PART THREE: The travesty of Parent v State revisited: How the parenting right was diluted by our federal courts to jeopardize its viability

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 18th 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.

High profile litigation invalidating a billion-dollar casino compact on behalf of landowners named in Oneida Indian Class Action led to unprecedented systemic retaliation against their attorney, corruption whistleblower Leon Koziol

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former litigation attorney

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

President, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

This post shows with irrefutable proof how I was ruthlessly persecuted for exposing corruption in New York’s family courts. However, it also shows how a powerful incentive emerged to join that persecution due to my prior successful challenge to the Oneida Indian Nation Turning Stone Casino gaming compact.

It was commenced as a countersuit on behalf of innocent landowners named in a class action lawsuit brought by the Indian Nation to eject trespassing occupants of tribal lands. It led to a judgment in New York Supreme Court in 2004 invalidating that billion- dollar compact. My uncontested divorce, filed later the same year, was then targeted in retaliation for such committed representation.

This post also refutes critics focused on harming me for other illicit or deranged purposes. The ongoing persecution features 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 horrific agenda 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. A free copy of this highly revealing educational literary work can be obtained by request at leonkoziol@gmail.com or by calling our office at (315) 380-3420. Your assistance in promoting this objective is not only urged but it will benefit victims everywhere. It is an ordeal that cannot be covered up unless we allow it.

The reproduced pages below are taken from official reports published by federal and state courts in New York. 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 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.

The fourth (bottom) page stands out from the others insofar as it shows the shocking number of “persons” and government entities which became a part of my maliciously protracted divorce case after the casino litigation was concluded. Without question an unprecedented due process violation, they were necessarily named in my federal civil rights lawsuit, Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

Needless to say, both the casino and parent rights litigation outraged highly influential parties dependent on highly lucrative family courts and gaming operations. However, the landowner counter-suit was successful in helping end the land claim altogether in 2011. This was the same year that Parent v State was decided. It is analyzed in my recent news alert. From a circumstantial standpoint, one can easily connect the dots that learned judges blatantly ignored.

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.

Successful challenge to billion-dollar casino compact on behalf of landowners named in Oneida Indian Nation Class Action led to systemic retaliation against their attorney, corruption whistleblower Leon Koziol

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former litigation attorney

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

President, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

This post shows with irrefutable proof how I was ruthlessly persecuted for exposing corruption in New York’s family courts. However, it also shows how a powerful incentive emerged to join that persecution due to my prior successful challenge to the Oneida Indian Nation Turning Stone Casino gaming compact.

Litigation I commenced on behalf of innocent landowners named in a class action lawsuit brought by the Indian Nation led to a judgment in New York Supreme Court in 2004 invalidating that billion- dollar compact. My uncontested divorce, filed later the same year, was then targeted in retaliation for such committed representation.

This post also refutes critics focused on harming me for other illicit or deranged purposes. The ongoing persecution features 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 horrific agenda 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. A free copy of this highly revealing educational literary work can be obtained by request at leonkoziol@gmail.com or by calling our office at (315) 380-3420. Your assistance in promoting this objective is not only urged but it will benefit victims everywhere. It is an ordeal that cannot be covered up unless we allow it.

The reproduced pages below are taken from official reports published by federal and state courts in New York. 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 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.

Shameless public servants targeted an attorney whistleblower and his father-daughter relationships, but they could not erase his 23-year success record

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.

PART TWO: The travesty of Parent v State revisited: How the parenting right was diluted by our federal courts to jeopardize its viability

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.

The travesty of Parent v State revisited: How the parenting right was diluted by our federal courts to jeopardize its viability as a constitutionally protected interest

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.

Why is Congress and the DOJ ignoring whistleblowers of court corruption? Edward Snowden weighs in

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Former litigation attorney and founder

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

NSA WHISTLEBLOWER EDWARD SNOWDEN has weighed in on the presidential document scandal by citing lawyers in the Department of Justice (DOJ) as the real culprits given their select treatment of influential officials. Along with a hopelessly divided Congress, their focus remains on career advancements and notoriety to the detriment of those exposing court corruption.

In contrast, low level whistleblowers face immediate prosecution and punishment. As one such victim, a civil rights attorney who fled to Paris for asylum in 2014, I blew the whistle on criminal activity in our justice system. Yet no one to date has reported on my shocking ordeal repeatedly litigated and made public at www.leonkoziol.com.

Help us do the job which our oversight officials are not by supporting our nonprofit organization, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc. Visit our website at http://www.citizencommissionagainstcorruption.org.

And spread the word.

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. A former city councilman, school board attorney and corporation counsel, he developed a diverse professional background to become ideally suited to exposing corruption. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the billion dollar Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in domestic relations courts. It was part of a bold and complex challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO COME OUT, ALONG COMES ANOTHER UNIMAGINABLE SCANDAL IN AMERICAN POLITICS.

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.

Hearings Sought Before House Oversight and Judiciary Committees for Systemic Targeting of Whistleblowers

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former Litigation and Human Rights Attorney

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Release Date: January 10, 2023

Contact Author at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com

It goes without saying that any lawyer who regularly exposes judicial misconduct will eventually be targeted. But none more than I was after exposing corruption ranging from my pedophile child custody judge (Bryan Hedges) to a city court jurist found guilty by a state commission of making racial remarks, physical threats and wrongful incarcerations from the bench (Gerald Popeo).

In the end, due to resulting systemic bias, my health, unblemished law practice and nearly my life were taken from me in retaliation. It mirrored the kind of persecution endured by human rights attorneys such as Chen Guangchen who secured refuge in the United States after he was targeted for his criticisms of the Chinese government.

Accordingly, I took on a cause to make systemic bias more transparent. It led to a form of “Innocence Project” that remains unfinished. In whistleblower cases, such bias is highly elusive from a proof standpoint. Public critics are made to appear incompetent and subjected to a form of gang assault. It is routinely dismissed as a fringe accusation devoid of support.

To debunk this myth, I have endeavored to secure legal protection for conscientious whistleblowers beginning with a precedent-seeking case filed with the Supreme Court under docket no. 18-278 and captioned Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, et. al.  Ahead of its time, it sought to permit circumstantial proof as a conventional means for establishing unlawful retaliation by judges.

Fearless reporting by those most qualified to expose corrupt jurists would be incentivized by carving out an exception to the court-created doctrine of judicial immunity. To be sure, unless caught red-handed, a judge is unlikely to admit wrongdoing. Inasmuch as courts have long preferred circumstantial proof as a more reliable mode of truth-seeking, there is no reason to avoid application of this rule to judge misconduct cases.

Presently, when jurists are the subject of misconduct, two unwritten rules of evidence invariably emerge, one for judge defendants and the other for the complainants. Under the first, damning evidence is blocked in both overt and discreet ways ostensibly to protect the reputation of our judiciary, i.e. United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir, 2010).

The DiFiore filing sought to remedy this dichotomy, representing a check on the persecution of attorney whistleblowers. The protracted and depraved manner in which unlawful retaliation was carried out necessitated my alarming memoir entitled, Whistleblower in Paris. As detailed therein, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized to achieve illicit outcomes.

But my disclosures were so justifiably offensive that the wrongdoers went to the unconscionable extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in simultaneously pending family court proceedings. My petition for declaratory relief eventually fell victim to the Supreme Court’s practice of denying roughly 99% of all that are filed. Proceedings included a stay motion denied by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Despite all this, my crusade lives on, having been vindicated when the main defending party, New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, was forced to resign after being investigated by a state judicial commission for misconduct. DiFiore was reported by a non-lawyer for a letter she sent to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of the court officer’s union. She did so in retaliation for his criticisms of her safety practices during the pandemic.

This audacious act shows how readily a judge will misuse authority behind the scenes to punish public critics. It is far from isolated. A predecessor chief judge, Sol Wachtler, may have mentored such elitism with brazen crimes committed 30 years earlier. He served a mere seven years in a medium security facility after being arrested for extortion, racketeering and blackmail.

Like DiFiore, Wachtler used high office to interfere with a licensing process of the attorney exposing his misconduct. It featured Wachtler’s debutante mistress. Under a fictitious name, he made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child. Ironically, Wachtler was renowned for an opinion criticizing prosecutors who could “indict a ham sandwich” if they so targeted.

Wachtler was reinstated after his disbarment, hired as a law school professor, and rewarded with book royalties from his prison memoir, After the Madness. In it, he defended his misconduct because judges are supposedly trained to think of themselves as gods. This was a man being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment.

Yet another example lies with a middle-level appeals court judge, Nancy Smith, who earned the dubious distinction as the first jurist above trial level to be publicly disciplined in New York. It featured a glowing reference to benefit a prisoner convicted of vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of two people. Not long after, Judge Smith was elevated to presiding justice of that court.

Taken together with more than 40 trial level jurists removed from my case for diverse reasons, this undeniable record provides sufficient circumstantial proof of systemic bias against those who criticize our judicial branch of government. However, such a record would not be admissible in any single case. The question then emerges: how many DiFiores, Wachtlers and Smiths are lurking among us?

That number may prove to be staggering. Misconduct is only a matter of what a violator can get away with. In Dobbs v Jackson, No. 19-1392, 597 US ____ (2022), the abortion rights case, Roe v Wade was overturned. A version of this opinion was leaked followed by commitments to apprehend the wrongdoer. Months later, no progress has been announced with the apparent hope that this will blow over.

Such elitism sets a poor example for lower judges, attorneys and litigants. It calls for an overhaul of our justice system beginning with oversight and judiciary committee hearings in Congress. This is not a gender, race or political issue but a profound effort to repair a crevice in our constitutional framework.

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. A former city councilman, school board attorney and corporation counsel, he developed a diverse professional background to become ideally suited to exposing corruption. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the billion dollar Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in domestic relations courts. It was part of a bold and complex challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Proving systemic bias of unethical judges offended by public criticisms: The ordeal of an attorney whistleblower

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former Litigation Attorney

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Accountability Pursued for Unrestrained Judicial Misconduct and Whistleblower Retaliation

Release Date: January 8, 2023

Contact Author at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com

It goes without saying that any lawyer who regularly exposes judicial misconduct will eventually be targeted. But none more than I was after exposing corruption ranging from my pedophile child custody judge (Bryan Hedges) to a city court jurist found guilty by a state commission of making racial remarks, physical threats and wrongful incarcerations from the bench (Gerald Popeo).

In the end, due to resulting systemic bias, my health, unblemished law practice and nearly my life were taken from me in retaliation. It mirrored the kind of persecution endured by human rights attorneys such as Chen Guangchen who secured refuge in the United States after he was targeted for his criticisms of the Chinese government.

Accordingly, I took on a cause to make systemic bias more transparent. It led to a form of “Innocence Project” that remains unfinished. In whistleblower cases, such bias is highly elusive from a proof standpoint. Public critics are made to appear incompetent and subjected to a form of gang assault. It is routinely dismissed as a fringe accusation devoid of support.

To debunk this myth, I have endeavored to secure legal protection for conscientious whistleblowers beginning with a precedent-seeking case filed with the Supreme Court under docket no. 18-278 and captioned Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, et. al.  Ahead of its time, it sought to permit circumstantial proof as a conventional means for establishing unlawful retaliation by judges.

Fearless reporting by those most qualified to expose corrupt jurists would be incentivized by carving out an exception to the court-created doctrine of judicial immunity. To be sure, unless caught red-handed, a judge is unlikely to admit wrongdoing. Inasmuch as courts have long preferred circumstantial proof as a more reliable mode of truth-seeking, there is no reason to avoid application of this rule to judge misconduct cases.

Presently, when jurists are the subject of misconduct, two unwritten rules of evidence invariably emerge, one for judge defendants and the other for the complainants. Under the first, damning evidence is blocked in both overt and discreet ways ostensibly to protect the reputation of our judiciary, i.e. United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir, 2010).

The DiFiore filing sought to remedy this dichotomy, representing a check on the persecution of attorney whistleblowers. The protracted and depraved manner in which unlawful retaliation was carried out necessitated my alarming memoir entitled, Whistleblower in Paris. As detailed therein, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized to achieve illicit outcomes.

But my disclosures were so justifiably offensive that the wrongdoers went to the unconscionable extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in simultaneously pending family court proceedings. My petition for declaratory relief eventually fell victim to the Supreme Court’s practice of denying roughly 99% of all that are filed. Proceedings included a stay motion denied by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Despite all this, my crusade lives on, having been vindicated when the main defending party, New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, was forced to resign after being investigated by a state judicial commission for misconduct. DiFiore was reported by a non-lawyer for a letter she sent to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of the court officer’s union. She did so in retaliation for his criticisms of her safety practices during the pandemic.

This audacious act shows how readily a judge will misuse authority behind the scenes to punish public critics. It is far from isolated. A predecessor chief judge, Sol Wachtler, may have mentored such elitism with brazen crimes committed 30 years earlier. He served a mere seven years in a medium security facility after being arrested for extortion, racketeering and blackmail.

Like DiFiore, Wachtler used high office to interfere with a licensing process of the attorney exposing his misconduct. It featured Wachtler’s debutante mistress. Under a fictitious name, he made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child. Ironically, Wachtler was renowned for an opinion criticizing prosecutors who could “indict a ham sandwich” if they so targeted.

Wachtler was reinstated after his disbarment, hired as a law school professor, and rewarded with book royalties from his prison memoir, After the Madness. In it, he defended his misconduct because judges are supposedly trained to think of themselves as gods. This was a man being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment.

Yet another example lies with a middle-level appeals court judge, Nancy Smith, who earned the dubious distinction as the first jurist above trial level to be publicly disciplined in New York. It featured a glowing reference to benefit a prisoner convicted of vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of two people. Not long after, Judge Smith was elevated to presiding justice of that court.

Taken together with more than 40 trial level jurists removed from my case for diverse reasons, this undeniable record provides sufficient circumstantial proof of systemic bias against those who criticize our judicial branch of government. However, such a record would not be admissible in any single case. The question then emerges: how many DiFiores, Wachtlers and Smiths are lurking among us?

That number may prove to be staggering. Misconduct is only a matter of what a violator can get away with. In Dobbs v Jackson, No. 19-1392, 597 US ____ (2022), the abortion rights case, Roe v Wade was overturned. A version of this opinion was leaked followed by commitments to apprehend the wrongdoer. Months later, no progress has been announced with the apparent hope that this will blow over.

Such elitism sets a poor example for lower judges, attorneys and litigants. It calls for an overhaul of our justice system beginning with oversight and judiciary committee hearings in Congress. This is not a gender, race or political issue but a profound effort to repair a crevice in our constitutional framework.

                                  

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. A former city councilman, school board attorney and corporation counsel, he developed a diverse professional background to become ideally suited to exposing corruption. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the billion dollar Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in domestic relations courts. It was part of a bold and complex challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.