Hearings Sought Before House Oversight and Judiciary Committees for Systemic Targeting of Whistleblowers

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Former Litigation and Human Rights Attorney

Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

Release Date: January 10, 2023

Contact Author at (315) 796-4000 and leonkoziol@gmail.com

It goes without saying that any lawyer who regularly exposes judicial misconduct will eventually be targeted. But none more than I was after exposing corruption ranging from my pedophile child custody judge (Bryan Hedges) to a city court jurist found guilty by a state commission of making racial remarks, physical threats and wrongful incarcerations from the bench (Gerald Popeo).

In the end, due to resulting systemic bias, my health, unblemished law practice and nearly my life were taken from me in retaliation. It mirrored the kind of persecution endured by human rights attorneys such as Chen Guangchen who secured refuge in the United States after he was targeted for his criticisms of the Chinese government.

Accordingly, I took on a cause to make systemic bias more transparent. It led to a form of “Innocence Project” that remains unfinished. In whistleblower cases, such bias is highly elusive from a proof standpoint. Public critics are made to appear incompetent and subjected to a form of gang assault. It is routinely dismissed as a fringe accusation devoid of support.

To debunk this myth, I have endeavored to secure legal protection for conscientious whistleblowers beginning with a precedent-seeking case filed with the Supreme Court under docket no. 18-278 and captioned Leon R. Koziol v Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, et. al.  Ahead of its time, it sought to permit circumstantial proof as a conventional means for establishing unlawful retaliation by judges.

Fearless reporting by those most qualified to expose corrupt jurists would be incentivized by carving out an exception to the court-created doctrine of judicial immunity. To be sure, unless caught red-handed, a judge is unlikely to admit wrongdoing. Inasmuch as courts have long preferred circumstantial proof as a more reliable mode of truth-seeking, there is no reason to avoid application of this rule to judge misconduct cases.

Presently, when jurists are the subject of misconduct, two unwritten rules of evidence invariably emerge, one for judge defendants and the other for the complainants. Under the first, damning evidence is blocked in both overt and discreet ways ostensibly to protect the reputation of our judiciary, i.e. United States v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir, 2010).

The DiFiore filing sought to remedy this dichotomy, representing a check on the persecution of attorney whistleblowers. The protracted and depraved manner in which unlawful retaliation was carried out necessitated my alarming memoir entitled, Whistleblower in Paris. As detailed therein, the attorney disciplinary process was weaponized to achieve illicit outcomes.

But my disclosures were so justifiably offensive that the wrongdoers went to the unconscionable extreme of sabotaging parent-child relationships in simultaneously pending family court proceedings. My petition for declaratory relief eventually fell victim to the Supreme Court’s practice of denying roughly 99% of all that are filed. Proceedings included a stay motion denied by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Despite all this, my crusade lives on, having been vindicated when the main defending party, New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, was forced to resign after being investigated by a state judicial commission for misconduct. DiFiore was reported by a non-lawyer for a letter she sent to a disciplinary judge seeking the harshest outcome against the head of the court officer’s union. She did so in retaliation for his criticisms of her safety practices during the pandemic.

This audacious act shows how readily a judge will misuse authority behind the scenes to punish public critics. It is far from isolated. A predecessor chief judge, Sol Wachtler, may have mentored such elitism with brazen crimes committed 30 years earlier. He served a mere seven years in a medium security facility after being arrested for extortion, racketeering and blackmail.

Like DiFiore, Wachtler used high office to interfere with a licensing process of the attorney exposing his misconduct. It featured Wachtler’s debutante mistress. Under a fictitious name, he made false reports to the FBI and threatened to kidnap her child. Ironically, Wachtler was renowned for an opinion criticizing prosecutors who could “indict a ham sandwich” if they so targeted.

Wachtler was reinstated after his disbarment, hired as a law school professor, and rewarded with book royalties from his prison memoir, After the Madness. In it, he defended his misconduct because judges are supposedly trained to think of themselves as gods. This was a man being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment.

Yet another example lies with a middle-level appeals court judge, Nancy Smith, who earned the dubious distinction as the first jurist above trial level to be publicly disciplined in New York. It featured a glowing reference to benefit a prisoner convicted of vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of two people. Not long after, Judge Smith was elevated to presiding justice of that court.

Taken together with more than 40 trial level jurists removed from my case for diverse reasons, this undeniable record provides sufficient circumstantial proof of systemic bias against those who criticize our judicial branch of government. However, such a record would not be admissible in any single case. The question then emerges: how many DiFiores, Wachtlers and Smiths are lurking among us?

That number may prove to be staggering. Misconduct is only a matter of what a violator can get away with. In Dobbs v Jackson, No. 19-1392, 597 US ____ (2022), the abortion rights case, Roe v Wade was overturned. A version of this opinion was leaked followed by commitments to apprehend the wrongdoer. Months later, no progress has been announced with the apparent hope that this will blow over.

Such elitism sets a poor example for lower judges, attorneys and litigants. It calls for an overhaul of our justice system beginning with oversight and judiciary committee hearings in Congress. This is not a gender, race or political issue but a profound effort to repair a crevice in our constitutional framework.

About the Author

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. practiced law for more than two decades in federal and state courts. A former city councilman, school board attorney and corporation counsel, he developed a diverse professional background to become ideally suited to exposing corruption. He appeared on the CBS program 60 Minutes for his defense of landowners targeted for eviction by Indian tribes alleging violations of ancient treaties. In 2004, he secured a judgement in New York Supreme Court invalidating the billion dollar Turning Stone casino gaming compact.

His recoveries feature substantial jury verdicts for victims of government abuse. Case citations include, Koziol v Hanna, 107 F.2d 170 (NDNY 2000); Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir.2004); Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY); Peterman v Pataki, 2004 NY Slip Op 51092(U); Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994) and Parent v State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011).

The latter was a consolidated case intended as a class action on behalf of parents defrauded in domestic relations courts. It was part of a bold and complex challenge to judicial and sovereign immunity which yielded severe retributions upon the author’s licenses and parent-child relations. The horrific ordeal which led to a near death climax was captured in his book, Whistleblower in Paris, published in 2021.

Matt Castelli: oblivious to court funding abuses, he will harm parent rights if elected to Congress: Elise Stefanik is preferred in 21st District

Leon Koziol, J.D.

Yesterday afternoon I had occasion to attend a Matt Castelli public forum at the town offices of Lowville, New York in the far north reaches of the state, only an hour from the Canadian border. He is challenging incumbent Elise Stefanic in the 21st congressional district which extends from Vermont to Lake Ontario, Mohawk River to the St. Lawrence River. It is by far the largest geographically, comprised mostly of farmers, small businesses and middle class families.

I was anxious to determine if a candidate for such a high level position was anywhere on the radar of a reform movement seeking to gain accountability for federal funding abuses under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (child support program). I also wanted to see if his campaign promises were genuine given my four decades in law and politics, having made a run for the same office on the same party line in 2006. What I discovered was alarming.

Mr. Castelli refused to address my questions before a small audience of 30-40, mostly senior citizens, even though there was still ten minutes left to his question-answer session per his public release. Instead, he invited me to share my concerns privately at its conclusion. However that proved more alarming when he displayed utter ignorance of the Title IV-D program that impacts so many in the district he proposes to represent. He also evinced a lack of genuine concern for parental rights. Having completed numerous jury selections as a trial attorney, I concluded that his candidacy was more committed to self-promotion than public service.

To be fair, Mr. Castelli was a political newcomer highly distracted by media and attendee interruptions. And he did ask for a copy of my relevant 2015 report to former U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch. But my time is valuable, and resources limited, as it appeared unlikely that he would ever read it. Instead, his seemingly blind commitment to the liberal-socialist agenda plaguing our federal government convinced me that any exchange of documents would be a gesture in futility.

Sadly, and ominously,this is the political landscape of today.

I therefore urge all Democrats to cross party lines and vote for Elise Stefanic on this year’s election ballot. The Republicans are sure to take over the House, and as a high ranking member, Congesswoman Stefanic is far more suited to give us the clout we need in northern New York.

Family Judge Daniel King, up for re-election, sent an unemployed father to jail for a noncriminal support violation leading to death at age 46

The child support practices in New York and many other states have become so draconian that they are increasingly causing early deaths among their target victims. Such practices are often mindless, revenue- driven and devoid of accountability. In too many cases, they produce jail terms and effectively kill debtor parents without commission of any crimes, thereby ending child support altogether.

Worse yet, debtor parents, desperate to avoid incarceration, surrender their parenting rights to appease underlying goals of their adversaries to secure a substitute particularly in married settings. Such was the case involving Michael Brancaccio, a father of four who was coerced into giving up his daughter in 2018 to avoid a recurring jail term imposed by Lewis County Family Judge Daniel King who is now up for re-election.

Mike had already served a six-month term for child support arrears in 2015, the maximum allowed by law, and he was now facing another identical term involving several thousand dollars. He had been through a number of jobs and could not keep up with the support orders being issued against him. During the first stint, he was committed to toughing it out by doing his time but that turned out to be a nightmare. He was also unaware that his monthly obligations continued to accrue while incarcerated in Lewis County jail.

Unable to reconcile the early release of fellow inmates on serious crimes, he was finally set free after serving a full “sentence.” He fell into a bad state of mind and was soon hospitalized for kidney failure and other complications. He survived that brush with death only to fall victim again to another support violation petition. This time he was coerced into waiving all parenting rights and access to his little girl, then aged nine, in order to have this debt erased and incarceration avoided.

The adversary mom quickly had his daughter’s last name changed to that of her new husband. This outcome devastated Mike who then returned to a depressed lifestyle while entertaining thoughts of serious revenge. On October 11, 2020, he was found dead at age 46 in his Utica, New York apartment. Those close to him who had witnessed his lively parenting periods and regular phone chats with his little girl knew that this debt-induced, permanent separation was the core reason for his downfall and early death.

That little girl cried at the funeral and asked those around her whether it was all “the court stuff” that caused her daddy’s death. She would now suffer his absence from her graduations, birthdays, weddings and other cherished events. In the end, no one in the family court system gave a rat’s ass about this barbaric outcome as they simply moved on to their next victims. Judge Daniel King who presided over it was likely unaware of the early death of the young dad he had sent to a debtor prison.

Instead, Judge King was too busy satisfying performance grants awarded to him (the state) by the federal government based on the number, size and collection of support obligations under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Mike was simply another statistic, a means for satisfying pay hikes under the state’s new compensation law. That law was influenced by a highly controversial lawsuit brought by the state’s chief judge and court system against the governor and state legislature, the ones constitutionally authorized to decide state salaries.

It was called the judicial pay raise trilogy, Maron v Silver, 14 NY3d 230 (2010). As a result of that lawsuit, judicial pay raises are now set by an appointed group and virtually automatic. The people would likely be shocked at the judge salaries we see today, and the money had to come from someplace. Federal funding incentives and legal fictions to maximize support orders were a big part of the answer. And it did not matter that impartiality and due process had to be sacrificed to make it happen.

While there is much more to understand about this pay-to-parent scandal, the bottom line here was that a mom got her substitute dad, a little girl lost her real dad for life, that dad got a funeral, and Judge King did his part to make it happen, all in the so-called “best interests of the child.” Greater detail exists in the newly published book, Whistleblower in Paris, available at Barnes and Noble, Amazon and major bookseller sites. Mike’s ordeal can be found in Chapter Five.

Shared Parenting: Why has it been so stifled despite decades of carnage caused by the antiquated custody system?

By Leon Koziol, J.D.

Director

Parenting Rights Institute

The above news article published by a mainstream newspaper in 2009 reflects the lack of progress in attaining fair treatment in our divorce and family courts. Despite surveys showing overwhelming support for shared parenting laws, relevant bills in Congress and our state legislatures have failed to achieve any meaningful progress. This dilemma exists despite vast increases in suicide, child murders and crime statistics traceable to the current antiquated child custody system. That system was constructed around a child rearing framework featuring stay-at-home moms and working dads.

I established the National League of Fathers, Inc. in 2008 to promote fair treatment consistent with my decades of practice as a civil rights attorney. However, that organization collapsed early due to misplaced priorities and a lack of financial support while the retributions suffered as a consequence violated all manner of human rights. Sadly, one of its board members hung himself from a tree in response to the horrific treatment he endured. Our goal was to reverse an alarming trend of fatherless families and the targeting of male parents to fund a court system which still discriminates on account of gender.

The Census Bureau steadfastly reports that over 80% of persons paying child support are men. Had that statistic reflected discriminatory employment against women in this day and age, riots would have erupted. To be sure, countless dads continue to be forced out of their children’s lives due to the hostage treatment exhibited in these courts and the draconian, one-sided manner of support enforcement.

I have explained all this in a recent post entitled, The Torturing of Child Support and its escalation of Parental Alienation. Specifically, our federal government, already reeling from a spending crisis, continues to supply these courts with incentive grants to the tune of billions of dollars annually under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. This funding law is based on the number and size of support orders manufactured in the states. It therefore incentivizes lucrative conflict between parents forced needlessly to fight over their own offspring.

In my newly published book, Whistleblower in Paris, I have likened this parent alienation process to the Roman Coliseum. That book provides a valuable crash course for unsuspecting litigants and parents on the realities of our domestic relations courts and could prevent thousands in lawyer fees. It is important, therefore, that you do your part in exposing this silent epidemic virally and donating to our cause at http://www.citizencommissionagainstcorruption.org.

Shared Parenting: Has Anything Changed in Thirty Years of Discrimination?

The following Guest Column appeared in a mainstream newspaper of upstate New York 12 years ago. Read the highly informative content. Has anything changed today?

The Torturing of Child Support and its escalation of Parental Alienation during the holidays

By Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute

Author’s Note: The following column is based on two decades as a trial lawyer, twenty years as a parent and twelve years as a court reform advocate

When one thinks of child support, it’s generally a duty that parents have to pay a fair share of child rearing expenses. And despite tremendous strides in achieving equal rights over the years, child support continues to be predominantly a male obligation. Census Bureau reports still show that fathers are as much as 85% of all parents subject to a child support order.

Regardless of the gender disparities, the support of children should rank high among society’s priorities. But unfortunately, that priority has been abused well beyond its logical scope to line the pockets of lawyers, service providers and the support bureaucracy to result in bankruptcies, the raiding of college funds and a recent phenomenon known as parental alienation.

The realities demonstrate that our antiquated child custody framework is no longer committed to the so-called “best interests of the child” but a means for growing a trillion-dollar industry. And women are no longer immune from the consequences as we find countless moms today feeling the abuse which dads have long endured. Severe parental alienation has yielded a loss of contact with the children they are supporting over the holidays.

During the 1980s, Dr. Richard Gardner popularized that condition as a psychological disorder but his conclusions were rejected by his profession and never included among the 300 disorders recognized in the DSM-5 manual for insurance purposes. In my own reports since then, I have similarly rejected such a condition and preferred to treat it more accurately as a human rights violation.

A federal funding law is the “elephant in the courtroom” in that regard. As originally drafted, Title IV-D of the Social Security Act targeted absentee fathers through incentive funding to the states (and by extension their domestic relations judges). Such revenues were based on the number and size of support collections that could be documented. This, in turn, created a systemic bias among support judges.

But over time, a little-known adjustment to this funding law from absentee to “noncustodial parent” aggravated that bias through a revenue stream that grew many times over. The mere condition of career mom or gender status was now sufficient to place an adequate provider into a classification that destroyed the overriding assumption of parenthood and an existing willingness to support offspring without a state mandate.

From there, without any investigative reporting or public accountability, it was off to the races on the tactics employed to elevate obligations beyond a parent’s income and self-support capacities. It resulted in debtor prisons, child abandonment and unprecedented violence contrary to stated objectives. A new form of evil was born from the fires of hell.

The examples of carnage erupting from this corruption are countless: a mother who killed her two-year old daughter rather than give her up to a custody change (2018 Gabriella Boyd), a father who killed his girl only to burn himself along with her in his home (2016 Kyra Franchetti), a mother who obtained a gun overnight following a child support dispute to kill the father and children (2019 Damyrra Jones).

They include veterans and law enforcement: a father who left his eight-year old boy in a freezing garage resulting in homicide charges (ex-NYPD officer Michael Valva – 2020), a war veteran, Thomas Ball, who burned himself alive in front of a New Hampshire courthouse to protest child protection abuses, and a police investigator who killed his ex-spouse with a common kitchen knife after exiting support court to leave four children without parents, see Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d 367 (NDNY 2011).

This is only a sampling of real life horrors that attorneys, media and oversight entities are purposely ignoring due the immense influence of special interest groups. In our peaceful protests over the years, most recently the 2019 Parent March on Washington, we have demanded a federal investigation and congressional oversight hearings to address the human rights violations and rampant abuse of federal funds in this silent epidemic.

In Chapter 12 of my newly published book, Whistleblower in Paris, I outline some highly suppressed techniques concocted over the years in support proceedings to maximize profits and court revenues. You should obtain this valuable read at any Barnes and Noble store, Amazon, publisher Author House or major bookseller on-line. You can also join our live talk program, Leon’s Library, daily, Monday thru Friday at 7:30 pm EST on YouTube.

Here is my relevant book excerpt:

Chapter 12- No Place Like Home at pg. 193-195

To advance funding goals, state legislatures have enacted laws that require courts to name a “custodial parent” as a condition for a valid divorce or support agreement. Typically, an opt-out clause allows parents to by-pass the mandatory support formula, but to do so requires them to engage in a comparative analysis which often dilutes the reality of this option.

There is also collaborative law, but such processes are similarly diluted by additional attorneys who cannot be used later if agreement fails. More lawyers are added to a two-tiered process to support the adage that any community which cannot support one lawyer can always support two.

Here is a partial listing of fictions, in addition to those provided earlier, that were orchestrated over the years to maximize funding at the expense of judicial impartiality and due process:

  1. Service of a support violation petition can be achieved by simple mailing. These petitions typically contain boldface, capital letter warnings of arrest and incarceration. If this type of service is challenged on due process grounds, it can incur the cost of personal service unlike criminal counterparts which these proceedings resemble.
  • Expedited case management rules can provide a mere thirty days for defense preparation between a first appearance and trial. All too often, a jail term for contempt of a support order is the standard outcome conditioned on a purge or payment amount. Satisfaction is routinely coerced from relatives, employers or friends.
  • The case for a violation and jail term is easily made by a single non-party witness, typically a social services employee offering a delinquent support summary into the record. Intent is presumed from its mere production without any other proof.
  • The burden of proof is wrongfully shifted to the defending party to prove innocence. The standard for conviction is the lowest of all forms of litigation despite the stigma and incarceration which are at stake. There is no jury or indigent right to counsel.
  • Support judges have invented an evidentiary substitute known as imputed income which assures the highest support obligation possible, often well beyond the realistic income capacities of the targeted debtor. Defending parties are treated at higher levels of income based on past employment reports even when wrongfully terminated.
  • Support obligations continue to accrue at regular intervals during incarceration for violations or any other reason. They also accrue when a father is later found not to be a biological parent and despite frauds used to deny him child access. They also accrue until a petition for recourse is actually filed despite its futility in a biased process.
  • The state has expanded its tyrannical power beyond the original objective of recouping welfare costs for abandoned mothers on public assistance. It now acts as representative for self-sufficient support seekers to create a serious imbalance in the scales of justice. Attorney fees and other costs are made a part of the final judgment.

In my case, all but the actual incarceration was used against me. But the many processes employed were also fraught with serious error, gender prejudice and whistleblower retaliation. At what point, then, is a victim pushed to such an extreme that our Constitution confers upon him a legal right to fight back or take the so-called law into his own hands?

You be the jury.

Leon Koziol Book, Whistleblower in Paris, Featured in Upstate New York Newspaper

With economic crisis looming, contentious parents continue to pay into a lucrative shark tank known as family court

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

As many followers know, I have just released my latest book on the subject of divorce and family court corruption with sales growing by the hour. After more than ten years of whistleblowing, reform efforts and highly informative posts at http://www.leonkoziol.com, countless parents still prefer court battles over cooperation, mediation and common sense.

My book, Whistleblower in Paris, was therefore published after extensive supporting research and case studies to counter this dangerous trend. It provides a valuable overview of the court process with ways and reasons to avoid court costs. Creative metaphors are employed as a wake-up call for a better outcome, bringing to mind one caller who stated that he could not afford our educational DVD or book on this site only to advise hours later of $10,000 he had for any lawyer referral I could provide.

Here is one such metaphor from an excerpt of my book to alert you to the realities you face in these courts with or without a lawyer referral (chapter 10 entitled “Shark Attack” at pg. 147):

These were not courts of law, they were shark tanks. Wherever family issues could be concocted, there you’d see the feeding frenzy. In all my years on both sides of this tank I could never understand how so many intelligent parents could plunge headlong into these unholy waters only to fall victim over and over again. Even my reform allies continued to pay into this system.

They were the mammals of Seal Island waddling into the treacherous waters off South Africa, endeavoring to cross False Bay only to be scarfed up by great whites. But these court predators were nothing like the impressive sharks, they were more like the mangy buzzards of a dried-up swamp plucking away at a carcass known as divorce.

Such were the ugly thoughts cast to the wind behind me as I passed gas along with it while racing to a destiny I could never have imagined when passing my bar exam so many years ago. And I suppose that’s what made this whole ordeal so exciting in a sick sort of way. I could not envision where the next turn on my fateful journey might take me. Only months ago I was being threatened with contempt in snow country. Today I was riding aimlessly in a tropical paradise.

For your autographed paperback version of this book, make a $30 contribution on this site. Proceeds go toward reform efforts. Your card address will automatically appear for a mailing address and receipt within five days. Orders, including e-books from the publisher, Author House, can be made through its on-line store. Books can also be obtained at any Barnes and Noble store or Amazon on-line. A book website, http://www.whistleblowerinparis.com is also available for more information regarding this first-of-its kind publication.

The Child Support Crisis: What you need to know about draconian enforcements

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Just shut up and pay YOUR child support! It’s a familiar insult which presumes that only one parent has any such obligation and that both parents cannot be trusted to set up their own arrangements free of state supervision. Given the complex society of today, the better assumption is that the state is ill equipped to raise our children and that a nation founded upon a limited government will no longer tolerate its abuses of power.

The euphemistic term “child support” has been conveniently exploited to build a giant bureaucracy focused more on revenue generation and service fees than the “best interests” of our children. Just place the child on top of the state tank and you can crush the rights of the people, even convincing parents to “happily” surrender the ones applicable to their offspring. It’s a tactic used by Adolph Hitler to build one of the greatest war machines in history.

Widespread declines in moral, family and religious values can largely be traced to this surrender. The word combination “child support” has been effective in drowning out the truth about a corrupted process that invites self-serving jurists to tread increasingly upon our most basic rights. These include our fundamental liberty interest in childrearing, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) and guarantee of procedural due process, Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 (2011).

An ominous dissent in the latter case by Justice Clarence Thomas should have all of us alarmed. He bucked the court’s majority by declaring that the due process safeguards required of a support contempt proceeding undermine the state’s interest in a more vigorous enforcement process. This represented a grave departure from reality when taking a deeper look at the draconian enforcement practices that have caused joblessness, homelessness and premature deaths among support debtors.

Such practices have not only “undermined” support capacities, but they have forever ended “child support” in countless cases. Three exemplary deaths over the past decade, Joe Longo, Thomas Ball and Walter Scott, are all that is needed to show the absurdities of the Thomas opinion. Taken together with other victims, it is clear that we have an epidemic underway, one that “shocks the conscience of a civilized society” in violation of substantive due process as well, Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953).

Government today is actually manufacturing bad parents through its “custody” and “support” mandates under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. This is the federal funding law that rewards courts by the number and size of support orders they issue and satisfy. Apart from the inherent bias that this has created, the imbalance has yielded a crowd of silent or walking dead, victims of murder, suicides, false charges and domestic violence, others that await justice that never comes.

Police Investigator Joseph Longo was so traumatized after exiting support court that he used a common kitchen knife to commit a murder-suicide at the former marital home. It left four children without both parents and taxpayers with a $2 million lawsuit debt, Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d 367 (NDNY 2011). The court predators kept pounding him with protection orders, support intercepts and career damage without considering the breaking points of their targets.

You should’ve just shut up, Joe, and paid YOUR child support.

Then there’s Thomas Ball, victim of an overzealous child protection agency who sat down one day on the steps of a New Hampshire courthouse to protest family court abuse. But this was no sit-in, no “occupy court” mission. He poured gas over his head and burned himself alive. We cringe at the extreme pain he must have suffered before and during this holocaust. In the end, there was no national coverage, no court reforms, they merely washed his ashes into the sewer.

You should’ve just shut up, Tom, and paid YOUR child support.

Finally we bring you Walter Scott, a black father shot dead five times in the back. He was killed, unarmed, by a white cop while fleeing a child support warrant at a traffic stop. Unlike other BLM victims, this one was not involved in any criminal activity. It was a civil debt, and our government was now killing for money. This obvious fact is never mentioned in the ongoing George Floyd protests because “child support” is the holy grail for feminists and man-haters.

You should’ve just shut up, Walt, and paid YOUR child support.

Even in necessary cases involving absentee parents or public charges, there is little or no accountability for tax-free, support checks used for drugs, partners or vanity excesses. Most contemptuous are the cases where child support is exploited as a tactical weapon for a custody award that inevitably leads to severe parental alienation. Here the one dutifully paying “child support” is, in reality, paying the state to take his children away. Even then, sadistic alienators are not satisfied until their children are brainwashed to hate the other parent.

This author’s ordeal is one such case that features a high school teacher, Kelly Hawse-Koziol.

The easy way to avoid this “inconvenient truth” is by detracting from it, i.e. “Just shut up and pay YOUR child support.” Support judges say this without mouthing the words by trashing procedural protections and crafting evidentiary substitutes to expedite a desired outcome. Examples are too numerous but include such fictions as “imputed income” and a substandard level of proof. This star chamber process ignores the right of a “noncustodial” parent to finance a separate home for the same children. It also ignores the horrific collateral harm.

Nowhere is an accounting made of the working parental arrangements upended by this custody and support mandate found in the funding laws.

Such collateral harm does not discriminate. It includes a white mom who drove her children into the Hudson River rather than surrender to a custody and support order. A similar derangement caused another to heinously murder her two-year old girl resulting in a conviction and jail term that will never bring back the child (see Gabriella Boyd Foundation). A black mom in Philadelphia went further. In an overnight rage, she purchased a gun and killed both her children and their dad.

The child victims are particularly heart-wrenching. There’s Kyra Franchetti and Thomas Valva whose young lives were lost to mentally disturbed fathers. An Albany (NY) Times Union story on October 13, 2020 revealed that a child protection agency suppressed 725 child death reports over a decade. This is shocking but not really when considering Governor Andrew Cuomo’s suppression of nursing home deaths currently under investigation. Such tragedies omit the live victims torn apart by court proceedings needlessly protracted by greedy lawyers.

This author was subjected to a sixteen year battle over “child support” which induced the “custodial” mom to brainwash his precious daughters in relentless fashion. This went unheeded by the courts despite the lack of any abuse report or unfit finding and despite father-daughter experiences that would be the envy of most children. Over 40 trial level jurists were assigned to his family proceedings with many removed for misconduct, a national record by most accounts and the price to be paid by a judicial whistleblower.

This is not just a public policy issue or a lack of judicial accountability. It is a growing crisis that has caused more deaths than the coronavirus pandemic. It was the theme of our 3-day Parent March on Washington in 2019, a peaceful protest featuring a lobby initiative, expert speakers, a march down Pennsylvania Avenue under police escort and a concluding vigil for those lives lost to this unjust system. Its goal was to obtain congressional hearings and a Justice Department investigation. But it achieved nothing, only more evidence for BLM to justify violence. Peaceful reform is no match for the gold mine which this system has viciously protected.

If you wish to learn more about this author’s unprecedented ordeal as a judicial whistleblower, consult the many posts at http://www.leonkoziol.com or his 2017 book, Satan’s Docket, soon to be updated with more graphic retributions. You might also be interested in a DVD film entitled “Crisis” based on a true story. It features a triple storm of whistleblowers who take on the DEA, academia and the drug industry as common victims. They illuminate the kind of retaliation exposed here.

Due to the censorship of this vital message, it is critical for readers to make it viral for the benefit of parents, children and families everywhere. The author may be reached at (315) 796-4000 or leonkoziol@gmail.com.

Widespread dysfunction, a pandemic and parent alienation have combined to create a perfect storm in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

In a flurry of recent posts, I document the judicial corruption and parental alienation which have remained unchecked in our nation’s divorce and family courts. The coronavirus pandemic has now combined with those dysfunctions to create a perfect storm in today’s society.

With closures, social distancing and home confinements, it has aggravated the alienation of parents from their children particularly in the divorce and separation context. There has not been, and perhaps there never can be, a study which reports on the number of suicides, drug addictions, domestic violence and health impairments caused by this perfect storm. However, a comprehensive review is clearly warranted.

As a civil rights attorney, victimized parent and judicial whistleblower, I have repeatedly called upon our federal government to commence this review through congressional hearings and a Justice Department investigation. It is based on thirty years of experience in these courts. Had this occurred, today’s dire consequences may have been less impactful. Instead I was subjected to severe retaliation with overdue reforms that remain elusive.

Outside observers are easily duped into believing that conflict in these courts are financially and emotionally driven by disgruntled parents. But a closer look leads to a more accurate conclusion that such conflict is typically orchestrated by unscrupulous lawyers, biased judges and a money-driven court system. Service fees and federal Title IV-D funding are key examples.

This website, http://www.leonkoziol.com chronicles more than ten years of persecution endured by me as a result of my stand against this corrupted system. I have witnessed it first hand in a number of relevant capacities and will expose certain trial level jurists who abused public office in my case to retaliate for this public stance. The abuse was pathetically obvious and supportive of my demands for accountability.

In 2009, Syracuse family judge, Martha Walsh-Hood, conducted a four day custody trial that she was unprepared for. The sheer volume of cases may have been one explanation but a predetermined outcome was more likely. For example, she directed me to cease the spontaneous presence of a pen between my fingers during objections because it was intimidating my ex-spouse. There was no complaint from her, nor a similar directive of my opposing female attorney. Coupled with other abuses, it led to a conclusion that this judge was prejudiced against men. The resulting exercise in futility caused me to exit early.

In 2011, after Judge Walsh-Hood stepped down from my ongoing family matters, Judge Michele Pirro-Bailey issued an order granting the ex-spouse my weekend parenting time to accommodate a family event. This was done despite the judge’s admission that she had not reviewed my opposition papers and without even hearing my opposing argument in court. It caused me to exit this hearing early inasmuch as my side of the case was being ignored in violation of due process. After issuing abusive forensic orders in my absence, this judge also stepped down weeks later. The orders were removed by her successor on the same record to show how arbitrary and needless they were.

On January 14, 2014, a judge who replaced the latter (without reason given) conducted yet another custody hearing during which he was caught orchestrating a record to support a second set of punitive forensic orders. Judge Daniel King resurrected them in retaliation for my testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption four months earlier. There I exposed his fabrication of college degrees to elevate my child support obligations. Specifically he directed me to cease making objections (two of five were already granted) regarding my ex-spouse’s irrelevant, defamatory and hearsay testimony under penalty of being removed from the courthouse. A transcript supports his misconduct. To avoid a “contempt by ambush” I was forced to again exit early.

In 2018, a child support violation hearing was held before more assigned jurists, Natalie Carraway and Gerald Popeo. There I exposed a scheme to double my obligation for contempt incarceration purposes. A social services attorney, free for my ex-spouse, committed malpractice by failing to offer a support summary into evidence at the conclusion of her lone witness testimony. It was admitted anyway over my objections and then reversed when I discovered a $45,500 support amount paid in 2015 which had been omitted from that summary. In this way, an attempted fraud was concealed from the record.

Both Carraway and Popeo later denied me a transcript of that hearing to show not only serious error but also a fraud in the Title IV-D funding program. It caused me to avoid a clear set-up at a confirmation (contempt) hearing conducted by Popeo. This led to an unlawful support warrant, secret bulletin and “shoot on sight” threat from a traffic cop to mirror the 2015 Walter Scott shooting in South Carolina. That transcript has yet to materialize despite recourse sought in both federal and state appellate courts.

In these and other proceedings over the years I was forced to take extreme measures to protect myself. This included an absence from my daughters’ school events with an ex-spouse threatening a contempt petition each time I attempted contact. I had never been found to be an unfit parent or even accused of any abuse, but a jail term without a jury, pretrial discovery or heightened standard of proof, was not an option. With each early exit, these and other assigned jurists were able to use the ex-spouse’s unchecked testimony to issue one-sided orders that made me to appear incompetent as a parent.

Such orchestrations were rampant over my fourteen year ordeal that led to the destruction of my wonderful father-daughter relationships and ultimate harm to my health and professional career. The joint misconduct was well hidden in a voluminous record and presumptively credited due to the high regard typically associated with any person bearing the title of “judge.” In truth, it was a pretext for punishing my First Amendment rights as a whistleblower outside the courtroom.

My daughters cannot be expected to understand the complexities of this misconduct which forced me out of their lives. We had such a wonderful relationship for more than ten years, but all that was erased by a “custodial” mother and court system hell bent on money interests over parental rights. I lost so many opportunities to experience various phases and crucial events in my girls’ lives that can never be recovered. And I was forced to pay for the kidnapping with over a quarter million dollars in tax free child support paid to date despite an income capacity destroyed by draconian support practices.

This is the price paid by an attorney with the qualifications to challenge a corrupt court system. It is a price which allows the system to live on even during a pandemic, thereby harming countless parents, children and families. It is an epidemic protected by powerful interests, one that wreaking havoc upon our society as a whole. Although my sacrifices were many, they were properly directed against this system. Hopefully others will join my crusade so that those sacrifices were not in vain.

For more information, I may be contacted at leonkoziol@gmail.com or (315) 796-4000. Kindly share this post to overcome the censorship we are experiencing.