Unless the California Supreme Court thinks otherwise, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie will have to start their five year divorce all over again after a middle level appeals court disqualified their trial judge in July, 2021. That judge had awarded the couple joint custody and 50/50 parenting time, a proper outcome if one abides by the laws of nature, common sense and gender equality. After all, there was no finding of unfit parenting on either side here.
But unfortunately, divorce and family courts throughout the country do not operate under that logical framework. They continue to deliberate under the antiquated foundation of custody awards, lawyer profits and court revenues supplied by federal entitlement laws known as Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. 42 USC 651 et. seq. It is a funding law which incentivizes court conflict while causing an inherent bias among decision makers who benefit financially over the number and size of support orders they issue.
The Pitt-Jolie trial judge was actually selected by agreement as a way of avoiding publicity and harm to the couple’s five children over which a custody battle had been underway. But like so many cases, that objective was lost as the legal teams on both sides found ways to inject strategies to increase their fees many times over. By the time this fiasco is concluded, most of the impacted children will be in college or capable of emancipation from these parent contestants.
How is any of this now in the so-called “best interests of the child,” that tired old justification used by these courts to seize jurisdiction over such matters? It is a seizure based on a judge-made doctrine dating back to feudal England, known as parens patriae, and carried over to the courts here despite its conflict with our Constitution. It is also the source of legal authority used to establish a child custody framework tailored to a period when moms stayed home as caregivers while dads went off to work for support purposes.
A shared parenting model remains elusive even well into the 21st century because it is a serious threat to a service provider’s gold mine. Under an ideal model, parents would not be required to name a “custodial parent” as a condition for legal separation or a valid divorce decree. Instead, the focus would be on two reasonably fit parents (in this day and age) who are treated as co-equal figures.
Under a shared model, the arbitrary remand of one parent to the inferior and stigmatizing role of “noncustodial parent” would not be in play unless serious abuse or neglect was found by an independent state agency. In most divorce cases, such agencies are not even involved. Nevertheless, unscrupulous lawyers are allowed to concoct all sorts of reasons to select one parent over the other in a “winner-take-all” contest reminiscent of the Roman Coliseum.
Indeed, here is what a veteran judge stated to justify his revolutionary departure from this antiquated custody framework in the case of Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at fn. 1:
At the outset, the Court notes that the terms ‘custody’ and ‘visitation’ have outlived their usefulness. Indeed their use tends to place any discussion and allocation of family rights into an oppositional framework. ‘Fighting for custody’ directs the process towards determining winners and losers. The children, always in the middle, usually turn out to be the losers…
This Court has abandoned the use of the word ‘visitation’ in its Orders, using the phrase ‘parenting time’ instead. If the word ‘custody’ did not so permeate our statutes and was not so ingrained into our psyches, that word would be the next to go… This misplaced focus draws parents into contention and conflict, drawing the worst from them at a time when their children need their parents’ best.
It is long past the time for a universal shared parenting law so that our government can truly state that it is promoting the “best interests” of our children and not its lawyers. This goal is well supported by other famous actors who tried in vain to influence such reforms. The late Robin Williams made a graphic case against parental alienation in the blockbuster movie, Mrs. Doubtfire. Released nearly thirty years ago, if anything, the alienation is much worse today.
In 2008, during his divorce with Kim Basinger, Alec Baldwin published his book, A Promise to Ourselves, as part of his effort to modernize the California court system. But as quickly as he entered the fray, he abandoned the movement altogether no doubt because it was impairing his acting career or even his very existence given the suicide considerations revealed in that book. Kiefer Sutherland and Jason Patric were similarly motivated to change this system but they too exited the movement upon achieving their personal goals.
As a consequence we see an unprecedented impact upon our society. The time and resources needlessly expended in these courts have harmed our families, children, productivity, health, law enforcement and moral fiber as a nation. In my own divorce, originally uncontested, a 15-year protracted court battle has caused irreparable harm to all concerned. The retributions I endured for a conscientious stand against this system remain off the charts.
This silent epidemic is far too complicated for a website posting. Instead it is detailed in my recently published book, Whistleblower in Paris, available on all the major bookseller sites. It is a literary work years in the making based on a true story that features a civil rights attorney and model parent targeted for suppression and extinction by powerful beneficiaries. It is a story that would make John Grisham ecstatic.
Get a free insight regarding this epidemic on the book’s website at http://www.whistleblowerinparis.com. And help us overcome the censorship of this message by sharing and promoting it everywhere.
The Parenting Rights Institute (PRI) has released a cutting edge report which identifies a condition known as Custody Court Dysfunction. Based on years of legal research, more than two decades as a practicing attorney and interviews with family litigants, it was authored by Dr. Leon R. Koziol, founder and director of PRI. Among its alarming conclusions, military parents and public safety officers remain primary victims of this condition:
And so, while our federal government escalates its military involvement around the globe, soldiers are returning to empty homes, child alienation and felony support warrants. I was able to save the life of one such victim from attempted suicide at a parenting convention we sponsored in 2011, but the unsuccessful instances are more telling, see i.e. Purple Heart’s Final Beat, Second Class Citizen.Org (2009).
Father discrimination may be the convenient scapegoat for politicians seeking to advance themselves, but as President Calvin Coolidge is quoted: “A country which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.” This message resonates as well with our domestic defenders. Virtually all responders on 9-11 were men entitled to equal treatment under the law. Yet an unpublicized number of fathers became eternally separated from their children and families without any changes to these laws as construed and enforced by our courts.
In another excerpt, the report describes not only how public safety officers are victimized in custody determinations based on their line of duty but how those duties are compromised and subjected to increased risks:
A natural outcome of this history is lawlessness. Although examples abound throughout the country, their causes are highly suppressed in police and media reports. In my own small home town, a police investigator committed a murder-suicide upon his ex-spouse after leaving support court which had him reportedly living on $28 per week after all the deductions and asset executions.
Draconian enforcement practices lead to seizures of various licenses ultimately producing homeless victims. Facing such prospects, this law man used a common kitchen knife to complete his crime, voiding any deterrent effect of the inflammatory protection orders issued. It left three children with no parents and city taxpayers responsible for a $2 million wrongful death pay-out, see Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011).
Kindly help us secure reform by supporting our work here at Parenting Rights Institute. We rely on donations to make such work possible. This report must be shared with persons or entities with resources to help us open offices in every state. Custody Court Dysfunction is a growing epidemic traced to PTSD, Parent Alienation Syndrome, moral decay, health care costs and productivity declines in the workplace.
Contact us at our office at (315) 380-3420 or direct at (315) 796-4000. We also offer a Court Program for self-represented parents and those wishing to consider mediation and other litigation alternatives at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. We also prepare book manuscripts for those wishing to publish their court ordeals.
Sorry that I have not posted a column on this site in awhile. As followers of Leon Koziol.com know, I have spent the past month on assignment in far away places. In San Francisco, I worked with moms and dads to promote public awareness of divorce corruption at the Super Bowl. We’ve seen all the focus on breast cancer and other worthy causes. Now it was our turn to be heard.
Then it was on to Hawaii where the bulk of my time was spent working on a book which is expected to be published soon. Starting as a sort of autobiography, it has now matured into a joint effort upon our Justice Department to investigate the abuses of Title VII-D funding in our nation’s divorce and family courts. More important, it is a mission to unite all parents behind an anti-corruption movement so that vast harm to our children can be prevented.
Rather than tell you about our work here, I have elected to leak our first chapter for your next read. You should digest the short text which follows to gain valuable insight on a growing epidemic. Hopefully you will help us spread the word to other victims, parents and injured families. Hopefully you will join a movement that is sparking interest across the country. Hopefully we can secure a proper place in the presidential debates and elections issues.
The new format came about unexpectedly as I got to know my book client better. A bit apprehensive about the invite at first, looking back, it made all the difference in the world, indeed a world of difference between what is and what might have been. But hey, let’s be real, who wouldn’t accept an invitation to Hawaii in the middle of winter? President Obama’s birthplace is a truly spectacular paradise.
The character in this opening chapter is fictitious because the real victim has asked to remain anonymous until formal release. There are reasons for this. Some of them you will find in your read. As a published author with two decades of experience as a trial attorney, I have applied relevant skills to voluminous transcripts and court documents, interviewing witnesses and distilling it into a marketable product. Some of the added intrigue will be obvious.
As Alec Baldwin emphasized in his 2008 best seller, A Promise to Ourselves, no one likes to revisit the horrors of their family conflicts in divorce court. Then again that is why the abuses continue and actually escalating at an alarming pace. I get the stories daily from victimized parents around the country. Just when I think I saw it all, another shocker comes along. That’s why I have offered my professional services so that these stories can be properly told, so that reform can finally become a reality. If you are interested in retaining me for your ordeal, contact me anytime.
Leon Koziol @ Parenting Rights Institute. Com
HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A MOM IN DIVORCE COURT (Tentative Title)
Cumulous clouds were progressing resolutely over earth’s horizon as the jet engines signaled their approach to Kuhalui Airport. It was late January but you wouldn’t know it from the topography of this island. Cloaked with emerald majesty, it grew with each thousand foot descent. Only days later I would make a dive through a similar cloud formation riding shot gun in a silver Nissan, a car operated by the person who invited me here.
Okay, that may sound implausible, even insane, but this was no ordinary assignment. It was something intended to reform America’s divorce and family courts, to make them more child- friendly as opposed to lawyer-friendly. It was the making of an odd couple joined by an unquenchable mission for justice, to expose corruption masked by a trillion dollar industry, to intercept every parent before that fateful visit to a law office.
Putting it in perspective, say you received a reliable tip on September 10, 2001 about a squad of terrorists set to board passenger jets the following morning. Would you spend the rest of that day warning authorities or the victims soon to enter the towers? Quite a choice if you had it, but you would be considered a fanatic yourself with either option. At least with the victims you stood a chance of saving real lives, however few you might convince even after the ’93 attack.
That analogy might seem a bit extreme but it aptly described what we were doing. My new client could not have anticipated the horrors of divorce court which awaited her back in 2001, and the number of premature deaths traceable to an antiquated custody system well exceeds the number of parents lost on 9-11. The problem is that there has never been a study to prove this, and the reason for that is the money which this lucrative system generates for lawyers, government and other beneficiaries. Like sheep to slaughter, parents sacrifice their life’s savings here for the logical reason that their offspring are made the prize in a war that so often never seems to end.
The public has been fed an overdose of propaganda behind the propriety of a custody award for countless disputes involving children. Shared parenting and mediation alternatives are routinely crushed in nearly every state by high powered bar associations which have cultivated this gold mine. Their preferred framework is not so complicated despite chapter and verse. Custody is awarded to the parent who could best destroy the other in a barbaric contest reminiscent of the Roman Coliseum while aligned spectators cheer and the government band plays on.
When you stop to think, it really is a barbaric process for a nation which styles itself as a civilized one. And the collective injuries to our schools, communities and productivity are mind-boggling. Politicians are quick to condemn needless surgeries, over-medicated patients, global warming and ever-elusive terrorism, but what about these barbaric courts? Why are they being so protected despite overwhelming evidence of their devastation to American society?
So ours was an ambitious effort to shake up moms and dads, to get them out of these courts before their careers, bank accounts and sanity collapsed before their very eyes. It was a vital cause for families of every kind; traditional, intact, separated or progressive. We had both sustained divorce ordeals at different times in far apart courts with similar outcomes. As a result, she became a born-again feminist and I a staunch traditionalist.
Yes, Cheryl Collins and I were destined to clash or crash like Gloria Steinem campaigning for Donald Trump, two polar opposites out to slay a family court system that excreted injustices like sewers do toxic fluids. And by the way, that car in the clouds. It actually occurred- with a woman driver no less. I’ll explain later. You can read any made-up John Grisham story, or you can gain valuable insight with this one, a real, life-altering challenge that could leave us dead or behind bars.
Everyone peered out of any window in anticipation of the gorgeous afternoon awaiting us. It was a six hour flight, for me thirteen, from New York with a lay-over in San Francisco. Judging by morning conversations in our fuselage, most passengers were tourists. The couple seated behind me was newly married and the row ahead was occupied by a young group of Asian athletes. Across the aisle, well, about the only thing I noted were three babies nurtured by expert moms with no eruptions. I liked those moms, felt almost drawn to convey compliments, but I passed on it as we arrived at the terminal.
Inside, as expected, everything was bright. Sun radiated from giant picture windows. No one exiting the jet bridge seemed interested in any diversions. Restaurants, cafes, boutiques, busy in most other airports, were eerily vacant here. Hardly a note was taken of the Welcome to Maui sign by a herd of primates making a mad dash for the baggage check. I watched momentarily, curious to know how many minutes would be gained before they were stopped dead in their tracks. After all, what can you do while the cargo was being deplaned?
I was not in any such rush. I had hardly slept in more than three days. There were reasons for this, but for now it was necessary for me to visit the rest room. A basic shave, cleaning and shedding of mainland attire would improve my chances of recognition. Sherry had promised a placard to draw attention to her, but it was often difficult to tell when she was serious. My name was not visible in any direction, and that suited me just fine. I needed major overhauls.
A half hour later, I was at the baggage conveyor, recognizing only a couple stray passengers of United Flight 1725. Neither my luggage nor Sherry was anywhere in sight. Only a few items remained on the belt. This situation was new to me. I always found my belongings at numerous airports over the years. As for Sherry, it was more peculiar because the flight was on time, she assured me of her punctuality to a fault and had toiled for a year to get me here. Now that it finally happened, a notion was growing that she had bailed.
Well it could be worse. I might have been at an airport in Moscow or Alaska, maybe even Antarctica given the fugitive status we both suffered at different times of our ordeals, and for the same reasons. Perhaps she got cold feet, maybe she had an accident. Whatever the possibilities that raced through my mind, this was an okay place to shop for new clothes and an excellent escape from subzero temperatures back home. Confident in my resourcefulness, I began charting a course of action.
“So I see they lost your baggage.”
Sherry declared time and again that Maui was a spiritual place, but I never thought she meant to prove it this way. I had just made another 360 degree search for her with no one left to block my view. She might as well have been an angel descending from the high ceiling, standing suddenly beside me to announce my misfortune. Slender, attractive for her age, and wrapped in a white summer dress, she smiled in a manner wholly at odds with that fearless gladiator I had been dealing with electronically, the custody warrior who took on the California divorce system.
I could only conclude that I was meeting Glinda herself from the Wizard of Oz, pleasantly afraid of no one. Then we embraced. Apparently we had met at a parenting convention in D.C., at least that’s what she insisted during our phone chats in the year since. There was a still a trace of that stoic character I had been anticipating. However I was now convinced that we had never met previously. I would have remembered it, angelic indeed. Maybe I got caught up in the hustle and bustle of workshops. Then again maybe she was spinning a web I had never seen before.
Her statement was very “matter-of-factly,” and although I could be mistaken, there was even a cynical half grin directed at my newly discovered predicament, as if Mona Lisa herself knew this would happen. She came across as one who could shift demeanor without warning, suddenly emotionless and creeping up on you like a lioness with body-piercing eyes. You just knew that she could dominate any board room. Well acclimated to life’s complexities, lost baggage was simply nothing to get into a twist about.
“Hey Sherry,” I replied happily and hoping to discount the now empty black belt of the conveyor. “I’m sure it’s still coming out. I was a bit late getting here so we’ll just have to wait. No problem.”
“Yeah, well don’t wait too long. See that sign in the baggage window over there? Recognize anything?”
It took a minute squinting in the direction she was pointing, but there was the anticipated placard with my name on it, not the way I expected, yet undeniable in verifying my predicament. Having experienced this before, Sherry was quick to guide me through. She took charge of the staff inside the reclamation office and they seemed to respond as if the NSA had just arrived. My early impressions of her were being vindicated.
“This is completely unacceptable, Miss (glancing her shirt) Tupalai. My guest is expected to be in court this afternoon, and he can’t do that in khakis and an NYPD shirt, although (turning briefly to me), I like the shirt. Come to think about it, it might scare off some of those stalkers on the beach. We’re going to get him proper attire while we wait on his baggage.”
The attendant came unglued as if her skirt zipper had just busted loose. It was bad enough that some irate local was giving her a scolding but a New York cop, soon-to-be lawyer at her side? This was not good. “We’re on it, mam, it should be here by eight o’clock, and I’ll personally see to it that you get priority. Just give us your address.”
Her nightmare was only getting started.
“Eight o’clock? The judge will be in bed by then. Look I know the FAA supervisor at LAX, he gave me all the protocol I need for this sort of thing. We’ll be making a claim and I want the names of the baggage handlers. It’s well into the 21st Century! How is it these things are still happening?”
“Here’s the form you fill out on the claim,” a visibly shaken Miss Tupalai offered as she multi-tasked the situation. I almost felt sorry for her. After all, none of this was her fault. Then again it was not mine either. I was sort of enjoying this female face-off.
“It is what it is,” Sherry replied with a more lady-like tone. “No time to dwell on it. Here’s my information and cell. We’re going shopping, and I love to shop.”
With repeat apologies that were beginning to appear more like condolences over a dead body, arrangements were made to have my luggage delivered to Sherry’s home. Confirmed on the next plane from San Francisco, it occurred to me after that exchange that my host was abundantly familiar with court rooms. It also demonstrated how easily she could inflame any judge especially when custody over her own child was being threatened.
“Sherry, not for nothing, but I don’t recall any court appearance on our calendar for this afternoon.”
“There isn’t, not yet anyway, but there will be if they don’t get that baggage problem cleared up. This is not the way I expect my special guests to be treated.” She placed an emphasis on “special” while sending an alluring smile in my direction as if there were other surprises in store for me.
“Don’t you think you were a little hard on her?”
“Not at all. Look she’s probably a very competent person, but if you don’t put the fear in them, they’ll get lax on you. You might never see your belongings again.”
We left the terminal with only my carry-on, replete with lap top, electronic devices and modern weaponry intended to wage war on a dysfunctional court system. Sherry had worked long and hard to get me here. She had a singular purpose that only she knew, and it would not be denied. A fifteen year divorce and custody battle had cost her precious years with an only child, fugitive status which took her to countries around the globe and an ordeal which nearly took her life.
It was an ordeal orchestrated behind closed doors, suppressed from accountability and remanded to a twilight zone of obscurity. There were many cases of court corruption I had come across in my years as a trial attorney but none like this. Sherry was the divorce court equivalent of a wrongfully convicted murderer released from prison by the Innocence Project. She certainly deserved a remedy but was entitled to much more, a release from the injustices which had plagued her for so long. Indeed society owed this to her.
My job in this project was to expose Sherry’s horrific journey through a corrupt divorce system so that other parents would not suffer a similar fate. As a victimized father myself, still in the heat of battle, I knew that little had changed since her annulment in 1997. In my reports to the Justice Department, I made the convincing case that it had only gotten worse. Profound investigations would have to be commissioned by our federal government to reverse decades of state sponsored family abuse which it had ironically caused through a funding law.
I also knew our joint mission would invite grave consequences. After 23 unblemished years in the legal profession, I was made subject to a witch hunt by ethics lawyers for exposing misconduct in New York’s divorce and family courts. That “hunt” was so inept that it made Dick Cheney out to be an expert marksman. I reported regular misconduct to their bosses, a high court and its appointed Committee on Professional Standards. They never flinched to give it credence.
A maliciously protracted investigation designed strictly to discredit my reform message drove me to career suicide. As you read on, you will learn of alarming whistle blower activity that was suppressed by these lawyers and mainstream media. At hearings before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, I described my attackers as an “unethical ethics committee.” Before they could retaliate for that offensive but accurate depiction, the chief counsel and deputy lawyers engaged in this witch hunt were fired for falsifying their time sheets.
That’s right, your eyes are not playing tricks on you, the standard-bearers of lawyer ethics fired by their own ethics committee, people charged with overseeing unscrupulous billing practices and orchestrated conflict which have harmed more families than adultery, nagging and domestic violence combined. Like Bernie Madoff, they were the foxes watching the chicken coup. And if you can stomach that, try this: no public charges, ethical or criminal, were ever prosecuted against them.
Now if that had been you or I stealing money from any government agency, let alone a court of law, we would have been sentenced to a prison term. In one of my cases, a city worker was fired for exposing executive raises and charged with a felony for taking a $16 gas card reimbursement two hours later. At the Moreland hearings, I compared my client’s acquittal to Bernie Madoff’s $70 billion crime before he was finally convicted. Instead of setting a proper example, these ethics lawyers were allowed to resign while I sustained far worse retributions for exposing them.
Don’t go away, there’s more, and it’s all true. You can look it up on the internet in minutes. On the domestic side, more than thirty (30!) trial judges were disqualified from my (also protracted) divorce case, one for “political espionage” later removed from the family bench for admitting to sexual misconduct on his handicapped five year old niece. Now there will be a lot of court corruption related in this book, but you have to ponder that last one a bit longer. I was able to keep my young daughters out of a meeting in this judge’s chambers where parents are not allowed in. Countless other parents were not so fortunate. What sort of thought was Judge Bryan Hedges giving to all these little girls over so many years?
Every aspect of my life was therefore being scrutinized when I flew into this airport. Here I was adding to my ordeal with Sherry’s plethora of corruption carefully preserved in a voluminous record. Before getting to that, I had been a main speaker at a parental rights convention in our nation’s capital along with former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer. Like me she had been exposing vast injustices and had just published a book entitled, The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services. She never made it to the podium due to a highly suspicious murder-suicide involving her husband of 52 years. Did I mention I was writing a book here?
Sherry’s past was no less daunting although I would have liked to know certain details prior to boarding at JFK. There was a main character of our book which could not be avoided, her ex-husband. He had been prosecuted for attempted murder after putting a number of bullets into another man’s body. He was surprisingly acquitted, and during Sherry’s later ordeal, thugs were sent to find her. One of them even pulled a gun on a neighbor in order to coerce her location. Did I mention I was staying at Sherry’s home?
There was another aspect to this book which rendered it unlikely for completion. Sherry announced after my arrival that she might change her mind often about our approach. As she explained it, this was a right derived from her female status. I was okay with that, after all she was paying for such a right. But there was no way I could insert fifteen years of court transcript and documents to meet her demands while making this book appealing to the general public. On one occasion, entire chapters had to be revised. Did I mention that Sherry was a woman?
So that pretty much summed up my predicament on a small island in the middle of the Pacific. Just another day in paradise. With all that I had endured over the years, I began to ask whether I had made the right decision to come here. That question was already answered by the countless family victims beneath my flights from New York to Hawaii. I know what you’re thinking. Why would I risk my career, relationships and life itself over a David-Goliath battle whose outcome was so unpredictable? The answer is the same for all those parents and would-be parents who sacrificed in foreign wars only to return to this sort of human oppression.
For our mission to succeed, I would have to find a way to pierce a shell layered by years of pain and suffering which had protected Sherry for so long. If I was successful, she would become an ideal representative in the court of public opinion. The judges, lawyers and agents responsible for the ordeal you are about to read have long forgotten Cheryl Collins. But she never forgot them, and this was no princess at the baggage counter. It is said that “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” So out the airport we went, into the burning heat of this day, to war with a modern day Satan loosened from the fires of hell.
Meanwhile Fathers in Debtor Prisons Give us Distinction as Most Imprisoned Nation in the World!
So you’d rather watch tournament games and go bowling than support a “We Are Fathers” campaign for justice and equality. Well that’s your choice, it’s a free country, in theory anyway. But you should know that countless lawyers, child experts and bureaucrats are cheering you on because they profit from all this apathy and a misguided sense of priorities.
Fathers rights and court reform have failed time and again because the victims are complaining about the symptoms, they’re only interested in their personal war stories, and they would rather pay the lawyers who grow their problems than contribute to reform entities like this one committed to everyone’s benefit. In short, today’s fathers are not shooting straight, if at all, even when the target is right in front of them.
That target is a federal support law which must be repealed or modified to comport with present day realities. It means we must focus our efforts at the nation’s capital. Instead victims have come to some bizarre conclusion that someone else will travel there, do all the work and pay for it. They think that five guys with signs in front of a local court might influence reform.
As our report, “We Are Fathers” explains, the support standards law under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act rewards the states based on the number and magnitude of support orders manufactured in their domestic relations courts. Put another way, all judges presiding over support cases benefit from higher awards, making them inherently biased under the same federal law. It’s all part of a trillion dollar child control industry.
To keep the federal money flowing, competing states must retain the antiquated custody scheme as opposed to shared parenting. This in turn benefits lawyers and third parties who thrive on the conflicts naturally inflamed by an unjust and unequal parenting system.
Let’s face it , when was the last time you heard of a scorned mother imprisoned for perjury or false reports? Such a precedent would lead to less conflict and less money for lawyers. Meanwhile fathers are being thrown into prison every day without the commission of any crime simply because of the unrealistic support orders made through biased judges.
They’ll tell you it’s all for uniformity sake, that the state knows best how to raise your children, but we know it’s all about the money. If you haven’t learned that by now, keep watching the balls go round and round while feminists next door at the government arenas are rallying for more laws you don’t know about.
Census Bureau reports continue to show that 85% of all parents paying support are fathers. Moreover, nearly 100% of all litigants committed to debtor prisons for back support are men, adding to our dubious distinction as the most imprisoned population in the free world. Minorities and veterans suffer a higher rate of abuse but hey, who’s counting. This gold mine is so lucrative that judges will set aside the Constitution to keep the unequal treatment in place.
So next time you’re watching a tournament game, don’t forget to have a buyer for your tickets when a sheriff serves you with a support petition or arrest warrant. In an upcoming post we’ll tell you about a neuro-surgeon in Manhattan who spent over $4.5 million fighting false allegations only to lose free contact with his children while facing potential incarceration. With this economy, you can easily become the next victim.
As we’ve said repeatedly, no amount of money is enough in these courts. They’ll be happy to take your children’s college funds to feed the greed. So please support this vital cause today. Make a donation at Leon Koziol.com and help recruit participants for our “Fatherless Day” rally at the Supreme Court on June 19th. Because they’re your children too.
It’s the boldest proposal coming from my first day in Nashville. A sponsor of our campaign originally suggested the idea at the Divorce Corp Family Law Conference at our nation’s capital this past November. Now it is gaining momentum.
After years of frustration seeking justice and equal rights in a Tennessee family court, the father who advanced it is adamant that conventional channels will remain corrupt and dysfunctional for many years to come. Something more profound was needed to secure meaningful reform. Debate on the subject was lively to say the least.
Of course, opponents of the plan argued that a united consensus among fathers to stop paying support would mean breaking the law. Guys could go to jail for this. Women’s rights groups would go wild and our cause would be harmed. Finally the question was put: what about the children?
To this I emphasized that Susan B. Anthony was a convicted criminal who refused to pay her fine in protest of discrimination against women. Her crime: voting in the 1872 elections. The U.S. Supreme Court justice who presided over her criminal trial never did commit Susan to jail as was the prescribed remedy for such a willful violation of the so-called law.
As for the children, the real question is this: is it more important for them to have money or a real father? What incentive is there for a father to earn money when he is not accorded equal rights in parenting or alienated altogether in order to enrich family court lawyers or a scorned adversary?
Two ironies emerge from the Nashville proposal and the crimes committed by our greatest women’s rights advocate. First, had Susan B. Anthony continued to comply with “the law” women would still be considered too ignorant to vote. And with such precedent, can it be said that today’s fathers are being ignorant when they comply with the current system of discriminatory laws which makes them visitors and indentured servants in their children’s lives simply because of their parental birth status? The Census Bureau continues to report that 85% of all parents paying support are fathers.
This leads to our second irony. The courtroom in Rochester, New York where my law license was suspended for a refusal to pay support is dedicated to none other than Susan B. Anthony. If a conscientious father, model citizen and successful civil rights attorney, unblemished for over 23 years can make such a sacrifice, why not others? Our military makes a greater sacrifice before returning home to the same unjust laws.
As for women’s rights groups, one of the first supporters to be sought behind such a proposal should be the National Organization for Women. After all, if equal rights is their true mantra, they should be out front seeking it for children and future generations. Otherwise their whole movement is nothing more than a giant hypocrisy.
It leads to one final irony. During my civil rights career, I became the attorney and trusted advocate for Karen DeCrow. For those of you who do not recognize the name, she was an attorney and president of the National Organization for Women. A referendum on this bold proposal is expected before Father’s Day 2015. Will NOW be its strongest supporter.
Hon. Barack Obama May 11, 2011
President and Commander-in-Chief
United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington D.C. 20500 Re: Human Rights Violations in America
Dear Mr. President:
The capture of Osama bin Laden stands among the greatest achievements of your administration. Today our nation learned of an upcoming speech in which you will seek to build upon this success. As I understand it, you will now promote democracy by revolution in Arab countries.
As a civil rights advocate who practiced law in New York for more than 23 years, I am asking you to reconsider this course of action. I invite you to focus instead upon a side of America you have evidently overlooked. It is one that our soldiers will face if and when they return home.
Good fathers are being systematically removed from their children in domestic relations courts around our country through discriminatory laws which support a multi-billion dollar government industry. It is a form of oppression where innocent children become the hard victims.
It works simply like this: declare the state to be the parent of the people, pass laws which promote controversy among families, and lawyers will take over to promote government jobs which our taxpayers cannot afford. I call it the state’s “Custodial Institution of Childrearing”.
This institution has taken over more than half of America’s parenting population through “custody” and “support” regulations which infringe upon all manner of family privacy. Parents are influenced to fight over their offspring in public forums reminiscent of the Roman Coliseum.
It is certainly not a new concept. In Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler observed that if the state can make the people believe it is acting in the best interests of children, they will “happily” give up their rights. Your secretary of state once declared that “it takes a village” to raise our children.
This kind of socialist philosophy has not only been proven a world failure, but it goes against everything embodied within the American Constitution. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly declared the parenting right to be “the oldest liberty interest” protected under our laws.
In that vein, your victory speech caught my attention. You stated that we were a nation committed to “equal rights” and that we could accomplish anything we set our mind to. I could not reconcile this with the severe prejudice against fathers which is so accepted here.
The Census Bureau continues to report that roughly 85% of all parents paying “child support” are men. Women obtain custody in 80-90% of contested cases. Yet men are not so incompetent to engage in “shared parenting” any more than they are to share in the defense of our country.
This all brought me back to a day in 2008. I was one of your earliest supporters. Senator Clinton had dominated the primaries in upstate New York and you declared on Father’s Day that we needed to get men to step up to the plate, all the while ignoring what our states had done to them.
It was then that I knew that the problem of fatherless children would grow exponentially and, of course, it did. Separated parents are now the mainstream in America, and fathers are remanded to a lower class of person through antiquated laws which maintain a separate but unequal doctrine.
Under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the states draw revenues based on the number and magnitude of “child support” orders mass produced in an institution hypocritically called Family Court. If you can get more parents to fight, you can make more money, simple as that.
It is a scheme which exploits a rule of nature. Good parents will sacrifice everything to maintain their offspring whereas bad parents generally avoid responsibilities. In the custodial system, all separated parents are lumped together and forced to prove their fitness to the state without cause.
This “winner takes all” contest enables one parent to “tax and destroy” the other for reasons unrelated to the child. Formula driven welfare checks euphemistically known as “child support” are based not upon a child’s needs but upon a victor’s highly contentious “way of life”.
This formula has communist overtones with waste, decadence and child disincentives which can lead to lawless behavior. Outcast fathers, constantly on the defensive, are paying for the process which seizes their children through diverted “child support”. Even Hitler was not this creative.
Inevitably these American citizens face a debtor’s prison when they cannot balance tax, credit and support obligations in hard times. It is far from a hero’s welcome for our returning soldiers as the courts routinely find that they can earn more than they are capable with their “war skills”.
In New York, our judiciary sued the other branches of government in its own courts for pay raises. Of course this was a violation of powers, but the obsession over money is finding its way in childrearing decisions contrary to a neutral design under our state constitutions as well.
Police, fire and emergency crews, such as those responders on 9-11, face the same treatment as our war veterans do under these abusive laws. In my small home town, a police investigator took his life and that of his ex spouse, leaving his children without parents after “child support” court.
Not long after that, a woman took a knife to her husband’s throat, a father shot his boy in front of police during a domestic standoff, and a purple heart soldier attempted suicide rather than continue a prison sentence on a support debt. That’s a lot of needless carnage for a civil society.
Related reports are showing a greater loss of life on the domestic front among veterans than in these foreign wars. If you’ve read this far, please view “Purple Heart’s Final Beat” at Second Class Citizen.Org for a brief but vivid memorial to Major Lance Waldorf, an Iraqi war veteran.
You might wonder how a once prominent lawyer, office holder and candidate for congress could survive a one man battle against his profession. After 23 unblemished years, a group of lawyers and judges combined to suspend my practice, a small sacrifice compared to those in mind here.
This retaliation began on the same day as arguments were being made in court similar to those found here. Last I checked, Mr. President, the judicial branch was still a part of our American form of government subject to the same First Amendment rules that you and the rest of us are.
Such rules are invaluable to a free society. This letter illustrates how government is losing the forest for the trees on issues ranging from the economy to doctors’ care. Our talents, health and productivity are being lost to a litigious system focused on the ever elusive child’s best interests.
You have proven that we have come a long way since the Dred Scott decision. Here we find a white civil rights advocate petitioning a black president for equal rights. Yet it is much more than that. A father is asking another father to help preserve future generations of Americans.
On Father’s Day Friday, June 17th, I plan to file a writ in the Supreme Court challenging the suppression of my liberties by New York’s court system. My ordeal may be compared to that of Chinese lawyer Gao Zhisheng, reunited with his children only after giving up his civil rights.
I hope to be joined at that time by victims and families of these oppressive laws to deliver this letter personally to you at the White House. Until then, I am asking supporters nationwide to consider publishing it in the media, internet and public venues. Thank you for your time.
In what may be described as the most sweeping challenge to date upon our nation’s draconian child control laws surrounding Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, New York Civil Rights Advocate Leon R. Koziol, J.D. has filed a comprehensive test case in United States District Court in Albany, New York. Named in the action are judicial and law enforcement officials, including New York’s Chief Justice and Unified Court System. The lawsuit, served upon select parties this week, takes aim at “custody” and “child support” laws which alienate children from their parents as part of a government money generating scheme. A 39 page, 24 count civil complaint sets forth the manner in which lawyers and forensic agents feed off of manufactured controversies in domestic relations courts to harm parent-child relations and the financial stability of mainstream households. According to Koziol, it is a process which is harming the productivity of an entire nation.
Until his public stance against the legal profession in recent years, Mr. Koziol enjoyed an unblemished 23 year career as a constitutional rights attorney. His accomplishments include six figure jury verdicts on behalf of race, gender and free speech victims. In 2004, he secured a final judgment in New York Supreme Court declaring unconstitutional the operation of the largest casino in that state. He has appeared on the CBS Program “60 Minutes”, New York Times and CNN, among other national mediums. The current action provides a startling look at the manner in which government actors are suppressing free speech, due process and the People’s liberty interests in childrearing. Mr. Koziol is seeking similar victims of courtroom abuses to join this action and transform it to class action status. Support is needed behind his sacrificial cause on behalf of “parents similarly situated”. As the holiday season approaches, Mr. Koziol hopes to target family preservation issues and the scheduling of a national parenting rights convention.
Leon R. Koziol
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, New York 13502 www.LeonKoziol.com
TO: All Media and Interested Parties
FROM: Leon R. Koziol
RE: Civil rights claim against Oneida County and Town of New Hartford
CONTACT: Leon R. Koziol (315) 796-4000
——— FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE———
October 29, 2010, New Hartford, NY – Oneida County and the Town of New Hartford were named today in a formal claim filed by civil rights advocate Leon R. Koziol. The lawsuit notice states that government agents escorted by armed police converged upon Mr. Koziol’s private residence in a swat-like assault for the purpose of seizing his personal property without any legal authority. The warrant and levy provided him at his New Hartford home limited police and official authority to a Utica location only. In addition, the seizure of vehicles was executed contrary to a court order by agreement between the parents in an ongoing domestic relations case before a state Supreme Court judge in August, 2010. The claim seeks recovery for damages sustained from a joint scheme of processes by government actors designed to harm and discredit Mr. Koziol’s public and professional campaign against discriminatory and abusive practices in domestic relations courts. Mr. Koziol has repeatedly described these practices as a “multi-billion dollar child control industry” corroborated here by the direct involvement of the state tax department.