FERGUSON, MISSOURI NOT ISOLATED: UTICA, NEW YORK FEATURES HORRIFIC ORDEAL OF A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY

londonriots

Utica, New York
August 14, 2014

Ferguson, Missouri is not an isolated example of civil rights atrocities in America today. Venture north and east and you will find yourself in Utica, New York, location of an ongoing ordeal faced by civil rights attorney, Leon Koziol, when he called for a federal probe into the assault of an African-American shooting victim by local police. Arriving at the scene of a domestic incident, officers tackled and injured a black man already shot by his lover. They acted on an assumption that a black male had to be the wrong-doer, thereby placing fellow officers and neighbors at further risk of fatal injury by the deranged woman still holding her weapon.

It all occurred in a city long noted for racist hiring and police practices. For more than two decades, Attorney Koziol had successfully litigated civil rights actions against municipalities and State of New York. It was only natural then for him to sponsor a civil rights forum on January 19, 2010 to bring attention to a growing racial divide in the community. He focused upon a phenomenon which makes African-American fathers an endangered species. While our federal government laments fatherless black communities, it has made it profitable for law enforcement to single out males for criminal prosecution through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Well ahead of the times, Attorney Koziol took testimony from victims of racial bias and sexist practices against fathers in New York’s family courts. What followed is an ordeal which reads like a John Grisham novel with the exception that the victims and perpetrators remain very real.

Several weeks later, Attorney Koziol’s law license was suspended after 23 unblemished years of practice. His work included not only citizen victims but police officers wrongfully targeted for political reasons. In a series of lawsuits dubbed the “Civil Rights Trilogy,” Mr. Koziol described his ordeal in federal court after this forum. In the end, Koziol’s own rights were mishandled to avoid public accountability within our third branch of government (family courts).

Secondary media and internet sources have already reported on many of these developments. On August 5, 2014, Mr. Koziol filed another federal civil rights action after a unanimous Supreme Court ruling showed that his prior actions (the “Civil Rights Trilogy”) had been wrongfully dismissed. The recent case, Koziol v King, is based on renewed licensing retributions taken due to Koziol’s testimony before the Governor’s (Moreland) Commission on Public Corruption at Pace University. There he disclosed a series of corrupt and incarcerated judges to show that the state Commission on Judicial Conduct had seriously lapsed in its public duties. He consequently called for its dissolution. Instead the reverse occurred, and the Moreland Commission was prematurely disbanded when corruption evidence began to implicate the Governor himself.

In legal papers filed in United States District Court in Syracuse supporting a preliminary injunction, 26 exhibits (A-Z) can be found. The very first item in exhibit A consists of a front page news story describing the racist shooting event. Additional articles show other victims including a former Koziol client who placed a belt around his neck in Utica city lock-up because he could not find a lawyer to represent him. This federal filing preceded the Ferguson event by only four days. Victims of civil rights violations rely upon our courts for recourse instead of violence and self help remedies. But what happens if members of our justice system are corrupt and insulated from accountability? The case of Koziol v King seeks to answer this question.

CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF WITH ERROR-PRONE DECISION BY FEDERAL JUDGE THOMAS McAVOY

images

Everyone knows that discrimination against male parents in our nation’s family courts remains widespread. It is a curiously accepted perversion of equal rights verified by Census Bureau statistics and other reports showing that 85% of all support payers are men and 90% of contested custody cases favor women. Even judges, politicians and legal experts concede the undeniable despite its harmful effects upon veterans, innocent children and overcrowded courts and prisons. So why has nothing been done to rectify the clear injustices well into our 21st Century?

The first answer is the obvious one: unequal classifications of “custodial” and “non-custodial” parents facilitate money transfers which can then be exploited to divert finite resources to lawyers, state coffers and third party bank accounts. This must occur so that the “experts” can direct America on how its children should be raised despite their own lack of example or acceptable standards. Fit parents who simply choose to live apart must compete for court awards while demonstrating their parenting skills at a very dear price to families and children. In short, discrimination is profitable, no different than slavery or underpaid women.

The second answer is political: the principles embodied within our Constitution can be twisted to suit the politics of a given day. So, for example, African-Americans were not considered citizens in the 1850s, hence they had no standing to bring a civil rights case challenging slavery, see Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857). After the Civil War, they were citizens but made to live separate from the “more equal” ones, Plessey v Ferguson, 163 US 165 (1896). Women were not citizens under the 15th Amendment even after the Civil War. Hence, they were incompetent to vote in the 1872 national elections, United States v Susan B. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (1873).

More than 150 years later, it seems that little has changed with respect to the same principles when applied to fathers seeking to obtain more time with their offspring and equal authority in childrearing. This point was made evident in a trilogy of cases brought by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol, entitled Parent v New York; Koziol v Lippman; and Koziol v Peters. As stated at www.leonkoziol.com, this is the last in a three part series we call the Civil Rights Trilogy, designed to stimulate your participation and support behind a growing movement to reform our nation’s divorce and family courts.

Today we focus on the last case. Like the earlier two, it was analyzed in a Memorandum of Law filed last week by Dr. Koziol in the case of Koziol v King. The latest one comes as a result of the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling which criticized lower federal courts for abusing an abstention doctrine to dismiss meritorious civil rights cases such as the Civil Rights Trilogy. A relevant excerpt is attached. The Koziol v Peters case could well be compared to the experience of Susan B. Anthony when she litigated her rights in the same federal court in northern New York. Indeed, she faced everything from standing and jurisdiction issues to the deprivation of her jury rights before being convicted for the federal offense of voting in a congressional election.

In Koziol’s case, his children, law license and livelihood were seized also without a jury in retaliation for his exercise of citizen rights. Invidious targeting of his activity was remarkably similar. And, in an ironic twist, his first license suspension for conscientious opposition to unjust support orders came in the same city of Rochester, New York where Ms. Anthony was arrested. It occurred in a court room dedicated to her achievements. Put simply, there is little to distinguish Koziol’s modern ordeal from the one faced by Ms. Anthony. While being prosecuted, she continued to defy oppression with bold outspokenness and a refusal to pay her fine upon conviction. Today, we find a man seeking to overcome long held prejudices regarding a father’s place in the childrearing hierarchy. Like the 19th Century judges dismissing sound human rights principles, Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissed the ones put before him two centuries later, to wit:

1) Does a father truly have an equal right to raise his offspring?

2) Can the state abuse licensing authority to censor free speech and reform?

3) Is it not a federal court’s duty to safeguard federal rights when the state      violates them?

Like the case of United States v Susan B. Anthony, the federal court here in upstate New York refuses to consider long overdue precedent when the timing and circumstances are so ripe. Instead it misrepresents the law and facts while exercising the expedient option of abstaining from jurisdiction and constitutional duty. Worse yet, it has exploited such rare opportunities to defame and suppress the messengers of reform. With such a profound backdrop, we ask you to assist in our cause. Without resources, we cannot continue this fight. Please share our message. We offer speaking engagements, donation options and a Court Program to assist self-represented parents and those facing the high cost of divorce, custody and support litigation.

WHILE PARENTS RALLIED FOR DIVORCE AND FAMILY COURT REFORM, FEDERAL APPEALS COURT CLOSED ITS DOORS

circseal2

In follow-up to our August 4, 2014 post, today we bring you Part Two of our trilogy concerning a prior test case brought by parental rights advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol in Parent v New York. As explained, the United States Supreme Court recently handed down a ruling which showed that the test case was properly litigated, both in the lower federal court (yesterday’s post) and on appeal before the Second Circuit federal appeals court in New York City.

On June 15, 2012, a large gathering of parents and civil rights advocates rallied at Foley Square outside a federal appeals court in lower Manhattan in support of Parent v New York. This was a case designed to secure constitutional rights and fair treatment for parents routinely abused in New York’s domestic relations courts. Meanwhile, inside the court house, a decision was being made without public argument. We have included video clips of that rally here.

On June 18, 2012, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order affirming lower court dismissal of the Parent case on grounds of Younger abstention. However, the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Sprint Communications v Jacobs now verifies the erroneous nature of that order. Because Koziol’s constitutional challenges were wrongly declined, no decision on their merits has ever properly occurred. Hence the new case, Koziol v King, was filed last week with its added First Amendment claims, including disciplinary and Family Court retaliation for Koziol’s testimony at the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption.

A relevant excerpt from Dr. Koziol’s memorandum of law in support of a preliminary injunction in the new case is attached. As stated, we are dedicating this trilogy to all parents abused in our nation’s divorce and family courts. We would like to especially thank all those volunteers who rallied behind our cause two years ago. It turns out, you folks were correct as well in this movement to restore integrity and justice in our states’ third branch of government. Kindly share this post with others. We continue to rely on donations, additionally offering a Court Program to assist self-represented parents or those anxious to reduce costly litigation.

NEWS ALERT: PARENT V NEW YORK WRONGLY DECIDED THREE YEARS AGO

images

Last week, we published the filing of a civil rights lawsuit by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol, on our website, Leon Koziol.com. As noted, it challenged First Amendment censorship and parenting deprivations inflicted by certain state judges, enforcement agents and disciplinary authorities, including retaliation for Koziol’s testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption at Pace University on September 17, 2013 (Constitution day).

The new case raises similar claims made in a test case filed on February 26, 2009. It was dismissed in a 45 page decision by a federal judge three years ago. Commenced with the goal of converting the case into to a class action, the claims were ultimately left un-answered due to an abstention rule applied whenever state proceedings are pending. However, in a recent unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, lower federal courts were admonished for their abuses of Younger abstention beyond its narrow scope. Meritorious civil rights cases were being wrongly dismissed all across America in recent decades.

In addition, such dismissals were being abused to engage in further encroachments upon constitutional rights. In Koziol’s case, the 2011 dismissal was exploited by state agents to escalate their retributions for his valid criticisms and reform efforts concerning abusive and lucrative bench and bar practices in divorce and Family Court. In short, Mr. Koziol’s longstanding position against application of Younger abstention was proven correct. However, in order to rehabilitate the reputation damage caused by this dismissal, an excerpt from Koziol’s recently filed memorandum of law is attached.

Many parents suffered a similar fate, and we had hoped to intervene for their benefit and assistance. Unfortunately resources were lacking, donations insufficient, and retributions so severe that we were forced to question our every move. The current action explains it all. Beginning with this post, we will be publishing a trilogy from the same memorandum to convince our followers how we were right all along. We are dedicating this trilogy to all parents abused by a system which is getting increasingly out of control.

EXCERPT OF FEDERAL RETALIATION LAWSUIT REGARDING MORELAND CORRUPTION COMMISSION RELEASED

cuomo

July 31, 2014– Yesterday, we released the formal complaint in the federal lawsuit filed by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol on July 29, 2014. As explained, it challenges First Amendment censorship and state retributions upon Dr. Koziol’s testimony before the New York (Moreland) Commission on Public Corruption. In less than twenty-four hours, numerous inquiries have resulted from across the country. To answer some of them here, an excerpt from the lawsuit is attached which explains which posts on our site have been targeted by the Albany Committee on Professional Standards. Also, yesterday, we released the first page excerpt from the lawsuit memorandum of law which shows how prior cases were properly pursued.

It should be emphasized that the Governor appoints judges to the higher courts engaged in the attorney regulatory process in addition to four of the eleven members on the state Judicial Conduct Commission and all the members of the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. It should also be emphasized that the lawsuit is based, in part, upon the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sprint Communications v Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (December 10, 2013). By unanimous ruling, the Court criticized lower federal courts which had been dismissing lawsuits simply because parallel state cases were pending, i.e. divorce, custody and support.

Known as the Younger abstention doctrine, it was used by a federal appeals court in New York City to dismiss Koziol’s test case in Parent v State and by a lower federal court in Koziol v Peters. Because such abstention does not go to the merits of the dismissed cases, as fate and justice would have it, the earlier cases can now be resurrected in the current lawsuit because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. To put it simply, Leon Koziol was correct all along regarding his position against the exploitation of the now clarified Younger abstention doctrine.

Unfortunately, we have received numerous complaints from similarly injured parents whose federal cases (usually self represented) were dismissed for identical reasons. We would have liked to intervene in those cases as an amicus party (Friend of the Court) to assist such victims. However, resources are needed to do this, and as you can see from the attached excerpt, the state is attacking us relentlessly on all fronts.

For this reason, we need your help. Kindly make your donations to this very worthy cause today. You can also visit our other site www.parentingrightsinstitute.com to order the valuable court program which has helped so many parents avoid the high cost of divorce and Family Court. Not surprisingly, this program is also being targeted. The institute office can be reached at (315) 380-3420 and Dr. Koziol can be reached directly at (315) 796-4000. This is all more important than you know, if for no other reason than to protect the inalienable rights and children we cherish.

More News Relating To the Moreland Commission:

U.S. Attorney Warns Cuomo on Moreland Commission Case

PARENTAL ADVOCATE FILES FEDERAL SUIT DUE TO STATE RETALIATION UPON MORELAND COMMISSION TESTIMONY

Scan

On July 29, 2014, parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol, filed a civil rights lawsuit against state judges and ethics investigators for unlawful censorship directed to his website, organizing activity and testimony before the New York (Moreland) Commission on Public Corruption at Pace University on September 17, 2013 (Constitution Day) (excerpt from Memo of Law). Mr. Koziol has appeared on CBS 60 Minutes, front page of the New York Times, CNN and numerous internet news sources in connection with parenting rights, First Amendment issues and Native American land claims.

 After 23 years as a highly successful and unblemished civil rights attorney, Mr. Koziol was subjected to extraordinary retributions when he began focusing his criticisms and reform efforts upon widespread abuses in New York’s domestic relations courts. At the Moreland Commission, he asked for an investigation into retaliatory suspensions of his law license due to contrived ethics charges and a protracted license reinstatement process (His eye-opening presentation can be viewed at approximately the 2 hours, 31 minutes and 45 seconds mark). Ethics lawyers engaged in this process declared in court that they would continue opposing Koziol’s reinstatement so long as his offensive website postings and court filings continued. Weeks later they were fired for falsifying time sheets.

Also in his testimony, Koziol recommended that the state Commission on Judicial Conduct be disbanded due to its ineffectiveness, selectivity and “window-dressing” effects. In March, 2014, the reverse occurred, and on April 8, 2014, the Committee on Professional Standards in Albany issued a confidential report opposing Koziol’s reinstatement to his former civil rights practice. In that report, seven website postings (Post1) (Post2) (Post3) (Post4) (Post5) (Post6) (Post7) were targeted for “fitness” reasons, including the entire Moreland Commission testimony appended to the report. Retributions were also exacted upon his parent-child relationships by Family Court judges including one on his custody case who was disqualified in 2011 and removed from the bench in 2013 for sexual misconduct upon his handicapped five year old niece (In re Bryan Hedges).

Also: See New York Times Bombshell Report on the now Disbanded Moreland Commission Dated July 23, 2014 (Click Here)

Mr. Koziol can be reached at (315) 796-4000