By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Throughout the entire 230 year history of the United States Supreme Court, there has never been a case accepted on the issue of parental rights in divorce and family court. There have been decisions on how to properly jail a father for a support debt, Turner v Rogers, 564 US __ (2011); how to protect a custodial mother from grandparent rights, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000); how to prevent a biological father from accessing children who want to be in his life, Michael H. v Gerald D., 491 US 110 (1989);  how to terminate parental rights consistent with due process, Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982); how to assure that a father has the same rights as a mother to oppose adoption of their offspring, Caban v Mohammed, 491 US 380 (1979) and cases all the way to where parental rights were first declared to be the oldest liberty interest protected by our Constitution, Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923).

In divorce and family court, because two purportedly co-equal parents have the same rights to their children, lawyers, judges and hired guns, i.e. child psychologists, can beat up on their parental rights until the custody and support battles bankrupt entire families if necessary. It is this antiquated and lucrative custody law (as opposed to shared parenting) which violates the fundamental rights of both parents more than most other forms of state infringements. But that’s okay because of all the conflict profiteers which keep this a trillion dollar industry at the expense of our children.

Then came Koziol v United States District Court, Case No. 15-1519, a mandamus action which seeks parental justice and real accountability for those who abuse our constitutional rights. I filed it on June 14, 2016 to remedy the horrendous retaliation I sustained for criticizing my profession and our courts for their exploitation of our children for profit. On September 20, 2016, the Supreme Court accepted a Supplemental Brief which I offered to show just how the retributions escalated since the earlier filing and how absurd these processes have become. We all know how impossible it is for anyone to get the Supreme Court to hear a case. Less than 100 are accepted out of some 10,000 filed each year, making our high court an illusion for justice among the vast number of aggrieved commoners.

Parents are batting zero in this regard. So we do not expect anything to change any time soon unless we make ourselves heard. That has simply not happened as parenting victims have preferred to stay on their keyboards in the comfort of their homes instead of organizing and protesting. And so the band (bank) plays on as we gripe incessantly to one another and to no one else who cares. Finally a case has come before our high court where true reform is possible. This is the third in a series of excerpts from that supplemental brief which should be shared and supported by all. Here is our third part for publication:

REASONS  FOR  SUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEF

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

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

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

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

Supplement to Fact Section

 Judge Sharpe’s anti-filing action began on August 25, 2015, A-I at 51. Syracuse media was put on notice prior to petitioner’s knowledge of it to yield a calculated publication that further damaged petitioner’s reputation, credible reform message and employability. It was also caused by a fundamental lack of reporter investigation and knowledge of family court matters which mainstream media as a general rule is avoiding. Hence secondary media becomes a critical by-product which in this case has been gagged and targeted by both domestic and disciplinary agents.

At the time of this anti-filing order, respondent King was reviewing motions properly seeking an order reopening a support violation order obtained through joint fraud, namely the concealment of petitioner’s children at the home of an unfit, childless millionaire on the family court record for at least eight months. He issued a decision only days later without mention of that fraud, committing this father to a maximum six month jail term for support arrears.

An arrest warrant was also issued despite a stay order obtained by agreement with a state Supreme Court Justice on September 8, 2015 to facilitate global settlement under a superior court support order by agreement entered on August 23, 2010. It called for sale of petitioner’s home as the predicate remedy for arrears. Home foreclosure had been underway in the only (Supreme) court with authority to direct a sale, and the parties had reached a tentative settlement for child support through sale proceeds due to the state’s impairment of all of petitioner’s income means.

However Judge King reneged the following day without notice to petitioner, placing him unknowingly in fugitive status while upending the settlement set for September 24, 2015. A satisfaction amount had been held back pending the motion for reopening the violation, but the funds were refused because the prescribed local support agency had no authority to accept it and a central office refused to disclose its confidential location. Judge King refused to amend his impossible order due to his true agenda of censorship and punitive incarceration. He refused despite notice from petitioner’s attorney and his possession of certified funds.

In early October, 2015 the arrears were satisfied by mail, the warrant and commitment vacated, and petitioner’s motions denied despite the respondent mother’s claims to have satisfied her own court ordered obligations to notify the father of residential relocation within 24 hours by e-mail or text. She later testified that such notice had been confirmed on her home computer under address “gmai.com” (“l” character missing unlike other received transmissions).

Petitioner was therefore compelled to file more futile judicial misconduct complaints while exposing the fraud on his website. Judge King answered on November 25, 2015 (after mandamus filing below) with a protection (gag) order on this site based exclusively on non-threatening disclosures of recent events with the following absurd, highly defamatory and overbroad language prohibiting:

“assault, stalking, menacing, reckless endangerment, strangulation, criminal obstruction of breathing, identity theft, grand larceny, coercion, or any other criminal offense” nowhere alleged in an offense petition;

Petitioner was actually being ordered to refrain from strangling his own daughters. The Fourth Department appeals court denied an intervening mandamus as did the Second Circuit but petitioner was able to get a mandamus show cause order signed in New York Supreme Court on May 3, 2016. On the eve of family court trial, Judge King cancelled proceedings for the second time while his gag order was maintained under threat of arrest and contempt for six months. He followed days later by throwing it all out on the face of the original petition and website content.

In June, 2016, one week prior to a public hearing on the mandamus action, Judge King stepped down while continuing his 2013 and 2014 suspensions of fathering periods. The action was then dismissed on the court’s own motion due to relief rendered moot through conduct that can only be described as orchestrated. Necessarily involving respondent Administrative Judge Tormey, it was successful in avoiding a citizen protest set to occur at the courthouse.

The case was then transferred to family Judge James Eby in a more remote county, the 38^th trial judge since an originally uncontested divorce was filed in 2006. The latest judge denied an exigent motion for Father’s Day time deprived the prior two years as part of a father replacement agenda. Petitioner nevertheless obtained an afternoon with his daughters through pressure upon the mother. This only infuriated the newest judge at a July 12, 2016 session when he effectively closed all state court houses to petitioner.

He did this through notices conclusively proving systemic bias. Prior to first introduction, they stated, inter alia, that civil practice rules will be strictly observed and telephonic argument will not be considered (contrary to practices). This required an entire day and 140 mile round trip to receive a decision already prepared and provided from the bench without mention of a recusal motion or severe child alienation. He simply stared back at petitioner when basic enforcement of phone contact was requested. Given an ability to control appellate records, such torturing of due process impairs access to this Court on the state track.

Judge Eby engaged in sarcastic lecturing in a manner intended to provoke outrage and contempt. He limited petitioner’s recourse to appellate remedies with full knowledge of their prohibitive time, resources and systemic bias with daily developing children as the subject. It compelled petitioner to reiterate the temporary nature of prior allegedly precluded dispositions and contrary precedent involving the same case and parties.

The recusal of Judge King and pending challenges to his forensic and contradictory parenting conditions could be vacated as it occurred in an identical circumstance by a prior Judge Michael Hanuszczak on the same record used by a predecessor (disqualified) judge, Second Circuit A-222. The invidious treatment here mirrored the retaliation against a chief family clerk of the same court in Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2^nd Cir. 2010).

The same chief administrative judge, respondent James Tormey is shown through compelling circumstantial inference to be orchestrating these outcomes through discourse outside the scope of judicial office. This may be the only explanation for absurd orders, assignments to remote courthouses, and reneging of stay orders arranged by judges themselves for logic and economy purposes.

Due to the respondent King’s usurpation of a global child support settlement during the month following Judge Sharpe’s anti-filing action, the prescribed satisfaction pursuant to higher court order of August 23, 2010 was derailed. It caused respondents Hawse-Koziol and Koslosky to pursue another violation petition in their preferred family court which lacked jurisdiction to order a sale of petitioner’s home with equity well beyond amounts owed.

That petition was made subject to a traverse (personal jurisdiction) hearing on September 1, 2016. A city marshal admitted on cross-examination by petitioner that he had lied under oath regarding his purported service. Decision was strangely reserved. On September 16, 2016, it was issued dismissing the petition without prejudice but also without referral of the perjury to a law enforcement agency as required by Judicial Code, Jones v Clinton, 36 F.Supp. 2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 1999)(federal judge referral of President Bill Clinton for ethics prosecution after contempt of court).

Among other issues ignored was the serial misconduct of the attorney continually appointed since 2007 to represent petitioner’s children even after removal by an intervening judge (respondent William Koslosky). Like his predecessors, Judge Eby disregarded the issue, leaving petitioner to futile complaints before an ethics committee engaged in the witch hunt against him. As stated, its chief and deputy counsel were fired for falsifying time sheets without public charges, i.e. respondent Steve Zayas. Hence there is no even-handed lawyer accountability in the peculiar ordeal inflicted here.

You may contact us at Parenting Rights Institute at our office : (315) 380-3420 or our website at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.