Tag: Judge James Tormey
Next March Planned for Upstate New York after a 70,000 Signature Petition Seeks Removal of Judge James McClusky
By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
On the heels of a highly successful Parent March on Washington and Congressional Lobby Initiative which I was able to put together in less than three months, I promised my followers a next step which I hope will ignite similar (regional) marches and protests across the country.
I am focused on a motorcade from Fort Drum in northern New York to Utica, New York with a protest seeking a removal of four judges in addition to Judge James McCluskey of Watertown, New York. I have a sufficient local following to make this happen but welcome all from around the country who want to keep our momentum going.
The motorcade is designed to draw attention to the veterans who have committed suicides as a result of family court abuses, see i.e. Purple Heart’s Final Beat, Second Class Citizen.Org. Fort Drum is among the largest military installations in the country charged with training and mobilization of all active services. In 1959, it was the site of Agent Orange experiments which later prevented healthy births for Vietnam veterans.
Fort Drum exists in New York’s Fifth Judicial District which has become a hotbed of judge misconduct. Corruption here is being ignored or glossed over by a state judicial commission dominated by lawyers. Over a 12-year period, all of my 30-plus complaints have failed to produce a single inquiry without explanation. Such vast inaction only encourages more misconduct.
Adding to the corruption, certain judges here are being allowed to retaliate against judicial whistle blowers. It is a shameless abuse of judicial office with my ordeal as a quintessential example. If they can do this to a prominent civil rights attorney and model parent, imagine what they will do to you.
For example, one of my custody judges, Gerald Popeo, was merely given a public censure by this commission in 2015 despite being found guilty of making racial slurs to an African-American attorney. He referred to a prosecutor as a “cigar store Indian,” threatened to come off the bench to assault a litigant for giving him a “smirk,” and he jailed men for contempt in violation of their due process rights. How much more misconduct is required for removal?
Because he was not removed, he managed to get assigned to my family court matters (as a city judge!). Among so many other abuses, he failed to provide a child support hearing transcript for appeal which showed a $45,500 fraud (2015 payment never credited to me by the state’s child support collection center). Instead, he issued a support warrant with a near fatal outcome after blaming me for that public censure at a local bar.
Now comes a judge who I sued last year for a continued abuse of my reform work as a judicial whistle blower. Judge James McClusky refused to give any jail time for a 26-year old bus driver who was found guilty of raping a 14-year old girl earlier this year. Over 70,000 signatures have already been obtained seeking his removal in only a few months.
McClusky’s boss, Administrative Judge James Tormey, heads the Fifth Judicial District, but he is playing politics with accountability that litigants rightfully demand. For example, his chief family court clerk recovered $600,000 against him (and my pedophile custody judge Bryan Hedges) in a civil rights case due to retaliation against her for refusing to engage in “political espionage,” see Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010).
As victims, we need to join forces to bring accountability to this judicial district. We need to make an example here so that other regions of our country will do the same. We have reports delivered and discussed with members of Congress during our May 2nd Lobby Day which seek a federal investigation of human rights abuses in these courts. We must now make follow-up calls to those members before they sweep it aside like so many others on the subject.
There will be no conference call tonight after my efforts to unveil this “next step” was upstaged by a pair of “moles and trolls.” Those interruptions have been recorded and reported. In the meantime, I have been given a new access code with the same call number. Just contact me for that code if you wish to participate in our continuing reform effort. You can call the Parenting Rights Institute at (315) 380-3420 or e-mail me at email@example.com.
Finally, after taking a $5,000 loss on a March and Lobby event valued in excess of $50,000 (if sponsored by a special interest), I continue to seek donations and product purchases on my website, http://www.leonkoziol. com. That site will continue to serve as an information source. Please spread the word.
Alarming Video of Corrupt Family Judges: Outraged Parents Headed to Washington
By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
Unfortunately delayed for nearly two months, an NBC production crew has finally released this second in a series of alarming videos which documents widespread corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. It is the product of research and visits to victims across the country by the Parenting Rights Institute. Because judges are being exposed in serial fashion, this delay is no doubt caused by a scrutiny of content for accuracy.
The sampling of judges illustrates just how serious corruption has become in these courts. Many victims place blind trust in their “gods of justice” only to learn too late that they are permanently victimized. These judges were once the same lawyers profiting off of lucrative controversy to cause severe parental alienation, veteran suicides and debtor prisons under the guise of acting in our children’s “best interests.”
The time for talk, keyboarding and sermonizing to the choir is over. The system has become a trillion dollar industry with psychiatrists, counselors, case workers and countless court predators swallowing whole your earnings, savings and college funds to feed an endless greed. Children who once respected and loved both parents are taught to spy, hate and disown them with little or no cause. The alienation here is worse than the ordeals of illegal aliens being protected at our borders.
Outraged parents are wasting their time with complaints to federal and state agencies. Such parents (legally here) are no one’s priority because the state is seizing our childrearing authority as part of a New World Order. Only last month, representatives of our Institute met with a high ranking delegate to the United Nations only to learn that we would get no sympathy there. If you have survived these courts or even if you have never been to one, you are harmed in countless other ways by the societal costs.
That is why we have had enough. These lawsuits, complaints and reports are a waste when our own government does not even have the courtesy of giving a reply to so many. We have to take our case to Washington on May 3, 2019. We are going there to demand a federal investigation of these courts, to support a national shared parenting bill for an end to custody and alienation tactics, and a repeal of Title IV-D funding that is being abused to fill our jails, hospitals and morgues.
WE NEED YOUR AID AND PARTICIPATION! SHARE THIS VIDEO AND THIS MESSAGE FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR FAMILIES AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.
IN THAT REGARD, WE ARE ALL UNITED.
If you would like to be a part of our ongoing organizing efforts, call the PRI Office at (315) 380-3420 or e-mail me personally at firstname.lastname@example.org.
HAPPY NEW YEAR! Family Judge Sued for Lewd Conduct by Court Attorney and Clerk: Reads Like Parent v New York
By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
In August, 2017, Family Judge Richard Miller was removed from his duties on the bench and reassigned by the New York Unified Court System. No details were released at the time to explain why. Now comes the revelation that he forced his court attorney and clerk to view pornography including nude photos of a co-worker. Among other “family friendly” duties, Judge Miller made sexual demands and even asked his clerk (Gallagher) to engage in sex acts with an elected official to curry political favors.
Yes, it’s all there in a federal court complaint filed on December 21, 2018 which reads, verbatim in some segments, like my precedent seeking action on behalf of abused family court litigants in Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011). Indeed, so closely does the complaint pattern mine that one might easily conclude that it was used as a template by the law firm which filed the action last week.
Of course the difference is that the plaintiffs in my case were litigant parents whereas the current one features court employees. Judges have fashioned a special rule for themselves known as Absolute Judicial Immunity from lawsuits by litigants whereas they get no such protection from lawsuits by subordinates even if the misconduct is identical.
For example Michigan Judge Wade McCree was given immunity in a federal lawsuit brought by a father in a child support case whose opponent got pregnant by the married McCree in chambers while presiding over the case. Such immunity carries over from the King of England and finds no authority in our Constitution.
So committed was I to removing that immunity that I filed four federal lawsuits which earned a filing restriction by a federal judge, Gary “not so” Sharpe. Gary was removed by a federal appeals court from a case due to a human gene he used for decision making which he claimed would not be discovered by scientific experts for another fifty years. The appeals court found his bizarre conduct to harm public confidence in the judiciary.
Yet Judge Gary Sharpe was never impeached, he did not resign in shame as he should have, and he refused to step off my case afterward, see United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011). The Cossey ruling is one of the few in which the decision itself was found to be sufficient grounds for bias and disqualification.
Another case which illustrates the unjust disparity between litigant and employee in judge accountability is Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir 2010). This case featured my administrative judge and ex-custody judge, Bryan Hedges. They were successfully sued by a chief family court clerk based on unlawful retaliation for her refusal to engage in “political espionage.” She recovered $600,000.00.
Hedges was removed from my case in 2011 and from the bench altogether one year later after he admitted to sexual misconduct on his handicapped, five year old niece, see In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013). His co-defendant, Judge James “Bond” Tormey is still on the bench even after assigning 41 trial jurists to my originally uncontested divorce case. Over a 12 year period, nearly half were removed by motion due to bias or misconduct.
Like the 2017 reassignment of Family Judge Richard Miller, no reasons were given, and like Tormey, Miller is still a judge hauling in close to $200,000.00 in annual salary. The “immoral” of this story is that a lawsuit by an employee is acceptable but one against a judge containing similar claims is “rambling” and even “incomprehensible.”
This is one of the many reasons why I have asked fellow victims to join me in a march on Washington, May 3, 2019, to start in front of the White House and ending on the Supreme Court steps. Get the details on the 6-minute video here produced by an NBC production crew. A more startling one is forthcoming, ironically on the subject of judge misconduct across America. Look for it on this site, Leon Koziol.com and spread the word.
Dr. Leon Koziol submits report to Senate Judiciary Committee seeking criminal investigation of family court corruption
Breaking News from Site Administrator
Parenting Rights Institute Director, Dr. Leon Koziol, has just returned from a week long trip to Washington D.C. He has been lobbying the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, Justice Department and others for a federal investigation and committee hearings on the subject of judicial corruption in our nation’s family courts. He hopes other victims will join.
At the center of his effort is a report describing his Supreme Court petition docketed on September 5, 2018 entitled, Leon Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, et. al. Case No. 18-278. That case relates the ten-year ordeal of Dr. Leon Koziol as a trial attorney and model parent with a request for judicial whistleblower protection. All documents are accessible on the Supreme Court site.
Depicted graphically throughout this website, Leon Koziol.com, his ordeal dwarfs the one related to the same Judiciary Committee by Dr. Blasey Ford during the recent confirmation hearings. Newly seated Justice Brett Kavanaugh will now review the Koziol case featuring claims of discrimination in our family courts, judge corruption and the targeting of men everywhere.
The horrific mistreatment of this whistleblower climaxed this past year to include violations of law, procedure and government policies in a clandestine effort to literally kill a highly qualified reform messenger. Oneida County, New York Sheriff Robert Maciol admitted that a secret police bulletin was improperly leaked to the media, one which led to a verbal “shoot on sight” order by a town patrol cop. It was compared to the police murder of Walter Scott on April 4, 2015. Unarmed and fleeing a child support warrant at a traffic stop, this dad was shot dead five times in the back leading to a $6 million settlement.
Sheriff Maciol has ignored Dr. Koziol’s complaints since January regarding the targeting of his free speech, parenting and due process rights, making him complicit in a conspiracy to violate federal law. The volatile situation which this has triggered can be compared to the needless killing of another deputy under his command, Kurt Wyman, during a domestic stand-off.
In the Koziol case, a subordinate deputy was reported for abusing court security duties, providing free service of a support summons as a favor to a court clerk, and depriving taxpayers and sheriff civil division of the fee prescribed by law. In a comparable case successfully defended by Dr. Koziol followed by civil rights recovery of $80,000, a city employee who abused his position in a similar way was quickly charged with a felony.
Dr. Koziol’s formal request for a federal investigation was discussed personally with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, some of the same ones featured during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. That process alerted the public to our third branch of government which is neither “above the law” nor immune from accountability under our Constitution.
As relevant here, and set out fully in Dr. Koziol’s report, the violations of our federal rights can elevate from civil to criminal status. A key example is “Operation Greylord,” a federal sting operation regarding judicial corruption in Chicago. Also cited in the report, it led to indictments of 93 civil rights violators that included 17 judges, 48 lawyers, 10 deputy sheriffs, 8 policemen 8 court officials and an elected politician. Nearly all were convicted. One judge committed suicide and another died in 2011, one year after his release from prison.
These are the federal criminal statutes relied upon in the Koziol report supporting a comprehensive criminal investigation of his horrific ten-year ordeal:
Title 18, section 242 of the United States Code provides as follows:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
(A)nd if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18 section 241 of the United States Code provides as follows:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Free speech, due process, equal protection and the fundamental parenting right were all crucified here. As always, Dr. Koziol needs your personal and financial support after losing everything behind this worth cause. That cause is benefiting parents, families, children and future generations at great risk to a conscientious whistleblower and court reformist. Kindly share this post with your congressional representatives, media and other contacts.
Is Cynthia Nixon serious about a corruption probe in the wake of New York’s latest “Buffalo Billions” scandal?
By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
Cynthia Nixon, candidate for New York governor is calling on incumbent Andrew Cuomo to initiate a probe of corruption in state government. This comes on the heels of guilty verdicts involving SUNY Polytech Institute ex-president Alain Kayloyeros and developers connected to the Buffalo Billions Scandal.
As a former student body president at Polytech’s Utica-Marcy campus and a victim of corruption in nearby New Hartford, New York, I applaud the gubernatorial candidate in her calls for reform. However, nowhere in her public statements outside of a Manhattan federal courthouse does she mention that third branch of government known as the judiciary.
Fresh from her successful endorsement of Ocasio-Cortez in an upset primary victory over long time Congressman Joseph Crowley, Nixon is hoping to do the same against Cuomo. A long shot at best, Nixon might still shock the world if she wins upstate together with a probe which, like the 2013 Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, implicates the governor in the scandals around him.
As a judicial whistleblower speaking at the Moreland Commission hearings, I exposed corruption in New York’s divorce and family courts. Within three months of that presentation, I lost contact with my daughters and was denied reinstatement of my law license. During the same year, ethics lawyers in Albany engaged in the witch hunt against me were allowed to resign quietly for falsifying their time sheets without any criminal or ethics prosecution brought against them.
This past week I obtained a sworn statement from a former client disclosing certain lawyers in Utica who participated in the 2008 witch hunt that led to my first license suspension after 23 unblemished years of practice. They sought him out at his place of employment to testify falsely about a case I successfully litigated during the nineties.
This former client was recently the victim of a sting operation by federal marshals at his brother’s home for child support delinquencies. Yes, you read that correctly. He nearly died of kidney failure after spending six months in county jail for a child support debt. Another father, Walter Scott was shot dead in the back five times unarmed while fleeing a child support debt. Meanwhile, Cuomo and other liberals are protecting illegal immigrant parents from being separated from their children.
This is the extreme to which our judicial branch has gone to destroy legal parents, veterans and especially dads in a gender biased “system.” The Census Bureau continues to report that 85% of all parents paying child support are men, and nearly one out of every five inmates in our nation’s prisons are “dead beat dads” (a still advertised sexist slur).
As a civil rights attorney, I won many race and gender discrimination cases, even representing a former president of the National Organization for Women. But when I turned my energies to end father discrimination in the same courts, I was subjected to severe retaliation. I sought to protect all parents from corruption of the worst kind, like my family court judge, Bryan Hedges, removed from the bench after admitting to sexual abuse of his handicapped five year old niece.
On Friday, July 13, 2018, Governor Cuomo sought to distance himself from the Buffalo Billions convictions much like he sought to distance himself from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Leader Dean Skelos after they were similarly convicted following their exposure at the Moreland Commission hearings (which the same Cuomo prematurely closed). Here is what New York’s current governor had to say:
Can you stop people from doing stupid things? No. Can you stop people from doing venal things? No. But you can have a system in place which that says, if you do something wrong, we will be as aggressive as the law allows in prosecuting you?
Seriously Andrew? Tell that to all our family and divorce court victims, the ones repeatedly thrown out of those same federal courts after seeking recourse for constitutional violations. Tell that to suicide victims, persecuted whistleblowers and alienated parents.
If you want to prosecute for stupidity, tell that to the state’s Commission on judicial Conduct which merely slapped the wrist of Utica City Judge Gerald Popeo in 2015. He was found guilty of wrongful incarcerations using such threats from the bench “to wipe that smirk off” a litigant’s face. He was excused of a so-called joke to an African-American attorney that downstate blacks refer to upstate blacks as “country niggers.”
And now this criminal judge has somehow managed to become assigned as an “Acting Family Court Judge” to my child support case. It is part of an ongoing scheme to incarcerate me on false pretenses after 39 prior judges were disqualified or removed from my originally uncontested divorce case, a national record by most accounts. A stand-off is forthcoming as I refuse to submit to this kind of judge and judicial “system.” I may even end up like former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer.
If Cythia Nixon is truly sincere in her convictions and not just a politician little different from her opponent, she will look into judicial corruption and the failed Moreland Commission which also led to a quick cover-up of Cuomo’s child support issues. She should read the case involving the administrative judge in Syracuse who assigned all those judges to my case, including Popeo. In that case, a chief family court clerk recovered $600,000 due to unlawful retaliation for her refusal to engage in political espionage, Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010).
Blockbuster Case Now Playing in Family Court: It’s Rocky vs Rambo
By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
Before continuing with this latest post on judge corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts, I would like to say Hello to all the judges, lawyers, doctors, professors, investigators, commissions, national and local news reporters, and even New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore who may be monitoring this website, Leon Koziol.com. Confidential informants continue to report a growing number of “fans.”
Many of you are friends, others are bent on revenge, and most are seeking information or assistance. If you’re new to this site, opened in 2010, you’re in good company with more than 6,000 followers from Europe to Hawaii. This will be a “breaking news” post you will want to make viral because it is yet another shockingly true story. As we have assured time and again: “You just can’t make this stuff up.”
Judge Gerald Popeo is a racist and pompous judge who managed to keep his job in an upstate New York city court despite a battery of ethics charges brought against him by a prosecutor, public defender, an African-American lawyer and court victims before the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct. Because its proceedings are secret, we cannot tell you how many complaints he has faced during nearly two decades on the bench.
On February 12, 2015, Judge Popeo was merely censured by that Commission instead of removed, although to his credit, the Commission Chair, Thomas Klonick, dissented. He voted to sustain the findings made by a hearing judge concerning those charges of using racial slurs as a judge. They included at least two depictions of a prosecutor acting like a “cigar store Indian” and another, to an African-American attorney no less, where Popeo “joked” that New York City black people refer to upstate black people as “country niggers.”
That’s not all, the charges and findings that were accepted included temper tantrums and serial contempt citations without the requisite warnings and due process protections. In one case, evidently copying some of the movies that Gerry has watched (i.e. “My Cousin Vinny”), Judge Popeo sentenced a man to five successive thirty day periods in jail for each facial gesture or comment about the lack of justice in his courtroom. Only after getting a phone call from his chief administrative judge, James “Bond” Tormey, did he reduce the 150 day sentence.
But among the “injudicious” acts which the Commission did accept for public censure, the one which was most disturbing is a violent threat from the bench made to another litigant in his courtroom. After noting a grin on his face, Judge Gerald Popeo, evidently assuming the mantra of judicial Rocky Balboa, warned that he “would love to come off the bench and wipe that smirk off your face.” The Commission could not excuse this street thug remark because those in the same court could hear it clearly and it was recorded by a court stenographer.
But it gets better (or worse depending how entertained you are by Judge “Rocky” Popeo). After the litigant was excused and exiting the courtroom, a different kind of grin caught Judge Rocky’s attention. So he summoned him back for a contempt sentence because, in his delusional mindset, this poor sap “gave (Popeo another) nice big smirk …. as if to say, blank-you judge.” Seriously Sylvestor? Even the real Stallone might have you committed to a mental institution.
As a lawyer and litigant in Popeo’s kangaroo court and many others over a thirty year period, I have made all sorts of grins, objections and human expressions which could fall in the Popeo contempt playbook. And now this judge has been assigned to my custody and support cases as an “Acting Family Judge” in a court he was never elected to. How’s that for domestic violence prevention and our children’s “best interests?” You women better not grin in Gerry Balboa’s boxing court.
Yes you read that correctly. After my family court matters were assigned to remote courts at Lake Ontario and near the Canadian border, with 150 mile round trips to receive decisions already written, Judge James Bond has now assigned a judge only a few miles from our (parent) homes who threatens violence. Welcome to Trial Judge #41 assigned since my originally uncontested divorce was filed 12 years ago in 2006, a judicial record by most accounts.
It occurred after the Oswego and Herkimer judges recently stepped down. Judges #39 and #40 gave no reason, and I was given no notice of their disqualifications, but they came after my complaints to oversight authorities. Those published complaints focused on their unauthorized back room involvement in each other’s separate cases to orchestrate unlawful service of a support summons threatening as much as seven (7) years in jail. That’s more than violent felons and child molesters get. My pedophile custody judge Bryan Hedges (look him up) got no prison time!
I had been challenging service by mail on the face of that summons and petition because it leads to innocent non-appearances or fatal law enforcement for money collection purposes. A sensationalized example is an unarmed African-American shot dead five times in the back while fleeing a support warrant at a traffic stop in South Carolina (Walter Scott).
When I became one such victim of a non-appearance, an earlier support magistrate corrected the human error over the phone in 2012. But not Gerry Balboa. He was on some kind of mission given to him by his boss Judge James “Bond” Tormey who assigned all the other 40 trial jurists to my family court cases. He did so in a manner which mirrored the retributions inflicted on a chief family court clerk which resulted in a $600,000 recovery against “Bond, James Bond” in federal court for her refusal to engage in Tormey’s “political espionage.”
Again we don’t make these things up here at Leon Koziol.com. Look it up at Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010). Shameless Tormey was neither removed from his position nor did he resign from the bench. With my full page advertisements and editorials published over the past few months in Syracuse, Utica and Watertown, New York mainstream newspapers, testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, and continued exposure of rampant judicial misconduct nationwide, the retaliation elevated to unprecedented levels in Oneida County Family Court on March 3, 2018.
On that day, I made it clear that Gerry had better not threaten me with violence and most assuredly, he had better stay put on his bench. For the reasons that follow, I knew this was beyond question a contempt by ambush and an unlawful act of attempted imprisonment which a citizen has a right to defend against in such an extraordinary case. Think of it as a Rambo One movie with the corrupt cops replaced by corrupt judges.
In my reports I compared the judicial gang assault inflicted upon me for so many years to a Rodney King beating with the fists and batons replaced by orders and edicts. If Gerry decided to confront me physically and unlawfully under the protection of our court security, it raised the real question of who they should taser. Who was the real criminal here with this focus on domestic violence in these (family) courts? What would Sylvestier Stallone do if he was real in this environment?
While depicting my discrimination and First Amendment motion papers as “rants” without so much as a first court meeting or argument, Rocky Popeo joined his predecessors in denying me parent-child contact since my 2013 testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. He did so without any finding of unfit parenting, criminal charge or child protection report. Meanwhile “rehabilitated” heroin addict moms and life term prisoners were being reunited or allowed contact with their children.
Not mentioned was Popeo’s conversation at a golf and country club during one of my client cases or the unsolicited “rant” he gave me in the presence of a key witness last summer at a local bar. He accused me of some involvement in that censure prosecution. I had no such involvement, no obligation to answer his “rant” anyway, but he was obviously moved by my history of litigation success on behalf of African-American victims in his court, federal court and Utica city government.
That history included former “black” Public Works Commissioner Stephen Patterson and his pastor father who I represented and recovered hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of law enforcement targeting and wrongful discharge, i.e. Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004). Judge Popeo was obviously making a connection between my civil rights advocacy to the racial slurs which nearly caused him his judgeship.
In another case, Mr. Patterson, who had never seen a jail cell, was imprisoned by Judge Balboa in 2010 for non-appearance on a series of nuisance and city ordinance violations. I was not able to represent him then due to the ethics witch hunt already in place, so Steve got front page news after attempting suicide upon discovering that a belt had been placed in his cell while dazed and asleep.
Ultimately he was found “not guilty” on all charges by a jury, and I won yet another ruling for him in a federal civil rights case later that year for police and city harassment. As hard as it may be to believe, I won it while suspended because the papers were prepared by me beforehand and no qualified substitute lawyer could be found.
Rocky Popeo persisted in his beliefs that I had somehow influenced his public censure. He even inquired whether I had filed a complaint against him regarding his eviction ruling upon my former law office the same year as that censure. The current judge assignment should never been offered or accepted on grounds of revenge and prejudice alone. Such persecution has now required resort to natural laws for my protection. I am no Rambo, but I finish the fights that others start without provocation or genuine lawful authority.
You will find background news articles on this post and others together with professional services we offer on this site, Leon Koziol.com. Please contribute to our cause for the sake of parents, children and court victims everywhere. My book, Satan’s Docket, continues to be purchased and commended, a useful tool for self-representation as well. And share this post with those who need to know what is truly occurring in our courts. I can be contacted at our office at (315) 380-3420 or personally at (315) 796-4000.
Editorial by Parental Advocate Leon Koziol Exposes Court Corruption in Mainstream Syracuse Newspaper
It must have been an alluring editorial in the Syracuse press because law firms are now running ads around the on-line version, commentary is growing by the minute, and a link at the bottom of the article takes the reader directly to our website at Parenting Rights Institute.
Founder and director, Dr. Leon Koziol, author of this editorial, continues to make headway with mainstream media to expose and reform corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. His column in the mainstream newspaper, Syracuse Post Standard, was published today, Friday, February 16, 2018 in its on-line version at Syracuse.com. The print version is expected this Sunday or Tuesday.
Entitled, Whistleblower: NY courts are bloated, inefficient and unaccountable. it can be viewed at: http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/02/ny_courts_are_bloated_inefficient_unaccountable_your_letters.html. Or you can simply look it up at Syracuse.com, hit the three-line menu square on the upper left side, scroll down to “opinion” and it’s the third editorial down (as of 3 pm).
Given the rarity of public criticism directed at our judicial branch of government, and eye opening content of this publication, it’s a wonder it was published at all. But this one is getting a ton of supporting commentary, further proof that it is a subject which has been long suppressed. Indeed, one irate mother contributed what seemed to be a thousand word summary of her ordeal, and a father cited court corruption which might otherwise never make the news.
Another column with lesser 400 word content was published by the Watertown Daily Times on February 9, 2018. This mainstream newspaper near the Canadian border covers northern New York and the sprawling Camp Drum military base. That column can be viewed by typing Leon Koziol in the newspaper search bar. It is entitled, Tormey’s column hides judiciary’s troubles.
Finally, one day earlier, on February 8, 2018, in the central New York metropolitan area known as Utica-Rome, another column by Leon Koziol was featured in the form of a full page advertisement. This costly alternative was made necessary by the regional newspaper’s rejection of an editorial comparable in size to the Syracuse publication. Such censorship was overcome by a half page depiction of a nationwide epidemic entitled, Houston, we have a problem. And it’s in Congress, the liberal media and our courts. The complete rejected editorial was then published in the lower half of the same ad. You can look it up at Observer Dispatch (print) and OD.com (on-line) versions.
All three editorials were triggered by a commentary in the same newspapers authored by Fifth Judicial District Chief Judge James Tormey. This is the same judge who assigned some 40 trial judges to Leon Koziol’s originally uncontested divorce and was successfully sued by a chief family court clerk for $600,000 due to Tormey’s retaliation for her refusal to engage in “political espionage,” Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010). And his co-defendant in that federal lawsuit was Leon Koziol’s custody judge, removed from his case, and later the family court altogether, upon admitting to sexual abuse of his handicapped, five year old niece, In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).
In the prior Judge Tormey column published in all three major newspapers of the Fifth Judicial District, a glowing report was given of divorce, family and other courts in connection with the Excellence Initiative sponsored by New York’s Chief Judge Janet DiFiore. It was therefore crucial for the public to receive a counter-point to this report, a shocking reality check even if a paid advertisement was required in one of them. The largest of these newspapers by far was the Syracuse Post Standard and today’s feature gave links to Leon Koziol’s cited reports and Parenting Rights Institute which he founded in 2010 and continues to direct today.
Please share this message and support our cause at http://www.leonkoziol.com and http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. You can also call our office at (315) 380-3420 or Dr. Leon Koziol directly at (315) 796-4000. Learn from an expert who sacrificed a lucrative career as a civil rights and trial attorney for over two decades to reform this corrupt family court system. Dr. Koziol’s recently published book, Satan’s Docket, continues to grow in purchases and popularity. Order your copy on line now. We hope to have more positive news for you moms, dads and court victims in coming days, so stay in touch.
Shopping with Martha (Judge Martha Walsh-Hood) on Black Friday
By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
Today we take you into the courtroom, my first custody trial conducted in the Syracuse coliseum known as Family Court. This is the same forum which featured a pedophile child custody judge, Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 and judicial espionage agent, Chief Judge James (Bond) Tormey, Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40.
Yesterday was Thanksgiving Day across America, when countless parents were denied time with their children because of an antiquated custody system designed to enrich lawyers .Today is “Black Friday” when the same persecuted parents will find it hard to satisfy their loved ones at the malls because those same lawyers have taken their money to create needless court issues for profit, leaving less or nothing for Christmas presents.
You are now connected to one of the most informative and active parenting rights sites in America. Judges, lawyers, ethics agents, law enforcement and politicians regularly check in along with our supporters. So you’re in good company, and that has to tell you something. We have proven ourselves as experts in the corruption field. Nevertheless we remain grossly under-financed and devoid of staff necessary to become a formidable “Judicial Watch” over our divorce and family courts.
The reason for this is that the victims continue to engage in keyboard attacks to no one who cares while sending donations to their enemy lawyers instead of us. One former ally made this highly misguided move despite his professed knowledge of the epidemic. He paid thousands of dollars to a loser lawyer and ended up losing everything as a predictable consequence. Not one dime was spent here to put his “money where his mouth was.”
And so the abuses escalate. You may think that the abusers are principally men, those public figures accused of “groping” women 20 and 30 years ago by scary looking victims collecting unemployment or welfare behefits, the attention seekers paid to make the accusations without prior report or resistance. Yes the insanity of today continues to reach new heights.
Well there are countless women in those same positions engaged in the same form of sexist behavior. Today we bring you Syracuse Family Judge Martha Walsh-Hood, a closet man-hater who presided over the “show trial,” Koziol v Hawse-Koziol. Shortly into proceedings, a court agent disclosed confidentially in the outer “Halls of Justice” that Martha was an anti-father judge. Evidently, under her “rule of law,” only women can make for fit parents, even the drug addicts that are suddenly “rehabilitated” to earn their “custody” rights back.
On Black Friday, 2011, Martha was featured on highway banners and advertisements as a promoter of the Fifth Judicial District adoption campaign. Put simply she was facilitating the destruction of parenthood through this barbaric, lawyer-enriching custody system and placing the victimized children (collateral damage) onto the shopping market of strangers that include closet pedophiles and coke-heads. We therefore featured a highly popular post, Shopping with Martha.
Today we bring you an entire chapter of the newly released book, Satan’s Docket: Corruption and Carnage in America’s Divorce Industry. I authored and published it based on two decades as a trial lawyer and ten years as a parent in these courts. Not surprisingly the chapter is titled, Shopping with Martha. And what a chapter it is! This is our holiday gift to you, the parents we strive to serve and protect across the country. Here you are not alone. In this chapter you will be taken inside the courtroom, a treat which one of our book review experts found very rewarding. You may too.
Shopping with Martha
To this day, there has been no finding of parental unfitness on my part; no arrest, criminal record, drunk driving charge, marital violence report or involvement of any child protection agency. Indeed, I did not know we had an abusive marriage until I read it for the first time many years later in custody papers. In short, there was nothing to explain how a gang of judicial thugs seized my babies. But they did, and in a manner which would make any dictator or petty tyrant proud.
They did it over time, steadily pecking away like mangy buzzards over an injured animal. And the lucrative structure of proceedings was most helpful in making this happen. We left off in the last chapter with a foreboding to parents hauled into a seemingly innocuous room for a support hearing. But when adding the custody component, the process becomes even more alarming.
There have been many litigation “components” added to the originally consolidated divorce or custody process in our nation’s domestic relations courts. A recent one, for example, is Domestic Violence Court. When we think of litigation, it is commonly understood as a single case with one or many issues ultimately decided by a single trial judge or jury.
The logic behind this is that we can’t have separate proceedings in different courts between the same parties all conflicting with one another. As the upcoming court excerpts will verify, a disjointed structure tortures due process whereas a consolidated judge is more familiar with all petitions, motions and interrelated proceedings. Under the current system, frustrated judges become hostile to other judges at the same trial level competing for jurisdiction. Litigants with diverse perspectives then complicate matters further to become the ultimate, innocent victims.
There are judge-made laws such as res judicata and collateral estoppel which support joint proceedings under a traditional framework. It’s not only good for a sane justice system but also our taxpayers who foot the bills for judges and court personnel. In divorce and family court, the structure defies this logic like outer space defies gravity. And this means higher taxes.
The reason for that, once again, is lawyer greed and predator enrichment. Once marital dissolution and property distribution are completed by a general jurisdiction divorce judge, related issues of child support and custody are routinely sent down to family courts of limited jurisdiction. The support component is then sent down further to the basement of these courts, a hearing officer, referee or magistrate who could even be a practicing part-time attorney.
The sending court has the complete authority to decide all such issues or litigation components which the receiving court does not. In a sort of elitist “slight-of-hand,” a separation has occurred where the lowly “kangaroo” court is accorded a “specialized” role. These family courts are still trial courts like the greater jurisdiction divorce courts, but they have no ability to call juries or foreclose on a home, for example. Confusing, maybe, but stick with me. It’s important.
This peculiar separation is indicative of the low esteem placed in our family court system, one which creates all sorts of profiteering, public confusion and nightmares for the litigants. And just when you thought it was safe to come out, the original trial court splits again like an amoeba or cellular mitosis into a lot of other courts while adding an extra costly tier to the appeals process.
Unlike other states and our federal government, New York’s Supreme Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction which simply means that its tentacles can reach to just about anyone and anything. The rationale here is that even the middle level Appellate Division of that Court and the state’s high Court of Appeals have limited jurisdiction (appeals and extraordinary actions). Indeed the trial level Supreme Court has been abused to exceed even its constitutional authority.
A precedent example is the case of Maron v Silver,  the judicial “pay raise trilogy,” where New York’s chief judge on its high court and various lower level judges sued the Governor and Legislature for pay raises in its own trial court (Supreme Court). Clearly a violation of the constitutional separation of powers, the lawsuit was filed and accepted anyway as a declaratory judgment action to gain publicity and influence, purposes that are routinely deemed frivolous and subject to sanctions if brought by commoners or our taxpayers.
The case got to the state’s high court despite nightmarish conflicts of interest. Not surprisingly, the court ruled that all state judges deserved substantial raises. The other branches defied that ruling but eventually granted the raises through the proper political process. I used that precedent to challenge the lucrative structure of divorce and family courts, but it has not been mentioned in any federal or state decision to date. I guess if it’s never mentioned, it never happened.
My public stands for equal justice did not get me invites to bench and bar banquets, but getting back to what’s truly important, in support court, the hearing officer or magistrate is appointed and not elected as family judges typically are. This was justified by making family judges the first step of a support appeal process, a sort of appeals court within a trial court concoction. Then you get to the middle level appeals court (not so middle any more), the state’s high court and finally, the United States Supreme Court which accepts about a hundred cases globally each year.
The standard (less costly) three stage appeal process is now four (or five if a federal law issue takes you to the very top). It gets worse, and this is where the deceptive snake strikes again. The support officer renders findings which are typically rubber stamped in a “confirmation” hearing by the elected family judge. The original (sending) judge is long gone, and the middle level appeals court rarely interferes with the non-final decisional process of our family courts. That makes your politically appointed hearing officer the Supreme Court for all intents and purposes.
And this judge wants a pound of your flesh through the Title IV-D funding program. In this manner, judicial impartiality has been surrendered to the almighty buck. Support court was separated from the custody and divorce process not because there is no correlation, you learn the truth when the custody judge emphasizes that child support is a key factor there. It is separated because the decision process can be expedited to get more federal dollars sooner along with interest revenues at support collection centers, effectively a giant state bank.
Because most states comply with the federal program, this structure reaches insanity with the naming and assigning of trial level judges to these various “courts.” Some are elected, others are appointed, still others are transferred, and then there’s some you have no idea how they got there. Like a smorgasbord or jack-in-the-box, you never know what you’re going to get, or when, in a process which decides the fate of your parent-child relationships to impact future generations.
To bring this all home, after denial of my first consolidated appeal of divorce and family court orders in March, 2009, my split support and custody cases were assigned to judges elected in far-away places and not the county where my case was filed. It forced us to make entire day trips even for half hour appearances. I know this is sounding crazier than ever if you have a rational mind but it did happen, and the resulting orders cost me my children and my law license.
Politician James “Bond” Tormey is the administrative judge who made these assignments. Remember he’s the guy sued by his chief family court clerk due to unlawful retaliation for her refusal to conduct “political espionage” beyond her job description. She recovered $600,000 after being reassigned to the same far-away places. I was denied such recovery in the same federal court because judges are still immune from litigant recovery but not employee lawsuits.
My child support case was assigned to Supreme Court Judge Michael Daley as an “Acting Family Court Judge” and my custody case was assigned to a Family Court Judge Martha Walsh-Hood as an “Acting Supreme Court Judge.” This really did happen. To this day, I still cannot figure out how that came about especially after Tormey removed Daley previously from my custody case and returned it to the original divorce judge, John Grow. Stay tuned, it gets better.
Judge Daley was set to confirm a willful support violation on May 26, 2009. It was found against me by a non-elected hearing magistrate, George Getman, a/k/a, G. Stephen Getman, who had been suspended as an attorney for a mere six months after admitting to misappropriation of more than $7,000 in client money.  He denied my pre-decision motion for his removal from my case.
I was not physically present at the Daley confirmation hearing due to the set-up I was logically perceiving, a jail term ambush. Instead I called in by phone from a remote location. On the hearing transcript that day, prior to my call, Judge Daley opened the hearing with a bombastic pitch that he was somehow assigned to this support case and he “did not know how it got here.”
Seriously Mike? Or was that simply a deflection to make this appear to be an impartial hearing for record purposes? Moments later, I called in and immediately challenged his authority while reminding him of a motion which had been filed for his disqualification. That motion was based on his removal earlier from a highly politicized client case which made Daley look bad publicly.
Daley’s removal there resulted in a dismissal of a six count felony indictment contrary to a guilty plea he had been seeking. A jury and replacement judge saved my client’s career. In parting remarks on the removal record, Judge Daley assured me that he would share my “histrionics” with a replacement judge in his home county where fortunately the case was not reassigned.
So if you still don’t believe that judges talk behind the scenes to target critics, here you have a public declaration showing that they do. Daley never did set up a hearing for his disqualification as he promised on the record in 2009, but he did violate me months later in a decision with no mention of the foregoing. It led to my first license suspension on February 5, 2010. The media learned of it before I did, and the news was front page for two successive days.
At the end of the telephonic transcript of May 26, 2009, Judge Daley concludes that he had always found me to be respectful and courteous to the court. So here we have a compliment regarding my professionalism from a hostile judge who had known me for over twenty years. With that backdrop, we turn to the custody component of my ordeal which was assigned virtually overnight to Syracuse Family Judge Martha Walsh-Hood. She was meeting me for the first time.
On July 20, 2009, the parties appeared for our first custody trial. A reading of the case record would confound any legal expert and make a truly impartial judge want to adjourn proceedings just to get a better handle on things. How we went from Supreme Court to Family Court and back to Supreme Court with a family judge presiding as the eighteenth trial jurist is perplexing enough but familiarity with the subject matter is crucial to decisional competency on any case.
And that is what led to the unraveling of Martha’s fake neutrality, her underlying bias against fathers generally and this one in particular. As this week-long custody trial progressed, it became increasingly evident that her mind had been made up. The outcome was a done deal on multiple counts no matter how much faith I supplied to our justice system, no matter how many witnesses I brought, no matter what it cost the people affected by it. By the time it was over, I would storm out of the court room after condemning the entire process as one giant fraud on the people.
The opening segment of trial transcript will verify the flawed structure and chaotic process which federal judge, Gary Sharpe, blamed on me in a May, 2014 dismissal of my consequential civil rights case. Among other things, Gary never even mentioned my procedural (judge bias) and substantive (conscience shocking) due process challenges to this bizarre, multi-faceted state proceeding. As for the state judge presiding over my custody trial, it can be seen how unfamiliar Martha Walsh-Hood was with it, yet she pressed forward anyway with assorted excuses: 
Walsh-Hood: Okay, good morning. Well, I’ve spent some time trying to become acquainted with this rather voluminous file, and my intent in scheduling the earliest possible court date was to try and address the… some of the issues which both parties have raised in a number of different courts… Given the fact that Judge Greenwood had scheduled the matter prior to his recusal for July 20th, I readjusted my court calendar…
(After dismissing three petitions on consent, the judge proceeded with others): With regard to the support issue, it’s my understanding that (it) was originally heard, I believe, by Judge Caldwell (who never heard any issue after stepping down at the outset).
Mr. Koziol: There were some eighteen judges on this case (2006 thru 2009)…
Walsh-Hood: I understand.
Mr. Koziol: As far as the support issues go, and the intertwined, interwoven (proceedings), having been here from the beginning, perhaps I can best speak to that history (neither the child lawyer, William Koslosky nor mother’s latest attorney, Rebecca Crance, had been present for the entire history).
Walsh-Hood: Well, I’m not so much concerned about the history, although I did go through it. My understanding is that the support issue was in fact heard, that there is a willful component to that hearing, that is, in fact, before Judge Daley.
Mr. Koziol: That’s correct, who was previously removed from the case, and he’s back for some reason that he didn’t seem to understand… I don’t know how that’s going to resolve itself.
Walsh-Hood: But from my selfish perspective… all matters relating to support are before another judge, although I do understand that under Eschbach and Friederwitzer (case precedent) in custody (decisions), support can be a factor considered… Further it’s my understanding that the Judgment of Divorce (Judge Grow decision) is now on appeal as well as issues relative to, Mr. Koziol, your original request for a change of venue (change of location to a remote judicial district)… I think the venue change has actually been accomplished through a number of recusals…to be heard by the Appellate Division. In fact there’s a federal action pending for some of the same relief that’s before this court…”
Mr. Koziol: That’s right.
Walsh-Hood: Even given that situation… there are applications by both parties in Supreme Court and Family Court (both trial courts in New York)… both parties are seeking custody and allegations of contempt, or at least Mr. Koziol has of Mrs. Hawse-Koziol. Is that everybody’s understanding?
Mr. Koziol: I don’t know if you’re characterizing it as I see it, but Ms. Hawse has been allowed to go through support court, she’s gone through all that process, while my petition against her for violating parenting orders, and I want to get to this past weekend, once again I was deprived of an entire weekend with my children… For now, in terms of the narrow framework of pending petitions is concerned, it’s my contempt against her that has been held in abeyance for a couple years.
Walsh-Hood: (after denying my motions for removal of William Koslosky as Judge-Appointed Child Attorney and Walsh-Hood as presiding judge)… I don’t feel there is any reason for me to step down as other judges have done. You stated yourself, very eloquently I may add, that matters have been pending in the court which have not been heard since 2007. The day has come, sir, for those matters to be litigated… if you feel uncomfortable in proceeding today, though I’m sure you are capable of doing so, then Ms. Crance (mother’s lawyer) can proceed first, and that would give you a little additional time… Ms. Crance, are you willing to do that?”
Ms. Crance: Yes.
Mr. Koziol: No, Judge, I’d like to be heard.
Mr. Koziol: Obviously you haven’t read the petition and you’re making a determination before reading the content of it, which is not your fault because you were just served today.
Walsh-Hood: I was just served.
Mr. Koziol: There’s a good reason for that, if you’re ready.
Walsh-Hood: Go ahead.
(I explained that the past weekend was unilaterally denied with my children for tactical reasons. I needed that time to recall events necessary for my proofs. The judge quickly interrupted to attack me only, citing improper child preparation which was not my issue. That weekend was denied to rehabilitate bonds with the mother’s parents from another state, her only witnesses. Citing her 90% dominant period since child birth, I challenged the inherent prejudice in my petition served that following Monday morning, the custody parent’s violation of my weekend parenting rights to impair my ability to present any kind of case for custody, petitions unfairly delayed for so long. The judge responded:)
Walsh-Hood: You know what I’m going to do, Mr. Koziol, before hearing your argument, I’m going to take a ten minute recess. I’m going to review your papers, and I’ll allow you to be heard and then I’m going to rule on the motion.
As expected, the motion was denied, but it can be seen how Judge Walsh-Hood was ready to start this trial without having concededly read my violation petition. Moreover, she claimed readiness to proceed without the standard first appearance or pretrial conference which sets the scope of trial ahead of time. Here in this opening interplay, Walsh-Hood is setting her scope on support, custody, contempt and other petitions after dismissing three on consent of the parties.
Setting aside the unprepared judge for the moment, how is a lawyer or litigant to know what proofs and witnesses to subpoena or present before a court more than fifty miles from our homes with this sudden and dramatic change of scope? She tried to justify herself by citing years of delay but these were caused by a denied venue change and as many as eighteen prior biased judges. Rushing proceedings now proved to be a grave error because it only forced me to correct this unprepared judge as evidenced in her claim that Judge Caldwell had been highly involved.
This expedited trial was nothing more than a “show trial” with a predetermined outcome. It is all that was necessary to validate my challenges to a structurally flawed process under the federal child support funding statute. This judge knew exactly what I was asserting but did everything she could to protect the system. The appellate and federal judges reviewing this did the same.
Because a formula under that law requires parents to name a custodial parent at the outset of any legal separation or divorce, a father is typically prejudiced due to his gender in a later custody proceeding especially if it is delayed for years as it was here. There was no need for this “show” trial. Structurally, the decision was already made and only the legal representatives benefitted.
As a full time teacher, Kelly’s stubborn adherence to tax free support and a replacement dad forced me to make this challenge which resulted in the seizure of my joint custody rights by the time this trial was over. My custody (parenting) petitions were delayed while support was expedited due to state court funding priorities over the paramount interests of the litigants. A fairly treated parent is a happy one who will work overtime to support children out of love alone. But discrimination and forced labor, like slavery, will promote conflict and costly resistance.
It can also be seen how courts and processes are needlessly segregated for profit. With so many places to go and duplicative arguments to make, lawyer profits are magnified many times over. Even this judge was forced to admit that child support is a factor in custody proceedings. So why separate the two with the kind of prejudice and confusing outcomes demonstrated here?
All of these issues could have been resolved in one divorce court having full jurisdiction over them. Instead, the federally induced framework produced at least three trial courts handling divorce, support and custody, each struggling to figure out the scope of proceedings. As the costs and job impairments mounted, so did the anger between parents. This yields even greater profits for the court predators in cases all across the country.
Another due process anomaly is seen in the reversal of the order of presentment. As the custody petitioner, I had the benefit of starting with my case-in-chief. Instead, to make this system work, the responding party was allowed to go first. It was fatal to my case because surprise testimony such as “striking my child on one occasion,” caused me to stand up and call the mother-in-law a bald-faced liar. I simply could not control my outrage over a non-existent strike of either child.
There was no such accusation ever made by anyone in the prior record, the petitions, the public or in any incident report. Even the scheming and spiteful mom, by my recollection, never made such a claim. And although the decision did not accept that claim, it was clear that my reputation on all fronts was under attack in this one-sided hearing. Still, with each reaction, Walsh-Hood was taking notes to support her intended outcome.
It got to a point, like the gmai.com concoction in later proceedings, where custodial lies were coming out left and right. I even excused myself on one occasion as my emotions could not be contained in the onslaught. This was not an American court proceeding. It had been transformed into a star chamber, a show trial like the ones in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, a gang assault.
Here there was no true judge. A self-styled procedure emerged as a form of punishment for a litigant who rightfully exposed a lack of preparedness on the part of the hastily assigned decision maker. I should not have had to correct a judge facing needlessly overcrowded dockets anxious to wrap up a case with a mind already made up. With each correction, there arose resentment which, as we will see, grew as this trial progressed.
The reversal in presentment also allowed my custody adversary to derail my accurate position, unwavering for years to this point, that I wanted shared parenting or near equal time with my daughters. I was not seeking to selfishly dominate my children through a full custody demand as the mother was. It is well known that early impressions are hard to overcome, and Kelly Hawse managed unabashedly to assert that I wanted such a shared arrangement to avoid paying child support. It was during her direct opening testimony with nothing but her mouth to prove it.
This was not only a gross anal concoction obtained from a custody playbook but it was countered by everything realistic, from a voluntary forty-five percent support increase offered in 2006 to a successful career in which money was never an issue, at least not until the speech retributions were inflicted. Even if we were to accept this concoction as true, why should money matter at all to a model father who simply wants to spend more time with his daughters? This is where a pay-to-parent scandal is proven under this antiquated custody system.
Anxious to feed into the stereotypes, Judge Walsh-Hood took this support avoidance concoction to an absurd level by requesting that I stop pointing my pen in my adversary’s direction when making an objection. Somehow this was intimidating her, even though the alleged victim made no such claim. This was not only a clear showing of gender bias and the direction this case was headed, but it incited Kelly to make idiotic fear claims in later proceedings.
For example, after Walsh-Hood disqualified herself the next year, during continuing proceedings before Judge Pirro-Bailey in 2011, a desperate Kelly Hawse-Koziol interrupted court arguments between lawyers to announce a fear of my body language. It caused that judge to direct her to face the wall if she truly felt that way. This is how pathetic the gender card has become despite having all of her offense (fear) petitions thrown out over a ten year period.
This is no small matter for the general public. During the same year in the same Syracuse courthouse, I watched curiously as a security officer was escorting Kelly to her vehicle beyond view of the courthouse. It prompted me to investigate. While doing so, violence erupted in the hallway involving a chained inmate. Additional security was called in while one of them was placating a mom’s custody playbook. I reported the safety issue to the court’s chief officer, Judge James “Bond” Tormey. Nothing came of it other than the potential for more lawsuits. 
At the same time, Kelly showed no fear during child exchanges or outside events, even asking me during a chance encounter at Lake George to watch our girls while she went off to get towels. Despite such testimony, none of it mattered. I struggled with a novice lawyer who repeatedly failed to lay proper foundation for her questions, i.e. dates, locations, etc. while the judge became more fixated on a writing implement than proper evidence for decision. Here is the relevant interplay which poisoned later proceedings and public safety in our courts: 
Crance: Has Mr. Koziol relayed to you his desire to have shared or half parenting time?
Q: Has he… what is your understanding as to why he wants shared parenting time?
A: So he doesn’t have to pay child support.
Mr. Koziol: Have I told you that? Objection, please, can I go back? When did I say this
Walsh-Hood: Okay, you’re objecting for foundation?
Mr. Koziol: Right.
Walsh-Hood: I’m going to ask you not to point, counsel. I’m just asking you not to point.
Mr. Koziol: Your honor, I have a pen in my hand, if the record can please reflect this. I flipped the pen in her direction, I meant her, so we can find out from her. I don’t understand that to be a negative or somehow an influential statement based on what we’ve been through.
Walsh-Hood: Counsel, we just had testimony about a number of alleged domestic violence incidents.  You were objecting as to foundation, which is fine. You are somewhat animated at this time and you have the pen pointed. She was indicating some incidents, and I don’t want her to feel intimidated. I’m not suggesting that you’re trying to do that. I’m simply requesting that you not point the pen… That you were holding and taking notes, and I…
Mr. Koziol: In response, Judge, to make it clear so I don’t get accused of that, I’m going to put my pen down, I will no longer write. That is habit.
Walsh-Hood: No, no I’m not suggesting that you’re intentionally pointing at her, I’m asking you not point the pen, that’s all, in her direction. If you want to point it in my direction, go ahead… (but not the witness)
Mr. Koziol: Judge, I would just like the record to reflect my understanding, I did point it in the direction of the bench and her, but I don’t know how I’m animated at this point. I don’t see it, but if you do, I’m going to have to leave it at that. I’ve been very respectful, very calm (to this witness), it’s emotional… I’m non-responsive to most things here. I want that for the record because there is no video camera here.
Walsh-Hood: I don’t believe so, though there are cameras in the hall and other places.
I had been litigating trials unblemished in both federal and state courts for more than twenty-three years at the time of this pen-pointing admonition. Never had I been restrained in this manner, indeed, not even in the many support, custody and violation proceedings as a pro se litigant before and after this directive. A look at the courtroom would show how the bench and witness stand were in close proximity to one another. It would therefore be nearly impossible for me to point at one and avoid the other, yet one more example of contempt by ambush.
Despite Martha’s back-peddling, this was a clear anti-man edict corroborated by a court officer thereafter who advised me that Walsh-Hood had an anti-father record in Syracuse. How does one control a pen while objecting as a habit over so many years? Incidents like this were many, but exemplified here to show the uphill battle good fathers face every day in these courts and why so many of them are forced out of their children’s lives. There was no finding of physical abuse in the ultimate decision, but when I stormed out at the conclusion, I will admit I was very animated.
After so many witnesses (only the parents on her end) and proof, time, sacrifices, cost and good faith, this feminist in a robe was not going to get away with her sexist brand of deliberations. I promptly reported her to the state Judicial Conduct Commission and sued her in federal court. Unfortunately male litigants are also discriminated there. Imagine if a woman lawyer had been flipping her pen during an objection at a male witness. It goes on all the time. Would Martha dole out the same admonition to derail her concentration, confidence and flow?
During this trial, Koslosky and Walsh-Hood took issue with nearly every witness and positive aspect of my “non-custodial” parenting time while accepting virtually everything the “custodial parent” had to offer. Even my campaign parades were attacked as an exploitation of my children who enjoyed them so much while throwing candy to others along the parade route. The shocking aspect here is that one would expect such auspicious events to be lauded in a genuine child-oriented court. Instead, in “Family Court,” heroin addicts are being reunited with their children.
One of Martha’s colleagues, Family Judge Randy Caldwell (mentioned in her trial opening), paraded with children and relatives during this same campaign year as did every other candidate I knew. Indeed, I dare say, Martha herself was parading at one time alongside her dad when he campaigned for Congress. But Walsh-Hood, “Agent 007” Tormey and politically correct judges of an opposite party evidently render such “exploitation” a-okay in those identical situations.
On the last day of trial, a steady flow of provocation culminated in a seizure of my notes on the witness stand when I finally testified. Walsh-Hood had entered an order I had never experienced in any self-represented context. She wanted me to present testimony in question-answer format which I could not do under such short notice and, as stated, the lack of any pretrial conference. We compromised with a note version and exhibits necessarily taken with me to the stand.
At one point during convincing testimony, “F. Lee Billy” Koslosky objected on yet another anal ground of reading testimony from my notes. That was not the case, of course, as proven by the lack of ethics charge threatened by Judge Hood before “the Fourth Department” licensing court. Now, even the lawyers were being favored as their notes were never scrutinized. I had no lawyer, but the judge began referring to me as “counsel” presumably as a predicate for such an ethics charge despite the obvious fact that I was not acting in that capacity. I also had no client.
By the time the trial was concluding, I had no notes to convey ten years of events I could never independently recollect, my pen was now a weapon of intimidation, every anal detail about a model parent was being twisted and debated to absurdity, and my daughters had been exploited to advance a prominent career which would have benefitted them immensely. Finally, I had had enough and asked to be excused from the witness stand. I did not come here to be abused by a gang of misfits. A judge deserves only so much respect as she reciprocates as a public servant.
Judge Walsh-Hood must have recognized her dilemma because she tried to discourage my exit. But now the hostility was brazen. I was not about to legitimize this bizarre proceeding with any more of my valuable time while elevating the probability of a serious outburst. I was not about to do time for contempt of a kangaroo court. I persisted with my request, and she finally excused me. As I exited with my girlfriend, I made an impromptu closing statement condemning the lunacy of this sexist tribunal. My parenting time was immediately suspended.
That suspension was removed on the judge’s own initiative three months later but re-imposed in November, 2009 after my newly fired secretary teamed up with Kelly to allege threat antics. Although I got my girls back after a May 3, 2010 hearing, ten months of contact and precious bonding time were lost which I will never recover. Such seizures in lucrative custody contests lead to children without parents, and with severe un-remedied alienation, it is often permanent.
Two years after this trial, Judge Martha Walsh-Hood was featured on roadway banners promoting National Adoption Day. In response, I featured a website post entitled Shopping with Martha on Black Friday. It was a satirical piece decrying the manner in which Martha was exploiting her judgeship to promote a sale of children functionally orphaned in family courts.
After my departure from “her” court on July 24, 2009, child attorney, William Koslosky, disclosed a domestic violence incident at his home fifty years earlier during closing statements.
What any of this had to do with my case I’ll never know, but I found it buried in costly trial transcripts, a treasure trove of billable hours on behalf of grade school clients who could never hold him accountable. I also found fables, serious provocations and tales of horror which might be described as a love affair with a fictional girlfriend.
In this particular court case, her name was Kelly Hawse, a victim supposedly locked in her marital home (while I lived our last year of marriage at a Lake George apartment), subjected to meritless lawsuits to keep her subservient (when she filed the first one over child support which was never increased and continued with a series of fear lawsuits that were all thrown out), evinced fine skills as a teacher (petitions replete with grammar errors) and distinguished herself as a mother who loved all things (like the millionaire dad who could buy her all those things).
It was abundantly clear that Billy Koslosky was on a mission of revenge, abusing his entrusted role and tax dollars to murder exemplary father-daughter bonds. He actually had the audacity under protection of court security to accuse me of “terrorizing” my children, an accusation which if made in my presence could have sent him out the court window. Once again, fate had spared us all a disaster due to my pre-closing departure which Billy pathetically exploited.
This terrorist thing is being exploited these days by thoughtless provocateurs to advance their wallets and purses without regard for the potential consequences. Terrorists fly planes into buildings. They don’t pursue proper channels for the resolution of disputes. I visited the Trade Center ruins on the day after 9-11 to volunteer what I could to aid the victims. Comparing me to a terrorist as Judge Gartenstein had done to Professor Pappas (Chapter 3) is an assault upon my patriotism in addition to my fatherhood.
Apparently Billy had been using the terrorist depiction in a lot of cases because he also used it to describe his relationship with his own dad. As he explained it, little Billy was “terrorized” by his police man dad during a dinner argument a half century ago. Somehow dad’s uniform and gun made him dangerous. Somehow F. Lee Billy had beamed himself up to la-la land as he raked in the easy dollars. It was as if that fictional hoard of media had returned, O.J. Simpson nodding with glee, and Judge Ito ready to give Billy eight more months, if needed, to play to the fanfare.
Billy’s closing statement reflected a childhood contempt for his dad which he simply transferred to his latest target in a now infamous tragedy we call the Potato-Police Rescue. How can such a strange bird be allowed to represent children against their fathers? I asked that question before many courts to no avail. They simply looked the other way, and that only elevated the abuse in later proceedings. At nearly sixty years of age at the time, this was no way for Billy to compensate for personal defects or a lack of marital and childrearing experience. You be the judge:
One thing that I remember is disagreement between my mom and my dad. My dad was a policeman and one day he came home and he was mad because we didn’t have red-skinned potatoes and all that she could say is we have Yukon Gold, and I was terrorized. I’d never seen dad arguing like this and, my God, he’s in the police uniform with a gun. What is he going to do? So I went to the store to get red-skinned potatoes and I don’t like Yukon Gold.
If there is any purpose to a judge in any proceeding, it is to control it so that sanity, justice and civility may prevail. Wide latitude is generally given to lawyers in closing statements, but in this case, it was a custody proceeding, not a high-profile murder trial. There is no way my daughters, aged five and seven at the time, would have approved of their involuntarily appointed lawyer referring to their daddy this way. It was the appointing judge’s duty to prevent it. But Walsh-Hood was evidently enjoying this all with sadistic satisfaction. Another judge might have cut Billy off:
Mr. Koslosky, this is family court, not criminal court. What’s with all the terrorism in your characterizations of an American father seeking proper relief here? There’s no jury, and such colorful depictions will not influence me. I’ve heard and seen all the evidence as you have. There’s nothing to support any of this. No child protection agency has even been contacted, let alone involved. And I could care less about your own dad and whatever went on with these potatoes. Confine yourself to the record, and let’s move on, alright?
As stated, the adversarial custody system is archaic and utterly counter-productive to cooperative child rearing arrangements. Here we have sick proof of this, a fee-loving lawyer appointed for unsuspecting children who is throwing gas on a fire ignited by the court process itself.
One month after this closing statement, an off-duty policeman without gun or uniform in our region committed a murder-suicide leaving four children without parents. He did so with a common kitchen knife despite protection orders after being abused in the same Family Court.  So if you ever hear about some divorce victim shooting up a courthouse, understand how easily it can occur. There is no accountability for the arrogant judge or reckless lawyer who incites needless violence.
 Maron v Silver, 14 NY3d 230 (2010); Chief Judge v Governor, 884 NYS2d 863 (3rd Dept 2009)
 Matter of G. Stephen Getman, 147 Ad 2d 163, 542 NYS 2d 896 (4th Dept 1989)
 Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, New York Supreme Court, Oneida County Case No. D2004-422102; Custody transcript, Vol. I at pg. 2-30 (July 20, 2009)
 Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010)(Chief family court clerk recovers $600,000 in 2012 against court administrator, Judge James Tormey, for directing “political espionage” at Syracuse courthouse)
 Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, New York Supreme Court, Oneida County Case No. D2004-422102; Custody transcript, Vol. II at pg. 230-233 (July 20, 2009)
 While stressing these alleged domestic incidents corroborated by no witness or independent proof, Judge Walsh-Hood was likely manufacturing her own proof here for later decision. That decision made no mention of an off-duty sheriff deputy, posted inside my home, who witnessed an assault by the mother during a child exchange. By opening the custody record to pre-divorce periods, Walsh-Hood was also able to facilitate false claims at the marital home where no witnesses were present. There was never an incident report during that remote period, and although physical abuse was never found, there was no accountability for the fabrications.
 Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, New York Supreme Court, Oneida County Case No. D2004-422102; Custody transcript, Vol. V at pg. 857-858 (July 24, 2009)
 Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 367 (NDNY 2011)
We Found Him! Judge James “Dweeby” Eby of Oswego Family Court
By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
If you’re a regular follower of the parenting blog site, Leon Koziol.com, you probably recall seeing that cartoon judge we’ve posted from time to time, the one yelling down at some mom or dad, barking out orders on how we should raise our children. Some of you may have thought we were referring to my pedophile custody judge, Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677.
Or maybe you thought it was federal judge, Gary “Not-So” Sharpe of New York’s Northern District who announced a gene for making judicial decisions, one that would not be discovered by scientists for “another fifty years,” United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82. His bizarre concoction earned him a removal order from a higher court. These characters have all been exposed in my recent full page ad series during a family judge election.
No, it turns out we finally found this guy. He is a family judge in Oswego, New York named James “Dweeby” Eby. The nickname connotes his spineless nature in line with his chief judge in Syracuse, James “Bond” Tormey who was successfully sued for $600,000 by his chief family court clerk for improperly directing her to conduct “political espionage,” Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40.
Yeah, hard as these cases are to believe, you learn about them here. We don’t make things up at www.leonkoziol.com. It led me to offer an early release version of my book, Satan’s Docket, a real world look at the corruption which is growing in our nation’s divorce and family courts. You can get a copy at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com along with other valuable fee saving services.
We also use the term “dweeby” because it assists in the pronunciation of the last name. Dweeby Eby is the 37th judge assigned to my 12 year originally uncontested divorce after so many predecessors were removed for bias, corruption or other reasons. He simply took up where disqualified judge “Kangaroo” King left off by continuing to harass me using my daughters in retaliation for my judicial whistleblowing activities. I have been kept out of their lives for over 1,500 days, nearly four years!
I have never been found to be unfit as a parent, no report has ever been made, let alone investigated by child protection agents, and I have never been accused of any crime or alcohol related incident. All offense petitions including King’s gag order were thrown out after I sued him in New York Supreme Court. Meanwhile heroin addicts were being reunited with their offspring.
The “dweeb” was not about to clean up the mess. He was simply going to show “who’s boss” by continuing with this judicial retaliation agenda. So evil was he, instead of conducting a teleconference like his predecessor judges, he forced the parties to make a 180 mile round trip to a family courthouse at Lake Ontario for arguments on a decision he had already completed. Pure harassment! And you taxpayers paid for the judge-appointed child attorney, William “F. Lee Billy” Koslosky.
In my book, I detail how Eby had it in his mind to finish me off once and for all. Here is the relevant closing paragraph of my last Chapter 22 titled “King Eby” in Satan’s Docket:
Although my girls live only a few miles away, I will continue to be denied interactions with them due to these sick conditions. We are entitled to genuine family relationships under our human rights laws. Recalling the way King Eby stared me down on that dreary morning in Syracuse, I could only imagine what he wanted to say regarding my crusade for justice. He reminded me of Emperor Commodus in that movie staring down the Gladiator after so many thugs were slain in defiance of tyranny at the Roman Coliseum. This petty tyrant in a robe probably wanted to say:
“What am I to do with you? You just won’t die!”