Supreme Court makes lawyer transparency case public under new filing rules

pexels-photo-693865.jpeg

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Should all lawyer disciplinary hearings nationwide be made public? If my Supreme Court case docketed yesterday is heard, hopefully that answer will be yes. Already our high court is taking steps in that direction with its change of practice. In 2015, it made all attorney disciplinary hearings in that court public.

Now all filings have been accorded unprecedented transparency under another rule of the Supreme Court put into effect only two months ago. It has mandated that all new filings be converted to electronic format for publication on its website even though paper booklets and pauper petitions are still required.

My case was filed on January 9, 2018 and docketed on January 17, 2018. It is among the earliest to come under that rule. Titled Leon R. Koziol v Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Case No. 17-993, it offers the complete Petition and Appendix (lower court record) for public viewing. And the best part: no fee. That’s right, it’s free!

Competent filings can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions with the big firms. Filing and submission costs together with highly technical formatting rules can cost the filer a minimum $1,500 just for the 40 copies of Petition and Appendix each (and three per adversary). That cost does not include lawyer fees and record production.

In my case, attorney regulations were abused to achieve an illicit purpose. Ethics lawyers eventually discharged for falsifying their time sheets dug up all sorts of trivia and anonymous grievances to discredit my judicial whistleblowing activity. They got away with it because lawyer proceedings are confidential.

Now you can read all about my John Grisham ordeal on the Supreme Court website. Just hit the search bar, then the docket search, and type in the case name or number. It’s easy, and you can immediately educate yourself to constitutional law and the inner workings of our court system. It would otherwise cost you thousands of dollars in lawyer research and writing fees. You will note that my earlier filings have no such public offerings.

Tomorrow I will present a summary of high profile cases that I won prior to the retributions by the Third Judicial Department. Its purpose is to convince you not only of the quality and merit behind my Supreme Court case, but why you should support it as explained in yesterday’s post. And once again, kindly share this post for the sake of all victims of the carnage which is occurring daily in America’s divorce and family courts.

 

 

 

Parent equality and whistleblower case docketed today by Supreme Court

img_0298

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

It’s entitled Leon R. Koziol v Attorney Grievance Committee of the Third Judicial Department, and it was docketed by the Supreme Court today under Case No. 17-993. Unlike prior filings, this one recognizes my appeal from the high court of New York as a challenge to a “discretionary” decision. It could mean nothing, it could be everything because I am asking our nation’s highest court to review a non-final process of law license reinstatement which does not satisfy the finality requirement for Supreme Court jurisdiction. Hence such petitions are routinely rejected.

However that rule is set aside in cases where a continuation in the lower courts would be a gesture in futility, for example a recurring process due to the bad faith of decision makers or harassment for the exercise of constitutional rights. Mine is precisely such a case, and the high court may have docketed it for the reason that I have been harassed with endless, non-final reinstatement processes for too many years as punishment for my public exposure of court corruption and promotion of shared parenting laws.

In my petition for writ filed for consideration last week (January 9, 2018), I cited the case of In re Snyder, 472 US 634 (1985) where the Supreme Court granted writ to invalidate a six month law license suspension of an attorney who refused to apologize for his criticisms of a fee accountability process. My case carries far greater public import. Indeed if my third of three requests is granted, lawyers across the country would be impacted by open public disciplinary proceedings which would then  benefit all clients in terms of genuine accountability.

In 2015, the Supreme Court did exactly that for all attorneys licensed to practice  in its own court, and it may now be poised to do this for all courts nationwide. What a benefit this could bring to media, justice and reasonable attorney fees. From a personal perspective, what a sweet pay-back it would be for all those lawyers (and lawyers on the bench) who persecuted me for over ten years due to my conscientious stand against my profession. What a sense of justice it could bring for all the moms, dads and innocent children abused in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

Once again I am asking my followers to share this post with media, bloggers and parents everywhere. Organizations and interested parties have an opportunity now to offer amicus briefs in support of my case. But the window period for that is only about two months and I will not donate any more of my valuable time and limited resources. I have sacrificed enough. Here is an opening excerpt from my writ petition docketed today:

Lawyers all across our nation are regularly called upon by the People to challenge abuses of government power. Fearless advocacy is not only a hallmark of the legal profession, it is critical to the maintenance of a free society. But what happens if an unrestrained body of government is able to invidiously suppress such advocacy when the critical argument is directed against it? Do our rights continue to have substance in communities large and small? Do all people benefit the same from safeguards that our military and civilian personnel strive each day to preserve? Is not the whole of a profession called to task?

This case seeks to answer such questions. Throughout our history as leaders of the free world, American lawyers have risked their livelihoods in the quest to assure that our most precious rights are not systematically eroded. Without the unique liberties exercised by our “architects of justice”, it is likely that “separate but equal” doctrine would still be alive and well in our public schools and transportation systems. Countless innocent people might be imprisoned each day out of a lawyer’s fear of state disciplinary retributions.

A civil rights attorney in upstate New York is now asking this Court to review a disciplinary process which harmed his livelihood and parent-child relations simply because he represented minority groups and boldly championed unpopular causes. His ordeal has been compared to that of Nobel Prize candidate Gao Zhisheng, the Chinese lawyer stripped of his law license and denied contact with his children due to his representation of minority groups and criticisms of a communist government. The cause in this case is not garden variety, parental equality remains the final frontier of civil rights reform in America.

Literally, an innocent man was convicted of fabricated misconduct for endeavoring to bring equal rights to a courtroom where children are exploited for money and fathers are being extinguished from the family equation. This conclusion is easily demonstrated below by the proximate exercise of rights and adverse state action. Without the necessary protection for our protectors, any lawyer can fall victim simply by excelling in his or her work at the wrong place and the wrong time.

If you have something genuine to contribute (not war stories, keyboard pontifications or requests for free advice), call me at my office at (315) 380-3420 or personally at (315) 796-4000. You can also make a donation here, purchase my newly released book entitled Satan’s Docket, or obtain other professional services which I offer at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com.