Donald Trump or corrupt judge: which one must submit to a mental evaluation?

IMG_0253

Administrator’s note:

As we’ve said here time again, our public messages keep getting proven correct by the day. Today is no different. A story out of Breitbart news chronicles how liberals, socialists and communists, like the ones who joined in that Super Bowl protest, are now calling for a mental evaluation of Donald Trump. (Click Here to Read)

These characters will simply not accept the will of the people in a Democracy which elected Donald Trump only three months ago. In office only one day and he’s greeted by a hoard of vagina fashion models protesting with visible evidence of a demented society.

They are coming more unglued because our new president is actually doing what he was elected to do. These anti-Americans, anxious to bring more of their kind into this country, are now exploiting Trump’s criticism of a “so-called” federal judge in the state of Washington who put a stop order on the president’s temporary ban of refugees.

This guy in a robe was elected by no one. He was politically appointed for life and saw an opportunity to glorify himself with national attention (like federal judge Gary Sharpe did according to former senate leader Joe Bruno in his new book, Keep Swinging). This judge decided to interfere with national security with harm already showing up with the recent flood of incoming from the Middle East.

This judge is actually ruling America for the moment as our self-appointed president, like family judges ruling over our children and interfering with private lives beyond powers allowed under our Constitution. The real president is justified in laying blame for any consequences on this judge just like we moms and dads are justified in laying blame on the kangaroo family judges for the social epidemic we have today.

We must stop blaming good parents for the consequences of mentally deranged family judges (not every judge, only the ones who abuse their egos and jurisdiction). Any mental evaluation of Donald Trump was successfully completed on Election Day, his reform message has not changed, unless they’re saying half the voting population also needs a mental evaluation, the “deplorables” as Ms. Whitewater, Monicagate and e-mail scandal expert called them.

The Trump developments give us pause to reproduce here a post which is very timely on the subject:

In the Wake of Recent Events, Litigants are Entitled to Better Accountability and Due Process.

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

When New York’s Chief Justice, Sol Wachtler, was arrested and imprisoned for stalking a debutant and falsifying reports to authorities, it was clear to the world that he suffered from a severe mental disease. Several years ago, this convict was re-licensed as an attorney and assigned to teach ethics if you can believe that.

But there is much more to this story which the public has generally not known. For example, while serving in our third branch of government, Sol Wachtler directed paid staff in chambers to investigate a New Jersey lawyer for the purpose of impairing his law license. That lawyer had become too friendly with the debutant Wachtler had been secretly dating as a married man.

Such precedent has relevance to my ordeal as a civil rights attorney, unblemished for more than 23 years, when I began a reform campaign directed to our divorce and family courts. With each public criticism or formal complaint there arose a matching act of retribution which harmed my parent-child relations and professional livelihood, this coming from the branch of government charged with the highest duty of protecting First Amendment rights.

As fate would have it, the “ethics lawyers” employed by an appeals court in Albany, engaged in the witch hunt against me, were fired for falsifying time sheets in 2013, only weeks after admitting in a closed hearing that they had been targeting my website and formal complaints. As a defense attorney, I once had a client who was charged with a felony for alleged misuse of a city gas card amounting to $16. Yet here, the standard- bearers of attorney ethics, Peter Torncello and Steven Zayas, have never faced any public charges while I remain damaged by their misconduct.

Today we read about a deranged airline pilot who crashed a passenger jet into the French Alps. The public is rightfully demanding better mental health accountability. In our family courts, parents and children are being subjected to mental health evaluations every day on self serving accusations of a scorned litigant or state agency. As explained in prior posts here at Leon Koziol.com, such orders yield billions of dollars in fees and revenues for lawyers and bureaucrats.

But what about the judges, top jurists like Sol Wachtler, who issue such orders like burgers at a restaurant? Didn’t his court clerks have a duty under the ethics code to report his misconduct and seek a mental health evaluation before the public was harmed? Did anyone even raise the issue? Or do we conveniently assume that this was all an isolated series of crimes no longer relevant to our system of justice? Well think again, it’s only gotten worse.

In 2013, a Syracuse family judge, Bryan Hedges, was removed from the bench for admitting to sexual misconduct upon his five year old handicapped niece. At the same time, a Michigan judge admitted to an extramarital affair in chambers with a mother during a child support case which resulted in her pregnancy. Shortly before that, a family judge in Texas was exposed on video beating his teen daughter. In 2009, a state Supreme Court judge in New York City was imprisoned for taking a $9,000 bribe to fix a custody case against a fit mother, and two Pennsylvania judges were also sent to prison in the now infamous “kids for cash” bribery scandal requiring the reversal of 4,000 juvenile convictions.

These are only some of the shocking cases of judicial misconduct that we have featured here. When viewed individually, it’s alarming enough, but taken together, it raises a potential epidemic in our justice system. For example, how would you know that your opposing lawyer is not so connected as to fix a custody case? In the Michigan case, an unsuspecting father was prejudiced with monitoring devices and jail threats to the glee of his pregnant adversary. How many cases are out there today which will never be discovered given the brazen nature of these very recent incidents?

Make no mistake, it’s not just ethical misconduct being overlooked by our judicial commissions, but felonies and deranged actions of office holders held to the highest public trust. Children are being alienated and even removed from fit and loving parents simply because an unscrupulous lawyer with a paid psychologist is able to concoct some voodoo syndrome to explain human emotions inflamed by these very same needless and lucrative court proceedings.

Suddenly the children are at risk and court ordered evaluations are required as a condition for seeing one’s offspring. This is the gold mine that is causing people like investigator  Joseph Longo to commit a murder-suicide that left three children without parents. How are such losses any different than those caused by an airline pilot or his German superiors. Shouldn’t deranged judges and lawyers who profit from their misdeeds be held similarly accountable with mental health evaluations?

In coming days, we will be exposing the deranged behavior of a family judge in Lowville, New York who goes by the name of Dan King. He is a quintessential example of incompetence, arrogance and evil which mars our system of justice and harms innocent children exploited as a means of retribution for public criticisms properly asserted against him. Hopefully, with enough public support, we can remove him like we did Bryan Hedges before more harm is inflicted upon families in family court.

Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Civil Rights Advocate

(315) 796-4000

Congratulations to President-elect Donald Trump and Dr. Leon Koziol


Administrator’s Note:

Congratulations to Dr. Koziol for having the courage to stand up to the corruption, sticking by your principles and all of the hard work that you do for moms and dads across America. It’s been a long road. Today is the day something magical has occurred. The people have finally come together and said, enough is enough!

Once again, you have been further vindicated for all of the pain and suffering that you have been forced to endure at the hands of the spineless cowards who tried to suppress your message. Not only did they show callous disregard for the relationship that you once enjoyed with your precious daughters, but they exposed the true evil that exists amongst us. It’s a danger that you have long warned us about here at LeonKoziol.Com. Hillary Clinton and her “village” are that evil – They have now been sent packing!

Today is a new beginning! Our work is far from over. Today is the day for all parents to come together and call upon or government to return our children. They are not the property of the state nor can we afford to sit back any longer and continue to watch our families get further torn apart.

Today is the day that all parents are being asked to renew their commitment and join forces with Dr. Koziol as he embarks upon what will inevitably be his greatest accomplishment of all time – working with President-elect, Donald J. Trump to Make America Great Again!

Stay tuned!

Three Parental Rights Cases considered by Supreme Court at same time today

By Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute     http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com

But is access to our nation’s highest court illusory for the vast majority of us?

That is among the questions posed before the Supreme Court today in a mandamus action entitled Leon Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York being considered on the same day as two other parental rights cases. In another mandamus action, Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), the Supreme Court rendered one of its most controversial decisions in which it seized the power to interpret our Constitution and thereby set itself up potentially as a super-branch of government.

The Marbury case has held up to the present day despite much criticism from the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt. But the chance for an average citizen to obtain such an interpretation is next to zero. That is because our high court only accepts roughly 100 of 10,000 petitions filed from around the globe. Perhaps more startling is the fact that our Supreme Court has only two more members today than it did during the time of Marbury while Congress plays politics with a vacancy. Since 1803 our population has grown from about 5 million to over 300 million. You calculate the probabilities.

Congress has adapted with our growth along with the executive branch and their huge bureaucracy, but little has changed with our Supreme Court. That may explain why no shared parenting case has ever been decided by our high court whereas abortion is a regular part of its docket. Against such odds, there are at least three parental rights cases being considered by our high court on the same day, September 26, 2016, and a fourth working its way through our federal courts.

They are all pro se cases due to financial exploitation in the lower courts and professional retaliation for those who challenge the judges who promote it. To make up for a century of void in these cases, I have asked the Supreme Court to order a Special Master to investigate and report on the vast erosion of parent-child rights under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (supports standards and incentive funding to state courts). We are losing our parental rights through conflict profiteering and revenue making practices that violate due process.

As Americans we should all have a reasonable belief that our highest court will hear our concerns. We should not have to expect that a few prominent law firms guard the door to this court. For this reason four professionals from around the country took a stand as victimized parents on the steps of the Supreme Court. They have asked that our parenting rights be heard as abortion, marital equality and other rights have. Here are excerpts. Three presenters have no lawyer background yet in my expert opinion they articulate the core issues better than many trial lawyers with whom I have litigated during my 25 year career. You be the judge:

 

 

 

Here are the opening segment and Part II of my Supplemental Brief accepted by the Supreme Court last week:

For a complete viewing (Click Here)

REASONS  FOR  SUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEF

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

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

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

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

Point Two:  Domestic courts are not constitution-free zones, and routine obstacles to federal jurisdiction can no longer be abused to deny parents basic rights.

Domestic relations courts are no longer matters of local or state interest. Constitutional violations here were fueled by a federal funding statute and a state revenue system based on the magnitude and number of child support orders manufactured under Title IV-D of the Social security Act, 42 USC 651 et. seq.; Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998); Dept of Family v DHHS of U.S., 588 F.3d 740 (1st Cir. 2009)

Beyond that the events occurring since this petition was filed have only proven beyond any remaining doubt that respondents are forever committed to their agenda for censoring and suppressing the petitioner using every means available to them. The overriding reason for denying this public critic his discovery rights in the Northern District of New York was a concern for exposing judges to abuse.

Recognizing this interest, petitioner brought an action for extraordinary relief under FRAP Rule 21 with a request for the appointment of a special master to investigate and report on the complex ordeal inflicted upon this public critic and parents throughout the country as exemplified in the Second Circuit. This was the course of action taken by the same federal court in the Oneida land claim class action of 1998, a case in which petitioner was intricately involved, Oneida Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (2000).

The obstacles to federal court jurisdiction and good faith petitions for accessing this Court can no longer be tolerated or glossed over. This is a nationwide epidemic corroborated by other cases decided by this Court since petition filing. For example, in Universal Health Services v United States, No. 15-7 (June 16, 2016), a teen girl was placed under the care of a counseling center having unqualified staff which administered improper medication resulting in a worsening of a bi-polar diagnosis. She died of a consequential stroke.

This Court allowed the family’s action to go forward under the federal False Claims Act based on an implied false certification theory of liability. In family courts throughout the nation parents and children are being referred by judges and lawyers as a matter of course for psychiatric evaluations on the slightest accusations of a scorned ex-spouse. All too often entire families are over-medicated, bankrupted or permanently harmed by this lucrative referral program in these courts.

In this case, a scorned ex-wife acting on advice of lawyers anxious to harm petitioner, requested and obtained a forensic order in 2011 for the parents and children without cause of any kind. The biased judge who issued that order was disqualified, her replacement was removed from the case on motion of petitioner and removed altogether from the family court bench for admitting to sexual misconduct upon his handicapped five year old niece, In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

On September 23, 2011, the next (veteran) family judge, Michael Hanuszczak, vacated the order on the same record employed by his two predecessors to order and continue the evaluations. This event fully verified in the record shows just how arbitrary these forensic orders truly are and how easily they can be exploited to harm a public critic as respondent Judge Daniel King did only two years later. On July 12, 2016, his replacement Judge James Eby refused to honor that precedent on the case, thereby producing a permanent loss of petitioner’s children.

The DSM-5 manual used to diagnose psychiatric conditions and process insurance claims has at least 300 disorders and 600 conditions that can destroy careers and keep parents and children under state control and medication for many years. It is beyond epidemic and leading to suicides, bizarre activity and needless destruction of parent-child relations in criminal ways. A special master must be assigned to investigate this crisis because it arises exclusively in our judicial branch. It has been a long time since this Court took a bold move to correct a court created injustice of such magnitude, see Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925); Bast, supra and Brown v Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954). The case for extraordinary recourse could not be better.

PLEASE  SHARE  THIS  POST  AND  SUPPORT  OUR  CAUSE ! https://leonkoziol.com/2016/09/26/three-parental-rights-cases-considered-by-supreme-court-at-same-time-today

You can also contact our office at (315) 380-3420

 

 

Legal Brief Seeking Recourse for Abused Parents Accepted by Supreme Court

children are not for sale

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

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

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

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

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

REASONS  FOR  SUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEF

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

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

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

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

Supplement to Fact Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Escalating Violence Predicted: Root Cause Suppressed by Media and Federal Courts

EP-150409468.jpg&MaxW=520&q=85
Rest in Peace Walter Scott

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Civil Rights Advocate

Hardly a day goes by without another fatal clash between police and citizens on the streets of America. Many are quick to blame it on racism, but as a civil rights attorney for over 23 years currently advocating for parental rights in our domestic courts, the root cause can be found in the destruction of fathers, families and parental authority. Escalating crime and violence is the natural outcome beyond the capacity of law enforcement to control. It is a central issue in my case currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown may have summed it up best when he lamented that police cannot be made the repository for all of our societal problems ranging from loose dogs to domestic disputes. Unfortunately conflict profiteers in our family courts are dumping upon society and adding to police burdens every day. It is an epidemic tackled in my case but suppressed and censored by our courts and legal profession to the point of persecution and international protection. And so, while the media squawks about a problem it cannot or will not comprehend, the “bank” plays on.

That root cause has been quietly making its way through our federal courts for the past ten years and now the Supreme Court is being asked to appoint a Special Master to hold hearings and inquiries on the state of American families in divorce and family courts. Call it “families vs fees,” the official title is Leon R. Koziol vs United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It was necessarily filed as an extraordinary action originating with an uncontested divorce in 2006 that escalated to an unprecedented 35 trial judge disqualifications and exposure of some of the most horrific injustices ever to mar a civilized court system.

One key aspect of my case is the murder of an unarmed African-American father in South Carolina named Walter Scott. Unlike other victims of police shootings, Walter Scott was shot in the back five times for fleeing a child support warrant at a traffic stop. There was no crime and the horrific scene was caught on a citizen video. A family lost their daddy due to a debt, nothing more. The money enforcement practices in these courts have become so “draconian” that at least one British court refused to extradict a “dead beat” to the states. As predicted here at the time, terrorism and violence will escalate due to the media and court suppression of this core cause.

As promised this is a continuation of our sequel of publications on relevant aspects of my Supreme Court brief awaiting decision next week. Help us spread our message of court reform and parental equality across America. Look us up at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com or call our office at (315) 380-3420.

Point Three: Persecution inflicted upon this public critic and judicial whistle blower meets the criteria for asylum under United Nations Convention of 1951.

 The fact pattern here is shockingly unprecedented and incredible from a human rights standpoint. It mirrors in many material respects the abuses inflicted upon Chinese lawyer Chen Guangcheng who like petitioner advocated for women’s rights, land rights and parent-child rights. He fled China in 2012 and was accorded protected status in New York with help of then secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

In this case, the mirror mistreatment of an American civil rights attorney and parent entitles petitioner to protected status under the United Nations Convention of 1951 and other human rights protocols. Such protection is accorded to persons persecuted for their political views and free speech. At least one British court denied extradition to a child support obligor due to “draconian” enforcement practices in the states. The case for protection here is detailed in the opening segment of this brief and in petitioner’s motion filed on August 9, 2016 and will not be repeated.

Since that time, petitioner was improperly served with an amended petition for enforcement of a child support order and willful contempt. It contained language in boldface capital letters on its Notice face page which is far more threatening than the original one allegedly served on petitioner prior to petition filing here. As explained in the fact segment of this brief, the original service was made fraudulently with a city marshal admitting on the witness stand at a September 1, 2016 hearing in Syracuse Family Court that he had lied under oath. Critical to the service that never occurred is a shocking criminal sentence now being threatened in the amended version yet to be served:

YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY SUBJECT YOU TO MANDATORY ARREST AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WHICH MAY RESULT IN YOUR INCARCERATION FOR UP TO SEVEN YEARS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND MAY SUBJECT YOU TO FAMILY PROSECUTION AND INCARCERATION FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR IN COURT WHEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO SO, THIS ORDER MAY BE EXTENDED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND CONTINUE IN EFFECT UNTIL YOU APPEAR IN COURT.

On April 5, 2015, an unarmed African-American father was shot dead in the back five times by a traffic cop while fleeing a child support warrant on a routine stop. Although both white and black officers were charged in the murder, the children forever lost their dad for a money debt arbitrarily inflated to maximize federal incentive revenues under Title IV-D and to feed family court beneficiaries. It is a situation well out of control and leading to increased instances of violence across America.

Respondents have successfully destroyed petitioner and his reform efforts through a seizure of his licenses, income capacities and disparagements of his reputation and public message. Petitioner’s background was omitted from the original petition for the sake of substance. However in this supplemental brief it is required to repair to the extent possible the false depictions ascribed to the judicial whistle blower here while further solidifying the conscience shocking misconduct of respondents for substantive due process purposes and extraordinary relief.

Petitioner is a civil rights lawyer still registered with the New York Bar during an indefinite suspension period which began on February 5, 2010. This is when he took a conscientious stand against father discrimination and corruption generally consistent with his professional oath. In front page news of the day, he compared his refusal to pay gender biased support orders to the refusal of Susan B. Anthony to pay her fine after being convicted of the crime of voting in the 1872 presidential elections.

It must be emphasized that petitioner never refused support of his children or compliance with agreements when honored by the “custodial parent.” Ironically the court in Rochester, New York where the arguments and suspension occurred is dedicated to Susan B. Anthony due to location of her trial.

Petitioner was known in the Northern District of New York as an attorney willing to take on cases which few others would for fear of government retribution or public condemnation. His achievements include legal precedents and six figure recoveries for victims of government abuse. All the while, he was self trained, generating a perfect record of acquittals in criminal cases. A sampling of news articles ignored in the record below is appended to the lower court record at A-91.

Petitioner’s civil rights work earned him interviews on the CBS Program 60 Minutes and introductions on the front page of New York Times, among other major media. A published book was discussed on CNN and his candidacy for United States Congress was a headline story in 2006. After years of complex litigation against high profile firms, he secured final judgment in New York Supreme Court invalidating the largest casino gaming compact in the state on constitutional grounds.

In education, a Juris Doctor was conferred by Northern Illinois University, College of Law with an award from the American Bar Association in State and Local Government. Petitioner received a Bachelor of Professional Studies from the State University of New York, College of Technology, thereafter joining the management team of a Fortune 500 manufacturer. Later he served as a corporation counsel, school board attorney and city councilman with a focus on risk management.

Petitioner’s many published cases include Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004)($333,820.32 civil rights verdict argued before Justice Sonia Sotomayor); Oneida Indian Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY 2000)(successful casino challenge in defense of landowner rights) Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000)(free speech challenge as city corporation counsel invalidating mayoral gag order); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994)(successful sexual harassment case), Palaimo v Lutz, 837 F. Supp. 55 (NDNY 1993)(brutality and unlawful confinement claims allowed for 72 year old woman).

Rounding out his scholarship, community service awards and dedication plaques on a new city courthouse is his latest published novel regarding nuclear terrorism. It can be found at major bookseller sites entitled Voyage to Armageddon. Within two years of law school graduation in 1985, petitioner obtained a restraining order on a $30 million school project. Today he is unable to get a family court order to enforce a single phone call from his daughters. Much of petitioner’s unyielding quest for justice derives from his own father who shared horror stories of his five years spent in a Nazi internment camp.

img_0298

 

 

 

Your Documentary Can Achieve Justice and Court Reform: Take Action Now.

Presentation1

NO  ONE  IN  THE  COUNTRY  IS  DOING  THIS 

Welcome to an extraordinary opportunity to obtain justice on your case.

Let’s face it, mainstream media is ignoring corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. That’s because bar associations across America are suppressing a trillion dollar industry. Tremendous harm has resulted throughout today’s society. So as parents, we have a duty to publish our own documentaries through secondary and social media. Here at Parenting Rights Institute, we are a part of that movement. You can be too.

Anyone can slap together a home video and throw it up on You-Tube. But without expertise connected to it, why waste time. Such a video could do more harm than good. Even major media can fall short of an ideal product because the sponsors are unfamiliar with these courts. Time and again we have seen shows that promote propaganda of the child “experts” who have never had children as they profit from our misfortunes.

Here we do much more through follow-up and professional reports. Dr. Leon Koziol has been featured on 60 Minutes, front page of the New York Times, CNN and other major media. You can view some of it on our  media page at http://www.leonkoziol.com. So we certainly have the expertise to do your documentary right and in a way that meets your needs because he is a parent and legal expert. It’s why he founded the Parenting Rights Institute.

For the past 30 years, Dr. Koziol and his staff have brought major lawsuits against government, corruption cases against judges,  malpractice actions against lawyers and precedent seeking cases docketed by the United States Supreme Court in response to an anti-filing order. In May, 2016 he obtained a state Supreme Court order resulting in the removal of a family court gag order. Despite all First Amendment suppression, he perseveres with the citizen challenges for preserving our constitutional rights.

Few others have proven to be so bold and tenacious. If there is a will, there is a way, and together we strive for success. We have sponsored parenting conventions upon reviewing countless cases of government corruption. In 2005, Dr. Koziol secured final judgment in New York Supreme Court invalidating a billion dollar gaming compact of the Oneida Turning Stone Casino, largest in the state. Learn of other achievements on this site.

More recently Dr. Koziol’s skills have been applied exclusively to assist moms and dads victimized in divorce and family courts. He has traveled as far away as Hawaii, San Francisco, Nashville, Washington, Philadelphia, even Paris, France performing investigations. His work was then incorporated into formal reports and documentaries for media, public agencies and watchdog groups. He has also published three books.

We begin our assignments with an inquiry at no charge from a victimized parent, grandparent or family member. An estimate for services and expenses is provided. Next we receive electronic and paper records to be reviewed. As a defamation expert, Leon will not expose himself to libelous reports, yet another benefit for you. We follow with a trip to your community to get a critical assessment of the environment. That trip is concluded with a video interview and options for a more comprehensive documentary if warranted.

You are in command of the options insofar as a given case may prove to have an extraordinary dimension to it. The extent of the assignment can vary as circumstances dictate. It can be a villain’s worse nightmare and your finest hour, maybe even an autobiography for future generations, simply priceless. Below is a raw sample of a book documentary sent to CBS 60 Minutes. One of Leon’s submissions was recently sent to production for a possible show. It would not be his first.

So call our office at (315) 380-3420 for an interview and quote or Leon directly at (315) 796-4000. It could be the call of a lifetime.

 

 

Your Workplace, Community or Church Group Will Benefit From Dr. Leon Koziol and the Parenting Rights Institute

 

We are living in an increasingly litigious society. There are over 300,000 lawyers in New York and California alone with as many attorney candidates as there are those in practice across the United States. That’s a lot of lawyers seeking work. But in divorce and family court the participants are creating their own employment at your expense through needless, lucrative and contrived controversy that has generated no accountability.

Everyone is adversely impacted, from the innocent child to diverse employers who suffer the health and productivity consequences in the workforce. It is truly a silent epidemic suppressed by bar associations everywhere.  You need to learn more about it, identify the issues as they affect you and improve the condition of your home, family, workplace and community. You need to sponsor Dr. Leon Koziol, Director of Parenting Rights Institute,  for a speaking engagement or consultant for your organization or personnel department.

Here you get the real deal. They have done everything they could to censor this vital reform message and yet Dr. Koziol has persevered. Together with fellow consultants and staff we offer non-lawyer services to a variety of persons and entities. Church groups can gain immeasurable insights. Our professional background is detailed elsewhere on this site together with our services that include investigation and research of court corruption.

Dr. Koziol brings together a diverse and accomplished background for your benefit. As a published author, he has provided valuable writing and editing services for those who wish to share their ordeals with the world. A Court Program was developed over a period of years to assist others contemplating or already engaged in litigation. It is designed to avoid costly disputes and is available on this site as well.

Mediation services and litigation alternatives are highly recommended. If we cannot do it we will recommend a party near you. Such unique assistance is provided to victims of the court process because lawyers are not inclined to do so out of a fear of professional retribution. Such fears are understandable based on Dr. Koziol’s experiences after 23 unblemished years of practice in federal and state courts.

Therefore, he and his associates are able to develop strategies to suit victims from around the country. Tell us your issues and objectives, and we can provide a course of action based on many years of professional writing, drafting, lobbying, trial and appellate court experience. Often times, parents who choose our services include their lawyers in our strategy sessions.

We have helped organize rallies, conferences and parenting conventions while joining those who seek reform through network publicity and website development. Each case calls for a different approach using a wide range of proven or creative means. Call our office for a free consultation at (315) 380-3420 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.