Category: Divorce Corp Movie

After near-death climax, whistleblower-attorney-dad releases shocking exposure of judicial corruption

On By leonkozioljdIn Call To Action, Civil Rights Report, Court Rulings, Divorce Corp Movie, Documentary, Family Court Corruption, Federal Suit for Retaliation By State of New York, News Update, Parent-Child Relations, Personal Message, Uncategorized2 Comments

                        

March 1, 2023

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

1336 Graffenburg Road

New Hartford, New York 13413

(315)796-4000

leonkoziol@gmail.com 

This document contains suppressed, censored and alarming facts preserved in a 25-year record.

Contents

Introduction………..

A controversial case is filed by conscientious attorney….

Systemic judge bias emerges to sabotage good-faith litigation….

Judicial policy is exploited to avert recognition of a growing epidemic….

A special master is avoided for navigating a precedent-seeking case…….

Extreme retributions target a whistleblower’s family and livelihood……..

Free speech exposes a pedophile custody judge and racist city judge……

Physical threats prompt attorney-whistleblower to seek asylum in Paris….

Family harm and collateral damage to society reach a breaking point……..

A blind eye to an epidemic is verified by faulty treatment of defendants….

Duty-bound jurists squander opportunities to set overdue precedent……….

Conclusion: An open message to our federal government……………………..

Introduction

This law review alerts media, public officials and oversight advocates to a silent epidemic that continues to escalate in America today. It must be confronted by those genuinely concerned with the ongoing erosion of parental authority and its threat to civilized society. As a prominent civil rights attorney, I did exactly that but was persecuted to a point of death. This is my story.

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 a refusal or failure to honor federal rights. Among them is the “oldest” liberty interest in parenting, Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982).

However, beginning with 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 on the continued status of this “fundamental right.” It is an ominous trend following the lead of the abortion right terminated in 2022. Both rights have no textual source in our Constitution.

But the two are highly distinguishable in that one preserves life whereas the other terminates it. One can be traced to the beginning of mankind which is impossible for the other. A gradual replacement of child rearing by the state is now leading to catastrophic criminal activity, diverse addictions, unwanted pregnancies, domestic violence and needless separation of parent and child.  

A controversial case is filed by a conscientious attorney

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 framed 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. They were exploiting children for profit and revenues under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (child support grants), hence the emergence of a judge bias against litigants. Needless forensic evaluations and excessive support orders were examples.

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 this systemic bias making 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.

Systemic judge bias emerges to sabotage good faith litigation

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 precluded mandatory disclosures needed to prove my case. 

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 the victims narrowly represented by this particular case.     

Judicial policy is exploited to avert recognition of a growing epidemic

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 an unknown number of potentially corrupt colleagues. Only with this unwritten policy can readers acclimate to a better understanding of this watershed case.

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

Access is more daunting for pro se victims fleeced of resources in contentious divorce cases. Such obstacles handicap 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 concoct a narrative that averted recognition of a growing epidemic while defaming a qualified whistleblower. That a gang assault on a dedicated father and conscientious attorney could be so grossly overlooked today 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.

In my case, the complexity of litigation arose through no fault of its filer. Presiding jurists, both federal and state, were well aware of this. But knowing that oversight was lacking and media could be duped, they exploited that complexity to shift focus and blame on the public messenger.

A special master is avoided for navigating a precedent-seeking case

If Judge David Hurd was truly committed to his oath of office, he would have dispensed with political complexities by appointing a special master to investigate this case while proceedings were held in abeyance. Precedent 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 complex case and a string of Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) gaming facilities across upstate New York authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. 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.

Extreme retributions target a whistleblower’s family and livelihood

My success also did not come without its devastation to my 2004 divorce and father-daughter relations particularly after I won a judgment the same year invalidating that 1993 (billion dollar) compact. Ultimately, collective litigation led to a 2011 extinguishment of the entire land claim and a global settlement in 2013, the same year my daughters were permanently alienated.

The casino litigation in Peterman v Pataki, 4 Misc 3d 1028(A) (2004) had been pending for years, producing a cloud on investments much like the land claim did to landowner deeds. State Supreme Court judge, John Murad, was assigned, a jurist that I had well known in city, county and other courts. He was part of that dysfunctional structure I later challenged in the Parent case.

To illustrate, after my venue change was denied in 2007, my child support case was litigated before an elected supreme court judge in an “acting family court” capacity who questioned his own jurisdiction on the record while my parenting rights were on trial before an “acting supreme court judge” elected to a limited jurisdiction family court in Syracuse 70 miles away.

All too common, split jurisdictional chaos becomes a due process nightmare for litigants but a gold mine for service providers. Over time, after undisclosed conflicts, more than 40 jurists were assigned to my domestic matters. Indeed, Judge Murad’s son, later elected to a judgeship, was among them. He properly declined his role in an assignment system that has no transparency.

Turning Stone was now boasting thousands of jobs being doled out to applicants in a depressed region. Judge contacts were no exception. But as my client citizens group continued to expose corruption, the pressure to maintain ethics grew with it. Judge Murad had imposed a stay on the casino case but lifted it after the federal decision. He then stepped down without explanation.

Judge Murad resurfaced after retirement to challenge me in a Democrat primary for state senate in 2006 despite a near unanimous endorsement. My candidacy was arranged to prevent a primary against District Attorney Michael Arcuri elected that year to Congress in a Republican district. Despite predictions of a landslide Murad victory, results were too close to call on election night.

Then Oneida County executive, Joseph Griffo, ended up victorious, and he holds that senate seat without challenge to the present day. However, in a bizarre twist of events, the retired judge contacted me the next year to challenge Anthony Picente for the office vacated by Senator Griffo, citing my professionalism in the primary and his offer to manage my campaign.

Unfortunately, opposition was already lining up on both sides of the aisle. As the Peterman decision detailed, the Oneidas were asserting their economic muscle in the region to dismiss my casino challenge. It forced me to invest six figures in both campaigns when donors dwindled. This, in turn, impaired my support proceedings being obsessively pursued by a scorned ex-wife.

After my lead and member cases in Parent v State were dismissed in 2011, retaliation on all fronts escalated. Even my long time, trusted office manager, was influenced to embezzle another six figures from my office which led to suspensions of my law licenses. Police and prosecutors refused to act until she was jailed in 2016 for identical crimes on later law office employers.

Free speech exposes a pedophile custody judge and racist city judge

Despite all this, I continued to press for accountability against judges, lawyers and officials. They included my pedophile custody judge, Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013), publicly censured city judge, Gerald Popeo, and even ethics lawyers in the witch hunt against me allowed to resign for falsifying their time sheets (Peter Torncello, Steven Zayas and Elizabeth Devane).

The consequential persecution violated all manner of human rights. In two federal cases filed after the Parent decision, I was sanctioned for bringing frivolous actions. Once again, instead of a comprehensive review of a 10-year record (totality of circumstances), both assigned judges of the same district court manipulated, inter alia, preclusion rules to deflect all blame on me.

With courthouse doors now effectively closed, I was made an open target while leaving me to take the law into my own hands. The targeting was so relentless that I was summoned for one hearing and a 170-mile round trip to a remote family court to receive a decision that had already been issued. On nearly every occasion, judges humiliated me before the ex-wife and colleagues.

Other examples include a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” (wedding toast) in a December 2, 2013 decision when unfit parenting could not be established after a so-called “mini-hearing” without notice, college degrees never cited or earned that were used to elevate support orders for jail purposes, and conflicting child access conditions creating a risk of “contempt by ambush.” 

In short, I was forced to “fight for custody” or surrender parental rights to avoid confinement in a human cage located in the county jail. The prior Sheriff there had settled a case for $300,000 that I filed on behalf of an African-American corrections officer. My choice was stressed further by a continuing lack of reliable standards in support cases, Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 (2011).

With developed contacts, I became privy to inside information advising me to expect serious mistreatment. Jail terms were quickly imposed, but these were forestalled by payments from outside sources. When exhausted, I was forced to flee my lifelong home to Paris where I sought asylum. My ordeal was ultimately captured in my 2021 published book, Whistleblower in Paris.

Physical threats prompt an attorney-whistleblower to seek asylum in Paris

This incredible ordeal compares tragically with that of Chinese civil rights attorney Chen Guangcheng. He successfully obtained asylum here after being stripped of his livelihood, child contacts and basic liberties in retaliation for his public criticisms of China’s human rights record. Judge Hurd was not unaware of this and could have retained jurisdiction over my later filings

More compelling than Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), my filings implicated countless parents, families and unborn children with no capacity for preserving an existing human right in Congress or our legislatures. This much was proven by my public forums, lobby initiatives and reports culminating in a 2019 event featuring a march down Pennsylvania Avenue under police escort.

Any rational jurist, whether life tenured in federal court or elected in state court, could see that I was being persecuted beyond human capacity due to my lawful exercise of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. But through the cover of systemic bias, they were able to appease any moral conscience. In only one instance did an assigned judge attempt to mediate an end to the chaos.

Briefly, this judge, in my presence, reached out by cell phone to a family judge in 2015 to solicit a “global” settlement. A temporary stay of arrest was agreed upon so that home foreclosure could finally satisfy all support arrears pursuant to that 2010 state court order that my adversaries were circumventing to orchestrate incarceration. Only by chance did I discover this to be a set-up.

That family judge had been the subject of adverse website exposures at Leon Koziol.com. So offensive did he find them when raised in court that he issued a gag order on that site disguised as a protection order. It was removed when I challenged it at a higher level under circumstances showing a collusion between two courts to end a “colorable” First Amendment violation.

This humiliation only fueled more ire when that judge, Daniel King, stepped down days later and was replaced by city judge, Gerald Popeo. Anxious to avenge a 2015 public censure, judge # 40 secured center stage in a scheme to incite an innocuous emotional reaction to the growing abuse. It resulted in a secret bulletin which one traffic cop treated as a “shoot on site” support warrant. 

Family harm and collateral damage to society reach a breaking point

On September 28, 2009, Joseph Longo, a police investigator in Utica, New York, left divorce court after an excessive support order to commit a murder-suicide at the marital home. It left four children without parents and the city with a $2 million wrongful death liability. The horrific crime was executed with a kitchen knife despite protection orders and confiscated weapons.

On June 15, 2011, Thomas Ball burned himself alive on the steps of a family court in Keene, New Hampshire to protest abusive custody, support and child protection laws that severed all meaningful ties with his daughter. It originated with a slap on the face intended as a disciplinary matter. No reform came of this horrendous event. They merely washed his ashes into a sewer.

On April 4, 2015, Walter Scott, an unarmed black father in South Carolina, was shot dead in the back five times by a white cop while fleeing a support warrant at a traffic stop. The scene was recorded by a concealed by-stander and motivated by revolving door jail terms on a civil debt according to a New York Times article. That cop is now serving a prison term for murder.

On April 28, 2018, two-year old Gabriella Boyd was murdered by her mother rather than give in to a custody change order that had not been timely enforced. And on January 17, 2020, eight-year-old Thomas Valva was left to freeze to death by his father in a garage after a custody judge callously dismissed the mother’s warnings without a hearing. Both are serving life sentences.

These five publicized cases are a mere sampling of the carnage occurring on an increasing scale in domestic relations courts. They have their common source in the custody and support orders mandated by the federal support standards act and incentive grants. These laws have discouraged private parental resolution in favor of an incendiary contest reminiscent of the Roman Coliseum.

These laws have also sabotaged shared parenting legislation across the country while subjecting children to an inverted order of co-parenting with the state fixated on custody. This, in turn, has aggravated criminal activity, unwanted pregnancies, drug addictions, disrespect for authority and unprecedented parental alienation. Suicides among both parents and offspring keep escalating.

On December 22, 2020, I was rushed by ambulance from an upstate emergency room to the Albany, New York medical center for a life-threatening condition caused by years of sadistic treatment at the behest of court beneficiaries. Murder can be committed directly by use of a weapon or indirectly through reckless abandon of duty to one’s children, livelihood and dignity.

The reckless abandon here was shared by all defendants named in Parent v State despite the means used to conceal and excuse it. There can be fewer devastations to constitutionally protected rights than the needless separations of parents from their children and fewer still when arrest and jail terms are employed for this purpose on a civil debt in violation of due process.

I lived daily under threat of demise given the examples set by such support obligors as Walter Scott. State police discovered my identity at a sobriety checkpoint on July 31, 2020, pressed false charges, assaulted me to a point of hospitalization, and concealed all events investigated by Internal Affairs. Although the charges were thrown out, my vulnerability was proven.

It was also predicted in a 2015 report to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch who testified with me at New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s Moreland Commission on Public Corruption in 2013. Protests over the George Floyd tragedy on May 25, 2020 induced Cuomo to generate a law which required all state police to wear body cameras on duty. None was used in my case.  

Far more tormenting was the kidnapping of my precious daughters under the guise of legitimate authority and euphemism of parental alienation. Not a sunrise occurred without my fixation on their well-being. For over a decade, I had taken advantage of my weekend warrior status to share such enjoyments as boating, hiking, Disney World, water parks, the ocean and even parasailing.  

Then, suddenly, they were gone like the flicker of a candle. Making matters worse, after ten years of contempt threats regarding my presence at school activities, the mandated “custodial parent,” Kelly (Hawse) Usherwood, crafted an exit strategy from our region without notice of my daughters’ residence or college locations. I have spent no time with them since 2014.

How such a maternal human being came into existence is a question which defies all moral fiber. She spent years plotting this exit against a loving dad who sacrificed everything to be in his children’s lives. After exhausting all rational explanation, it can only be deemed satanic. Any justice system which could conspire with this invites a new world order bent on self-destruction.   

A blind eye to an epidemic is verified by faulty treatment of defendants

Somehow an ominous trend managed to escape the learned review of a damning record by Judge Hurd. It can be summed up in a desperate defense he adopted that was concocted by a low-level support investigator, Darlene Chudyk. She was seeking quasi-immunity from liability for the home invasion. This defense applied only in the absence of an established constitutional right.

Here multiple rights were undeniable. They included free speech retaliation, Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure, and usurpation of my parenting interests at the core of her duties. Judge Hurd  had already denied the dismissal motion of Charlotte Kiehle (erroneously “Kerr”) state tax agent, who joined Chudyk at my home on October 19, 2010, thus showing merit to the “member” case.

But the overriding parenting right, indeed my entire action, was mis-stated when Judge Hurd declared that “there is no right to refuse to pay child support.” This left-field adoption bordered on the insane, and it set the stage for dismissal of remaining claims. More than that, it maligned a proud, loving dad who had voluntarily increased support by 50% prior to state intervention.

The vast majority of jurists perform their crucial functions with dedication, qualification and ethics. Shamelessly, however, others assume a level of omnipotence that reflects no regard for the harm they inflict before moving on to their next hapless victims. It is the duty of our judicial commissions to assure oversight, but they have proven to be impotent and politically constituted.

Hence that duty falls upon qualified mavericks inside the system. But these are few and dwindling after the magnitude of retaliation I endured. Indeed, in my filings and publications, I compared my ordeal as a civil rights attorney to a Rodney King beating with the fists and batons replaced by orders and edicts. I did so again in Parent by reference to the Ku Klux Klan.

Judge Hurd took offense to this and may have therefore applied a further bias to his analysis. But ethics codes require jurists to exhibit restraint to assure consistent impartiality. This promotes a requisite high esteem for such office holders. Regardless, in the end, they remain public servants, and sadly, this base function was abandoned in the Parent deliberations throughout.

To be sure, the federal judges here betrayed a level of elitism that blinded them to rendering just and timely outcomes. They refused to treat each named party as a “person acting under color of law” to violate federal rights pursuant to the statute that gives victims recourse, 42 USC 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871) also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act.” A few examples are in order.

Judge Hurd failed to recognize that each defendant had played a role, however remote, in harming a relationship with my daughters. Child support was merely a distraction. So when a “person” as high as a U.S. cabinet member, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services is named, she cannot be said to lack “personal involvement” for dismissal purposes.

At the time of relevant events, Ms. Sebelius was perhaps the most impacting “person” as she implemented draconian support enforcement practices that led to the kind of carnage cited here. She need not be present for court proceedings in countless civil rights cases, but like the staff lawyers sent to litigate them, a designee can be made routine to reconcile congressional intent.

The same is true for state end actors. A motorist is not disgorged of driving privileges in a vacuum. Here, defendant David Swarts, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, is ultimately the director of his agents on the scene who impact child support capacities. Law enforcement is no exception when punishing civil rights lawyers without disciplinary responses from policymakers.

As for tax agents like Donna Costello and Charlotte Kiehle, they had no authority to aid the county support agent in charge of events at my home. Indeed, as stated, all three were acting contrary to a state court order in their prior possession and handed to one at the scene which limited support collections to a separate foreclosure procedure. That made them trespassers.

This raised a far greater issue than the seizure of automobiles. If aggrieved citizens cannot rely upon the effect and respect to be accorded to a state supreme court order, it invites self-help remedies and ultimately anarchy of the kind which manifested itself at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. As exemplified by the local land claim protests, the people have their limits.

Retaliation by ethics lawyers was not only anticipated, but their own misconduct corroborated a two-class disciplinary system. They were allowed to resign quietly by their employers and ultimate decision maker, defendant Third Department appeals court, for falsifying time sheets. These are the standard-bearers of attorney ethics charged with oversight of billing practices.

Lumping all attorney disciplinary actors into a single category of judicial status for “absolute” immunity purposes created a decisional anomaly insofar as a separation between prosecutor and impartial decision maker was compromised in further violation of due process. It harkened back to a day when “star chambers” beholden to the King dispensed justice in feudal England.

Absolute judicial immunity has no source in the Constitution or legislated law here in America. Like parens patriae doctrine (child’s best interests), it was given life by the Supreme Court in Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 (1978) as a carry-over from British common law. Such elitism strikes at the core of our Constitution drafted to cement a clean break from our mother country.

A lingering omnipotence was therefore allowed to contaminate extended litigation in Parent v State. The second federal judge to take up my constitutional challenges, Thomas McAvoy, applied an anti-civil rights disposition to dismiss my 2012 complaint, i.e. Lopez v Metropolitan Life, 930 F.2d 157 (2nd Cir. 1991)(an early case of mine focused on employment discrimination).

Finally, judges Gary Sharpe and Glen Suddaby, in a tag team beating, imposed sanctions and a conditional filing order. They overrode recusal sought, in part, on a human gene to be discovered “in another fifty years” to make decisions. I decried Judge Sharpe’s omnipotence as Hitleresque based on his rare and resulting removal in United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011).

Duty-bound jurists squander opportunities to set overdue precedent

The Parent v State record and sequel opened the door for precedent in a number of crucial contexts. These included judicial and sovereign immunities, father discrimination, Title IV-D funding abuses, court structure, and attorney whistleblower protection. All were overlooked by jurists I metaphorically criticized “like zombies marching in an Independence Day parade.”

For too long, I have labored to secure legal protection for conscientious attorney whistleblowers, most recently a precedent-seeking case filed with the Supreme Court under docket no. 18-278 and captioned Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore. Ahead of its time, it sought to permit circumstantial proof as a conventional means for establishing unlawful retaliation by judges.

Presently, even in misconduct cases, a tiny percent of which are actually investigated, two unwritten rules of evidence invariably emerge, one for judges and the other for complainants. Under the first, damning evidence is blocked in both overt and discreet ways to protect judicial stature. For the same reason, under the second, a higher burden of proof is effectively imposed.

Adherence to consistent proof standards would promote fearless reporting by those most qualified. Alternatively, an exception to the doctrine of judicial immunity would exclude malicious acts from its broad reach. Under current law, a judge could announce a hazard-causing decision against a litigant-adversary, yet remain protected from liability for any damage.

The DiFiore filing sought to remedy these dysfunctions, representing a check on the persecution of attorney whistleblowers. The protracted and depraved manner in which unlawful retaliation was carried out against me presented itself as an ideal case. As detailed in my book, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized to achieve outcomes harmful to a civilized society.

To be sure, my disclosures were so justifiably offensive that the wrongdoers went to the extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in then 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 included a stay motion decided by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Despite these set-backs, I was later vindicated when the main defending party, New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, was forced to resign after investigation by a judicial commission. DiFiore was reported for a letter she sent to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of a court officer’s union in retaliation for his criticisms of her pandemic safety practices.

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 mistress. Under a fictitious name, he made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child. Ironically, Judge 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. It remains an untenable thought process today.

Continuing with our precedent-setting contexts, father discrimination remains subject to lip service despite Census Bureau reports still showing that some 80% of support obligors are men. A suspect class added to race and gender laws would promote genuine equality. Until serious institutional changes are implemented, we will continue down a path toward a fatherless society.

Chaotic court structure combines with funding abuses to require an overhaul in our domestic relations laws. Due process is a fluid concept, always a work-in-progress particularly when confronted with modern day challenges. Taken individually or collectively, precedent on this prong of our Constitution would go a long way toward ridding our society of systemic bias.

Sovereign immunity from suit in federal court derives from an outdated 11th Amendment drafted to retain state integrity in the 1700s. Even without an arduous repeal process, Congress has constitutional authority to legislate exceptions to that immunity which should occur more often. Absent that, I urged that state acceptance of Title IV-D funds operated as a waiver of immunity.

Next, circumstantial proof should be allowed to show lawless retaliation by judges. This overdue precedent was patently ignored in all decisions related to the Parent case, leaving countless victims without cause for treating these public servants above others evincing similar conduct. Yet another example of unmitigated elitism, it yielded yet another miscarriage of justice.  

Here, an ethics probe was initiated on the same day as my appeals court arguments featuring protected lawyer misconduct. That court appointed ethics committee members which included my divorce opponent. It led to escalating false charges after 23 years of unblemished practice. Together with the foregoing, it allowed for a conclusion that judge corruption was widespread.

Despite its ultimate adverse outcome, Parent v State set unofficial precedent demonstrating the fallacy of judicial supremacy. On appeal to the U.S. Second Circuit, Judge Hurd’s dismissal was affirmed, but only after he was corrected on proper grounds in accord with the Supreme Court’s longstanding judicial policy of deference to state courts under the Younger abstention doctrine.

Then, only one year later, in Sprint Communications v Jacobs, 571 US 69 (2013), that policy was clarified to discredit the Second Circuit correction. The same high court admonished lower ones for abusing Younger to dismiss meritorious filings. Its three-part test was emphasized to apply only to exceptional cases where the state was essentially prosecuting an important function.

Conclusion: An open message to our federal government

This year will mark the 100th anniversary of the landmark decision which recognized the right of parents in the “care, custody and control of their children,” labeling it the oldest liberty protected by our Constitution, Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923). Supreme Court rulings since then have acknowledged the changing nature of family units but remained loyal to this natural right.

One need go no further than the court caption in Parent v State to verify the sheer number of persons and entities now engaged in the dismantling of this right as parental substitutes. A fair analysis of the Parent case here has shown how each was necessarily named for a complete outcome under our dual system of government. It cries out for action by all three branches.

Congress is called upon to convene oversight hearings to gain direct input from the countless victims of federal funding abuses in our domestic relations courts. The Justice Department is duty-bound to investigate civil rights violations that have been long neglected in these same courts. And it is high time for the Supreme Court to grant protection for attorney-whistleblowers.

The People of the United States have expressed time and again their contempt for the manner in which our nation has been governed in recent years. It is not a contempt based on gender, race or party affiliation. It is one demanding an honest performance of sworn duty when hardly a day goes by without some scandal or mass reaction by a disgusted constituency.

Herein lies an extraordinary opportunity for leaders to reverse this trend.                                             

Dr. Martin Luther King urged nonviolent protests, but they are being ignored for court reform and parental rights

On By leonkozioljdIn Call To Action, Civil Rights, Divorce Corp Movie, Family Court Corruption, Justice Department Report, Parental Rights, UncategorizedLeave a comment

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Civil Rights Advocate

As a civil rights attorney, I spent over two decades litigating for victims of race, gender, religion and ethnic discrimination. This included sexual harassment cases when they were unpopular. Many successful verdicts, monetary recoveries and precedent outcomes resulted. But my crusade for justice was not limited to minorities. It also extended to white landowners wrongfully threatened with eviction in the Oneida Indian land claim. Police brutality cases were similarly prosecuted for diverse victims, and I represented a public safety commissioner, police chief and rank and file officers whenever they were falsely accused.

In short, I was motivated to correct injustices to a point where I managed to have a billion-dollar casino compact invalidated on constitutional grounds in New York Supreme Court. The Las Vegas Sun reported it as a David-Goliath battle won by a “small law office” in upstate New York. Among the defense firms in that case was Cravath, Swaine and Moore, one of the most powerful in the world. These achievements earned me praise from federal and state judges. The court transcripts, headline news and published opinions bear this out.

However, when I turned my energies to correcting human rights violations in divorce and family courts, I was viciously targeted. Suddenly, my arguments were incomprehensible, rambling and frivolous after 23 unblemished years. Even I underestimated the wrath of a corrupt regime bent on retaliation for my exposure of corruption involving a judge-lawyer gold mine. In numerous public statements, I cited federal funding abuses and lucrative custody battles that were inciting child murders, veteran suicides and needless parental conflict.

As a consequentially victimized parent, I was then forced to assume the mantra of a judicial whistleblower devoid of legal protection. The horrific ordeal which followed remains unprecedented in modern times. Due to its complexity over a twelve-year period resulting in deprivations of my law practice, father-daughter relationships and a full range of constitutional rights, I was compelled to summarize this ordeal in a recently published book entitled Whistleblower in Paris.

Among the court practices I condemned in that book was the abuse of forensic custody evaluations. Only last week, a blue-ribbon panel appointed by New York’s governor voted to eliminate these evaluations altogether. I made a presentation at a virtual public hearing sponsored by that panel asking for this very outcome, but like the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption (where I also made a presentation), it is doubtful that any genuine reform will be implemented. That is how powerful this gold mine has become.

So, in the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, I sponsored a three-day event at our nation’s capital in May, 2019. Its goal was to elicit a Justice Department investigation and congressional hearings into the rampant human rights violations and federal funding abuses which continue to be ignored in these custody and support courts. We featured planning sessions, a lobby day among the offices of Congress, expert speakers at a hotel ballroom, a candlelight vigil in front of the U.S. Capitol, and a march down Pennsylvania Avenue under police escort from the White House to the Supreme Court.

All of this was accomplished without incident on a shoestring budget. At least four necessary permits were obtained together with regulatory compliance. Parents came from all parts of the country to register their peaceful protest against divorce and family court corruption. Yet not a single member of Congress responded. Then-president Donald Trump never materialized in front of the crowd assembled at the White House. Not even a representative was sent. The Justice Department weighed in with the same message that parental rights were not even on their radar.

So what is the lesson to be realized from all this? Peaceful protests to benefit parents, children and families of all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds will be ignored. They yield no respect whatsoever while the same politicians beg for our support on election day. Therefore, it’s time for my dear friends struggling against parental alienation, custody abuses and support debtor prisons to take matters into your own hands. Stay away from lawyers and these courts, set aside your custody and support disputes, and keep abreast of fellow victims who need help.

In this way at least, we might succeed in closing the gold mine.

For more information on our cause to preserve parental rights and promote judicial accountability, visit the Citizen Commission Against Corruption website at http://www.citizencommissionagainstcorruption.org, a nonprofit organization seeking to do the job which oversight agencies are not. The office number is (315) 864-8176 or contact Dr. Koziol directly at (315) 796-4000.

And help share this vital message as it is being highly censored.

Upcoming Family Court election in Lewis County, NY requires a Primary against Judge Daniel King

On By leonkozioljdIn Book Publishing, Divorce Corp Movie, Family Court Corruption, NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, Parental Rights, UncategorizedLeave a comment
No, this is not an apprentice. His name is Daniel King, harming parents, children and families as a judge for nearly a decade. Now comes the opportunity to replace him with a qualified candidate in 2022.

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Parenting Rights Institute

Administrator’s Note: This is a column worth reading due to its exposure of court corruption that could harm any potential family court litigant. You will learn of inside practices not revealed elsewhere. Share this with others so that they can avoid similar judge abuses.

Author’s Note: As a practicing civil rights attorney until 2010, I became privy to much concealed misconduct in our courts which I exposed only to incur immense retributions. The following column is a part of my ordeal.

Daniel King had a stint as a lawyer in rural Lewis County, New York before managing to have himself elected to the position of family judge in 2012. Upon taking office, he was assigned to cases in much larger counties of New York’s Fifth Judicial District (Syracuse, Utica-Rome and Watertown). These included criminal court matters beyond the limited jurisdiction of family court under the state constitution. But because of a highly abused assignment provision in that same document, he was able to become assigned to cases normally handled by other specialized judges.

This bizarre assignment process took Judge King away from duties properly committed to his Lewis County constituents but he must have enjoyed all the prestige it was giving to him. It is a court process largely off-record and beyond challenge by impacted parties. It represents only one of many reasons cited by the New York bar for a constitutional convention in 2017 to rectify the state’s complex 11-trial court system. That system was compared to our most populous state of California which has a single trial level court. For the same reason, this judge in a county barely having more than 25,000 residents was able to preside in counties having over 460,000 residents. These were places where he never would have been elected, where the voters now had no say in his assignments.

As corruption or bad luck would have it, Daniel King was assigned to my custody and support matters in Oneida County (Utica-Rome) only six months into his term. It was ordered by District Administrative Judge James (Bond) Tormey. Jim acquired the spy designation because he was named in a successful civil rights lawsuit brought by a chief court clerk who refused to engage in “political espionage” (according to a federal judge). This chief clerk was ordered to spy against judge candidates of an opposite political party and was subjected to retaliation by assignments to remote locations.

This retaliation patterned my family court assignments to many of the same remote locations in retaliation for my whistleblowing activity. The clerk recovered $600,000 because, unlike litigants harmed by comparable wrongs, court employees are not subject to judicial immunity. I know the corruption exposed here at Leon Koziol.com is often hard to believe, but this one can be verified at Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir, 2010)(a federal appeals court ruling in Manhattan). Somehow the learned judges who reviewed the retaliation against me could not see a problem with any of this. It was not even mentioned in their subsequent decisions on my state appeals and federal civil rights cases.

Emboldened by those unjust decisions, Judge King began a process of systematically alienating me from my precious daughters. The tactics used are beyond conscience, but you will have to simply brace yourself for the revelations made now, years later, so that one can see how truly corrupt, hypocritical and political these family court processes can be. Daniel King was eventually forced to step down from my support and custody cases but not before irreparable harm was inflicted, the kind that warrants not only millions of dollars in state compensation, but a profound investigation by both the U.S. Justice Department and Civil Rights Bureau of the New York Attorney General.

The voters of Lewis County must be made aware of King’s reign in their family court because any one of them could become victim to his juvenile behavior. This rural county is dominated by Republicans and Conservatives, hence a voting democracy here is best served by a primary candidate. If party leaders are mindlessly committed to an incumbent endorsement, a Republican challenger can easily overcome this by going directly to the people. That much is easy to do here. No media or special interests will prevent a door-to-door campaign. Even a third-party candidate will send the message that we are sick of do-nothing, politically-appointed, window-dressing, misconduct commissions.

To be sure, why not send a profound message that the rest of our nation can applaud and emulate in a state where our country was born, where Revolutionary War sites abound? Judge King exhibited exactly what his name suggests, a petty tyrant too immature to restrain his ego, impressing his judicial superiors so that an endorsement would be a given and his abuses forgotten years later. If anything, the value of our voting power lies in our ability to remember, to exert recourse when our oversight entities fail us. This is such a case, and we must find a judge candidate while time allows, and that time is now.

This judge tyrant acted on his first day of assignment issuing an order based on the one-sided assertions of an ex-spouse hell bent on replacing me with a childless millionaire having questionable motives. The accuser was not present at an event she was describing which warranted no intervention. She cited or produced no witness to back up her self-serving narratives. In short, anything that could be thrown at the lawyer-dad (judicial whistleblower) by a scorned party would be accepted as gospel with no moral compass or remorse of any kind. This King could care less about the grave consequences to wonderful, long-established, father-daughter relations at the time.

When asked in open court what basis was being used to issue his child access limitations, King managed to rationalize that he was somehow “protecting” my children, two girls he had never met, never raised, or made possible in the first place. This “best interests of the child” standard was abused beyond reason with power that had simply gone to King’s head. Only weeks later, he increased a child support obligation using college degrees (PhD and Masters) that I had never received. When called to task in later court filings, he refused to acknowledge his blunder, clear from the record, and dismissed it as “harmless error.”

Because there is no meaningful judicial oversight commission, I was forced to expose that blunder, among others, in testimony before ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Moreland Commission on Public Corruption at Pace University on September 17, 2013 (Constitution Day). Ironically that governor dissolved this commission prematurely when testimony began implicating top state officials in criminality. But fortunately one of the speakers was a federal prosecutor incensed by this maneuver. He seized commission files and ended up convicting the leaders of both houses of the legislature and a top Cuomo aide. Within three months of my highly public and damning exposure, Judge King ended the parenting time granted to me one year earlier by a veteran family judge in Syracuse.

Unlike that judge there was no trial here, and the one King concocted on another first appearance was labeled a “mini-hearing.” Because no advance notice was provided, no proof could be offered. No complaint had ever been filed with any child protection agency and I possessed no criminal record. Nevertheless, an infuriated Judge King suspended all child contact based on an admitted champaign toast at a niece’s wedding with my girls present. He called it a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” which was never prohibited anyway assuming one could figure out what such a gesture could be.

This is not something that can be made up. Despite prison inmates who were being treated with greater respect, this “prohibited gesture” can be found on page five of a December 2, 2013 decision. It was quickly stayed (stopped) on appeal, but when a panel of judges in Rochester got hold of it, my parenting time was again suspended without explanation one day before a properly noticed plenary (full) trial before Judge King. Shortly into that trial, conducted without jury, the sworn narratives of an unrepresented ex-spouse was allowed to proceed without any logical or legal constraint. This presiding judge directed me to cease making objections under penalty of removal so that he could orchestrate a desired record to back up his earlier bizarre rulings.

That plain scheme forced me to exit proceedings early not only due to its gesture in futility but to prevent a clearly biased judge from using me as part of any legitimate process. However, my exit also enabled King to treat the one-sided concoctions as true. Apart from a few holiday hours, I was then denied all parenting time to the present day, eight years later. Judge King was finally removed from my case after I successfully challenged his 2016 gag order on this website, Leon Koziol.com, thereby adding a First Amendment dimension to his combined assault on my parenting right. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that right to be “the oldest liberty interest protected by our Constitution,” Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000).

This is only a portion of my horrific ordeal which prompted me to seek international protection in Paris. It also prompted my September 23, 2021 testimony before Governor Kathy Hochul’s blue-ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations. Such evaluations were abused here to carry out the retaliation agenda. This is no John Grisham story but a true human rights odyssey captured in my newly published book, Whistleblower in Paris. Available at any Barnes and Noble store, Amazon (which gave it a five-star rating) or major on-line book seller, this book should be obtained by anyone seeking a candidacy or poetic justice in Lewis County.

Spread the word, kindly contribute to our cause, and many thanks for your support.

Shared Parenting: Why has it been so stifled despite decades of carnage caused by the antiquated custody system?

On By leonkozioljdIn Divorce Corp Movie, Family Court Corruption, Family Law Reform Conference, Fathers Rights, Parental Rights, Social Security Act Title IV-DLeave a comment

By Leon Koziol, J.D.

Director

Parenting Rights Institute

The above news article published by a mainstream newspaper in 2009 reflects the lack of progress in attaining fair treatment in our divorce and family courts. Despite surveys showing overwhelming support for shared parenting laws, relevant bills in Congress and our state legislatures have failed to achieve any meaningful progress. This dilemma exists despite vast increases in suicide, child murders and crime statistics traceable to the current antiquated child custody system. That system was constructed around a child rearing framework featuring stay-at-home moms and working dads.

I established the National League of Fathers, Inc. in 2008 to promote fair treatment consistent with my decades of practice as a civil rights attorney. However, that organization collapsed early due to misplaced priorities and a lack of financial support while the retributions suffered as a consequence violated all manner of human rights. Sadly, one of its board members hung himself from a tree in response to the horrific treatment he endured. Our goal was to reverse an alarming trend of fatherless families and the targeting of male parents to fund a court system which still discriminates on account of gender.

The Census Bureau steadfastly reports that over 80% of persons paying child support are men. Had that statistic reflected discriminatory employment against women in this day and age, riots would have erupted. To be sure, countless dads continue to be forced out of their children’s lives due to the hostage treatment exhibited in these courts and the draconian, one-sided manner of support enforcement.

I have explained all this in a recent post entitled, The Torturing of Child Support and its escalation of Parental Alienation. Specifically, our federal government, already reeling from a spending crisis, continues to supply these courts with incentive grants to the tune of billions of dollars annually under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. This funding law is based on the number and size of support orders manufactured in the states. It therefore incentivizes lucrative conflict between parents forced needlessly to fight over their own offspring.

In my newly published book, Whistleblower in Paris, I have likened this parent alienation process to the Roman Coliseum. That book provides a valuable crash course for unsuspecting litigants and parents on the realities of our domestic relations courts and could prevent thousands in lawyer fees. It is important, therefore, that you do your part in exposing this silent epidemic virally and donating to our cause at http://www.citizencommissionagainstcorruption.org.

The Torturing of Child Support and its escalation of Parental Alienation during the holidays

On By leonkozioljdIn Call To Action, Child Support, Divorce Corp Movie, UncategorizedLeave a comment

By Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute

Author’s Note: The following column is based on two decades as a trial lawyer, twenty years as a parent and twelve years as a court reform advocate

When one thinks of child support, it’s generally a duty that parents have to pay a fair share of child rearing expenses. And despite tremendous strides in achieving equal rights over the years, child support continues to be predominantly a male obligation. Census Bureau reports still show that fathers are as much as 85% of all parents subject to a child support order.

Regardless of the gender disparities, the support of children should rank high among society’s priorities. But unfortunately, that priority has been abused well beyond its logical scope to line the pockets of lawyers, service providers and the support bureaucracy to result in bankruptcies, the raiding of college funds and a recent phenomenon known as parental alienation.

The realities demonstrate that our antiquated child custody framework is no longer committed to the so-called “best interests of the child” but a means for growing a trillion-dollar industry. And women are no longer immune from the consequences as we find countless moms today feeling the abuse which dads have long endured. Severe parental alienation has yielded a loss of contact with the children they are supporting over the holidays.

During the 1980s, Dr. Richard Gardner popularized that condition as a psychological disorder but his conclusions were rejected by his profession and never included among the 300 disorders recognized in the DSM-5 manual for insurance purposes. In my own reports since then, I have similarly rejected such a condition and preferred to treat it more accurately as a human rights violation.

A federal funding law is the “elephant in the courtroom” in that regard. As originally drafted, Title IV-D of the Social Security Act targeted absentee fathers through incentive funding to the states (and by extension their domestic relations judges). Such revenues were based on the number and size of support collections that could be documented. This, in turn, created a systemic bias among support judges.

But over time, a little-known adjustment to this funding law from absentee to “noncustodial parent” aggravated that bias through a revenue stream that grew many times over. The mere condition of career mom or gender status was now sufficient to place an adequate provider into a classification that destroyed the overriding assumption of parenthood and an existing willingness to support offspring without a state mandate.

From there, without any investigative reporting or public accountability, it was off to the races on the tactics employed to elevate obligations beyond a parent’s income and self-support capacities. It resulted in debtor prisons, child abandonment and unprecedented violence contrary to stated objectives. A new form of evil was born from the fires of hell.

The examples of carnage erupting from this corruption are countless: a mother who killed her two-year old daughter rather than give her up to a custody change (2018 Gabriella Boyd), a father who killed his girl only to burn himself along with her in his home (2016 Kyra Franchetti), a mother who obtained a gun overnight following a child support dispute to kill the father and children (2019 Damyrra Jones).

They include veterans and law enforcement: a father who left his eight-year old boy in a freezing garage resulting in homicide charges (ex-NYPD officer Michael Valva – 2020), a war veteran, Thomas Ball, who burned himself alive in front of a New Hampshire courthouse to protest child protection abuses, and a police investigator who killed his ex-spouse with a common kitchen knife after exiting support court to leave four children without parents, see Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d 367 (NDNY 2011).

This is only a sampling of real life horrors that attorneys, media and oversight entities are purposely ignoring due the immense influence of special interest groups. In our peaceful protests over the years, most recently the 2019 Parent March on Washington, we have demanded a federal investigation and congressional oversight hearings to address the human rights violations and rampant abuse of federal funds in this silent epidemic.

In Chapter 12 of my newly published book, Whistleblower in Paris, I outline some highly suppressed techniques concocted over the years in support proceedings to maximize profits and court revenues. You should obtain this valuable read at any Barnes and Noble store, Amazon, publisher Author House or major bookseller on-line. You can also join our live talk program, Leon’s Library, daily, Monday thru Friday at 7:30 pm EST on YouTube.

Here is my relevant book excerpt:

Chapter 12- No Place Like Home at pg. 193-195

To advance funding goals, state legislatures have enacted laws that require courts to name a “custodial parent” as a condition for a valid divorce or support agreement. Typically, an opt-out clause allows parents to by-pass the mandatory support formula, but to do so requires them to engage in a comparative analysis which often dilutes the reality of this option.

There is also collaborative law, but such processes are similarly diluted by additional attorneys who cannot be used later if agreement fails. More lawyers are added to a two-tiered process to support the adage that any community which cannot support one lawyer can always support two.

Here is a partial listing of fictions, in addition to those provided earlier, that were orchestrated over the years to maximize funding at the expense of judicial impartiality and due process:

  1. Service of a support violation petition can be achieved by simple mailing. These petitions typically contain boldface, capital letter warnings of arrest and incarceration. If this type of service is challenged on due process grounds, it can incur the cost of personal service unlike criminal counterparts which these proceedings resemble.
  • Expedited case management rules can provide a mere thirty days for defense preparation between a first appearance and trial. All too often, a jail term for contempt of a support order is the standard outcome conditioned on a purge or payment amount. Satisfaction is routinely coerced from relatives, employers or friends.
  • The case for a violation and jail term is easily made by a single non-party witness, typically a social services employee offering a delinquent support summary into the record. Intent is presumed from its mere production without any other proof.
  • The burden of proof is wrongfully shifted to the defending party to prove innocence. The standard for conviction is the lowest of all forms of litigation despite the stigma and incarceration which are at stake. There is no jury or indigent right to counsel.
  • Support judges have invented an evidentiary substitute known as imputed income which assures the highest support obligation possible, often well beyond the realistic income capacities of the targeted debtor. Defending parties are treated at higher levels of income based on past employment reports even when wrongfully terminated.
  • Support obligations continue to accrue at regular intervals during incarceration for violations or any other reason. They also accrue when a father is later found not to be a biological parent and despite frauds used to deny him child access. They also accrue until a petition for recourse is actually filed despite its futility in a biased process.
  • The state has expanded its tyrannical power beyond the original objective of recouping welfare costs for abandoned mothers on public assistance. It now acts as representative for self-sufficient support seekers to create a serious imbalance in the scales of justice. Attorney fees and other costs are made a part of the final judgment.

In my case, all but the actual incarceration was used against me. But the many processes employed were also fraught with serious error, gender prejudice and whistleblower retaliation. At what point, then, is a victim pushed to such an extreme that our Constitution confers upon him a legal right to fight back or take the so-called law into his own hands?

You be the jury.

Censored: Who is Alec Baldwin to compare Governor DeSantis to cult leader Jim Jones after his 2008 suicide disclosures?

On By leonkozioljdIn Book Publishing, Call To Action, Divorce Corp Movie, Family Court Corruption, parental alienation, Parental Rights, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Dr. Leon Koziol (fully vaccinated by choice)

Parenting Rights Institute

NOTE:

This post, first published yesterday, September 14, 2021, was derailed from its normal track on this website and Facebook, thereby denying the public access to vital information that is central to our First Amendment value system. American military sacrifice daily for these rights but Big Tech, Big Pharma and now Big Family are trampling all over them to transform our society into a socialist one. You see the proof everywhere in the way of retail establishments closed due to a lack of staffing.

For this reason we are re-publishing this post with the hope that you will help defend our rights on the domestic front by making it viral. Our site, http://www.leonkoziol.com, has been the target of various government entities offended by publications that accurately expose public corruption. Such censorship includes a family court gag order disguised as a protection order which was removed after a challenge in New York Supreme Court in 2016. At one time, we received thousands of shares or likes on various posts. Today we are lucky to get a few.

Censorship? Fear of identification, association or retaliation? Whatever the explanation, it is entirely un-American and typical of the regimes we confront overseas. We do not expect agreement with all our reports or opinions but excluding certain ones is nothing more than an attempt to conform us all to a single thought or way of life. The number who seriously misunderstand free speech and press is staggering. But rest assured, our postings do not coddle hypocrites who exploit their fame to influence public discourse with wild, reckless and highly disparaging analogies. This is one such example:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hollywood headlines today in Breitbart and other news outlets featured Alec Baldwin comparing Florida governor Ron DeSantis to cult leader Jim Jones who caused over 900 suicides among his followers in a South America commune 40 years ago. The radical liberal actor was making the radical comparison of face mask freedoms to suicide by those who fail to comply with federal Covid-19 mandates.

This bizarre comparison was obviously designed for shock effect and not genuine public safety given the actor’s periodic aspirations for public office. But it is seriously infected with grave hypocrisy after the actor’s suicide revelations in his 2008 book, A Promise to Ourselves. At page 183, he itemizes such things as a hike deep into the woods to shoot himself, overdosing at a bed and breakfast, and daily thoughts of jumping out his apartment window in Manhattan.

It was all headline news back then after a vulgar answering machine message was made public during a contentious divorce with Kim Basinger. Baldwin’s book was intended to influence a reform of our divorce courts which caused parental alienation and phone messages such as this one. But the actor’s suicide disclosures stole the media hype, taking the focus away from the book’s main objective.

I attended Alec’s book-signing in New York and was pleased to add our group to his cause, but he exited the movement as quickly as he entered the fray, no doubt to avoid further damage to his acting career caused by his status as a controversial whistleblower. Unfortunately in doing so, he crushed the hopes he created among countless other victims.

Suicide choices may have been Baldwin’s right in reaction to a contentious divorce. But that right has no place in a discussion over vaccination choices. And it cannot be excused simply because a famous actor chooses a different one from fellow citizens. How many other divorce victims have been moved to consider suicide based on this actor’s book disclosures? And can we then make the comparison of Alec Baldwin’s influences to that of Jim Jones?

Needless parental alienations and the suicides they cause formed an impetus for my own (newly released) book on divorce court corruption titled, Whistleblower in Paris. Alec Baldwin’s time would be better spent promoting this book especially after he orphaned fellow divorce reformists years ago. Get a free insight on that reform at http://www.whistleblowerinparis.com. And here is the relevant excerpt from Alec Baldwin’s book, reprinted at page 21 of my book:

Ple

The Legacy of Susan B. Anthony merits consideration in a Supreme Court overhaul

On By leonkozioljdIn Call To Action, Divorce Corp Movie, Fundraising, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court NewsLeave a comment

Dr. Leon Koziol

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

Former New York trial and appellate attorney

President Joe Biden’s new commission to study an overhaul of our Supreme Court met for the first time today, April 16, 2021. According to a New York Times story by Charlie Savage, that commission will now explore changes well beyond an increase in the number of justices proposed by a group of lawmakers yesterday. This is a positive development given the political motivations behind the expansion plan which has already crashed and burned.

That does not mean the idea of an expanded high court should be dismissed altogether. As I urged in yesterday’s post, it simply means that any such proposal should be based on merit, one that places the interests of aggrieved citizens over the categorical ideologies of the current nine-member bench. Leaders on both sides of the aisle wisely recognize that the Supreme Court must not be transformed into a political institution, however implausible that may be.

To that end, the legacy of Susan B. Anthony may be instructive. This famous leader of the women’s rights movement was arrested in Rochester, New York for the crime of voting in the 1872 elections. She asserted the newly adopted Fourteenth Amendment as her justification. Her criminal case went to trial the following year before a presiding justice of the Supreme Court named Ward Hunt. He was born in Utica, New York, my home town, during its heyday as a thriving industrial hub. After serving as its mayor, he was appointed chief judge of New York’s high court before being nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ulysses S. Grant.

At the time, justices of the Supreme Court presided in both trial and appellate capacities among various federal circuits. So bizarre was this practice that when I first learned of it in the Anthony case, I immediately believed that she was tried before a justice of the state supreme court which, unlike all other states, is the trial level court in New York. Ward Hunt deliberated in a way that might shock today’s conscience, but then again, startling parallels can be made to modern day courts when I revisit my ordeal shortly as a persecuted civil rights attorney, aggrieved parent and judicial whistleblower.

Judge Hunt essentially conducted a star chamber trial. He used Anthony’s unsworn statements at the arrest scene as testimony against her while refusing to let her take the stand, directed the jury to find against her, and even issued a guilty opinion prepared prior to opening statements. He ordered her to pay a fine of $100 which she refused and then failed to incarcerate her as a consequence so that no appeal could be taken to the full Supreme Court. Such egregious deprivations of due process were not rectified until 1895 in the case of Sparf v United States which prohibited judge verdicts in place of the jury in criminal cases.

The effective merger of trial and appellate courts did not end until the circuit courts of appeals were created by act of Congress in 1891. There are currently 13 circuits with justices ranging in number from the First Circuit in Boston with six to the Ninth Circuit in California with twenty-nine. They all operate with 3-judge panels that decide most appeals and full court, or en banc review, for high profile matters. A loser in a panel appeal can petition for full court review, but it is rarely granted (much like the petitions denied by the Supreme Court). This two-tier process of appellate review assures that all properly filed appeals will be heard.

The current proposal to expand the Supreme Court from nine to thirteen is merely an increase in number, a bureaucratic exercise bent on avenging President Donald Trump’s conservative appointments. It does not assure that more cases will be heard and may even reduce the high court’s capacity when more justices delay outcomes through complex opinions, i.e. unanimous, majority, plurality, concurrent and dissenting. To be truly beneficial for the people served, that proposal should incorporate the two-tiered circuit court structure which has proven effective for many decades. A thirteen member Supreme Court, for example, could feature four three-judge panels with a chief justice focused on administrative duties.

The Susan B. Anthony trial was known for its positive impact on women’s suffrage, but it also helped shape a better court structure for the delivery of justice. So outraged was this defendant by the miscarriage delivered to her that she openly defied the orders of a Supreme Court justice, including a fine that was never paid. We look back today with great admiration for her courageous stand. However when a similar one is taken by reformists and whistleblowers of modern times, retaliation is common with the typical reputation damage that comes with it. By killing the messenger, corruption thrives in all branches of government.

Therefore the Biden Commission must take a hard look at judicial immunity doctrines and compensation of whistleblowers for the wrongs committed against them. My ordeal is exemplary. Like the Susan B. Anthony criminal case, my family court process featured judge verdicts on child custody and support with no jury at all. I was directed to cease making objections by one judge, Daniel King, which compelled me to exit and waive my rights to testify. After his disqualification, replacement Judge James Eby, forced the litigants and their paid attorneys to make a 160 mile round trip from Utica to his Oswego courthouse to receive a decision that had already been completed.

Ironically the appellate courtroom in Rochester named after Susan B. Anthony is the same one where my law license was first suspended for the stand I took against the Ward Hunts of today. Don’t let my sacrifices be in vain. Help us in our cause to reform our nation’s broken justice system. Share this post with media, public officials and aggrieved litigants. Make a donation here at Leon Koziol.com or call our office at (315) 380-3420. I can also be contacted directly at (315) 796-4000. E-mail option is leonkoziol@gmail.com.

Government Accountability is a Fraud: Why should the people honor laws that lawmakers flaunt?

On By leonkozioljdIn Divorce Corp Movie, Family Court Corruption, Family Law Reform Conference, Justice Department Report, Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, parental alienation, Satan's Docket, Social Security Act Title IV-D, UncategorizedLeave a comment
  • Dr. Koziol & Associates at Supreme Court

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Is there any shame these days to the widespread misconduct of public officials? Is there any accountability for those who flaunt the law with impunity? We’re not talking about isolated indiscretions, but serious misconduct undetected for years, even decades. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner, Wall Street regulator Bernie Madoff, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and ex-California Congressman Duncan Hunter constitute a small list of disgraced officials who brazenly advanced themselves at public expense, a joint hypocrisy of epic proportion.

And now, topping this list, we find Andrew Cuomo engaged in a flurry of news releases to deflect from his growing scandals. From a sudden legalization of recreational marijuana to the relaxation of coronavirus restrictions, the current governor of New York is relying on an electorate that quickly forgets. This long abused practice flies in the face of government misconduct that should be held accountable to avert the lawlessness it incites elsewhere. The public message here is that if you bend the rules, by the time anyone catches up with it, a lavish life has already been fulfilled.

Yes, crime pays, and the message continues to be that the people served are idiots for honoring laws that apply differently to separated classes. Those in power abuse their authority to achieve a higher standard while those who make it all possible are remanded to a life of poverty, incarceration, suicide and meager employment. To maintain the upper class, various programs are announced to make it appear that these lawless politicians truly care about the rest of us struggling to make sense of our reality as a two class society. Any middle existence is an illusion of escalating proportion particularly with the impacts of the current pandemic.

On Constitution Day, 2013, I testified at Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, to warn of our current realities. This was yet another window dressing entity designed to fool the public into believing that there will be accountability for a “culture of corruption in Albany.” But the same governor who created this commission with great fanfare acted just as quickly to dissolve it when growing testimony implicated officials close to Cuomo himself. Not to be duped, one of those testimonials came from a federal prosecutor who seized commission files resulting in the convictions of both leaders of the state legislature and a top Cuomo aid.

For my part, as a qualified whistleblower in our third branch of government, I exposed a family court epidemic that was causing vast separations between parents and their children. How ironic and hypocritical it is today that much more attention is being given to criminals and illegals at our southern border. Is this equal justice for our tax paying citizenry or the promotion of corporate profits dependent on cheap labor, drug addictions and false advertising?

In my reports to Congress and Justice Department I explained how Title IV-D funding was creating a biased judiciary rewarded by the size and number of child support orders doled out in our nation’s domestic relations courts. Put another way, federal funding was being incentivized by the number of “custodial parents” needlessly manufactured to incite lucrative conflict in the so-called “best interests” of our children.

In support of a federal investigation, I even cited proof in my own case featuring over 40 trial level jurists removed over a twelve year period in a maliciously protracted divorce that caused irreversible parental alienation. This was anything but a process for advancing the best interests of my two precious daughters. And in the end, like most whistleblowers, I suffered severe retaliation to suppress judicial accountability. Attacked as the messenger of overdue reforms, I was targeted by these same jurists and their ethics agents. By destroying my credibility, the gold mine of service fees and federal money was further preserved.

That targeting was successful largely because the public is further duped to believe that judges are “beyond reproach” as members of that arbitrarily created elite class. Such argument was used by lawyers to attack my motions for removal of biased judges from my support and custody cases in Syracuse, New York. That was before some of them were removed from the family court bench for misconduct that was made public. They include Judge Bryan Hedges permanently banned from judicial office by New York’s high court for sexual misconduct on his handicapped, five year old niece and more recently, Judge Michael Hanuszczak, exposed for sexual harassment of female court clerks.

The growing number of judicial scandals should have all of us very concerned because this is where we expect justice to be dispensed. Examples cited in my reports include Brooklyn Judge Gerald Garson sent to federal prison after being convicted of seeking a bribe in favor of a father in a custody case, and Albany Judge Thomas Spargo for seeking a bribe in favor of a mother in a divorce case against a father-attorney.

Such judicial misconduct is nationwide in scope as demonstrated by the “Kids for Cash” scandal which landed two Pennsylvania judges in prison, and Michigan Judge Wade McCree who impregnated a mother while presiding over her child support case. The victimized father was unable to secure justice or compensation in federal court due to judicial immunity, sending the message that adultery in chambers is a protected judicial act.

Unfortunately my expert reports, lobbying excursions, and peacefully led marches in Washington yielded no reforms. Instead I was rewarded with human rights violations, indefinite suspension of licensing “privileges,” and near death experiences. Such are the consequences for whistleblowers in countries led by ruthless dictators, not one that professes democracy and social Justice. Yet those remain the consequences here in America for a civil rights attorney whose greatest crime was to seek more parenting time with his children and to expose corruption by self-jurists and politicians. My ordeal is now a looming documentary published in a recent book, Satan’s Docket.

This is not a “lone wolf” project but a representative undertaking for a disjointed mass of aggrieved parents from across the country hoping to achieve resurrection from their suffering at the hands of evil beings. It is not the message I was hoping to present on Easter Sunday 2021, but we can either join to achieve a better society or we can continue to surrender to one that is becoming more godless by the day.

Please help spread this vital message to overcome censorship of this public service blog site, Leon Koziol.com. You can reach us for comment and support by calling our office at Parenting Rights Institute at (315) 380-3420 or me directly at (315) 796-4000, e-mail at leonkoziol@gmail.com. Stay tuned for an eye-opening post coming soon on the subject of parental alienation which caused two girls to avoid all contact with their hospitalized dad this past Christmas holiday.

HAPPY EASTER TO ALL !

Why is Judicial Accountability so crucial to Democracy?

On By leonkozioljdIn Divorce Corp Movie, Family Court Corruption, Kelly Hawse, Kelly Hawse-Koziol, Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, Parent-Child Relations, parental alienation, Parenting Rights InstituteLeave a comment
  • “I would love to come off this bench and wipe that smirk off your face!” Judge Gerald Popeo to litigant in his courtroom

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Why is judicial accountability so crucial to democracy? The answer is simply this: too much power vested in a single person invariably leads to corruption. We see this everywhere today. As it is said, tyranny begets anarchy, and when judges fail to honor the rule of law established by the people, the natural consequence is to take the law into one’s own hands. This is the very underpinning of American society and how our country came to be.

However when judicial power is usurped in domestic relations courts, a more serious form of corruption emerges. This is because families and parent-child relationships have long been considered sacred, private matters. Unfortunately, despite a constitution that created a form of government divorced from the mother country, a judge-made doctrine in feudal England managed to evade our Bill of Rights by finding its way into these courts.

That doctrine, known as Parens Patriae, has been relied upon to invade our privacy rights in ways never before imagined in a free society. As an accomplished civil rights attorney who became a victim of this doctrine, I set out to expose the corruption it caused to me and fellow victims. I sought to convert family court from a lawyer-friendly system to a parent-oriented one. Over time it cost me my professional career, father-daughter relationships and ultimately my very health.

When my ex-wife and mother of my children began to see the consequences of my principled stand, she took advantage of the retaliation by filing petitions that received the favor of judges seeking to suppress my First Amendment rights. Indeed in November, 2015, that ex-wife, Kelly Hawse-Koziol, filed yet another family offense petition having an ulterior goal of removing me from my daughters’ lives. Over the years, all her offense petitions were thrown out, but this one featured a gag order disguised as a protection order on this whistleblower website, http://www.leonkoziol.com.

The illicit scheme was profoundly exposed when I obtained a court order in New York Supreme Court challenging it. Despite motions denied over a six month period, the presiding family judge who issued that gag order (Daniel King), cancelled his hearing on the offense petition and vacated (removed) his own gag order. Weeks later, the same Judge King stepped off the case entirely after three years of harm to my father-daughter relationships. He never ceased his retaliation for my 2013 whistleblower testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. There I exposed fabricated college degrees used to elevate my child support obligations for incarceration (contempt) purposes.

Throughout this crusade, my daughters and law license were used as ransom to elicit my silence. For her part, rather than honor the sacred interest in a father-daughter relationship, Kelly Hawse-Koziol exploited the clear retaliation by asserting one false accusation after another which I was forced to defend. I did so to an extreme of seeking constitutional protection in federal courts. But by then the fix was in, the record too tarnished, and any basic rights I might have once had were ignored or shamelessly violated. Hawse-Koziol was never held accountable for her perjuries and abusive petitions.

That favoritism was made possible by a judge made doctrine known as judicial immunity. Under that doctrine, judges can actually abuse public office by maliciously targeting a critic. To illustrate its absurdity, Michigan family judge, Wade McCree, was removed from the bench after his adulterous relationship with a litigant was exposed. It featured an adversary father that McCree placed on a child support monitor to appease his paramour. The father sued for civil rights violations in federal court but was denied recourse based on immunity, leading to the bizarre conclusion that sex in chambers with a litigant is now a protected judicial act.

This website, Leon Koziol.com chronicles more than ten years of efforts to reform this system and the retaliation which has yet to earn an Innocence Project outcome. Critical to my ordeal was a willingness of biased jurists, acting without a jury, to ignore perjury in the petitions and hearing testimony of Kelly Hawse-Koziol. Anything that could be used against me quickly found its way into decisions and orders that systematically destroyed proven father-daughter relationships. The judge prejudice was so extreme on one occasion that I was ordered to cease objections to such testimony under penalty of being removed from the courthouse (Family Judge Daniel King, January 14, 2014 transcript).

That willingness to ignore perjury was well demonstrated at a June, 2016 hearing where I was challenging a city marshal who claimed service of a support violation petition upon me at a local restaurant (known as a traverse hearing). After his sworn service document and testimony were introduced by Hawse-Koziol’s lawyer (one of many she retained), I cross examined him on a segment which claimed recitation of veteran status during the service of the petition. Knowing of an upcoming witness of mine in the waiting area, the marshal admitted that he never gave such a recitation. He then admitted that he had lied on the sworn document and in his testimony before the court.

Although the petition was consequently dismissed, no referral for perjury prosecution was made to the Syracuse district attorney. Such lack of accountability became potentially fatal when a scheme was hatched one year later to have an Oneida County deputy sheriff acting in the capacity of court security to serve the next violation petition upon me during a custody hearing. Unlike all other court litigants, Hawse-Koziol was not charged for this service as prescribed by law and the deputy sheriff was acting outside the scope of his security duties. So disruptive was this unlawful act that it caused yet another assigned judge to step down from my case.

More than 40 trial level jurists were assigned to my family matters over a 14 year period, a national record by most accounts. That alone warrants a federal investigation. There was no disciplinary action taken by this deputy’s superior, Oneida County Sheriff Robert Maciol, and no investigation by the state judicial conduct commission or attorney general, proving clearly that the state courts are unable to police themselves. The unlawfully served petition ultimately led to a “shoot on sight” threat from a traffic cop purporting to enforce a violation warrant issued by Utica City Judge Gerald Popeo. He was assigned to replace the one who stepped down and to avenge a public censure of that judge.

The corruption here was so rampant and unchecked that it forced me to take a bold stand against this irreparably infected process. Law enforcement would be well served by looking into such corruption because it puts them needlessly in harm’s way. One of Sheriff Maciol’s deputies was fatally shot during a stand-off with a parent trapped in a garage during a domestic incident. Had the officers who had him surrounded let time and talk take its course, that deputy might still be on duty today.

Throughout my ordeal in this corrupted family court system, I was proven justified time and again. To cite only a few examples, I filed a motion to remove one of my custody judges from my case and to prevent a private meeting with my young daughters in chambers. Opposing lawyers condemned it as an assault on a judge whose reputation was “beyond reproach.” Only months later, that judge, Bryan Hedges, was permanently removed by New York’s high court after Hedges’ public admission to sexual abuse of his handicapped five year old niece.

Judge Hedges’ replacement, Syracuse family judge Michael Hanuszczak, was forced to resign after a state judicial commission had found that he sexually harassed subordinate court staff. Judge Gerald Popeo, as stated, was publicly censured (when he should have been removed) by the same judicial commission for making racist remarks, jailing litigants for such conduct as a “smirk,” and threatening violence from the bench to remedy such indiscretions. The ethics lawyers who also targeted me were allowed to resign after falsifying their time sheets. These removals are all a matter of public record.

While this is only a partial list, it underscores the problem I set out to correct. A mother truly committed to her daughters and a co-parenting environment that was once so promising would counsel them on the righteousness of my cause. Instead she exploited the clear misconduct for selfish gain. My parenting liberties were so monitored that nothing I did was acceptable. Conditions were imposed that were not only contradictory, something I described as a “contempt by ambush,” but they forced me to avoid all contact with my precious girls.

This ordeal is detailed, in part, in my published book, Satan’s Docket, available on this site and http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. I am asking all court victims to carry on this cause so that my sacrifices are not in vain. For more information, you can contact me directly at leonkoziol@gmail.com or (315) 796-4000. Kindly share this post to overcome continued censorship and suppression.

Say YES TO THE MESS? Courts built to dispense justice are being abused for profit.

On By leonkozioljdIn Divorce Corp Movie, NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, Parent-Child Relations, Parenting Rights Institute, Satan's Docket, UncategorizedLeave a comment

ABOVE: These two dedication plaques on the lobby wall of a city courthouse commemorate the efforts of officials who came together to build a public forum for dispensing justice. Long time civil rights attorney Leon Koziol was instrumental in two capacities. As an elected city councilman, he secure a majority vote for construction funding after years of indecision by earlier council members. He then participated in dedication ceremonies when the courthouse was opened years later as the city’s corporation counsel. New York’s chief judge presided. Ironically a later judge of this city court, Gerald Popeo, was assigned to Attorney Koziol’s family court matters in 2017 to avenge a public censure against that judge which included racist commentary and physical threats from the bench.

Attorney Koziol’s career successes, exemplified by these courthouse plaques, would make any daughter proud. But they were destroyed when a deranged mother, Kelly Hawse-Koziol, made a single call to an unethical divorce lawyer in 2006. He influenced her to start a court battle against this dedicated dad using his daughters and law license as ransom. It escalated to the present day. The increased child support she demanded was never awarded to her. Instead the monthly amounts agreed upon prior to lawyer involvement were retained in a 2008 support order that remains the same today. It was deemed fair and compliant with federal and state support laws. But by then, the damage was done.

Leon Koziol’s ordeal is a John Grisham true story published, in part, in a 2017 book entitled, Satan’s Docket, available at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Twelve (12) years of targeting by lawyers and government agents in retaliation for my public stand against family court corruption finally took its toll when I was admitted to the emergency room on December 22, 2020. During my four week stay at the hospital, I learned that another support violation petition had been filed against me by “custodial parent” and mother of my daughters, Kelly Hawse-Koziol despite having my earnings capacity destroyed by draconian family court practices. I also learned that she had stalked another millionaire father replacement after several earlier failures. She was finally getting married a second time.

Rather than direct our girls to a simple phone call to their only dad in the hospital, the soon-to-be Kelly Hawse-Usherwood was apparently busy competing with brides half her age in a “Say Yes to the Dress” competition in New York City. In another world free of court conflict I would have wished her luck and congratulated the new union. But unfortunately the better title for this one would be “Say Yes to the Mess” caused by greed, envy and downright stupidity. This website chronicles over ten years of parent controversy that destroyed everything good about a formerly cooperative childrearing environment.

Had Kelly Hawse-Koziol simply left me alone, our daughters would be enjoying an environment of hope, stability and happiness far greater than the mess that is rampant in their lives today. The psychotic brainwashing and parent alienation she inflicted were off the charts and sadistically facilitated by a so-called “family” court bent on punishing a judicial whistleblower. What rational daughter would ignore their own father, one that not only made her existence possible, but sacrificed everything to remain a part of her life against all odds? How could a model father-daughter relationship be erased from existence after years of wonderful interactions?

Beyond that, how could any new partner of such an evil mom not see how he could become a future victim? A single argument with this woman could easily erupt into a domestic violence call that would require the arrest of Lou Usherwood regardless of his innocence under the current VAWA laws. A successful businessman could have his hard earned reputation irreparably destroyed overnight. There is precedent here in my ordeal. And how is it that a father himself cannot see a serious problem in the situation he is inheriting?

I never asked for the anonymous letters from within my daughters’ school district that warned of a Lou Usherwood playing substitute dad for my daughters. But they cannot be ignored in light of the severe alienation that has the only father here without a phone call from his girls on Christmas and New Year’s Day while hospitalized. Those girls would want for nothing today had Kelly Hawse-Koziol not committed perjury time and again to destroy a lucrative law practice. All her family offense petitions and protection orders were thrown out for lack of evidence over the years, yet nothing was done to hold her accountable for the damage she caused.

My ordeal is the quintessential example of court corruption which begs for a judicial ethics investigation and more. And I am far from isolated. Indeed divorce and family court corruption is common among countless cases being covered up today. There remains a serious lack of accountability for lawyers and judges who orchestrate lucrative and needless controversy among parents and families in these courts.

To be sure, during my reform efforts across the country I was hired to investigate many horrific cases. They include a doctor in Manhattan who spent over $5 million in lawyer fees in a divorce that nevertheless cost him access to his three children, a university professor with a PhD from Yale who spent over $2 million in a divorce with no custody or support issue because his three children were adults at the time, and a stay-at-home mother who successfully raised four children to maturity only to be accosted by them after divorce with the most vulgar of language.

I have seen the evidence first hand and the cases are so widespread that an investigation by the Justice Department is long overdue. Federal Title IV-D funding is being abused on an escalating scale to separate good parents from their children while government priorities remain misplaced on protecting illegal aliens and criminals at our borders. It is a cause championed during the three day Parent March on Washington which I sponsored in 2019.

Help me secure justice and accountability for all victims of this growing epidemic. Let not my sacrifices be in vain. Contribute to our cause on this site and spread the word so that a unified front could be made for change in Congress and our courts. Contact me personally at leonkoziol@gmail.com or call me directly at (315) 796-4000.

We continue to be suppressed and censored, so your part in making this message viral is crucial.