Let’s Make History: Parents Joining to File Writ in Supreme Court

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Are you concerned about the state of parent-child relations in our divorce and family courts? Have you gone there trusting that justice will be served only to learn all too late that orchestrated controversy led you to the brink of bankruptcy? Are you aware that your constitutionally protected parental rights are being eroded with an ultimate goal of having the state assume control of our families?

Parents are 150 million strong in this country, yet we have little voice in our government. Not a mention was made of our struggles in either political convention or in any presidential debate. Every aspect of our private lives has been infringed through state power exceeding that of the NSA, IRS or FBI. Our children have lost college funds and their health to lawyers and court appointed psychologists, see i.e. Universal Health v United States, No. 15-7 (6/16/16)(teen girl referred for mental treatment suffered a stoke leading to her death due to incompetent drug administration).

Clearly an epidemic is underway warranting the attention of our high court. There are dedicated advocates doing our best to reverse this trend. However it is a trillion dollar industry protected by special interests. Many parents, fed up with this system of mandatory custody and Title IV-D incentives have turned to our federal courts for relief. But in virtually all courts across the country our cases have been dismissed. The Supreme Court rejected at least three of them at a single conference on September 26, 2016. Over 750 petitions were supposedly reviewed at that conference.

Of the 10,000 petitions filed each year, 9,900 are rejected. While abortion, gun rights and capital crimes are regularly heard, not one shared parenting case has ever been heard. The last time a related issue was taken up, it was to explain how a father could be properly jailed for child support without an attorney, Turner v Rogers, 564 US ___ (2011). The last time custody was addressed, it was in Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000), but that case focused on grandparent rights.

In Michael H. v Gerald D., 491 US 10 (1989), the Court turned down a biological father’s rights despite good child relationships based on a statute which presumed the legal father to be the husband when a child is born during an adulterous marriage. In Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982), the Court ruled unconstitutional a family court process, but that was in the context of terminating parental rights. In Caban v Mohammed, 441 US 380 (1979), the Court ruled that a father had equal rights with a mother to contest adoption. That pretty much sums up the importance of our nation’s moms and dads in the eyes of the Supreme Court in modern times.

As a result I have pressed on with reform efforts despite all the sacrifices and set-backs. Within 24 hours of my latest denial on Monday, I filed for another personal writ before the Supreme Court, raising new issues concerning its accessibility for parents across America. To that end I contacted a Supreme Court clerk in August to confirm that an extraordinary writ could be sought under Rule 20 should my petition be denied. That option is still available but I will not undertake the complexities of filing unless I can get thousands to join. Joinder is not allowed after a petition is filed although supporting briefs can be offered.

Of course we can expect detractors and pontificators. But until the retributions for my reform efforts, I maintained a successful and unblemished constitutional rights practice for more than 23 years. My achievements on 60 Minutes and New York Times can be found at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. Put simply, history can be made with your participation. I will be providing regular updates on this site: http://www.leonkoziol.com. I can be contacted at the PRI offices at (315) 380-3420 or e-mailed at leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com. All joiners must provide an electronic or regular address with phone number for confirmation purposes.

I am asking fellow victims, current and potential family court litigants and concerned citizens to set up and circulate an on-line petition under the following issues which can be modified or supplemented:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

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

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

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

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

By Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

For a complete viewing (Click Here)

REASONS  FOR  SUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

After Brexit, “We the Parents” Must Take Back Our Children, September 17th at Lincoln Memorial

img_0298
A Petition for Writ was docketed by the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016 seeking parental rights and reform to oppressive practices in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Four professionals united on the courthouse steps to promote it. Now they need you to join.

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

“We the Parents” have had enough. For decades now our government has been invading our private lives while allowing greedy lawyers to profit off our misfortunes in divorce and family courts. They get moms and dads fighting on false promises only to blame us for the conflict and crises they cause in the end.

I’ve seen the corruption and carnage first hand. I took a conscientious stand against my profession after 23 unblemished years as a trial attorney because of needless conflict and irreparable harm to our children. A real lawyer gladiates among businesses, criminals and government. A sleeze ball exploits vulnerable parents, families and innocent children.

It’s turned into a trillion dollar industry, an epidemic at the root cause of immorality, drug abuse, suicides and lack of respect for authority nationwide. In that light, when you’re ill, you see a doctor, if you’re in trouble you see a lawyer, if your teeth are rotting you see a dentist, and if your project collapses you see an engineer. Well all four converged on the Supreme Court steps on June 17, 2016 to help cure this epidemic. They need you now.

They are Dr. Mario Jimenez, M.D. from Florida, Dr. Leon Koziol, J.D. from New York, Dr. Daniel Pestana, DDS from California and John Bautista, BSME, MBA from Virginia. An anti-corruption rally has been set for September 17, 2016 (Constitution Day) in our nation’s capital at Lincoln Memorial. Already our social media promotions are being suppressed. Apathetic victims are filling with excuses on the false notion that someone else will protest for them. But these four courageously took a professional risk on your behalf.

Hear what they had to say. Then construct your signs, contact family and friends, reach out to those desperate for hope and make arrangements to be in Washington. Otherwise the lawyers, judges and therapists will be happily waiting to act in your children’s so-called “best interests” for a big fee. Your state is taking over your parental authority with each passing year. It gives pause to reflect on what the dictator of all time had to say about this:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long   as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, pg. 403

Dr.Mario Jimenez, M.D. explains the epidemic upon families, veterans and children.

Dr. Daniel Pastena, DDS relates family court corruption and politics in California.

Engineer John Bautista graphically depicts the pain and anguish of parental alienation.

Dr. Leon Koziol, J.D. announces his precedent filing for parents in the Supreme Court.

For more information about this history making rally, contact us at Parenting Rights Institute at (315) 380-3420 or leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com.

 PLEASE  SHARE  THIS  POST  AND GET MOTIVATED !

 

 

Military and Law Enforcement Return to Oppressive Domestic Courts: Time For Action

untitled
Fathers’ Rights are everyone’s concern, a family concern if you care about a son, brother, lover or a dad.

Recently we’ve posted a feature regarding the court ratified censorship of civil rights advocate, Dr. Leon Koziol, after exposing vast corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. As part of a broader network of parental advocates seeking overdue reforms and shared parenting, we need your personal and financial support to continue. Please share this post and promote our cause. Leon can be reached directly at (315) 796-4000.

Here is an excerpt from a brief that Leon filed recently with a federal appeals court in Manhattan. It helps explain why our children are being alienated and influenced to respect lawyers, strangers, social workers,even street thugs more than their own moms and dads, why violent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancies and productivity declines can be traced to the seizures of traditional parental authority in these courts:

“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.”

And here is a re-production of our feature post this past week in case you missed it.

index

Okay so we’re not Breitbart or Infowars, we’re just an expanding blog site known as Leon Koziol.com dedicated to parental rights. That puts us with mainstream social media. As Chief Justice John Roberts declared in Snyder v Phelps, speech and press must be “robust” in any self-governing nation.

But we weren’t picketing against gay military as they were in that case. We were promoting all military who return from foreign wars only to experience more oppression in divorce and family courts. That made our third branch of government the subject of our public criticisms.

It’s an epidemic captured by Second Class Citizen.Org in Purple Heart’s Final Beat. We’re part of a loose network of advocates seeking vital reforms. That makes all of us bloggers important to our nation’s politics because the divorce epidemic has received sparse coverage by other media.

Today more than ever, we are victims of a powerful bureaucracy seeking to control every facet of our liberties. Families are the last bastion. Accordingly the people rely on secondary media for information and protection. It may be our final frontier before the machines take over.

When major media is censored, they resort to our courts for protection as they should. These forums were created by the people to be the primary guardians of our constitutional rights. But what if the courts are the ones doing the censoring? Where do those victims go for protection?

Welcome to Leon Koziol.com, the most court-censored blog site in America. It started innocently enough, a loving dad and attorney seeking to spend more time with his daughters. He went against his profession for turning our children into a trillion dollar industry.

And boy did they retaliate. This site was offered to fight back, and since its inception, we’ve exposed court corruption like toxic spills from a chemical plant. With each post, public forum or court filing, judges and spineless lawyers acted to extinguish our protected activity.

The Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are some of the major media seeking relief in our courts whenever they are censored. Their publishers, editors and reporters are never seized of their children, livelihoods and homes as a punishment.

Secondary media are not so fortunate. They lack real influence. But what we do have is an army of free service providers so the big guys can have something worth reporting. Here, because the courts were targeted, we became the most censored news site in America. Now for some proof:

On November 25, 2015, a state court gag order was issued against this site. It was so expansive that its details here could implicate a contempt citation and imprisonment;

In June, 2015, a disciplinary hearing was opened to the public for the first time on Leon’s request to address a law license suspension caused by an insider fired from his office in 2009. That insider was not convicted for her crimes until 2016 after damage was done. Hence it could not be used sooner to defend against a 2010 suspension;https://leonkozioljd.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/finally-veronica-donahue-to-be-sentenced-for-felony-forgeries-join-us-for-justice/

The ethics lawyers in the witch hunt against Leon were fired for falsifying their time sheets by the same court which suspended Leon. That fact was used to resist charges of inadequate insider supervision which Leon then applied to the judges before him regarding their own ethics staff. No public charges were ever brought against them;

The 2015 hearing was video recorded by Divorce Corp because of a You-Tube interview with Leon which it publicized in June, 2015 on the subject of child support corruption. This publication caused Leon to be censored at a family law reform convention at our nation’s capital in November, 2014 sponsored by the same entity;

On April 8, 2014, the state’s Committee on Professional Standards issued a report opposing reinstatement of Leon’s law license. It cited and attached seven blog posts out of more than 200 as offensive in content with no ethics charges ever brought;

One of the cited blog posts consisted of Leon’s 2013 testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption regarding fabricated college degrees found by judges. It cannot be detailed here due to the gag order. Another post was merely a dedication to Leon’s recently departed mother, adding a sadistic flavor to it all;

• On May 22, 2013 at a closed hearing, ethics lawyers for the Committee on Professional Standards declared to a court panel that they would oppose reinstatement of Leon’s law license as long as he continued his public criticisms of judges. None was specified or prosecuted while “anonymous” complaints on other subjects were;

The criticisms included a civil rights forum sponsored by Leon on January 19, 2010 featuring parent testimony for a report to the Justice Department. It was monitored by divorce lawyers. The later fired ethics lawyers asked Leon to explain why he did not introduce himself as a “suspended lawyer” prior to his first ever suspension.

• On January 9, 2008, Leon argued his first appeal challenging a lucrative system of custody classifications which forced parents to fight over their offspring. It was before a court which also appointed ethics committees. One member was his ex-spouse’s divorce lawyer. On the same day, an ethics prosecution was opened for the very first time against Leon after more than two decades of unblemished practice;

• On October 8, 2008, a divorce judge ruled that Leon’s support obligations under that challenged custody law were proper under Title IV-D (Child Support Standards Act). That meant that the judges and lawyers who disrupted the parents’ 2006 agreements did so for no good reason other than lucrative parental conflict. A violation was nonetheless filed to cause another basis for suspending Leon’s law license. Those details are also omitted here due to the gag order.

This is only a small sampling of Leon’s ordeal and punishments for protecting fellow parents (and others who cannot be mentioned here due to the gag order). None of it has ever been disproved or even denied, and this is not the first time Leon sacrificed himself for the people and their rights under the First Amendment.

As chief (corporation) counsel for an upstate New York city, he gave up his post and successfully sued a mayor in federal court for a gag order on public employees. You can look it up at Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp.2d 170 (NDNY 2000)(supported by federal appeals court in Manhattan). On October 9, 2015, the same federal court issued an anti-filing order against Leon.

We continue to fight this battle on principle and for those who cannot be mentioned here. Leon is also fighting for parents, families and children everywhere. But he has been deprived his livelihood for more than six years while a local lawyer convicted of tax fraud on $2 million in client income was never denied his law license even while serving time in prison. We therefore ask you to support us with a donation and anything else you can do.

 

Courts Extinguishing Parental Rights Through Censorship

images

Okay so we’re not Breitbart or Infowars, we’re just an expanding blog site known as Leon Koziol.com dedicated to parental rights. That puts us with mainstream social media. As Chief Justice John Roberts declared in Snyder v Phelps, speech and press must be “robust” in any self-governing nation.

But we weren’t picketing against gay military as they were in that case. We were promoting all military who return from foreign wars only to experience more oppression in divorce and family courts. That made our third branch of government the subject of our public criticisms.

It’s an epidemic captured by Second Class Citizen.Org in Purple Heart’s Final Beat. We’re part of a loose network of advocates seeking vital reforms. That makes all of us bloggers important to our nation’s politics because the divorce epidemic has received sparse coverage by other media.

Today more than ever, we are victims of a powerful bureaucracy seeking to control every facet of our liberties. Families are the last bastion. Accordingly the people rely on secondary media for information and protection. It may be our final frontier before the machines take over.

When major media is censored, they resort to our courts for protection as they should. These forums were created by the people to be the primary guardians of our constitutional rights. But what if the courts are the ones doing the censoring? Where do those victims go for protection?

Welcome to Leon Koziol.com, the most court-censored blog site in America. It started innocently enough, a loving dad and attorney seeking to spend more time with his daughters. He went against his profession for turning our children into a trillion dollar industry.

And boy did they retaliate. This site was offered to fight back, and since its inception, we’ve exposed court corruption like toxic spills from a chemical plant. With each post, public forum or court filing, judges and spineless lawyers acted to extinguish our protected activity.

The Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are some of the major media seeking relief in our courts whenever they are censored. Their publishers, editors and reporters are never seized of their children, livelihoods and homes as a punishment.

Secondary media are not so fortunate. They lack real influence. But what we do have is an army of free service providers so the big guys can have something worth reporting. Here, because the courts were targeted, we became the most censored news site in America. Now for some proof:

On November 25, 2015, a state court gag order was issued against this site. It was so expansive that its details here could implicate a contempt citation and imprisonment;

In June, 2015, a disciplinary hearing was opened to the public for the first time on Leon’s request to address a law license suspension caused by an insider fired from his office in 2009. That insider was not convicted for her crimes until 2016 after damage was done. Hence it could not be used sooner to defend against a 2010 suspension;https://leonkozioljd.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/finally-veronica-donahue-to-be-sentenced-for-felony-forgeries-join-us-for-justice/

The ethics lawyers in the witch hunt against Leon were fired for falsifying their time sheets by the same court which suspended Leon. That fact was used to resist charges of inadequate insider supervision which Leon then applied to the judges before him regarding their own ethics staff. No public charges were ever brought against them;

The 2015 hearing was video recorded by Divorce Corp because of a You-Tube interview with Leon which it publicized in June, 2015 on the subject of child support corruption. This publication caused Leon to be censored at a family law reform convention at our nation’s capital in November, 2014 sponsored by the same entity;

On April 8, 2014, the state’s Committee on Professional Standards issued a report opposing reinstatement of Leon’s law license. It cited and attached seven blog posts out of more than 200 as offensive in content with no ethics charges ever brought;

One of the cited blog posts consisted of Leon’s 2013 testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption regarding fabricated college degrees found by judges. It cannot be detailed here due to the gag order. Another post was merely a dedication to Leon’s recently departed mother, adding a sadistic flavor to it all;

• On May 22, 2013 at a closed hearing, ethics lawyers for the Committee on Professional Standards declared to a court panel that they would oppose reinstatement of Leon’s law license as long as he continued his public criticisms of judges. None was specified or prosecuted while “anonymous” complaints on other subjects were;

The criticisms included a civil rights forum sponsored by Leon on January 19, 2010 featuring parent testimony for a report to the Justice Department. It was monitored by divorce lawyers. The later fired ethics lawyers asked Leon to explain why he did not introduce himself as a “suspended lawyer” prior to his first ever suspension.

• On January 9, 2008, Leon argued his first appeal challenging a lucrative system of custody classifications which forced parents to fight over their offspring. It was before a court which also appointed ethics committees. One member was his ex-spouse’s divorce lawyer. On the same day, an ethics prosecution was opened for the very first time against Leon after more than two decades of unblemished practice;

• On October 8, 2008, a divorce judge ruled that Leon’s support obligations under that challenged custody law were proper under Title IV-D (Child Support Standards Act). That meant that the judges and lawyers who disrupted the parents’ 2006 agreements did so for no good reason other than lucrative parental conflict. A violation was nonetheless filed to cause another basis for suspending Leon’s law license. Those details are also omitted here due to the gag order.

This is only a small sampling of Leon’s ordeal and punishments for protecting fellow parents (and others who cannot be mentioned here due to the gag order). None of it has ever been disproved or even denied, and this is not the first time Leon sacrificed himself for the people and their rights under the First Amendment.

As chief (corporation) counsel for an upstate New York city, he gave up his post and successfully sued a mayor in federal court for a gag order on public employees. You can look it up at Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp.2d 170 (NDNY 2000)(supported by federal appeals court in Manhattan). On October 9, 2015, the same federal court issued an anti-filing order against Leon.

We continue to fight this battle on principle and for those who cannot be mentioned here. Leon is also fighting for parents, families and children everywhere. But he has been deprived his livelihood for more than six years while a local lawyer convicted of tax fraud on $2 million in client income was never denied his law license even while serving time in prison. We therefore ask you to support us with a donation and anything else you can do.

 

Should the people revive Moreland Commission on Public Corruption?

cuomo-moreland-commission

By  Dr. Leon R. Koziol

While criminal prosecutions continue against leaders of New York’s Legislature as a direct consequence of the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, serious questions linger. For example, what came of all the shocking testimony and petitions lodged by the general public, limited as it was, on Constitution Day, 2013 at Pace University? What about the hundreds of speakers excluded from that hearing who were left outside protesting as a result? Why was the Commission prematurely disbanded, why were so many citizens misled into believing they could be heard and answered, and how much corruption remains rampant here in New York State due to the utterly impotent nature of that Commission?

It certainly cost our taxpayers substantial money to create this “dream team” of prosecutors and experts to root out corruption in state government. And while we certainly commend U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for his follow-up investigations and prosecutions, a review of the public testimony raises far more concerns than the ones supporting a prosecution of two legislative leaders. That testimony is found on our site at Leon Koziol.com. As one of the few who were allowed to participate from the general public, I raised serious issues concerning documented retaliation for my public criticisms on that site and my complaints of judicial misconduct in diverse filings. The retaliation has only escalated dramatically since that hearing.

Testimony of Leon Koziol, J.D., before the New York Moreland Commission on Public Corruption at Pace University on September 17, 2013. Leon’s eye-opening presentation can be viewed at approximately the 2 hours, 31 minutes and 45 seconds mark:

Therefore I am recommending the creation of a citizens Commission on Public Corruption headed by a “dream team” of good government advocates who can complete the work of the governor’s quickly dissolved “ad hoc” entity. Here are a number of observations from the Moreland proceedings which warrants such a public commission:

1)  Ellen Oxman, of Women for Justice in New York Courts, provided compelling testimony of her abuse at the hands of a wealthy opponent with connections to the judges in her divorce and family proceedings. Where did her petition go, where is she today, and what came of the brazen level of injustice she carefully documented before the Moreland Commission?

2)  Carl Lanzisera of Americans for Legal Reform and a co-member gave startling revelations regarding a 20 year history of court corruption including the similar impotent conclusion of the 2009 Senate hearings on judicial reform. The chair of that Senate Committee, John Sampson, was later indicted for official misconduct while in office. Among the recommendations made by this organization was the mandatory psychological testing of judges who take our children from us to bring them on par with other government officials.

3)  Michael Kraveski, a regular citizen, provided a heart wrenching seven year ordeal in Kings County Family Court which has become all too commonplace in America today, one which led to an unarmed father shot to death in the back while fleeing a support warrant at a traffic stop in South Carolina less than two years later. He described himself as a victim of a “money extortion scheme” through impossible obligations, fraudulent tactical petitions and a “Star Chamber” court. He suffered a stroke in the end after losing his job and life savings.

4)  Rich Velotti, an attorney for Act Now New York made an ominous prediction of sorts when he described how Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, Senate Leader Dean Skelos and former leader Joe Bruno conspired to influence and limit the work of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, an entity comprised of members selected by them and the governor to investigate misconduct in Albany. All three were prosecuted criminally by federal authorities, none by the state. Attorney Velotti labeled the JCPE “a joke” with a strong recommendation that the Moreland Commission, with its independent investigatory powers, be made permanent.

5)  Marie Tooker, a single mother of three, described a criminal enterprise in our courts which left her homeless with $12   in her bank account.

6)  A Fordham law professor commended the Commission as an example of good government, never imagining that it would be dissolved in six months for doing the very work it was charged to perform. She emphasized the need for permanent “structural” changes to replace the “prophylactic” approach to public corruption which remains in place.

7)  Elena Sassower was so emotional over the lack of judicial accountability over many years that she refused to yield to her allotted time as a speaker, even under threats of removal.

8)  Katherine Wilson, a victim of divorce court, began her testimony with a request that certain Commission members cease their texting during the general public segment of the hearing. She also asked that one or more members who had left for the lobby during that segment return to their seats so that she could have the benefit of a full Commission. Needless to say, she elicited a resounding applause for her bold introductions after emphasizing her experience with “guns in her face” while living in Ireland. It left her without any fear of this Commission. When asked to conclude her remarks, she defended her few minutes of space with the one hour spent by the Commission chair lauding the credentials of members which were already found in the table brochures. She cited shocking examples of domestic violence victims who preferred to return to their abusive home environments than face the “battering” they sustained in New York’s matrimonial courts. You simply have to listen to her full presentation as I cannot do it justice here.

9)  Marguerita Walter gave yet another heart wrenching ordeal at the hands of a corrupt divorce system with a “de facto termination of (her) parental rights,” some $150,000 spent on “supervised visits” and the ultimate permanent alienation of her children. She described 12 years of cruel and retaliatory acts for her exercise of fundamental rights after giving birth to children abandoned at an early age by their father. She was a Cuban refugee as a child herself fleeing from a corrupt communist regime headed by dictator Fidel Castro only to find far worse oppression here.

10)  Not to be out done, Mr. Gallison, a reporter for secondary news sources, Truth-out and Black Star News, provided the Commission and its audience with a shocking rendition of corruption involving the selection of Jonathan Lippman to the highest judicial post of Chief Justice at New York’s Court of Appeals. He gave testimony before the 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, provided complaints before the state Judicial Conduct Commission and furnished reports in response to Preet Bharara’s request for input following the disbanding of the Moreland Commission, all of which went un-answered.

What happened to these speakers and their presentations? Where are they today? More to the point, what can we, the people, do to get the answers? What can we do to obtain follow-up on all the corruption which could have been heard from all those good citizens left out in the audience or in the streets? Why is all this being swept under the carpet? If we do nothing, we guarantee more of the same or worse corruption in years to come, not a very good legacy for all the children and future generations harmed by the same corruption. It’s a trillion dollar “cottage industry” as one speaker plainly put it, and it shows no sign of correction.

Consequently I am asking our followers and advocates of good government everywhere to join my petition for a People’s (Moreland) Commission on Public Corruption. Kindly spread the word, make it viral as you are so good at doing, send me your credentials, suggestions and support, and let’s give this government something it never expected. We can conduct a preliminary conference call when enough interest is offered, followed by a meeting at Pace University, State Plaza in Albany or any other location for hearings. We can apply FOIA and subpoena powers where possible, and issue our own final report for media consumption and government deliberation. And, unlike the costly Commission, we can do the necessary follow-up ourselves in public, political and electoral processes. An organized protest is long overdue on this crucial subject.

I can be reached at (315) 796-4000 or leonkoziol@parentingrightsinstitute.com. You can also mail your input to my attention at P.O. Box 8302; Utica, New York 13505. Finally it must be emphasized that there are many court ordeals sampled from the general public segment of the Moreland hearings which warrant a book or documentary publication. As a publishing consultant, I can offer professional assistance to anyone interested in this powerful means of influencing justice and reform. You will find the details in my October 7, 2015 post here at Leon Koziol.com.

Best regards,

Leon R. Koziol,  J.D.

Civil Rights Advocate

False Accusations in Family Court Overlooked to Incite Emotions, Conflict and Profits.

index

Meanwhile Fathers in Debtor Prisons Give us Distinction as Most Imprisoned Nation in the World!

So you’d rather watch tournament games and go bowling than support a “We Are Fathers” campaign for justice and equality. Well that’s your choice, it’s a free country, in theory anyway. But you should know that  countless lawyers, child experts and bureaucrats are cheering you on because they profit from all this apathy and a misguided sense of priorities.

Fathers rights and court reform have failed time and again because the victims are complaining about the symptoms, they’re only interested in their personal war stories, and they would rather pay the lawyers who grow their problems than contribute to reform entities like this one committed to everyone’s benefit. In short, today’s fathers are not shooting straight, if at all, even when the target is right in front of them.

That target is a federal support law which must be repealed or modified to comport with present day realities. It means we must focus our efforts at the nation’s capital. Instead victims have come to some bizarre conclusion that someone else will travel there, do all the work and pay for it. They think that five guys with signs in front of a local court might influence reform.

As our report, “We Are Fathers” explains, the support standards law under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act rewards the states based on the number and magnitude of support orders manufactured in their domestic relations courts.  Put another way, all judges presiding over support cases benefit from higher awards, making them inherently biased under the same federal law. It’s all part of a trillion dollar child control industry.

To keep the federal money flowing, competing states must retain the antiquated custody scheme as opposed to shared parenting. This in turn benefits lawyers and third parties who thrive on the conflicts naturally inflamed by an unjust and unequal parenting system.

Let’s face it , when was the last time you heard of a scorned mother imprisoned for perjury or false reports? Such a precedent would lead to less conflict and less money for lawyers. Meanwhile fathers are being thrown into prison every day without the commission of any crime simply because of the unrealistic support orders made through biased judges.

They’ll tell you it’s all for uniformity sake, that the state knows best how to raise your children, but we know it’s all about the money. If you haven’t learned that by now, keep watching the balls go round and round while feminists next door at the government arenas are rallying for more laws you don’t know about.

Census Bureau reports continue to show that 85% of all parents paying support are fathers. Moreover, nearly 100% of all litigants committed to debtor prisons for back support are men, adding to our dubious distinction as the most imprisoned population in the free world. Minorities and veterans  suffer a higher rate of abuse but hey, who’s counting. This gold mine is so lucrative that judges will set aside the Constitution to keep the unequal treatment in place.

So next time you’re watching a tournament game, don’t forget to have a buyer for your tickets when a sheriff serves you with a support petition or arrest warrant. In an upcoming post we’ll tell you about a neuro-surgeon in Manhattan who spent over $4.5 million fighting false allegations only to lose free contact with his children while facing potential incarceration. With this economy, you can easily become the next victim.

As we’ve said repeatedly, no amount of money is enough in these courts. They’ll be happy to take your children’s college funds to feed the greed. So please support this vital cause today. Make a donation at Leon Koziol.com and help recruit participants for our “Fatherless Day” rally at the Supreme Court on June 19th. Because they’re your children too.

Dr. Leon Koziol

Parental Rights Advocate

(315) 796-4000