By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
On November 15, 2019, at 9 a.m., at the United States Courthouse in Albany, New York, a federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments regarding a precedent-seeking case entitled, Leon Koziol, Individually and as Natural Parent vs State of New York, Child Support Processing Center, Acting Family Judge Gerald Popeo, Support Magistrate Natalie Carraway, Chief Court Clerk Barbara Porta, Support Investigator Katie Lawrence, Custodial Parent Kelly Hawse-Koziol and Oneida County Sheriff Robert Maciol.
This case features inhumane retributions which I sustained as a model parent and attorney who blew the whistle on corruption in our divorce and family courts. That corruption is twofold: first the systemic bias among judges rewarded by the number and size of support orders they issue under a federal funding law known as Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, and second, a particular bias ranging from my pedophile custody judge removed from the bench (Bryan Hedges) to a racist, unethical and abusive judge censured by a judicial commission (Gerald Popeo, a defendant here).
It was filed on August 7, 2019 in New York Supreme Court after I was denied court transcripts and evidentiary subpoenas to show a major fraud during a support violation proceeding. My rights of due process, free speech and equal protection were violated incessantly after federal judges in upstate New York referred my complaints to state court over the years. In a shocking irony, the New York Attorney General (representing the state, judges and court clerk) then moved my case from state court back to federal court on August 29, 2019.
Nearly 40 trial level judges have been disqualified or removed from my originally uncontested divorce. Over a period of 12 years, my livelihood, reputation and parent-child relations were utterly destroyed through such concoctions as a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” (a wedding toast) and fabricated college degrees (PhD and Masters) to elevate my support obligations.
It has set new records for unmitigated corruption. For example, ethics lawyers engaged in the witch hunt against me have opposed my reinstatement to practice as long as I continue to blow the whistle. This has been ongoing for a record 10 years. The same lawyers were then allowed to resign without any criminal or ethics charges after being caught falsifying their time sheets.
As observers across the country have warned time and again, if they can do this to a model parent and unblemished attorney (for more than 23 years), imagine what they could do to the rest of us. A sort of Gestapo atmosphere is growing in our family courts to advance a trillion dollar industry. Anyone courageous or conscientious enough to stand in the way of this gold mine will be squashed, immediately or over time.
The greed and corruption are so rampant that I was subjected to a “shoot on site” threat arising from an unlawful support warrant one year ago. That warrant was issued by Defendant Judge Gerald Popeo who accepted an assignment to my support case six months after complaining of my supposed participation in a “witch hunt” that led to his public censure by a judicial commission. Defendant Sheriff Robert Maciol admitted during a radio program that this high alert warrant was unlawfully leaked to the media. Read more details by clicking on to the link below:
This is a watershed case seeking to declare excessive enforcement practices unconstitutional, to establish parental alienation as a constitutional violation, and to secure legal protection for judicial whistle blowers. Bradley Birkenfeld recovered $104 million in an IRS whistle blower case after serving a 30 month prison term in retaliation for his exposure of a Swiss Bank scandal involving billions of dollars in federal revenue losses. I am seeking to set precedent here for those parents sent to debtor prisons and punished for protecting their children. Over time, it could result in billions of dollars in federal tax savings.
Precedent cases in recent years have proven me correct in my long held positions while paving the way for justice to finally occur. These include unanimous Supreme Court decisions in Exxon Mobile v Saudi Industries, 544 US 280 (2005); Marshall v Marshall, 547 US 293 (2006), Sprint v Jacobs, 571 US 69 (2013) and Rippo v Baker, 580 US __ (2017)(per curiam). They are reversing a 50 year trend by lower federal judges of denying family court victims their rightful access to our federal courts whose paramount purpose is to preserve our most basic federal rights.
This year alone, in the case of Timbs v Indiana, 580 US ___ (2/20/19), the Supreme Court declared that excessive fines and asset confiscations violated the Eighth Amendment. Although applied in the criminal context, parallels can be made to the civil case abuses which lead to needless bankruptcies, parent-child separations and premature deaths. Throughout my highly isolated crusade, I have exposed excessive court orders which, like the seizures in Timbs, benefited the state and third parties more than they did the “best interests” of any parent, child or family.
Only weeks ago, a federal appeals court issued a “Precedential” decision in Surender Malhan v Secretary U.S. Department, et. al., 18-3373 (3rd Cir. September 18, 2019). Citing two of the cases listed above, the court reversed a lower federal ruling which had dismissed a father’s civil rights case seeking to curb excessive support enforcement practices. It rejected Rooker-Feldman and Younger Abstention practices which deferred federal claims to pending or completed proceedings in state court. The case was remanded back to the lower federal court. That means it is unlikely to reach the Supreme Court any time soon.
Court arguments will begin and conclude on my case in the morning of November 15, 2019 and are open to the public. It took a horrific sacrifice to make this happen for the benefit of court victims everywhere. Spread the word, attend the hearing, and donate to this site to cover our vast litigation costs. For more information, contact our PRI office at (315) 380-3420 or e-mail me personally at firstname.lastname@example.org.