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.
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.
Now this is a story of for the ages, court corruption on steroids. For those of you who have followed my ordeal as a judicial whistleblower, you know how my daughters, livelihood and law licenses were taken from me due to my conscientious stand against my profession after 23 years of unblemished practice of law. I have never even been charged with a crime or unfit behavior as a parent.
You also know how the ethics lawyers in the witch hunt against me were allowed to resign quietly by their appeals court employers for falsifying time sheets without any criminal or ethics charges. And you know about the unprecedented 30 plus trial level judges assigned to my originally uncontested divorce of 2006 who were disqualified for various reasons.
They included my custody judge, Bryan Hedges, removed from my case just prior to his admission of sexual abuse on his handicapped, five year old niece. And just when you thought it was safe to come out, along comes today’s feature on Leon Koziol. com, a parental blog site dedicated to exposing corruption in America’s divorce industry.
My recently released book, Satan’s Docket, continues to entertain readers while educating them to the realities of divorce and family courts from a model father and highly successful civil rights attorney. What a great Christmas present as so many have discovered through recent orders at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.
Today’s shocking story could never have occurred unless I so angered certain judges with my public disclosures that they went ballistic with their retributions and abuses of judicial office. You need to share this with media, organizations and fellow victims not so much for my sake, no one is seriously supporting me anyway, that’s why the corruption continues to your own detriment as parents and taxpayers. Do it for the sake of innocent children and future generations of Americans.
As yesterday’s post reported, I filed a parental equality case in New York Supreme Court. One day after its filing, on December 15, 2017, I was summoned to appear before the 40th trial level jurist assigned to my originally uncontested divorce.
That’s right, forty (40). I’m not making this up any more than my pedophile custody judge who was sued along with administrative judge, James Tormey, for directing “political espionage” of his family court clerk (Morin v Tormey).
I’m also not making this up any more than Judge Hedges’ replacement, Daniel “Kangaroo” King, who allowed a fabricated PhD and Master degree into the record for purposes of imputing false income. He did so for retaliatory support incarceration in 2013 after I reported his misconduct at public hearings before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption.
Now the name of our latest villain is Natalie Carraway, and I have no idea where this support magistrate came from any more than the security deputy did who said she had come to our local family court just for me. How truly “honored” was I.
Anyway, four days earlier on December 11th, I had appeared before Kangaroo King’s replacement judge, James “dweeby” Eby of Oswego, New York Family Court. It was a first appearance on my show cause petition for holiday parenting time filed at least one week before Thanksgiving.
Of course, the dweeb had no intention of “granting” me father access to my daughters after nearly 1,500 days removed from their lives. He was likely assigned by Syracuse Judge James “Bond” Tormey to harass me with every possible abuse of judicial office. The Jimbo twins may have become determined to discredit my professional reputation and public message of reform at any cost.
After telling me to pound salt, the dweeb was interrupted during proceedings by that security deputy. He came in uninvited and asked this Oswego judge if he could serve me with a support violation petition then set for a first appearance four days later before Natalie “clueless” Carraway. The dweeb replied that it was not Oswego “policy” to allow service of papers in a case not assigned to the presiding judge, but because it “may be” policy in Oneida County, he ruled that I was “served.”
We were then excused from his deliberations, but I refused to accept service on grounds that I was intending to challenge “service by mail” in the separate support case, a mode of service requested by the “custodial sociopath” Kelly Hawse-Koziol on the face of her sworn petition. Because such petitions feature warnings of arrest and incarceration of up to seven years, that’s right seven years, on their face, I was not expecting “corrective” service by a court deputy assigned to security.
More importantly, I wanted to obtain a ruling to invalidate this unchecked practice of mail service given its clear violation of due process and devastation to victims such as Walter Scott. You might recall him as the unarmed dad in South Carolina shot dead in the back five times while fleeing a child support warrant. His family recovered $6 million for civil rights violations (the latest form of “child support”).
But how could Judge “dweeby” Eby know any of this? He was not assigned to the support case. And now he unwittingly became a witness to the service issue and therefore subject to (yet another) disqualification (always blamed on me, the innocent victim). Of course my adversaries, known and unknown, will endeavor to “sweep this all under the carpet” using every lame excuse possible.
But they would have to get around the fact that I was successful in a “Traverse” hearing as it is called one year ago where a support case by the same custodial parent was dismissed for improper service. I actually got the city marshal process server hired by her to admit on cross examination that he lied under oath before the last support magistrate. Or maybe they just don’t care about “law and order” anymore. We got to get this guy, Leon Koziol, out of the way at all costs, legal or illegal.
To my surprise, the security deputy was still pursuing me outside the courthouse to serve me again with the same papers even after Eby’s ruling that I had already been served. Now how close did this pursuit come to the one which resulted in the murder of Walter Scott? The only thing which separated our fates was the mood and mentality of this sheriff deputy who managed to barge into an unrelated (custody) proceeding and take control of it. Stay tuned! It gets better!
Between the dweeby proceeding and clueless one of December 15, 2017, I had the parties named in my state Supreme Court case served properly with my complaint. I did this with a privately retained process server. We had to travel hundreds of miles over a two day period to serve New York’s top judge in Albany, and judges Eby and Tormey in Oswego (Lake Ontario) and Syracuse. It cost me hundreds of dollars to comply with “the law.”
All that was left to serve in my newly filed lawsuit at our December 15th support hearing was the “custodial sociopath” and Clueless Carraway. We got the sociopath, Kelly Hawse-Koziol, in the court lobby and then my server joined me in the back of the courtroom before Magistrate Natalie Carraway. She progressed through the usual formalities.
That’s when I learned that my custodial adversary was now represented by her sixth attorney employed by Social Services (while she was earning nearly $100,000 annually as a tenured Frankfort-Schuyler school teacher receiving $45,500 in tax free child support only two years earlier, again under threat of incarceration to a debtor prison).
When the subject of our next appearance came up, I logically raised the mail service challenge and in-court service by a sheriff deputy assigned to court security. But my ordeal never ends when it comes to shocking events. Clueless Carraway informed me from the bench that she had taken it upon herself to investigate the service issue already (before I even raised it at our first appearance now underway).
Magistrate Carraway had secured the transcript of Judge Eby’s custody proceedings at public expense when it was my adversary’s legal obligation to do that at her expense for purposes of proving proper service. More bizarre, Judge Eby would eventually become the appeals judge in her support case and therefore tainted as a biased witness to proper service.
Hey this is New York, don’t try to figure it out. In my lawsuit, I explained why judges and experts could not understand my ten year ordeal, but stick with me anyway. It’s for your own good. You’ll just have to trust me on that. Judge Clueless announced that she was accepting her colleague Eby’s ruling on service while selectively excluding the county policy question which preceded it.
That’s when I responded with the chaos that would follow from her precedent which I was certain that no judge in my (Oneida) county would adopt. I asked Clueless to imagine what our system of justice would be like if any court security deputy could simply interrupt any court proceeding to serve papers for a private party in a separate case. An angry Carraway was unmoved as presiding judge here. And that’s when her world was rocked.
If that was her firm precedent, I asked her to accept service of my state Supreme Court summons and complaint which named her as a defending party by my process server seated in the back of her courtroom. She made me repeat that question as it was evidently beyond her comprehension that a judge could be served by a litigant while deliberating on his case.
But come on man! This is exactly what had occurred to me in Judge Eby’s courtroom four days earlier and she had just ruled that this was an acceptable mode of service. Utterly discombobulated, Clueless Carraway finally replied that she was going to conclude this first appearance and attend to matters in chambers (this was her only case and she was probably intending to consult her assigning judge, James “Bond” Tormey about it all).
But our needless wait in the court lobby for Carraway’s exit had its fateful benefits because the deputy was enticed in the meantime to respond to our casual inquiries about what had just happened. He gradually disclosed that he had been contacted by an Oneida County family court clerk (only minutes after my arrival for Eby’s hearing and Hawse-Koziol’s observed entry into that clerk’s office) to serve papers for someone. Deputy Dummy replied, “sure, why not” while abandoning his security post for this purpose.
Deputy Dummy then confirmed that he had no idea who this service was for and that he was not being paid for it. After all, that would be double dipping and likely the crime of official misconduct inasmuch as he was already being paid a wage for public safety purposes. Making matters worse for him, he also conceded that he was not a part of the Sheriff Department civil division which by law must charge a fee for such private purposes.
I could go on and on, but you probably know where I’m going with all this now. That’s right, the same state Inspector General who caught my ethics lawyers falsifying time sheets. After all, imagine the liability consequences if a violent event erupted in the court lobby while Deputy Dummy was preoccupied, uninvited, in closed proceedings where no one was in danger. Judge Tormey’s chief family court clerk recovered $600,000 just for being directed improperly to conduct “political espionage.”
This was also a nail in the coffin for my state Supreme Court case against Dweeby Eby, Clueless Carraway and James Bond Tormey. Can a better case be made for gender discrimination practiced by those who apply public dollars and special court privileges to give free process serving to a custodial mother while dad is required to pay for his? Shouldn’t we “lock her up” along with all the others who do this?”
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.
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 herefrom 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)
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.
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:
Okay we’ve heard of all the crazy evaluations, forensic reports and even a “parent education” program ordered by judges in our nation’s divorce and family courts, but an exorcism? Was this really ordered by a judge in New York?
Well not quite. But pretty close when an affidavit was filed by a witness in my case requesting exactly that. It sought to have my ex-wife, Kelly Hawse-Koziol, submit to an exorcism for all the evil she was exhibiting in her unbridled agenda to have me replaced as a father by a childless millionaire.
It was also filed in response to all the crazy evaluations being ordered by a pair of feminist judges, and more recently, a trainee judge near the Canadian border, Daniel “Kangaroo” King. The concoctions, outright fabrications and shameless retaliation for my exposure of corruption in these courts made the exorcism request not so crazy when you really got down to it.
I mean, after all, if you can come up with a limitless supply of bizarre orders and psychiatric evaluations by legalized drug dealers, why not an exorcism especially when the proceedings defy logic and conscience? Beyond that, there was certainly enough evil among cases everywhere, and mine in particular, to warrant an exorcism.
Since the time of that affidavit, ethics lawyers engaged in the witch hunt against me were terminated for falsifying their times sheets (the same ones charged with preventing overbilling practices), my custody judge was removed from the bench after admitting to sexual abuse of his five year old, handicapped niece (Bryan Hedges), a chief family court clerk recovered $600,000 for being ordered by my chief administrative judge in Syracuse to conduct “political espionage,” (Morin v Tormey) and my ex-secretary, influenced to create ethics issues in my office, was finally sent to jail last year.
If that’s not Satan in the mix, then I don’t know what is. Now you can read all about it and much more in my early release book entitled: Satan’s Docket: Corruption and Carnage in America’s Divorce Industry. Some have thought the title to be a bit extreme. I was unsure until I met an author at the Whistleblower Summit this past July in Washington D.C. Bradley Birkenfeld spent 30 months in prison for exposing tax evasion schemes. On his release he recovered $104 million under the IRS whistleblower program. His book is titled, Lucifer’s Bank.
Judicial whistleblowers have no such protection. A New Hampshire attorney at the Summit was disbarred for this reason. Her recent book is titled, The Dark Side. So I guess I’m in good company even though I never was disbarred. I am still a member of the New York bar paying registration fees and left in an indefinite state of suspension (longer than a disbarment period) due to my public criticisms. I have never even been accused of any crime.
My book is being released early due to a family judge race in upstate New York (Oneida County) which is devoid of meaningful public discourse on the real issues facing moms, dads, children and victimized families in these courts. It is a phenomenal read. Ten years in the making and nine months in the research and writing phase, you will not want to miss this opportunity.
It is an unprecedented story about a judicial whistleblower forced to seek protection in Paris and the United Nations, a human rights odyssey spiced with intrigue, romance and humor to keep readers attentive to the greater problem. It has two parts, a macro half focused on a nationwide epidemic (Corruption) and a micro half (Carnage) which relates my personal ordeal as a result.
Perhaps most important to my followers is the information value which this book has. Think of it as a crash course in law school on how these courts really work, a “scared straight” program to keep you out of these lucrative tribunals, and it comes from an expert who spent more than 30 years litigating in both federal and state courts.
Get your book now by ordering it at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. A PDF version can be downloaded immediately for a steal price of only $15. An autographed hard copy can be obtained for $30 which includes tax, shipping and handling. You can also send a $30 check or money order to my name at P.O. Box 8302; Utica, New York 13505. You should receive your copy in the mail within 10-15 business days.
Finally I am sponsoring an open house at my home at 1336 Graffenburg Road; New Hartford, New York where you can check out some of the scenes in my book and exchange war stories with me personally. It is set for this Sunday, October 8, 2017 between 3 and 8 pm.
And by the way, that exorcist thing? A New York judge did actually suggest that he might have to enter such an order. Unaware of the request by affidavit before an earlier disqualified family judge, this one suggested it in 2015 during a settlement conference before heading out to a noon time church service. Facetious at the time but true nevertheless for purposes of this book.
Kindly share this message for the greater good of our children, and dedicated moms and dads.
However this book is much more. It can be considered a crash course in divorce or family court, your education to an epidemic that is harming our children, families, schools, workplaces and health as a nation. It was a herculean project, years in the research and writing phase with a 108,000 word manuscript completed only last month.
At present this book is the hands of a major publisher with a possible release date early next year. In the meantime it has generated inquiries from a documentary producer and will hopefully lead to an overdue investigation by Congress or the Justice Department into the federal funding abuses in our state domestic relations courts. We will keep you posted on that objective.
While all this was in progress, so were the many family judge elections across the country which promise to expand this epidemic and bring even more harm to future generations. One such election in Oneida County, New York sparked the early release of this uncensored version of Satan’s Docket. Its author resides in that county and became troubled by the lack of vital discourse on the real issues in these courts. In coming weeks, he hopes to change all that through this unprecedented literary work.
Satan’s Docket was authored in an extraordinary way given the difficulty of attracting interest to such a stressful and complex subject. It was a lesson learned from Alec Baldwin and his 2009 book release, A Promise to Ourselves. That memoir failed to achieve its highly anticipated book sales. Indeed mainstream media was most focused on excerpts relating to his suicide attempts during an incendiary divorce with actress Kim Basinger. Dr. Koziol was invited to Alec’s book signing in Manhattan and shared his ordeal with Baldwin’s agent at Creative Artists in California. More recently, crucial advice was obtained from best selling authors at the Whistleblower Summit and Conference this past summer in Washington D.C.
The title, Satan’s Docket, was a risky selection but has gained wide support. It was proven ironically to be a well selected title after discovering Bradley Birkenfeld’s recent book release at the Summit entitled, Lucifer’s Bank. Mr. Birkenfeld was a whistleblower of the Swiss bank industry who suffered retaliation by a jail sentence of 30 months for tax evasion. On his release he recovered a record $104 million under the new IRS Whistleblower Protection Act. Another new book release at this Summit featured a woman lawyer disbarred for exposing court corruption in New Hampshire. Her book is titled, The Dark Side.
So it would appear that Satan’s Docket is right on target. It was also inspired by former New York Senate Leader Joseph Bruno, whose memoir, Keep Swinging, was released in November, 2016. Dr. Koziol’s book features two equal length halves. Part One is the Corruption segment of his subtitle. It is the macro part which describes a divorce and family court epidemic nationwide. Part Two is the Carnage half which focuses on his personal ordeal. In order to keep a broad section of readers glued to this book, a collection of shocking stories from around the country is spiced with romance, humor and horror in places ranging from Hawaii to Paris. It is a book well worth reading at a nominal cost that can save you college tuition and untold lawyer fees. It may be the best investment you will make in years.
Please share this post with as many parents, bloggers, media representatives and court victims that you can.
Continuing with our series on the Whistleblowers Summit and Civil Rights Conference in Washington D.C. last week, I had occasion to network with a variety of experts on the subject including Ken Williams, a Boston area homicide detective. He provided valuable insights from a law enforcement perspective on how to protect oneself from false prosecutions and assembling evidence for valid convictions.
On conclusion of this particular panel discussion, I asked whether there was any special protocol for investigations of judicial corruption. I cited my pedophile custody judge, Bryan Hedges, widespread misconduct ignored in my case, Operation Greylord in Chicago where federal judges were prosecuted while I was in law school, Gerald Garson and Thomas Spargo, New York Supreme Court Judges sent to prison for soliciting custody and divorce bribes in 2007, and the Kids for Cash Scandal in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Williams could relate no particular protocol in judge cases but seemed to recognize that this was a very sensitive area for judicial whistle blowers. Another speaker, civil rights attorney Stephen Kohn, an expert in this field, recently published a book which I purchased and discussed with him. In that book, Steve paints a scary picture of whistleblowers who routinely lose their jobs, reputation, homes and life’s savings as a result of this crucial exercise of First Amendment rights in a self-governing nation.
However I could find few examples in either his book or among conference attendees which exceeded mine, the retributions inflicted upon me for exposing corruption in the divorce industry. My ordeal is necessarily detailed in my upcoming book, Satan’s Docket, a memoir of my civil rights litigation over a thirty year period which also provides a valuable handbook for parents impacted in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Ultimately, through this book, I am hoping to secure a federal investigation into my case and reform of Title IV-D funding abuses to make shared parenting a reality.