Do You Trust Family Court to Protect Your Children? If So, Read This!


If you knew that your adult neighbor had committed sexual misconduct upon his five year old handicapped niece, would you allow your children near his home? If it turned out they became victims, might you be worried about your parental rights for a failure to look into his background?

Well for years in a Syracuse, New York courthouse, children were being ordered to appear in chambers without parental supervision to interact with a family judge who committed this very misconduct. There is no way of knowing how his proclivities may have impaired his judgments and custody orders, but unlike the “kids for cash” scandal in Pennsylvania, resulting in 4,000 reversed juvenile convictions, there was no similar review or remedy here.

You really have to stop and grasp this reality because our third branch of government has generally received the highest public trust, even presiding over disputes and crimes of our other two branches. If this “family” judge, Bryan Hedges, had not been caught admitting to his disgusting behavior, he would still be on the bench meeting with little boys and girls at these so-called Lincoln hearings designed essentially to get our littles ones spying on their parents.

You can only imagine what was going through Bryan’s demented mind as he questioned unsuspecting toddlers about the fitness and behavior of their mommies and daddies. For those of you curious about my motivations for court reform here at Leon, it should be disclosed now that this same judge was assigned at one time to my custody case.

Judge Hedges would have met with my little girls had I not successfully moved for his disqualification. The children’s mother, lawyer and judge-appointed attorney all opposed my motion with depictions of Hedges as an impeccable jurist beyond reproach. Judge Hedges nevertheless disqualified himself on an “appearance of impropriety” without public elaboration.

This may be explained by my grounds for removal which included his status in a civil rights case brought by a court clerk accusing him of using paid staff to conduct “political espionage,” see Morin v Tormey, 620 F.Supp.2d 363 ($600,000 ultimate recovery). Being a public figure with an opposite political affiliation, I could not accept this judge’s presumption of impartiality when I had been recommended by a retired state Supreme Court justice to run for judgeship in the same district.

The story doesn’t end there. Judge Hedges’ co-defendant in the civil case, Chief Administrative Judge James Tormey, assigned more than 35 trial level judges to my originally uncontested divorce case. Any competent lawyer will tell you that this undisputed fact alone makes my case an extraordinary one.  But  other factors showed that the appointment process itself could be manipulated for purposes of censorship.

Most judges were disqualified, thereby justifying my prior (denied) motion for transfer to a downstate judicial district. But certain opposite party judges hung around long enough to exact retributions for my reform efforts before passing their damage on to the next one. Another Syracuse judge, Martha Walsh-Hood, was forced to throw out fraudulent petitions for lack of evidence. I then cited her many violations of judicial code as a cause for the combined harm to my children, but the Judicial Conduct Commission refused to even look into the matter.

This was undoubtedly due to misconduct so extensive that any public inquiry would bring unacceptable reputation damage to the state’s judiciary. Hence, the expedient solution was to kill the messenger despite my 23 years of unblemished law practice, model citizenship and fit parenting. I held elective office, served as city corporation counsel, school board attorney and was featured on the CBS program 60 Minutes, CNN and other reputable news organizations.

Most recently, a junior judge in Lowville, New York, Daniel King, ventured the claim that he was “protecting” my children with new restrictions upon my parenting rights. They were based again on more fraudulent petitions prior to any hearing. I replied that I had been the one properly “protecting” my girls since their birth including any contact with Judge Bryan Hedges.

This 33rd assigned judge then went so far as to fabricate a college degree among my credentials in a scheme to impute fictional income for support incarceration purposes. He also made it highly risky for me to see my children with conflicting directives including one that violated a higher court restraint. With each public criticism there arose a matching retribution through an abuse of judicial office.

Daniel King’s misconduct was featured in my testimony at the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. But when that Commission was disbanded to protect top state officials (the Assembly Leader was later arrested by federal agents on bribery charges implicating prominent lawyers, judges and millions of dollars in public money), state ethics lawyers turned their guns again upon my public criticisms and complaints.

The chief ethics counsel and his two attorney subordinates involved in this witch hunt were fired for falsifying time sheets only weeks after admitting in a closed hearing that they had been targeting my website. No public charges were brought against them for any crimes or civil rights violations. Threats of contempt in both family and attorney hearings then prompted me to seek protection in Paris.

As I’ve stated time and again, my ordeal reads like a John Grisham plot. So the next time you entrust your children and hard earned money to this antiquated and lucrative custody system, think again. Ask yourself the all-important question: do you trust this person on the bench simply because he or she wears a robe? Here at the Parenting Rights Institute, we offer a program  to avoid court or manage your family disputes. It’s based on reality not lawyer profits.

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Civil Rights Advocate

 (315) 796-4000

Follow Leon Koziol, J.D., on Twitter: (Click Here)

Proud To Be An American: It Doesn’t Get Any More Country Than This!


Nashville Country Music Singers Praise America and Our Flag.

If you’ve been to Nashville or Music City and Smashtown as they call it,  then you know that all they feature here are patriotism, the flag and country music. It’s just the way it is. Like it or leave it, no hard feelings.

I was fortunate to love all three while being escorted around downtown one night. My hosts took me to some of the hot spots, there were just too many to choose from, and I would have been lost trying to find the “right” ones. They even got me to some special entrances to by-pass the lines.

At least five blocks on either side of the main boulevard as far as I could tell boasted a string of country bars and clubs. Okay there was an occasional souvenir shop to break up the monotony, but a bar or two for every building, some three stories high dwarfed by tall office buildings all around. Every place had a band or two. And as one broke down, another was setting up. Just to play at any of  these venues, you had to be one step from stardom.

The people here are friendly, down to earth and they come from all over the country. You can learn a lot from a place like this just from conversation and the performances. For example, I learned from a taxi driver that there were fathers in Nashville escaping family court abuses by seeking asylum in foreign countries. At one club, the lead singer of a large band dedicated a series of songs to our military, emphasizing that he came from a family generation of service men.

It occurred to me during all the cheering for our military that we were toasting men and fathers that were coming home to unjust laws and discrimination. It convinced me that my trip down here was for a worthy cause because I still find myself unable to reconcile these praises with the conduct of our government when the same service men return to the states. 

As many of you know from our recent posts, I am seeking funding behind a  “We Are Fathers” campaign designed to secure long overdue equality and fair treatment in our nation’s divorce and family courts. I was therefore proud to join the toast of the lead singer with much more than a glass. 

I raised my report high in the air to signify that there were people in his audience doing something more profound to assure that the rights and freedoms promoted by our military were being protected here at home. Nashville, what a wonderful town, truly the heart of America.

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

(315) 796-4000

First Amendment Petition Docketed by U.S. Supreme Court in Koziol Case


Does the First Amendment apply to our third branch of government, and if so, can the rights found under the Fourteenth Amendment be set aside to suppress the protected activity of a civil rights attorney seeking to reform abusive practices in our states’ family courts?

This is the single compound question placed before the United States Supreme Court in a Petition for Writ filed on December 9, 2013 and formally docketed on December 12, 2013 under Case No. 13-702 entitled Leon Koziol v Committee on Professional Standards. It is an unprecedented filing which squarely confronts that long unwritten rule that our citizens should not criticize our courts, especially those most qualified to do so as civil rights attorneys.

The content of this case is sure to startle any reader. Putting aside the legalese, its fundamental principles make this an important filing for anyone who has found himself or herself abused in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Such victims are likely to find this landscape familiar while those who challenge government abuses may relate on a broader level. Media and public interest groups should find it even more intriguing.

This is a case which truly occurred in the land of equality, liberty and free speech. The Koziol ordeal over an eight year period has been compared to Gao Zhisheng, the civil rights attorney in China stripped of his law license and denied access to his children for criticizing a communist government. It warrants your support and internet sharing efforts. This is our duty as good Americans who will not surrender to such creeping forms of government.

Fortunately, in the days preceding this filing with the Supreme Court, Leon Koziol was able to secure a stay order in a New York appeals court to enforce holiday parenting time while a Family Court Magistrate referred his support case to a higher judge to decide issues of parental alienation as a defense to such obligations. These successes, however, may have come too late as the parents are now financially destroyed and the children harmed beyond measure. Such injuries are common in our nation’s domestic relations courts. It is a trillion dollar industry.

Read the First Amendment Supreme Court Writ: (Click Here)

Could Published Column Have Prevented Horrific Murder-Suicide in Utica, NY?

Administrators Note:

The following column was offered to the Utica Observer-Dispatch for publication on Father’s Day 2012, however, it was rejected without explanation. We believe this was meant to suppress the greater message here at It was also offered in a modified format to the New York Times, Albany Times Union and The Boston Globe.  Only 2 days earlier, a major protest occurred in support of Leon Koziol and his parenting rights litigation at a federal appeals court in lower Manhattan. Exactly, one week later, a murder-suicide occurred (Article 1) (Article 2) (Article 3). What you’re about to read presents a chilling and accurate indictment of the lucrative family court industry. A strong likelihood exists that the now deceased parents might have resorted to non-violent means of resolution had they been exposed to this unpublished column and profound reform efforts which underlie it.

Unpublished Guest Column:

David Dudajek
Opinion Editor
Observer Dispatch
221 Oriskany Plaza
Utica, New York 13501

Dear Editor:

Exactly one year ago, a man sat down, doused himself with gasoline and lit up a public square to bring world attention to an oppressive government. It did not occur in Tiananmen Square, Moscow or any other foreign venue. It happened right here in one of our original 13 states involving a maternal descendant of America’s first president.

Thomas Ball martyred himself in this painful fashion to protest the mistreatment of fathers in domestic relations courts. It was patterned after the identical suicide of Mohammed Bouazizi of Tunisia who gained sufficient attention to cause a wave of protests across the Arab world. Yet few beyond the city of Keene, New Hampshire took notice of the American version.

Despite efforts to isolate this event, evidence of a growing epidemic was everywhere. In our region alone, a police investigator took his life and that of his ex spouse after exiting “child support” court, leaving three children without their mom and dad. A mother took a knife to the throat of her divorcing husband and was sent to prison for 13 years, a father shot his boy in front of state police in a domestic stand-off, a sheriff deputy was killed in a similar exchange, and a purple heart soldier attempted suicide after years of court abuse.

Not far away, a mother drove her children into the Hudson River, and just when we thought it was safe to come out, at least three new incidents have arisen in Oneida County featuring parents engaged in stand-offs with law enforcement. Only last week, a man was pulled from a burning home in a bizarre case resembling the Thomas Ball incident. Had these cases involved a virus or related health factor, the Center for Disease Control would have flown in agents from Atlanta within a matter of hours.

Like so many ominous signs in our region’s history, this is a crisis which is being ignored or misunderstood. It emerges largely from domestic relations processes that continue to engage in parental abuses and gender bias. Victims denied sensible recourse then resort to violence and the taking of matters into their own hands. It is a common feature of all civil rights movements and the natural consequence of any dysfunctional system of justice.

Only last month, the USA Today placed Utica/Rome at the bottom of depressed regions nationwide. Unwittingly the feature was more important for its national forecast than a local assault because economic declines inevitably occurring elsewhere will bring similar extraordinary events. When people lose their homes, jobs and children, they have nothing left to live for when dealing with law enforcement. A meaningful study of the problem is therefore long overdue, and an opportunity emerges for local leaders to pave the way.

While our federal government intervenes in foreign countries for the sake of human rights, families on the domestic front are being sacrificed to needless custody and support wars through arbitrary money formulas and incentives. Billions of dollars in federal grants are based on the number and magnitude of support orders mass produced in state courts. This has the effect of transforming judges into profit makers contrary to their neutral character under the Constitution.

In 1925, the high court of New York adopted ancient practices of British monarchs to assert state control over all children impacted by divorcing parents. In its day, this seizure of power caught little attention because divorce was an anomaly and fewer lawyers were preoccupied with more legitimate matters of the profession. Today, separate parenting units are the mainstream and the state of California alone is impacted by nearly 300,000 lawyers.

As a result, parental authority is becoming seriously undermined while children are exploited for ulterior purposes. By simply declaring any government act involving a child to be in his or her “best interests”, the state can remove one or both parents from their gender based functions. It is a gold mine for attorneys perverting a natural order of childrearing. Adolph Hitler exploited similar propaganda to build a war machine.

This perversion is cultivated by a “separate but unequal” doctrine of laws which forces parents to name a gender merged “custodial parent” in all separation cases. Competition for a child’s favor then leads to immature behavior and breakdowns in development. Agreement, mediation and shared parenting are opposed as litigation substitutes because they would reduce conflict, thereby eroding a multi-billion dollar state industry.

With federal intervention, this industry grew exponentially as did the dysfunction of our families. Child support laws removed the needs-based formula and replaced it with a highly abused way-of-life standard even in cases where neither parent was on public assistance. This led to increased revenues and a giant bureaucracy featuring states and localities as collection agents for a central government complicit in the creation of lucrative domestic controversy.

In terms of childrearing, this fixation upon money is producing a fatherless America with devastating impacts. Data from the National Fatherhood Initiative shows that children fare better when both parents are involved. Under the current system, a father is influenced to abandon his role and any responsibilities which apply because he cannot overcome blatant male stereotypes, residual living expenses and fraudulent report tactics common to these court battles.

Meaningful reform will not occur as long as the victims allow these injustices to continue. As one veteran Family Court judge declared ten years ago, custody and visitation should be replaced with parenting plans in the majority of cases. The “oppositional framework” has long “outlived its usefulness” and should not be applied to presumptively fit parents. Such wisdom must be embraced by those seeking public office who exploit Fathers’ Day by essentially asking good fathers to accept their sub-class status.

Very truly yours,

Leon R. Koziol
Parenting Rights Advocate
(315) 796-4000

Please help support the efforts of Dr. Leon Koziol and The Parenting Rights Institute today!

Also follow Dr. Koziol on his family websites: and

Family Courts: Have They Been Compromised?

Have Our Family Courts Been Compromised?Have our family courts been compromised?

Since the inception of this website, our staff here at has tried to keep the majority of our content focused largely upon issues surrounding what we believe is the state’s ever-expanding intrusions upon private child-rearing matters. Occasionally, there is sufficient reason to feature other stories and information which may not necessarily have anything to do with parental rights, but rather illustrate the growing frustrations that American’s are experiencing with our government today when conventional remedies such as the family courts and public acts of civil disobedience simply do not work.  In no way are we advocating or suggesting violence. However, we will continue to ask the same question that repeatedly goes unanswered when our public officials are called upon; what recourse do citizens of the United States of America have when they continue to be ignored by their government?

What are the family courts afraid of?

There is little doubt that the drum beat is growing louder with each new day. American citizens are being wrongfully and systematically pushed to a breaking point of disenfranchisement with their government. The first video is eerily similar to what many non-custodial parents (particularly fathers) routinely experience as they are unfairly treated in our nation’s family court rooms today. In this video, there are many parallels that can be made between Jesse Ventura’s frustrations with the court system’s refusal on the basis of jurisdictional reasons to hear his case involving what he believes is the Transportation Safety Administration’s unreasonable search and seizure policies not unlike what civil/parental rights advocate Leon Koziol, J.D. has experienced when attempting to bring test cases “on behalf of parents similarly situated” before our high courts. The truth is, these cases are simply falling on deaf ears because they are not politically correct and more than likely pose a specific threat to a predetermined political agenda. Rather than hear these cases and the Constitutional grounds for which they are built upon, we now have an entire legal profession dedicated to protecting itself by using the influence of the family courts to discredit those who dare challenge the system. Our role here at is to better educate and inform the reader as to what is actually occurring free of both government and corporate influence.

The second video depicts an agitated police state that will do whatever it takes to “neutralize” a perceived threat in order protect the “status quo” which would include shooting an innocent camera person. The logical question one is left to ponder is, are we now living in a third world country? Or, as Jesse Ventura best puts it, “the Fascist States of America.

Family Courts: Are they biased towards men?

Historically, children were regarded as the fathers pre-industrial assets and custody was out of question. Consequently, the ‘tender years’ doctrine dictated that young children be kept with their mothers (Newsweek, [Online], 1995). But as perceptions about parenthood changed, fathers have become just as much involved as mothers in nurturing their children. For this reason, today, many fathers in family court are seeking primary or joint custody of their children when a marriage or partnership is dissolved. However, it is questioned whether the  family court system is biased against men in matters involving custody and access to children when these family breakdowns occur. It can be argued that, when deciding custody and visitation, a family court gives the best interests of the child the highest priority and not gender (Levin ; Mills, [Online], 2003). Apparently, it is clear that in most custody cases; approximately 90% of the time, primary residential custody of children is awarded to mothers (McNeely, [Online], 1998), thus indicating the presence of gender bias in the family courts. It is our belief that children are deserving of equal time with both parents whenever possible. In theory, this sounds like a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, nothing is going to change anytime soon until those who have been affected by current draconian child support and custody laws decide to unite for the purpose of letting both our elected public officials and family courts know they’ve finally had enough.

However, there is one person who is uniquely qualified given his civil rights background. That man is Dr. Leon Koziol, J.D. Leon understands our complex legal system and recognizes that behind every major civil rights movement, the fast track for change has always been through the courts. Mr. Koziol continues to incur tremendous litigation costs for exposing what he believes is an inherently flawed scheme of multi-billion dollar child control laws that are designed to fleece mainstream parents of their financial resources through unnecessary court room manufactured controversies. In retaliation for his work, the state damaged Leon’s ability to represent people like yourself in various test cases litigated over the past few years. Rather than abandon the cause, Mr. Koziol simply restructured the litigation and continued in a pro se manner under the constitution which is his right. Unfortunately, this has left him with no financial resources to conclude these test cases on behalf of “parents similarly situated.” Over the next few weeks, Mr. Koziol will have to decide if there is enough financial support for him to continue with this important cause. Please show him your financial support today!


Show Support by Copying and Pasting the code below to your Website or Blog:

Have our <a href="">Family Courts</a> been compromised?