Parent Alienation is more than a syndrome or human rights violation, it is a killer

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

The following text is taken from the concluding paragraphs of my newly published book, Whistleblower in Paris. It is highly relevant for those suffering from parental alienation. This book addresses a silent epidemic and is a must-read for those engaged in divorce, custody and support conflicts. It is a rare education opportunity to educate yourself to the realities of these court processes and based on more than 30 years of litigation experience. This extraordinary read is available at any Barnes and Noble store, Amazon or major on-line bookseller (published by Author House). You can also visit the book’s website at http://www.whistleblowerinparis.com.

Epilogue (concluding segment):

This alone warrants a Justice Department investigation of my extended ordeal. It would benefit countless moms, dads and families similarly situated. There are tremors of unrest throughout this country which are being ignored. Hardly a day goes by without some child murder, needless suicide or unpredictable homicide traced to these dysfunctional courts. What remains of a stable society is largely made possible by the free exercise of parental liberties and self-governance. It is my fervent hope, therefore, that a powerful movement emerges from my sacrifices that forces our government to pay attention to its own parents.

In the end, my daughters lost a model father, someone who could have continued to develop family pride and helped educate them well beyond the capabilities of their other parent. That parent took father alienation to a whole new low as she recently changed residence with such secrecy that the location of my daughters became unknown. Making matters worse, resort to the courts was long foreclosed due to continuing systemic bias. The endless assignments of jurists to my case made any such resort a painful gesture in futility. If a judge like Daniel King could invent a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” (wedding toast) as a reason to suspend child contact, how could I expect any sanity from the judges who replaced him without correction since his childish December 2, 2013 decision? 

Taken together, it required consideration of an amber alert by a father still subject to child support orders. All of this will needlessly impact the alienator’s new marriage on hate alone. It is a prime example of how dysfunctional family court has become, the newest forms of evil it has spawned, and the vast downward spiral which the lucrative litigation yielded over a fifteen year period. In short, all incentive for financial support has been tortured through corruption. I lost many years of those special moments of child development which can never be recreated, and this heinous outcome arose simply because I hurt the feelings of family court judges.

In raw terms, you can kill a targeted person with a gun or accomplish the same outcome with a drawn-out process that chips away at your existence. Parent alienation is such a process. It is more than a psychological syndrome or human rights violation, it is a proven killer of victimized parents. Whether it be a suicide, terminal illness or some other consequence, the needless separation of a loving parent from his or her children is simply unconscionable. But when forcing the victim to pay for the child abduction through support payments under penalty of lock-up in a debtor prison, it becomes utterly barbaric. 

Judges are quick to overlook this reality as they routinely find breaches of various duties in personal injury cases to achieve million-dollar verdicts. But when greater breaches of ethical duties are presented regarding their own conduct, they cloak themselves with judicial immunity on the rationale that such liability would deter qualified candidates from seeking judgeships. But lawyers crave these prestigious titles, and a judge complying with job requirements has nothing to fear. If anything, this absolute immunity encourages misconduct while politically-appointed oversight commissions fail us time and again.

This literary work is by no means an indictment of our justice system or legal profession. However, it verifies in painstaking detail how a conscientious attorney, model parent and judicial whistleblower can be so ruthlessly punished for his crusade to deliver overdue reforms to our system of family court justice. It serves to illustrate the need for attorney whistleblower protection. Finally, it is directed against the divorce industry and the predators who are dragging it all down to hell, a people’s courthouse reduced to a giant profit center. All this corruption might compel another victim to resort to violence. But I was able to achieve some justice in more constructive ways. My old friend, Sir Walter Scott, gave me sage advice in that regard:

For he that does good, having the unlimited power to do evil, deserves praise not only for the good he performs, but the evil he forbears.

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

By Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my relevant book excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You be the jury.

Silent Epidemic of Our Time Exposed in Highly Censored Book, Whistleblower in Paris

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Distinguished author, former trial attorney and parental rights advocate

Crucial Note: My book, Whistleblower in Paris, has been available on major bookseller sites for only three weeks, and already it is being targeted and censored. Suddenly standard e-mails of my postings to longtime followers are being sent to “spam” and otherwise re-routed to obscure locations.

The good news is that this should send the powerful message that this publication effectively exposes divorce and family court corruption at the expense of service providers, bar associations and special interests. As far as the court predators are concerned, it is a book that must be erased along with the countless moms and dads subjected to parental alienation. This is all the more reason to order a copy. Help defend our First Amendment rights by sharing it.

Here is my response in a new Home Page to be published this week on the book’s website, http://www.whistleblowerinparis.com.

HOME PAGE

It is the silent epidemic of our time, the growing number of manufactured controversies in divorce and family courts. Collectively these controversies are undermining our productivity, health care, moral fiber, and human rights as a nation. This book, the first of its kind, explains how this is happening, how it is impacting you even if you never set foot in any court.   

Based on a true story, it features a conscientious attorney who took a stand against his profession to expose this epidemic. Over time, that made him an involuntary whistleblower of corruption resulting in unconscionable retributions from a calculating group of judges and lawyers, those charged with the highest duty of safeguarding our rights of free speech and self-governance.

Those retributions included the transformation of an uncontested divorce into a contentious one, the destruction of father-daughter relationships through parental alienation, the suspension of law and driver licenses needed to satisfy support obligations, seizure of accounts and a stellar record needed for self-employment, and the violation of human rights that led to a near death climax in 2020. Treated together, the persecution constituted an unprecedented abuse of public office.

As citizens of a free world nation, we associate such retributions with those executed by tyrannical regimes. But when a gold mine is being threatened, a different kind of regime emerges, one whose mission is to safeguard the easy flow of fees and court revenues. This book puts a face on such a regime which ultimately forced the author to seek asylum in Paris.

You may not have heard much about this epidemic because it is being suppressed by service providers, bar associations, drug companies and other beneficiaries. But like so many instances of concealed misconduct, it takes a qualified whistleblower to expose it so that, even with a lack of proper oversight, the victims might have a fighting chance of protecting themselves.

More than ever, the public is being duped into believing that government is acting in the best interests of our children when it adjudicates disputes. However countless victims discover all too late how a fraud is being practiced in courts and offices across the country leading to bankruptcy, suicide, homicide, domestic violence, and utter devastation to co-parenting families.

To reach the largest audience, and compel a federal investigation, the author takes you through the experiences of a mom and dad who meet in Paris as pending fugitives. After educating the reader to a human rights crisis in early chapters, a metamorphosis follows when the two victims make a run for it in the French Riviera. Lively exchanges, intrigue and romance are then added to keep the reader glued to a challenging voyage for justice.

Welcome aboard.  

Attorney whistleblower book now available at Barnes and Noble, Author House, Amazon and other global sites


Book cover featuring author Leon Koziol in Paris during his escape to freedom after being persecuted for exposing court corruption in the states. Now head of a citizen commission in New York, this undeterred human rights advocate and former trial attorney seeks to expose more corruption while elevating judicial reform efforts

Global publisher, Author House, has announced its latest book release, Whistleblower in Paris, by Leon R. Koziol. An extraordinary read, this literary work chronicles the intriguing story of an attorney whistleblower forced to seek protection in Paris after years of persecution that nearly cost him his life.

Ideal for anyone who wants to get a behind-the-scenes look at corruption in the judiciary, it can save unsuspecting litigants many thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and court costs. Book sales are growing at various bookseller sites that offer hard copies, soft cover and e-books at low costs. Proceeds will go toward reform efforts.

Spread the word to someone you love or want to protect.

Judicial Whistleblower Exposes Court Corruption in Newly Published Book

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Human Rights Advocate and former trial attorney

My newly released book entitled, Whistleblower in Paris, is now available in hard copy. Electronic versions will be available in coming weeks. This is a human rights odyssey based on a true story that has promising success. The educational content alone is worth many times the price. It also features the highly unique intrigue of a litigation attorney who took a stand against his profession to expose court corruption. You will not get this extraordinary information elsewhere.

This book was a herculean task after many months of hard work. My experience in the publication process has resulted in valuable insight for your own autobiography or litigation ordeal. I was successful in a federal lawsuit against a book publishing subsidiary in 2006 for its deceptive practices. This is proof that any would-be author is highly vulnerable to predatory firms. I offer a professional service to help you navigate effectively and economically through it all.

My book can be ordered on this site, http://www.leonkoziol.com, by making a contribution of $30 to our cause. That price includes shipping and handling. Your credit/debit/ pay pal purchase will include your address for mailing of an autographed copy. Get your head start now. My personal e-mail for more details is leonkoziol@gmail.com. Due to a high volume of communications, I will respond more quickly to direct phone contacts. The book’s back cover summary is provided below.

The Child Support Crisis: What you need to know about draconian enforcements

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Just shut up and pay YOUR child support! It’s a familiar insult which presumes that only one parent has any such obligation and that both parents cannot be trusted to set up their own arrangements free of state supervision. Given the complex society of today, the better assumption is that the state is ill equipped to raise our children and that a nation founded upon a limited government will no longer tolerate its abuses of power.

The euphemistic term “child support” has been conveniently exploited to build a giant bureaucracy focused more on revenue generation and service fees than the “best interests” of our children. Just place the child on top of the state tank and you can crush the rights of the people, even convincing parents to “happily” surrender the ones applicable to their offspring. It’s a tactic used by Adolph Hitler to build one of the greatest war machines in history.

Widespread declines in moral, family and religious values can largely be traced to this surrender. The word combination “child support” has been effective in drowning out the truth about a corrupted process that invites self-serving jurists to tread increasingly upon our most basic rights. These include our fundamental liberty interest in childrearing, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) and guarantee of procedural due process, Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 (2011).

An ominous dissent in the latter case by Justice Clarence Thomas should have all of us alarmed. He bucked the court’s majority by declaring that the due process safeguards required of a support contempt proceeding undermine the state’s interest in a more vigorous enforcement process. This represented a grave departure from reality when taking a deeper look at the draconian enforcement practices that have caused joblessness, homelessness and premature deaths among support debtors.

Such practices have not only “undermined” support capacities, but they have forever ended “child support” in countless cases. Three exemplary deaths over the past decade, Joe Longo, Thomas Ball and Walter Scott, are all that is needed to show the absurdities of the Thomas opinion. Taken together with other victims, it is clear that we have an epidemic underway, one that “shocks the conscience of a civilized society” in violation of substantive due process as well, Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953).

Government today is actually manufacturing bad parents through its “custody” and “support” mandates under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. This is the federal funding law that rewards courts by the number and size of support orders they issue and satisfy. Apart from the inherent bias that this has created, the imbalance has yielded a crowd of silent or walking dead, victims of murder, suicides, false charges and domestic violence, others that await justice that never comes.

Police Investigator Joseph Longo was so traumatized after exiting support court that he used a common kitchen knife to commit a murder-suicide at the former marital home. It left four children without both parents and taxpayers with a $2 million lawsuit debt, Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d 367 (NDNY 2011). The court predators kept pounding him with protection orders, support intercepts and career damage without considering the breaking points of their targets.

You should’ve just shut up, Joe, and paid YOUR child support.

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

You should’ve just shut up, Tom, and paid YOUR child support.

Finally we bring you Walter Scott, a black father shot dead five times in the back. He was killed, unarmed, by a white cop while fleeing a child support warrant at a traffic stop. Unlike other BLM victims, this one was not involved in any criminal activity. It was a civil debt, and our government was now killing for money. This obvious fact is never mentioned in the ongoing George Floyd protests because “child support” is the holy grail for feminists and man-haters.

You should’ve just shut up, Walt, and paid YOUR child support.

Even in necessary cases involving absentee parents or public charges, there is little or no accountability for tax-free, support checks used for drugs, partners or vanity excesses. Most contemptuous are the cases where child support is exploited as a tactical weapon for a custody award that inevitably leads to severe parental alienation. Here the one dutifully paying “child support” is, in reality, paying the state to take his children away. Even then, sadistic alienators are not satisfied until their children are brainwashed to hate the other parent.

This author’s ordeal is one such case that features a high school teacher, Kelly Hawse-Koziol.

The easy way to avoid this “inconvenient truth” is by detracting from it, i.e. “Just shut up and pay YOUR child support.” Support judges say this without mouthing the words by trashing procedural protections and crafting evidentiary substitutes to expedite a desired outcome. Examples are too numerous but include such fictions as “imputed income” and a substandard level of proof. This star chamber process ignores the right of a “noncustodial” parent to finance a separate home for the same children. It also ignores the horrific collateral harm.

Nowhere is an accounting made of the working parental arrangements upended by this custody and support mandate found in the funding laws.

Such collateral harm does not discriminate. It includes a white mom who drove her children into the Hudson River rather than surrender to a custody and support order. A similar derangement caused another to heinously murder her two-year old girl resulting in a conviction and jail term that will never bring back the child (see Gabriella Boyd Foundation). A black mom in Philadelphia went further. In an overnight rage, she purchased a gun and killed both her children and their dad.

The child victims are particularly heart-wrenching. There’s Kyra Franchetti and Thomas Valva whose young lives were lost to mentally disturbed fathers. An Albany (NY) Times Union story on October 13, 2020 revealed that a child protection agency suppressed 725 child death reports over a decade. This is shocking but not really when considering Governor Andrew Cuomo’s suppression of nursing home deaths currently under investigation. Such tragedies omit the live victims torn apart by court proceedings needlessly protracted by greedy lawyers.

This author was subjected to a sixteen year battle over “child support” which induced the “custodial” mom to brainwash his precious daughters in relentless fashion. This went unheeded by the courts despite the lack of any abuse report or unfit finding and despite father-daughter experiences that would be the envy of most children. Over 40 trial level jurists were assigned to his family proceedings with many removed for misconduct, a national record by most accounts and the price to be paid by a judicial whistleblower.

This is not just a public policy issue or a lack of judicial accountability. It is a growing crisis that has caused more deaths than the coronavirus pandemic. It was the theme of our 3-day Parent March on Washington in 2019, a peaceful protest featuring a lobby initiative, expert speakers, a march down Pennsylvania Avenue under police escort and a concluding vigil for those lives lost to this unjust system. Its goal was to obtain congressional hearings and a Justice Department investigation. But it achieved nothing, only more evidence for BLM to justify violence. Peaceful reform is no match for the gold mine which this system has viciously protected.

If you wish to learn more about this author’s unprecedented ordeal as a judicial whistleblower, consult the many posts at http://www.leonkoziol.com or his 2017 book, Satan’s Docket, soon to be updated with more graphic retributions. You might also be interested in a DVD film entitled “Crisis” based on a true story. It features a triple storm of whistleblowers who take on the DEA, academia and the drug industry as common victims. They illuminate the kind of retaliation exposed here.

Due to the censorship of this vital message, it is critical for readers to make it viral for the benefit of parents, children and families everywhere. The author may be reached at (315) 796-4000 or leonkoziol@gmail.com.

Shocking Book Hopes to Ignite Parenting Revolution

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

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com

(315) 380-3420

 

 

 

Save Money While Protecting Your Children at Parenting Rights Institute

 

2008 television clip depicting Dr. Koziol’s achievements as a trial attorney prior to founding the Parenting Rights Institute.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Since founding the Parenting Rights Institute, I have helped countless parents avoid the pitfalls of divorce and family court through non-lawyer assistance and personal precedent seeking actions. Here at Leon Koziol.com or Parenting Rights Institute, you will find a treasure trove of free information to help you save thousands of dollars in fees and irreparable damage to your children, livelihoods and families.

I have sacrificed everything for this cause because our nation’s divorce and family courts continue to operate under an archaic custody system which has become a gold mine for lawyers and other family court predators. Shared parenting has been routinely crushed in nearly all our states. Indeed in an article published in the November, 2016 edition of the Utica Phoenix, yet another veteran jurist (New York Family Judge Joan Shkane) writes:

The Child Support Standards Act (Federal Title IV-D) has not been modified much in the last approximate quarter century. Some experts say that it has not caught up with the realities of modern life. A higher earning parent may pay full child support even if the children are with that parent roughly one-half the time.This is because the law still considers the higher wage earner as the non-custodial parent for the purpose of child support.

What Judge Shkane carefully avoids, however, is how the lucrative custody system exploits children for lawyer profits. She makes no mention of the barbaric harm which this system inflicts upon innocent children. Instead she goes on to emphasize that child support is a right of the child not one or both parents. What she is really saying is that the children belong to the state and not mom or dad because it is the state which mandates the naming of a “custodial parent” for federal Title IV-D funding for the courts. It is the state which enforces child support through draconian practices that include debtor prisons. It is all a part of Hillary’s Village and New World Order.

Consequently you have to learn about the current real life issues in these courts, the kind of information that no lawyer, judge or child predator is going to tell you. That is why you should invest in the Parenting Rights Institute, donate to this site or purchase our Court Strategy Program. Look it all up at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. I continue to receive compliments and encouragements from my thousands of followers and subscribers worldwide. Here is one received yesterday from a Dr.Rachael Robertson of Texas.

Leon,

I read the supplemental brief (my first reading EVER) and you have done a great job.  Of course, I have my own story but some other time.  From the maze of intellectual vocabulary and terminology, thank you for standing firm.  I’m not sure if I believed your drive was due to the love of your daughters (after all who loves American teenagers) or the obligation of family unity.  I particularly enjoyed the flagrant inclusion of unjust cases based on race, social standing and mindless radical behaviors. Thank you, in the end your daughters will love you and your fight.  Your daughters will soon acknowledge your heroism and the damage will heal. And although your struggle is real, heart breaking and traumatic, your writing is captivating and electrifying! Forget about the book okay?  Go for the TLC manuscript.  Your story not only applies to fathers but the willful act of majesties and governing bodies to extract money from families.
It is like the inevitability of Charlie Brown to never fly that kite…. in the latest movie .. he does!
Shabbat Shalom
Dr. Robertson

We also offer seminars, lectures, speaking engagements, mediation, video documentaries, trusted referrals and book publishing services. You can call our office at (315) 380-3420 or me directly at (315) 796-4000. Please share this post with parents or court victims you know and check out this critique by one of our book clients, a mom from Philadelphia:

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

 

 

While Abortion Rights are Routine in our Supreme Court, Shared Parenting Rights have never been heard.

Now there’s a headline you’ve never seen. But it is shockingly true and a reflection of how insignificant we are as parents in this country. Every year our constitutional right to raise our children is being further eroded without so much as a footnote in the decisions from our high court. For the past ten years I have done everything legal and humanly possible to reverse that trend, to give you human dignity as a loving mom or dad, but sadly, due to an utter lack of funding, I have failed.

Meanwhile the right to abort children and market their body parts has been well funded and well received during that same period. Indeed only a few months ago, among the most recent cases heard and decided by the Supreme Court, you will find a pro-abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt and Texas, et. al. Case No. 15-274 (June 27, 2016). Meanwhile three of the four parents who announced their filings at the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016 are being considered for the same day. Yours is destined for the same fate.

Nevertheless it is too important an issue to surrender. If you’ve been following my petition now being considered by the Supreme Court you know that a Supplemental Brief was recently accepted to provide additional support for such a case, a historic first which I sacrificed everything to achieve. Among other things, due to the severe neglect of this right in recent decades, I have asked for appointment of a Special Master to investigate and report on parent-child abuses in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

Yesterday we gave you a summary of cases over the past 100 years since the parenting right was first announced. Today we show you what happens when a judicial whistle blower, civil rights attorney and model parent tries to reform a lucrative divorce industry which is producing damaged children, unprecedented immorality and the kind of crime our society can no longer control. Government simply throws more tax dollars at this epidemic while profiting off our misfortunes.

We hope you will join our cause by contributing to this site or sponsoring any of our services at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. You can also call our office, Parenting Rights Institute at (315) 380-3420. Here is a modified segment from my Brief:

Point One:  Based on this Court’s recent decision in McDonnell v United States, the respondent district court committed an egregious abuse of discretion by suppressing challenges to vague, absurd and retaliatory court orders.

Petitioner has been exposing court corruption and misconduct for ten years in virtually every state of the union, even Hawaii when President Obama visited. It has reached epidemic proportions with no sign of reform or shared parenting structure mandated by our Constitution. That is because the suppression of speech, press and organizing efforts is so profound in our judicial branch of government that relevant experts and civil rights lawyers such as petitioner are persecuted beyond conscience.

In McDonnell v United States, No 15-474 (June 26, 2016), decided after the originating petition here was filed, this Court vacated a conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell based on jury instructions and a statute which was found to be overly expansive. The definition of an “official act” for purposes of criminal liability was deemed to have serious constitutional infirmities.

Whether petitioner’s ordeal is analyzed from a First or Fourteenth Amendment standpoint, or some other federal right such as the parenting liberty, the result is the same. A public critic is being subjected to something far more egregious than an over inclusive statute. He is being pounded by orders laced with such absurdity that no conduct provides a safe harbor. The opening segment of this brief is ample demonstration of this…

At the same time, petitioner is being victimized by …vague and overbroad orders in New York’s domestic courts with undue, unfair and excessive scrutiny by attorney disciplinary agents. Indeed this is by far an unprecedented case. The state has usurped the self-governing rights of a democracy in order to profit off our children. The atrocities over a natural right tracing itself to the beginning of civilization are being perceived as everyday oppression by an increasing variety of terrorists, criminals, protesters and mainstream parents.

A remedy is now required to show that our system of American justice works after all, even if petitioner can never be made whole again. The “prohibited alcohol related gesture” finding was never prohibited previously and concocted from a wedding toast. It was conceded at a “mini-hearing” without due notice, ten minute limits for case presentation and no recording for appellate purposes. On such a hearing, petitioner lost his children potentially forever in light of the severe and un-remedied alienation underway over the past three years. Other than pure evil and the violation of a fundamental right, what else can explain the concoction?

On the last weekend together in January, 2014, there was happiness, sharing of plans, hugging and promising father-daughter relationships to last a lifetime. But the quest for money and revenge was so prevalent that these girls were brainwashed and made to shut out all trace of their natural father without so much as an allegation of abuse. This evil course of action was pursued not by a natural mother but a creature of statute known as a “custodial parent” trained to war against her counterpart. Dads, moms and children are increasingly viewed as objects instead of dignified human beings under this “opposition framework” for parenting.

It was sufficient to cause respondent appellate Judge John Centra to issue a stay order on December 13, 2013 on grounds that the proceedings here were “structurally flawed” with petitioner having no record of abuse. That order facilitated the last weekend petitioner spent with his girls before being vacated by the same Judge Centra and his panel only days after exposure of related misconduct.

It occurred on petitioner’s website which has become the target of censorship by all respondents due to a tagging of publications relating to individuals. Petitioner’s global following has become so impacting that these publications can arise on a first page Google search of a judge or lawyer. Sufficiently offensive as it is protected by our Constitution, this has set in motion very alarming reactions. Oppression is otherwise corroborated by such cases as Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011). A police investigator committed a murder-suicide after exiting support court, a key factor that was ignored, leaving three children without parents and the city with a $2 million liability.

Respondents have been exploiting judicial weapons to punish these publications. They have all but stated this in decisions, actions and defamatory orders throughout the record. With an arsenal at their disposal perceived as sacrosanct by an unsuspecting public, they have been able to shut down reform as their public critics emerge in courts throughout the country. Indeed at least two other pro se parent petitions are pending for conference on the same day as this one. Dr. Mario Jimenez and John Batista joined petitioner at a news conference outside this Court to announce our filings only to incur further retributions.

Truth itself is ever elusive in these courts because offspring are made the prize or “award” in custody wars. In this case, respondents exploited the patent fabrications of Judge King and the brazen perjuries of William Koslosky and Hawse-Koziol. This is well established in prior filings here and the records below. These frauds remain so pervasive and even encouraged for retribution purposes that almost anything can be conjured up to finish off this public critic. But only the public critic was prosecuted with non-criminal and inflated support obligations based on a highly abused “imputed income” practice. This was in lieu of reliable evidence and a proper distribution of the burdens of proof.

Terminology routinely employed in these courts is more relevant to a Syrian war zone than a forum for raising America’s children. This is not merely your petitioner’s position. It is shared by esteemed jurists and experts of the Miller Commission in its 2006 report to New York’s Chief Justice. It is also shared by veteran jurists such as Dennis Duggan in Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS 2d 315 (Fam. 2001):

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.”

The disrespect increasingly directed at parental rights is corroborated by the July 7, 2016 summary order of the Second Circuit. It affirmed Judge Sharpe’s August 10, 2015 decision denying leave to file an appeal pursuant to FRAP Rule 4(a)(5). The frauds and perjuries in family court became so insurmountable that petitioner’s children could have their residence concealed on the family court record for a period of eight months without any accountability.

Such callous disregard was clearly retaliatory. Devastation to petitioner when this scheme was discovered on Fathers’ Day 2015 was so severe that it forced him to escape the region and miss a next day filing deadline regarding Judge Sharpe’s May 22, 2015 decision. Such devastation mattered not at all for “good cause” or “excusable neglect” and was sadistically cast aside without so much as a footnote. Judge Sharpe concluded instead that petitioner “had only himself to blame.” A-I at 68. See also Kirtsaeng v John Wiley 15-375 (June 16, 2016) on Sharpe’s abuse of fee sanctions.