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.
Many loyal followers here at Leon Koziol.com have been misled by the notion that my support of shared parenting made me a fathers’ rights advocate opposed to mothers. Those who truly know my work recognize how wrong that assumption is. It’s the way our detractors profit from a corrupted court system, by pitting parents against one another. Children need both.
During my years as a practicing attorney, I saved many women from false charges and discrimination. In fact one such case led to the bias of my support court judge who was forced to step down from that earlier woman’s case. He then exacted revenge by staying on my support case and finding a violation. I also was the lawyer for a former president of the National Organization for Women.
Good mothers support shared parenting even where equal time is impractical, for example due to career demands or distance. When fathers are encouraged and facilitated, children fare best in life. That much is supported by human history and expert studies. A good mother never asks a judge to incarcerate a father for back support. No amount of money justifies the criminalization of parenthood or a debtors’ prison.
This was a stand I took against my profession eight years ago which I am still fighting today. You will receive important news on that later this week. In the meantime, as many of you know, I am writing book manuscripts for those parents wishing to publish their court ordeals for posterity or reform’s sake. The opening chapter of my latest project is offered for your education and amazement below.
It’s about parent alienation and we are hoping to get contributions for its marketing phase upon publication this year. If you have a story you would like to have published, it’s no small undertaking and requires publishing expertise and court room experience of the kind I uniquely possess. Feel free to contact me personally for details and a cost estimate at (315) 796-4000. You can also help represent yourself or seek litigation alternatives in a court program offered at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.
The Tamara Sweeney Story
The first time I saw Tamara Sweeney, it was at a hotel lounge in Binghamton, a small city on the New York-Pennsylvania border. The remarkable aspect of our meeting was not how hastily it had been arranged or how we drove two hours there from opposite directions. It was her captivating smile which seemed to bring energy to a collection of fatigued business people that had congregated at the end of a work day.
Outwardly, all indications were that she was a motivated woman with a sense of confidence, a person who knew what had to be done in any given situation even if she had to acclimate to new levels of competence on a moment’s notice. Behind that flare, however, I knew this was not the real Tamara. The person I knew from my readings was hopelessly immersed in a cauldron of pain and anguish concealed by layered walls of self-preservation.
Imagine yourself a loving mom who gave life to four children in five years, three boys and a girl; a parent, days filled with feedings, baths, runny noses, kissing and hugging. The number of calendar and diaper changes would confound any corporate executive. Then, suddenly, after so many promising years with their father in a dream home, these children are seized from this mom, prevented from having any contact and left without her regular guidance and affection.
That was the Tamara Sweeney I had read about in a voluminous court record, a mother who could not have imagined the level of cruelty inflicted by her own government residing in the family courts of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. She was not a criminal and despite my search of the record, I could find no evidence to justify the severe alienation she had suffered from her offspring. To the contrary, these children were her entire life.
As she approached, that incessant smile complemented the rest of her, a stunning lady which by all indications defied father time. She carried herself gracefully exuding everything genuine. Later she would boast photos of her family in diverse settings. As I gazed upon their similarly captivating faces, I could not help but conclude that a sort of Camelot had been underway in a pleasant valley community near Philadelphia, that city of brotherly love.
It was an idyllic setting without the paparazzi. However that setting would shatter when a corrupt court system seized it, a commonplace occurrence in America today. I had seen my share of shocking ordeals, but this divorce crushed logic. Having saved the falsely accused, securing record recoveries for victims of government abuse and even managing to strike down a casino compact worth billions of dollars, this story would set precedent in the court of public opinion.
The worst of my professional experiences resided in divorce and family courts which I avoided with a plague. People separate for countless reasons but that should not translate into lucrative custody battles for lawyers. Tamara had solicited me not as a lawyer but as a writer, someone who could distill her complex case into a literary work that might capture the world, not as her smile had done for me, but to tell a story which might prevent others from falling into that same cauldron.
It would be a project which took proper aim against a court system that was destroying the very fabric of a nation. As I liked to describe it, divorce and family courts were the Hotel California of the legal profession: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Resigned to her fate as a victim of a corrupted system, after exhausting civil recourse to the point of bankruptcy and homelessness, Tamara would nevertheless refuse to go quietly into the night.
No, no, hell no! I could envision her declaring. Come hell or high water, the world will know the horrific injustices inflicted upon a loving American mom. Lawyer reform and judicial accountability were high on her list of objectives, but towering over it was a fervent desire to be reunited with her babies. Unfortunately time was working against her as they approached adulthood with family court processes operating at the speed of a snail.
Competing against that process was a mother possessed by human nature. After all, is the umbilical cord ever truly cut between a loving mom and her offspring? We can put a man on the moon, split atoms, engage artificial intelligence and achieve vast breakthroughs in medicine but remain unable to tackle this extraordinary human phenomenon. It may well explain why our government is unwilling to extricate family courts from their twentieth century practices.
Those same practices made Tamara an ironic victim, swallowed whole by a gender biased system which women have been protecting for decades. Tamara was a “non-custodial parent,” a custody classification typically reserved for dads. She was not concerned about that aspect of the system. It was as if she had danced around it, the devil for years, never imagining how she could end up its prey. Instead she was obsessed with the symptoms and one in particular: Parent Alienation Syndrome or PAS.
PAS is the condition discovered and popularized by Dr. Richard Gardner three decades earlier which had yet to be recognized by the psychiatric profession or legal community. It was based on numerous cases involving parents who had suffered immense trauma from children rejecting their affection and very existence for no logical reason other than a spiteful parental counterpart. It remains a condition cultivated by lawyers anxious to pit parents against one another for profit.
American society is still unfamiliar with PAS, let alone in a position to embrace it as an epidemic. It is a single cause for health issues, moral dysfunction and social ills that have claimed more families than cancer. Indeed mass violence can be traced to this epidemic, one that finds its way into our schools, workplaces and homes. Of all the issues confronting our clergy today, few are more threatening to the viability of religion itself than this one.
However, if our government and regulated professions are unwilling to recognize it, there will be no cure any time soon. And the reason for that is the same as the explanation for tobacco, energy and drug industries. It’s all about the money. But here the cancer is eating away at the very souls of our children. PAS is the embodiment of evil depicted somewhat like it was in the film Devil’s Advocate, starring Al Pacino. The moral fiber of future generations is under siege in these courts.
Tamara’s objectives must be achieved if we are to stem this crisis. You will have to read on to know how and why, what it means to you and your loved ones. This story is about a jungle filled with primates in skirts and ties devoid of a civilized conscience. They pounce on unsuspecting parents and children for the primeval purpose of filling their bellies with modern day manna, the almighty buck. Shortsighted and self-serving, they blame their victims for the harm they cause.
Lawyers, psychologists, therapists, evaluators and former lawyers on the bench are among the predators anxious to destroy relationships which could be retained or salvaged through non-litigation alternatives. As a general observation, industrialists sell products, government sells services, businesses sell both, doctors sell advice and cures, psychiatrists sell therapy and medications, but lawyers sell controversies and promises.
Of all these stocks in trade, the last is most counter-productive to families. They do not belong in a forum created to protect our children. And when government makes it profitable for their participants to incite controversy, it is the worst kind of evil. Minor disputes erupt into major ones with the words of an unscrupulous lawyer adept at abusing the system for fee generating purposes. In the end, a protracted court battle yields irrevocable harm.
Laws have been drafted to incentivize conflict in these courts. The very structure for resolution is built upon artificially induced controversy and an unsupported foundation for distributing childrearing authority between superior and inferior parents. Shared parenting initiatives have failed time and again all across America due to a universal failure to invalidate the archaic system being protected. I have described it as the “Custodial Institution of Childrearing.”
If you are not yet convinced of the critical need for reform, consider the fact that there are more than 600,000 attorneys licensed in California and New York alone with as many candidates as there are practicing attorneys nationwide. There is no end in sight to this glut of lawyers entering the market, and the least qualified typically end up in family court. This is where apprentices learn their trade and marginal lawyers can instigate lucrative controversy to last an entire career.
The archaic process begets a host of forensic additions to the mix by request or court order, including law guardians and social workers, all in the business of dictating how our children are to be raised on vague, conflicting or utopian standards. It is job creation of the worst order, encouraging vulnerable children to hate one or both parents, destroying any notion of forgiveness and praising them for spying on their moms and dads toward a new world order of child control.
Accountability is as nonexistent as the number of malpractice cases arising in these tribunals. In the medical profession, a surgeon who performs needless operations for profit is discovered through an objective review process. In family court, when a lawyer performs a needless hearing for the same reason, there is no similar review, no real measure for competent performance. The all-encompassing child’s best interests can be satisfied by any half baked participant.
Making matters worse, parents learn too late that child alienation is a damage claim that cannot be recovered monetarily like other injuries. Hence there is no remedy for the child predator disguised in professional attire feeding on college funds, retirement plans and the very shelters of human beings until there is nothing left to consume. If you are a person who has not yet been harmed by this system, you pay for it in taxes, crime and productivity at the very least.
Tamara had no idea what she was getting into when she first retained a lawyer in April, 2012 to separate amicably with her husband of twelve years. Rick Cohen would certainly not advise her properly. As with most divorce lawyers, his goal was to generate as many fees as possible. His firm probably had a performance measure based on the number of billable hours he could orchestrate much like the federal government does for purposes of support enforcement funding.
Indeed everything was working against Tamara when she made that fateful call to his law office. Even her husband was enraged by that phone call when he learned of it. Still recoiling from the knowledge that she had entered into an extramarital relationship, he was pleading with and threatening her to call it off. Nevertheless he was served with divorce papers the following month. It was a regrettable by-product of escalating abuse in the homestead.
Years earlier, Tamara had been forced to compromise her role as primary care taker when her husband quit his lucrative position to start an on-line business. Revenue projections did not materialize, and before long the family homestead and finances were at risk. She then became a breadwinner only to learn that the boundaries which she had worked so hard to establish for her children were now in ruins. Unbearable conflicts escalated as a natural outgrowth.
When a mother verifies through proper testing that her seventh grade child is consuming alcohol and smoking marijuana, it is a shock of the worst kind. A responsible parent cannot and does not ignore the vital signs particularly as grades and social conduct tank as a predictable result. Her husband responded with more of the same, parties at their home Wednesday through Sunday and abuses so severe that Tamara found herself in a closet or locked in a bedroom afraid to come out.
Her teen boys emulated such abuses. Tamara was made out to be a disease in the homestead by an alienating parent who could not forgive let alone realize how his unrelenting anger could jeopardize crucial long term relationships. Soon it became necessary for mom to move out until the situation could stabilize. But this only harmed her custody position later on. It was the beginning of her ordeal with parent alienation and the end of the world as she knew it.
When I met Tamara in Binghamton four years later, she was a mother desperate to save the very lives of her children. She was a parent running recklessly into a burning building prepared to sacrifice herself if necessary. There were many things which amazed me about her dedication but one stood out even as I began preparations for this book. The scheduling of our first meeting had to be made around her daughter’s team event at school. Everything else took a back seat.
Days later, Tamara took a call from me while watching a ball game featuring her son. It wasn’t her presence at those events which fascinated me but that she continued to promote her children from a distance while under court orders to stay away over a two year period. The tactics used against her were the same as those inflicted upon separating parents everywhere. The idea was to shoe horn mom and dad into unequal custody roles so that child support could be justified.
This was the real Tamara Sweeney heading my way for the first time at a hotel lounge in Binghamton, New York. I had read her ordeal in substantial part. Volumes of court papers, photos and diaries sent to me the prior week. Too much to digest so early in the assignment, I was more eager to hear her story first hand, to listen intently for purposes of sizing her up, to study her facial expressions and reactions to a bevy of questions I was prepared to unload on her.
This would be best achieved in a relaxed setting, carefully but meticulously executed over a period of hours. I remained in awe over her unending smile after such a horrendous ordeal which was still ongoing. Dressed casually, blond hair feathered back to shoulder length and cosmetics applied sparingly, she angled her slender figure between a pair of table stools before arriving at my tight spot. We composed ourselves when nearby patrons made room for us.
“I was beginning to think you wouldn’t show after reading my stuff,” she opened with an embrace. “I got us a table over there in the dining area so we could be more private,” pointing over to a location by the window. “But this is okay if you like. I’m sure no one around here cares about our craziness,” she asserted jokingly but uncomfortably. Her smile expanded a bit as if it was even possible and her left arm was wrapped around a file that seemed ready to explode.
“No this is fine Timera, did I pronounce that right?” I answered, doing my best to compete with the noise and her pleasant demeanor. How did she manage it, I asked myself, wishing for the moment that we had made that move to her selected area.
“It’s alright, you said it like so many do. It’s actually Tamra, but I’ll accept either one. Not so picky you know.”
“The correct way sounds much better so I’ll stick with that. Are you hungry? Because I’m starved and ready to order.” I searched the crowded bar for service. “It was all I could do get out of Dodge before some phone call derailed our last minute meeting here. I haven’t eaten since breakfast.”
“Yeah thanks for that. I’m really not hungry but I might order something light to nibble on.” Anxious to get down to business, it wasn’t long before she moved past the perfunctory exchanges. “So how much of my material have you gotten through?”
“Enough Tamara, enough to get a decent impression of your nightmares. To be candid, it is an unbelievable story so far, and I’m not even close to an overriding theme. There’s so much going on like most divorces. But yours is an extraordinary one. I have a lot of questions.”
“Good! I’m ready. Fire away.”
“No, not so fast. We just got here. Let’s have a drink, relax a bit, have a bite, and your cross examination will come. As I explained on the phone, I like to get to know the real person I’m writing about, not just the client. Your files do that in abundance. Let’s talk for awhile on the lighter side. Then when the time comes, it’ll occur naturally. This is not a lawsuit you know.”
“Thank God! You’re right,” she agreed with a sigh of relief.
I guided her to another table away from the noise and laughter. She then placed a large binder on a nearby stool, guarding it like a sheep dog over her flock. As she explained excitedly this morning, she was able to locate it after a desperate search. This binder contained a synopsis of her divorce and family history which a judge refused to review. Privately I concluded that it had not been properly offered. For me, however, it was a blessing in disguise, a fateful error of a robotic jurist meant precisely to become the book I was about to complete. Then I continued.
“You see I’ve changed my approach on this kind of assignment. Trust me, Tamra, it works. I’ll give you references. My last subject was a woman who engaged me with conflict and dictates regularly. She came across like one who could never be satisfied. There are only so many hours in a day, and if I was billing at lawyer rates, such books would never be possible.”
Tamara nodded in agreement. She knew my own ordeal after discovering my website during a parenting conference at our nation’s capital. Anyone writing her story would have to demonstrate a requisite level of expertise before she could entrust him with her sensitive files. They were years in the making, and I certainly understood her fears. That’s because I took a conscientious and long overdue stand against my own profession in these matters and was vilified on all fronts.
“This witch hunt which my profession did against me for exposing misconduct had the fate of permitting your book. And go figure, the lawyers in that witch hunt ended up getting fired by the court for falsifying their time sheets. So much for our standard-bearers of lawyer ethics. These are the same guys charged with a duty to correct overbilling practices. I don’t know about Pennsylvania but corruption in New York is a cottage industry.” I chuckled briefly.
Tamara was immediately engaged with enthusiasm over an experience she had already read about. Now she was made a part of it, joining my amusement to where her smile might reach both ears. “Oh no, once we dig in, you’ll find that it’s just as corrupt, maybe even worse in Montgomery County. Any day I’m expecting them to be exposed and come crashing down.”
The conversation was going better than expected. We were joined not only by common experiences but clicking as if we were telepathic. That’s what tends to happen when human beings have gone down similar emotional highways. We were getting more relaxed and committed to our joint goals with each sip of our drinks.
“After months of hard work,” I continued, “that woman is now a believer. I’ll play her last phone message if you like. She called her finished book ‘brilliant.’ It’s in the hands of a publisher.”
“That won’t be necessary. I’ve read your work since that parent conference two years ago. I’ve actually been targeting you for my book ever since. I know what I’m doing.”
I was sincerely impressed that Tamara had become committed to me for so long before her first phone inquiry only three weeks ago. It made me realize that my hard work might have to eclipse my last manuscript. That would be a tall order, but so far so good. It was like entering uncharted waters, an unexplored wilderness, a journey to the edge of humanity, all for a cause destined to impact future generations.
We talked into the night like schoolmates on a first date. Anyone observing this exchange would have no idea the horrific pressures we were hiding beneath our laughs and discourse. For the time being at least, this was wonderful. Our mutual pain had subsided. Moments that meant everything to each of us became merged through a sense of shared identity. But the lightheartedness soon graduated to our business at hand.
Later that night I would summarize our opening session as a contest over who could hide their pain better. Talking about it here so freely and so far away from our homes helped us open up. And boy did we open up. On and on we went until before you knew it, the crowd had dwindled to a few stragglers from a wedding reception in a nearby ball room. The bride was now snuggled up to the bar with her newlywed and the rest of the bridal party was taking pictures in the lobby.
“Come on let’s get a picture of us too,” Tamara offered with sudden enthusiasm. “I like photos. It helps me remember special events, and I’m feeling real good about this book now.” She reached for my arm and pulled me into the open. We searched for the ideal location with a view from an expansive window. The father of the bride was drafted for the photo op.
We ended our meeting shortly after that. To my surprise we had talked incessantly for over four hours, never expecting to become so energized along the way. She turned over some additional materials from her file after walking me through her binder, cautioning me again that it had become her life’s treasure and a major reason for our trips here. I was veritably impressed with its content. This was a mother who meant business, and I was not about to disappoint.
As I turned for the hotel exit for my trip back home, I took note of the newlyweds embracing at the bar. I felt compelled to give them some friendly advice of the kind I dismissed so many years ago. I mused for awhile but opted against it. After all, there are lifetime marriages of the kind I always admired. Then I walked out into the night, a rainy, miserable and cold one while glancing up briefly into a black foreboding sky. Perhaps a storm was on its way.
Yesterday we updated rumors of a wall that Hillary Clinton was proposing on New York’s border with Vermont. Today, on the eve of New York’s primary, she continued to deny the reports. However a recent poll showed that the wall issue has propelled Bernie Sanders to a lead among Democrat voters, particularly parents and grandparents.
On April 5, 2016, the New York Post ran a story suggesting that Hillary Clinton might as well build a wall on the Vermont border in light of her claims that New York’s gun and drug trafficking problems came from Vermont, the home state of her primary opponent Bernie Sanders. Yesterday it was learned that she may have a plan to do exactly that.
Fueled by the success of Donald Trump’s once ridiculed wall on Mexico, the Vermont wall was suggested at a closed door strategy session. It would span roughly 160 miles between Canada and Massachusetts, only a fraction of the length of Trump’s Wall. According to sources, the funding would come from casinos, the only growing industry in New York.
The proposal comes on the heels of Hillary’s thrashing by her Democrat primary opponent at the Battle of Brooklyn, the most recent debate which most observers agree was won resoundingly by Bernie Sanders. Reputable fact checkers had debunked her claims that New York’s gun and heroin problem was caused by drug lords in Vermont.
Hillary’s debunked claims, however, have caused voters to question her capacity to be president for all of our states and communities. According to one New Yorker contacted near the Vermont border, the two states have had a great relationship with family and friends that crossed that border for recreational, education and employment purposes.
“What a sleazy move,” remarked a fisherman from Plattsburgh, New York. “Just because Vermont is a small state does not mean she can just cut it off from the rest. What if I don’t vote for Hillary, does that mean my county or village will also be dumped on by her? Whatever happened to her It Takes a Village book? Whose village is she working for?”
Another set-back the same night made the Clinton campaign desperate for a rebound. Transcripts belatedly released by the State Department to Judicial Watch, a government watchdog, revealed that Clinton had knowingly lied to the American people and our allies about the Benghazi attacks which imperiled our soldiers abroad.
In yet another set-back, Florida prosecutors threw out a complaint against Cory Lewandowski, campaign manager for Donald Trump. A woman reporter’s career was destroyed after feminist agitators influenced Michelle Fields to file a bogus battery charge strictly to derail Trump’s juggernaut on the presidential election.
Contacted at a rally in Syracuse, Mr. Lewandowski was asked for his response to the latest development in the Clinton camp.
“Does she realize that most of Vermont’s border with her home state is under Lake Champlain. In some places it’s 400 feet deep. That would make the Hillary wall bigger than anything with Mexico.”
Also at the rally, Trump’s New York manager, Carl Palladino echoed those concerns.
“The obvious question I have about Hillary’s Wall is whose going to pay for it? Fellow Americans in Vermont? New York is already the most taxed state in America.”
Bernie Sanders, campaigning in Rome, Italy (not Rome, New York), had this to say in a skyped interview:
“Did she finally throw a tissy fit? All those drug traffickers in my little home state would simply drive around her wall through Massachusetts. Is she gonna cut off all of New England now? Last time someone tried that was the British in 1777. By the way, you know their leader wants to bar Trump from campaigning in that country.”
Quick to escape New York less than a week before its primary, Hillary Clinton was contacted at a fundraising gala in California sponsored by oil sheikhs from Benghazi. Here is what she had to say about the campaign leak, reproduced (unedited) from a recorder:
“I thought I told you already, it’s lying Ted Cruz behind all this. I would never be so stupid as to propose a wall on the Vermont border, and I didn’t need you to correct me, Michelle, about it being underwater. I once took a boat on Lake Champlain to Plattkill.”
Reporter: “You mean Plattsburgh, the place you just mentioned is in the Catskills south of there.”
Hillary: “Whatever, look I’m from Arkansas, not New York. I only went there to get elected president. Ted is right. We don’t like New York values where Bill and I come from, especially after Carmelo Anthony and the Syracuse Orange stole that basketball title from Kansas.”
Reporter: “Look I’m just trying to help out Hil, you’re sounding like an opportunist on anything that comes along. Not very presidential. Trump’s probably gonna say ‘You’re no Barack Obama’ if you get into a national debate. Your wall is not going over very well. Vermont is a state not a separate country like Mexico, and it’s looking like you really don’t know New York.”
Hillary: “Don’t go there Michelle, I know my history. Did you know that Vermont was not one of our original thirteen states? It was a foreign country like Canada. And how about all those carpetbaggers who came south after the Civil War. We didn’t appreciate them telling us how to run our own states. What’s wrong with a little reverse history?”
Reporter: “Well for starters, Hil, you claimed to cross the border without knowing that the real port of Plattsburgh was the turning point in the War of 1812. We beat the British navy there.”
Hillary (interrupting): “Who cares about any of that in California? Voters are lucky to remember yesterday. I should know as an expert politician and lawyer. I fooled them in New York twice on the Senate race so I’m a shoe-in there.”
Reporter: “Well they’re going to raise questions about your wall now that it’s been leaked and you don’t wanna be raising Vermont as a foreign country. California and Texas were also separate countries once and…”
Hillary (interrupting again): “I know, I know, so was Hawaii but not recent enough to keep Obama out when I ran against him.”
Reporter: “And as for carpetbagging, isn’t that what you were doing with that village thing during Bill’s term, telling parents how to raise their children?”
Hillary: “Alright you got me there. No one’s going to expect me to know all these places and history trivia. Why anyone would want to live north or south of Westchester is beyond me too. Black flies and voters on CP time in either direction.”
Reporter: “You know, you’re lucky you didn’t use the ‘N’ word in that stupid skit with DeBlasio. What were you thinking Hil? This isn’t Arkansas and it sure ain’t Kansas. You’re lucky you escaped New York when you did.”
Hillary: “You’re one to talk Michelle. Here you are in a guy’s suit pretending to be a male reporter after that Lewinsky fiasco. You’re just another media liar out to make a name for herself. I don’t have time for this. I have more important people to talk to.”
Reporter: “You mean Lewandowski. Monica’s the other woman you destroyed. You’re the people who duped me into filing that bogus charge for political gain, not for any woman’s rights cause. After Breitbart fired me, no one would hire me. I was lucky to get this job with the most censored blog site in America.”
Hillary: “Sorry about that, really I am. But just remember, this conversation is off the record. Damn, Michelle, what’s it gonna take before you people believe in anything I got to say?”
Reporter: “I think that’s what every voter in America is asking.”
Editor’s Note:The foregoing news story is a satirical piece by a native New Yorker seeking to end corruption in America’s divorce and family courts. Learn more at Leon Koziol.com or http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. Call us direct at (315) 380-3420. And kindly consider a donation to a worthy cause to protect our children from lawyer fees and orchestrated conflict which leave them without college funds and cooperative parenting arrangements. It is a trillion dollar industry we are fighting to reform. Please pass this on to anyone person or entity that could assist us.
Due to the high volume of requests for Dr. Leon Koziol’s alarming new report, Custody Court Dysfunction, we are not able to personally respond to every inquiry. However you can download this highly researched document which discloses a custody court epidemic. It is being used by parents, service providers and diverse experts in divorce and family court matters. It is also useful in understanding PTSD and Parent Alienation Syndrome (PAS). A Court Education Program is available for self representation and litigation alternatives at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. Leon has also been authoring books for victims of court ordeals. Get more info at http://www.leonkoziol.com.
An epidemic of mass proportion Suppressed by Government and Bar Associations Across America: Vital Funding Request to Advance Shared Parenting, Nationwide Reform and Justice in Divorce and Family Courts.
Due to overwhelming demand for Dr. Leon Koziol’s newly released report, Custody Court Dysfunction, we are not able to fulfill all the inquiries by direct response, nearly 1,000 in a single day. Therefore a download option is now available below.
We have been contacted by parents, service providers and court victims from around the country anxious to use this expert report in their litigation and personal matters. It provides a crucial insight on how the system operates to harm you, how an unsuspecting public is duped into hiring lawyers and filing petitions in court only to have their lives, children and families irreversibly damaged.
Custody Court Dysfunction is a newly disclosed condition which has reached epidemic levels. Based on decades of involvement in custody, divorce and civil rights litigation, Dr.Koziol has published this report to demand accountability and overdue reform in these courts. Be a part of it. Get your copy now.
An Epidemic of Mass Proportion Suppressed by Government and Bar Associations Across America: Vital Funding Request to Advance Shared Parenting, Nationwide Reform and Justice in Divorce and Family Courts.