Supreme Court makes lawyer transparency case public under new filing rules

pexels-photo-693865.jpeg

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Should all lawyer disciplinary hearings nationwide be made public? If my Supreme Court case docketed yesterday is heard, hopefully that answer will be yes. Already our high court is taking steps in that direction with its change of practice. In 2015, it made all attorney disciplinary hearings in that court public.

Now all filings have been accorded unprecedented transparency under another rule of the Supreme Court put into effect only two months ago. It has mandated that all new filings be converted to electronic format for publication on its website even though paper booklets and pauper petitions are still required.

My case was filed on January 9, 2018 and docketed on January 17, 2018. It is among the earliest to come under that rule. Titled Leon R. Koziol v Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Case No. 17-993, it offers the complete Petition and Appendix (lower court record) for public viewing. And the best part: no fee. That’s right, it’s free!

Competent filings can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions with the big firms. Filing and submission costs together with highly technical formatting rules can cost the filer a minimum $1,500 just for the 40 copies of Petition and Appendix each (and three per adversary). That cost does not include lawyer fees and record production.

In my case, attorney regulations were abused to achieve an illicit purpose. Ethics lawyers eventually discharged for falsifying their time sheets dug up all sorts of trivia and anonymous grievances to discredit my judicial whistleblowing activity. They got away with it because lawyer proceedings are confidential.

Now you can read all about my John Grisham ordeal on the Supreme Court website. Just hit the search bar, then the docket search, and type in the case name or number. It’s easy, and you can immediately educate yourself to constitutional law and the inner workings of our court system. It would otherwise cost you thousands of dollars in lawyer research and writing fees. You will note that my earlier filings have no such public offerings.

Tomorrow I will present a summary of high profile cases that I won prior to the retributions by the Third Judicial Department. Its purpose is to convince you not only of the quality and merit behind my Supreme Court case, but why you should support it as explained in yesterday’s post. And once again, kindly share this post for the sake of all victims of the carnage which is occurring daily in America’s divorce and family courts.

 

 

 

Parent equality and whistleblower case docketed today by Supreme Court

img_0298

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

It’s entitled Leon R. Koziol v Attorney Grievance Committee of the Third Judicial Department, and it was docketed by the Supreme Court today under Case No. 17-993. Unlike prior filings, this one recognizes my appeal from the high court of New York as a challenge to a “discretionary” decision. It could mean nothing, it could be everything because I am asking our nation’s highest court to review a non-final process of law license reinstatement which does not satisfy the finality requirement for Supreme Court jurisdiction. Hence such petitions are routinely rejected.

However that rule is set aside in cases where a continuation in the lower courts would be a gesture in futility, for example a recurring process due to the bad faith of decision makers or harassment for the exercise of constitutional rights. Mine is precisely such a case, and the high court may have docketed it for the reason that I have been harassed with endless, non-final reinstatement processes for too many years as punishment for my public exposure of court corruption and promotion of shared parenting laws.

In my petition for writ filed for consideration last week (January 9, 2018), I cited the case of In re Snyder, 472 US 634 (1985) where the Supreme Court granted writ to invalidate a six month law license suspension of an attorney who refused to apologize for his criticisms of a fee accountability process. My case carries far greater public import. Indeed if my third of three requests is granted, lawyers across the country would be impacted by open public disciplinary proceedings which would then  benefit all clients in terms of genuine accountability.

In 2015, the Supreme Court did exactly that for all attorneys licensed to practice  in its own court, and it may now be poised to do this for all courts nationwide. What a benefit this could bring to media, justice and reasonable attorney fees. From a personal perspective, what a sweet pay-back it would be for all those lawyers (and lawyers on the bench) who persecuted me for over ten years due to my conscientious stand against my profession. What a sense of justice it could bring for all the moms, dads and innocent children abused in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

Once again I am asking my followers to share this post with media, bloggers and parents everywhere. Organizations and interested parties have an opportunity now to offer amicus briefs in support of my case. But the window period for that is only about two months and I will not donate any more of my valuable time and limited resources. I have sacrificed enough. Here is an opening excerpt from my writ petition docketed today:

Lawyers all across our nation are regularly called upon by the People to challenge abuses of government power. Fearless advocacy is not only a hallmark of the legal profession, it is critical to the maintenance of a free society. But what happens if an unrestrained body of government is able to invidiously suppress such advocacy when the critical argument is directed against it? Do our rights continue to have substance in communities large and small? Do all people benefit the same from safeguards that our military and civilian personnel strive each day to preserve? Is not the whole of a profession called to task?

This case seeks to answer such questions. Throughout our history as leaders of the free world, American lawyers have risked their livelihoods in the quest to assure that our most precious rights are not systematically eroded. Without the unique liberties exercised by our “architects of justice”, it is likely that “separate but equal” doctrine would still be alive and well in our public schools and transportation systems. Countless innocent people might be imprisoned each day out of a lawyer’s fear of state disciplinary retributions.

A civil rights attorney in upstate New York is now asking this Court to review a disciplinary process which harmed his livelihood and parent-child relations simply because he represented minority groups and boldly championed unpopular causes. His ordeal has been compared to that of Nobel Prize candidate Gao Zhisheng, the Chinese lawyer stripped of his law license and denied contact with his children due to his representation of minority groups and criticisms of a communist government. The cause in this case is not garden variety, parental equality remains the final frontier of civil rights reform in America.

Literally, an innocent man was convicted of fabricated misconduct for endeavoring to bring equal rights to a courtroom where children are exploited for money and fathers are being extinguished from the family equation. This conclusion is easily demonstrated below by the proximate exercise of rights and adverse state action. Without the necessary protection for our protectors, any lawyer can fall victim simply by excelling in his or her work at the wrong place and the wrong time.

If you have something genuine to contribute (not war stories, keyboard pontifications or requests for free advice), call me at my office at (315) 380-3420 or personally at (315) 796-4000. You can also make a donation here, purchase my newly released book entitled Satan’s Docket, or obtain other professional services which I offer at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.

 

Dr. Leon Koziol Submits Expansion Plan for Supreme Court to Transition Team for Donald Trump

images
Our Founding Fathers envisioned a government accessible to the people. That is not the case with a Supreme Court which has only two more members now than it did in 1803. Thomas Jefferson became president at that time with a populist mandate resembling that of today’s Donald Trump.

 

Dr. Leon Koziol has been communicating with Donald Trump’s Special Counsel Michael Cohen since he filed a motion to disqualify Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from his case in Supreme Court three months ago. That motion was based on her unethical public attacks on Donald Trump from her chambers while he was (and is still) a private citizen. Now Dr. Koziol is asking the Supreme Court in a petition filed last month to rule that accessibility to our nation’s highest court is severely compromised by its small number of Justices relative to our population of 300 million. With such a declaratory ruling, it would open the door for a Republican President and Congress to successfully expand the size of our Supreme Court to better serve the people in accordance with its duties under Article III of the Constitution. Here is the text of Koziol’s letter to Cohen:

 

Michael Cohen, Special Counsel                                                        November 11, 2016

and Executive Vice President

Trump Organization

725 Fifth Avenue A

New York, NY 10022

 

Re: Supreme Court Case, Appointments and Expansion Mandate

Dear Mike:

First off, I want to congratulate you on your steadfast opposition to pollsters and the vindication you must be feeling today. On Wednesday, I copied you on my congratulatory e-mail to Donald Trump. He is moving toward unity and continuing to shock the world. Timing of today’s letter is ideal for his transition and can only be described as fateful or extraordinary. Kindly read on.

We conversed in August of this year regarding my case before the Supreme Court docketed on June 17, 2016. It included a First Amendment challenge to a gag order placed upon my website focused on parental equality and judicial accountability. The gag order was removed after I filed a parallel mandamus action in New York Supreme Court, but as relevant here, the same website contained numerous publications vigorously supporting Donald Trump since his announcement in 2015, i.e. a satirical post against Megyn Kelly entitled, Who Declared the War on Women?

Weeks after my case was docketed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg conducted a series of media interviews from her chambers in which she unethically disparaged Donald Trump as a private citizen and candidate for president. Only after widespread public criticism, i.e. “Supreme Bias” and “Darth Bader,” did she issue a public “regret” but never an apology while her media talk continued, thereby evincing a supreme hypocrisy regarding her claims of aberrant behavior.

I filed a motion under Rules 21 and 22 for a stay and disqualification because the content of my pro-Trump website would be inconsistent with her requisite impartiality. On principle alone I risked myself once again for the sake of justice and our First Amendment. With a suppressed secondary and social media, I am sure you will agree that Donald Trump would likely have lost the election given the slim margins in swing states which your supporters and mine targeted.

Three weeks after filing my motion, I contacted the Court to inquire on its progress as election day and my case conference approached. I was informed at first that my motion could not be located, but fortunately I had both a certified mailing and tracking number which proved that the Court had received it. The next morning, I was contacted by a case manager who reported that my motion had been located but that it was being treated as a “Suggestion for Recusal,” a procedure nowhere found in the Rules of the Supreme Court.

My motion and recusal have still not been addressed. Accordingly, I filed another petition last month challenging the inaccessibility of our Supreme Court by common citizens as a violation of Article III of the Constitution. That case has not received a conference date. Hence, supporting briefs can still be filed. As relevant to transition and Donald’s commitment to a government serving all Americans, my petition makes a solid case for expanding the number of Justices.

The case is captioned, Koziol v King, No. 16-512, and as fate would have it, it seeks not only to hold Justice Ginsburg accountable like the judges I exposed in lower courts, but it seeks a declaratory judgment that calls upon the president and Congress to satisfy their own duties under the Constitution by conforming the Supreme Court to population changes since 1803. In this way, President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican Congress can facilitate increased numbers of cases accepted for consideration (roughly only 100 of 10,000 petitions filed annually today).

There may never again be an opportunity like this and it will be well received by the people. Significantly I have the requisite legal standing because I was denied access on four prior petitions since 2011. Moreover, the subject in every one concerned First Amendment retributions I sustained as a judicial whistleblower after 23 highly successful and unblemished years as a civil rights attorney in New York’s state and federal courts. My case reads like a John Grisham novel.

This is not a “Court Packing Plan.” It is a petition properly placed with the Supreme Court to satisfy its separate duties to the people under the same Constitution. I have been working with St. John’s University Professor Anthony Pappas who authored a paper on this very subject, concluding, inter alia, that the reluctance of our high court members to act on this populist mandate may be due to the attention which they each derive in smaller numbers, i.e. Ginsburg.

Central to my petition is Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), that historic case familiar to every law student in which the Supreme Court seized the power to interpret our Constitution and thereby set itself up as a super-branch of government. That Court had six members with an elitist plan in Congress to reduce it to five. Our population was under six million. Today it exceeds 300 million. Horse-drawn buggies brought our leaders to Washington and much of the world was unknown. Today our President-elect arrives in his own jet with instantaneous global communications. Our Congress had 141 voting members. Today it has 535.

Adding to history, intrigue and logic, the Marbury case, like my earlier petition and motion, involved a mandamus action to compel the filling of a magistrate vacancy during a transition between President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson (perhaps our most populist president). Please share this with members of your transition team as I share it elsewhere. I am available anytime along with Professor Pappas to provide greater detail.

Best regards,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

 

IMG_1708
Dr. Leon Koziol, Professor Anthony Pappas, Brigid Griffin and other parental advocates attend family court proceedings in Manhattan to support Dr. Eric Braverman. Leon and the professor also support a plan to expand our Supreme Court and make it more accessible to the people.

Help Us Petition Supreme Court to Hear Shared Parenting Case and Open Access

 

For the past two weeks, parental advocates from around the country have contacted me to join a petition to the Supreme Court to hear its first ever shared parenting case. This petition also asks our high court to improve access to mainstream Americans with crucial issues necessary for its resolution under our constitution. Instead roughly 100 of 10,000 filed petitions are granted each year (less than 1%), and most of those are reserved for elite law firms and preferred issues such as abortion, gun rights, capital crimes and high level government.

The rest of us are stuck with the outcomes of these “Kangaroo Courts” as Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas once depicted them in the Gault, case at 387 US 1, pp 27-28. To give you an idea of how unjust this has become, during all those years when shared parenting was being declined, the Supreme Court accepted gay marriage and such “pressing” matters as an inmate’s $23 hobby kit. Yes that’s right. We don’t make these things up at Leon Koziol.com. This hobby kit was misplaced by prison staff and it earned a writ by the Supreme Court for civil rights violations.Look it up at Parratt v Taylor, 451 US 527.

Therefore we have to make noise like others did to convince our high court that we moms, dads and our children matter much more than prisoners do. We didn’t commit any crimes. We followed the laws to the best of our logic and capacities even when they became as absurd as many family court orders have. To address questions arising since my last public interview on the subject, I have decided to split the petition into two parts, an informal one to accompany the formal filing as an appendix or reform request and a formal petition limited to ten or fifteen parties selected from the informal group.

As explained in the interview, I will not prepare the complex filing until I see enough support. There is no cost to join although we do rely on donations to this site to defray costs. Such filings by the elite firms can easily exceed $100,000. Petitions of the informal variety can be prepared and circulated by any parental or constitutional rights advocate. No lawyer is required. It should contain the basics, i.e. “We the undersigned do hereby petition the Supreme Court of the United States to hear its first ever shared parenting case and to take action for greater access of the People to its deliberations. This petition is made pursuant to a public message found at http://www.leonkoziol.com.”

The petition should have an address and telephone contact for verification purposes. You should seek volunteers and share this post regularly over the next few weeks. Here is what the later prepared petition will contain subject to additions or modifications arising from any input we may receive. Please do not send individual case summaries. This is not an offer of legal advice. You may check out our programs, investigation documentaries, book publishing and other non-legal offerings at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1) Has the Supreme Court rendered itself inaccessible to petitioners and the vast majority of our citizens in violation of due process and Article III of the Constitution?

2) Has the Supreme Court erected and ratified onerous obstacles to federal court jurisdiction for parents victimized in divorce and family courts contrary to due process, a fundamental liberty interest and genuine principles of federalism?

3) Has the Supreme Court encouraged or justified private remedies for law abiding citizens to vindicate their constitutional rights when its duties were abandoned here?

Three Parental Rights Cases considered by Supreme Court at same time today

By Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute     http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com

But is access to our nation’s highest court illusory for the vast majority of us?

That is among the questions posed before the Supreme Court today in a mandamus action entitled Leon Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York being considered on the same day as two other parental rights cases. In another mandamus action, Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), the Supreme Court rendered one of its most controversial decisions in which it seized the power to interpret our Constitution and thereby set itself up potentially as a super-branch of government.

The Marbury case has held up to the present day despite much criticism from the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt. But the chance for an average citizen to obtain such an interpretation is next to zero. That is because our high court only accepts roughly 100 of 10,000 petitions filed from around the globe. Perhaps more startling is the fact that our Supreme Court has only two more members today than it did during the time of Marbury while Congress plays politics with a vacancy. Since 1803 our population has grown from about 5 million to over 300 million. You calculate the probabilities.

Congress has adapted with our growth along with the executive branch and their huge bureaucracy, but little has changed with our Supreme Court. That may explain why no shared parenting case has ever been decided by our high court whereas abortion is a regular part of its docket. Against such odds, there are at least three parental rights cases being considered by our high court on the same day, September 26, 2016, and a fourth working its way through our federal courts.

They are all pro se cases due to financial exploitation in the lower courts and professional retaliation for those who challenge the judges who promote it. To make up for a century of void in these cases, I have asked the Supreme Court to order a Special Master to investigate and report on the vast erosion of parent-child rights under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (supports standards and incentive funding to state courts). We are losing our parental rights through conflict profiteering and revenue making practices that violate due process.

As Americans we should all have a reasonable belief that our highest court will hear our concerns. We should not have to expect that a few prominent law firms guard the door to this court. For this reason four professionals from around the country took a stand as victimized parents on the steps of the Supreme Court. They have asked that our parenting rights be heard as abortion, marital equality and other rights have. Here are excerpts. Three presenters have no lawyer background yet in my expert opinion they articulate the core issues better than many trial lawyers with whom I have litigated during my 25 year career. You be the judge:

 

 

 

Here are the opening segment and Part II of my Supplemental Brief accepted by the Supreme Court last week:

For a complete viewing (Click Here)

REASONS  FOR  SUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEF

While children in Allepo, Syria are diving and swimming in a pool created by a missile strike (Associated Press, 9/15/16) respondents are hanging on to a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” as a sufficient danger to petitioner’s children to prevent father-daughter contact here in the United States. That “gesture,” assuming it could be understood at all, was not prohibited by any court order, and it consisted of a 2013 wedding toast with petitioner’s children nearby and no alcohol history of any kind as found by an appellate judge.

Sanity dictates that there is obviously something else driving an absurd process challenged by this precedent seeking action on constitutional grounds. Due to a highly abused pretext of promoting our children’s so-called “best interests,” lawyers and conflict profiteers are concocting endless issues to beat up opposing parents. So bad is it today that the entire divorce industry is coming under serious fire as it drags down a noble legal profession.

This ordeal represents the outcome for a judicial whistle blower, victimized parent and conscientious civil rights attorney who set out to reform this industry. However, absent discovery rights or a reliable self-regulating agency to remedy a colossal failure in human rights, persecution is now the sole outcome. It is being ratified through inaction of our federal courts. This is not petitioner’s first endeavor to access our Supreme Court on a long neglected issue. But it will provide the highest authority either way to justify an escape from the oppression that is undeniably present.

An alcohol gesture remains the reason cited in a December 2, 2013 decision for suspending child contact that continues to this day. It was manufactured after no evidence could be provided to show any parenting problem, consumption of a legal beverage being standard issue for abusing parents in our nation’s divorce and family courts. There are many more, a veritable treasure trove of accusations in a system designed to maximize profits and court revenues at the expense of children and families under a federal statute.

Point Two:  Domestic courts are not constitution-free zones, and routine obstacles to federal jurisdiction can no longer be abused to deny parents basic rights.

Domestic relations courts are no longer matters of local or state interest. Constitutional violations here were fueled by a federal funding statute and a state revenue system based on the magnitude and number of child support orders manufactured under Title IV-D of the Social security Act, 42 USC 651 et. seq.; Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998); Dept of Family v DHHS of U.S., 588 F.3d 740 (1st Cir. 2009)

Beyond that the events occurring since this petition was filed have only proven beyond any remaining doubt that respondents are forever committed to their agenda for censoring and suppressing the petitioner using every means available to them. The overriding reason for denying this public critic his discovery rights in the Northern District of New York was a concern for exposing judges to abuse.

Recognizing this interest, petitioner brought an action for extraordinary relief under FRAP Rule 21 with a request for the appointment of a special master to investigate and report on the complex ordeal inflicted upon this public critic and parents throughout the country as exemplified in the Second Circuit. This was the course of action taken by the same federal court in the Oneida land claim class action of 1998, a case in which petitioner was intricately involved, Oneida Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (2000).

The obstacles to federal court jurisdiction and good faith petitions for accessing this Court can no longer be tolerated or glossed over. This is a nationwide epidemic corroborated by other cases decided by this Court since petition filing. For example, in Universal Health Services v United States, No. 15-7 (June 16, 2016), a teen girl was placed under the care of a counseling center having unqualified staff which administered improper medication resulting in a worsening of a bi-polar diagnosis. She died of a consequential stroke.

This Court allowed the family’s action to go forward under the federal False Claims Act based on an implied false certification theory of liability. In family courts throughout the nation parents and children are being referred by judges and lawyers as a matter of course for psychiatric evaluations on the slightest accusations of a scorned ex-spouse. All too often entire families are over-medicated, bankrupted or permanently harmed by this lucrative referral program in these courts.

In this case, a scorned ex-wife acting on advice of lawyers anxious to harm petitioner, requested and obtained a forensic order in 2011 for the parents and children without cause of any kind. The biased judge who issued that order was disqualified, her replacement was removed from the case on motion of petitioner and removed altogether from the family court bench for admitting to sexual misconduct upon his handicapped five year old niece, In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

On September 23, 2011, the next (veteran) family judge, Michael Hanuszczak, vacated the order on the same record employed by his two predecessors to order and continue the evaluations. This event fully verified in the record shows just how arbitrary these forensic orders truly are and how easily they can be exploited to harm a public critic as respondent Judge Daniel King did only two years later. On July 12, 2016, his replacement Judge James Eby refused to honor that precedent on the case, thereby producing a permanent loss of petitioner’s children.

The DSM-5 manual used to diagnose psychiatric conditions and process insurance claims has at least 300 disorders and 600 conditions that can destroy careers and keep parents and children under state control and medication for many years. It is beyond epidemic and leading to suicides, bizarre activity and needless destruction of parent-child relations in criminal ways. A special master must be assigned to investigate this crisis because it arises exclusively in our judicial branch. It has been a long time since this Court took a bold move to correct a court created injustice of such magnitude, see Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925); Bast, supra and Brown v Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954). The case for extraordinary recourse could not be better.

PLEASE  SHARE  THIS  POST  AND  SUPPORT  OUR  CAUSE ! https://leonkoziol.com/2016/09/26/three-parental-rights-cases-considered-by-supreme-court-at-same-time-today

You can also contact our office at (315) 380-3420

 

 

Ginsburg-Trump Conflict Docketed for Decision by Supreme Court

img_0278
Civil Rights and Parental Advocate, Leon Koziol, is joined by a Florida doctor, California dentist and Virginia engineer to announce the filing of a petition for First Amendment protections and parental equality on the steps of the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016.

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

I have practiced law in both federal and state courts at all levels for nearly 30 years, and I have never seen anything like this. After exposing corruption in our third branch of government as a judicial whistle blower, I was targeted by family court and ethics lawyers to a point where access to my daughters and law license  were harmed.

As a civil rights advocate in 2009, I logically sought recourse for constitutional violations in federal court but was repeatedly thwarted by selective treatment to suppress my reform message. I finally reached the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016 in a case docketed as Leon Koziol v United States District Court, No. 15-1519. Three weeks later, Justice Ruth Ginsburg launched a campaign from chambers attacking Donald Trump in the presidential race.

Mr. Trump had not yet been endorsed by any political party. Hence his free speech had come under fire as a private citizen while my case was focused on a censored website that supported his campaign. Justice Ginsburg was important to my case because it relied upon a number of her decisions. But having come this far, I could not contradict my own principles by ignoring the debacle which played out during the week of July 14, 2016.

So I filed a motion for her recusal (disqualification) together with other necessary relief. It was received on August 9, 2016 but never publicly docketed until today, August 22, 2016, after inquiries I made last week. I was informed that my motion had not yet been located. When it was found, a decision was made to treat it as a “suggestion for recusal.” The other relief sought by my motion under Rule 21 would have to be re-filed separately.

Included in that relief was a requested adjournment of the Court’s conference on my petition until after the elections to permit interested third parties, including Donald Trump, to file briefs in support of my case or to otherwise present their positions. I spoke to Michael Cohen, attorney for Donald Trump, who expressed interest in its outcome. A copy was e-mailed  to him but it had not been docketed at the time. Now we await decision.

This is a case important to the presidential race for other reasons. Shared parenting and equality in our nation’s family courts have not been addressed by any candidate even though they impacted everything from Hillary’s Village to Trump’s reforms. These courts have been transformed into a trillion dollar industry at the heart of so many of today’s social, health and productivity issues.

The last time our Supreme Court squarely addressed a parenting issue was in the 1989 case, Michael H.v Gerald D., 491 US 10. This may be our best chance in decades to make a long overdue mark in domestic relations. Hence,on September 17,2016 (Constitution Day), a rally has been proposed at Lincoln Memorial to support this case and oppose corruption. We encourage all victimized families to join us in a message to our national leaders.

Please help us get this message viral. We have been ignored for too long. Get involved. It’s now or never to make this stand for justice and our children.

Dr. Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

(315) 796-4000


Please share this post – Here is the short link: http://wp.me/pXgi5-2hC