The alarming video above is unprecedented. It exposes corruption in New York’s court system while addressing the need for overdue reform nationwide. It is being submitted to media and key government officials to demand accountability especially in our divorce and family courts where innocent children and unrepresented parties are most impacted.
The whistleblower here, Dr. Leon Koziol, exposes the abuse of federal funds and human rights in these courts based on more than two decades of litigation experience as a trial attorney and twenty years as an aggrieved parent. You can get a free insight on his book, Whistleblower in Paris, at the book’s website http://www.whistleblowerinparis.com.
Help us publicize this video so that reform may finally become a reality.
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)
It’s been more than two years since New York Governor Andrew Cuomo closed down his Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. Just when testimony was implicating his own corruption, he decided that his expensive taxpayer-financed investigation had served his self-serving purpose.
Now he’s back at it again! U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara has issued subpoenas which by all accounts will likely put Andy in federal prison along with his legislative leaders Shelly Silver and Dean Skelos. They were convicted last year as a result of that prematurely closed Moreland Commission. See Latest Story – Investigation of confidant could be a career-killer for Cuomo.
Dodging his own accountability with a sigh of relief at the time, what’s he do now? He creates another investigation to detract from his own corruption. Seriously Andy? It’s looking like another hideous double standard: i.e. publicizing a dead beats campaign while seriously delinquent in your own support obligations. See related story – Did Kennedy Play Duplicitous Role in Cuomo Child Support Settlement Pressure?
But what about all that testimony at the Moreland hearings from victims of court corruption? In my own presentation I cited one convicted judge after another reading like “a docket sheet in any criminal court.” It was that testimony that caused a gang of lawyers and judges to seize my children and my livelihood.
Leon’s testimony can be viewed here at approximately the 2 hours, 31 minutes and 45 seconds mark:
Free speech is not free when those charged with the highest duty of safeguarding such rights are doing the censorship and suppression. Now we have a candidate for Congress, attorney and Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney, going down the same path I did when running for the same position. She’s taken aim at the same corruption.
A remarkable story in the Syracuse press years ago describes all the back room politics which goes into DA and judge appointments, elections and decisions at the Onondaga County Courthouse. It’s scary indeed, one who served as chairman of Cuomo’s Moreland Commission and two of my custody judges, Martha Walsh-Hood and Bryan Hedges. See Syracuse.Com Story- Appeals court to decide whether Justice James Tormey can be sued by former clerk
Administrator’s Note: Judges Tormey and Hedges were ultimately held liable for $600,000. Onondaga County DA William Fitzpatrick went on to serve as a Co-Chair of the Moreland Commission.
After getting the latter removed from my case, he was then removed altogether from family court for admitting to sexual misconduct on his handicapped five year old niece. When will parents and family victims finally unite to protest court corruption? Never mind Andy, Mr. Bharara. We got real trouble here in River City, and it’s called Syracuse family court!
William Koslosky is a child lawyer in Utica, New York who’s made a living in family court. Appointed by judges and typically paid with tax dollars, he has a hatred for his long deceased dad, and he wants everyone in court to know about it.
Then Billy takes that childhood disorder out on innocent dads even if it means harming his so-called “clients,” children too young to know his antics until it’s too late. If you have this guy anywhere near your case or are concerned about judges in need of mental evaluations, this post is for you.
William Koslosky is being used as means for suppressing Leon Koziol, a father and long time public critic of family court dysfunctions. In a closing statement during his custody hearing, Billy related a parental argument at the Koslosky homestead 50 years earlier. You gotta hear this, it’s not made up and verified by a court transcript.
Seriously Bill? What does this have to do with a custody hearing 50 years later? Why did the judge allow Billy to carry on like this minutes after Leon left because he could take no more of it? Shouldn’t this so-called child lawyer hang his head in shame and return his fees to the hard working taxpayers? Well we all know this guy has no shame but maybe he will have to return the fees anyway.
You see on September 17, 2015, Billy traveled all the way up to Judge Dan King’s family court in Lowville, New York, a 120 mile round trip for a motion argument on submission. In lay terms, that meant there would be no argument. So other than lining his pockets, why was he present alone in the courtroom?
Well if things are supposedly equal between support debtor dads and child rearing moms, this mother must be violated and committed to a six month jail term. But William Koslosky’s jail term should be much longer, right? This is because he is representing Leon’s two little girls, allegedly with no conflict between them.
Yes, William Koslosky has a higher duty than a regular lawyer with adult clients because these little ones cannot know Billy’s childhood disorders, court no-shows, and frauds upon their rights to a loving father. They cannot know how their unsolicited lawyer, appointed to harm their dad, filed a motion in an appeals court falsely stating facts clearly non-existent in the record.
It was yet another scheme to defame Leon and impair his child support capacities. Exactly who is Koslosky purporting to represent or benefit here other than his angry family court friends ? To date, that fraud has not been factually disputed. And as it stands right now, he has Leon’s innocent girls engaged in this fraud with their mom. Is that the way King, Koslosky and Hawse-Koziol will have the courts raising our children?
William Koslosky has allowed his quest for vengeance and this child lawyer job go to his head. Childless, never married and hungry for hero status, he goes about the court room like he’s Johnnie Cochran. Pleeeze Bill! This is family court. Don’t abuse it to impress the ladies you can’t impress elsewhere. We see all the fan mail to your site from the mother here when she gets the e-mail address correct.
Among the few implemented was a replacement of “visitation” with “parenting time.” In the end it was all window dressing because the culprit was a mandatory custody classification scheme which brought billions in federal incentive grants to state courts. The dysfunctional process was also retained because it generated needless parental conflict and lawyer fees.
Actually this costly report did more harm than good when “law guardian” was replaced with “attorney for the child.” Strangers were turned into substitute parents overnight with an added fight and profit motive that only aggravated protracted cases. A courtroom with one or two lawyers was now burdened by five or six to complicate decisions beyond rational capacity.
It was a gold mine for lawyers but a disaster for families, children and cooperative parenting. As the adage goes, a village that can’t support one lawyer can always support two. More lawyers were put to work with record fees while families were fleeced of their assets, earnings and college funds. Most victims never even knew what hit them.
Enter William Koslosky, a veteran conflict maker who has made a living representing children in these courts. In the case of parental advocate Leon Koziol, he was re-appointed by family judge Daniel King this past year despite being removed by a prior judge for counter-productive involvement.
Deranged Child Attorney William Koslosky Immunized From Serious Misconduct Due To Participation In Witch Hunt Against Civil Rights Attorney And Parent Leon Koziol
Welcome to Kangaroo Chronicles, our third in a series of posts directed to our nation’s divorce and family courts. In our first series, King’s Chronicles, we gave you an inside look at how government power is abused by self-serving judges such as Dan King in Lowville, New York. In Kendra’s Chronicles, we showed how a money oriented family court can harm innocent childen and third parties.
In this series, we bring you shocking revelations to prove how civil rights advocate Leon Koziol is being targeted by the state to censor his free speech. This six year witch hunt against him includes three ethics lawyers in Albany, New York who committed civil rights violations and were fired in 2013 for falsifying time sheets (with no public charges ever brought against them).
On the family end, the retaliation includes a custody judge in Syracuse removed from Leon’s case in 2011 and from the bench altogether for admitting sexual misconduct upon his handicapped five year old niece (who in her adult capacity is supporting Leon’s reform efforts). It also includes a court appointed attorney for Leon’s children, William Koslosky, who abused tax dollars to punish those efforts with false sworn statements made on behalf of Leon’s children.
This opening segment regarding child attorney William Koslosky takes the dysfunction of New York’s family courts to Kangaroo levels. So absurd has it become that Abe Fortas could be rocked from his grave (Supreme Court member who described these forums as Kangaroo courts). Indeed William Koslosky’s rants and antics could be featured in “Ripley’s Believe It Or Not” but there is nothing entertaining about the damage he caused to his so-called “clients.”
What could two little girls in grade school know about Koslosky’s hidden agendas? They were there to be exploited for purposes of harming their dad as a messenger of reform. It is about as sick as any government can get. But when these two “clients” come of age, one heck of a lawyer malpractice action will easily pay for their college educations. This is especially true now that their dad’s income has been maliciously harmed by their lawyer contrary to any logical benefit to them. It may even cause you to consider a malpractice action for your own children.
Since 2010, we’ve brought you real life stories that get more shocking with each passing year. We’ve also backed them up with solid proof and later vindications. But you’ll have to brace yourselves on this one. It really did happen and should cause every parent to look into the backgrounds of the lawyers for their childen. Such appointments are made without any input or permission from those who know these “clients” best.
Daddy’s Got A Gun, What’s He Gonna do?”
By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
This is a question put before a New York judge, one of more than 30 assigned to my family matters since an uncontested divorce was turned into a political spectacle following my run for Congress in 2006. Some judges were removed on my motions for bias, others stuck around long enough to do damage until their misconduct was exposed and a few are no longer on the bench.
It was put before Syracuse family judge Martha Walsh-Hood, an anti- father jurist from a very political family. It came during closing argument by an attorney named William Koslosky, re-appointed by her to represent my children. Prior to his gun harangue for narcissistic reasons, I had gotten permission to exit proceedings that had turned into a one sided circus. I discovered the gun reference in a later transcript.
However the question did not concern me. I have never owned a gun and would not know how to use one. It was directed at Koslosky’s own dad and it occurred during a family dispute about red skin potatoes more than 50 years earlier at the Koslosky dinner table. Yes you’re reading that correctly and, okay, I know what you’re going to say: what’s this got to do with Leon, his girls or a custody case in 2009?
Good question. The answer starts with the difference between our medical and legal professions. Bar associations have opposed specialty designations, leaving the public to chance the qualifications of an attorney in a particular area of litigation. In Koslosky’s case I had been making the argument that he had no marriage or children to give him a background for representing children. In addition he was abusing our tax dollars to concoct lucrative conflicts.
To overcompensate for these defects and a physical disability, he took out his childhood experiences on my little girls by creating drama to harm their dad in any way possible. Forget the clear ethical misconduct, the moral depravity was sufficient to warrant Koslosky’s removal and ethics charges at the very least.
But the appointing judges were delighted by all this as it fit in with their agenda for punishing my reform efforts. They kept him in place for seven profitable years connecting with his arguments as if they had pre-planned them. These judges went to extreme lengths to overlook his abuses of our court system.
In Judge King’s court, for example, Koslosky was appointed to my support case as recently as February, 2015 despite his earlier removal by another judge for counter-productive involvement. This will now escalate drama to levels completely beyond the jurisdiction of a support matter. It also shows how misconduct is rewarded when you play the game.
So when it came time for William Koslosky to justify himself, he went off on a rant about his personal life having nothing to do with the case he was being paid for. Worse yet, Judge Walsh-Hood did nothing to contain his harangue. But in a bizarre twist, Koslosky did much more damage here by evincing a childhood disorder and personal hatred for his own father which obviously played out not only in my case but upon countless other unsuspecting fathers and children.
Prior to his commitment to federal prison, New York’s top jurist, Chief Justice Sol Wachtler stated in an often cited opinion that you can indict a ham sandwich under the laws of this state. While on the bench he directed court staff to investigate a lawyer to harm his law license because he was getting too close to the judge’s mistress. That sort of demented misconduct and sandwich analogy apply with greater abuses in lawyer ethics where guilt is easily found on a substandard level of proof and no jury right.
Koslosky’s misconduct was ratified by his employer courts through their inaction alone, and that makes a mockery of justice in all my cases. It warrants an investigation by the U. S. Justice Department because a self regulated state system will manipulate the rules to extinguish a critic while protecting their own. My case is exactly that, and many more exist around the country which should move the American public to protest inasmuch as these are the forums where justice is supposed to be served, not crushed.
I was unblemished for over 23 years. Suddenly, after my reform efforts started, everything about me was bad with every move scrutinized to absurdity on a pathetically vague “fitness” standard which no lawyer could survive. And the damages are not unlike the Kids for Cash scandal in Pennsylvania which resulted in the reversal of 4,000 juvenile convictions well after the damage was done.
It’s one thing to advocate for children, not your own, with no relevant background, but quite another to take out your childhood disorders upon infant clients and their fit, loving dads. It gets more bizarre when you take a look at Koslosky’s statements in their greater context. You have to consider yourself an attorney or concerned mom or dad when you read this. Here is what he stated:
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.
Come again?! Where’s the “smoking gun” here, pardon the pun. Koslosky’s dad was a police officer who in the day probably kept his gun at his side especially when assuring the security needs of a family which could be threatened in this line of duty. The aged ingrate son should have known this when he defamed his dad so long after his passing. As for different kinds of potatoes, how does this lead to a conclusion that mom was in danger?
Even assuming those fears were real in Koslosky’s mind at the time, why are they being brought up in a custody case involving another family 50 years later? The obvious answer is that William Koslosky was concocting billable hours at taxpayer expense and endeavoring a connection of some kind that only a psychiatrist could figure out. Lots of luck doctor!
Clearly something else occurred in Billy’s childhood which is being kept from the court. The impacted litigants and children are entitled to know more about this proffered event which their lawyer felt was so important to them. In this case, we taxpayers are also paying that lawyer to abuse court appointments for the suppression of free speech and citizen reforms.
A report is currently being prepared for Justice Department review in light of the Walter Scott murder and my ordeal here which details the foregoing civil rights violations and court corruption. It will include conclusive proof of a scheme by William Koslosky to lodge sworn papers with false factual assertions that I had filed motions to have my law license reinstated in family court (giving the impression of incompetence).
There was no such motion in the court record anywhere. Not only is this a serious abuse and fraud upon our courts, disregarded by New York’s attorney and judicial authorities, but it harmed the “clients” who rely on me for income and their family reputation. When nothing was done to remedy this grave injustice, Koslosky lodged more false sworn statements.
To think that our public authorities could overlook such a serious matter is in line with the governor’s dismantling of his Moreland Commission on Public Corruption just as the investigations were implicating his office and other top officials later prosecuted by the Justice Department. The federal investigations implicate prominent judges and law firms. Should this surprise any of us?
If you knew that your adult neighbor had committed sexual misconduct upon his five year old handicapped niece, would you allow your children near his home? If it turned out they became victims, might you be worried about your parental rights for a failure to look into his background?
Well for years in a Syracuse, New York courthouse, children were being ordered to appear in chambers without parental supervision to interact with a family judge who committed this very misconduct. There is no way of knowing how his proclivities may have impaired his judgments and custody orders, but unlike the “kids for cash” scandal in Pennsylvania, resulting in 4,000 reversed juvenile convictions, there was no similar review or remedy here.
You really have to stop and grasp this reality because our third branch of government has generally received the highest public trust, even presiding over disputes and crimes of our other two branches. If this “family” judge, Bryan Hedges, had not been caught admitting to his disgusting behavior, he would still be on the bench meeting with little boys and girls at these so-called Lincoln hearings designed essentially to get our littles ones spying on their parents.
You can only imagine what was going through Bryan’s demented mind as he questioned unsuspecting toddlers about the fitness and behavior of their mommies and daddies. For those of you curious about my motivations for court reform here at Leon Koziol.com, it should be disclosed now that this same judge was assigned at one time to my custody case.
Judge Hedges would have met with my little girls had I not successfully moved for his disqualification. The children’s mother, lawyer and judge-appointed attorney all opposed my motion with depictions of Hedges as an impeccable jurist beyond reproach. Judge Hedges nevertheless disqualified himself on an “appearance of impropriety” without public elaboration.
This may be explained by my grounds for removal which included his status in a civil rights case brought by a court clerk accusing him of using paid staff to conduct “political espionage,” see Morin v Tormey, 620 F.Supp.2d 363 ($600,000 ultimate recovery). Being a public figure with an opposite political affiliation, I could not accept this judge’s presumption of impartiality when I had been recommended by a retired state Supreme Court justice to run for judgeship in the same district.
The story doesn’t end there. Judge Hedges’ co-defendant in the civil case, Chief Administrative Judge James Tormey, assigned more than 35 trial level judges to my originally uncontested divorce case. Any competent lawyer will tell you that this undisputed fact alone makes my case an extraordinary one. But other factors showed that the appointment process itself could be manipulated for purposes of censorship.
Most judges were disqualified, thereby justifying my prior (denied) motion for transfer to a downstate judicial district. But certain opposite party judges hung around long enough to exact retributions for my reform efforts before passing their damage on to the next one. Another Syracuse judge, Martha Walsh-Hood, was forced to throw out fraudulent petitions for lack of evidence. I then cited her many violations of judicial code as a cause for the combined harm to my children, but the Judicial Conduct Commission refused to even look into the matter.
This was undoubtedly due to misconduct so extensive that any public inquiry would bring unacceptable reputation damage to the state’s judiciary. Hence, the expedient solution was to kill the messenger despite my 23 years of unblemished law practice, model citizenship and fit parenting. I held elective office, served as city corporation counsel, school board attorney and was featured on the CBS program 60 Minutes, CNN and other reputable news organizations.
Most recently, a junior judge in Lowville, New York, Daniel King, ventured the claim that he was “protecting” my children with new restrictions upon my parenting rights. They were based again on more fraudulent petitions prior to any hearing. I replied that I had been the one properly “protecting” my girls since their birth including any contact with Judge Bryan Hedges.
This 33rd assigned judge then went so far as to fabricate a college degree among my credentials in a scheme to impute fictional income for support incarceration purposes. He also made it highly risky for me to see my children with conflicting directives including one that violated a higher court restraint. With each public criticism there arose a matching retribution through an abuse of judicial office.
Daniel King’s misconduct was featured in my testimony at the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. But when that Commission was disbanded to protect top state officials (the Assembly Leader was later arrested by federal agents on bribery charges implicating prominent lawyers, judges and millions of dollars in public money), state ethics lawyers turned their guns again upon my public criticisms and complaints.
The chief ethics counsel and his two attorney subordinates involved in this witch hunt were fired for falsifying time sheets only weeks after admitting in a closed hearing that they had been targeting my website. No public charges were brought against them for any crimes or civil rights violations. Threats of contempt in both family and attorney hearings then prompted me to seek protection in Paris.
As I’ve stated time and again, my ordeal reads like a John Grisham plot. So the next time you entrust your children and hard earned money to this antiquated and lucrative custody system, think again. Ask yourself the all-important question: do you trust this person on the bench simply because he or she wears a robe? Here at the Parenting Rights Institute, we offer a program to avoid court or manage your family disputes. It’s based on reality not lawyer profits.
Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Civil Rights Advocate
Follow Leon Koziol, J.D., on Twitter: (Click Here)
Over the past ten days since we launched the Founding Fathers March on Washington, support has grown from all over the country. If you’ve been following our daily countdown of posts, you already know that it is set for April 20, 2012 and is being organized by the Parenting Rights Institute and National League of Fathers, Inc. Among our callers is a representative ofWe the People Family Preservation, Inc. This particular group appeared at our Parenting Rights Convention this past spring and is sponsoring a Family Preservation Festival at the nation’s capital for the same day as our march. The Festival covers the weekend from Thursday, April 19 through Sunday, April 22, 2012 and includes public speaking events and congressional lobby initiatives.
We have agreed to join efforts to produce a greater impact. Now our motorcade on America’s interstates to the capital beltway will have a place to land and take a stand on the subject of parenting laws and constitutional rights. To gain further participation, we are releasing this week a sequel of daily dedications called the “Liberty and Justice Series” from the Saratoga National Battlefield and Monument in historic upstate New York. You won’t want to miss this spirited segment. The first of this series, posted yesterday, was entitled “Take Back Our Courts”, and it features a New York Supreme Court ruling which I obtained from a judge who sits in Saratoga County. He was assigned to preside over an ongoing case against the state tax department. We need you to get the word out and start planning for our march. God Bless America!
Day 148 in the sequel leading up to the Founding Fathers March is committed to Martha Walsh-Hood, a Family Court Judge in Syracuse, New York. Martha recently participated in National Adoption Day with highway banners and taxpayer advertising designed to find homes for foster children. Certainly an admirable cause, it was unfortunately masked by a court process, administered by the same judge, which produced the very products that Martha was seeking to sell to an unsuspecting public.
Our purpose is to expose the propaganda of America’s “child business” as one Family Court put it. This propaganda is plainly seen in the parenting disputes manufactured by lawyers and judges (former divorce lawyers). These disputes produce federal incentive grants, child support interest revenues and all kinds of fees based on the number of “custodial” and “non-custodial” parents mass produced in these domestic relations courts. They also produce the kind of products, foster children, which the public is asked to shop for on Black Friday.
I have described this as the “custodial institution of childrearing”, a collection of laws which keeps otherwise cooperating parents engaged in bitter disputes over “custody” and “support” awards. If these disputes can be perpetuated long enough, parents will resort to lucrative tactics for lawyers, even false charges, which can then lead to “unfit” behavior and the state’s placement of more children in foster care. It is, very simply, an underhanded exploitation of a rule of nature. Lawyers know that parents will do anything to keep their children from an enemy (the other parent) created by state law.
These custody and support awards are mandated even among self sustaining maternal and paternal family units which have no need for them. Unequal parenting laws are inherently unjust, based on a time when moms stayed at home, and for these reasons parents return to court time and again duped into believing that this is where justice can be found. In reality, it is a multi-billion dollar child industry they are facing, one that is engaged in profits and political patronage. It is the ultimate gold mine in which parents are targeted as unwitting employers and facilitators.
Reform is long overdue, however, even progressive judges are quickly overturned while like minded parenting advocates (like me) are suppressed. See for example Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS 2d 315 (Albany Family Court, 2001) where a veteran judge found that custody and visitation have “outlived their usefulness”. He was reversed only months later. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is happening. In the end, parents and children suffer while the state takes over childrearing until it has more victims than it can handle.
As a result, New York’s judicial branch of government, known as the Unified Court System, is sponsoring “Adoption Day”. In so doing, it has violated the most basic tenets of our Constitution and reason for its existence. The judicial branch is required to maintain independence from outside activity so that its neutrality might not be compromised by events which later come before it. Judicial canons of ethics further require judges to avoid even “an appearance of impropriety” in these outside activities.
The Parenting Rights Institute would like to see a good home for all foster children. But we must first reform the system which is adding to their numbers. On our Thanksgiving Day post, and prior ones dedicated to the “Child” and “Purple Heart Soldier” (Days 155, 153 and 149), you can gain a better understanding of this epidemic which is causing vast injury to the productivity, moral fiber and health care capacities of an entire nation. Let’s all join together in a reform effort to end Martha’s shopping sprees.