By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
First there was Anita Hill, then Bill Clinton and Monica, then Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump’s locker talk. Now we’re confronted by the growing number of famous people being taken down by ancient claims of sexual harassment. Will the media and our government finally recognize and act on the sexual harassment of fathers in our nation’s divorce and family courts?
Only today, media reports appeared to recognize for the first time nationally that women can commit violent acts of domestic violence when actress Naya Rivera was charged with domestic battery upon her husband Ryan Dorsey. Yet in family court, dads are being put in jail for non-violent “child support” debts while moms proven to have made false allegations of abuse (for custody tactic purposes) are barely receiving a scolding.
You can argue your opinions any way you like, but you cannot argue with statistics. Census Bureau reports continue to show that nearly 85% of all persons in America paying “child support” are men. Nearly 90% of all contested “custody” cases result in “awards” that favor women. If that was the report concerning our work force with men owning 85% of all jobs, there would be riots in the streets.
The reality is that without men supporting the women’s rights movement, it never would have happened, this coming from a father who once represented a former president of the National Organization for Women. If dads are ever going to get a fair shake in these courts, women will have to join our own cause. You cannot have it both ways, equal rights in all walks of life except in family court where we all return to Pleasant Valley circa 1950s.
This antiquated custody framework which lawyers guard so intensely reaps huge fees and benefits at the expense of parents and children. This profit motive is the same reason they oppose all progressive shared parenting laws (which could put so many lawyers out of business). It is anything but the “best interests” of children being promoted here. Yet the victimized dads continue to pay the lawyers instead of investing in the kind of reform movement which I sacrificed everything for.
During my crusade for equal rights and parental justice, I came across three dads who together spent over $10 million in lawyer fees trying to assert or defend their “custody” rights. Even among those close to me who professed to know the system became foolish victims, losing their child contacts or support reductions altogether. Two individuals paid $5,000 and $4,000 respectively for only a few court appearances which could have been better spent on a public exposure campaign.
The “War Against Fathers” is real and waged with increased intensity with each passing day of apathy and surrender with priorities acted out on a boat, bowling alley or basketball court. Meanwhile the “court predators” as I call them are bankrupting entire families as this epidemic grows to impair all aspects of our society. It’s all keyboarding, pontificating and GED expertise in a fledgling movement that continues to self-destruct.
Sexism is alive and well in these courts as a result, but not the way our society has been programmed to believe, that only men are the villains. In my recent book, Satan’s Docket, I lay out exactly how this anti-father court system operates to turn good dads into the stereotypes ascribed to them. It is carefully depicted with custody trial transcripts in my very own case. That chapter is reproduced here from our past post. Hopefully it will get you motivated to real action beyond your keyboards, ballfields and shopping malls.
Chapter 20
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, [1] 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. [2] 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: [3]
Walsh-Hood: Okay, good morning. Well, I’ve spent some time trying to become acquainted with this rather voluminous file, and my intent in scheduling the earliest possible court date was to try and address the… some of the issues which both parties have raised in a number of different courts… Given the fact that Judge Greenwood had scheduled the matter prior to his recusal for July 20th, I readjusted my court calendar…
(After dismissing three petitions on consent, the judge proceeded with others): With regard to the support issue, it’s my understanding that (it) was originally heard, I believe, by Judge Caldwell (who never heard any issue after stepping down at the outset).
Mr. Koziol: There were some eighteen judges on this case (2006 thru 2009)…
Walsh-Hood: I understand.
Mr. Koziol: As far as the support issues go, and the intertwined, interwoven (proceedings), having been here from the beginning, perhaps I can best speak to that history (neither the child lawyer, William Koslosky nor mother’s latest attorney, Rebecca Crance, had been present for the entire history).
Walsh-Hood: Well, I’m not so much concerned about the history, although I did go through it. My understanding is that the support issue was in fact heard, that there is a willful component to that hearing, that is, in fact, before Judge Daley.
Mr. Koziol: That’s correct, who was previously removed from the case, and he’s back for some reason that he didn’t seem to understand… I don’t know how that’s going to resolve itself.
Walsh-Hood: But from my selfish perspective… all matters relating to support are before another judge, although I do understand that under Eschbach and Friederwitzer (case precedent) in custody (decisions), support can be a factor considered… Further it’s my understanding that the Judgment of Divorce (Judge Grow decision) is now on appeal as well as issues relative to, Mr. Koziol, your original request for a change of venue (change of location to a remote judicial district)… I think the venue change has actually been accomplished through a number of recusals…to be heard by the Appellate Division. In fact there’s a federal action pending for some of the same relief that’s before this court…”
Mr. Koziol: That’s right.
Walsh-Hood: Even given that situation… there are applications by both parties in Supreme Court and Family Court (both trial courts in New York)… both parties are seeking custody and allegations of contempt, or at least Mr. Koziol has of Mrs. Hawse-Koziol. Is that everybody’s understanding?
Mr. Koziol: I don’t know if you’re characterizing it as I see it, but Ms. Hawse has been allowed to go through support court, she’s gone through all that process, while my petition against her for violating parenting orders, and I want to get to this past weekend, once again I was deprived of an entire weekend with my children… For now, in terms of the narrow framework of pending petitions is concerned, it’s my contempt against her that has been held in abeyance for a couple years.
Walsh-Hood: (after denying my motions for removal of William Koslosky as Judge-Appointed Child Attorney and Walsh-Hood as presiding judge)… I don’t feel there is any reason for me to step down as other judges have done. You stated yourself, very eloquently I may add, that matters have been pending in the court which have not been heard since 2007. The day has come, sir, for those matters to be litigated… if you feel uncomfortable in proceeding today, though I’m sure you are capable of doing so, then Ms. Crance (mother’s lawyer) can proceed first, and that would give you a little additional time… Ms. Crance, are you willing to do that?”
Ms. Crance: Yes.
Mr. Koziol: No, Judge, I’d like to be heard.
Walsh-Hood: Sure.
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. [4]
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: [5]
Crance: Has Mr. Koziol relayed to you his desire to have shared or half parenting time?
Hawse-Koziol: Yes.
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. [6] 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. [7] 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. [8] 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.
[1] Maron v Silver, 14 NY3d 230 (2010); Chief Judge v Governor, 884 NYS2d 863 (3rd Dept 2009)
[2] Matter of G. Stephen Getman, 147 Ad 2d 163, 542 NYS 2d 896 (4th Dept 1989)
[3] 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)
[4] 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)
[5] 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)
[6] 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.
[7] 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)
[8] Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 367 (NDNY 2011)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Welcome to Leon Koziol.Com 