You are on page 1of 23

National League of Fathers, Inc.

1518 Genesee Street  Utica, New York 13502

--------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE---------

Father Makes Appeal For Return of Children Before United Nations

New York, NY, February 17, 2010 – A New York father is filing a petition before the United
Nations in New York City on Monday, February 22, 2010, at 2 PM seeking the return of his two
children seized from him by the State of New York (See petition attached to release).
Denominated as a “Petition Charging Diverse Human Rights Violations,” the voluminous
document calls upon the authority of various treaties which prohibit cruel and inhumane
practices by governments in respect to parents and their children.

Leon Koziol, a veteran civil rights attorney and father of two is challenging what he calls an
“antiquated oppressive and gender biased custodial institution of child rearing in New York State
which fleeces mainstream parents of their hard earned resources while alienating children
permanently from their parents.”

Mr. Koziol’s six and eight year old daughters were systematically removed from him during an
arbitrarily prolonged custody case in recent years after he began speaking out against oppressive
child control laws in New York, Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts. He has never been
accused or found to be an unfit parent. His children were featured during parades and campaign
events in his 2006 and 2007 run for state Senate and county executive.

Last week, Mr. Koziol was informed that his law license was suspended as a result of his non-
payment of child support, an act of civil disobedience which has been compared to that of Susan
B. Anthony, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. Seven months earlier, Mr. Koziol was
deprived of all reasonable contact with his children in response to his premature exit from a
courtroom. That exit was in protest to retaliatory practices orchestrated against him for his legal
positions, logical human demeanor and public views. According to the attorney-father, it was an
abusive process focused not upon the interests of his children but revenue generating interests of
the state and child alienation practices typical of New York’s dysfunctional form of child

Attorney Koziol, who remains licensed in federal court, is taking aim upon a multi-billion dollar
child industry in America which he cites as a principal cause behind declining productivity and
increased health care costs across the nation. Joined by a group of similarly victimized fathers
with representative cases featured in the U.N. Petition, Mr. Koziol hopes to secure the return of
his children in a manner that parallels the ordeals of David Goldman and Elian Gonzalez.

The National League of Fathers, Inc. is a civil rights organization which advocates for the rights
of both male and female non-custodial parents. Mr. Koziol serves as Legal Counsel to the
organization. For more information contact: (315) 507-6287 or Mr. Koziol directly at (315) 796-
John Parent, individually and on behalf of
his natural born children, Child “A” and
Child “B”, and on behalf of parents PETITION CHARGING
similarly situate in the United States of DIVERSE HUMAN RIGHTS



State of New York, the New York State

Unified Court System, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services and the
United States of America,

To: Secretariat of the United Nations

Human Rights Committee

Committee Against Torture

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination

Committee on Racial Discrimination


(1) This is a Petition brought on behalf of representative victims of cruel and

inhuman treatment inflicted by government agents of the State of New York, hereinafter

“State,” in domestic relations matters.

(2) In conformity with the practice of sister states and territorial possessions

of the United States, the State effectively and systematically removes countless children

from the care and control of their natural parents in order to exploit them for money

generating purposes. It has become the engine behind a multi-billion dollar child

industry in America.

(3) The practice, challenged by this Petition, is a fraudulent, oppressive and

gender discriminatory one preserved and masked by government propaganda which

rationalizes the State’s abduction and ransoming of children with such terminology as

“child support”, parental “visitation” and a so-called “best interests of the child”

standard for determining a “relatively more fit” parent for “child custody” purposes.

(4) Parents unable to reside together, regardless of their self-sufficiency and

cooperative childrearing arrangements, are forced into a State sponsored child control

institution through a scheme of laws that unnecessarily places children above those

same parents against a natural order of childrearing. Parents otherwise capable of

maintaining a joint household are nevertheless incited to separate from one another in

aggravated fashion by the State’s imposition of a superior status and monetary award

for the parent who is best capable of denigrating or destroying the other parent in a

contemplated divorce or domestic relations conflict.

(5) In short, children are functionally seized and ransomed to good and

mainstream parents who are forced to fight over them in public arenas known as family

and divorce courts. It is a barbaric war for those parents who love their children the

most. This modern day war is created by financial enticements and a generalized fear

instilled in the adult litigants of losing their children in any “custody” process.

(6) United States Census Bureau reports continue to demonstrate that the

statistically predominant victims of this barbaric practice are the male parents and

innocent children. Good fathers, particularly the economically underprivileged, are

regularly committed to debtor prisons long deemed repugnant to the American

Constitution and related human rights documents. Others have been compelled to take

the law into their own hands due to the lack of meaningful recourse, leaving the

children often times parentless or scarred for life. This, in turn, produces disrespect for

authority, aggravated criminal activity and a wide range of social ills in the general

population and future generations of Americans.

(7) The current Petition contains the representative cases which demonstrate

the barbaric nature of this child control practice. Each case has worked its way through

the State’s domestic court systems only to become exhausted or grounded by the ever

escalating and self-perpetuating controversies that leave the parents economically

depleted. The parents become effectively enslaved to a child industry that breeds and

feeds off of these controversies.


(8) The authority of several treaties together with related prudential

considerations are addressed here to support the jurisdiction of the United Nations and

its pertinent Committees to receive and deliberate upon this Petition. Each named

treaty carries with it crucial responsibilities to rectify an escalating crisis in human

rights violations occurring in the United States of America today.

(9) The individual and joint petitions which follow present a representative

fact pattern to verify widespread human rights violations that fall well within the broad

scope and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

hereinafter “CCPR”. The affected family members contemplated by these petitions

have been made victim to the above referenced barbaric government process.

(10) Mandatory “child support” and “custody” awards are imposed in

virtually every domestic relations controversy compelled or instigated by the

government’s child control institution. The cash component of these awards can easily

exceed a half-million dollars over the lifetimes of mainstream obligors and they

predominantly benefit the interests of government, lawyers and unrelated parties.

(11) Devoid of any real accountability requirement, these so-called awards

are regularly exploited for non-child related purposes such as drug abuse, gambling,

personal interests, litigation maintenance and companion support. Properly described,

these fraudulently procured awards comprise socialist welfare entitlements that benefit

lawyers, bureaucratic agents, forensic specialists and non-parties, to the detriment of the

bottom line purported beneficiary-the children.

(12) More damaging from a human rights perspective, such “custody” and

“child support” awards are executed in a a manner which immediately, or over time,

permanently separates both fathers and mothers from their natural offspring. Children

are ransomed and exploited to spy and report upon their parents’ private and intimate

activities in ways reminiscent of the practices of dictatorial regimes historically targeted

by international organizations for reform and relief.

(13) A full range of violations are presented here to implicate the provisions

of CCPR Articles 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

Counterpart rights envisioned by the United States Constitution are asserted under

Exhibit “A” in a document entitled “Petition” in paragraphs 103 through 122. Their

violations are incorporated into this Complaint and are best explained by resort to the

summary fact pattern contained within that exhibit.

(14) Prudential considerations are addressed in the same exhibit at paragraphs

1 through 102. All petitioners named in this communication share a common

experience with a State domestic relations process which is systematically prolonged

for money generating purposes. The relevant tribunals are inherently biased and

financially supported by the growing and cumulative stream of State-mandated “child

support orders.”

(15) Such “child support” orders are satisfied by government collection

entities that in effect comprise State owned banking institutions. Victim litigants are

denied meaningful and timely opportunities to be heard on a variety of crucial

childrearing matters to parents and their families due to the expedited nature of these

mass produced orders, even where no harm or conflict may be occurring. The blanket

and mandatory imposition of these “support” orders are accordingly both oppressive

and discriminatory.

(16) Following the needless intrusions, the State burdens itself beyond any

rational capacity for fairly considering the countless and escalating levels of domestic

relations controversies cultivated by the State itself to satisfy money generating laws.

Simply stated, recourse is frustrated by a judiciary ill equipped to fill the self-appointed

role of “super-parent”. Truly final recourse is further made impossible under a

“continuing jurisdiction” power seized by the State’s overburdened domestic relations


(17) The events described in this Petition fall squarely within the additional

scope and purpose of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). The arbitrary abduction and ransoming

of children by the State and persons acting under color of law produce psychological

torture of the most calculated and heinous variety among parents and their children.

(18) The events described in this Petition further implicate jurisdiction over

the cited human rights violations found under the Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination against Women. Paradoxically, the violations asserted here

are not predominantly those applicable to women, but rather those invidiously applied

against men. Women comprise a mere 10% of statistically impacted parties

contemplated by this Petition.

(19) It is assumed that the United Nations recognizes human rights violations

of this variety to avoid the conclusion that only women can be the victims of

discrimination. Such a conclusion is itself discriminatory. The victim petitioners,

therefore, rely upon the assumption that the elimination of discrimination contemplated

by this Committee and its authoritative treaty is one that applies more effectively to

gender. For at least the past 100 years in the United States, men have comprised a

historically discriminated class of gender victims in domestic relations matters

(childrearing rights).

(20) Jurisdiction is further conferred over this Petition under the Convention

and Treaty against discrimination on account of race. African-American fathers are

statistically and invidiously the most injured victims of the challenged State practice in

domestic relations matters. Petitioner, Casey Stuckman, is included among the

represented fathers named in this Petition to show how egregious this particular

victimization can be in New York State.


(21) Petitioner, John Parent, is described more particularly in Exhibit “A”

annexed and made a part of this Communication. John Parent is a 23-year licensed civil

rights attorney in New York and the author of this Petition. He is its representative

sponsor for purposes of common standing, public communications and legal


(22) Petitioner, James Bouras, is a citizen of the United States and former

resident of the State of New York. Due to the violations described in this Petition, Mr.

Bouras is currently declaring fugitive status. His whereabouts are unknown as he

remains under limited contact availability.

(23) Petitioner, Alan Cady, is a citizen of the United States with a residence

located in New Hartford, New York 13413.

(24) Petitioner, Michael Paratore, is a citizen of the United States with a

residence located in Johnstown, New York.

(25) Petitioner, John Kalil, Jr. is a citizen of the United States with a

residence located in New Hartford, New York 13413.

(26) Petitioner, Richard Richmond, is a citizen of the United States with a

residence located in Marcy, New York.

(27) Petitioner, Casey Stuckman, is a citizen of the United States with a

residence located in Rome, New York.


1). Petition of John Parent

(28) Petitioner John Parent is a civil rights attorney residing in New York

State. Prior to his challenge of the State’s abhorrent domestic relations practices, he had

enjoyed an exemplary 51 year existence as an American citizen and had enjoyed

productive childrearing periods with his natural born infant daughters under a

successfully performed parenting (separation) agreement. The subject children are

identified as Child “A” and Child “B” in this Petition.

(29) As a direct consequence of his critical petitions for relief and public calls

for reform, the Petitioner, John Parent, has been denied all functional access to his

daughters, currently aged six and seven years. This occurred initially by court order on

July 30, 2009. That order was vacated on October 28, 2009 but reinstated on November

23, 2009 shortly after the filing and service of a civil rights complaint which named the

presiding judge as a defendant in a separate (sealed) court action. The punitive act of

abducting this Petitioner’s children was executed despite the lack of any allegation,

proof or finding of neglect, abandonment, child abuse or relevant childrearing


(30) This Petitioner’s unblemished 23 year record as a practicing attorney and

public office holder was further impaired for the same reason when he became targeted

by the State’s licensing agents. He has been victimized in a myriad of ways, contrary to

the expectations of a civilized society and notwithstanding his exemplary citizenship

over a period of fifty years. A professional resume is appended under Exhibit “B”.

(31) At present, the Petitioner, John Parent, is facing a prison term as a result

of his non-payment of monetary obligations imposed by the State as a condition for

accessing his children or maintaining any meaningful relationship with them. These

money payments have been exploited and diverted from their ostensible “child support”

purpose to pay for lawyers, litigation costs of all parties and such indirect abuses as a

campaign contribution to a presently elected United States Congressman.

(32) The non-payment of so-called “child support” obligation resulted from

the State’s malicious impairment of Petitioner’s income producing capacities and

retaliatory deprivations of recourse in the courts. Petitioner has responded in formal

court papers that he will be compelled to serve a life sentence as these laws have been

oppressively applied to him. He has likened his condition to that of Nelson Mandela.

(33) Accordingly, Petitioner John Parent has been compelled to seek

international protection, asylum or a fugitive condition in order to escape the oppression

of a human right described by the United States Supreme Court as the “oldest liberty

interest” recognized under the American Constitution. This interest is the childrearing

right which derives from a time immemorial and the fundamental laws of nature.

(34) The background behind the representative ordeal of John Parent is

furnished before this Committee by way of the copy of state court pleadings annexed

under Exhibit “A”. These pleadings constitute an extraordinary petition for relief after

all other domestic recourse was exhausted to no avail.

2). Petition of James Bouras

(35) James Bouras is an American citizen formerly residing in the State of

New York who declared fugitive status during the year 2008 to escape oppression of a

kind similar to that inflicted upon Petitioner John Parent. His current whereabouts are

unknown and he maintains ongoing parti cipation with the State’s domestic relations

courts only through his attorney, John Parent, or by way of telephonic conferences and


(36) As a consequence of Mr. Bouras’ public criticisms and applications for

parenting relief, this second representative Petitioner has been denied access to his now

15 year old daughter for a period of two years and continuing. Presently he is facing a

jail term of six months for an alleged non-payment of “child support” orders.

(37) The ordeal of James Bouras is set apart from the common fact pattern

described in Exhibit “A” by his government related commitment to duty in the relief of

victims of Hurricane Katrina in the City of New Orleans. During this period of absence

from his family, the wife and mother of his only child consummated a separation from

him while exploiting the child to turn against the father over time.

(38) The monetary award (child support) and superior parental status (child

custody to a “primary caregiver”) referenced in the Preliminary Statement were offered

to the mother by the State as an incentive to “tax and destroy” the other (typically male)

parent James Bouras. All efforts to reinstate contact with his adolescent daughter upon

his return from duty were met with judge ordered protection devices, public arrest and

ultimately a criminal prosecution which resulted in his now involuntary status as a

fugitive from “justice”.

(39) Among the egregious examples of abuse occurring within the domestic

relations proceedings involving Petitioner James Bouras is a declaration by a presiding

child support magistrate to the effect that “unless he (Bouras) is eating air or living in

the streets, I (Support Magistrate) want to know how he is supporting himself.” This

denigrating statement was made to buttress the State’s oppressive system of child

control dominated typically by the State appointed “custodial parent”.

(40) After being ousted from his child and home community under threat of

arrest and injury, Petitioner Bouras took up residency outside New York State. He

remains unemployed under a long term disability arising from an automobile accident

which produced black-outs and a surrender of his driving privileges. Monetary support

consequently derives exclusively and piecemeal from family members. Mr. Bouras

continues to face arrest and incarceration on a daily basis despite an otherwise

unblemished personal background.

3). Petitioner Alan Cady

(41) Petitioner, Alan Cady, resides in Oneida County, New York. A father

of two, he works the night shift in a blue collar position to satisfy “child support” orders

arising from his divorce in 2005. Such divorce resulted in oppressive “child support”

obligations under Title IV-D of the United States Social Security Act. Such obligations

are routinely overstated and ruthlessly executed among fathers found in the American


(42) Although both formerly married parents were, and remain, duly

employed, self-sustaining, and fully capable of raising their children in co-equal and

proximate households, the State has forced these parents to participate in the

childrearing institution described in the Preliminary Statement. The female parent

earns substantially more income than the male parent, however, when applying arbitrary

government formulas, the father is reduced to near poverty status with little incentive to

seek additional life consuming employment.

(43) The particularly oppressive law known as the Title IV-D Child Support

Standards Act (hereinafter “CSSA”) was exploited to cause Mr. Cady to become

partially deficient in the one-sided and gender biased “child support” orders. An

arrearage of merely $1000 over a period of one year resulted in a sentence of

imprisonment which has been held over the Petitioner’s head since its earliest

imposition more than one year ago in November, 2008.

(44) Two factors set this Petitioner apart from the common fact pattern

surrounding the above two petitions. First, the $1000 arrearage represented a day care

bill for Mr. Cady’s children for time deprived to him as a consequence of the challenged

institution of mandatory “child custody”. The laws which frame this institution possess

a standard enforcement practice of two weekends and two overnights per month which

the father is allowed to parent his children. The term “visitation” is typically employed

as a gender-biased slur inasmuch as mainstream fathers, unlike true prisoners and third

parties, are not “visitors” in their children’s lives. Nevertheless, this slur facilitates the

unbridled infringement of human rights to support the money objectives of the State.

(45) Put another way, fathers and non-custodial mothers across America are

being forced into the indentured service of parental substitutes which they neither

authorize nor are they capable of constraining or supporting financially. They are, in

effect, paying for the government process which effectively takes their children from

them. Such indentured service is perpetual and subject to immense exploitation because

the “custodial parent” is accorded no incentive to share or fairly apportion parenting

time with the father of the exploited children. Any such sharing could result in a

custody transfer and loss of the custodial “child support” (welfare) check. .

(46) As a second distinguishing factor, the presiding support Magistrate that

imposed the sentence of imprisonment upon Mr. Cady supported her determinations by

an arbitrary carry-over of inflated financial information and improper legal conclusions

from a decision earlier entered against another father on an unrelated “child support”


(47) This gross judicial error was later deemed to be a mere “typographical

error” to overcome the true reason that such orders and jail sentences arise from heavily

overburdened dockets and an inherent disinterest or incapacity for providing due

process of law to persons made subject to the State’s (money-generating) jurisdiction.

Mr. Cady has been featured in community fundraising initiatives and public protests

relating to the prison sentence and child alienation practices sponsored by the State.

4). Petition of Michael Paratore

(48) Petitioner, Michael Paratore, resided in the State’s capital district of

Albany, New York when he was awaken from his sleep by armed police officers at 3

a.m. in July, 2007. Empowered by an ex parte order of protection and eviction, these

officers immediately removed him from his (former marital) residence without warning

of any kind and no place to receive his personal belongings.

(49) The unannounced invasion of his home and person was based upon a

hastily drafted civil petition filed by the female parent (former wife) at the time in

Albany County Family Court. This petition was rift with fraudulent, malicious and

wholly concocted allegations of abuse contradicted on their face by a police report

included with the ex parte petition.

(50) Based upon this sloppy and contradictory petition, a Family Court Judge

entered an order granting “temporary sole custody” of the parents’ two month old son to

the mother, in effect rewarding her for the perjurious declaration without meaningful,

reasonably available and timely opportunity for the victim to be heard in this fraudulent

and non-emergency action..

(51) Extensive bilateral proceedings followed which in turn heavily depleted

the joint financial estate available to both parents for raising their children. However,

the father was uniquely prejudiced due to an immediate and arbitrary social welfare

obligation disguised as “child support”.

(52) Failing any accountability requirement, these so-called “child support”

obligations were exploited to pay for the mother’s share of litigation expenses in effect

making the father a sole financial facilitator for all ensuing government processes. He

was immediately punished for his role through a mere four one-hour “visitation”

sessions per month with his boy. Such sessions are commonly applied by the same State

of New York to convicted criminals and child molestors.

(53) These degrading sessions, supervised by State social welfare agents

were exploited further by court orders that imposed anger management therapy, costly

psychological reports and state sponsored parenting classes ordered by the Judge during

an ever escalating litigation process. This process was further fueled by privately

retained and state appointed lawyers who routinely feed off of their self-created

controversies and fraudulent commitments.

(54) During a one year process of financial inquisitions, father humiliation

and child control, the several lawyers joined in a gender biased practice known as

“Battered Woman’s Syndrome” which exploits adverse inferences and stereotypes

against men in the fraudulent filing of malicious petitions in domestic relations

litigation. The father was regularly served with interim accusatory instruments which

falsely asserted such heinous crimes as rape, assault, false imprisonment and even

animal cruelty as part of a common tactic for securing the aforesaid “custody” and

welfare “award”.

(55) One year following the ex parte sole custody order of August 6, 2007,

when it became evident that the parents’ joint financial resources had been depleted, the

same presiding Judge issued an order, without hearing, which granted the father

unsupervised overnight parenting periods of three successive days per week with his

infant son. This was granted despite failed reports and incomplete parenting sessions

which proclaimed the father’s gross unfitness as a parent.

(56) To the time of this Petition, presented before this body in December,

2009, more than one year after this latest parenting order, there has been no incident or

evidence to show any parenting issues or indication that this Petitioner is anything but a

fit father. The arbitrary reversal in treatment comprised a real life declaration that all of

the escalating accusations and forensic processes bore no connection to any genuine

child interests. Nevertheless, as an additional custody tactic, the “joint custody”

arrangement is presently being jeopardized by oppressive “child support” obligations

under penalty of incarceration.

5). Petition of John Kalil

(57) Petitioner, John Kalil, is the Director of the National League of Father,

Inc., a non-profit foundation of parents seeking reform to the State’s domestic relations

practices. He has appeared with John Parent on national radio programs and public

rallies in New York and Washington D.C., among other cities. He is a divorced father

of one and self-employed in the financial industry.

(58) This Petitioner asserts a fact pattern set apart from the foregoing

petitioners through the State’s arbitrary imposition of imputed (phantom) income

against the father in “child support” calculations. Mr. Kalil is required to pay the

amounts chargeable for his highest income years regardless of downturns in the

depressed local economy.

(59) The oppressive process is made possible by the State’s further arbitrary

remand of Mr. Kalil to sub-class human status known as a “non-custodial parent”. This

remand occurs regardless of his petitions for equal or shared parenting rights and his

lowest class status is maintained in order to sustain the aforesaid multi-billion dollar

child industry.

(60) The arbitrary treatment causes this Petitioner to incur obligations

substantially higher than the applicable federal and state formula percentages found

under Title IV-D of the United States Social Security Act (“CSSA”). During certain

periods, this Petitioner is made subject to obligations under penalty of incarceration

which exceeds 100% of his actual income under a regularly exploited stereotype that

self-employed men, as opposed to self-employed women, are routinely engaged in a

child support avoidance scheme of “hiding income”.

(61) Such stereotype works invidiously against honest and genuinely

committed parents due to the growing level of struggling fathers that are compelled to

“work under the table” at a second or third job simply to avoid incarceration for

violating the draconian “child support” obligations. Under Title IV-D, the states and

territories of the United States are rewarded with massive incentive grants and financial

kick-backs based upon the number and magnitude of “child support” orders mass

produced in the courts.

(62) The State’s judicial process and collection systems are regularly

modified to expedite decision-making and the fleecing of mainstream citizenry of their

hard earned income with little or no concern for the quality of parent-child relations or

the damage caused to innocent children. Entire college educations are lost to the

obligations made payable to lawyers and the State as a consequence of this blanket and

self-perpetuating child control process.

6). Petition of Richard Richmond

(63) Petitioner, Richard Richmond, is a father of three infant children in a

second marriage. Two children of an earlier marriage have long achieved the age of

majority and moved on to self-sustaining status. Nevertheless, this Petitioner remains

indentured to support payments under the earlier divorce decree to the fully employed

ex-spouse which has severely damaged Mr. Richmond’s ability to support his new

family. The infants’ mother is a stay-at-home parent further injured by this process.

(64) Petitioner has filed several petitions in an effort to free himself or reduce

himself of the earlier imposed obligation. All of these petitions have failed, and

support orders have instead been imposed which ignore the unique and well established

realities of a depressed local economy. In recent months, Mr. Richmond has been

made subject to a six month sentence of imprisonment as a consequence of his inability

to balance the financial needs of two households. The female parent and children of

the second marriage are uniquely burdened.

(65) As a consequence of extraordinary circumstances outside of his control,

this Petitioner has reached the limits of his capacity to sustain further psychological

torture by the State’s callous and barbaric child control practice. As a veteran American

soldier serving two tours in Viet Nam in the 1960’s and 1970’s, this Petitioner retains

no-regard for himself. He is wholly committed to his infant children and without the

encouragement and largely volunteer assistance of his attorney, John Parent, the

potential for a lawless self-help remedy is imminent.

(66) Petitioner, Richard Richmond, is an otherwise gentle, law-abiding citizen

who has been compelled to seek psychological treatment. He has become dependent

upon alcohol to overcome sleep deprivation and on one occasion, due to paranoia over a

potential arrest or home invasion, Mr. Richmond secured his gun for protection while

seated on his front lawn. Children across America are repeatedly becoming parentless

and psychologically damaged by events manufactured and fueled by the State’s money

generating schemes of the kind featured in this Petition.

7). Petition of Casy Stuckman

(67) Petitioner, Casey Stuckman, resides in the City of Rome, New York and

remains a client of Petitioner, John Parent, in connection with a civil rights claim

pending in the New York State Supreme Court. This claim is provided under Exhibit

“C” and its contents are incorporated as part of the Seventh Petition asserted before this


(68) This Petitioner is representative of the race and gender bias found in the

State’s mistreatment of a single person during a shots-fired incident in the City of Utica,

New York. The Petition is set apart from the others by reason of the egregious nature of

race and gender discrimination remaining in America today.

(69) Petitioner, Casey Stuckman, was reported by witnesses to local police

authorities as a victim of attempted murder on October 14, 2009. During a domestic

incident, Mr. Stuckman was shot by his female partner in the view of neighbors while

on the front lawn of a city home. Despite the report, which clearly delineated the

gender of both the female assailant and male victim, at least ten city police officers

arriving on the scene drew their guns upon the man and not the woman. The female

would-be killer remained at all times in possession of her weapon a short distance from

the victim.

(70) Details of the incident are otherwise provided in the annexed claim.

Inclusion here is designed to emphasize the routine discrimination against men in

domestic relations matters to such an extreme that police officers are placing themselves

at risk of harm along with the victims of murder and attempted murder by women.

(71) This Petitioner’s lawyer has presented reports to relevant city

administrators, both as a civil rights attorney and former city chief counsel, which

describe ongoing racial discrimination in employment and law enforcement practices.

A recent pattern of arrests and assaults demonstrates that these, and other reports over a

20 year period have generated little or no corrective action.


(72) Petitioners respectfully ask the pertinent Committees of the United

Nations to take appropriate measures for the correction of oppressive, punitive and

discriminatory practices and policies of the State of New York and United States

government in matters of domestic childrearing with a particular emphasis upon the

historically prejudiced male parent.

(73) Petitioner, John Parent, requests specific and imminent relief which

would reunite him with his infant daughters. He has been effectively denied all contact

with them since July 6, 2009. Citing the international incident involving a Cuban

father reunited with his infant child, Elian Gonzalas, ten years ago, the Petitioner seeks

a similar reunion in his own native country. Copies of relevant news articles depicting

this Petitioner’s long term challenges to government civil rights abuses are annexed

under Exhibit “D”.

Respectfully submitted,
Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Professional Offices: 1518 Genesee Street
Utica, New York 13502
Telephone: (315) 735-2271
Facsimile: (315) 735-0991
Personal: (315) 796-4000
Dated: December 16, 2009 e-mail: