Beware of Fee Predators like William “F. Lee Billy” Koslosky

 

IMG_1194
Seriously, would you let your children meet privately with this guy and a pedophile custody judge? FORTUNATELY, I stopped it from occurring with an emergency motion only months before that same judge was removed from the bench. UNFORTUNATELY, child lawyer “F. Lee Billy” Koslosky (pictured here) is still lurking and looking for dollars in the same family court.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

You’ve got to admit, he’s pretty scary looking. But what he does to children and fathers in family court is far more scary. You can find him regularly in Oneida County (New York) family court where he makes a living making mountains out of molehills in his judge assignments representing unsuspecting children at taxpayer expense.

In my original uncontested divorce case filed in 2006, there was no need for family court predators like William “F.Lee Billy” Koslosky, lawyers who cannot make much of a living elsewhere. But as soon as a “custodial sociopath” named Kelly Hawse-Koziol decided to give gold diggers a bad name, she got him involved. Her life has been a nightmare since.

Hawse-Koziol will never admit the nightmare she caused despite how pathetically obvious it remains. Like a wind-up doll, an energizer bunny banging around in circles, she keeps on kicking, the proverbial “Bull in a China Closet” destroying everything that others have worked so hard to provide for her children’s futures. She hired a series of lawyers, wasted a vast amount of money without any of the child support increases she sought, and all her extortionist offense petitions were thrown out.

Now she’s at it again, repeating the cycle yet one more time. Never mind the cliff which is awaiting her. It’s the lies, her perjuries, a scorned woman that would make Satan proud. Our courts and legitimate laws are being abused for illicit purposes. And public servants like my ex-pedophile custody judge, Brian Hedges, are facilitating it.

William Koslosky is a Utica, New York attorney who has been filing false affidavits in retaliation for my whistleblowing activity (provable on the face of  court documents). To date, he has not been charged with anything ethically or criminally.  He was appointed by Judge Hedges to “represent” my daughters in a custody proceeding, chastising me for seeking removal of Judge Hedges prior to a private meeting with my little girls in his Syracuse court chambers (known as a Lincoln hearing).

Fortunately my removal request was granted only months before the same judge admitted to sexual abuse of his handicapped five year old niece. I shudder at the kind of looks and questions which he would have posed to my then six and eight year old girls at the time. Little did they know, while mom approved of Judge Hedges during her agenda to have me replaced by millionaire Flihan, their real dad was truly looking out for them.

The entire story is now a big seller locally, my early release book entitled Satan’s Docket. Rather than explaining segments here, I will provide the ones relevant to court predator Koslosky below so that you can learn about his kind and act like I did to protect our little ones in these sick, lawyer-infested tribunals. Please share this post with fellow parents, taxpayers and concerned citizens for the sake of everyone’s children.

 

Satan’s Docket: Corruption and Carnage in America’s Divorce Industry (available at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com)

Chapter 16:  Killing the Dream (pp 172-174)

Like sheep to slaughter, though, moms and dads continued to throw their money at lawyers instead of reform, as many as ten in one of my expert cases by the time it was all over. Years of cooperative childrearing can be forever torched within the span of a one hour consultation with an unscrupulous lawyer and a custody handbook.

Even the notion of kidnapping was exploited through this handbook. Due to my publications chronicling extreme cases of child abductions by desperate moms and dads, I became an instant suspect. Such an incendiary notion replete with amber alerts and other hysteria could be the trump card for custody while deflecting from the father alienation which was truly occurring.

On one occasion, I had become so frustrated by Kelly’s anal monitoring that I texted her back that we were on our way to Rio to make up for years of lost parenting time. She could see me in her driveway at that moment a half hour late from a weekend excursion. Her foolishness had to end, the courts were only fueling it, and I thought this facetious text would finally work.

I had come to believe that she was actually believing her own delusional concoctions. Yes, I was late, but there were moms all over the country by my own research and contacts who would happily give up a full hour or even a few months just to have a loving dad in their children’s lives. For them, such anal foolishness would be profoundly condemned or ridiculed.

It needs no mention that circumstances often cannot be controlled such as a storm, traffic jam or simple human failure to keep track of time. It did not matter that the girls had a wonderful time with a father sacrificing so much to better their quality of life. A prominent attorney or elected statesman was something to selflessly promote, not selfishly destroy. But this was family court where absurdities were reaching new lows by the day.

Kelly would not yield anything beyond my 0-15% of total parenting periods. As she all but conceded at our custody trial, this was necessary to keep the child support flowing to her. It left me maximizing as much time as I could when I could. If a rare accommodation could be elicited, I was required to exchange an equal amount of time from another “non-custodial” period.

That necessarily led to office babysitting and significant time lost during weekend obligations which the “custodial parent” would then twist into a neglect issue. Her strict adherence to the custody playbook incited a treasure trove of custody issues for her to exploit, a lose-lose scenario no matter what I did. And her mommy and daddy in robes patted her on the head every time.

On this Rio text occasion, Kelly could hear our daughters exiting my vehicle because she confirmed it from her living room window while looking down at her phone. She also took note of the girls’ laughter and excitement over a great weekend escape with daddy and his girlfriend. Such scenes were common, and they moved Kelly to achieve those new lows of absurdity.

After all, the courts were the places where her parent adversary earned a living. Taking a giant dump there was of no concern to her in the classroom of a rural school district. I dare say most moms would discard such a text in a milli-second. But not this one. She saw it as an opportunity to strike at my weekends, filing again for suspended or supervised “visitation” because of it. I was then forced to defend that text at a costly full blown court hearing on May 19, 2011.

It’s true, I’m not making this up. One question during cross-examination comes to mind because it is destined for the Lunacy Hall of Fame. The judge-appointed child attorney was regularly cited in my court filings to decry the fee-generating abuses of this dysfunctional system of child control. He proved it again after the conceded facts (facetious text and driveway location) had been admitted into evidence. That’s when the big time court drama began.

William Koslosky was a Fifth Judicial District lawyer in upstate New York with an arm defect who made a living in these courts. At age sixty, he was childless, never married and living with his lawyer brother (a decent man) in a log home up the road from my residence. This strange bird thrived on boorish court room theatrics.

In all those years of judge appointments to our case, he never once advanced a compromise solution. Ever the attack dog upon the judicial whistleblower, he was appointed to represent my daughters without their consent but effectively represented the judges and members of the local family bar instead, or the subjects of my public criticisms.

In a rare moment of conscience, one judge, James Gorman, removed William Koslosky from a later child support proceeding in a November 19, 2012 decision. His reasoning was that Billy would be counter-productive to a comprehensive resolution I had been proposing as part of a new career. But he was reappointed by the next assigned judge, Daniel King, despite that decision. Together with his siblings, Billy operated a small law office in Utica, New York.

Indications were that Billy had no life apart from his lawyer work and some involvement with boy scouts. In me he saw an additional opportunity to woo the platonic affection of my ex-wife. He was the Billy in shining white armor rescuing this (lying) damsel in distress from the big bad dad. In his submissions, he commended judges in glowing terms who “stood up” to me even after disclosing a childhood contempt of his own dad on our custody record, more on that later.

There had to be visions of the O.J. Simpson trial as he rose from his trial table, a fictional hoard of observers in the empty pews behind him, imaginary camera crews in suspense, and media from around the world hanging on Billy’s every word as he began his cross examination. There may even have been a Rocky theme song playing in his mind as he opened his mouth.

Now brace yourselves because, as federal taxpayers, you paid the bill for what came out of that mouth. And here it is, drum roll please! Without anything of evidentiary value for his nonexistent jury, the facetious text and location already admitted, Billy asked me to confirm on the stand that I was not, in fact, in Rio when I sent that text from the mom’s driveway.

Utterly dumbfounded, I looked up at the judge next to me and back at “F. Lee Billy,” as I came to depict him. To my dismay, they were silent with continued expectation of an answer. I ended that silence with a general objection (i.e. the text was a joke, why are we here?) I also objected on grounds of a fact not in dispute, a question already answered, and a new one I called stupidity.

Syracuse Family Judge Michele Pirro-Bailey overruled whatever grounds were on my mind. Simply unable to contain my level of disbelief, I asked her if she truly wanted me to answer such a ridiculous question. At some point, judicial insanity has to be put on the record, and that was my every intention here. Her ruling stands, she replied, and I must answer it. In protest, I refused.

Judge Pirro-Bailey could have held me in contempt. A lawyer, Richard Fine, was imprisoned for some eighteen months in California in a contempt situation not unlike mine. But privately, my judge must have agreed with me because she announced instead that my refusal would be used against me in her decision. And boy was it. She imposed the first defamatory forensic order only days before her disqualification the next month. It was quickly removed by a replacement judge.

Pirro-Bailey then directed “F. Lee Billy” to move on to his next question and the Rio caper was over, leaving Ito and O.J. terribly disappointed. This was only one example of the bombastic pleasure that Koslosky took in blowing up family non-issues into sensational murder trials. He did this to justify himself and the fees paid to him by taxpayers. The fees he amassed included needless trips to far-away hearings while one or both parents participated by teleconference.

The girls were clearly impacted by all that was occurring to me, made to believe I was somehow defective as a dad especially when the witch hunt on my law license went public. Kelly could not have succeeded with any of this absent the support of those who were abusing judicial office in retaliation for my public criticisms. Few moms would be as stupid as stupid did here

Chapter  20:  Shopping with Martha (pg. 229)

After my departure from “her” (Martha Walsh-Hood’s) court on July 24, 2009, child attorney, William Koslosky, disclosed a domestic violence incident at his home fifty years earlier during closing statements. What any of this had to do with my case I’ll never know, but I found it buried in costly trial transcripts, a treasure trove of billable hours on behalf of grade school clients who could never hold him accountable. I also found fables, serious provocations and tales of horror which might be described as a love affair with a fictional girlfriend.

In this particular court case, her name was Kelly Hawse, a victim supposedly locked in her marital home (while I lived our last year of marriage at a Lake George apartment), subjected to meritless lawsuits to keep her subservient (when she filed the first one over child support which was never increased and continued with a series of fear lawsuits that were all thrown out), evinced fine skills as a teacher (petitions replete with grammar errors) and distinguished herself as a mother who loved all things (like the millionaire dad who could buy her all those things).

It was abundantly clear that Billy Koslosky was on a mission of revenge, abusing his entrusted role and tax dollars to murder exemplary father-daughter bonds. He actually had the audacity under protection of court security to accuse me of “terrorizing” my children, an accusation which if made in my presence could have sent him out the court window. Once again, fate had spared us all a disaster due to my pre-closing departure which Billy pathetically exploited.

This terrorist thing is being exploited these days by thoughtless provocateurs to advance their wallets and purses without regard for the potential consequences. Terrorists fly planes into buildings. They don’t pursue proper channels for the resolution of disputes. I visited the Trade Center ruins on the day after 9-11 to volunteer what I could to aid the victims. Comparing me to a terrorist as Judge Gartenstein had done to Professor Pappas (Chapter 3) is an assault upon my patriotism in addition to my fatherhood.

Apparently Billy had been using the terrorist depiction in a lot of cases because he also used it to describe his relationship with his own dad. As he explained it, little Billy was “terrorized” by his police man dad during a dinner argument a half century ago. Somehow dad’s uniform and gun made him dangerous. Somehow F. Lee Billy had beamed himself up to la-la land as he raked in the easy dollars. It was as if that fictional hoard of media had returned, O.J. Simpson nodding with glee, and Judge Ito ready to give Billy eight more months, if needed, to play to the fanfare.

Billy’s closing statement reflected a childhood contempt for his dad which he simply transferred to his latest target in a now infamous tragedy we call the Potato-Police Rescue. [1] How can such a strange bird be allowed to represent children against their fathers? I asked that question before many courts to no avail. They simply looked the other way, and that only elevated the abuse in later proceedings. At nearly sixty years of age at the time, this was no way for Billy to compensate for personal defects or a lack of marital and childrearing experience. You be the judge:

One thing that I remember is disagreement between my mom and my dad. My dad was a policeman and one day he came home and he was mad because we didn’t have red-skinned potatoes and all that she could say is we have Yukon Gold, and I was terrorized. I’d never seen dad arguing like this and, my God, he’s in the police uniform with a gun. What is he going to do? So I went to the store to get red-skinned potatoes and I don’t like Yukon Gold.

If there is any purpose to a judge in any proceeding, it is to control it so that sanity, justice and civility may prevail. Wide latitude is generally given to lawyers in closing statements, but in this case, it was a custody proceeding, not a high-profile murder trial. There is no way my daughters, aged five and seven at the time, would have approved of their involuntarily appointed lawyer referring to their daddy this way. It was the appointing judge’s duty to prevent it. But Walsh-Hood was evidently enjoying this all with sadistic satisfaction. Another judge might have cut Billy off:

Mr. Koslosky, this is family court, not criminal court. What’s with all the terrorism in your characterizations of an American father seeking proper relief here? There’s no jury, and such colorful depictions will not influence me. I’ve heard and seen all the evidence as you have. There’s nothing to support any of this. No child protection agency has even been contacted, let alone involved. And I could care less about your own dad and whatever went on with these potatoes. Confine yourself to the record, and let’s move on, alright?

As stated, the adversarial custody system is archaic and utterly counter-productive to cooperative child rearing arrangements. Here we have sick proof of this, a fee-loving lawyer appointed for unsuspecting children who is throwing gas on a fire ignited by the court process itself.

One month after this closing statement, an off-duty policeman without gun or uniform in our region committed a murder-suicide leaving four children without parents. He did so with a common kitchen knife despite protection orders after being abused in the same Family Court. [2] So if you ever hear about some divorce victim shooting up a courthouse, understand how easily it can occur. There is no accountability for the arrogant judge or reckless lawyer who incites needless violence.  

[1]   Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, New York Supreme Court, Oneida County Case No. D2004-422102; Custody transcript, Vol. V at pg. 857-858 (July 24, 2009)

[2]   Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 367 (NDNY 2011)

 

Shopping with Martha (Judge Martha Walsh-Hood) on Black Friday

 

Martha Walsh Hood With Glasses
This post is dedicated to Syracuse family judge, Martha Walsh-Hood

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Today we take you into the courtroom, my first custody trial conducted in the Syracuse coliseum known as Family Court. This is the same forum which featured a pedophile child custody judge, Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 and judicial espionage agent, Chief Judge James (Bond) Tormey, Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40.

Yesterday was Thanksgiving Day across America, when countless parents were denied time with their children because of an antiquated custody system designed to enrich lawyers .Today is “Black Friday” when the same persecuted parents will find it hard to satisfy their loved ones at the malls because those same lawyers have taken their money to create needless court issues for profit, leaving less or nothing for Christmas presents.

You are now connected to one of the most informative and active parenting rights sites in America. Judges, lawyers, ethics agents, law enforcement and politicians regularly check in along with our supporters. So you’re in good company, and that has to tell you something. We have proven ourselves as experts in the corruption field. Nevertheless we remain grossly under-financed and devoid of staff necessary to become a formidable “Judicial Watch” over our divorce and family courts.

The reason for this is that the victims continue to engage in keyboard attacks to no one who cares while sending donations to their enemy lawyers instead of us. One former ally made this highly misguided move despite his professed knowledge of the epidemic. He paid thousands of dollars to a loser lawyer and ended up losing everything as a predictable consequence. Not one dime was spent here to put his “money where his mouth was.”

And so the abuses escalate. You may think that the abusers are principally men, those public figures accused of “groping” women 20 and 30 years ago by scary looking victims collecting unemployment or welfare behefits, the attention seekers paid to make the accusations without prior report or resistance. Yes the insanity of today continues to reach new heights.

Well there are countless women in those same positions engaged in the same form of sexist behavior. Today we bring you Syracuse Family Judge Martha Walsh-Hood, a closet man-hater who presided over the “show trial,” Koziol v Hawse-Koziol. Shortly into proceedings, a court agent disclosed confidentially in the outer “Halls of Justice” that Martha was an anti-father judge. Evidently, under her “rule of law,” only women can make for fit parents, even the drug addicts that are suddenly “rehabilitated” to earn their “custody” rights back.

On Black Friday, 2011, Martha was featured on highway banners and advertisements as a promoter of the Fifth Judicial District adoption campaign. Put simply she was facilitating the destruction of parenthood through this barbaric, lawyer-enriching custody system and placing the victimized children (collateral damage) onto the shopping market of strangers that include closet pedophiles and coke-heads. We therefore featured a highly popular post, Shopping with Martha.

Today we bring you an entire chapter of the newly released book, Satan’s Docket: Corruption and Carnage in America’s Divorce Industry. I authored and published it based on two decades as a trial lawyer and ten years as a parent in these courts. Not surprisingly the chapter is titled, Shopping with Martha. And what a chapter it is! This is our holiday gift to you, the parents we strive to serve and protect across the country. Here you are not alone. In this chapter you will be taken inside the courtroom, a treat which one of our book review experts found very rewarding. You may too.

Judge Martha Walsh Hood

Chapter  20

Shopping  with  Martha

To this day, there has been no finding of parental unfitness on my part; no arrest, criminal record, drunk driving charge, marital violence report or involvement of any child protection agency. Indeed, I did not know we had an abusive marriage until I read it for the first time many years later in custody papers. In short, there was nothing to explain how a gang of judicial thugs seized my babies. But they did, and in a manner which would make any dictator or petty tyrant proud.

They did it over time, steadily pecking away like mangy buzzards over an injured animal. And the lucrative structure of proceedings was most helpful in making this happen. We left off in the last chapter with a foreboding to parents hauled into a seemingly innocuous room for a support hearing. But when adding the custody component, the process becomes even more alarming.

There have been many litigation “components” added to the originally consolidated divorce or custody process in our nation’s domestic relations courts. A recent one, for example, is Domestic Violence Court. When we think of litigation, it is commonly understood as a single case with one or many issues ultimately decided by a single trial judge or jury.

The logic behind this is that we can’t have separate proceedings in different courts between the same parties all conflicting with one another. As the upcoming court excerpts will verify, a disjointed structure tortures due process whereas a consolidated judge is more familiar with all petitions, motions and interrelated proceedings. Under the current system, frustrated judges become hostile to other judges at the same trial level competing for jurisdiction. Litigants with diverse perspectives then complicate matters further to become the ultimate, innocent victims.

There are judge-made laws such as res judicata and collateral estoppel which support joint proceedings under a traditional framework. It’s not only good for a sane justice system but also our taxpayers who foot the bills for judges and court personnel. In divorce and family court, the structure defies this logic like outer space defies gravity. And this means higher taxes.

The reason for that, once again, is lawyer greed and predator enrichment. Once marital dissolution and property distribution are completed by a general jurisdiction divorce judge, related issues of child support and custody are routinely sent down to family courts of limited jurisdiction. The support component is then sent down further to the basement of these courts, a hearing officer, referee or magistrate who could even be a practicing part-time attorney.

The sending court has the complete authority to decide all such issues or litigation components which the receiving court does not. In a sort of elitist “slight-of-hand,” a separation has occurred where the lowly “kangaroo” court is accorded a “specialized” role. These family courts are still trial courts like the greater jurisdiction divorce courts, but they have no ability to call juries or foreclose on a home, for example. Confusing, maybe, but stick with me. It’s important.

This peculiar separation is indicative of the low esteem placed in our family court system, one which creates all sorts of profiteering, public confusion and nightmares for the litigants. And just when you thought it was safe to come out, the original trial court splits again like an amoeba or cellular mitosis into a lot of other courts while adding an extra costly tier to the appeals process.

Unlike other states and our federal government, New York’s Supreme Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction which simply means that its tentacles can reach to just about anyone and anything. The rationale here is that even the middle level Appellate Division of that Court and the state’s high Court of Appeals have limited jurisdiction (appeals and extraordinary actions). Indeed the trial level Supreme Court has been abused to exceed even its constitutional authority.

A precedent example is the case of Maron v Silver, [1] the judicial “pay raise trilogy,” where New York’s chief judge on its high court and various lower level judges sued the Governor and Legislature for pay raises in its own trial court (Supreme Court). Clearly a violation of the constitutional separation of powers, the lawsuit was filed and accepted anyway as a declaratory judgment action to gain publicity and influence, purposes that are routinely deemed frivolous and subject to sanctions if brought by commoners or our taxpayers.

The case got to the state’s high court despite nightmarish conflicts of interest. Not surprisingly, the court ruled that all state judges deserved substantial raises. The other branches defied that ruling but eventually granted the raises through the proper political process. I used that precedent to challenge the lucrative structure of divorce and family courts, but it has not been mentioned in any federal or state decision to date. I guess if it’s never mentioned, it never happened.

My public stands for equal justice did not get me invites to bench and bar banquets, but getting back to what’s truly important, in support court, the hearing officer or magistrate is appointed and not elected as family judges typically are. This was justified by making family judges the first step of a support appeal process, a sort of appeals court within a trial court concoction. Then you get to the middle level appeals court (not so middle any more), the state’s high court and finally, the United States Supreme Court which accepts about a hundred cases globally each year.

The standard (less costly) three stage appeal process is now four (or five if a federal law issue takes you to the very top). It gets worse, and this is where the deceptive snake strikes again. The support officer renders findings which are typically rubber stamped in a “confirmation” hearing by the elected family judge. The original (sending) judge is long gone, and the middle level appeals court rarely interferes with the non-final decisional process of our family courts. That makes your politically appointed hearing officer the Supreme Court for all intents and purposes.

And this judge wants a pound of your flesh through the Title IV-D funding program. In this manner, judicial impartiality has been surrendered to the almighty buck. Support court was separated from the custody and divorce process not because there is no correlation, you learn the truth when the custody judge emphasizes that child support is a key factor there. It is separated because the decision process can be expedited to get more federal dollars sooner along with interest revenues at support collection centers, effectively a giant state bank.

Because most states comply with the federal program, this structure reaches insanity with the naming and assigning of trial level judges to these various “courts.” Some are elected, others are appointed, still others are transferred, and then there’s some you have no idea how they got there. Like a smorgasbord or jack-in-the-box, you never know what you’re going to get, or when, in a process which decides the fate of your parent-child relationships to impact future generations.

To bring this all home, after denial of my first consolidated appeal of divorce and family court orders in March, 2009, my split support and custody cases were assigned to judges elected in far-away places and not the county where my case was filed. It forced us to make entire day trips even for half hour appearances. I know this is sounding crazier than ever if you have a rational mind but it did happen, and the resulting orders cost me my children and my law license.

Politician James “Bond” Tormey is the administrative judge who made these assignments. Remember he’s the guy sued by his chief family court clerk due to unlawful retaliation for her refusal to conduct “political espionage” beyond her job description. She recovered $600,000 after being reassigned to the same far-away places. I was denied such recovery in the same federal court because judges are still immune from litigant recovery but not employee lawsuits.

My child support case was assigned to Supreme Court Judge Michael Daley as an “Acting Family Court Judge” and my custody case was assigned to a Family Court Judge Martha Walsh-Hood as an “Acting Supreme Court Judge.” This really did happen. To this day, I still cannot figure out how that came about especially after Tormey removed Daley previously from my custody case and returned it to the original divorce judge, John Grow. Stay tuned, it gets better.

Judge Daley was set to confirm a willful support violation on May 26, 2009. It was found against me by a non-elected hearing magistrate, George Getman, a/k/a, G. Stephen Getman, who had been suspended as an attorney for a mere six months after admitting to misappropriation of more than $7,000 in client money. [2] He denied my pre-decision motion for his removal from my case.

I was not physically present at the Daley confirmation hearing due to the set-up I was logically perceiving, a jail term ambush. Instead I called in by phone from a remote location. On the hearing transcript that day, prior to my call, Judge Daley opened the hearing with a bombastic pitch that he was somehow assigned to this support case and he “did not know how it got here.”

Seriously Mike? Or was that simply a deflection to make this appear to be an impartial hearing for record purposes? Moments later, I called in and immediately challenged his authority while reminding him of a motion which had been filed for his disqualification. That motion was based on his removal earlier from a highly politicized client case which made Daley look bad publicly.

Daley’s removal there resulted in a dismissal of a six count felony indictment contrary to a guilty plea he had been seeking. A jury and replacement judge saved my client’s career. In parting remarks on the removal record, Judge Daley assured me that he would share my “histrionics” with a replacement judge in his home county where fortunately the case was not reassigned.

So if you still don’t believe that judges talk behind the scenes to target critics, here you have a public declaration showing that they do. Daley never did set up a hearing for his disqualification as he promised on the record in 2009, but he did violate me months later in a decision with no mention of the foregoing. It led to my first license suspension on February 5, 2010. The media learned of it before I did, and the news was front page for two successive days.

At the end of the telephonic transcript of May 26, 2009, Judge Daley concludes that he had always found me to be respectful and courteous to the court. So here we have a compliment regarding my professionalism from a hostile judge who had known me for over twenty years. With that backdrop, we turn to the custody component of my ordeal which was assigned virtually overnight to Syracuse Family Judge Martha Walsh-Hood. She was meeting me for the first time.

On July 20, 2009, the parties appeared for our first custody trial. A reading of the case record would confound any legal expert and make a truly impartial judge want to adjourn proceedings just to get a better handle on things. How we went from Supreme Court to Family Court and back to Supreme Court with a family judge presiding as the eighteenth trial jurist is perplexing enough but familiarity with the subject matter is crucial to decisional competency on any case.

And that is what led to the unraveling of Martha’s fake neutrality, her underlying bias against fathers generally and this one in particular. As this week-long custody trial progressed, it became increasingly evident that her mind had been made up. The outcome was a done deal on multiple counts no matter how much faith I supplied to our justice system, no matter how many witnesses I brought, no matter what it cost the people affected by it. By the time it was over, I would storm out of the court room after condemning the entire process as one giant fraud on the people.

The opening segment of trial transcript will verify the flawed structure and chaotic process which federal judge, Gary Sharpe, blamed on me in a May, 2014 dismissal of my consequential civil rights case. Among other things, Gary never even mentioned my procedural (judge bias) and substantive (conscience shocking) due process challenges to this bizarre, multi-faceted state proceeding. As for the state judge presiding over my custody trial, it can be seen how unfamiliar Martha Walsh-Hood was with it, yet she pressed forward anyway with assorted excuses: [3]

Walsh-Hood: Okay, good morning. Well, I’ve spent some time trying to become acquainted with this rather voluminous file, and my intent in scheduling the earliest possible court date was to try and address the… some of the issues which both parties have raised in a number of different courts… Given the fact that Judge Greenwood had scheduled the matter prior to his recusal for July 20th, I readjusted my court calendar…

 (After dismissing three petitions on consent, the judge proceeded with others): With regard to the support issue, it’s my understanding that (it) was originally heard, I believe, by Judge Caldwell (who never heard any issue after stepping down at the outset).

 Mr. Koziol:  There were some eighteen judges on this case (2006 thru 2009)…

 Walsh-HoodI understand.

Mr. KoziolAs far as the support issues go, and the intertwined, interwoven (proceedings), having been here from the beginning, perhaps I can best speak to that history (neither the child lawyer, William Koslosky nor mother’s latest attorney, Rebecca Crance, had been present for the entire history).

Walsh-HoodWell, I’m not so much concerned about the history, although I did go through it. My understanding is that the support issue was in fact heard, that there is a willful component to that hearing, that is, in fact, before Judge Daley.

Mr. KoziolThat’s correct, who was previously removed from the case, and he’s back for some reason that he didn’t seem to understand… I don’t know how that’s going to resolve itself.

Walsh-HoodBut from my selfish perspective… all matters relating to support are before another judge, although I do understand that under Eschbach and Friederwitzer (case precedent) in custody (decisions), support can be a factor considered…  Further it’s my understanding that the Judgment of Divorce (Judge Grow decision) is now on appeal as well as issues relative to, Mr. Koziol, your original request for a change of venue (change of location to a remote judicial district)… I think the venue change has actually been accomplished through a number of recusals…to be heard by the Appellate Division. In fact there’s a federal action pending for some of the same relief that’s before this court…”

Mr. KoziolThat’s right.

Walsh-HoodEven given that situation… there are applications by both parties in Supreme Court and Family Court (both trial courts in New York)… both parties are seeking custody and allegations of contempt, or at least Mr. Koziol has of Mrs. Hawse-Koziol. Is that everybody’s understanding?

Mr. KoziolI don’t know if you’re characterizing it as I see it, but Ms. Hawse has been allowed to go through support court, she’s gone through all that process, while my petition against her for violating parenting orders, and I want to get to this past weekend, once again I was deprived of an entire weekend with my children… For now, in terms of the narrow framework of pending petitions is concerned, it’s my contempt against her that has been held in abeyance for a couple years.

Walsh-Hood(after denying my motions for removal of William Koslosky as Judge-Appointed Child Attorney and Walsh-Hood as presiding judge)… I don’t feel there is any reason for me to step down as other judges have done. You stated yourself, very eloquently I may add, that matters have been pending in the court which have not been heard since 2007. The day has come, sir, for those matters to be litigated… if you feel uncomfortable in proceeding today, though I’m sure you are capable of doing so, then Ms. Crance (mother’s lawyer) can proceed first, and that would give you a little additional time… Ms. Crance, are you willing to do that?”

Ms. CranceYes.

Mr. KoziolNo, Judge, I’d like to be heard.

Walsh-HoodSure.

Mr. KoziolObviously you haven’t read the petition and you’re making a determination before reading the content of it, which is not your fault because you were just served today.

Walsh-HoodI was just served.

Mr. KoziolThere’s a good reason for that, if you’re ready.

Walsh-HoodGo ahead.

(I explained that the past weekend was unilaterally denied with my children for tactical reasons. I needed that time to recall events necessary for my proofs. The judge quickly interrupted to attack me only, citing improper child preparation which was not my issue. That weekend was denied to rehabilitate bonds with the mother’s parents from another state, her only witnesses. Citing her 90% dominant period since child birth, I challenged the inherent prejudice in my petition served that following Monday morning, the custody parent’s violation of my weekend parenting rights to impair my ability to present any kind of case for custody, petitions unfairly delayed for so long. The judge responded:)

Walsh-HoodYou know what I’m going to do, Mr. Koziol, before hearing your argument, I’m going to take a ten minute recess. I’m going to review your papers, and I’ll allow you to be heard and then I’m going to rule on the motion.

As expected, the motion was denied, but it can be seen how Judge Walsh-Hood was ready to start this trial without having concededly read my violation petition. Moreover, she claimed readiness to proceed without the standard first appearance or pretrial conference which sets the scope of trial ahead of time. Here in this opening interplay, Walsh-Hood is setting her scope on support, custody, contempt and other petitions after dismissing three on consent of the parties.

Setting aside the unprepared judge for the moment, how is a lawyer or litigant to know what proofs and witnesses to subpoena or present before a court more than fifty miles from our homes with this sudden and dramatic change of scope? She tried to justify herself by citing years of delay but these were caused by a denied venue change and as many as eighteen prior biased judges. Rushing proceedings now proved to be a grave error because it only forced me to correct this unprepared judge as evidenced in her claim that Judge Caldwell had been highly involved.

This expedited trial was nothing more than a “show trial” with a predetermined outcome. It is all that was necessary to validate my challenges to a structurally flawed process under the federal child support funding statute. This judge knew exactly what I was asserting but did everything she could to protect the system. The appellate and federal judges reviewing this did the same.

Because a formula under that law requires parents to name a custodial parent at the outset of any legal separation or divorce, a father is typically prejudiced due to his gender in a later custody proceeding especially if it is delayed for years as it was here. There was no need for this “show” trial. Structurally, the decision was already made and only the legal representatives benefitted.

As a full time teacher, Kelly’s stubborn adherence to tax free support and a replacement dad forced me to make this challenge which resulted in the seizure of my joint custody rights by the time this trial was over. My custody (parenting) petitions were delayed while support was expedited due to state court funding priorities over the paramount interests of the litigants. A fairly treated parent is a happy one who will work overtime to support children out of love alone. But discrimination and forced labor, like slavery, will promote conflict and costly resistance.

It can also be seen how courts and processes are needlessly segregated for profit. With so many places to go and duplicative arguments to make, lawyer profits are magnified many times over. Even this judge was forced to admit that child support is a factor in custody proceedings. So why separate the two with the kind of prejudice and confusing outcomes demonstrated here?

All of these issues could have been resolved in one divorce court having full jurisdiction over them. Instead, the federally induced framework produced at least three trial courts handling divorce, support and custody, each struggling to figure out the scope of proceedings. As the costs and job impairments mounted, so did the anger between parents. This yields even greater profits for the court predators in cases all across the country.

Another due process anomaly is seen in the reversal of the order of presentment. As the custody petitioner, I had the benefit of starting with my case-in-chief. Instead, to make this system work, the responding party was allowed to go first. It was fatal to my case because surprise testimony such as “striking my child on one occasion,” caused me to stand up and call the mother-in-law a bald-faced liar. I simply could not control my outrage over a non-existent strike of either child.

There was no such accusation ever made by anyone in the prior record, the petitions, the public or in any incident report. Even the scheming and spiteful mom, by my recollection, never made such a claim. And although the decision did not accept that claim, it was clear that my reputation on all fronts was under attack in this one-sided hearing. Still, with each reaction, Walsh-Hood was taking notes to support her intended outcome.

It got to a point, like the gmai.com concoction in later proceedings, where custodial lies were coming out left and right. I even excused myself on one occasion as my emotions could not be contained in the onslaught. This was not an American court proceeding. It had been transformed into a star chamber, a show trial like the ones in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, a gang assault.

Here there was no true judge. A self-styled procedure emerged as a form of punishment for a litigant who rightfully exposed a lack of preparedness on the part of the hastily assigned decision maker. I should not have had to correct a judge facing needlessly overcrowded dockets anxious to wrap up a case with a mind already made up. With each correction, there arose resentment which, as we will see, grew as this trial progressed.

The reversal in presentment also allowed my custody adversary to derail my accurate position, unwavering for years to this point, that I wanted shared parenting or near equal time with my daughters. I was not seeking to selfishly dominate my children through a full custody demand as the mother was. It is well known that early impressions are hard to overcome, and Kelly Hawse managed unabashedly to assert that I wanted such a shared arrangement to avoid paying child support. It was during her direct opening testimony with nothing but her mouth to prove it.

This was not only a gross anal concoction obtained from a custody playbook but it was countered by everything realistic, from a voluntary forty-five percent support increase offered in 2006 to a successful career in which money was never an issue, at least not until the speech retributions were inflicted. Even if we were to accept this concoction as true, why should money matter at all to a model father who simply wants to spend more time with his daughters? This is where a pay-to-parent scandal is proven under this antiquated custody system.

Anxious to feed into the stereotypes, Judge Walsh-Hood took this support avoidance concoction to an absurd level by requesting that I stop pointing my pen in my adversary’s direction when making an objection. Somehow this was intimidating her, even though the alleged victim made no such claim. This was not only a clear showing of gender bias and the direction this case was headed, but it incited Kelly to make idiotic fear claims in later proceedings.

For example, after Walsh-Hood disqualified herself the next year, during continuing proceedings before Judge Pirro-Bailey in 2011, a desperate Kelly Hawse-Koziol interrupted court arguments between lawyers to announce a fear of my body language. It caused that judge to direct her to face the wall if she truly felt that way. This is how pathetic the gender card has become despite having all of her offense (fear) petitions thrown out over a ten year period.

This is no small matter for the general public. During the same year in the same Syracuse courthouse, I watched curiously as a security officer was escorting Kelly to her vehicle beyond view of the courthouse. It prompted me to investigate. While doing so, violence erupted in the hallway involving a chained inmate. Additional security was called in while one of them was placating a mom’s custody playbook. I reported the safety issue to the court’s chief officer, Judge James “Bond” Tormey. Nothing came of it other than the potential for more lawsuits. [4]

At the same time, Kelly showed no fear during child exchanges or outside events, even asking me during a chance encounter at Lake George to watch our girls while she went off to get towels. Despite such testimony, none of it mattered. I struggled with a novice lawyer who repeatedly failed to lay proper foundation for her questions, i.e. dates, locations, etc. while the judge became more fixated on a writing implement than proper evidence for decision. Here is the relevant interplay which poisoned later proceedings and public safety in our courts: [5]

CranceHas Mr. Koziol relayed to you his desire to have shared or half parenting time?

Hawse-KoziolYes.

Q: Has he… what is your understanding as to why he wants shared parenting time?

A:  So he doesn’t have to pay child support.

Mr. Koziol:  Have I told you that? Objection, please, can I go back? When did I say this

Walsh-HoodOkay, you’re objecting for foundation?

Mr. KoziolRight.

Walsh-HoodI’m going to ask you not to point, counsel. I’m just asking you not to point.

Mr. KoziolYour honor, I have a pen in my hand, if the record can please reflect this. I flipped the pen in her direction, I meant her, so we can find out from her. I don’t understand that to be a negative or somehow an influential statement based on what we’ve been through.

Walsh-HoodCounsel, we just had testimony about a number of alleged domestic violence incidents. [6] You were objecting as to foundation, which is fine. You are somewhat animated at this time and you have the pen pointed. She was indicating some incidents, and I don’t want her to feel intimidated. I’m not suggesting that you’re trying to do that. I’m simply requesting that you not point the pen… That you were holding and taking notes, and I…

Mr. KoziolIn response, Judge, to make it clear so I don’t get accused of that, I’m going to put my pen down, I will no longer write. That is habit. 

Walsh-HoodNo, no I’m not suggesting that you’re intentionally pointing at her, I’m asking you not point the pen, that’s all, in her direction. If you want to point it in my direction, go ahead… (but not the witness)

Mr. KoziolJudge, I would just like the record to reflect my understanding, I did point it in the direction of the bench and her, but I don’t know how I’m animated at this point. I don’t see it, but if you do, I’m going to have to leave it at that. I’ve been very respectful, very calm (to this witness), it’s emotional… I’m non-responsive to most things here. I want that for the record because there is no video camera here.

Walsh-Hood:  I don’t believe so, though there are cameras in the hall and other places.

I had been litigating trials unblemished in both federal and state courts for more than twenty-three years at the time of this pen-pointing admonition. Never had I been restrained in this manner, indeed, not even in the many support, custody and violation proceedings as a pro se litigant before and after this directive. A look at the courtroom would show how the bench and witness stand were in close proximity to one another. It would therefore be nearly impossible for me to point at one and avoid the other, yet one more example of contempt by ambush.

Despite Martha’s back-peddling, this was a clear anti-man edict corroborated by a court officer thereafter who advised me that Walsh-Hood had an anti-father record in Syracuse. How does one control a pen while objecting as a habit over so many years? Incidents like this were many, but exemplified here to show the uphill battle good fathers face every day in these courts and why so many of them are forced out of their children’s lives. There was no finding of physical abuse in the ultimate decision, but when I stormed out at the conclusion, I will admit I was very animated.

After so many witnesses (only the parents on her end) and proof, time, sacrifices, cost and good faith, this feminist in a robe was not going to get away with her sexist brand of deliberations. I promptly reported her to the state Judicial Conduct Commission and sued her in federal court. Unfortunately male litigants are also discriminated there. Imagine if a woman lawyer had been flipping her pen during an objection at a male witness. It goes on all the time. Would Martha dole out the same admonition to derail her concentration, confidence and flow?

During this trial, Koslosky and Walsh-Hood took issue with nearly every witness and positive aspect of my “non-custodial” parenting time while accepting virtually everything the “custodial parent” had to offer. Even my campaign parades were attacked as an exploitation of my children who enjoyed them so much while throwing candy to others along the parade route. The shocking aspect here is that one would expect such auspicious events to be lauded in a genuine child-oriented court. Instead, in “Family Court,” heroin addicts are being reunited with their children.

One of Martha’s colleagues, Family Judge Randy Caldwell (mentioned in her trial opening), paraded with children and relatives during this same campaign year as did every other candidate I knew. Indeed, I dare say, Martha herself was parading at one time alongside her dad when he campaigned for Congress. But Walsh-Hood, “Agent 007” Tormey and politically correct judges of an opposite party evidently render such “exploitation” a-okay in those identical situations.

On the last day of trial, a steady flow of provocation culminated in a seizure of my notes on the witness stand when I finally testified. Walsh-Hood had entered an order I had never experienced in any self-represented context. She wanted me to present testimony in question-answer format which I could not do under such short notice and, as stated, the lack of any pretrial conference. We compromised with a note version and exhibits necessarily taken with me to the stand.

At one point during convincing testimony, “F. Lee Billy” Koslosky objected on yet another anal ground of reading testimony from my notes. That was not the case, of course, as proven by the lack of ethics charge threatened by Judge Hood before “the Fourth Department” licensing court. Now, even the lawyers were being favored as their notes were never scrutinized. I had no lawyer, but the judge began referring to me as “counsel” presumably as a predicate for such an ethics charge despite the obvious fact that I was not acting in that capacity. I also had no client.

By the time the trial was concluding, I had no notes to convey ten years of events I could never independently recollect, my pen was now a weapon of intimidation, every anal detail about a model parent was being twisted and debated to absurdity, and my daughters had been exploited to advance a prominent career which would have benefitted them immensely. Finally, I had had enough and asked to be excused from the witness stand. I did not come here to be abused by a gang of misfits. A judge deserves only so much respect as she reciprocates as a public servant.

Judge Walsh-Hood must have recognized her dilemma because she tried to discourage my exit. But now the hostility was brazen. I was not about to legitimize this bizarre proceeding with any more of my valuable time while elevating the probability of a serious outburst. I was not about to do time for contempt of a kangaroo court. I persisted with my request, and she finally excused me. As I exited with my girlfriend, I made an impromptu closing statement condemning the lunacy of this sexist tribunal. My parenting time was immediately suspended.

That suspension was removed on the judge’s own initiative three months later but re-imposed in November, 2009 after my newly fired secretary teamed up with Kelly to allege threat antics. Although I got my girls back after a May 3, 2010 hearing, ten months of contact and precious bonding time were lost which I will never recover. Such seizures in lucrative custody contests lead to children without parents, and with severe un-remedied alienation, it is often permanent.

Two years after this trial, Judge Martha Walsh-Hood was featured on roadway banners promoting National Adoption Day. In response, I featured a website post entitled Shopping with Martha on Black Friday. It was a satirical piece decrying the manner in which Martha was exploiting her judgeship to promote a sale of children functionally orphaned in family courts.

After my departure from “her” court on July 24, 2009, child attorney, William Koslosky, disclosed a domestic violence incident at his home fifty years earlier during closing statements.

What any of this had to do with my case I’ll never know, but I found it buried in costly trial transcripts, a treasure trove of billable hours on behalf of grade school clients who could never hold him accountable. I also found fables, serious provocations and tales of horror which might be described as a love affair with a fictional girlfriend.

In this particular court case, her name was Kelly Hawse, a victim supposedly locked in her marital home (while I lived our last year of marriage at a Lake George apartment), subjected to meritless lawsuits to keep her subservient (when she filed the first one over child support which was never increased and continued with a series of fear lawsuits that were all thrown out), evinced fine skills as a teacher (petitions replete with grammar errors) and distinguished herself as a mother who loved all things (like the millionaire dad who could buy her all those things).

It was abundantly clear that Billy Koslosky was on a mission of revenge, abusing his entrusted role and tax dollars to murder exemplary father-daughter bonds. He actually had the audacity under protection of court security to accuse me of “terrorizing” my children, an accusation which if made in my presence could have sent him out the court window. Once again, fate had spared us all a disaster due to my pre-closing departure which Billy pathetically exploited.

This terrorist thing is being exploited these days by thoughtless provocateurs to advance their wallets and purses without regard for the potential consequences. Terrorists fly planes into buildings. They don’t pursue proper channels for the resolution of disputes. I visited the Trade Center ruins on the day after 9-11 to volunteer what I could to aid the victims. Comparing me to a terrorist as Judge Gartenstein had done to Professor Pappas (Chapter 3) is an assault upon my patriotism in addition to my fatherhood.

Apparently Billy had been using the terrorist depiction in a lot of cases because he also used it to describe his relationship with his own dad. As he explained it, little Billy was “terrorized” by his police man dad during a dinner argument a half century ago. Somehow dad’s uniform and gun made him dangerous. Somehow F. Lee Billy had beamed himself up to la-la land as he raked in the easy dollars. It was as if that fictional hoard of media had returned, O.J. Simpson nodding with glee, and Judge Ito ready to give Billy eight more months, if needed, to play to the fanfare.

Billy’s closing statement reflected a childhood contempt for his dad which he simply transferred to his latest target in a now infamous tragedy we call the Potato-Police Rescue. How can such a strange bird be allowed to represent children against their fathers? I asked that question before many courts to no avail. They simply looked the other way, and that only elevated the abuse in later proceedings. At nearly sixty years of age at the time, this was no way for Billy to compensate for personal defects or a lack of marital and childrearing experience. You be the judge:

One thing that I remember is disagreement between my mom and my dad. My dad was a policeman and one day he came home and he was mad because we didn’t have red-skinned potatoes and all that she could say is we have Yukon Gold, and I was terrorized. I’d never seen dad arguing like this and, my God, he’s in the police uniform with a gun. What is he going to do? So I went to the store to get red-skinned potatoes and I don’t like Yukon Gold.

If there is any purpose to a judge in any proceeding, it is to control it so that sanity, justice and civility may prevail. Wide latitude is generally given to lawyers in closing statements, but in this case, it was a custody proceeding, not a high-profile murder trial. There is no way my daughters, aged five and seven at the time, would have approved of their involuntarily appointed lawyer referring to their daddy this way. It was the appointing judge’s duty to prevent it. But Walsh-Hood was evidently enjoying this all with sadistic satisfaction. Another judge might have cut Billy off:

Mr. Koslosky, this is family court, not criminal court. What’s with all the terrorism in your characterizations of an American father seeking proper relief here? There’s no jury, and such colorful depictions will not influence me. I’ve heard and seen all the evidence as you have. There’s nothing to support any of this. No child protection agency has even been contacted, let alone involved. And I could care less about your own dad and whatever went on with these potatoes. Confine yourself to the record, and let’s move on, alright?

As stated, the adversarial custody system is archaic and utterly counter-productive to cooperative child rearing arrangements. Here we have sick proof of this, a fee-loving lawyer appointed for unsuspecting children who is throwing gas on a fire ignited by the court process itself.

One month after this closing statement, an off-duty policeman without gun or uniform in our region committed a murder-suicide leaving four children without parents. He did so with a common kitchen knife despite protection orders after being abused in the same Family Court. [8] So if you ever hear about some divorce victim shooting up a courthouse, understand how easily it can occur. There is no accountability for the arrogant judge or reckless lawyer who incites needless violence.  

 

[1]   Maron v Silver, 14 NY3d 230 (2010); Chief Judge v Governor, 884 NYS2d 863 (3rd Dept 2009)

[2]   Matter of G. Stephen Getman, 147 Ad 2d 163, 542 NYS 2d 896 (4th Dept 1989)

[3]   Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, New York Supreme Court, Oneida County Case No. D2004-422102; Custody transcript, Vol. I at pg. 2-30 (July 20, 2009)

[4]   Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010)(Chief family court clerk recovers $600,000 in 2012 against court administrator, Judge James Tormey, for directing “political espionage” at Syracuse courthouse)

[5]   Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, New York Supreme Court, Oneida County Case No. D2004-422102; Custody transcript, Vol. II at pg. 230-233 (July 20, 2009)

[6]   While stressing these alleged domestic incidents corroborated by no witness or independent proof, Judge Walsh-Hood was likely manufacturing her own proof here for later decision. That decision made no mention of an off-duty sheriff deputy, posted inside my home, who witnessed an assault by the mother during a child exchange. By opening the custody record to pre-divorce periods, Walsh-Hood was also able to facilitate false claims at the marital home where no witnesses were present. There was never an incident report during that remote period, and although physical abuse was never found, there was no accountability for the fabrications.

[7]   Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, New York Supreme Court, Oneida County Case No. D2004-422102; Custody transcript, Vol. V at pg. 857-858 (July 24, 2009)

[8]   Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 367 (NDNY 2011)

 

 

Top 10 Corrupt Judges include a federal superhuman, state gunslinger and family court pedophile

images
There is no current legal recourse for a litigant parent or civil rights attorney who exposes misconduct in our courts. The Supreme Court has granted judges absolute immunity and has rejected every petition to date which seeks whistleblower protection in our third branch of government
By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Our Top 10 Corrupt Judge series has become a big hit. Now as Donald Trump contemplates his pick for the long vacant ninth seat on our Supreme Court, we want to assure that the corrupt judges here hit the park bench and not any other kind of bench.

This is the third of a three-part series we call “Turkey Trilogy,” designed to protect all litigants from corrupt judges. You should subscribe to our Parenting Rights Institute if you have any case in any court impacting your children.

With all our uncompensated work exposing court corruption over the years, we leave it to you, our fellow victims, tortured as you must be during the holidays, to make good therapy by sending this out to the world.

Send it to fellow victims so they don’t feel “crazy” for lodging legitimate complaints to these useless commissions. E-mail a copy to your member in Congress or legislature, public interest group, lawyer, media, or even your “adversary.” You’ll be happy you did.

1. Albany Federal Judge Gary Sharpe

In First Place, is Albany U.S. District Court Judge Gary Sharpe. Gary was at the #5 spot last month but he acclimated quickly to the top spot after former New York Senate Leader Joseph Bruno (also a former boxer) released his recent fast selling book, Keep Swinging: A Memoir of Politics and Justice.  You will recall how we condemned Judge Gary Sharpe on our last list, here is what the popular statesman said about him in his book as featured in the Albany Times Union:

Judge Gary Sharpe presided over Bruno’s two criminal trials “with a perpetual expression of blunt rage and a haughtiness that seemed to rise off his robes like smoke from a block of ice.” A paragraph later, he called Sharpe “arrogant and resentful and eager to take a turn in the limelight.”

So you see, we are not a rogue or misguided secondary news site here at Leon Koziol.com. Our motto continues to be “You just can’t make this stuff up.” This is the same judge who abused his power to suppress our public message of court reform as presented in our report released this week. It seeks to obtain funding for a nationwide Parenting Rights Institute.

Here is our review from last month:

Gary is a really great family man. He has two sons that managed to get appointed to prosecutor jobs for the state and federal government where Gary was once employed, also as a prosecutor. He presided over the costly criminal trial involving New York Senate Leader Joseph Bruno.

Joe was finally successful in having the charges thrown out after years of proceedings that cost taxpayers some 14 million dollars. At one point, Gary made a spectacle of himself by lashing out at Joe during trial with the public admonition that he (Gary) was in charge of the court and not the defendant (Joe) who was simply trying to talk to his lawyer at the same trial table.

Well that was sure good to know, but it’s small potatoes compared to Gary Sharpe’s misconduct in another criminal trial two years later. You’re not going to believe this but it’s true. You can look it all up at United States v Cossey, 632 F3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011) where Gary was removed by a federal appeals court in Manhattan for announcing his discovery of a human gene which the scientific community would not learn about for another 50 years. According to Gary, the Sharpe gene could decide how to sentence criminals.

This one is a real dusey, folks,  so it will take a little longer to explain. Under the Sharpe doctrine of perverted decision making, we no longer need juries, lawyers or even the Constitution. The psychiatric profession is “all over the board,” so we don’t need them either. We can decide how long a person goes to prison by the kind of human gene which a delusional judge can make up without any scientific support whatsoever.

For lack of a better explanation, this psychotic episode can be called the “omnipotent judge doctrine” applicable to race, gender, ethnic origin and maybe even a “custodial parenting” gene.  I moved to have Gary removed from my federal civil rights case on the basis of this doctrine but he retaliated instead by dismissing it without mentioning a full one-third of my supporting precedent.

I guess Gary felt that our Supreme Court was also “all over the board” with their supreme rulings so he could disregard those people as well. In the end, he effectively closed the federal courthouse doors to his public critic.

And you wonder why a police investigator took the law into his own hands in a murder-suicide upon exiting child support court leaving three children without parents and the city with a $2 million liability, Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d 367 (NDNY 2011). Gary Sharpe is appointed for life and can only be removed by congressional impeachment. Good luck with that one.

Gary “Sharpe” must be limiting his reading lately to the book, After the Madness, by ex-con and disgraced ex-Chief Justice Sol Wachtler of New York’s high court where it is explained that judges are trained to think of themselves as gods. Nevermind the law books if you get this judge folks. Bring your biology, psychiatric and political manifestos instead. Maybe even an exorcist !

2. Family Judge Daniel King

In Second Place, is Lewis County Family Judge Daniel (a-okay) King). He retains the same spot as last month but some important facts need to be added to “keep him in his place.” I don’t know how the New York Judicial Conduct Commission could have overlooked so much incompetence and ethical misconduct, but hey, I understand this is New York where the top leaders of our Legislature who appointed its members are now in federal prison. King’s gag order on this site was removed after I sued him in New York Supreme Court for violating a little  law called the First Amendment.

“Dan King,”as he introduced himself on the phone to my ex, was removed from my case this past June after we exposed his alcohol consumption at a tavern near the courthouse in Lowville, New York with his children in the vicinity. Witnesses confirmed that the barmaid had his drink committed to memory.

We did not explain why that was so offensive, but Dan is the guy who has been abusing family court by retaliating for my valid public criticisms by exploiting my precious daughters. When he could find no evidence from a perjuring mother (Kelly Hawse-Koziol) to facilitate her sick goal of father replacement by a pervert millionaire named Joseph Flihan Jr.,  he fabricated an unprecedented condition of “prohibited alcohol related gestures” regarding a wedding toast to place limits on my parenting time.

That’s right folks. You read that correctly. I’m not making this up. That’s how badly they wanted to punish my free speech. It can be found in a December 2, 2013 decision which was temporarily set aside by an appeals court judge due to “structural flaws” and lack of evidence. There were bigger issues here but the higher courts apparently wanted to avoid judicial embarrassment so they simply ignored it later on. First of all, there was no such prohibition in any order prior to this wedding, and secondly, what exactly is a “prohibited alcohol related gesture” so that the sane parent can know how to comply.

The judicial cover-ups and retributions were so appalling that it forced me to get a group to investigate Dan up in his own home town. Who are you, Dan King, to judge moms and dads who simply consume a legal beverage like you do? To date nothing has changed, Dan. There’s still no evidence (not even an accusation as the appeals judge declared), to support your spiteful, deranged “gesture.” The people should be protesting daily for your removal from the bench like the next one was !

3. Family Judge Bryan Hedges

In Third Place, is Syracuse Family Judge Bryan Hedges, my custody judge. I moved to have him removed from my case because I objected to any procedure of cross-examination involving my young daughters in private chambers without the parents present. His court appointed child lawyer, William Koslosky, who hates his dad, has no children and loves his fees, countered my motion with a declaration that Judge Hedges’ reputation was “beyond reproach.” He reluctantly granted my motion due to an “appearance of impropriety” based on the “political espionage” disclosed by his chief family court clerk.

Judge Hedges was then removed from the bench shortly afterward for admitting to sexual misconduct on his handicapped five year old niece. Gotta check each of those noun modifiers folks. He’s that pathetic, a real life child predator in chambers with your children arguing in his defense that her little hands were not actually in direct contact with his ___ in the act of (fill in the blanks). Look it up at In Re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

4. Syracuse Administrative Judge James Tormey

In Fourth Place, is Syracuse Chief Administrative Judge for the Fifth Judicial District James Tormey. That’s a lot of noun modifiers too, but Jim is a politician more than he is any kind of judge. In the federal civil rights case,  Morin v Tormey (and Hedges), 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir.2010), the Onondaga County Chief Family Court Clerk successfully sued Jim for retaliation based on her refusal to conduct “political espionage” on a competing judge candidate during an election.

Like my family court matters, she was moved to distant assignments as far away as Lowville, New York. She recovered $600,000.00 against Jim and his pedophile colleague Bryan. Jim is the guy assigning all these “impartial” colleagues to decide my custody and support matters which impair my licenses, livelihood and income capacities. He is at the center of my John Grisham ordeal.

5.  Family Judge James Eby

In fifth place is Oswego County, New York  Judge James “dweeby” Eby, new on the family bench who got in line with 35 previously disqualified trial judges in my 10 year originally uncontested divorce. He retaliated for my reform efforts and exposure of family court corruption (i.e. this website) before such entities as the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption.

As soon as the 35th judge was removed from my case (Dan King), Dweeby took over with a vengeance. Prior to meeting any of the parties (as far as I know), he sent arrogant “tough boy” notices that no teleconferences would be considered (contrary to standard and earlier observed practices). In another notice he declared that the civil practice rules would be strictly followed. There was no justification for any of this and none was provided.

This required the parties (and taxpayer financed William “Potatoes” Koslosky) to engage in a 140 mile round trip to a courthouse near the Canadian border to receive a decision that had already been completed prior to that first appearance and arguments. You think maybe the dweeb is acting like a complete child here? Has the unethical hate, unlawful bias and unconstitutional retaliation become that brazen? Should we all just respond by taking the law into our own hands?

That’s right folks, this is how justice is “served” in New York. Ya think maybe politician Tormey, Dan-boy King and Dweeby Eby might have been talking outside the presence of the litigants to orchestrate all this? Nah! That would be unethical and a clear violation of judicial code. Besides, the Commission on Judicial Conduct has already stated in a series of determinations over six years that Dan “a-okay” King, Jimmy “the geek” Tormey and other corrupt judges among the current gang of 38 are “a-okay.”

James “dweeby” Eby is the reason why Kelly Hawse-Koziol abused her “custodial power” to make it all but impossible for me to have a meaningful fatherhood and holidays with my daughters. More on “Kelly the Grinch who stole Christmas” in coming posts. In the meantime, keep up the “good” work Jim Dandy. Study those law books to protect this child abuse industry. I’m still standing and exposing the corruption.

6. Ex-Judge Michael “Cowboy” Daley

In Sixth Place is Ex-Judge Michael “Cowboy” Daley. Yeah that’s right folks, this guy styled himself as some kind of gunslinger judge when he was on the bench in 2010. He must have been watching too many movies because I know he wasn’t doing his judge homework.

I could recall pictures of John Wayne, ranch and rodeo scenes and other self-love paraphernalia in the hallway and offices of his chambers in Herkimer County, New York. However what Mikey seemed to overlook is that his image was not a heroic one. He got the cowboy image because he did as he pleased instead of what the people and their laws prescribed.

In my ordeal, I had the rodeo wanna-be disqualified from a criminal case where I had represented a falsely accused city administrator. A newly elected mayor tried to replace her expeditiously and Daley was the go-to guy for political matters. He threw a temper tantrum not far from his John Wayne picture when I refused to take a guilty plea on her behalf.

This emotionally traumatized woman stuck with me even when the Cowboy threatened her and berated me like a spoiled little brat in open court (because I dared to have him removed from her case). Fortunately she did stay loyal to me because the replacement judge threw out two counts of her felony indictment before trial and the remaining four after a jury trial was concluded. She subsequently brought civil charges against the city.

I knew the day would come when I would have to “pay” for my proper ethical conduct and successes over an unblemished 23 year career as the “bad guy” exposing government corruption. Years later Judge Daley accepted my personal child support case out of proper assignment order and despite earlier disqualification on my client cases.

Cow-Boy committed himself on the record to have a hearing on my removal motion but issued a decision instead behind closed doors violating me without a hearing. I’m not making this up, it’s all backed up in the record, and the New York Appellate Division did nothing about it along with the do-nothing state Commission on Judicial Conduct. It led to my first license suspension in 2010, lifted two years later when an agreement was reached.

Well every dog has its day. My adversaries are gradually getting justice delivered in unexpected ways as I continue to be vindicated year after year in this ordeal. My website at http://www.leonkoziol.com explains it all. Cowboy Daley lost his judgeship when he failed to get needed party endorsements.

Evidently a failure in private practice, he tried out for a lower judge post but was again rejected. Finally this past year, he ran for the job he once held as Herkimer County DA and got buried by Scott Carpenter, a lawyer with far greater integrity, a true Clint Eastwood. He made our day by sending Cowboy Daley to Brokeback Mountain.

So it looks like you were right after all, Mike, but not the way you expected with all that reckless gunslinging. You said it best in those stupid campaign commercials with your cowboy hat declaring “Not in this County.” You’re not anything in that county anymore Mike. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! You’re full of holes today just like your violation order was in 2009, from pathetic justice to poetic justice.

The seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth place awards go to Judge Wade McCree of Michigan who got a litigant mom pregnant in his chambers while presiding over her support case; Judge Gerald Garson of Brooklyn caught on FBI video taking a bribe to fix a custody case; Judge Thomas Spargo seeking a bribe from a lawyer to fix his divorce case one way or the other; and finally the Pennsylvania judges in the “Kids for Cash” scandal. They’re now doing time for accepting kickbacks from prison contractors based on the number of juveniles they convicted. Some 4,000 convictions had to be overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which is itself immersed in scandals and resignations.

Welcome to Justice in America ! Here at the Parenting Rights Institute, we are doing what we can to correct this epidemic but need your contributions and support.

Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

(315) 796-4000

Happy “Thankless” Day wishes to the Dishonorable Family Judges of America

Judge James K. Eby Oswego County Family Court Oswego, NY

Administrator’s Note: This is the third of a three-part series we call the “Thanksgiving Trilogy.” With all the uncompensated work we have put into our joint reform efforts over the years, we have neither the resources nor the time to make it viral. We leave that to you, our fellow victims, tortured as you must be right now. So kindly pick one, pick them all, and make good therapy of your time by sending them out to the world. Send it to your representative in Congress or state legislature, a commission, good government group, your lawyer, even your parent “adversary” on this “thankless” family day. Maybe you’ll be very happy you did.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

On this Thanksgiving Day, 2016, we take pause during our holiday to “honor” the “dishonorable” judges of America’s divorce and family courts. We remain in awe over the psychotic manner of your public service to the families you have ripped apart and the children alienated from their “non-custodial” moms and dads.

1.  Family Judge James Eby

In first place is Oswego County, New York  Judge James Eby, new on the family bench who got in line with 35 previously disqualified trial judges in my 10 year originally uncontested divorce. He retaliated for my reform efforts and exposure of family court corruption before such entities as the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. He is the reason why Kelly Hawse-Koziol abused her “custodial power” to make it all but impossible for me to have a meaningful Thanksgiving Day with my daughters. Keep up the “good” work Jim. Study those law books to protect this child abuse industry. I’m still standing and exposing the corruption.

2. Family Judge Daniel King

In Second Place, is Lewis County Family Judge Daniel (a-okay) King). I don’t know how the New York Judicial Conduct Commission could overlook so much incompetence and ethical misconduct, but hey, I understand this is New York where the top leaders of our Legislature who appointed its members are now in federal prison. King’s gag order on this site was removed after I sued him in New York Supreme Court for violating a little  law called the First Amendment. He was removed from my case this past June after we exposed his alcohol consumption at a tavern near the courthouse in Lowville, New York with his children in the vicinity. Witnesses confirmed that the barmaid had his drink committed to memory. Who are you, Judge King, to judge moms and dads who do the same thing? The people should be protesting daily for your removal from the bench like the next one was !

3. Family Judge Bryan Hedges

In Third Place, is Syracuse Family Judge Bryan Hedges, my custody judge. I moved to have him removed from my case because I objected to any procedure of cross-examination involving my young daughters in private chambers without the parents present. His court appointed child lawyer, William Koslosky, who hates his dad, has no children and loves his fees, countered my motion with a declaration that Judge Hedges’ reputation was “beyond reproach.” He reluctantly granted my motion due to an “appearance of impropriety” based on the “political espionage” disclosed by his chief family court clerk. Judge Hedges was then removed from the bench shortly afterward for admitting to sexual misconduct on his handicapped five year old niece. Gotta check each of those noun modifiers folks. He’s that pathetic, a real life child predator in chambers with your children arguing in his defense that her little hands were not actually in direct contact with his ___ in the act of (fill in the blanks). Look it up at In Re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

4. Syracuse Administrative Judge James Tormey

In Fourth Place, is Syracuse Chief Administrative Judge for the Fifth Judicial District James Tormey. That’s a lot of noun modifiers, but Jim is a politician more than he is any kind of judge. In the federal civil rights case,  Morin v Tormey (and Hedges), 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir.2010), the Onondaga County Chief Family Court Clerk successfully sued Jim for retaliation based on her refusal to conduct “political espionage” on a competing judge candidate during an election. Like my family court matters, she was moved to distant assignments as far away as Lowville, New York. She recovered $600,000.00 against Jim and his pedophile colleague Bryan. Jim is the guy assigning all these “impartial” colleagues to decide my custody and support matters which impair my licenses, livelihood and income capacities. He is at the center of my John Grisham ordeal.

5. Albany Federal Judge Gary Sharpe

In Fifth Place, is Albany U.S. District Court Judge Gary Sharpe. Gary is a really great family man. He has two sons that managed to get appointed to prosecutor jobs for the state and federal government where he was once employed, also as a prosecutor. He presided over the costly criminal trial against former New York Senate Leader Joseph Bruno. Joe was ultimately successful in having the charges thrown out after years of proceedings that cost taxpayers many millions of dollars. At one point, Gary made a spectacle of himself by lashing out at Joe during trial with the public admonition that he (Gary) was in charge of the court and not the defendant (Joe) who was simply trying to talk to his lawyer at the same trial table.

But that’s small stuff compared to Gary Sharpe’s misconduct in another criminal trial two years later. You’re not going to believe this but it’s true. You can look it all up at United States v Cossey, 632 F3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011) where Gary was removed by a federal appeals court in Manhattan for announcing his discovery of a human gene which the scientific community would not learn about for another 50 years. According to Gary, the Sharpe gene could decide how to sentence criminals.

This one is a real dusey so it will take a little longer to explain the award. Under the Sharpe doctrine of perverted decision making, we no longer need juries, lawyers or the Constitution. The psychiatric profession is “all over the board,” so we don’t need them either. We can decide cases based on gene theories applicable to race, gender, ethnic origin and maybe even “custodial parenting.” I moved to have him removed from my federal case for these reasons but he retaliated instead by dismissing my civil rights case and effectively closing the federal courthouse doors to his public critic. This judge is appointed for life and can only be removed by congressional impeachment. Good luck with that one. Nevermind the law books if you get this judge on your case. Bring your biology, psychiatric and political handbooks instead.

The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth place awards go to Judge Wade McCree of Michigan who got a litigant mom pregnant in his chambers while presiding over her support case; Judge Gerald Garson of Brooklyn caught on FBI video taking a bribe to fix a custody case; Judge Thomas Spargo seeking a bribe from a lawyer to fix his divorce case one way or the other; and two Pennsylvania judges in the “Kids for Cash” scandal. They’re now doing time for accepting kickbacks from prison contractors based on the number of juveniles they convicted. Some 4,000 convictions had to be overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which is itself immersed in scandals and resignations.

Welcome to Justice in America ! Here at the Parenting Rights Institute, we are doing what we can to correct this epidemic but need your contributions and support.

Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

(315) 796-4000

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.

 

 

 

 

Kelly Hawse-Koziol: Frankfort-Schuyler Teacher and … Mom?

image2
Star Witness for Kelly Hawse-Koziol being hauled off to prison on $10,000 bail in 2013 for presenting herself falsely as an attorney in court. We gave the judge a tip prior to her arrival and still she continued her crimes until convicted this year and sent back to jail.

 

Frankfort-Schuyler Central School District is an all-American school in upstate, New York. Benefited by quaint restaurants, attractive homes and a spirited community , the pride in its students and staff is everywhere. In fact, if you’re driving along Interstate 90 or State Route 5S on a game day, you might even hear its residents cheering their Maroon Knights to victory.

Yes, Frankfort-Schuyler has stellar qualities but unfortunately it also has a teacher named Kelly Hawse-Koziol. Many of our followers have asked about Leon’s ex-spouse during his travels across the country advocating for parental rights. Out of concern for the children we have refrained until their relocation was made to the home of an unfit substitute father and concealed on the family court record for eight months without consequence.

It is well proven by now that Kelly’s immunity from accountability has arisen because Leon has been exposing court corruption. Various family judges have abused public office by exploiting her serial petitions and fabrications over the years. For example she testified that notice of relocation required by custody order was successfully transmitted under the address “gmai.com” (“l” character missing). Only because of Leon’s persistence was she finally threatened with consequences after the publicized misconduct could no longer be ignored.

All of her offense petitions have been dismissed for lack of evidence since 2006 including a gag order on this website in May. Indeed if Leon had not challenged that order on First Amendment grounds in New York Supreme Court, we could not provide you with today’s feature post. We could not have exposed the misconduct of Leon’s custody judge who was removed from the family court bench for admitting to sexual misconduct on his handicapped five year old niece (today in her adulthood a Leon Koziol supporter), see In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

We also could not have exposed “political espionage” being carried out by other judges against Leon in the Syracuse Fifth Judicial District (which includes Herkimer County), see Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2011)(Chief Judge James Tormey sued by family court clerk for spying directives resulting in $600,000 liability to taxpayers). The unlawful retributions by those charged with the highest duty of safeguarding our constitutional rights caused judge disqualifications with over 35 trial jurists to date assigned by Judge Tormey to Leon’s family matters, by all indications a nationwide record. This is not “delusion” or “paranoia.” It is shocking fact in an unprecedented case.

Although Kelly Hawse-Koziol has been protected by Leon’s adversaries in these “Kangaroo” family tribunals (description given by a Supreme Court Justice in the Gault case, 387 US 27-28), is she also immune from accountability in her capacity as a teacher? In a recent hearing, one of those adversaries, William “Potatoes” Koslosky, announced falsely to the latest judge that Leon had lodged a report against Hawse-Koziol to the Education Department. A report had, in fact, been filed by an ex-girlfriend due to false police reports in a scheme to cause a break-up. So will another have to be lodged now to make Koslosky an honest lawyer? Is Hawse-Koziol honest when she depicts Leon under oath as anti-mom with a distaste for intelligent women? It is undisputed that he represented a former woman lawyer and president of the National Organization for Women. He remains a dedicated father writing books for intelligent women across the country.

The misconduct of Kelly Hawse-Koziol is so extensive that it should make every parent and student at Frankfort High School very concerned. Take for example an excerpt from one of her many fraudulent petitions so rife with grammatical and spelling errors that the judge had to put in “sic” notes in every sentence. Taken directly from his decision, this is how Hawse-Koziol represented Frankfort-Schuyler’s teaching credentials in our courts of law:

His interaction with her [Father’s girlfriend] infront [sic] of the children are [sic] inappropriate & unhealthy. His… health is deteriorating. He is dillusional [sic] about his (earlier) ex-girlfriend and secretary and I [sic] being friends.

That’s an average of one error per sentence and as many as two in a single phrase. The judge actually missed other errors such as the use of “&” in a formal document. If this is how a high school teacher presents her false court petitions, imagine what her students are learning to emulate. Time and again, Leon had to proof-read her resumes, allowing her on one occasion to become a final two candidate at Utica College. That was 15 years ago during their marriage and she still has not escaped a school district which she privately despises.

An argument on the subject typically had Leon defending the school board against her false depictions of them as well. Formerly a school board attorney for another local school district, Leon was well familiar with the complexities of operating a school system with multi-million dollar budgets. He also did his best to defend her from errors in her specialty as a Social Studies teacher, i.e. the Nile River flows south (because that’s the way it looked on a map). Other criticisms included her preoccupation with e-bay shopping in class. Now is this a person fit to teach our children? Many friends and former clients of Leon in the school district have indicated not.

But even her error-prone conduct in school cannot match the evil she has displayed in child rearing. She has lied in court time and again while alienating Leon’s daughters so severely that he has not gotten a call from them in years. All efforts on his part have been met with undue scrutiny and more false petitions to a point where Leon’s case is now actually before the Supreme Court of the United States.

In upcoming posts we will bring you more gross misconduct of this gold-digging facade of a mother and teacher. If you have information about Kelly Hawse-Koziol which you would like to share for a comprehensive report to MaryEllen Elia, the Commissioner of Education, feel free to contact us at Parenting Rights Institute: (315) 380-3420. These are our tax dollars and precious children at risk. Such rampant misconduct cannot be protected through tenure or First Amendment retaliation, at least not in this country.

Motion Asks Justice Ginsburg To Step Down From Judicial Whistle Blower Case

index

Extraordinary Case Focuses on Judicial Ethics and Court Abuses

An unprecedented case docketed in the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016  became more extraordinary when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lashed out at a presidential candidate one month later. After working its way through federal and state courts, the judicial whistle blower action, Leon Koziol v United States District Court, finally reached our high court.

At the core of the case is a targeted website which exposes corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. Maintained by a parental advocate with over 25 years of litigation experience, it exposes corruption in our third branch of government and resulted in severe retributions for the sponsor and judicial whistle blower, Dr. Leon R. Koziol.

The website, http://www.leonkoziol.com was subjected to a variety of discreet and overt forms of government retaliation including an unconstitutional gag order imposed by a family judge eventually lifted when a mandamus action was filed in New York Supreme Court. This site also featured a number of anti-liberal posts defending Donald Trump since August, 2015.

The action seeks recourse for political activity outside the scope of judicial office which is then applied in decision making processes beyond the knowledge or fair input of adversely impacted litigants. It is a First and Fourteenth Amendment case committed to improving the conduct of our justice system through the supervisory jurisdiction of our highest court.

With a conference date now set by the Justices for September 26, 2016, Dr. Koziol was forced to file a motion on August 9, 2016 seeking disqualification of Justice Ginsburg from Case No. 15-1519. It also seeks an adjournment until after election day to permit good government groups and interested parties including Donald Trump to file amicus briefs.

(Click Here to Download August 5, 2016 Motion for Disqualification from Scribd)

Such a motion is not new but rarely employed as it was by the Sierra Club in the 2004 case of Cheney v United States District Court, directed to Justice Scalia. The opening statement of the motion here is reprinted below:

On June 17, 2016, this Court docketed Case No. 15-1519 entitled Leon R. Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It is an extraordinary action based, inter alia, on this Court’s ruling in Cheney v United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 US 367 (2004). It seeks vital recourse for civil rights violations by judges and their agents who impeded access to this Court. These violations were conceived beyond the scope of judicial office and executed through an abuse of such office. They comprise retributions for petitioner’s ten year exposure of corruption in our third branch of government.

It is an ordeal that reads like a John Grisham novel but plays out in real life as a dark side to justice meted out against judicial whistle blowers as a way of covering up serious misconduct. It is a lesson for advocates of free speech and press everywhere who dare to risk their families and livelihoods on the misplaced notion that those entrusted with the highest duty of safeguarding our constitutional rights will do so even when they are themselves the necessary subjects of public criticism.

Quite apart from the unconscionable injuries inflicted upon a native born American, these violations have serious implications for all citizens in that they usurp the self-governing authority of a free society, they make the case that other whistle blowers such as Edward Snowden can never expect fair treatment in the states, and that money and influence will invariably prevail over the rule of law in our nation’s courts. Indeed, on all fronts and in all branches of government, we are at a crossroads in that never ending quest to guarantee “liberty and justice for all.”

img_0278
A Florida doctor, California dentist and Virginia engineer join Dr. Leon Koziol on June 17, 2016 at the United States Supreme Court to announce the filing of a case seeking parental equality and judicial accountability in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

(Click Here to Download June 17, 2016 Petition for Writ from Scribd)

 

Please Share Today’s Posthttp://wp.me/pXgi5-2bj