Category: Documentary

Today’s New York Times Features Racist 2015 Police Murder of Walter Scott for Child Support While Ignoring Leon Koziol News Conferences with Civil Rights Leaders and Whistleblower Documentary

On By leonkozioljdIn Book Publishing, Call To Action, Documentary, Uncategorized, Voyage to ArmageddonLeave a comment

Among the nationwide travels featured in my March 17, 2023 “Law Review and News Alert” is the police murder of Walter Scott, an unarmed black father shot dead in the back five times while fleeing a child support warrant in North Charleston, South Carolina at a traffic stop. It was not focused, as all others were, on racism but on draconian child support collection practices that continue to inflict carnage in our nation’s domestic relations courts.

It represents yet another example of a silent epidemic being ignored by media and those who benefit financially from a trillion-dollar industry which these courts and practices have become. Due to its lucrative nature (service provider fees and federal funding incentives), my reform crusade and whistleblower reports continue to be shamelessly censored and suppressed from public knowledge and genuine oversight.

Because the retributions have been so severe and protracted, I have been forced to support my findings and alarming exposures by issuing a March 17, 2023 “Law Review and News Alert” on the subject of state seizures of parenting authority and human rights abuses in these same courts. It is based on more than 23 unblemished years as a practicing attorney and 20 years as a dedicated father never found to be an unfit parent. This latest release is highly revealing, educational and beyond discredit.

That release is reprinted below.

For the sake of victims everywhere, take the time and initiative to make this document viral.

March 17, 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.                                             

Please Share:

Voyage to Armageddon: An Overlooked Novel Published in 2014 Gaining Renewed Interest Due to Ominous Events Along Our Northern Borders

On By leonkozioljdIn Book Publishing, Documentary, Justice Department Report, News Update, Uncategorized, Voyage to ArmageddonLeave a comment

AUTHOR’S NOTE: I RECEIVED THIS (ABOVE) UNSOLICITED POLITICAL E-MAIL TODAY.

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

President, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Contact: (315) 796-4000

leonkoziol@gmail.com

When Claudia Tenney attended my news conference in 2010 to report on my announcement of a precedent-seeking challenge to our corrupt family courts, she had lost a number of campaigns for judicial office. But to her credit, she shifted course and got herself elected to the legislative branches of our state, and later, our federal government.

She even managed the political savvy and persistence to overcome the 2021 redistricting fiasco by relocating her lifelong residence from central, New York and the 22nd congressional district she was representing to the new 24th district 200 miles away in western New York. Keen to party numbers, she was elected there as a “carpetbagger” by a convincing margin.

That success called upon her to address new challenges. Among them was the heretofore suppressed events connected to illegal crossings along New York’s highly porous northern border with Canada. To that end, my heretofore overlooked novel “Voyage to Armageddon” has now become uniquely educational to this vital issue.

Its plot focuses on nuclear terrorism following the events of 9-11. Tortured by a prior publisher, I was forced to bring legal action in 2006 resulting in a successful outcome. The media coverage and viral impacts were sufficient to put that publisher out of business. I took up the literary challenge once again with the 2014 edition, but by then its timing was lost.

Now, like so many other issues I tackled, I have been vindicated by threats of nuclear retaliation in Ukraine and the migrant crossings plaguing New York state. According to the New York Post this week, the influx of asylum-seekers in the city has cost taxpayers $4.6 million per day.

But the illegal northern crossings are leading to far greater implications than free luxury hotel accommodations in Manhattan. They are opening the “Western Door” to invasion by terrorist operatives exploiting open waterways. That door is a metaphor depicting the Seneca Indians as the protector of the Iroquois confederacy from invasion by western tribes.

As a nation we remain unprepared as we were on 9-11. My book focuses upon that vulnerability, motivated by highly unexpected events as a lake mariner who was able to cross northern borders repeatedly without inspection by any border agent only nine months after the destruction of our twin towers. This occurred during a maiden voyage in my pleasure vessel, Defense Rests. It concerned me enough to seek corrective action to no avail.

So, like my 2021 memoir, Whistleblower in Paris, I resorted to a publication. But this one is spiced with intrigue, adventure, humor and romance. Four women suffering a mid-life crisis invest in a new motor yacht which they must transport by water route from its purchase site on the Niagara River to their summer destination in Lake George near the state’s eastern border with Vermont.

This voyage takes them (like mine did) through diverse weather conditions of the Great Lakes, off-season resort communities along the magnificent Thousand Islands, the St. Lawrence River port of Montreal and Lake Champlain. But unbeknownst to these sailors, their prize vessel has been sabotaged by a nuclear device affixed to their engine compartment to be detonated at a Manhattan pier.

That summation is more than enough to pique your patriotic interest with a purchase of my literary project at any Barnes and Nobles store, Amazon on-line and other major book sellers. What a sensational read for these dreary, depressing and overcast winter months. I intend to hand-deliver a free copy Claudia to keep her honest to her roots and duties of public office.

Do your part by sharing this post for the sake of government accountability and homeland security.

Koziol novel at Barnes & Noble, Amazon

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.                                             

On this Veteran’s Day, the Parenting Rights Institute salutes all those who promoted the cause of liberty. Meanwhile we continue to promote their rights on the domestic front.

On By leonkozioljdIn Call To Action, Documentary, Family Court Corruption, UncategorizedLeave a comment

By Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute

We first publicized the above video in 2011. In the same year we highlighted veteran Thomas Ball who burned himself alive on the steps of a New Hampshire family court to protest the injustices that deprived him of a father-daughter relationship. Today the carnage among veterans in our nation’s divorce and family courts remains unchanged. If anything it has only gotten worse despite all these years fighting the many battles on our home front to reform a dysfunctional system. Shared parenting legislation continues to be opposed by powerful special interests because the so-called “best interest of the child” has become a lucrative trillion dollar industry.

On the home front, we filed precedent-seeking lawsuits, i.e. Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011) which we prosecuted all the way to the Supreme Court. We conducted rallies before a federal appeals court in Manhattan and other courts in 2012, testified before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption in 2013, sought international recognition in Paris in 2014, submitted reports to the Justice Department in 2015, successfully challenged a gag order on this website in New York Supreme Court in 2016, participated in a family law conference at the United Nations and a whistleblower summit in Washington in 2017, lobbied for reform in congress in 2018, sponsored the three-day Parent March on Washington in 2019, networked with fellow victims in 2020, and testified before Governor Kathy Hochul’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Custody Forensic Evaluations in 2021.

In the same year we published a book entitled, Whistleblower in Paris, which provided a documentary of family court corruption, and we introduced a daily talk show, Leon’s Library, this past week on YouTube. This is only a short list of our travels, sacrifices and reform activities detailed throughout this website. It was and remains a true John Grisham ordeal which the media and public servants are ignoring and even suppressing. As a result, despite the parades and fanfare today, the “Elephant in the Courtroom” continues to be side-stepped in the speeches. Veterans continue to fall victim to this archaic and abusive family court system. During our crusade for justice, we have literally saved veteran lives.

Most people do not realize that the parenting right has been repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court as the “oldest liberty interest protected by the Constitution,” Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000). To help our cause in a meaningful way, or simply to learn more about the corruption that is eradicating this right, join our live talk show, Leon’s Library, every evening at 7:30 pm EST. Tonight we will feature a Florida attorney as a guest contributor. The call-in number is (315) 796-4000. Spread the word, become a subscriber, and many thanks for your support.

Rest in Peace, Vietnam Veteran Thomas Ball who gave his life in the cause of parental liberty rights on the domestic front in 2011

Kelly (Hawse) Usherwood: The Ultimate Energizer Bunny of Parental Alienation

On By leonkozioljdIn Documentary, Family Court Corruption, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute

Administrator’s Note:

Dr. Leon Koziol will be making a presentation before a Blue Ribbon Panel of New York’s newly installed governor, Kathy Hochul, on the subject of abusive forensic evaluation orders used in family court to cause severe parental alienation. The post below, the last of a four part series beginning with the Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie divorce, will be a part of that presentation. You can also get a free insight on Leon’s new book from its website at http://www.whistleblowerinparis.com. We will keep you updated on all of our reform efforts.

With all the crises facing society today, you would think that a custodial parent, Kelly (Hawse) Usherwood might finally relent with her parent alienation tactics carried out against a dedicated dad now for a period of more than 15 years. There are others like her abusing our courts to achieve illicit objectives having nothing to do with any child’s best interests. But this one remains off the charts and an ideal poster villain for family law reform.

As the unfortunate victim of this spiteful energizer bunny, never reported for child abuse or neglect, never been found to be an unfit parent, and the victim of numerous family offense petitions thrown out for lack of evidence, I have been forced into the undeserved role of crusader behind such reform. This role was made more pressing when I was targeted for my exposure of corruption within this lucrative system of child control.

You would think that lawyers in robes would have the requisite sophistication to detect parent alienation, a custody tactic often used to increase child support, punish an adversary or replace a targeted parent with a preferred substitute. My case had all these combined, but it was also laced with an agenda for suppressing my public criticisms. More than 40 trial level jurists were disqualified from my originally uncontested divorce, a national record by most accounts.

This makes it an ideal case for a federal investigation because it has elements common to most others and features a support agency’s scheme to conceal $45,500 in support payments during a 2018 violation hearing. That resulted in a secret bulletin and a near death outcome. Because these agencies and family courts in general derive billions of dollars in federal incentive grants based on the number and size of support orders they satisfy, this concealment constituted a clear abuse of federal funds in addition to a violation of human rights.

A maliciously protracted ordeal notwithstanding warnings which the mother of my children ignored, it was originally benefitted by several years of uneventful co-parenting. That benefit was gradually transformed into a destructive process. In 2016, despite having all her prior offense petitions dismissed, this custodial parent and ex-wife, now Kelly Usherwood, filed yet another petition to preserve a substitute father relationship in favor of a childless lover. I never yielded to her evil agenda and was therefore compelled to defend.

I was fortunate to get a state supreme court judge (trial judge in New York) to sign an order against family judge, Daniel King, who was presiding over this petition. He had previously suspended my parenting time without legitimate grounds after I brought testimony against him at the state’s Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. He then imposed a gag order, disguised as a protection order on my website, http://www.leonkoziol.com, thereby triggering First Amendment issues.

Within weeks of serving that order upon him, Judge King cancelled his hearing on this petition, dismissed it without any appearances, removed his own gag order, and then disqualified himself altogether from ongoing proceedings. Even a biased observer could conclude that this was all orchestrated behind closed doors, further supported by dismissal of my own challenge to the gag order based on those sudden events. It had the effect of avoiding public clamor with a protest set to occur one week later at the state supreme court building.

My defense to the family court petition was not only based on First Amendment but also a fraudulent notice of my daughters’ relocation to the substitute father’s residence (her purported g-mail notice which lacked the required “l” character). The location of one’s children is central to any parent-child relationship, but Kelly Hawse-Koziol had become possessed by an evil that even I could not detect or comprehend. Indeed, even convicts are granted the rights of knowing the locations of their offspring.

This relocation fraud was one of many tactics employed without accountability to erase me from my daughters’ lives. And it occurred without any remedy or compensation in my precedent-seeking actions dismissed in federal and state courts. The painful loss of father-daughter experiences is too extensive to relate here. You would think that the alienator might have learned a vital lesson, but she is at it again with the concealment of a new residence believed to be that of her latest substitute, Lou Usherwood, her spouse since May, 2021.

What possible gain could this obsessed alienator have today for concealing my daughters’ residence given the fact that my youngest turned 18 years of age only days ago? Even the new spouse, a father too, should have sufficient logic to conclude that this residence is easily discoverable and that the ex-mother-in-law was employed for a substitute address simply to enrage the targeted parent. After all, there has never been an incident at the alienator’s home, as he can personally verify, to support the false narrative that dad is somehow dangerous.

This will only renew conflict that has long subsided, conflict that seems to excite the alienator no matter how demented or satanic it may be. It calls for precedent to include those who assist alienators as co-conspirators of civil rights violations. As a victim on many fronts, one would think that all this has to stop at some point especially after the hospitalization which the combined impacts caused me in December, 2020. But this alienator is utterly obsessed with her agenda, one that caused an unprecedented request for an exorcism by a third party in 2011.

My ordeal is likely familiar to countless victims of contrived parent-child alienations. The current, antiquated custody system pits moms against dads and parents against the state to such an extreme that it can make monsters of otherwise normal parents. In my recently published book, Whistleblower in Paris, at pg. 189, I cite only a few examples of the carnage:

It is a (custody) regime that can turn a parent into a brutal killer overnight. Recent examples include a mother who was convicted of murdering her two-year old daughter rather than comply with a custody change order that was not timely enforced. She was also convicted of attacking police with two knives when they arrived. [1] Another featured an NYPD officer charged with murdering his autistic eight-year old son in January, 2020 by leaving him overnight in a freezing garage. [2] In 2019, a mother purchased a gun overnight and killed her estranged husband and two children. [3] According to an investigative report, 725 such deaths were suppressed by a state agency. [4]

[1]   ‘You Are In A Special Category Of Evil’: Mamaroneck Mom Who Killed 2-Year-Old Daughter Sentenced to 25

      Years To Life, newyork.cbslocal.com, October 31, 2019

[2]   Mongelli & Musumeci, Michael Valva, NYPD cop charged in son’s murder, tears up in court as 911 call played,

     New York Post, May 11, 2021

[3]   Mother Charged with murders of husband, 2 children in Tacony, ABC 7 (Philadelphia), October 18, 2019

[4]   Chris Bragg, State agency suppressed 725 child death reports over decade, Times Union, October 13, 2020

In Chapter 2 of my book, I elaborate a bit more on this carnage:

I thought about the dead and walking dead, victims of murder, suicide, premature death and those awaiting justice that would never come. I thought about Investigator Joe Longo, a father of four so traumatized after support court that he used a common kitchen knife to leave them with no parents for life.[1] The predators just kept pounding him with confiscated weapons, protection orders, support intercepts and career damage without considering any breaking points.

I thought about Thomas Ball, product of an overzealous child protection agency who sat down one day on the steps of a New Hampshire courthouse to protest family court abuse. [2] But this was no sit-in, no occupy court mission. He poured gas over his head and burned himself alive. I cringed at the extreme pain he must have suffered before and during this holocaust. In the end, there was no national coverage, no court reforms, they merely washed his ashes into the sewer.

I thought about Alec Baldwin, one of the few victims who did attract national coverage. During his high profile divorce with Kim Bassinger, he dutifully complied with forensic evaluation orders, hoping to quickly exit this matrix as he described it. However, protracted deliberations in California’s court system forced him to expose dysfunction among judges, lawyers, evaluators and others. His goal ultimately was to prevent unsuspecting parents from becoming victims. But in the end, he nearly became the ultimate victim. His own words have long been forgotten:  

My family and closest friends were still there for me, but even some of them had grown perplexed by and weary of the assault on my parental rights that seemed to have no end. On the deepest level, my situation now seemed hopeless to me as well. I had gone to sleep many nights doubting that I had the desire to face these problems another day… Driving up the Taconic Parkway, heading to an inn in the Berkshire Mountains, I began to think about what little known town I would repair to in order to commit suicide. What semi-remote Massachusetts state park could I hike deep into and shoot myself? What bed-and-breakfast could I check into and overdose there? On Long Island, I thought about the old Jeep I owned and the emissions it gave off. When I returned to New York, the thought of jumping out of the window of my apartment was with me every night for weeks. [3]

I thought about so many victims I encountered during my crusade against this killing machine, a mom who drove her children into the Hudson River, the Iraq war veteran who attempted suicide only to be saved through my intervention, a member of our parenting rights organization who hung himself from a tree in his back yard, the mom who called me daily for help until vanishing altogether, and the dad I dissuaded from a kidnapping of his own children now hiding in Israel. As I revisited the interview with that Florida talk show host, an aggrieved dad who took his life a few years later, the roar of a jet engine shook me from my daze.

[1]  Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011)

[2]  Mark Arsenault, Dad leaves clues to his desperation, boston.com, July 10, 2011

[3]   Alec Baldwin, A Promise to Ourselves, St. Martin’s Press, at pg. 183 (2008)

Shocking New Book on Family Court Corruption Now Available: Satan’s Docket

On By leonkozioljdIn Book Publishing, Documentary, Info/Education Product, Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, Parenting Rights Institute, Uncategorized

 

IMG_1039

Today we are introducing the new Parenting Rights Institute website and its feature book release, Satan’s Docket: Corruption and Carnage in America’s Divorce Industry. Nine months in the works and based on thirty years of litigation experience, this book takes you through the horrific ten year ordeal of judicial whistleblower, Dr. Leon Koziol, which forced him to seek international protection in Paris.

However this book is much more. It can be considered a crash course in divorce or family court, your education to an epidemic that is harming our children, families, schools, workplaces and health as a nation. It was a herculean project, years in the research and writing phase with a 108,000 word manuscript completed only last month.

At present this book is the hands of a major publisher with a possible release date early next year. In the meantime it has generated inquiries from a documentary producer and will hopefully lead to an overdue investigation by Congress or the Justice Department into the federal funding abuses in our state domestic relations courts. We will keep you posted on that objective.

While all this was in progress, so were the many family judge elections across the country which promise to expand this epidemic and bring even more harm to future generations. One such election in Oneida County, New York sparked the early release of this uncensored version of Satan’s Docket. Its author resides in that county and became troubled by the lack of vital discourse on the real issues in these courts. In coming weeks, he hopes to change all that through this unprecedented literary work.

Satan’s Docket was authored in an extraordinary way given the difficulty of attracting interest to such a stressful and complex subject. It was a lesson learned from Alec Baldwin and his 2009 book release, A Promise to Ourselves. That memoir failed to achieve its highly anticipated book sales. Indeed mainstream media was most focused on excerpts relating to his suicide attempts during an incendiary divorce with actress Kim Basinger. Dr. Koziol was invited to Alec’s book signing in Manhattan and shared his ordeal with Baldwin’s agent at Creative Artists in California. More recently, crucial advice was obtained from best selling authors at the Whistleblower Summit and Conference this past summer in Washington D.C.

The title, Satan’s Docket, was a risky selection but has gained wide support. It was proven ironically to be a well selected title after discovering Bradley Birkenfeld’s recent book release at the Summit entitled, Lucifer’s Bank. Mr. Birkenfeld was a whistleblower of the Swiss bank industry who suffered retaliation by a jail sentence of 30 months for tax evasion. On his release he recovered a record $104 million under the new IRS Whistleblower Protection Act. Another new book release at this Summit featured a woman lawyer disbarred for exposing court corruption in New Hampshire. Her book is titled, The Dark Side.

So it would appear that Satan’s Docket is right on target. It was also inspired by former New York Senate Leader Joseph Bruno, whose memoir, Keep Swinging,  was released in November, 2016. Dr. Koziol’s book features two equal length halves. Part One is the Corruption segment of his subtitle. It is the macro part which describes a divorce and family court epidemic nationwide. Part Two is the Carnage half which focuses on his personal ordeal. In order to keep a broad section of readers glued to this book, a collection of shocking stories from around the country is spiced with romance, humor and horror in places ranging from Hawaii to Paris. It is a book well worth reading at a nominal cost that can save you college tuition and untold lawyer fees. It may be the best investment you will make in years.

Please share this post with as many parents, bloggers, media representatives and court victims that you can.

Shocking Book Hopes to Ignite Parenting Revolution

On By leonkozioljdIn Book Publishing, Call To Action, Divorce Corp Movie, Documentary, Family Law Reform Conference, Uncategorized

IMG_1683
Corruption and Carnage in America’s Divorce Industry: A Mom and Dad story conceived in Paris

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

It’s been over two months since my last posting on April 6, 2017. I have been focused on completing my first non-fiction book on the subject of corruption in America’s divorce industry. It is an alarming documentary which I hope will elicit nothing less than a parenting revolution for the sake of justice, overdue reforms and our children.

It is a truly profound literary work based on ten years in the reform movement and more than thirty years in the courts as a trial attorney, civil rights advocate and aggrieved parent. For those of you familiar with my ordeal, this is a must-read with immense educational value.

It was a project started in November, 2014 shortly after the Family Law Reform Conference sponsored by Dr. Joseph Sorge and Divorce Corp. in Washington D.C. It was during a flight to Paris where I was seeking to get international human rights agencies involved. In fact, Joe and I talked on the phone while in different parts of Europe engaged in the same mission of reform.

Some excerpts were published on this site in the spring of 2015 but they do not begin to reflect the caliber or quality of the finished product. Its completion was motivated by former New York Senate Leader Joseph Bruno. In his book released this past November entitled, Keep Swinging, Joe chronicled thirty years of corruption, but he blamed the criminal prosecution against him, in part, on apathy of the people to seek reform and justice.

Joe Bruno is quoted in my first chapter, one that I intend to reprint on this site on Fathers’ Day to give you a preview of the truly remarkable content which follows, 100,000 words altogether. At present, I have two publishers under consideration as I await a hopeful offer from a world class company. This was a phenomenally complex project.

Due to its compelling nature, there are footnotes and references throughout to back up my case for a federal investigation into Title IV-D funding and the corruption it has brought to our court systems and families. This is without question the most suppressed and censored epidemic of our day. My literary release aims to expose it so that serious protests will begin across the country.

When a model parent and judicial whistleblower is prevented from seeing his daughters on Fathers’ Day without any report of unfit behavior, not even an accusation of any criminal wrongdoing, while heroin addicts are being reunited for Mothers’ Day, it’s time to take serious action to a level never seen before.

With the completion of my twenty chapter manuscript, I will be making uncensored (raw) versions available on this site at a reduced cost of $20. Actually, the raw version is more valuable than the later published version which will be edited to exclude some material which could save litigants thousands of dollars in fees and court costs.

The book is bifurcated into two parts. The first (macro) part is largely a collection of stories from across the country obtained over the past ten years. Some are familiar, others are astounding, many are anonymous to protect the victims, but all of them make this a rapid-fire, page-turner. You or someone you know may even be in it.

These stories are conveyed not with depressing regurgitation but flavored by romance, humor, education and situations familiar to any parent in these courts. They come from both dad and mom perspectives with the latter derived from one I met in Paris. Hence it has international appeal even beyond English-speaking countries while touching upon most divorce and family court subjects, from custody and support to domestic violence and judicial misconduct.

The second (micro) half is a chronology of my personal ordeal. No one truly knows the full scope of persecution I endured for taking a conscientious stand against my profession. It’s the price I paid to make family courts more child-friendly and less lawyer-rewarding. This half is likely to attract lawyers, judges and politicians most because it contains renditions of high profile litigation contrasted by sweet stories about children which are sure to capture the heart.

There has never been a publication like this. If successful, it is my intent to start a new book about a victimized father in New York City and finish one about a mom in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. These are highly challenging assignments because no one wants to read about a he-said, she-said harangue in an isolated family case. Even Alec Baldwin was a failure in his book, A Promise to Ourselves, eight years ago. Media reports focused on his suicide attempts.

I apologize to all those callers I have not been able to help during these past six months of focused energy. I bear no animosities to anyone I may have offended along the way. Instead I am appealing to all fellow parents and court victims to join me in a reform effort to impact future generations. I truly believe that this book is the fateful reason for my suffering and sacrifices. They were not in vain after all. I will close with a relevant excerpt:

There were too many years of censorship by the Third Department (licensing and appeals court) which I compared to the Third Reich in my filings. True story. No mention was made of any of this in its reinstatement decision. I was simply responding with the same, if not greater level of boldness to government abuse, hence yielding a clear explanation behind the retaliation which was so severe and unjust.

 So if you’re still here reading this, you’re in good company. My work has been monitored by judges, politicians, investigators, doctors, lawyers, maybe even an Indian chief. I got the interest of Donald Trump’s chief counsel in 2016. As stated, a family court gag order on my website was removed after I challenged it in New York Supreme Court. Seven website postings were attached in their entirety to a confidential ethics report. Never once was I charged or sued regarding them.

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com

(315) 380-3420

 

 

 

Why Pay A Lawyer If Your Judge Has Been Bribed?

On By leonkozioljdIn Book Publishing, Divorce Corp Movie, Documentary, Justice Department Report, Parenting Rights Institute, Uncategorized

cow lawyer
Judges have been accepting bribes for centuries, pictured here milking the family court “cow” with mom and dad lawyers on either side breaking it in half.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Judicial misconduct is the most censored, least publicized and gravest aspect of our federal, state and local governments. You can simply ignore it and move to your next on-line entertainment, but chances are it will find you especially in our nation’s domestic relations courts. So read on and share this post. It may be the most important one you will read in a long time.

The judiciary is our least accountable branch of government. Anyone who dares to reform it can expect severe retributions with no recourse. Judges enjoy absolute immunity for their reckless and even malicious acts. Judicial conduct commissions from New York to California are window dressing entities influenced by politics, typically investigating less than 10% of complaints.

So what does that mean to you? How do you know if your case is not already fixed, rigged or bought-off? You’re spending thousands, even millions of dollars in lawyer fees while your judge has already decided against you due to a bribe or political influence. Are you shocked by that, naive about the people in robes? Well here at Leon Koziol.com and Parenting Rights Institute, we have generated shocking examples of judicial and lawyer misconduct from our work all across America.

We are an up and coming “Judicial Watch” for divorce and family courts, doing the work where our oversight commissions are failing us. Currently we are soliciting investors and donors to upgrade our effectiveness. We will come into your community, home or court to monitor your case and seek accountability for any misconduct. As Director of Parenting Rights Institute with nearly 30 years of trial experience in both federal and state courts, I am dedicated to exposing corruption. It may be the only way you can secure true justice and turn things around.

We offer a Court Strategy Program to keep you from being abused and a team of experts prepared to expose corruption in your case if it exists. It is well worth your while, for he sake of your children if nothing else, to look us up at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com or call our office at (315) 380-3420. Then take a look at this shocking excerpt of misconduct from a book I have written to be published for divorce victim Tamara Sweeney entitled Jurassic Justice:

Examples of court corruption are provided throughout my work for victims nationwide. Many are quietly suppressed and “read like a docket sheet in any criminal court.” That is what I declared publicly time and again. Yet the public continues to hold judges beyond reproach. The fallacy of that belief was well demonstrated by my custody judge who was also declared by lawyers as  “beyond reproach,” at least until he was removed from the bench after admitting to sexual misconduct on his handicapped five year old niece: In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

One of the shocking cases cited to make my point, and the need for meaningful accountability, involves a New York Supreme Court Judge in Brooklyn caught on camera taking a bribe from a divorce lawyer. It was part of a scam to shift custody from a mother to an influential father. Had the feisty mother not convinced the FBI to act upon her evidence, this judge, Gerald Garson, would still be dispensing “justice.” It begs the question: how many other such judges and cases are there? What can explain Tamara’s bizarre case? We let you decide as our story continues.

The conviction of Judge Garson for federal crimes was actually not the most shocking part of his case. Due punishment was compromised by judges and lawyer colleagues supporting his early release in 2009. Now you have to ponder that for a moment. If Garson’s colleagues are still backing him after a crime which goes to the heart of our justice system, what does that say for their tolerance of corruption generally? Isn’t this where precedent is set and examples are made?

While the “Honorable” “Justice” Gerald Garson was busy generating unreported income through an abuse of judicial office, another New York Supreme Court Judge, Thomas Spargo, was busy securing a bribe against a father arguing a client case before him. At a dinner conversation, he requested $10,000 to help defray the cost of legal fees needed to defend against judicial misconduct charges pending against him at the time.

Like Judge Garson, you have to ponder that as well. Judge Spargo was already being prosecuted for judicial misconduct and resorted to more serious behavior to get out of it. He referenced this lawyer’s own divorce which might be transferred to him. The pressure was not uncomplicated. Play ball or else. I suppose the lawyer could have won his divorce for a nominal “fee” to this judge when compared to a contested case. He was placed in a real quandary, deciding ultimately to report the crime only after taking steps to avoid false claims that could cost his law license.

Chief Justice Sol Wachtler of New York’s high court was imprisoned for numerous crimes during the nineties. In his book, After the Madness, he explained that judges are made to believe that they are gods. Such deep rooted convictions do not disappear. Judge Wachtler went so far as to direct paid court staff to dig up grounds for preventing licensure of a New Jersey lawyer assisting the judge’s mistress to discover a man making extortionist and kidnapping threats involving her daughter. That elusive man turned out to be the judge himself.

Then there’s that family court judge in the state of Michigan, the “Honorable” Wade McCree, whose case defied all manner of ethics. He admitted to adulterous sex in chambers with a litigant mother while presiding over her child support case. Judge McCree was removed from the bench for all sorts of misconduct involving numerous cases only after the affair (and pregnancy) was confirmed. The father, placed on a tether for support arrears during this affair was denied recovery for the horrific misconduct by a federal appeals court on grounds of judge immunity.

These and other cases are easily found on the internet to verify a judicial corruption epidemic of undefined proportion. Most people view judges as honorable office holders committed to justice, equality and all that other good stuff we read about in high school civics classes. But behind the black robes, in the recesses of chambers and among discreet exchanges in restaurants, bars and golf courses, there is often quite another set of characteristics at play.

Bias, coercion, schemes, scams, deal-making and outright crimes are taking place which violate all manner of ethics formally placed in our judicial codes. In our nation’s domestic relations courts, such corruption is taken to the next level under a pretext of family confidentiality, thereby concealing the misconduct and protecting a trillion dollar industry built on needless conflict.

Judicial Trifecta Costs University Professor Over $2 Million in Lawyer Fees

On By leonkozioljdIn Documentary, Uncategorized

THE  ENDLESS  DIVORCE  OF  PROFESSOR  ANTHONY  PAPPAS

Produced by the Parenting Rights Institute

As part of its continuing series of video documentaries to expose corruption in America’s divorce and family courts, the Parenting Rights Institute is releasing this shocking ordeal of a university professor who was fleeced for more than $2 million in lawyer fees while being defamed as a terrorist by a trio of judges in Nassau County divorce court on Long Island.

This divorce has lasted twelve years with no end in sight. It began in 2004 when the ex-wife of Professor Anthony Pappas filed for divorce after 22 years of marriage. There was no issue of custody or child support because the children were of age and both parents were employed. The father of three was a professor at the prestigious St. John’s University.

However it was not long before lawyer greed took over this case when financial statements revealed several million dollars in liquid assets. Discovery processes were protracted with the professor’s own lawyer filing objections based on the needless and repetitive inquiries of Henry Kruman, a small town divorce lawyer retained by the wife to secure her “fair share” of marital assets.

These assets included trusts and investments cultivated by Professor Pappas or inherited from his family to pay for their children’s college educations. He was ordered to pay for all lawyer fees on both sides of this divorce thereby opening the door for Kruman to fleece the estate on behalf of a client too stubborn, vindictive and ignorant to recognize that their life savings were being lost to divorce court predators.

But evidently the money was not enough. When Professor Pappas began filing complaints to New York’s politically corrupted Judicial Conduct Commission and Attorney Grievance Committee followed by public protests, he was gang tackled by three judges of the Nassau County court system. In the video he describes it as a “Trifecta of Judicial Bullies.”

The first judge compared the content of the professor’s complaints to the “perpetrator of the Fort Hood Massacre.” The second issued a gag order prohibiting all complaints to any person or entity. The third issued a 30 year protection order based on a fictitious facial surgery which had no proof or mandatory report from any medical provider.

These defamatory statements and abusive court orders are still in place as this ever protracted divorce enters its 13th year of lucrative persecution. The PRI has assisted Professor Pappas by visiting various clerical and civic offices in search of justice. However, as our followers are aware, it is a trillion dollar industry we are up against with little or no monetary support for our reform efforts.

Brace yourselves for a video release that cries out for large scale protests at the Nassau County Courthouse in Mineola, New York (Long Island) and state Capitol in Albany. Such cases have led to suicides, severe depression and premature death, all for the sake of a lawyer enrichment scheme without public accountability which has been suppressed by our media. Leon and Tamara do their best to keep this complex story brief and relatable to all victims of our divorce industry, but seeing is believing.

It is crucial for all divorce and family court victims to share this video and post, to donate to our cause at http://www.leonkoziol.com and to promote our professional services and Court Strategy Program at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. We are prepared to come to your court, home and community to investigate and expose corruption in your own ordeal. Contact our office at (315) 380-3420 or Dr. Koziol direct at (315) 796-4000 for more information.

Family Court children services

 

$2 Million in Lawyer Fees and Growing: The Endless Divorce of St. John’s Professor Anthony Pappas

On By leonkozioljdIn Documentary, Uncategorized

IMG_1708
St. John’s University Professor Anthony Pappas, Dr. Leon Koziol, Brigid Griffin and parental advocates attend divorce proceedings of Dr. Eric Braverman who spent over $5 million in lawyer fees. Between the two divorce victims, the lawyer bills are well over $7 million.

Parenting Rights Institute

If you are a follower of our work, you know that we have been coming to homes, courts and communities across the country exposing the corrupt divorce and family court industry. Our latest video documentary features St. John’s University Professor Anthony Pappas. It is a shocking story of lawyer greed which has cost him over $2 million in lawyer fees alone. It is a divorce commenced by his ex-wife in 2004. Today in November, 2016, it is headed into its 13th year of lucrative proceedings with no end in sight.

Although the ex-wife is gainfully employed, Professor Pappas has been ordered to pay for both his and her lawyer fees, making the ex-wife carefree in her lawyer bills. Despite appeals, complaints to numerous authorities and protests in Washington, Manhattan and Albany, the abuse continues. And get this, those fees were racked up with no contest over the former couple’s three children as they were all over the age of 18 when the divorce started. It is being litigated in Nassau County Supreme Court on Long Island. Judge Hope Schwartz Zimmerman is presiding and Henry Kruman is the opposing lawyer with Professor Pappas now forced to represent himself after restraints were placed on his accounts.

This video is a must-see and we will be publishing it soon. It will provide further reason for you to get our Court Strategy Program or hire us to do an investigation-documentary of your own case. Let’s face it, mainstream media is ignoring widespread corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. That’s because bar associations across America are suppressing a trillion dollar industry that is increasingly exploiting our children. Tremendous harm has resulted as evidenced throughout today’s society. So as parents, we have a duty to command our own destinies with documentaries published through secondary and social media. Here at Parenting Rights Institute, we are having remarkable success.

Anyone can slap together a home video and throw it up on You-Tube. But without expertise connected to it, why waste time. Such a video could do more harm than good. Even professional programs with major media can fall short of an ideal product because the sponsors or anchors are unfamiliar with these courts. Time and again we have seen shows that promote the propaganda of the child “experts” who have never had children of their own as they profit from our misfortunes.

Here we do much more through follow-up and professional reports. Dr. Leon Koziol has been featured on 60 Minutes, front page of the New York Times, CNN and other major news organizations. You can look it up on his website media page at http://www.leonkoziol.com. So he certainly has the expertise to do it right and in a way that meets your needs because he is a parent, legal expert and victim of the same system. He knows how it really operates. That is why he founded the Parenting Rights Institute.

For the past 30 years, Dr. Koziol and his staff have brought major lawsuits against government, corruption cases against judges,  malpractice actions against lawyers and precedent seeking cases docketed by the United States Supreme Court in response to an anti-filing order. In May, 2016 he obtained a state Supreme Court order resulting in the removal of a family court gag order. Despite all First Amendment suppression, he perseveres in the citizen challenges for preserving our constitutional rights.

No one else has proven to be so talented and tenacious. If there is a will, there is a way, and together we strive for success. He has sponsored parenting conventions upon reviewing countless cases of government corruption. In 2005, Dr. Koziol secured final judgment in New York Supreme Court invalidating a billion dollar gaming compact of the Oneida Turning Stone Casino, largest in the state. There were also large recoveries for other victims. A sampling of achievements can be found on our Background Page.

More recently Dr. Koziol’s skills have been applied exclusively to assist moms and dads victimized in divorce and family courts. He has traveled as far away as Hawaii, San Francisco, Nashville, Washington, Philadelphia, even Paris, France performing investigations. His work was then incorporated into formal reports and video documentaries for submission to media, public agencies and government watchdog groups. We file FOIL requests and court inquiries to disclose what is really going on with your case. Leon has also published three books.

We begin our assignments with an inquiry at no charge from a victimized parent, grandparent or family member. An estimate for services and expenses is provided. Next we receive electronic and paper records to be reviewed. As a defamation expert, Leon will not expose himself to libelous reports, yet another benefit for you. We follow with a trip to your community to get a critical assessment of the environment. That trip is concluded with a video interview and options for a more comprehensive documentary if warranted.

You are in command of the options insofar as a given case may prove to have an extraordinary dimension to it. The extent of the assignment can vary as circumstances dictate. This can be a villain’s worse nightmare and your finest hour, maybe even an autobiography for future generations, simply priceless. Below is a raw sample of a book documentary sent to CBS 60 Minutes. One of Leon’s submissions was recently sent to its production department for a possible show. He was interviewed in his law office at one time by 60 Minutes host Morley Safer in a Sunday feature regarding homeowner rights.

So call our office at (315) 380-3420 for an interview and quote or Leon directly at (315) 796-4000. It could be the call of a lifetime.

IMG_0743
Sean Hannity, Dr. Leon Koziol and Dr. Eric Braverman in Manhattan