A) The sheer number of state-induced participants in an originally uncontested divorce warranted federal court relief to benefit a wider range of fit parents.

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

The Parent v State caption in the official federal reports verifies the “sheer number” factor supporting my due process challenge to our state domestic relations bureaucracy. This caption appeared in the official reports published at the time of decision. It is reproduced below.

From a reality standpoint, these are the state actors who somehow managed to intervene or play a role my originally uncontested divorce, many of which are “silent” parties in countless other family court cases. They were necessarily named in my federal suit to assure a comprehensive outcome, avoid dismissal based on a failure to include “necessary” or “indispensable” parties, and domonstrate just how invasive our states, agencies and their courts have become in our domestic affairs.

As stated, a complete copy of my 12-page law review of this elaborate decision is available on request by e-mailing me at leonkoziol@gmail.com or calling our office at (315) 380-3420. Significantly this federal opinion features over 20 pages of analysis, 57 headnotes and 42 causes of action. It is the ideal guidepost for any lawyer or aggrieved state court litigant seeking recourse for constitutional rights violations (civil rights) in federal court.

Law Review and News Alert (Part Two) continued…

The immunities and jurisdictional defenses referenced above (Part One) are typically raised by government in civil rights cases. They require the naming of violators of federal rights in alternate capacities. When challenging constitutional abuses overlooked in domestic adjudications, access to federal court is plagued further by such tailored defenses as Younger and domestic relations abstention.

Access is daunting especially for pro se victims fleeced of resources in contentious cases. Such obstacles also constrain our federal courts from satisfying their duties independent of state bias. A hypocrisy emerges when municipal liability is evaluated from the top whereas wrongdoers who establish policy here are immunized, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000).

This was the main workhorse exploited in Parent to dispose of a controversial case. Facts and law were marshaled to create a narrative leading to a predetermined outcome while defaming the victim along the way. That a gang assault on a discriminated father and whistleblowing attorney could be so grossly overlooked has resulted in a disgrace to our system of justice.

It has thus become a rallying cry for reform as this judge was duty-bound to view a “totality of facts” before issuing his dismissive edict. Greater respect for my successive filings was required to assess whether state actors were dismantling a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has long applied this standard to Fourteenth Amendment cases, Rochin v California, 142 US 165 (1953).

But the restrictive approach was substituted for an expansive one instead, providing yet another fact corroborating a systemic bias carried over from the state court system. It was no doubt moved by a practical consideration of litigating complex matters against prominent figures and colleagues, this at the lead of a civil rights attorney driven by a quest for justice and reform.

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.                                                                                          

Former litigation attorney

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

President, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Author’s Note:

This is the first in a series that together constitutes my Law Review and Public Release focused on the continued dilution and eventual termination of the fundamental right of parenting. This right has long been recognized as the “oldest liberty interest” protected by our Constitution. But ominously, it is following the fate of the fundamental right of privacy (abortion) with the surprising decision of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June, 2022.

Both “fundamental” rights were made vulnerable by their express absence from the text of the same Constitution. Apathy of the mainstream in preserving the parenting right has led to the break-down of family values, vast harm to society, and the protests we see today in our school systems. Once again, ahead of the times, I acted to forestall this ominous trend in my putative class action lawsuit, Parent v State, filed in federal court in 2009 and decided in 2011.

This law review brings you up to speed on my precedent-seeking litigation and our cherished right with a sophisticated analysis from an aggrieved father and accomplished attorney. Highly educational, it is a rare publication designed to benefit those who would seek constitutional recourse for abusive family court treatment in federal court. If you would like a complete copy of this 12-page document, e-mail me at leonkoziol@gmail.com or call our office at (315) 380-3420.

Spread the word and kindly consider a donation to our cause.

There are 94 federal district courts originating with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Their paramount duty is to decide violations of the U.S. Constitution. Historically, reliance on these courts was made necessary to counter state abuses and their refusal or failure to honor federal rights. Among them is the “oldest” liberty interest in parenting, Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982).

However, in Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000), the Supreme Court made a stark departure from longstanding precedent by issuing a plurality decision with six different opinions regarding the continued status of this “fundamental right.” With a similar approach taken last year to overturn another recognized right to an abortion, urgent action is needed to avert its demise.

Precedent-seeking case to reverse erosion of parental rights is filed by a conscientious attorney but sabotaged by systemic judge bias in a betrayal of duties to our Constitution

Central to any civilized society is the preservation of parent-child relationships.

On February 26, 2009, as an aggrieved father and accomplished attorney, I filed a watershed case, Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY), in federal court to establish a constitutional limit upon the expanding power of the state to impair the decisional authority of parents. This analysis and news alert will show how it was converted into a tragic assault on human rights.

Originally intended as a class action, resort to federal court was made inevitable by a growing number of state agents acting on childrearing liberties in my divorce action. They were part of an ominous trend in domestic relations courts carried out under pretext of the “best interests of the child.” Such authority had morphed beyond its original purpose into a trillion-dollar industry.

Prior to filing, I tested the divorce process to conclude that state courts were failing to honor constitutionally protected rights in routine deliberations. Increasingly, they were treating children as objects for profit and revenues under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (child support grants). Needless forensic evaluations and excessive support orders were examples of the abuse.

My first-assigned divorce judge refused to entertain such arguments, referring me to appeals or the legislature. I therefore initiated a reform movement featuring assemblies, lobby initiatives and news conferences critical of a systemic bias that made judicial recourse a gesture in futility. This had the effect of stigmatizing me a whistleblower which, in time, led to horrific retributions.

Because they too were systemic, I was forced to move for recusal of each assigned jurist after my motion for a change of venue (location) was denied. Then, in the Parent case, it necessitated the naming of state actors in both individual and official capacities to overcome state sovereign immunity in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908).    

I was simply complying with the law, my rights of recourse and free speech. Jurists already engaged in the challenged proceedings were included on grounds that they were “acting under color of law” and not above the law pursuant to 42 USC 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871). They were also named to acquire legal standing for personal liability and a comprehensive outcome.  

As the number of state actors and co-conspirators grew, so did the complaints I was forced to lodge. Less than two years after filing my 2009 “lead” case in Parent, police and state tax agents acting under authority of child support collection converged on my home in a swat-like manner to seize automobiles. Driver and law licenses were suspended to undermine support capacities.

This seizure violated the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to supplement the lead claims. It was executed contrary to a state court order issued two months earlier which limited enforcement authority to a home foreclosure. This necessitated filing of the 2010 “member” case identified and decided together by the federal court in an elaborate opinion on May 24, 2011.

Failure to add or originate timely complaints will result in a permanent waiver of rights. Indeed, the complexities in civil rights cases have proven sufficient to terminate countless valid claims. In my case, I added a due process violation based on an antiquated trial court structure featuring 11 tribunals which, according to a 2017 New York bar report, could confound any attorney.     

Formal complaints in federal court are evaluated at the outset in a light most favorable to the filer. Such treatment is mandated under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (6) and 56 to avert rash and wrongful dismissals. If the review of pleadings nevertheless results in the finding of a frivolous action, the complainant is typically fined and made to bear defense costs. 

This was the outcome of a Donald Trump filing in 2022, but here none of the defense firms, government attorneys or the presiding judge raised the issue. In short, there was plausible merit to my action. Unfortunately, it fell victim to technical obstacles such as judge, state and law enforcement immunities. This had the effect of precluding mandatory evidentiary disclosures. 

But no obstacle was more sweeping than systemic judge bias. This form of ethics and due process violations is highly elusive and treated more extensively in another publication. There I make the case that circumstantial inference must be accorded greater weight in evaluating dismissal motions given the undue burdens that such bias wields on disadvantaged victims.

Systemic judge bias has no clear definition and is typically cast aside as a fringe accusation to protect the integrity of the judiciary. It does not arise in some clandestine fashion in chambers although it can be. More commonly, offensive speech or a damning record is the culprit rooted out by facts which compel a conclusion that an unjust outcome was prearranged.

Here the federal judge, David N. Hurd, acted on such bias. There is no direct evidence of this, but it is proven by suspect circumstances and a glaring omission of crucial cases in his ultimate decision. The parenting right is nowhere analyzed or respected. This would be akin to omitting the abortion right in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 US ___ (2022).

Put simply, this federal judge diluted a fundamental right overriding all others raised by treating both the lead and member complaints in a light most favorable to the violators. Constitutional principle was sacrificed for political gain to achieve a miscarriage of justice harmful to a much larger segment of the population than those narrowly represented by this particular case.     

In broader terms, again from a circumstantial standpoint, no federal judge right up to the Supreme Court was going to unleash a highly experienced, personally aggrieved, and untethered attorney to investigate and expose so many potentially unethical colleagues. Only with this backdrop can the reader now acclimate to a better understanding of this watershed case.

YOU JUST CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

TODAY, LONG ISLAND DIGNITARIES RANGING FROM STATE SENATORS TO LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES HELD A STANDING-ROOM-ONLY NEWS CONFERENCE TO DEMAND THE RESIGNATION OF THEIR NEWLY ELECTED CONGRESSMAN GEORGE SANTOS.

THEIR PUBLIC MESSAGE FOCUSED ON THE BAD EXAMPLE SET BY A DERANGED FRAUDSTER WHO HAD BECOME THE LAUGHING-STOCK OF THE WORLD.

SANTOS HAD SO DRENCHED HIMSELF WITH IRREPARABLE LIES ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND DURING HIS CAMPAIGN THAT HE WAS NOW DISABLED FROM GOVERNING.

BUT UNDERLYING THAT MESSAGE WAS THE BIGGER ISSUE OF HOW SANTOS GOT OVERLOOKED BY SO MANY VETERAN POLITICIANS PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY?

DID THEY ALL BRING THIS UPON THEMSELVES, AND DESERVEDLY SO, DUE TO A GROSS LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE, SELF-ABSORPTION AND ULTIMATELY BLIND ENDORSEMENTS TO EARN THEM THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION AS A NATIONAL DISGRACE?

MORE TROUBLING, HOW MANY MORE FRAUDSTERS LIKE SANTOS ARE LURKING AMONG US IN PUBLIC OFFICE?

THIS LATEST SCANDAL, EMERGING AMONG SO MANY OTHERS IN THE DAILY NEWS THESE DAYS, SUPPORTS THE WORK OF THE CITIZEN COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION, INC,

THIS IS A NONPROFIT ACTION GROUP FORMED IN 2021 TO DO THE JOB THAT OVERSIGHT OFFICIALS ARE NOT.

CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE AT http://www.citizencommissionagainstcorruption.org.

AFTER ALL, IT WAS THE PURE FATE OF A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE THAT EXPOSED GEORGE SANTOS IN THE FIRST PLACE. OTHERWISE, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MIGHT STILL BE UNAWARE OF HIS MASSIVE BACKGROUND FABRICATIONS THAT OFFENDED SO MANY CONSTITUENT GROUPS.