You are on page 1of 31

No.

15-1519

_____________________________________________
In the

Supreme Court of the United States
Leon R. Koziol
Petitioner
vs
United States District Court
for the Northern District of New York
Respondent
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
_____________________
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
______________________
September 17, 2016

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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
In light of this Court’s intervening decision in McDonnell v
United States, No. 15-474 (June 26, 2016), did respondent
district court commit an egregious abuse of discretion by
repeatedly suppressing petitioner’s challenges to a vague
and overbroad rule and prohibition against the rendering of
expert legal opinions in non-lawyer employment, speaking
engagements and court reform activity nationwide?
In light of escalating retributions by New York’s judicial
branch of government since the filing of this petition on
June 14, 2016, can Younger Abstention and other obstacles
to Supreme Court jurisdiction continue to be exploited by
respondent federal district court to facilitate and ratify
protracted, invidious and bad faith processes over a ten
year period to oppress a judicial whistleblower?
Taken as a whole, does the relentless judicial persecution of
a model father and accomplished attorney for purposes of
punishing accurate criticisms and misconduct complaints in
the Northern District of New York qualify the victim for
extraordinary relief in this Court or, alternatively, asylum
status against the United States in a free world nation
under the United Nations Convention of 1951?

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 and as Custodial
Parent for the state;
WILLIAM KOSLOSKY, individually and as state “Attorney
for the Child”

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

i

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

1

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

1

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

1

Statement of the Case.......................................................... 3
Statement of Facts……………………………………………… 6
Reasons for Supplemental Brief......................................... 11
Point One: Based on this Court’s recent
decision in McDonnell v United States, the
respondent district court committed an
egregious abuse of discretion by suppressing
challenges to vague, absurd and retaliatory orders. … …. 12
Point Two: Domestic courts are not
constitution-free zones, and routine obstacles
to federal jurisdiction can no longer be
abused to deny parents basic rights…………………

17

Point Three: Persecution inflicted upon
this public critic and judicial whistle blower
meets the criteria for asylum under
United Nations Convention of 1951……………………. 19
Conclusion………………………………………………………. 23

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723
(1998)…………………………………………………………... 17
Blackoff v Blackoff,
392 NYS2d 26 (1st Dept 1977)……………………………….. 5
Brown v Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)………... 19
Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (1994)…………… 22
Dept of Family v DHHS of U.S.,
588 F.3d 740 (1st Cir. 2009)………………………………….. 17
Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925)………………………… 19
In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013)………………

18

Jones v Clinton, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (ED Ark. 1999)… ... 10
Kirtsaeng v John Wiley, No. 15-575 (6/16/16)…………… 12
Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 155 (4th Dept 2009)…….. 5
Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000)…….. 22
McDonnell v United States, No. 15-474 (6/26/16)………… 12
Oneida Nation v Oneida County,
132 F. Supp 2d 71 (NDNY 2000)……………………… 17, 22

Palaimo v Lutz, 837 F. Supp.55 (NDNY 1993)…………

22

Parent v New York,
786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011)………………………….. 5
Patterson v City of Utica,
370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004) ………………………………… 22
Pearce v Longo,
766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011)…………………………

15

Sprint v Jacobs, 571 US ___ (2013)..................................

5

Universal Health Services v United States,
No. 15-7 (6/16/16)…………………………………………….

17

Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (2001) …………………

16

Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971) …………………… 4, 5

Constitution and Statutes
U.S. Amend 1……............................................................... 13
U.S. Amend 14.................................................................... 13
28 USC 1651 (All Writs Act)……………………………....... 1
42 USC 651 (Title IV-D) ………………………………… 17, 20

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 person of
life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny
to any person the equal protection of the laws.”

1

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 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 York’s 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 child’s custody and support, including any
prior orders, and shall enter orders for custody and support
as, in the court’s discretion, justice requires, having regard
for the circumstances of the case and of the respective
parties and to the best interests of the child…”
A one year suspension order of September 23, 2010 (Second
Circuit A-260), still in effect against petitioner, states in
part: “for the period of suspension, respondent (petitioner
here) is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice
of law in any form, either as a principal, or as agent, clerk
or employee of another; and respondent is forbidden… to
give to another an opinion as to the law or its application…

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Familiarity with the petition filed on June 14, 2016 is
presumed. It is supplemented here with rulings and events
occurring since that time. This case raises three macro and
two micro questions focused on First Amendment
retaliation by members of the judicial branch of
government, father discrimination under the equal
protection clause and due process violations through a
corruption of domestic and attorney disciplinary tribunals.
It 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 purportedly final orders
by multiple judges of the Northern District of New York.
The first was a May 22, 2015 Decision and Order of Judge
Gary Sharpe which dismissed petitioner’s 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 are set forth at pages 2629 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)(ii). However Judge Sharpe, infected by
inherent prejudice, denied petitioner’s motions for recusal.
On July 7, 2016, after the filing of this petition, the Second
Circuit entered a summary order denying petitioner’s
appeal of the August 10, 2015 decision, effectively closing

3

all federal court doors to petitioner due to the systemic bias
and repetitive mistreatment of his complaints since 2009.
That denial order, in line with all other circuits, essentially
repeals FRAP Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) due to the utter paucity of
cases which grant leave under its plain terms.
On August 9, 2016, this Court received petitioner’s motion
under Rules 21 and 22 for recusal of Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, conversion to an extraordinary petition under
Rule 20, and a stay of suspension orders in both domestic
and disciplinary tribunals relevant to child access and the
practice of law. On August 23, 2016, that motion was put on
the docket and limited to a “Suggestion for Recusal.”
An anti-filing order issued on October 9, 2015, A-51, has
been perfected and awaits a decision from the Second
Circuit. It is expected that such appeal will fail in the event
this Court denies writ. Another purportedly final order by
Judge Gary Sharpe in March, 2016 has not been appealed
on futility grounds. It assessed opposing counsel fees. These
orders induced respondent Judge Daniel King to issue and
continue a protection (gag) order on petitioner’s website. A
motion for stay of that family 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).
As relevant here, the action included First Amendment
challenges to vague and overbroad disciplinary rules
prohibiting, inter alia, unfit behavior. A suspension order
resulted, and it commanded petitioner to refrain from the
rendering of legal opinions in any manner or employment

4

including public office in our other two branches of
government. These challenges were never addressed in a
series of final and non-final decisions in the Northern
District of New York since 2011, see i.e. A-71 to 126.
In Sprint Communications v Jacob, 571 US ___ (2013), this
Court issued a unanimous rebuke to lower federal courts
for abusing 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 alternate grounds of
Younger Abstention. It declined to entertain petitioner’s
federal claims, thereby insulating them from this Court.
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 dispositions
emerged after more than thirty-five (35) trial judges were
assigned to splintered and conflicting proceedings.
Misconduct of numerous judges produced recusals with the
injuries merely passed on to the next without remedy. At
least two custody judges acknowledged on the record that
they had not reviewed petitioner’s timely submissions prior
to ruling against petitioner and then recusing themselves.
Nearly every one of these dispositions carried over to the
present day. Under New York law they required a distinct
appellate perfection process because a “substantial right”
was triggered and would otherwise be waived. Such appeals
were impaired by a rule which enables a trial judge to control
record contents as its final arbiter. In this case, the first assigned
(divorce) judge, John Grow, relied upon this rule to subvert
petitioner’s first consolidated appeal of four decisions over a
single year, citing Blackoff v Blackoff, 392 NYS2d 26 (1 Dept.
1977); Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 155 (4th Dept 2009).

5

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Once again familiarity with the petition is presumed. The
fact background of the earlier Statement of the Case
focused on state proceedings which formed the basis for a
complaint dismissed by Judge Sharpe on May 22, 2015.
Since the time of petition filing here, the New York Judicial
Conduct Commission issued yet another letter cleansing
respondent Daniel King of all judge misconduct itemized
under Point Two of the petition, pp 22 to 26.
That determination was received on September 17, 2016
and based on “insufficient evidence,” thereby shifting the
burden to citizen complainants to perform the investigatory
functions of a government accountability agency. Coupled
with the respondent district court’s refusal to accord
petitioner any discovery rights pursuant the complaints
filed since 2009, there is currently no real accountability for
judicial misconduct in the Northern District of New York.
Petitioner is especially impaired insofar as he
recommended dissolution of that commission due to its
political “window dressing” nature in testimony before the
state Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. Such
testimony was cited and reproduced from public sites by
disciplinary respondents in opposition to petitioner’s third
application for reinstatement. Such activity was also cited
for imposing defamatory forensic orders exclusively against
petitioner by respondent Judge King as conditions for
accessing petitioner’s children, A-II at par. 129, 148-151.
Judge Sharpe’s anti-filing action began on August 25, 2015,
A-I at 51. Syracuse media was put on notice prior to
petitioner’s knowledge of it to yield a calculated publication
that further damaged petitioner’s reputation, credible
reform message and employability. It was also caused by a
fundamental lack of reporter investigation and knowledge

6

of family court matters which mainstream media as a
general rule is avoiding. Hence secondary media becomes a
critical by-product which in this case has been gagged and
targeted by both domestic and disciplinary agents.
At the time of this anti-filing order, respondent King was
reviewing motions properly seeking an order reopening a
support violation order obtained through joint fraud,
namely the concealment of petitioner’s children at the home
of an unfit, childless millionaire on the family court record
for at least eight months. He issued a decision only days
later without mention of that fraud, committing this father
to a maximum six month jail term for support arrears.
An arrest warrant was also issued despite a stay order
obtained by agreement with a state Supreme Court Justice
on September 8, 2015 to facilitate global settlement under a
superior court support order by agreement entered on
August 23, 2010. It called for sale of petitioner’s home as
the predicate remedy for arrears. Home foreclosure had
been underway in the only (Supreme) court with authority
to direct a sale, and the parties had reached a tentative
settlement for child support through sale proceeds due to
the state’s impairment of all of petitioner’s income means.
However Judge King reneged the following day without
notice to petitioner, placing him unknowingly in fugitive
status while upending the settlement set for September 24,
2015. A satisfaction amount had been held back pending
the motion for reopening the violation, but the funds were
refused because the prescribed local support agency had no
authority to accept it and a central office refused to disclose
its confidential location. Judge King refused to amend his
impossible order due to his true agenda of censorship and
punitive incarceration. He refused despite notice from
petitioner’s attorney and his possession of certified funds.

7

In early October, 2015 the arrears were satisfied by mail,
the warrant and commitment vacated, and petitioner’s
motions denied despite the respondent mother’s claims to
have satisfied her own court ordered obligations to notify
the father of residential relocation within 24 hours by email or text. She later testified that such notice had been
confirmed on her home computer under address “gmai.com”
(“l” character missing unlike other received transmissions).
Petitioner was therefore compelled to file more futile
judicial misconduct complaints while exposing the fraud on
his website. Judge King answered on November 25, 2015
(after mandamus filing below) with a protection (gag) order
on this site based exclusively on non-threatening
disclosures of recent events with the following absurd,
highly defamatory and overbroad language prohibiting:
“assault, stalking, menacing, reckless
endangerment, strangulation, criminal
obstruction of breathing, identity theft, grand
larceny, coercion, or any other criminal offense”
nowhere alleged in an offense petition;
Petitioner was actually being ordered to refrain from
strangling his own daughters. The Fourth Department
appeals court denied an intervening mandamus as did the
Second Circuit but petitioner was able to get a mandamus
show cause order signed in New York Supreme Court on
May 3, 2016. On the eve of family court trial, Judge King
cancelled proceedings for the second time while his gag
order was maintained under threat of arrest and contempt
for six months. He followed days later by throwing it all out
on the face of the original petition and website content.
In June, 2016, one week prior to a public hearing on the
mandamus action, Judge King stepped down while
continuing his 2013 and 2014 suspensions of fathering
periods. The action was then dismissed on the court’s own

8

motion due to relief rendered moot through conduct that
can only be described as orchestrated. Necessarily involving
respondent Administrative Judge Tormey, it was successful
in avoiding a citizen protest set to occur at the courthouse.
The case was then transferred to family Judge James Eby
in a more remote county, the 38th trial judge since an
originally uncontested divorce was filed in 2006. The latest
judge denied an exigent motion for Father’s Day time
deprived the prior two years as part of a father replacement
agenda. Petitioner nevertheless obtained an afternoon with
his daughters through pressure upon the mother. This only
infuriated the newest judge at a July 12, 2016 session when
he effectively closed all state court houses to petitioner.
He did this through notices conclusively proving systemic
bias. Prior to first introduction, they stated, inter alia, that
civil practice rules will be strictly observed and telephonic
argument will not be considered (contrary to practices).
This required an entire day and 140 mile round trip to
receive a decision already prepared and provided from the
bench without mention of a recusal motion or severe child
alienation. He simply stared back at petitioner when basic
enforcement of phone contact was requested. Given an
ability to control appellate records, such torturing of due
process impairs access to this Court on the state track.
Judge Eby engaged in sarcastic lecturing in a manner
intended to provoke outrage and contempt. He limited
petitioner’s recourse to appellate remedies with full
knowledge of their prohibitive time, resources and systemic
bias with daily developing children as the subject. It
compelled petitioner to reiterate the temporary nature of
prior allegedly precluded dispositions and contrary
precedent involving the same case and parties.
The recusal of Judge King and pending challenges to his
forensic and contradictory parenting conditions could be

9

vacated as it occurred in an identical circumstance by a
prior Judge Michael Hanuszczak on the same record used
by a predecessor (disqualified) judge, Second Circuit A-222.
The invidious treatment here mirrored the retaliation
against a chief family clerk of the same court in Morin v
Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010).
The same chief administrative judge, respondent James
Tormey is shown through compelling circumstantial
inference to be orchestrating these outcomes through
discourse outside the scope of judicial office. This may be
the only explanation for absurd orders, assignments to
remote courthouses, and reneging of stay orders arranged
by judges themselves for logic and economy purposes.
Due to the respondent King’s usurpation of a global child
support settlement during the month following Judge
Sharpe’s anti-filing action, the prescribed satisfaction
pursuant to higher court order of August 23, 2010 was
derailed. It caused respondents Hawse-Koziol and Koslosky
to pursue another violation petition in their preferred
family court which lacked jurisdiction to order a sale of
petitioner’s home with equity well beyond amounts owed.
That petition was made subject to a traverse (personal
jurisdiction) hearing on September 1, 2016. A city marshal
admitted on cross-examination by petitioner that he had
lied under oath regarding his purported service. Decision
was strangely reserved. On September 16, 2016, it was
issued dismissing the petition without prejudice but also
without referral of the perjury to a law enforcement agency
as required by Judicial Code, Jones v Clinton, 36 F.Supp.
2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 1999)(federal judge referral of President
Bill Clinton for ethics prosecution after contempt of court).
Among other issues ignored was the serial misconduct of
the attorney continually appointed since 2007 to represent
petitioner’s children even after removal by an intervening

10

judge (respondent William Koslosky). Like his predecessors,
Judge Eby disregarded the issue, leaving petitioner to futile
complaints before an ethics committee engaged in the witch
hunt against him. As stated, its chief and deputy counsel
were fired for falsifying time sheets without public charges,
i.e. respondent Steve Zayas. Hence there is no even-handed
lawyer accountability in the peculiar ordeal inflicted here.
REASONS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
While children in Allepo, Syria are diving and swimming in
a pool created by a missile strike (Associated Press, 9/15/16)
respondents are hanging on to a “prohibited alcohol related
gesture” as a sufficient danger to petitioner’s children to
prevent father-daughter contact here in the United States.
That “gesture,” assuming it could be understood at all, was
not prohibited by any court order, and it consisted of a 2013
wedding toast with petitioner’s children nearby and no
alcohol history of any kind as found by an appellate judge.
Sanity dictates that there is obviously something else
driving an absurd process challenged by this precedent
seeking action on constitutional grounds. Due to a highly
abused pretext of promoting our children’s so-called “best
interests,” lawyers and conflict profiteers are concocting
endless issues to beat up opposing parents. So bad is it
today that the entire divorce industry is coming under
serious fire as it drags down a noble legal profession.
This ordeal represents the outcome for a judicial whistle
blower, victimized parent and conscientious civil rights
attorney who set out to reform this industry. However,
absent discovery rights or a reliable self-regulating agency
to remedy a colossal failure in human rights, persecution is
now the sole outcome. It is being ratified through inaction
of our federal courts. This is not petitioner’s first endeavor
to access our Supreme Court on a long neglected issue. But

11

it will provide the highest authority either way to justify an
escape from the oppression that is undeniably present.
An alcohol gesture remains the reason cited in a December
2, 2013 decision for suspending child contact that continues
to this day. It was manufactured after no evidence could be
provided to show any parenting problem, consumption of a
legal beverage being standard issue for abusing parents in
our nation’s divorce and family courts. There are many
more, a veritable treasure trove of accusations in a system
designed to maximize profits and court revenues at the
expense of children and families under a federal statute.
Point One: Based on this Court’s recent decision in
McDonnell v United States, the respondent district court
committed an egregious abuse of discretion by suppressing
challenges to vague, absurd and retaliatory court orders.
Petitioner has been exposing court corruption and
misconduct for ten years in virtually every state of the
union, even Hawaii when President Obama visited. It has
reached epidemic proportions with no sign of reform or
shared parenting structure mandated by our Constitution.
That is because the suppression of speech, press and
organizing efforts is so profound in our judicial branch of
government that relevant experts and civil rights lawyers
such as petitioner are persecuted beyond conscience.
In McDonnell v United States, No 15-474 (June 26, 2016),
decided after the originating petition here was filed, this
Court vacated a conviction of former Virginia Governor
Robert McDonnell based on jury instructions and a statute
which was found to be overly expansive. The definition of
an “official act” for purposes of criminal liability was
deemed to have serious constitutional infirmities.

12

Whether petitioner’s ordeal is analyzed from a First or
Fourteenth Amendment standpoint, or some other federal
right such as the parenting liberty, the result is the same. A
public critic is being subjected to something far more
egregious than an over inclusive statute. He is being
pounded by orders laced with such absurdity that no
conduct provides a safe harbor. The opening segment of this
brief is ample demonstration of this.
Among the many examples is a law license suspension
order of 2010 which remains in effect well beyond a
punishment period completed in 2013. With seven full
years approaching, Third Department respondents have
achieved functional disbarment after multiple applications
for reinstatement were denied in major part due to critical
website posts, official complaints and reform efforts. With a
denial of writ here, circumstances will be ripe for a double
disbarment of 14 years, beyond retirement age, without
commission of any crime or serious misconduct.
The prohibition order “commands” petitioner to refrain
from the rendering of any legal opinion regardless of
employment or speaking engagement. That order and a
regulatory rule against unfit behavior make this public
critic a proverbial sitting duck while ambushing him for
countless activities or words. There is no recourse for this in
a state court system infected by systemic bias. Examples
are found throughout the pleading, records and filings here.
At the same time, petitioner is being victimized by absurd
and overbroad orders in New York’s domestic courts with
undue, unfair and excessive scrutiny by disciplinary agents.
Indeed this is by far an unprecedented case. The state has
usurped the self-governing rights of a democracy in order to
profit off our children. The atrocities over a natural right
tracing itself to the beginning of civilization are being
perceived as everyday oppression by an increasing variety
of terrorists, criminals, protesters and mainstream parents.

13

A remedy is now required to show that our system of
American justice works after all, even if petitioner can
never be made whole again. The alcohol finding was
derived from a “mini-hearing” without due notice, ten
minute limits for case presentation and no recording for
appellate purposes. On such a hearing, petitioner lost his
children potentially forever in light of the severe and unremedied alienation underway over the past three years.
Other than pure evil and the violation of a fundamental
right, what else can explain the hatred shown by these
children for their father on Thanksgiving Day 2015?
On the last weekend together in January, 2014, there was
happiness, sharing of plans, hugging and promising fatherdaughter relationships to last a lifetime. But the quest for
money and revenge was so prevalent that these girls were
brainwashed and made shut out all trace of their natural
father without so much as an allegation of abuse. This evil
course of action was pursued not by a natural mother but a
creature of statute known as a “custodial parent” trained to
war against her counterpart. Dads, moms and children are
increasingly viewed as objects instead of dignified human
beings under this “opposition framework” for parenting.
It was sufficient to cause respondent appellate Judge John
Centra to issue a stay order on December 13, 2013 on
grounds that the proceedings here were “structurally
flawed” with petitioner having no record of abuse. That
order facilitated the last weekend petitioner spent with his
girls before being vacated by the same Judge Centra and
his panel only days after exposure of related misconduct.
It occurred on petitioner’s website which has become the
target of censorship by all respondents due to a tagging of
publications relating to individuals. Petitioner’s global
following has become so impacting that these publications
can arise on a first page Google search of a judge or lawyer.

14

Sufficiently offensive as it is protected by our Constitution,
this has set in motion very alarming reactions. Oppression
is otherwise corroborated by such cases as Pearce v Longo,
766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011). A police investigator
committed a murder-suicide after exiting support court, a
key factor that was ignored, leaving three children without
parents and the city with a $2 million liability.
Respondents have been exploiting judicial weapons to
punish these publications. They have all but stated this in
decisions, actions and defamatory orders throughout the
record. With an arsenal at their disposal perceived as
sacrosanct by an unsuspecting public, they have been able
to shut down reform as their public critics emerge in courts
throughout the country. Indeed at least two other pro se
parent petitions are pending for conference on the same day
as this one. Dr. Mario Jimenez and John Batista joined
petitioner at a news conference outside this Court to
announce our filings only to incur further retributions.
Truth itself is ever elusive in these courts because offspring
are made the prize or “award” in custody wars. In this case,
respondents exploited the patent fabrications of Judge King
and the brazen perjuries of William Koslosky and HawseKoziol. This is well established in prior filings here and the
records below. These frauds remain so pervasive and even
encouraged for retribution purposes that almost anything
can be conjured up to finish off this public critic. But only
the public critic was prosecuted with non-criminal and
inflated support obligations based on a highly abused
“imputed income” practice. This was in lieu of reliable
evidence and a proper distribution of the burdens of proof.
Terminology routinely employed in these courts is more
relevant to a Syrian war zone than a forum for raising
America’s children. This is not merely your petitioner’s
position. It is shared by esteemed jurists and experts of the
Miller Commission in its 2006 report to New York’s Chief

15

Justice. It is also shared by veteran jurists such as Dennis
Duggan in Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS 2d 315 (Fam. 2001):
At the outset, the Court notes that the terms
‘custody’ and ‘visitation’ have outlived their
usefulness. Indeed their use tends to place any
discussion and allocation of family rights into an
oppositional framework. ‘Fighting for custody’ directs
the process towards determining winners and losers.
The children, always in the middle, usually turn out
to be the losers… This Court has abandoned the use
of the word ‘visitation’ in its Orders, using the phrase
‘parenting time’ instead. If the word ‘custody’ did not
so permeate our statutes and was not so ingrained
into our psyches, that word would be the next to go…
This misplaced focus draws parents into contention
and conflict, drawing the worst from them at a time
when their children need their parents’ best.”
The disrespect increasingly directed at parental rights is
corroborated by the July 7, 2016 summary order of the
Second Circuit. It affirmed Judge Sharpe’s August 10, 2015
decision denying leave to file an appeal pursuant to FRAP
Rule 4(a)(5). The frauds and perjuries in family court
became so insurmountable that petitioner’s children could
have their residence concealed on the family court record
for a period of eight months without any accountability.
Such callous disregard was clearly retaliatory. Devastation
to petitioner when this scheme was discovered on Fathers’
Day 2015 was so severe that it forced him to escape the
region and miss a next day filing deadline regarding Judge
Sharpe’s May 22, 2015 decision. Such devastation mattered
not at all for “good cause” or “excusable neglect” and was
sadistically cast aside without so much as a footnote. Judge
Sharpe concluded instead that petitioner “had only himself
to blame.” A-I at 68. See also Kirtsaeng v John Wiley 15375 (June 16, 2016) on Sharpe’s abuse of fee sanctions.

16

Point Two: Domestic courts are not constitution-free
zones, and routine obstacles to federal jurisdiction
can no longer be abused to deny parents basic rights.
Domestic relations courts are no longer matters of local or
state interest. Constitutional violations here were fueled by
a federal funding statute and a state revenue system based
on the magnitude and number of child support orders
manufactured under Title IV-D of the Social security Act,
42 USC 651 et. seq.; Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998);
Dept of Family v DHHS of U.S., 588 F.3d 740 (1st Cir. 2009)
Beyond that the events occurring since this petition was
filed have only proven beyond any remaining doubt that
respondents are forever committed to their agenda for
censoring and suppressing the petitioner using every means
available to them. The overriding reason for denying this
public critic his discovery rights in the Northern District of
New York was a concern for exposing judges to abuse.
Recognizing this interest, petitioner brought an action for
extraordinary relief under FRAP Rule 21 with a request for
the appointment of a special master to investigate and
report on the complex ordeal inflicted upon this public critic
and parents throughout the country as exemplified in the
Second Circuit. This was the course of action taken by the
same federal court in the Oneida land claim class action of
1998, a case in which petitioner was intricately involved,
Oneida Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (2000).
The obstacles to federal court jurisdiction and good faith
petitions for accessing this Court can no longer be tolerated
or glossed over. This is a nationwide epidemic corroborated
by other cases decided by this Court since petition filing.
For example, in Universal Health Services v United States,
No. 15-7 (June 16, 2016), a teen girl was placed under the
care of a counseling center having unqualified staff which

17

administered improper medication resulting in a worsening
of a bi-polar diagnosis. She died of a consequential stroke.
This Court allowed the family’s action to go forward under
the federal False Claims Act based on an implied false
certification theory of liability. In family courts throughout
the nation parents and children are being referred by
judges and lawyers as a matter of course for psychiatric
evaluations on the slightest accusations of a scorned exspouse. All too often entire families are over-medicated,
bankrupted or permanently harmed by this lucrative
referral program in these courts.
In this case, a scorned ex-wife acting on advice of lawyers
anxious to harm petitioner, requested and obtained a
forensic order in 2011 for the parents and children without
cause of any kind. The biased judge who issued that order
was disqualified, her replacement was removed from the
case on motion of petitioner and removed altogether from
the family court bench for admitting to sexual misconduct
upon his handicapped five year old niece, In re Bryan
Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).
On September 23, 2011, the next (veteran) family judge,
Michael Hanuszczak, vacated the order on the same record
employed by his two predecessors to order and continue the
evaluations. This event fully verified in the record shows
just how arbitrary these forensic orders truly are and how
easily they can be exploited to harm a public critic as
respondent Judge Daniel King did only two years later. On
July 12, 2016, his replacement Judge James Eby refused to
honor that precedent on the case, thereby producing a
permanent loss of petitioner’s children.
The DSM-5 manual used to diagnose psychiatric conditions
and process insurance claims has at least 300 disorders and
600 conditions that can destroy careers and keep parents
and children under state control and medication for many

18

years. It is beyond epidemic and leading to suicides, bizarre
activity and needless destruction of parent-child relations
in criminal ways. A special master must be assigned to
investigate this crisis because it arises exclusively in our
judicial branch. It has been a long time since this Court
took a bold move to correct a court created injustice of such
magnitude, see Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925); Bast,
supra and Brown v Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954).
The case for extraordinary recourse could not be better.
Point Three: Persecution inflicted upon this public
critic and judicial whistle blower meets the criteria
for asylum under United Nations Convention of 1951.
The fact pattern here is shockingly unprecedented and
incredible from a human rights standpoint. It mirrors in
many material respects the abuses inflicted upon Chinese
lawyer Chen Guangcheng who like petitioner advocated for
women’s rights, land rights and parent-child rights. He fled
China in 2012 and was accorded protected status in New
York with help of then secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
In this case, the mirror mistreatment of an American civil
rights attorney and parent entitles petitioner to protected
status under the United Nations Convention of 1951 and
other human rights protocols. Such protection is accorded to
persons persecuted for their political views and free speech.
At least one British court denied extradition to a child
support obligor due to “draconian” enforcement practices in
the states. The case for protection here is detailed in the
opening segment of this brief and in petitioner’s motion
filed on August 9, 2016 and will not be repeated.
Since that time, petitioner was improperly served with an
amended petition for enforcement of a child support order
and willful contempt. It contained language in boldface
capital letters on its Notice face page which is far more

19

threatening than the original one allegedly served on
petitioner prior to petition filing here. As explained in the
fact segment of this brief, the original service was made
fraudulently with a city marshal admitting on the witness
stand at a September 1, 2016 hearing in Syracuse Family
Court that he had lied under oath. Critical to the service
that never occurred is a shocking criminal sentence now
being threatened in the amended version yet to be served:
YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY
SUBJECT YOU TO MANDATORY ARREST AND
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WHICH MAY RESULT
IN YOUR INCARCERATION FOR UP TO SEVEN
YEARS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND MAY
SUBJECT YOU TO FAMILY PROSECUTION AND
INCARCERATION FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT. IF YOU FAIL TO
APPEAR IN COURT WHEN YOU ARE REQUIRED
TO DO SO, THIS ORDER MAY BE EXTENDED IN
YOUR ABSENCE AND CONTINUE IN EFFECT
UNTIL YOU APPEAR IN COURT.
On April 5, 2015, an unarmed African-American father was
shot dead in the back five times by a traffic cop while
fleeing a child support warrant on a routine stop. Although
both white and black officers were charged in the murder,
the children forever lost their dad for a money debt
arbitrarily inflated to maximize federal incentive revenues
under Title IV-D and to feed family court beneficiaries. It is
a situation well out of control and leading to increased
instances of violence across America.
Respondents have successfully destroyed petitioner and his
reform efforts through a seizure of his licenses, income
capacities and disparagements of his reputation and public
message. Petitioner’s background was omitted from the
original petition for the sake of substance. However in this
supplemental brief it is required to repair to the extent

20

possible the false depictions ascribed to the judicial whistle
blower here while further solidifying the conscience
shocking misconduct of respondents for substantive due
process purposes and extraordinary relief.
Petitioner is a civil rights lawyer still registered with the
New York Bar during an indefinite suspension period which
began on February 5, 2010. This is when he took a
conscientious stand against father discrimination and
corruption generally consistent with his professional oath.
In front page news of the day, he compared his refusal to
pay gender biased support orders to the refusal of Susan B.
Anthony to pay her fine after being convicted of the crime of
voting in the 1872 presidential elections.
It must be emphasized that petitioner never refused
support of his children or compliance with agreements
when honored by the “custodial parent.” Ironically the court
in Rochester, New York where the arguments and
suspension occurred is dedicated to Susan B. Anthony due
to location of her trial.
Petitioner was known in the Northern District of New York
as an attorney willing to take on cases which few others
would for fear of government retribution or public
condemnation. His achievements include legal precedents
and six figure recoveries for victims of government abuse.
All the while, he was self trained, generating a perfect
record of acquittals in criminal cases. A sampling of news
articles ignored in the record below is appended to the
lower court record at A-91.
Petitioner’s civil rights work earned him interviews on the
CBS Program 60 Minutes and introductions on the front
page of New York Times, among other major media. A
published book was discussed on CNN and his candidacy
for United States Congress was a headline story in 2006.
After years of complex litigation against high profile firms,

21

he secured final judgment in New York Supreme Court
invalidating the largest casino gaming compact in the state
on constitutional grounds.
In education, a Juris Doctor was conferred by Northern
Illinois University, College of Law with an award from the
American Bar Association in State and Local Government.
Petitioner received a Bachelor of Professional Studies from
the State University of New York, College of Technology,
thereafter joining the management team of a Fortune 500
manufacturer. Later he served as a corporation counsel,
school board attorney and city councilman with a focus on
risk management.
Petitioner’s many published cases include Patterson v City
of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004)($333,820.32 civil
rights verdict argued before Justice Sonia Sotomayor);
Oneida Indian Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71
(NDNY 2000)(successful casino challenge in defense of
landowner rights) Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170
(NDNY 2000)(free speech challenge as city corporation
counsel invalidating mayoral gag order); Currie v
Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994)(successful
sexual harassment case), Palaimo v Lutz, 837 F. Supp. 55
(NDNY 1993)(brutality and unlawful confinement claims
allowed for 72 year old woman).
Rounding out his scholarship, community service awards
and dedication plaques on a new city courthouse is his
latest published novel regarding nuclear terrorism. It can
be found at major bookseller sites entitled Voyage to
Armageddon. Within two years of law school graduation in
1985, petitioner obtained a restraining order on a $30
million school project. Today he is unable to get a family
court order to enforce a single phone call from his
daughters. Much of petitioner’s unyielding quest for justice
derives from his own father who shared horror stories of his
five years spent in a Nazi internment camp.

22

CONCLUSION
By reason of the foregoing, petitioner respectfully asks this
court to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and such
other relief as is necessary under the circumstances.
September 17, 2016
Respectfully submitted,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

23