Motion Asks Justice Ginsburg To Step Down From Judicial Whistle Blower Case

index

Extraordinary Case Focuses on Judicial Ethics and Court Abuses

An unprecedented case docketed in the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016  became more extraordinary when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lashed out at a presidential candidate one month later. After working its way through federal and state courts, the judicial whistle blower action, Leon Koziol v United States District Court, finally reached our high court.

At the core of the case is a targeted website which exposes corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Maintained by a parental advocate with over 25 years of litigation experience, it exposes corruption in our third branch of government and resulted in severe retributions for the sponsor and judicial whistle blower, Dr. Leon R. Koziol.

The website, http://www.leonkoziol.com was subjected to a variety of discreet and overt forms of government retaliation including an unconstitutional gag order imposed by a family judge eventually lifted when a mandamus action was filed in New York Supreme Court. This site also featured a number of anti-liberal posts defending Donald Trump since August, 2015.

The action seeks recourse for political activity outside the scope of judicial office which is then applied in decision making processes beyond the knowledge or fair input of adversely impacted litigants. It is a First and Fourteenth Amendment case committed to improving the conduct of our justice system through the supervisory jurisdiction of our highest court.

With a conference date now set by the Justices for September 26, 2016, Dr. Koziol was forced to file a motion on August 9, 2016 seeking disqualification of Justice Ginsburg from Case No. 15-1519. It also seeks an adjournment until after election day to permit good government groups and interested parties including Donald Trump to file amicus briefs.

(Click Here to Download August 5, 2016 Motion for Disqualification from Scribd)

Such a motion is not new but rarely employed as it was by the Sierra Club in the 2004 case of Cheney v United States District Court, directed to Justice Scalia. The opening statement of the motion here is reprinted below:

On June 17, 2016, this Court docketed Case No. 15-1519 entitled Leon R. Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It is an extraordinary action based, inter alia, on this Court’s ruling in Cheney v United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 US 367 (2004). It seeks vital recourse for civil rights violations by judges and their agents who impeded access to this Court. These violations were conceived beyond the scope of judicial office and executed through an abuse of such office. They comprise retributions for petitioner’s ten year exposure of corruption in our third branch of government.

It is an ordeal that reads like a John Grisham novel but plays out in real life as a dark side to justice meted out against judicial whistle blowers as a way of covering up serious misconduct. It is a lesson for advocates of free speech and press everywhere who dare to risk their families and livelihoods on the misplaced notion that those entrusted with the highest duty of safeguarding our constitutional rights will do so even when they are themselves the necessary subjects of public criticism.

Quite apart from the unconscionable injuries inflicted upon a native born American, these violations have serious implications for all citizens in that they usurp the self-governing authority of a free society, they make the case that other whistle blowers such as Edward Snowden can never expect fair treatment in the states, and that money and influence will invariably prevail over the rule of law in our nation’s courts. Indeed, on all fronts and in all branches of government, we are at a crossroads in that never ending quest to guarantee “liberty and justice for all.”

img_0278
A Florida doctor, California dentist and Virginia engineer join Dr. Leon Koziol on June 17, 2016 at the United States Supreme Court to announce the filing of a case seeking parental equality and judicial accountability in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

(Click Here to Download June 17, 2016 Petition for Writ from Scribd)

 

Please Share Today’s Posthttp://wp.me/pXgi5-2bj

 

CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF WITH ERROR-PRONE DECISION BY FEDERAL JUDGE THOMAS McAVOY

images

Everyone knows that discrimination against male parents in our nation’s family courts remains widespread. It is a curiously accepted perversion of equal rights verified by Census Bureau statistics and other reports showing that 85% of all support payers are men and 90% of contested custody cases favor women. Even judges, politicians and legal experts concede the undeniable despite its harmful effects upon veterans, innocent children and overcrowded courts and prisons. So why has nothing been done to rectify the clear injustices well into our 21st Century?

The first answer is the obvious one: unequal classifications of “custodial” and “non-custodial” parents facilitate money transfers which can then be exploited to divert finite resources to lawyers, state coffers and third party bank accounts. This must occur so that the “experts” can direct America on how its children should be raised despite their own lack of example or acceptable standards. Fit parents who simply choose to live apart must compete for court awards while demonstrating their parenting skills at a very dear price to families and children. In short, discrimination is profitable, no different than slavery or underpaid women.

The second answer is political: the principles embodied within our Constitution can be twisted to suit the politics of a given day. So, for example, African-Americans were not considered citizens in the 1850s, hence they had no standing to bring a civil rights case challenging slavery, see Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857). After the Civil War, they were citizens but made to live separate from the “more equal” ones, Plessey v Ferguson, 163 US 165 (1896). Women were not citizens under the 15th Amendment even after the Civil War. Hence, they were incompetent to vote in the 1872 national elections, United States v Susan B. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (1873).

More than 150 years later, it seems that little has changed with respect to the same principles when applied to fathers seeking to obtain more time with their offspring and equal authority in childrearing. This point was made evident in a trilogy of cases brought by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol, entitled Parent v New York; Koziol v Lippman; and Koziol v Peters. As stated at www.leonkoziol.com, this is the last in a three part series we call the Civil Rights Trilogy, designed to stimulate your participation and support behind a growing movement to reform our nation’s divorce and family courts.

Today we focus on the last case. Like the earlier two, it was analyzed in a Memorandum of Law filed last week by Dr. Koziol in the case of Koziol v King. The latest one comes as a result of the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling which criticized lower federal courts for abusing an abstention doctrine to dismiss meritorious civil rights cases such as the Civil Rights Trilogy. A relevant excerpt is attached. The Koziol v Peters case could well be compared to the experience of Susan B. Anthony when she litigated her rights in the same federal court in northern New York. Indeed, she faced everything from standing and jurisdiction issues to the deprivation of her jury rights before being convicted for the federal offense of voting in a congressional election.

In Koziol’s case, his children, law license and livelihood were seized also without a jury in retaliation for his exercise of citizen rights. Invidious targeting of his activity was remarkably similar. And, in an ironic twist, his first license suspension for conscientious opposition to unjust support orders came in the same city of Rochester, New York where Ms. Anthony was arrested. It occurred in a court room dedicated to her achievements. Put simply, there is little to distinguish Koziol’s modern ordeal from the one faced by Ms. Anthony. While being prosecuted, she continued to defy oppression with bold outspokenness and a refusal to pay her fine upon conviction. Today, we find a man seeking to overcome long held prejudices regarding a father’s place in the childrearing hierarchy. Like the 19th Century judges dismissing sound human rights principles, Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissed the ones put before him two centuries later, to wit:

1) Does a father truly have an equal right to raise his offspring?

2) Can the state abuse licensing authority to censor free speech and reform?

3) Is it not a federal court’s duty to safeguard federal rights when the state      violates them?

Like the case of United States v Susan B. Anthony, the federal court here in upstate New York refuses to consider long overdue precedent when the timing and circumstances are so ripe. Instead it misrepresents the law and facts while exercising the expedient option of abstaining from jurisdiction and constitutional duty. Worse yet, it has exploited such rare opportunities to defame and suppress the messengers of reform. With such a profound backdrop, we ask you to assist in our cause. Without resources, we cannot continue this fight. Please share our message. We offer speaking engagements, donation options and a Court Program to assist self-represented parents and those facing the high cost of divorce, custody and support litigation.

WHILE PARENTS RALLIED FOR DIVORCE AND FAMILY COURT REFORM, FEDERAL APPEALS COURT CLOSED ITS DOORS

circseal2

In follow-up to our August 4, 2014 post, today we bring you Part Two of our trilogy concerning a prior test case brought by parental rights advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol in Parent v New York. As explained, the United States Supreme Court recently handed down a ruling which showed that the test case was properly litigated, both in the lower federal court (yesterday’s post) and on appeal before the Second Circuit federal appeals court in New York City.

On June 15, 2012, a large gathering of parents and civil rights advocates rallied at Foley Square outside a federal appeals court in lower Manhattan in support of Parent v New York. This was a case designed to secure constitutional rights and fair treatment for parents routinely abused in New York’s domestic relations courts. Meanwhile, inside the court house, a decision was being made without public argument. We have included video clips of that rally here.

On June 18, 2012, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order affirming lower court dismissal of the Parent case on grounds of Younger abstention. However, the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Sprint Communications v Jacobs now verifies the erroneous nature of that order. Because Koziol’s constitutional challenges were wrongly declined, no decision on their merits has ever properly occurred. Hence the new case, Koziol v King, was filed last week with its added First Amendment claims, including disciplinary and Family Court retaliation for Koziol’s testimony at the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption.

A relevant excerpt from Dr. Koziol’s memorandum of law in support of a preliminary injunction in the new case is attached. As stated, we are dedicating this trilogy to all parents abused in our nation’s divorce and family courts. We would like to especially thank all those volunteers who rallied behind our cause two years ago. It turns out, you folks were correct as well in this movement to restore integrity and justice in our states’ third branch of government. Kindly share this post with others. We continue to rely on donations, additionally offering a Court Program to assist self-represented parents or those anxious to reduce costly litigation.

NEWS ALERT: PARENT V NEW YORK WRONGLY DECIDED THREE YEARS AGO

images

Last week, we published the filing of a civil rights lawsuit by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol, on our website, Leon Koziol.com. As noted, it challenged First Amendment censorship and parenting deprivations inflicted by certain state judges, enforcement agents and disciplinary authorities, including retaliation for Koziol’s testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption at Pace University on September 17, 2013 (Constitution day).

The new case raises similar claims made in a test case filed on February 26, 2009. It was dismissed in a 45 page decision by a federal judge three years ago. Commenced with the goal of converting the case into to a class action, the claims were ultimately left un-answered due to an abstention rule applied whenever state proceedings are pending. However, in a recent unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, lower federal courts were admonished for their abuses of Younger abstention beyond its narrow scope. Meritorious civil rights cases were being wrongly dismissed all across America in recent decades.

In addition, such dismissals were being abused to engage in further encroachments upon constitutional rights. In Koziol’s case, the 2011 dismissal was exploited by state agents to escalate their retributions for his valid criticisms and reform efforts concerning abusive and lucrative bench and bar practices in divorce and Family Court. In short, Mr. Koziol’s longstanding position against application of Younger abstention was proven correct. However, in order to rehabilitate the reputation damage caused by this dismissal, an excerpt from Koziol’s recently filed memorandum of law is attached.

Many parents suffered a similar fate, and we had hoped to intervene for their benefit and assistance. Unfortunately resources were lacking, donations insufficient, and retributions so severe that we were forced to question our every move. The current action explains it all. Beginning with this post, we will be publishing a trilogy from the same memorandum to convince our followers how we were right all along. We are dedicating this trilogy to all parents abused by a system which is getting increasingly out of control.

UNDER FIRE, GOVERNOR REVIVES MORELAND COMMISSION; NEW CO-CHAIRS NAMED

20140801-144344-53024910.jpg

What started out as an idiotic suggestion in a back-room meeting at the Governor’s office turned into a decision hailed by constituent pet owners as the most brilliant to date from the Cuomo administration. Reeling from a corruption investigation investigating his own corruption commission, Governor Cuomo today announced a decision to revive the Moreland Commission which he disbanded only months ago halfway into its assignment. Predictably, no person of stature cared to take part due to fears of state retribution and no court willing to provide justice.

Citing monarchial immunity from New York’s pre-Revolution Constitution, Cuomo is alleged to have issued edicts to the effect that his taxpayer financed corruption commission should be focused upon everyone but himself. When that position backfired, one staffer suggested that two felines be appointed to co-chair the new commission. Outraged over this idea, Cuomo is said to have responded, “How am I gonna control things my way with a couple of (expletive) cats heading up this (expletive) commission which got me into all this trouble in the first place?”

However, when the staffer explained the logic behind it, a desperate Governor began to listen intently, smiling and nodding in stock fashion until his enthusiastic support was given. If there is one thing the public knew about cats, they cannot be controlled by anyone. Quietly strutting around homes all across America, these family favorites do essentially nothing while getting free meals at their beckon meow. As the astute staffer put it, “these kitties got it better than welfare recipients, and their independence is beyond question. This Bharara character has no chance if the idea catches on Andy.”

And so it went at a news conference held at Cuomo’s summer retreat in the CATskill Mountains. It was a startling scene which had one Times reporter choking on his hour glass. Two attractive felines were placed on a table next to the podium as the Governor announced his new co-cats. Their resumes were indeed impressive, offered by a concerned couple tired of hearing about government corruption. No criminal background, no ties to any politician, and a wit to make anyone laugh. Introduced from right to left were Dr. Cocoa Katz and District Attorney Charmin Whiskers. The Governor explained his decision before opening the floor to the media through a cat interpreter. An AP correspondent was the first to stand up.

“Governor, not for nothing, but a pair of cats to head up the new Moreland Commission? Have you finally lost your marbles?”

“Look John, you guys are always hounding me about ethics and independence. Now you got nothing on me with these cats. Why don’t you direct your questions to them?”

“Okay, then, kitties, tell us more about this Commission. Will both major political parties be represented among its members?”

After a moment of intense silence, Dr. Katz began to meow the responses to all questions while an interpreter translated everything to an unprecedented gathering of dignitaries. In contrast, Attorney Whiskers simply looked over this audience with only passing interest.

“Of course both parties, the felines AND the canines, will be represented on this new Commission. We also intend to have participants from major third parties such as the Feathered Friends Party and the Fins and Crawling Things Party. In fact, Attorney Whiskers and I have already suggested a Siberian Husky and Golden Retriever to join us as co-chairs, but we cannot interfere with the other party’s decision-making authority.”

A CBS news team was quick to seize upon this leak of information to craft a flaw in the new Commission for an eager national viewing audience. “So what you’re saying then is that there’s already some in-fighting going on with the other political party?”

“Not at all. Like our party, they follow the democratic process. Right now they’re in the midst of an election involving two dogs named Peanut and Quasimodo. Apparently they won some kind of ugly dog contest out in California, and we’re told that beauty must be followed by the beast if the politicians are going to take us seriously. It’ll put more teeth into our final report if you get my drift. When they decide, you’ll be the first to know.”

“What will the Commission be investigating?” asked a reporter from the New York Post.

“The usual things: stray cats, abused dogs, animal shelters and more federal funding for sanitary parks. As long as the other party is still voting, we’re looking to commission a study on why our canine counter-parts can’t use litter boxes like we do.”

“What does any of this have to do with corruption at the state Capitol?” asked a USA Today journalist.

“For decades now, the public has watched elected leaders taking dumps all over our halls of government. They come up with all kinds of ways to control our behavior while making a mockery of their own. Soon there’ll be nothing left of our Constitution. The people are tired of cleaning up their mess with our hard earned taxes. So we’ve got to clean up this mess once and for all. We’re the cats to do it. If we can figure a way to get a dog to use a litter box, it’ll provide valuable insight for making politicians do the same.”

“You know, this new Moreland Commission is beginning to sound quite productive and trustworthy,” concluded a reluctant observer from another news organization. “Will you remain committed to the end, or can we expect more of the same?”

“I can assure you that we will be purrrr- suing every complaint. Look, the people are fed up to their gills with all this corruption. They’re getting the impression that no one can be trusted to govern their affairs. One of our members is so upset that you guys are calling him the Grumpy Old Cat. That’s why Andy came up with this fantastic idea for us to head up his new Commission. That Grumpy Cat is being considered for our director’s spot, and you gotta admit, he looks a heck of a lot better than the last one.”

“I got a question,” asserted an eager reporter. “What about the other co-chair? He hasn’t mewed about anything here. Doesn’t he have an opinion?”

All eyes were suddenly fixed upon the other cat who until this point had demurred entirely to his partner for the answers. Indifferent to the attention he never sought, Attorney Whiskers finally spoke up…

​“Hey, do I look like I care about any of this? I’m just here for the cat food.”

EXCERPT OF FEDERAL RETALIATION LAWSUIT REGARDING MORELAND CORRUPTION COMMISSION RELEASED

cuomo

July 31, 2014– Yesterday, we released the formal complaint in the federal lawsuit filed by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol on July 29, 2014. As explained, it challenges First Amendment censorship and state retributions upon Dr. Koziol’s testimony before the New York (Moreland) Commission on Public Corruption. In less than twenty-four hours, numerous inquiries have resulted from across the country. To answer some of them here, an excerpt from the lawsuit is attached which explains which posts on our site have been targeted by the Albany Committee on Professional Standards. Also, yesterday, we released the first page excerpt from the lawsuit memorandum of law which shows how prior cases were properly pursued.

It should be emphasized that the Governor appoints judges to the higher courts engaged in the attorney regulatory process in addition to four of the eleven members on the state Judicial Conduct Commission and all the members of the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. It should also be emphasized that the lawsuit is based, in part, upon the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sprint Communications v Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (December 10, 2013). By unanimous ruling, the Court criticized lower federal courts which had been dismissing lawsuits simply because parallel state cases were pending, i.e. divorce, custody and support.

Known as the Younger abstention doctrine, it was used by a federal appeals court in New York City to dismiss Koziol’s test case in Parent v State and by a lower federal court in Koziol v Peters. Because such abstention does not go to the merits of the dismissed cases, as fate and justice would have it, the earlier cases can now be resurrected in the current lawsuit because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. To put it simply, Leon Koziol was correct all along regarding his position against the exploitation of the now clarified Younger abstention doctrine.

Unfortunately, we have received numerous complaints from similarly injured parents whose federal cases (usually self represented) were dismissed for identical reasons. We would have liked to intervene in those cases as an amicus party (Friend of the Court) to assist such victims. However, resources are needed to do this, and as you can see from the attached excerpt, the state is attacking us relentlessly on all fronts.

For this reason, we need your help. Kindly make your donations to this very worthy cause today. You can also visit our other site www.parentingrightsinstitute.com to order the valuable court program which has helped so many parents avoid the high cost of divorce and Family Court. Not surprisingly, this program is also being targeted. The institute office can be reached at (315) 380-3420 and Dr. Koziol can be reached directly at (315) 796-4000. This is all more important than you know, if for no other reason than to protect the inalienable rights and children we cherish.

More News Relating To the Moreland Commission:

U.S. Attorney Warns Cuomo on Moreland Commission Case

PARENTAL ADVOCATE FILES FEDERAL SUIT DUE TO STATE RETALIATION UPON MORELAND COMMISSION TESTIMONY

Scan

On July 29, 2014, parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol, filed a civil rights lawsuit against state judges and ethics investigators for unlawful censorship directed to his website, organizing activity and testimony before the New York (Moreland) Commission on Public Corruption at Pace University on September 17, 2013 (Constitution Day) (excerpt from Memo of Law). Mr. Koziol has appeared on CBS 60 Minutes, front page of the New York Times, CNN and numerous internet news sources in connection with parenting rights, First Amendment issues and Native American land claims.

 After 23 years as a highly successful and unblemished civil rights attorney, Mr. Koziol was subjected to extraordinary retributions when he began focusing his criticisms and reform efforts upon widespread abuses in New York’s domestic relations courts. At the Moreland Commission, he asked for an investigation into retaliatory suspensions of his law license due to contrived ethics charges and a protracted license reinstatement process (His eye-opening presentation can be viewed at approximately the 2 hours, 31 minutes and 45 seconds mark). Ethics lawyers engaged in this process declared in court that they would continue opposing Koziol’s reinstatement so long as his offensive website postings and court filings continued. Weeks later they were fired for falsifying time sheets.

Also in his testimony, Koziol recommended that the state Commission on Judicial Conduct be disbanded due to its ineffectiveness, selectivity and “window-dressing” effects. In March, 2014, the reverse occurred, and on April 8, 2014, the Committee on Professional Standards in Albany issued a confidential report opposing Koziol’s reinstatement to his former civil rights practice. In that report, seven website postings (Post1) (Post2) (Post3) (Post4) (Post5) (Post6) (Post7) were targeted for “fitness” reasons, including the entire Moreland Commission testimony appended to the report. Retributions were also exacted upon his parent-child relationships by Family Court judges including one on his custody case who was disqualified in 2011 and removed from the bench in 2013 for sexual misconduct upon his handicapped five year old niece (In re Bryan Hedges).

Also: See New York Times Bombshell Report on the now Disbanded Moreland Commission Dated July 23, 2014 (Click Here)

Mr. Koziol can be reached at (315) 796-4000

More Insults For Good Parents: Syracuse Family Court Magistrate Insulated From Accountability

images

In a recent post, we featured a 15 page report and demand for resignation submitted to Syracuse Family Court Magistrate James Gorman. This came only days following a related comprehensive report naming the same magistrate in a complaint filed with the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct. First Amendment retaliation was evident from the text and impact of a support decision by Magistrate Gorman issued within days of this complaint. It went so far as to fabricate a PhD degree for support purposes while admitting to intentional violations of statute. The illegal acts of this magistrate caused Leon Koziol, an outspoken parental advocate, to lose newly secured employment.

Numerous violations of the state’s Judicial Code of Conduct were cited in both complaints. Because a support magistrate is subject to local administrative review, a second complaint was necessarily filed and promptly referred to a referee (“special counsel”). Only one week later, a response letter arrived stating that nothing would be investigated here. This follows additional concessions in another “confidential” forum that the state was in fact targeting the public criticisms of Leon Koziol. In short, the subjects of criticism are going to every extreme to punish the whistleblower. Welcome to America.

Below you will find a two page rebuttal which summarizes this shocking display of retaliation and injustice. An independent Judicial Review Commission has been proposed to overcome the inaction and whitewashing of judicial misconduct. Self regulation of our judiciary is simply not working to benefit the people who entrust such important duties to the public servants in our third branch of government operations. We are presently engaged in soliciting investments and donations behind this cause. We need extensive resources to be able to come into your individual communities and root out misconduct through investigation, report and complaints before the media and related government entities. Please look us up at Leon Koziol.com and make your contribution today.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Leon R. Koziol
Civil Rights Advocate
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13502
leonkoziol@gmail.com
(315) 796-4000

May 30, 2013

Gerard J. Neri
Special Counsel
Fifth Judicial District
Onondaga County Courthouse
Syracuse, New York 13202

Re: Support Magistrate James Gorman

Dear Mr. Neri:

On May 13, 2013, I submitted a 15-page resignation demand and formal complaint regarding serious ethical misconduct and gross incompetence exhibited by Onondaga County Support Magistrate James Gorman. It was provided to Family Court Judge Martha Walsh-Hood consistent with a procedure outlined by a Family Court clerk. I then received a May 16, 2013 letter from Judge Hood acknowledging my “complaint letters” and informing me that the matter was being assigned to you “for review and response”.

One week later, I received your letter dated May 23, 2013 which concluded the entire matter with peculiar, boiler-plate statements to the effect that “it appears you are objecting to legal decisions made by Support Magistrate Gorman…   that this office does not have authority to intercede in litigation or over-turn decisions of the Judges within the District… however, any objections to decisions/orders of the Support Magistrate should be made in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of New York”.

I am appalled that such text was actually contained in a formal statement under the office letterhead of James Tormey as Fifth District Administrative Judge. To this, I have two questions: who are you, and did you read my submissions? If you are a referee for judicial incompetence and misconduct, the Walsh-Hood transfer notice did not specify this. And if you had read my material, you would have discovered the identity of your immediate supervisor as a related subject of complaint. In that case, consistent with ethical duties of a lawyer or a judge, I am not sure which classification fits your job description, you should have disqualified yourself.

When I submitted my complaint, I did so on the good faith premise that an independent entity was in place to investigate and prosecute violations of our state’s judicial Code of Ethics. It “would appear” that there are no such ethics applicable to this hybrid animal known as a “support magistrate”. Like you, he or she is treated as neither a judge nor an attorney. Therefore these publicly paid officials can go about abusing government authority by simply making up material facts and exploiting them to suppress the free exercise of First Amendment rights.

Is it “competent” to find that I possessed a PhD contrary to anything stated in a court record and then abuse such a fact to orchestrate a jail-able support violation in retaliation for offensive public criticisms? Did you really think that I was unaware of the “objections” and “appeals” process? If you read my submissions, you would have known that I was complaining about gross incompetence and judicial misconduct of Magistrate Gorman derived from matters outside of the court record. As “special” counsel, you would then also have known that such matters are not subject to either “objections” or “appeals”. Even a rudimentary reading would have caused you to conclude that Magistrate Gorman was being grieved for his proximate retaliation upon my filing of a published complaint against him before the Judicial Conduct Commission.

This decision came only days after the publicized event, more than six months since our support hearing concluded, and five months after the same decision was promised on the record. The delay alone was bad enough. To reiterate aspects of my complaint, Magistrate Gorman admitted to intentional violations of “statutory requirements of the State of New York” in his decision copied upon you. This is not simply an issue for appeal. It is an unethical and unlawful act which caused me to lose a new job. An appeal of his decision will not get the job back. It is furthermore unethical for you to “shoe-horn” my complaint within the convenient confines of a support case in order to insulate a colleague in the same courthouse from accountability. This is a complaint showing numerous violations of ethical code requiring a truly impartial and detached review.

Only today, the Syracuse Post Standard and Syracuse.com featured a civil rights case by a professor against SUNY Institute of Technology for First Amendment retaliation resulting in a $600,000 verdict, or the same amount obtained against your boss for violating similar rights of a Family Court clerk. A support magistrate may attempt to claim immunity from monetary recovery of this kind, but he or she is not immune from ethical accountability for the same unlawful act. Otherwise there would be no purpose to any code of ethics, conduct commission or your “office” for that matter. Please do the right thing here by disqualifying yourself so that a proper “review and response” can be made in connection with this very serious matter.

The public has a right to expect some kind of accountability in our third branch of government operations. A truly impartial “support magistrate” would not only honor our ethical codes but he would commence every case with notice to the litigants that they are being subjected to a tax as well as a child support obligation in any final order. I have explained the logic of this in my submissions but that would of course impair the same magistrate’s overall impartiality due to a financial stake in the outcome (principally impairing fathers and non-custodial mothers). This is all part of my continuing effort to alert you of an escalation in tensions and violence arising from this kind of bureaucratic cycle of abuse, harming good parents, families and innocent children.

Very truly yours,

Leon R. Koziol

Cc: Martha Walsh-Hood
Judicial Conduct Commission
U.S. Justice Department
Syracuse Post Standard

With One Judge Removed From Family Court, Koziol Seeks Removal of Another

index

Just when you thought it was safe to return to court, along comes another example of misconduct and gross incompetence which we have targeted in the Syracuse Onondaga County Family Court. Parents entering this arena are at risk of similar victimization and should pass out flyers at the courthouse steps to demand corrective action on a daily basis. The people of Syracuse, New York must take a hard look at what is happening in their public system of justice.

After going through nearly 30 trial level judges in the past seven years of a once uncontested divorce, Leon Koziol has announced that enough is enough. No more payments will be made to this “child support” bureaucracy fraudulently declaring itself to be acting in the “best interests of our children.” A letter has been issued directly to a support magistrate demanding his resignation after another judge, Bryan Hedges, of the same Family Court was removed by the state’s top court last week for sexual abuse upon a handicapped five year old niece.

Once again, you just can’t make this stuff up. Apparently only our protected judges can do this as a Family Court magistrate, James Gorman, actually manufactured a PhD among Mr. Koziol’s professional qualifications to support his “finding” that imputed income can be satisfied with no reduction in obligations. There is much more, and you simply have to read the entire demand letter attached here. It can be used as a template for your own demands, as we continue cleansing judicial office across the country from its corruption and misconduct upon good Americans.

After Koziol publicized his last complaint to the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, this “child support” magistrate, named in that complaint, evidently abused his position in revenge so that free speech of the kind found at Leon Koziol.com can be utterly shut down. Whether you are a support victim, a subject of child alienation, a police officer sworn to uphold this system or a common taxpayer who pays for it all, this story must be told. More important, it must be read completely, and it must be circulated everywhere to promote “free press” that is being harmed.

Your parenting and childrearing crises are only going to get worse unless you join our civil rights movement and take real action. As this site shows throughout, there is extensive drive and professional qualifications to secure long overdue reform to our divorce and Family Courts. But it cannot be done without proper resources against a bureaucracy so large and out of control. If ten people can invest $10,000 a piece instead of donating it to useless lawyers, we can get a good start and begin entering your cases and courthouses to expose similar abuses. Maybe you have the connections to assist in our fundraising and reform efforts. For every abused child, and our moral fiber as a nation, we are running out of time! Stay tuned, more alarming news to follow.

See Request For James Gorman’s Resignation (Click Here)