While our federal government is promoting human rights across the globe, its military is returning to domestic courts which exploit children for profit. That’s the opening statement in a precedent seeking action being filed on November 16, 2015 in a federal appeals court in Manhattan.
Known as a mandamus action, it seeks extraordinary relief due to human rights violations exhibited by presiding judges abusing public office to promote a trillion dollar industry in America’s divorce and family courts. It is a “must-read” for any abused parent. See a copy of Dr. Koziol’s mandamus action:(Click Here)
The federal incentive grants render support magistrates inherently biased because they generate revenues for court operations and performance standards for higher office. The atrocities caused by this discriminatory and oppressive law include veteran suicides, heightened risks for public safety officers and needless controversy for parents and children.
It is an ordeal which reads like a John Grisham novel. Now you can read it here. The text of Koziol’s lawsuit explains how these domestic courts are seizing increased controls over our children for fee and revenue generating purposes to their ultimate detriment, why our society is suffering as a consequence and how the moral fiber of an entire nation is harmed.
If you have a similar ordeal which needs public exposure, feel free to contact Leon for a free publication consultation at (315) 796-4000. He is being retained by abused parents to write books. As a published author his professional services can be reviewed at Leon Koziol.com
Welcome to Kangaroo Chronicles, Part Two. It’s actually an upgraded version of Part One: “Daddy’s Got A Gun, What’s He Gonna Do?” It may be lengthy for some but could save you greater time spent on needless court battles and the extensive fees which go with it.
The added content also answers questions which came from the original version and contains valuable lessons to better manage your own cases. You can learn much from our recent three part series. We are available to assist you in your own complaints to regulatory and law enforcement agencies or book publishing needs. Call our office at (315) 380-3420 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000 for further information.
Welcome to Kangaroo Chronicles, our third in a series of posts directed to our nation’s divorce and family courts. In our first series, King’s Chronicles, we gave you an inside look at how government power is abused by self-serving judges such as Dan King in Lowville, New York. In Kendra’s Chronicles, we showed how a money oriented family court can harm innocent children and third parties.
What could two little girls in grade school know about Koslosky’s hidden agendas? They were there to be exploited for purposes of harming their dad as a messenger of reform. It is about as sick as any government can get. But when these two “clients” come of age, one heck of a lawyer malpractice action will easily pay for their college educations. This is especially true now that their dad’s income has been maliciously harmed by their lawyer contrary to any logical benefit to them. It may even cause you to consider a malpractice action for your own children.
Since 2010, we’ve brought you real life stories that get more shocking with each passing year. We’ve also backed them up with solid proof and later vindications. But you’ll have to brace yourselves on this one. It really did happen and should cause every parent to look into the backgrounds of the lawyers for their childen. Such appointments are made without any input or permission from those who know these “clients” best.
Daddy’s Got A Gun, What’s He Gonna do?”
By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
This is a question put before a New York judge, one of more than 30 assigned to my family matters since an uncontested divorce was turned into a political spectacle following my run for Congress in 2006. Some judges were removed on my motions for bias, others stuck around long enough to do damage until their misconduct was exposed and a few are no longer on the bench.
However the question did not concern me. I have never owned a gun and would not know how to use one. It was directed at Koslosky’s own dad and it occurred during a family dispute about red skin potatoes more than 50 years earlier at the Koslosky dinner table. Yes you’re reading that correctly and, okay, I know what you’re going to say: what’s this got to do with Leon, his girls or a custody case in 2009?
Good question. The answer starts with the difference between our medical and legal professions. Bar associations have opposed specialty designations, leaving the public to chance the qualifications of an attorney in a particular area of litigation. In Koslosky’s case I had been making the argument that he had no marriage or children to give him a background for representing children. In addition he was abusing our tax dollars to concoct lucrative conflicts.
To overcompensate for these defects and a physical disability, he took out his childhood experiences on my little girls by creating drama to harm their dad in any way possible. Forget the clear ethical misconduct, the moral depravity was sufficient to warrant Koslosky’s removal and ethics charges at the very least.
But the appointing judges were delighted by all this as it fit in with their agenda for punishing my reform efforts. They kept him in place for seven profitable years connecting with his arguments as if they had pre-planned them. These judges went to extreme lengths to overlook his abuses of our court system.
In Judge King’s court, for example, Koslosky was appointed to my support case as recently as February, 2015 despite his earlier removal by another judge for counter-productive involvement. This will now escalate drama to levels completely beyond the jurisdiction of a support matter. It also shows how misconduct is rewarded when you play the game.
So when it came time for William Koslosky to justify himself, he went off on a rant about his personal life having nothing to do with the case he was being paid for. Worse yet, Judge Walsh-Hood did nothing to contain his harangue. But in a bizarre twist, Koslosky did much more damage here by evincing a childhood disorder and personal hatred for his own father which obviously played out not only in my case but upon countless other unsuspecting fathers and children.
Prior to his commitment to federal prison, New York’s top jurist, Chief Justice Sol Wachtler stated in an often cited opinion that you can indict a ham sandwich under the laws of this state. While on the bench he directed court staff to investigate a lawyer to harm his law license because he was getting too close to the judge’s mistress. That sort of demented misconduct and sandwich analogy apply with greater abuses in lawyer ethics where guilt is easily found on a substandard level of proof and no jury right.
Koslosky’s misconduct was ratified by his employer courts through their inaction alone, and that makes a mockery of justice in all my cases. It warrants an investigation by the U. S. Justice Department because a self regulated state system will manipulate the rules to extinguish a critic while protecting their own. My case is exactly that, and many more exist around the country which should move the American public to protest inasmuch as these are the forums where justice is supposed to be served, not crushed.
It’s one thing to advocate for children, not your own, with no relevant background, but quite another to take out your childhood disorders upon infant clients and their fit, loving dads. It gets more bizarre when you take a look at Koslosky’s statements in their greater context. You have to consider yourself an attorney or concerned mom or dad when you read this. Here is what he stated:
“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.”
Come again?! Where’s the “smoking gun” here, pardon the pun. Koslosky’s dad was a police officer who in the day probably kept his gun at his side especially when assuring the security needs of a family which could be threatened in this line of duty. The aged ingrate son should have known this when he defamed his dad so long after his passing. As for different kinds of potatoes, how does this lead to a conclusion that mom was in danger?
Even assuming those fears were real in Koslosky’s mind at the time, why are they being brought up in a custody case involving another family 50 years later? The obvious answer is that William Koslosky was concocting billable hours at taxpayer expense and endeavoring a connection of some kind that only a psychiatrist could figure out. Lots of luck doctor!
Clearly something else occurred in Billy’s childhood which is being kept from the court. The impacted litigants and children are entitled to know more about this proffered event which their lawyer felt was so important to them. In this case, we taxpayers are also paying that lawyer to abuse court appointments for the suppression of free speech and citizen reforms.
A report is currently being prepared for Justice Department review in light of the Walter Scott murder and my ordeal here which details the foregoing civil rights violations and court corruption. It will include conclusive proof of a scheme by William Koslosky to lodge sworn papers with false factual assertions that I had filed motions to have my law license reinstated in family court (giving the impression of incompetence).
There was no such motion in the court record anywhere. Not only is this a serious abuse and fraud upon our courts, disregarded by New York’s attorney and judicial authorities, but it harmed the “clients” who rely on me for income and their family reputation. When nothing was done to remedy this grave injustice, Koslosky lodged more false sworn statements.
Everyone knows that discrimination against male parents in our nation’s family courts remains widespread. It is a curiously accepted perversion of equal rights verified by Census Bureau statistics and other reports showing that 85% of all support payers are men and 90% of contested custody cases favor women. Even judges, politicians and legal experts concede the undeniable despite its harmful effects upon veterans, innocent children and overcrowded courts and prisons. So why has nothing been done to rectify the clear injustices well into our 21st Century?
The first answer is the obvious one: unequal classifications of “custodial” and “non-custodial” parents facilitate money transfers which can then be exploited to divert finite resources to lawyers, state coffers and third party bank accounts. This must occur so that the “experts” can direct America on how its children should be raised despite their own lack of example or acceptable standards. Fit parents who simply choose to live apart must compete for court awards while demonstrating their parenting skills at a very dear price to families and children. In short, discrimination is profitable, no different than slavery or underpaid women.
The second answer is political: the principles embodied within our Constitution can be twisted to suit the politics of a given day. So, for example, African-Americans were not considered citizens in the 1850s, hence they had no standing to bring a civil rights case challenging slavery, see Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857). After the Civil War, they were citizens but made to live separate from the “more equal” ones, Plessey v Ferguson, 163 US 165 (1896). Women were not citizens under the 15th Amendment even after the Civil War. Hence, they were incompetent to vote in the 1872 national elections, United States v Susan B. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (1873).
More than 150 years later, it seems that little has changed with respect to the same principles when applied to fathers seeking to obtain more time with their offspring and equal authority in childrearing. This point was made evident in a trilogy of cases brought by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol, entitled Parent v New York; Koziol v Lippman; and Koziol v Peters. As stated at www.leonkoziol.com, this is the last in a three part series we call the Civil Rights Trilogy, designed to stimulate your participation and support behind a growing movement to reform our nation’s divorce and family courts.
Today we focus on the last case. Like the earlier two, it was analyzed in a Memorandum of Law filed last week by Dr. Koziol in the case of Koziol v King. The latest one comes as a result of the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling which criticized lower federal courts for abusing an abstention doctrine to dismiss meritorious civil rights cases such as the Civil Rights Trilogy. A relevant excerpt is attached. The Koziol v Peters case could well be compared to the experience of Susan B. Anthony when she litigated her rights in the same federal court in northern New York. Indeed, she faced everything from standing and jurisdiction issues to the deprivation of her jury rights before being convicted for the federal offense of voting in a congressional election.
In Koziol’s case, his children, law license and livelihood were seized also without a jury in retaliation for his exercise of citizen rights. Invidious targeting of his activity was remarkably similar. And, in an ironic twist, his first license suspension for conscientious opposition to unjust support orders came in the same city of Rochester, New York where Ms. Anthony was arrested. It occurred in a court room dedicated to her achievements. Put simply, there is little to distinguish Koziol’s modern ordeal from the one faced by Ms. Anthony. While being prosecuted, she continued to defy oppression with bold outspokenness and a refusal to pay her fine upon conviction. Today, we find a man seeking to overcome long held prejudices regarding a father’s place in the childrearing hierarchy. Like the 19th Century judges dismissing sound human rights principles, Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissed the ones put before him two centuries later, to wit:
1) Does a father truly have an equal right to raise his offspring?
2) Can the state abuse licensing authority to censor free speech and reform?
3) Is it not a federal court’s duty to safeguard federal rights when the state violates them?
In follow-up to our August 4, 2014 post, today we bring you Part Two of our trilogy concerning a prior test case brought by parental rights advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol in Parent v New York. As explained, the United States Supreme Court recently handed down a ruling which showed that the test case was properly litigated, both in the lower federal court (yesterday’s post) and on appeal before the Second Circuit federal appeals court in New York City.
A relevant excerpt from Dr. Koziol’s memorandum of law in support of a preliminary injunction in the new case is attached. As stated, we are dedicating this trilogy to all parents abused in our nation’s divorce and family courts. We would like to especially thank all those volunteers who rallied behind our cause two years ago. It turns out, you folks were correct as well in this movement to restore integrity and justice in our states’ third branch of government. Kindly share this post with others. We continue to rely on donations, additionally offering a Court Program to assist self-represented parents or those anxious to reduce costly litigation.
In addition, such dismissals were being abused to engage in further encroachments upon constitutional rights. In Koziol’s case, the 2011 dismissal was exploited by state agents to escalate their retributions for his valid criticisms and reform efforts concerning abusive and lucrative bench and bar practices in divorce and Family Court. In short, Mr. Koziol’s longstanding position against application of Younger abstention was proven correct. However, in order to rehabilitate the reputation damage caused by this dismissal, an excerpt from Koziol’s recently filed memorandum of law is attached.
Many parents suffered a similar fate, and we had hoped to intervene for their benefit and assistance. Unfortunately resources were lacking, donations insufficient, and retributions so severe that we were forced to question our every move. The current action explains it all. Beginning with this post, we will be publishing a trilogy from the same memorandum to convince our followers how we were right all along. We are dedicating this trilogy to all parents abused by a system which is getting increasingly out of control.
What started out as an idiotic suggestion in a back-room meeting at the Governor’s office turned into a decision hailed by constituent pet owners as the most brilliant to date from the Cuomo administration. Reeling from a corruption investigation investigating his own corruption commission, Governor Cuomo today announced a decision to revive the Moreland Commission which he disbanded only months ago halfway into its assignment. Predictably, no person of stature cared to take part due to fears of state retribution and no court willing to provide justice.
Citing monarchial immunity from New York’s pre-Revolution Constitution, Cuomo is alleged to have issued edicts to the effect that his taxpayer financed corruption commission should be focused upon everyone but himself. When that position backfired, one staffer suggested that two felines be appointed to co-chair the new commission. Outraged over this idea, Cuomo is said to have responded, “How am I gonna control things my way with a couple of (expletive) cats heading up this (expletive) commission which got me into all this trouble in the first place?”
However, when the staffer explained the logic behind it, a desperate Governor began to listen intently, smiling and nodding in stock fashion until his enthusiastic support was given. If there is one thing the public knew about cats, they cannot be controlled by anyone. Quietly strutting around homes all across America, these family favorites do essentially nothing while getting free meals at their beckon meow. As the astute staffer put it, “these kitties got it better than welfare recipients, and their independence is beyond question. This Bharara character has no chance if the idea catches on Andy.”
And so it went at a news conference held at Cuomo’s summer retreat in the CATskill Mountains. It was a startling scene which had one Times reporter choking on his hour glass. Two attractive felines were placed on a table next to the podium as the Governor announced his new co-cats. Their resumes were indeed impressive, offered by a concerned couple tired of hearing about government corruption. No criminal background, no ties to any politician, and a wit to make anyone laugh. Introduced from right to left were Dr. Cocoa Katz and District Attorney Charmin Whiskers. The Governor explained his decision before opening the floor to the media through a cat interpreter. An AP correspondent was the first to stand up.
“Governor, not for nothing, but a pair of cats to head up the new Moreland Commission? Have you finally lost your marbles?”
“Look John, you guys are always hounding me about ethics and independence. Now you got nothing on me with these cats. Why don’t you direct your questions to them?”
“Okay, then, kitties, tell us more about this Commission. Will both major political parties be represented among its members?”
After a moment of intense silence, Dr. Katz began to meow the responses to all questions while an interpreter translated everything to an unprecedented gathering of dignitaries. In contrast, Attorney Whiskers simply looked over this audience with only passing interest.
“Of course both parties, the felines AND the canines, will be represented on this new Commission. We also intend to have participants from major third parties such as the Feathered Friends Party and the Fins and Crawling Things Party. In fact, Attorney Whiskers and I have already suggested a Siberian Husky and Golden Retriever to join us as co-chairs, but we cannot interfere with the other party’s decision-making authority.”
A CBS news team was quick to seize upon this leak of information to craft a flaw in the new Commission for an eager national viewing audience. “So what you’re saying then is that there’s already some in-fighting going on with the other political party?”
“Not at all. Like our party, they follow the democratic process. Right now they’re in the midst of an election involving two dogs named Peanut and Quasimodo. Apparently they won some kind of ugly dog contest out in California, and we’re told that beauty must be followed by the beast if the politicians are going to take us seriously. It’ll put more teeth into our final report if you get my drift. When they decide, you’ll be the first to know.”
“What will the Commission be investigating?” asked a reporter from the New York Post.
“The usual things: stray cats, abused dogs, animal shelters and more federal funding for sanitary parks. As long as the other party is still voting, we’re looking to commission a study on why our canine counter-parts can’t use litter boxes like we do.”
“What does any of this have to do with corruption at the state Capitol?” asked a USA Today journalist.
“For decades now, the public has watched elected leaders taking dumps all over our halls of government. They come up with all kinds of ways to control our behavior while making a mockery of their own. Soon there’ll be nothing left of our Constitution. The people are tired of cleaning up their mess with our hard earned taxes. So we’ve got to clean up this mess once and for all. We’re the cats to do it. If we can figure a way to get a dog to use a litter box, it’ll provide valuable insight for making politicians do the same.”
“You know, this new Moreland Commission is beginning to sound quite productive and trustworthy,” concluded a reluctant observer from another news organization. “Will you remain committed to the end, or can we expect more of the same?”
“I can assure you that we will be purrrr- suing every complaint. Look, the people are fed up to their gills with all this corruption. They’re getting the impression that no one can be trusted to govern their affairs. One of our members is so upset that you guys are calling him the Grumpy Old Cat. That’s why Andy came up with this fantastic idea for us to head up his new Commission. That Grumpy Cat is being considered for our director’s spot, and you gotta admit, he looks a heck of a lot better than the last one.”
“I got a question,” asserted an eager reporter. “What about the other co-chair? He hasn’t mewed about anything here. Doesn’t he have an opinion?”
All eyes were suddenly fixed upon the other cat who until this point had demurred entirely to his partner for the answers. Indifferent to the attention he never sought, Attorney Whiskers finally spoke up…
“Hey, do I look like I care about any of this? I’m just here for the cat food.”
July 31, 2014– Yesterday, we released the formal complaint in the federal lawsuit filed by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol on July 29, 2014. As explained, it challenges First Amendment censorship and state retributions upon Dr. Koziol’s testimony before the New York (Moreland) Commission on Public Corruption. In less than twenty-four hours, numerous inquiries have resulted from across the country. To answer some of them here, an excerpt from the lawsuit is attached which explains which posts on our site have been targeted by the Albany Committee on Professional Standards. Also, yesterday, we released the first page excerpt from the lawsuit memorandum of law which shows how prior cases were properly pursued.
It should be emphasized that the Governor appoints judges to the higher courts engaged in the attorney regulatory process in addition to four of the eleven members on the state Judicial Conduct Commission and all the members of the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. It should also be emphasized that the lawsuit is based, in part, upon the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sprint Communications v Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (December 10, 2013). By unanimous ruling, the Court criticized lower federal courts which had been dismissing lawsuits simply because parallel state cases were pending, i.e. divorce, custody and support.
Known as the Younger abstention doctrine, it was used by a federal appeals court in New York City to dismiss Koziol’s test case in Parent v State and by a lower federal court in Koziol v Peters. Because such abstention does not go to the merits of the dismissed cases, as fate and justice would have it, the earlier cases can now be resurrected in the current lawsuit because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. To put it simply, Leon Koziol was correct all along regarding his position against the exploitation of the now clarified Younger abstention doctrine.
Unfortunately, we have received numerous complaints from similarly injured parents whose federal cases (usually self represented) were dismissed for identical reasons. We would have liked to intervene in those cases as an amicus party (Friend of the Court) to assist such victims. However, resources are needed to do this, and as you can see from the attached excerpt, the state is attacking us relentlessly on all fronts.
For this reason, we need your help. Kindly make your donations to this very worthy cause today. You can also visit our other site www.parentingrightsinstitute.com to order the valuable court program which has helped so many parents avoid the high cost of divorce and Family Court. Not surprisingly, this program is also being targeted. The institute office can be reached at (315) 380-3420 and Dr. Koziol can be reached directly at (315) 796-4000. This is all more important than you know, if for no other reason than to protect the inalienable rights and children we cherish.