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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.
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 email@example.com.
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.
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.
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!
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
Welcome to an extraordinary opportunity to obtain justice on your case.
Let’s face it, mainstream media is ignoring corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. That’s because bar associations across America are suppressing a trillion dollar industry. Tremendous harm has resulted throughout today’s society. So as parents, we have a duty to publish our own documentaries through secondary and social media. Here at Parenting Rights Institute, we are a part of that movement. You can be too.
Anyone can slap together a home video and throw it up on You-Tube. But without expertise connected to it, why waste time. Such a video could do more harm than good. Even major media can fall short of an ideal product because the sponsors are unfamiliar with these courts. Time and again we have seen shows that promote propaganda of the child “experts” who have never had children as they profit from our misfortunes.
Here we do much more through follow-up and professional reports. Dr. Leon Koziol has been featured on 60 Minutes, front page of the New York Times, CNN and other major media. You can view some of it on our media page at http://www.leonkoziol.com. So we certainly have the expertise to do your documentary right and in a way that meets your needs because he is a parent and legal expert. It’s why he founded the Parenting Rights Institute.
For the past 30 years, Dr. Koziol and his staff have brought major lawsuits against government, corruption cases against judges, malpractice actions against lawyers and precedent seeking cases docketed by the United States Supreme Court in response to an anti-filing order. In May, 2016 he obtained a state Supreme Court order resulting in the removal of a family court gag order. Despite all First Amendment suppression, he perseveres with the citizen challenges for preserving our constitutional rights.
Few others have proven to be so bold and tenacious. If there is a will, there is a way, and together we strive for success. We have sponsored parenting conventions upon reviewing countless cases of government corruption. In 2005, Dr. Koziol secured final judgment in New York Supreme Court invalidating a billion dollar gaming compact of the Oneida Turning Stone Casino, largest in the state. Learn of other achievements on this site.
More recently Dr. Koziol’s skills have been applied exclusively to assist moms and dads victimized in divorce and family courts. He has traveled as far away as Hawaii, San Francisco, Nashville, Washington, Philadelphia, even Paris, France performing investigations. His work was then incorporated into formal reports and documentaries for media, public agencies and watchdog groups. He has also published three books.
We begin our assignments with an inquiry at no charge from a victimized parent, grandparent or family member. An estimate for services and expenses is provided. Next we receive electronic and paper records to be reviewed. As a defamation expert, Leon will not expose himself to libelous reports, yet another benefit for you. We follow with a trip to your community to get a critical assessment of the environment. That trip is concluded with a video interview and options for a more comprehensive documentary if warranted.
You are in command of the options insofar as a given case may prove to have an extraordinary dimension to it. The extent of the assignment can vary as circumstances dictate. It can be a villain’s worse nightmare and your finest hour, maybe even an autobiography for future generations, simply priceless. Below is a raw sample of a book documentary sent to CBS 60 Minutes. One of Leon’s submissions was recently sent to production for a possible show. It would not be his first.
So call our office at (315) 380-3420 for an interview and quote or Leon directly at (315) 796-4000. It could be the call of a lifetime.
We are living in an increasingly litigious society. There are over 300,000 lawyers in New York and California alone with as many attorney candidates as there are those in practice across the United States. That’s a lot of lawyers seeking work. But in divorce and family court the participants are creating their own employment at your expense through needless, lucrative and contrived controversy that has generated no accountability.
Everyone is adversely impacted, from the innocent child to diverse employers who suffer the health and productivity consequences in the workforce. It is truly a silent epidemic suppressed by bar associations everywhere. You need to learn more about it, identify the issues as they affect you and improve the condition of your home, family, workplace and community. You need to sponsor Dr. Leon Koziol, Director of Parenting Rights Institute, for a speaking engagement or consultant for your organization or personnel department.
Here you get the real deal. They have done everything they could to censor this vital reform message and yet Dr. Koziol has persevered. Together with fellow consultants and staff we offer non-lawyer services to a variety of persons and entities. Church groups can gain immeasurable insights. Our professional background is detailed elsewhere on this site together with our services that include investigation and research of court corruption.
Dr. Koziol brings together a diverse and accomplished background for your benefit. As a published author, he has provided valuable writing and editing services for those who wish to share their ordeals with the world. A Court Program was developed over a period of years to assist others contemplating or already engaged in litigation. It is designed to avoid costly disputes and is available on this site as well.
Mediation services and litigation alternatives are highly recommended. If we cannot do it we will recommend a party near you. Such unique assistance is provided to victims of the court process because lawyers are not inclined to do so out of a fear of professional retribution. Such fears are understandable based on Dr. Koziol’s experiences after 23 unblemished years of practice in federal and state courts.
Therefore, he and his associates are able to develop strategies to suit victims from around the country. Tell us your issues and objectives, and we can provide a course of action based on many years of professional writing, drafting, lobbying, trial and appellate court experience. Often times, parents who choose our services include their lawyers in our strategy sessions.
We have helped organize rallies, conferences and parenting conventions while joining those who seek reform through network publicity and website development. Each case calls for a different approach using a wide range of proven or creative means. Call our office for a free consultation at (315) 380-3420 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.
Yes you read that headline correctly. It happened in the Syracuse Onondaga County Courthouse on September 1, 2016. The proceeding was focused on a sworn document filed by a city marshal stating that a family court petition was duly served upon Leon Koziol. Under normal circumstances its receipt in the mail would have been accepted but the perjuries in these courts have become so rampant that an example had to be made.
Leon presented his side of the case at a traverse hearing (challenge to jurisdiction). One witness was Alan Allen, a former Chicago area police officer and retired military. He operates a successful Karaoke business, Sound Investment, and he had been conversing with Leon at the time of alleged service at a popular venue known as The Killabrew. No service of papers was observed. There was also a security camera and other evidence but by the time the service affidavit was filed and provided, they were no longer available.
After Leon rested his case, Syracuse divorce lawyer Jeffrey DeRoberts put his only witness on the stand, a city marshal, who stated he had made service contrary to other witnesses. The lawyer then put his filed affidavit into evidence. On cross examination, that affidavit was obtained from the judge and put again before the witness. Leon asked him to read a sworn statement on his service which he admitted was never made. Then the marshal was asked if he lied under oath, and he admitted that he had, a rare event in any courtroom.
But the story gets worse. Leon and Mr. Allen had to make a 120 mile round trip and the better part of a day from their income demands to attend a hearing which should never have occurred. Kelly Hawse-Koziol, who hired this city marshal and lawyer, never even appeared for her own petition and hearing. Had Leon done this, a warrant would have issued and his counter-petitions dismissed. When the one-sided treatment was raised, the hearing officer, Karen Brandt, stated that Leon could have subpoenaed the petitioner.
That explanation conflicted with the record. A teleconference was denied at an earlier appearance on July 12, 2016. Ms. Brandt emphasized that personal observation of witness demeanor enables her to test credibility, something Leon conceded as a trial attorney for over 23 years. But there were no witness notice requirements here and the ex-spouse, a routine liar in court, would have had conversations with the marshal she hired. That made her a material witness. She could be called to the stand as a party in the courtroom.
But maybe a better explanation existed in the fact that Attorney DeRoberts made a 120 mile round trip to the wrong court. Oneida County Family Court is where both parents reside and the case is venued but all judges there have been disqualified. More disturbing, if not embarrassing, this attorney’s office was located across the street from the correct courthouse. Leon and Mr. Allen had to wait an extra one hour for DeRoberts to return home.
We do not know yet whether Kelly Hawse-Koziol also went to the wrong court, but you have to believe she would be outraged if her lawyer was to blame. Ms. Brandt accepted the blame, she has judicial immunity, and that may excuse the lawyer from ethics or malpractice liability, but any such record is not in Leon’s possession. We only know that the case itself was poorly presented (i.e. the marshal was not asked key questions regarding description, noise and crowd interference to minimize Leon’s evidence while bolstering his own).
The bottom line: instead of money going to Leon’s children, it is going to process servers and lawyers, at least five already representing Hawse-Koziol. The never-served petition has boldface print on its face page which warns of arrest, contempt and confinement for any non-appearance. Thank goodness Leon did not get shot dead in the back, although Hawse-Koziol, DeRoberts and the city marshal may feel otherwise. Unlike the pleasantries of the first appearance, DeRoberts was visibly angry en route to his office across the street.
If you would like Leon to write and publish a book or documentary video of your own court ordeal, contact him at (315) 796-4000. Kindly share this post and donate to our cause here at Parenting Rights Institute and Leon Koziol.com.
Divorce and family court victims as far away as Florida and California are already committed to attend public hearing on gag order, equal rights and parental alienation.
After ten years of litigating for parental justice as high as the United States Supreme Court, Dr. Leon Koziol may finally get his day in court on behalf of divorce and family court victims everywhere. A New York Supreme Court Justice has just signed an order to hear arguments in a mandamus proceeding on June 10 at 10:30 a.m. at the Oneida County Courthouse in Utica. Mandamus is considered extraordinary, in this case directed at a family court judge named Daniel King in Lowville, New York, and it is open to the public.
In the past, Leon was bombarded with technical dismissals, jurisdictional chaos and judge misconduct designed to suppress his overdue reform efforts in our third branch of government. Unscrupulous lawyers across America have turned our children into a lucrative trillion dollar industry eating alive our life’s earnings, retirement savings, health and college funds. And the corruption is escalating for reasons found in Leon’s ordeal described with horrific detail at Leon Koziol.com.
After 23 unblemished years practicing law in federal and state courts, he was suspended, threatened with contempt, deprived of a livelihood, denied access to (important people in his life) and now they are seizing his home. We can’t disclose who those important people are because this site is still subject to a gag order which Leon seeks to remove on June 10th so that fraud, perjury and judge misconduct can be conveyed to you when government commissions fail us.
The timing before Fathers Day and location of these arguments are also extraordinary. An opportunity like this may not occur for another ten years. Leon has sacrificed too much for this cause and is destined to lose this case because the establishment and gold mine he is seeking to reform are too powerful. But if we can finally rally together at the Oneida County Courthouse in a judicial district which includes the Fort Drum Army Base and former Griffiss Air Force Base, a profound message can be sent to courts all across America.
Leon is highly focused on protecting military, minorities and law enforcement, or those mostly harmed by the antiquated custody system. Instead of promoting shared parenting, our federal government today is obsessed with transgender bathrooms in North Carolina with Attorney General Loretta Lynch accusing us of being racists if we don’t support her. What??? Leon was a highly accomplished civil rights attorney and lawyer for a past president of the National Organization for Women. Racism and religious convictions are not the same. And while everyone else is demanding equal rights, fathers are still discriminated through an abuse of Title IV-D federal funding.
This courthouse in the center of New York state is three hours from New York metropolitan area and Buffalo, two hours from the Canadian and Pennsylvania borders. Already supporters are committed to attend from as far away as Florida and California. Hotel Utica and the Radisson downtown are less than a mile from Thruway Exit 31 (Interstate 90). These were the sites of various civil rights forums sponsored by Leon that were targeted by ethics lawyers engaged in the witch hunt against Leon. They were ultimately fired by a licensing court for falsifying their time sheets. No public charges were ever brought against them.
You may have heard about Arkansas Judge Joe Boeckmann charged this week with sexual predator crimes over a thirty year period through judicial favors. In the mandamus lawsuit and at Leon Koziol.com, you will read about Leon’s custody judge, Brian Hedges, removed from the bench for admitting to sexual misconduct on his five year old handicapped niece, family judges who fabricated college degrees to elevate Leon’s support obligations, and his consequential testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption which led to more severe retributions. You will read about judges sent to prison in Brooklyn and Albany for soliciting custody and divorce bribes, and of course the “Kids-for-Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania.
It’s out of control people. Stop keyboarding in the comfort of your homes to one another and people who don’t care. “Raising awareness” this way is misguided and creates false hope. It’s time to make a stand against parent waterboarding by a corrupted system. Spread the word every way you can. After the June 10 arguments, Leon will file a petition for writ at the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. concerning a similar mandamus action dismissed by a federal appeals court in Manhattan. An opening excerpt is provided below. For more information and desperately needed donations, contact our office, Parenting Rights Institute, at (315) 796-4000 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.
U.S. SUPREME COURT WRIT (OPENING):
While our federal government asserts itself around the globe to advance human rights, its military is returning to divorce and family courts which exploit children for profit. Public safety officers, such as our responders on 9-11, are being hauled into the same courts and subjected to discrimination on account of their gender or line of duty. Many are alienated from their children, committed to debtor prisons or oppressed as inferior parents to feed a trillion dollar industry.
It is a highly protected industry orchestrated under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 USC section 651 et. seq. States are rewarded by the number and size of “child support” orders manufactured by their courts. Superior and inferior custody classifications are essential to these money transfers and mandated by federal statute even when parents with near equal incomes and childrearing periods set up contrary agreements, see i.e. Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998).
Accordingly support judges have been rendered inherently biased against all those classified under the inferior “non-custodial” label with or without justification. Such classifications are arbitrary, stigmatizing and institutional in countless cases, requiring otherwise cooperative parents to compete over their children. Their infringement of a fundamental right to parent one’s offspring is easily replaced by childrearing plans and orders which retain more family oriented labels such as mother, father and parent, see i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at fn. 1(veteran family judge declaring “custody” and “visitation” to be offensive terms in an antiquated system which brings out the worst in parents when children need their best).
However such less intrusive custody substitutes are foreclosed by the blanket classifications and marginalized by overburdened courts committed to the funding scheme. Over time, such injustices have reached constitutional dimension while ever elusive, utopian and overbroad child rearing standards displace parental discretion without compelling state interest contrary to a right declared by the Supreme Court to be the “oldest liberty interest” protected by our Constitution, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000)(prolonged custody case can itself violate parental rights), Parham v JR, 442 US 548 (1979)(fit parents presumed to act in their children’s best interests).
A full range of constitutional rights is easily trampled under principles of equity, or the power seized by family judges to “father” our children, see often cited Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925)(“paternal jurisdiction” derived from feudal common law). In plain terms, the Constitution is being ignored because the custody scheme is lucrative for those who depend upon family controversy for their livelihood. It is being facilitated by judges charged with the highest duty of safeguarding such rights, Federalist Paper No. 78; Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).
Support inequities triggered by this scheme (child support standards act) are typically countered with custody tactics to result in untold harm to our children, i.e. Pearce v Longo, 766 F.Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011)($2 million city liability for police investigator committing murder-suicide with ex-spouse after exiting support court leaving children without parents). In his highly researched study, Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis, Professor Stephen Baskerville places the blame on government: “What many are led to believe is a social problem may in reality be an exercise of power by the state,” Independence Review, vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, at pp 485-486.
Unsuspecting litigants are also exploited by an expanding bureaucracy under Title IV-D to finance welfare costs created by unrelated and irresponsible parents. The ones properly devoted to their children therefore shoulder an unjust burden merely because they reside separately from their partners. These support judges engage in highly abused fictions such as “imputed income” to raise obligations beyond realistic capacities. There is no express provision for shared parenting under the federal entitlement statute, and the regulatory scheme has replaced the child’s needs with “way of life” standards to elevate support even further. It has removed critical discretion from proper decision makers with outcomes that shock the conscience, see fn 3 and 4.
The “band plays on” in our nation’s family courts because civil rights attorneys and parental advocates such as petitioner are subjugated, vilified and punished for their exercise of reform efforts otherwise protected under the American Constitution. Meanwhile, gay, lesbian and trans-gender parents, soon to be victimized by this same lucrative system, have achieved far greater strides in equality with repeat court actions than fathers have over a century of discrimination.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition directed to the federal court of the Northern District of New York. It seeks relief which is central to any self-governing society, namely, the right to seek reforms to this over regulated and oppressive system of child control. In that vein, it matters not whether the decision makers here agree with the foregoing legal posture concerning a federal statute. It matters only that the petitioner is accorded his inalienable human right to express public views and raise his offspring free of the severe retributions he sustained for criticizing our third branch of government, see i.e Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964).
 Petitioner’s revenue-bias conclusion was deemed frivolous by the lower court. However it is supported by our nation’s top civil rights experts at the Justice Department. They issued a report on March 4, 2015 after the Ferguson, Missouri race riots concluding that the region’s municipal courts were committing civil rights violations through concocted arrests and excessive fines as part of a revenue generating scheme. There is nothing to distinguish that conclusion from petitioner’s long asserted claims here regarding family courts which incite needless controversy to exact excessive support orders and attorneys fees. Unequal custody classifications are the workhorse behind all this with rampant prejudice against male parents which can no longer be denied or tolerated. The Census Bureau and private entities continue to report that nearly 85% of all support obligors are men. In his court filings, petitioner has described this as “the last bastion of institutionalized discrimination remaining un-checked in America today.”
 As this case verifies, money interests have displaced the “best interests of the child” in family court. Financial disclosures are mandatory for gauging child support but exploited by unscrupulous lawyers to concoct needless and even bizarre issues for fee maximization. When resources are exhausted from both parents, they orchestrate cause for settlement or client abandonment. Ethics violations are so numerous and even accepted as part of a litigious child control process that attorney disciplinary agents cannot logistically police all the abuses. Worse yet, these agents are able to abuse their entrusted positions to suppress accountability. This case features a chief ethics attorney and two lawyer subordinates who engaged in the witch hunt against the petitioner-attorney (and father) for his public disclosure of vast misconduct. They were terminated from their court-appointed positions as standard bearers of lawyer ethics after an Inspector General discovered their falsified time sheets. No public charges, ethical or criminal, were ever instituted, see Robert Gavin, Oversight lawyers quit amid inquiry, (Albany) Times Union, July 10, 2013.
 The injustices have reached epidemic proportions. Only one month after the Ferguson report, a fit and unarmed father named Walter Scott was shot dead in the back while fleeing a child support warrant during a traffic stop in South Carolina. He had been imprisoned a number of times due to a growing support debt based on imputed income capacities. Under prevailing law, an imprisoned parent for any reason continues to face support obligations at pre-commitment levels. Upon release, the debtor is typically overwhelmed and unemployable. He is nevertheless subjected to a rule that one should not profit from the mis-deeds which caused the incarceration even with full rehabilitation. Only because of the “mis-deeds” of this traffic cop, quickly charged with murder, was it publicly revealed that one out of every eight persons imprisoned in South Carolina resulted from support debts. Nearly all are male parents, and a review of warrants lists across New York reveals a similar pattern. South Carolina boasts one of the strictest support enforcement laws with jail terms of up to one year, yet it reports one of the worst collection rates under the federal (performance) statute, partial source: Robles and Dewan, Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat, New York Times (front page), 4/19/15. Debtor prisons have been invalidated since the mid 19th century but re-introduced through willful support violations. As the case before this court demonstrates, such a contempt avenue is an illusion behind a de facto debtors’ prison due to biased judges having a financial stake in the outcomes of support litigation. Such jurists bring court revenues and personal advancement through support performance measures and payments derived from sources other than the debtor parent, see i.e. Bast, supra. As relevant here, the petitioner-father issued public statements at the Walter Scott funeral before national media, civil rights groups and reporters of the New York Times as part of his ongoing reform efforts. He suffered further retributions in the lower court, state family courts and attorney disciplinary tribunals by actions and decisions beginning only weeks later.