No.

____________

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

______________________________
In re: Leon R. Koziol,

Petitioner

___________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit

_________________
PETITION

_________________
June 14, 2016
Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
1336 Graffenburg Road
New Hartford, N.Y. 13413
(315) 796-4000

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

This Petition for Writ of Certiorari raises:

1) The importance of First Amendment rights as
applied to our third branch of government,
2) The protected role of fathers in our families
and institutions of American society, and
3) Supervisory jurisdiction to assure a fair and
orderly process for vindicating federal rights.
A) Did a federal Court of Appeals improperly
deny mandamus upon a federal judge who
impaired access to this Court and refused to
respect father-daughter relationships seized
by state judges in retaliation for petitioners
reform efforts and testimony before a state
Commission on Public Corruption?
B) Did the Second Circuit commit fatal error by
refusing to grant extraordinary relief to a
civil rights attorney whose children, home,
office, assets, reputation, licenses, happiness
and liberties were seized due to offensive
speech regarding court corruption after ten
years of fit parenting, 23 years of stellar
practice and 50 years of model citizenship?

List of All Parties Below:

LEON R. KOZIOL, individually and as natural
parent of Child A and Child B,
DANIEL KING, individually and as New York
Family Court Judge;
JAMES GORMAN, individually and as Family Court
Magistrate;
JAMES TORMEY, individually and as Administrator
for the Fifth District;
ROBERT ROSE, JOHN LAHTINEN, EDWARD
SPAIN and LESLIE STEIN, individually and as
members of New York Appellate Third Department;
MONICA DUFFY, individually and as Chairwoman
Counsel for Committee on Professional Standards;
STEVEN ZAYAS, as an individual and investigator
for said Committee;
NICOLE CHRISTENSEN, individually and as
supervisor for Oneida County Support Collection Unit
JOHN CENTRA, individually and as member of the
New York Appellate Division;
KELLY HAWSE-KOZIOL, individually
Custodial Parent for the state;

and

as

WILLIAM KOSLOSKY, individually and as state

Attorney for the Child

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities..................................................

ii

Opinions Below..........................................................

Jurisdiction................................................................

Constitution and Statutes.......................................... 1

Statement of the Case................................................. 3
A. Procedural Background. 3
B. Factual Background... 6
Reasons for Granting Writ................................. 13
Point One: The Second Circuit disregarded
the standard and propriety for mandamus relief
in an extraordinary case featuring a civil rights
attorney whose children, home, office, assets,
reputation, licenses, happiness and liberties
were seized due to offensive but accurate
speech regarding family court corruption16
Point Two: The Court of Appeals committed
fatal error by refusing to take action beyond the
lower court through injunctive relief upon state
proceedings infected by prejudice and bad faith
which are indisputable on this shocking record.. 20
Point Three: Petitioners vital message of
reform for abused fathers and non-custodial
mothers was sufficiently offensive to trigger

systemic judicial retributions over time

that cannot be remedied absent
extraordinary relief

27

Conclusion

35

Appendix Volume One

Order of United States Court of Appeals
denying mandamus, March 17, 2016

A- 1

Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition,

November 11, 2015 to Second Circuit.................

A-2

October 9, 2015 Anti-filing order on

lower court motion of August 25, 2015

A-51

August 10, 2015 order of district judge

denying Plaintiffs timely filed motion
for extension of time to appeal..

A-64

May 22, 2015 Decision/Order dismissing

Plaintiffs civil rights case A-71
Appendix Volume Two
Plaintiffs civil rights complaint dated
July 15, 2014 pursuant to 42 USC 1983..

passim

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
American Express v Transamerica
Insurance, 380 F.2d 277 (2nd Cir. 1967) ..33
Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998). 30
Beechwood Restorative v Leeds,
436 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2006)................................... 14, 21
Caban v Mohammed, 441 US 584 (1979) 28
Cheney v U.S. District Court,
542 US 367 (2004). 15
Daniels v Williams, 474 US 327 (1986)..................... 33
Erdmann v Stevens, 458 F.2d 1205
(2nd Cir. 1972)

27

Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908).. 6

Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925) 31
Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964). 33
Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973) 20
In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany,
745 F. 3d 30 (2nd Cir. 2014).. 33
In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (1987). 33

Kerr v United States District Court,

426 US 394 (1976) 15
Koziol v Hawse-Koziol,
60 AD 3d 155 (4th Dept 2009) 5
Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). 32
Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010) . 21
Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516
(NDNY 2011) 4, 14
Parham v J.R., 442 US 584 (1979)

31

Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367

(NDNY 2011). 29
Phillip v Bowen, 278 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 2002) 20
Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953)................... 13
Snyder v Phelps, 562 US ___ (2011).......................... 27
Sprint Communications v Jacobs,
571 US ___ (December 10, 2013). 4
Supreme Court of Virginia v
Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980)................... 6, 15
Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) 28, 31
United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82
(2nd Cir. 2011) 5, 6, 35
Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315

(Fam. Ct. 2001)

31

Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971) 4

Constitution
U.S. Const. Art. III.. 12
U.S. Amend 1............................................. ..

U.S. Amend 14..................................................

Statutes
28 USC 1651

42 USC 651 30, 32

42 USC 1983

........................................................ 14

FRAP 5(a) 3, 15
Secondary Authority
Stephen Baskerville, Is There Really
a Fatherhood Crisis? Independence
Review, vol. VIII, Spring 2004

32

OPINIONS BELOW
The final order of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit was issued on March 17, 2016
and is reprinted in the Appendix at page 1a. It was
not issued as a published opinion or summary order.
Dispositions of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York upon which it was
directed were issued on October 9, 2015 (anti-filing
order); August 10, 2015 (order denying extension of
appeal) and May 22, 2015 (order dismissing civil
rights complaint). They are also reprinted in the
Appendix at pages 51, 64 and 71, respectively.
JURISDICTION
The final order of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit was entered on March 17, 2016.
Jurisdiction is invoked here pursuant to 28 USC
section 1651 (All Writs Act) and 28 USC 1254(1)
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS/ STATUTES
The First Amendment provides that Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides in relevant part
that No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any
1

person of life, liberty or property without due process

of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of
the laws.
28 USC 1651(a) provides: The Supreme Court and all
courts established by Act of Congress may issue all
writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their
respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages
and principles of law.
42 USC 1983 provides in relevant part: Every person
who under color of law of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom or usage, of any state subjects,
or causes any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any right, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law.
Section 236B(1)(e) of New Yorks Domestic Relations
Law provides a definition of custodial parent to be a
parent to whom custody of a child or children is
granted by a valid agreement between the parties or
by an order or decree of the court.
Section 240-1(a) of the New York Domestic Relations
Law provides in relevant part: Custody and child
support; orders of protection. 1. (a) In any action or
proceeding brought (3) for a divorce... the court shall
require verification of the status of any child to the
marriage with respect to such childs custody and
support, including any prior orders, and shall enter
orders for custody and support as, in the courts
discretion, justice requires, having regard for the
circumstances of the case and of the respective parties
and to the best interests of the child
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Procedural Background
This petition arises from an unpublished order of the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals which dismissed a
mandamus action brought pursuant to FRAP Rule 21
and the All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651(a). It was directed
to a series of purportedly final orders issued by two
judges of the Northern District of New York.
The first was a May 22, 2015 Decision and Order of
Judge Gary Sharpe which dismissed petitioners civil
rights action on its pleadings, A-71. Filed on July 26,
2014 under 42 USC 1983, it was based on growing
retributions in disciplinary and domestic courts since
two prior actions were dismissed in 2011 and 2012.
Federal claims included First and Fourteenth
Amendment violations set forth at pages 26-29 of the
Complaint reprinted at Volume II of the Appendix.
A second order was filed by Judge Sharpe on August
10, 2015 denying petitioner a timely motion to extend
a deadline for appealing the earlier decision, A-64. It
was based on a missed deadline which fell on the day
after Fathers Day, 2015 when this father learned
that his children had been relocated and irrevocably
alienated from him. Exigent circumstances satisfied
the good cause factor of FRAP Rule 4(a)(5). However
Judge Sharpe was infected by an inherent prejudice.
The same Judge Sharpe brought his own action
against petitioner on August 25, 2015 for an antifiling order. That order was granted by District Chief
Judge Glen Suddaby on October 9, 2015, A-51. It
included a proviso declaring an appeal right to that
3

order to be in bad faith, thereby severely impairing

access to this Court in light of the sanctions and fines
earlier imposed by Judge Sharpe.
Another purportedly final order was entered by Judge
Sharpe in March, 2016 which has not been appealed.
It assessed opposing counsel fees. The August 10 and
October 9, 2015 orders were appealed and await
decision. However such orders induced Family Judge
King to issue a protection (gag) order on petitioners
website on November 25, 2015. Petitioners motion for
a stay of that order was deemed academic in the
mandamus dismissal of March 17, 2016 A-1.
Petitioner filed his latest plenary action based on the
seizure of his children and further suspensions of his
law license in 2013 and 2014. These were new events
and harsher retaliation fueled by effective approval of
earlier misconduct through an abuse of abstention
and other roadblocks to this court for a vindication of
federal rights, Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971).
In Sprint Communications v Jacob, 571 US ___
(2013), this Court issued a unanimous rebuke to lower
federal courts for an abuse of Younger abstention to
dismiss federal claims. The 2011 and 2012 decisions
fell into that category. The Second Circuit issued a
summary order on June 18, 2012 which affirmed a
dismissal in Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516
(NDNY 2011) but on grounds of Younger Abstention.
It declined to entertain petitioners federal claims.
Hence, the 2014 action was proper on both law and
facts. But its gross mistreatment empowered state
actors to unconscionable levels, causing petitioner to
seek international protection in Paris. Over 100
4

orders and decrees emerged after more than thirtyfive (35) trial judges were assigned to splintered,
conflicting and interlocutory proceedings. Nearly
every one of these dispositions under New York law
required a distinct appellate perfection process
because a substantial right was implicated and
irreparable harm would otherwise occur if they were
individually neglected or waived. 1
On August 7, 2014 Judge Gary Sharpe issued an
order denying a temporary restraining order sought
by petitioner. Dismissal motions and a cross-motion
for preliminary injunction followed. They were made
returnable on submission in December, 2014. During
that period, an earlier mandamus action sought,
among other things, removal of Judge Sharpe from
the case and its transfer to another federal district.
Grounds included fatal (genetic based) misconduct of
Judge Sharpe condemned by a unanimous court in
United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011). It
also raised collegiality with judges necessarily named
in this action pursuant to the rule laid out in Ex Parte

Such appeals were further hampered by a unique rule under New

York law which enables a trial level judge to control the contents of a
record as its final arbiter and thereby insulate issues from review. In this
case, the first assigned (divorce) judge, John Grow, relied upon this rule to
subvert petitioners first consolidated appeal of four decisions over a single
year, citing Blackoff v Blackoff, 392 NYS2d 26 (1 Dept. 1977). Because
the same judge had deferred decision on petitioners constitution and
custody claims on January 11, 2007, over the fathers objections, the
question of notice to the state Attorney General pursuant to New York
CPLR 1012 was placed in limbo. Moreover the companion notice rule
under Executive Law 71, applicable to the judges themselves, was never
recognized in early proceedings. This became a dispositive injury in that
first consolidated appeal because it usurped access to the Supreme Court in
the state system, Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 1435 (4 Dept. 2009).

Young, 209 US 123 (1908) and Supreme Court of

Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980).
That mandamus action was dismissed on February
18, 2015 on grounds that mandamus is a rare
exception to standard appellate channels. In both
mandamus orders, the Second Circuit disregarded
crucial human rights and alternate extraordinary
relief made available by this Courts ruling in Cheney
v United States District Court, 542 US 367 (2004).
As will be shown through later argument, a vast
segment of law cited in support of the fathers case
was ignored in Judge Sharpes May 22, 2015 decision
after being re-cited in the first mandamus petition
served upon him in November, 2014. Judge Sharpe
selectively presented higher authority to concoct a
fictional case for dismissal in further suppression of
the father-attorneys criticisms and parental liberties.
Judge Sharpe was then able to issue sanctions, fines
and fees as a pretext for harming protected activities,
thereby joining his state colleagues. His torturing of
the record and highly disparaging decisional content
were designed to discredit the father, his message and
exposure of judge misconduct including that of Judge
Sharpe made public again from the Cossey case.
B. Factual Background
This ordeal began on January 5, 2006 when this
father filed for an uncontested divorce based upon two
years of successful separation. The parents had given
birth to two children in 2002 and 2003. At all times,
childrearing was cooperative, both parents were fit,

and there were no reports to indicate anything but a

promising future for all concerned, A-II passim.
This productive environment gradually deteriorated
through state intervention when the ex-spouse
employed a divorce lawyer seated on the local
attorney ethics committee, A-17, 18. After years of
challenges to the parents agreed upon support
obligations, a divorce judge ruled on October 8, 2008
that the amounts were proper. By then, needless
conflicts had been fueled between the parents.
For example, this lawyer disclosed confidential
information during his representation to undermine
the fathers campaigns for state Senate and county
executive, hence impairing child support capacities
contrary to client interests. A protection order was
issued against that lawyer in 2007 but no discipline
resulted for ethics violations, A-17. Instead a first
time ethics prosecution began the next year against
petitioner based on a collection of stale, withdrawn
and unknown grievances. When petitioner raised
constitutional claims regarding his invidious
treatment in both domestic and disciplinary forums,
he was ignored or referred elsewhere, A-17.
Accordingly, petitioner embarked upon a campaign to
secure accountability in these courts, employing
contemporary modes of self governance to remedy
father discrimination, abuse of ethics processes and
oppressive practices in his case and others across the
country. Over the next eight years, it included
organizing activity, civil rights forums, blog postings,
editorials, media conferences, public testimony,
parent conventions, fundraising efforts and lobbying
initiatives in Congress, New York City and state
capital, among other venues, A-II passim.
7

Consistent among petitioners activity was a quest to

secure equal treatment for fathers in Americas
domestic relations courts. This quest was based on a
network of complaints, studies and suicide cases
submitted to petitioners website and his National
League of Fathers, Inc. with nominal membership due
to the retributions here, Id. It was also based on
personal victim status which continues unabated.
Mandatory custody classifications were employed by
the parents in separation proposals in 2003 and 2004,
A-18. The term baby Koziol unborn was required to
describe a second child to the marriage but ignored in
custody decisions, Id. For legal separation to occur,
custodial parent could only mean the mother under
these circumstances and prevailing gender based
doctrine, including primary care and sibling unity.
The father was relegated to sub-class parental status.
When the respondent-mother announced an agenda
for replacing petitioner with a wealthy, childless and
unfit substitute, petitioner filed for relief in various
state courts as his case became highly contested and
splintered among general jurisdiction judges, family
court, assorted magistrates and hearing officers, some
overlapping, and supported for judicial office by
competing lawyers at the local bar associations.
Petitioner was not a member of any such bar, and
those avenues for relief were foreclosed anyway due to
his reform activity which threatened the vested
interests of these lawyers. Such concealed bias, along
with petitioners civil rights history in the same
judicial district, resulted in the chaos depicted
throughout the records below and in this petition.
With each complaint, news conference or public
8

criticism, a proximate act of retaliation arose among

state judges, a lawyer appointed for petitioners
children, state support agents and even local police. 2
Joint targeting derived from interacting domestic and
attorney regulatory processes. The retributions were
so severe and pervasive that petitioner was forced to
file for every nominal parenting liberty, exemplified
by a hearing officers denial of a single overnight stay
for petitioner and children at a remote mountain lake.
Between 2008 and present, petitioner received
unsolicited reports of father bias and targeting by
lawyers and state judges in New Yorks Fifth Judicial
District where he resided and practiced law, A-II
passim. They included a court reporter relaying
custody bias in 2009, a 2011 e-mail from a parent
disclosing judge comments at a ball game, and ethics

Police threats became a daily fear of petitioner after a veritable swat

team converged upon his homestead in October, 2010 accompanied by
state and county tax agents to provoke a violent arrest based merely upon a
private support debt between self-sustaining parents. Such show of force
comprised retribution for recent news reports regarding petitioners civil
rights cases and law license suspension. This private debt was restructured
by parental agreement in a state Supreme Court order issued on August 23,
2010, but the states vast involvement as a non-party empowered it to
violate that agreement in a manner which cannot be reconciled by common
sense obligors. Even the first judge to review this event in the states
capital questioned the involvement of tax agents later explained to be
acting on a lien for support collection purposes acquired from an order
expressly excluding the seized assets. Such police threats were aggravated
by ex-parte petitions which left this petitioner-father-attorney in a constant
state of ambush. For example driving suspensions can be issued without
notice. Hence in May, 2009, three patrol cars converged at the mothers
request during a child exchange for an arrest. Her fraudulent petitions were
dismissed by the time of a hearing on May 3, 2010. But the favorable order
was never formally issued to petitioner to show the clear abuses of our
courts. Coupled with unrecorded hearings, this enabled Family Judge King
to falsify a record for child seizure and incarceration purposes in 2014.

lawyers in 2013 declaring opposition to license

reinstatement as long as the criticisms continued.
An official report in opposition to petitioners third
petition for reinstatement to the practice of law was
prepared or ratified by Third Department respondents
in 2014. It appended seven of 200 blog posts since
2009. One post was a mere dedication to petitioners
recently departed mother reflecting the sadistic
nature of all this. The issues were never prosecuted or
withdrawn, there creating a condition of contempt by
ambush for continued speech.
A motion for change of venue had been denied by the
first assigned divorce judge, and the retributions
escalated over time, yielding a ten year record so
chaotic that it defied rational presentment. The
pleading and motion filings below comprised a good
faith effort to show institutional bias and a concerted
effort to suppress petitioners First Amendment rights
through unlawful retaliation, abuse of judicial office
and activity outside the scope of that office. This was
further corroborated by absurd court orders explained
only by a systemic retaliatory agenda, A-II passim.
Examples too numerous to relate here include
phantom college degrees (PhD and Masters) nowhere
in the record used by respondents Gorman and King,
respectively, to elevate support obligations, a post hoc
condition of prohibited alcohol related gestures
regarding a wedding toast when no evidence of unfit
parenting could be found, threatened removal from
court for making five early objections to narrative
custody testimony of a scorned ex-wife seeking to
establish incompetent family genetic connections,
fabricated admissions to ethical misconduct to prolong
10

law license suspension, and protracted investigatory

processes based, inter alia, on gossip forums and
anonymous complaints to transform an 18 month
suspension into six extant years of punishment, Id.
On the domestic side, Respondent Family Judge
Daniel King exceeded his limited jurisdiction by
defying higher court orders of August 23, 2010 and
December 13, 2013 regarding support violations and
decision received Christmas Eve, 2013 subjecting
petitioner to a battery of forensic orders, arrest and
suspension of child contact, A-22, 23.
These orders were devised outside of judicial scope,
i.e. joint reactions to misconduct complaints passed
among judges at administrative courthouse. They
were based improperly on renewed (prior decided)
issues, a fabricated record from other courts and
public criticisms. A venomous content was evident
throughout these edicts in contrast to countless cases
in the same family court where criminals, drug
abusers and imprisoned felons are given child contact.
Recourse was predetermined or summarily decided
without discovery in both federal and state courts,
and because the respondent mother was favored with
every concoction endeavored, petitioner remains at
risk of contempt by ambush in any effort to see his
precious daughters at school events or elsewhere. His
calls to them since Judge Kings improper assignment
to petitioners family matters have yielded only severe
parental alienation. Since 2013, Respondent King did
nothing to remedy these inhumane deprivations
which inflame petitioner to uncontrolled levels.

11

Respondent mother consummated her agenda to

terminate petitioners parental rights in favor of an
unfit, childless, millionaire substitute through state
power jointly abused by respondents Koslosky, King,
Tormey, Gorman and Centra. When his childrens
long concealed residence was discovered on Fathers
Day, 2015, an infinitely tortured petitioner was forced
to leave the area, missing a next day appeal deadline.
Petitioner was compelled to file numerous appeals to
such orders to avoid potential waiver. For example,
during one appeal on December 13, 2013, respondent
Judge Centra issued a stay order based on structural
flaws in Family Judge Kings personally crafted
evidentiary hearing of November 25, 2013, A-25. That
hearing occurred on a first appearance with no notice
or recording and ten minute case limitations.
It resulted in the seizure of petitioners children and
absurd evaluation orders beyond conscientious
compliance, Id. However the appeal was summarily
dismissed without explanation one month later after
intervening public criticisms. In short, petitioner
could not logistically appeal so many punitive orders
over ten years, thereby leaving false college degrees
and bizarre parental conditions as the law of the case.
This petition is now crucial to remedy a colossal
failure in human rights. It seeks to assure aggrieved
citizens that a right of access to our highest court is
real and protected distinctively under the First
Amendment and Article III of the Constitution. This
is unquestionably an extraordinary case ripe for a
writ to this Court in aid of its own jurisdiction.

12

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT

This is a case drawing upon both the supervisory and
adjudicative authority of our nations highest court to
rectify family court processes in the states that shock
the conscience, Rochin v California, 342 US 165
(1953). Through an unchecked expansion of parens
patriae authority over Americas children, local family
judges have been able to abuse equity jurisdiction to
invade every aspect of private life. Such power can
exceed that exercised by the NSA, IRS and CIA.
A resulting erosion of fundamental rights ranging
from free speech to gender equality has vastly
increased the number of aggrieved parents seeking
recourse in our federal courts. Petitioner can verify
through his reform activity underway in virtually all
states that unfettered abuses are leading to elevated
atrocities. Due to antiquated deference practices, the
courts charged with the highest duty of safeguarding
federal rights are actually promoting the violations
through inaction. This case is a watershed example.
In Rochin, this court was called upon to review a court
process featuring a prosecution made possible by the
forcible removal of bodily content from an accused to
obtain evidence for a drug conviction. Such a process
was deemed to violate the conscience of civilized
societies. It is one of many cases ignored by the courts
below without explanation presumably due to the lack
of physical invasion and criminal processes here. But
a closer look at the voluminous record in the ten year
process applied to petitioner proves otherwise. It is in
all functional respects a far greater invasion with long
term physical, family and reputation harm.
13

The Rochin opinion became precedent for excessive

force claims under 42 USC 1983 following the
landmark decision for civil rights actions which this
Court handed down in Monroe v Pape, 365 US 167
(1961). That case opened the door to countless victims
of federal law violations who could obtain monetary
relief without physical contact or prosecution, see i.e.
Beechwood Restorative v Leeds, 436 F.3d 147 (2nd Cir.
2006). It was enough that a state regulatory agency
was nit-picking and selectively enforcing laws in
retaliation for misconduct complaints for a health care
facility to recover damages under 42 USC 1983.
This case presents a fact pattern far more egregious
than the license revocations and financial losses at
stake in Beechwood. A federal judge of New Yorks
Northern District was one of the panel (by designation
to the Second Circuit), who decided that case. He also
decided the consolidated case here in Parent v New
York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011). Yet not a
single federal, state or appeals court jurist to date has
addressed that case law. By simply ignoring the law,
they were able to frustrate or foreclose all access to
this Court through protracted abuses of process.
Here the misconduct features a full range of
constitutional violations with seized offspring and
orchestrated civil imprisonment devoid of any crime.
Petitioners due process rights were tortured beyond
recognition due to his public criticisms and exposure
of misconduct in our third branch of government, the
very arena where civil recourse is to be obtained.
In the end, this father was made to pay $75,000 in
tax-free child support in eighteen months under
penalty of incarceration for the unlawful seizure of his
14

daughters to the point of homelessness and fugitive

status. Meanwhile the states custodial parent was
not held accountable for expenditures while engaging
in misconduct of greater public concern to secure it.
She concealed the relocation of children to the home of
an unfit, childless, millionaire on the family court
record for over eight months. This absurd outcome
alone warrants a substantive due process violation
under this Courts shock the conscience standard.
If the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment had not been limited by case law
to inmate victims, it would comprise the textual right
clearly violated here, an ordeal that might be depicted
as judicial water boarding. There is certainly enough
to declare this entire process unconstitutional without
invading absolute immunity which these judges have
raised. Like other cases, Supreme Court of Virginia v
Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980) was ignored.
In Cheney v United States District Court, 542 US 367
(2004), a mandamus action was allowed to proceed
based on executive privilege from disclosure ordered
in a civil action brought by Judicial Watch, Inc. and
Sierra Club. It was granted despite expiration of an
appeal deadline under FRAP Rule 4(a). Relying on the
All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651, and Kerr v United States
District Court, 426 US 394 (1976), it was reiterated
that exceptional circumstances amounting to judicial
usurpation of power will justify mandamus relief.
This is such a case. Appellate recourse is unavailing
due to an egregious abuse of decisional authority, fees,
sanctions, fines, multiple final orders and anti-filing
order. The right to relief is clear and indisputable as
will be further proven with the segments that follow.
15

POINT ONE: The Second Circuit disregarded

the standard and propriety for mandamus relief
in an extraordinary case featuring a civil rights
attorney whose children, home, office, assets,
reputation, licenses, happiness and liberties
were seized due to offensive but accurate
speech regarding family court corruption.
Abuses of the kind exposed by petitioner have turned
our nations divorce and family courts into a trillion
dollar industry, hence why unprecedented retaliation
was inflicted. It remains ongoing and could occur to
any parent or conscientious lawyer. To press the need
for supervisory intervention and extraordinary relief,
the following is only a short list of speech retributions
summarized in a 30-page pleading reprinted at Vol. II
of the Appendix and in the stay application below:

Petitioner was subjected to a first time

ethics prosecution on January 9, 2008 after
23 unblemished years as a successful civil
rights attorney. It was opened on the same
day he exposed the serial misconduct of a
divorce lawyer to a court which, unknown to
petitioner, had named this lawyer to the
ethics committee on that prosecution;

That Committee was disqualified two years

later when the entire Fourth Department
disciplinary/appeals court belatedly ordered
a transfer of petitioners matters to the
Third Department in Albany after a private
conference between presiding justices. It
resulted in a one year license suspension.

16

Petitioner exposed the misconduct of ethics

prosecutors to a point where he was forced
to publicize their witch hunt as the work of
an unethical ethics committee. The
retributions therefore escalated. He was
vindicated when the chief attorney and
deputy lawyers of this Albany committee
were terminated for falsified time sheets;

These lawyers were allowed to resign with

no public charges, criminal or ethical, ever
brought. Such protection contrasted with
treatment of legislators following the
Moreland hearings. U.S. Attorney Preet
Bharara and petitioner testified with the
latter focused on judicial corruption;

These standard bearers of lawyer ethics

were charged with a duty of preventing
overbilling practices that swallow up entire
family estates and college funds. As
representatives of our courts, they violated
the public trust no differently than state
legislators subjected to high prison terms;

The same lawyers targeted petitioners

public forums where divorce lawyers were
exposed by those giving testimony for
ultimate inclusion in a report to the Justice
Department. Petitioner was required to
explain why he did not introduce himself at
those forums as a suspended attorney prior
to first suspension to discredit his work;

The same lawyers were asked by a presiding

Third Department Justice on May 22, 2013
17

what reasons remained to deny petitioners

application for reinstatement to the practice
of law. The reply was simple at a hearing
closed to the public: the ethics committee
would oppose it as long as the public
criticisms and complaints continued;

Domestic and disciplinary retributions

inflicted major distractions from law office
oversight which enabled a secretary to
embezzle six figure amounts from office
accounts. It led to the first suspension in
February, 2010 for back support because
this witch hunt prevented disclosure until
the crimes could be investigated;

Matters purposely left off an office calendar

resulted in a 2015 ethics hearing which
petitioner requested to be opened to the
public. There he defended himself as a crime
victim. A presiding justice responded with
an ethical duty of supervision which was
conceded only to the extent the court had
the same duty over its fired ethics lawyers.
Instead of disbarment, the ethics petition
was confidentially dismissed retroactively.

Petitioners testimony before the Moreland

Commission focused on judge corruption.
Days after its premature dissolution, a
committee report issued on April 8, 2014
opposing the next reinstatement process.
Seven of petitioners 200 blog posts since
2010 were appended without specificity or
charge, thereby ambushing future speech.
18

One post comprised the entire Moreland

testimony, another depicted a program
referring divorce victims to conciliation,
another exposed family judges for fabricated
degrees used to inflate petitioners support
obligations and another comprised a mere
dedication to petitioners departed mother,
adding a sadistic flavor to the retributions;

A protection (gag) order on that site was

vacated on the eve of trial due to a lack of
any threats in its face content after a grossly
overbroad and defamatory prohibition of
assault, stalking, menacing, reckless
endangerment, strangulation, criminal
obstruction of breathing, identity theft,
grand larceny, coercion, or any other
criminal offense nowhere alleged in a
dismissed family court petition;

Petitioner has now been subjected to more

than six years of suspension after multiple
reinstatement denials on an eighteen month
punishment period with no accusation of
any crime. Meanwhile local lawyer Robert
Sossen suffered no loss of license after tax
evasion convictions and jail time on some $2
million in unreported client income;

While career options have been undermined

by support executions that violate a
Supreme Court order by agreement,
marginal income has failed to keep up with
inflated orders due to reputation damage.
This has led to incarceration orders on false

19

pretenses avoided only by chance, third

party rescue or flight to a foreign country.
Civil rights cases are typically won on circumstantial
facts of a violation or crime. Put simply, a guilty party
is not going to admit or overtly evince misconduct. It
is an evidentiary principle especially important when
the violator boasts superior power or sophistication,
see i.e. Beechwood, supra, Phillip v Bowen, 278 F.3d
103 (2nd Cir. 2002)(violations reach a critical mass).
The only logical conclusion to be drawn from these
combined facts is that systemic retributions were
devised or ratified behind closed doors, Gibson v
Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973). It resulted in a chaotic
ordeal related to the extent possible in a pleading
which the district judge callously dismissed as
incomprehensible. In reality, he was insulating the
censorship with pre-discovery dismissals while
abusing his own power to discredit the public critic.
POINT TWO: The Court of Appeals committed
fatal error by refusing to take action beyond the
lower court through injunctive relief upon state
proceedings infected by prejudice and bad faith
which are indisputable on this shocking record.
The loss of livelihood, home, law office, vehicles, boat,
driving privileges, personal liberty, law license,
fiance, unblemished reputation and six figure
savings accumulated over a lifetime was a severe
enough consequence of free speech at the hands of
those charged with the highest duty of safeguarding
it. But the seizure of a loving fathers children purely
for the sake of money and ego was a reprehensible act
20

which exceeded all others. In this case it constituted a

government kidnapping under orchestrated pretenses
which violates the conscience of any civilized society.
Plainly shown in petitioners record, many judges
were forced to step down after prejudicial misconduct
was displayed or uncovered. One of them was a
Syracuse family judge assigned to his custody case.
Petitioner moved for disqualification of Bryan Hedges
based on political espionage disclosed by a chief
family court clerk against a handicapped and since
deceased family judge competitor. It resulted in the
clerks $600,000 civil rights recovery in federal court
only because a court employee, unlike a litigant, is not
subject to judicial immunity defenses.
Petitioner raised the outcome in Morin v Tormey, 626
F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010) for judge removal not only due
to the political retributions on a conscientious court
clerk but because he was opposed to a joint scheme by
the appointed lawyer for his children and the Morin
co-defendant, Judge Hedges to harm his parental
rights in chambers without either parent allowed in
(known as a Lincoln hearing). The motion was
granted over lawyer claims that this judge had a
reputation beyond reproach. Shortly afterward, Judge
Hedges was removed from the family bench altogether
upon admitting to sexual misconduct on his
handicapped five year old niece.
Further relevant, Morin co-defendant James Tormey
was the Syracuse Fifth District Administrative Judge
who sent a politically resistant family court clerk to
distant assignments. Such retributions mirrored
judge assignments upon petitioner corroborating the
source of joint retributions by other respondents
21

named below having offices at that same Syracuse

courthouse. Many assignments were made contrary to
standard practice of retaining judges familiar with a
case or out of proper order with adverse outcomes
along political lines. Petitioner had been an endorsed
candidate for state Senate and potential judge
candidate based on a recommendation of a retired
Supreme Court Justice.
One assignment in particular was made to newly
seated Judge Daniel King in Lowville Family Court.
This occurred despite a Supreme Court judge in the
parties home county with superior jurisdiction to
decide inter-dependent support and real estate issues
both pending before him at the time. It also occurred
despite a veteran judge who had been deciding
custody issues the same year. Petitioner was forced to
travel north instead for numerous hearings and
retributions to such a degree that he lost contact with
his daughters for two years and continuing.
This assignment was intended to finish off the public
critic. Within weeks of his 2013 Moreland Commission
testimony publicized on its website and major media,
the government seizure of petitioners children was
complete. It forced him to seek recourse in federal
court only to be victimized further by Judge Gary
Sharpe as detailed elsewhere. Removal of Family
Judge Daniel King was regularly sought in vain
despite relentless misconduct without remedy due to
systemic judicial bias. It is summarized as follows:
1) A competent jurist does not issue or ratify a
PhD and Masters degree for purposes of
maliciously elevating his public critics child
support for incarceration purposes;
22

2) A competent jurist does not insulate the

foregoing misconduct from appeal and
accountability by coercing a willful support
violation under threat of imprisonment;
3) A competent jurist does not participate in
the concealment of his critics daughters at a
millionaires home on his own family court
record through delays and rationalization.
4) A competent jurist does not accept the clear
fraud and perjury of his critics opposing parent
who testified under oath at a January, 2016
hearing that her required notice of residential
change was confirmed under electronic address
gmai.com. This would be akin to testimony of
a letter successfully mailed from a trash can
outside the post office.
5) A competent jurist does not issue
defamatory forensic orders for the purpose of
discrediting the public message and character
of his critic without competent support of any
kind, only the perjuries of a scorned litigant
having no timely personal knowledge;
6) A competent jurist does not refuse to correct
his own appalling errors by motion of the court,
he does not retain college degrees as the law of
the case while imposing an arrest warrant and
maximum jail term of six months on a
fraudulently supported debt;
7) A competent jurist does not threaten his
critic with removal from a public courthouse at
23

the opening of a custody hearing based on five

objections (two that were granted) to narrative
and unrepresented testimony of a perjuring and
infinitely scorned parenting opponent to create
a record that would justify his prior forensic
weapons of suppression.
8) A competent jurist would not violate a stay
order by an Appellate Justice by issuing orders
suspending his critics parenting time ten days
later on Christmas Eve 2013, thereby placing
that critic in a condition of arrest by ambush
due to conflicting orders;
9) A competent jurist would not sign every
requested show cause order by his critics
parenting opponent after every ex-parte
protection order obtained by her was vacated
since 2006 including a trial where the critic was
not even required to put in a defense.
10) A competent jurist does not ignore an
ongoing extortionist scheme in every decision to
date, to wit: the parenting opponents threat to
a loving father to give up his children to a
millionaire replacement for an end to child
support. Her conduct remains criminal;
11) A competent jurist would not conduct an
evidentiary hearing on a first appearance
without notice, resulting in orders suspending
child contact on such grounds as prohibited
alcohol related gestures when no other unfit
evidence could be offered.

24

12) A competent jurist would not fabricate

such an overbroad prohibition that could not be
understood, and it was directed to a toast at the
wedding of his critics niece. When an appeal
was taken, it was later learned that this
hearing had allegedly not been recorded;
13) A competent jurist does not retain an order
of arrest and confinement of his public critic for
inflated support obligations after proof by the
critics lawyer showed that it was impossible to
comply, to wit: certified funds at full purge
amount, albeit in violation of a 2010 superior
court order, to be paid to an agency without
legal authority to accept it;
14) A competent jurist does not retain forensic
orders in the wake of perjured gmai.com proof
from the only witness supporting those orders
strictly to continue a sadistic campaign of
punishment against his public critic.
15) A competent jurist does not retain forensic
orders on double standards. Judge King
frequents a tavern in Lowville, New York with
his own children while enjoying cocktails that a
barmaid has committed to memory. He has
exhibited all sorts of absurd behavior.
16) A competent jurist does not ignore every
plea for simple phone contact by a father to his
daughters over an 833 day period with sadistic
satisfaction while an unfit millionaire
substitute continues to cement a bond which
has them exhibiting abnormal father hatred.

25

17) A competent jurist does not issue serial

rulings laced with sadistic disparagements of
his critic to avenge accurate disclosures even in
the wake of former veteran family judge and
current Appellate Division Judge John Centra
who emphasized that the real father had no
record to support suspended child contact when
issuing his 2013 stay order.
Significantly the latter appeals court judge is the
jurist who heard arguments on January 9, 2008 when
the ethical misconduct of the ex-spouses divorce
lawyer, newly appointed to the ethics committee, was
exposed. This is the same day when the witch hunt
began. Petitioner continues to be denied parenting
rights while two jailed drug addicts whose child was
removed by a state agency have been given custody
orders in the same Family Court.
Judge Centra issued the appellate court order at the
Syracuse courthouse restraining further proceedings
by Judge King based on a hearing process he found to
be structurally flawed. However he later joined four
other judges of an appellate department which had
disqualified itself three years earlier to vacate his own
order after its violation by Judge King.
It is believed that the stay order was entered, in part,
because the witch hunt initiated in 2008 had gotten
out of control and vacated to insulate a lower judge in
contempt of a higher court order. Put simply, it would
be more expedient for judicial reputation if the
consequences of judge misconduct be continued upon
an expendable public critic. A blog post relating those
structural flaws preceded the latter order by days.

26

POINT THREE: Petitioners vital message of

reform for abused fathers and non-custodial
mothers was sufficiently offensive to trigger
systemic judicial retributions over time that
cannot be remedied absent extraordinary relief.
According to Chief Justice John Roberts, the more
offensive a message becomes, the more likely the
retributions. As a self-governing nation, he explained,
such retributions are to be condemned. Speech
everywhere in America should be robust, Snyder v
Phelps, 562 US __ (2011).
The shocking aspect of this case is that petitioners
public message was vital to all constituencies of a free
society. It did not involve an obscure church group
protesting at the funeral of a fallen gay soldier
(Phelps) or a lawyers depiction of Appellate Division
Justices as madams and whores in a magazine
article, speech that was ultimately protected in
Erdmann v Stevens, 458 F.2d 1205 (2nd Cir. 1972).
For this reason, those profiting off the misfortunes of
parents and children had to orchestrate a means for
damaging the credibility and reputation of their
public critic as his message was finding its way into
the media, public convocations, viral social media and
even Congress during a 2012 lobbying initiative.
There is a well established trend in states across
America to eradicate lawyer critics of this trillion
dollar divorce industry, or those most qualified to
publicly comment and elicit meaningful reforms.
Father prejudice in Americas divorce and family
courts remains the last bastion of institutionalized
discrimination remaining unchecked in America
27

today. The last time this Court granted certiorari on a

father related claim was the case of Turner v Rogers,
564 US ___ (2011) and that was limited to explaining
due process when jailing a dad for child support.
The last time parental liberties were addressed, it
was in Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) but that
case focused on grandparents rights against a
custodial mother. In Michael H. v Gerald D., 491 US
10 (1989) this Court turned down a biological fathers
parenting claims due to a California statute which
presumed legitimacy of a child born during a lawful
marriage. In Caban v Mohammed, 441 US 380 (1979),
this Court recognized one of the few discrimination
claims ever accorded to a father regarding equal
consent to adoption of his own offspring.
Clearly there is a long overdue pronouncement
required from our nations highest court on this very
timely subject under the Constitution. Fathers still
comprise an oppressed classification even though we
are over 70 million in number across America. Abuse
continues in family courts because advocates such as
petitioner are treated in the horrific manner shown. It
offers up yet another imperative for granting writ.
A natural outcome of the foregoing is lawlessness.
Although examples abound, in petitioners small home
city, a police investigator committed a murder-suicide
upon his ex-spouse after leaving support court which
had him living on $28 per week deductions and asset
executions. Draconian enforcement practices produce
seizures of various licenses leading to homelessness.
Facing such prospects, this law man used a common
kitchen knife to complete his crime, voiding any
28

deterrent effect of inflammatory protection orders. It

left three children with no parents and city taxpayers
responsible for a $2 million wrongful death pay-out,
see Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011).
In his book, A Promise to Ourselves, actor Alec
Baldwin gives a scathing report of his protracted
divorce with Kim Basinger. After a voice message to
his daughter was anonymously made public, Mr.
Baldwin was condemned as an abusive parent.
Largely censored were the alienation tactics which
fueled this exchange. So painful was the aftermath
that Mr. Baldwin admitted to suicidal tendencies at
his New York high rise apartment and during a drive
to the Berkshires. Years later the same daughter was
featured in a second wedding ceremony for her father.
The 2011 case of Thomas Ball is also instructive. An
oppressed father seeking to ignite protest burned
himself alive in front of a family courthouse in Keene,
New Hampshire. There was no mainstream coverage
in contrast to a similar self-immolation in Morocco
which attracted world protest. An unarmed black
father, Walter Scott, was shot dead five times in the
back by a police officer in South Carolina simply
because he was fleeing a child support warrant at a
traffic stop.
And so, while our federal government escalates its
military involvement around the globe, soldiers are
returning to empty homes, child alienation and felony
support warrants. Petitioner was able to save the life
of one such victim from suicide at a parenting
convention he sponsored in 2011, but the unsuccessful
instances are more telling, see i.e. Purple Hearts
Final Beat, Second Class Citizen.Org (2009). Virtually
29

all responders on 9-11 were men entitled to equal

treatment in these courts. Yet a vast number became
eternally separated without any reform.
Petitioner addressed national media at the Walter
Scott funeral in April, 2015. Only after murder
charges were lodged against the traffic cop was it
publicized with petitioners input in the New York
Times that one of eight persons incarcerated in South
Carolinas prison system were fathers for back
support debts. The lawlessness is escalating as we
continue to boast the most imprisoned population in
the free world. Case law is legion on the rule that
retaliation for the act of filing a complaint is unlawful
under the First Amendment regardless of its merit.
Yet here the revenge was unprecedented.
That is because petitioner was challenging a highly
protected industry orchestrated under Title IV-D of
the Social Security Act, 42 USC section 651 et. seq.
States are rewarded by the number and size of child
support orders manufactured by their courts.
Superior and inferior custody classifications are
essential to these money transfers and mandated by
federal statute even when parents with near equal
incomes and childrearing periods set up contrary
agreements, Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998).
Accordingly support judges have been rendered
inherently biased against all those classified under
the inferior non-custodial label with or without
justification. Such classifications are arbitrary,
stigmatizing and institutional in countless cases,
requiring otherwise cooperative parents to compete
over their children. Their infringement of a
fundamental right to parent ones offspring is easily
30

replaced by childrearing plans and orders which

retain more family oriented labels such as mother,
father and parent, see i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729
NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at fn. 1(veteran
family judge declaring custody and visitation to be
offensive terms in an antiquated system bringing out
the worst in parents when children need their best). 3
However such less intrusive custody substitutes are
foreclosed by the blanket classifications and
marginalized by overburdened courts committed to
the funding scheme. Over time, such injustices have
reached constitutional dimension while ever elusive,
utopian and overbroad child rearing standards
displace parental discretion without compelling state
interest contrary to a right declared by the Supreme
Court to be the oldest liberty interest protected by
our Constitution, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57
(2000)(prolonged custody case can itself violate
parental rights), Parham v JR, 442 US 548 (1979)(fit
parents presumed to act in childrens best interests).
A full range of constitutional rights is easily trampled
under principles of equity, or the power seized by
family judges to father our children, Finlay v Finlay,
3

Petitioners revenue-bias conclusion was deemed frivolous by the

district court. However it is supported by our nations top civil rights
experts at the Justice Department. They issued a report on March 4, 2015
after the Ferguson, Missouri race riots concluding that the regions
municipal courts were committing civil rights violations through concocted
arrests and excessive fines as part of a revenue generating scheme. There is
nothing to distinguish that conclusion from petitioners long asserted
claims here regarding family courts which incite needless controversy to
exact excessive support orders and attorneys fees. Unequal custody
classifications are the workhorse behind all this with rampant prejudice
against male parents which can no longer be denied or tolerated. The
Census Bureau and private entities continue to report that nearly 85% of all
support obligors are men.

31

240 NY 429 (1925)(paternal jurisdiction derived

from feudal common law). In plain terms, the
Constitution is being ignored because the custody
scheme is lucrative for those who depend upon family
controversy for their livelihood. It is being facilitated
by judges charged with the highest duty of
safeguarding such rights, Federalist Paper No. 78;
Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).
In his highly researched study, Is There Really a
Fatherhood Crisis, Professor Stephen Baskerville
places the blame on government: What many are led
to believe is a social problem may in reality be an
exercise of power by the state, Independence Review,
vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, at pp 485-486.
Unsuspecting litigants are also exploited by an
expanding bureaucracy under Title IV-D to finance
welfare costs created by unrelated and irresponsible
parents. The ones properly devoted to their children
therefore shoulder an unjust burden merely because
they reside separately from their partners. These
support judges engage in highly abused fictions such
as imputed income to raise obligations beyond
realistic capacities. There is no express provision for
shared parenting under the federal entitlement
statute, and the regulatory scheme has replaced the
childs needs with way of life standards to elevate
support even further.
This petition consequently seeks relief which is
central to any self-governing society, namely, the
right to seek reforms to this overregulated and
oppressive system of child control. In that vein, it
matters not whether the decision makers here agree
with the foregoing legal posture concerning a federal
32

statute. It matters only that the petitioner is accorded

his inalienable human right to express views and
raise his offspring free of the severe retributions he
sustained for criticizing our third branch of
government, Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964).
A writ is therefore proper under this Courts cited
authority. Mandamus is not to be used as a substitute
for appeal, but as the Second Circuit noted in Von
Bulow, 828 F.2d 97, the touchstones of review by
mandamus are usurpation of power, clear abuse of
discretion and the presence of an issue of first
impression, (emphasis added), citing American
Express v Transamerica Insurance, 380 F.2d 277, 283
(2nd Cir. 1967). All three conditions are present here
and much more in the way of jurisdictional
infringements, In re Roman Catholic Diocese of
Albany, 745 F.3d 30 (2nd Cir. 2014).
As this Court reiterated in both procedural and
substantive contexts:
By requiring the government to follow
appropriate procedures when its agents decide
to deprive any person of life, liberty or
property, the Due Process Clause promotes
fairness in such decisions. And by barring
certain government actions regardless of the
fairness of the procedures used to implement
them, e.g. Rochin (v California, 342 US 165), it
serves to prevent governmental power from
being used for purposes of oppression, Daniels
v Williams, 474 US 327, 331 1986).
In this case the oppression came from the judicial
branch. There is little to distinguish petitioner from
33

Chinese civil rights lawyer, Chen Guangcheng. He

avoided personal demise by securing asylum in
America for human rights violations through our
former secretary of state.
When Judge Gary Sharpe was assigned petitioners
civil rights case, a motion was filed after it became
clear that his fairness was seriously doubt. The basis
for removal was sound. Petitioner asserted that
family genetics underlying forensic family court
orders abused against petitioner required
disqualification in light of the Cossey debacle.
Taken from the unanimous appeals court reversal
which also removed him from the case, the following
is very alarming from a competency standpoint:
One reason (Judge Sharpe) offered (for his six
year sentence) was that (he) did not have a lot
of faith in that (psychiatric and psychologist)
profession in the first place The court
continued, informing Cossey it needed to share
a view thats a little different than what youre
hearing from your psychiatrists and thats
because Im not sure theres any answer for
what I see here beyond what Im about to tell
ya. The court predicted that some fifty years
from now Cosseys offense conduct would likely
be discovered to be caused by a gene you were
born with. And its not a gene you can get rid
of. The court expressed its belief that although
Cossey was in therapy, it can only lead, in my
view, to a sincere effort to control, but you cant
get rid of it. You are what youre born with. And
thats the only explanation for what I see here.

34

Such predisposition can never be erased or corrected.

No amount of judge therapy can convince a father
litigant challenging what he was born with to
overcome status discrimination at the core of his
claims against Family Judge Daniel King and others.
Yet in his later decision, Judge Sharpe denied
petitioners motion for disqualification labeling it a
Hail Mary pass as if this was some sort of ball game.
In it, and in every federal and state decision to date,
precedent crucial to the petitioners case was never
mentioned to contrive an illegal outcome.
Put another way, Judge Sharpe placed himself above
the law, refusing to honor Congress and higher courts
as he treated other professions. Like his decision in
Cossey, he may have felt that legislators and Supreme
Court Justices were similarly all over the board,
United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011).
In lay terms, Judge Sharpe decided petitioners claims
like an impaired motorist dodging obnoxious traffic
devices until he crashed with no regard for the
innocent people harmed along the way. A look at
those devices in the form of applicable cases, some of
which have already been addressed, will show why he
blew through them for the ulterior purpose of
discrediting petitioner and his vital reform message.
In relevant aspects this case will constitute the
substantive and civil counterpart of this Courts
ruling in Williams v Pennsylvania, 579 US__2016;
handed down five days ago.

35

CONCLUSION
By reason of the foregoing, petitioner, Leon R. Koziol,
respectfully asks this Honorable Court to grant his
petition for writ of certiorari with exigent relief by
mandamus and such other relief as may be just.
June 14, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

36