Office of Leon R.

Koziol Civil Rights Advocate

1518 Genesee Street Utica, NY 13502
leonkoziol@gmail.com (315) 796-4000 May 10, 2013 Support Magistrate James Gormon Onondaga County Family Court 401 Montgomery Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Re: Koziol v Hawse-Koziol; Oneida County Docket No. F-04606-08/12E Dear Magistrate Gormon: This will constitute my formal request for your resignation as a Support Magistrate with the Onondaga County Family Court in Syracuse, New York. It is designed to prevent further harm to parents, families and innocent children caused by gross incompetence of the kind displayed in your May 3, 2013 decision and continued invidious processes designed to impair free speech. Your decision contained all sorts of egregious error, including my PhD status which is pure fabrication. I am utterly speechless over this phantom accomplishment. Because I was not present at the ceremony when it was conferred, and I am unaware of any source for it in the court record, I must ask for pertinent information, including the university which issued the certificate and a copy of the dissertation which supported it, so that I might apply it as you state in the search for new employment (pg. 3 of decision). Obviously, there is a serious problem here. Public outcry for reform to our system of justice is reaching epic proportions. Your decision is an example of how suppression of such reform is achieved through the decision making process. Absolute judge immunity originating from a by-gone era prevents meaningful accountability and our judicial code limits public comment. Therefore, my request represents a necessary effort to override the abuse of such privileges. Your decision constitutes little more than a brazen assault upon a citizens right to criticize our domestic relations courts outside the litigation process. Only ten days earlier, I filed and publicized a 25 page complaint before the state Commission on Judicial Conduct naming you and certain colleagues as serious violators of judicial ethics. Among my grievances was a five month delay in producing your decision. Based on its timing alone, I believe you are well aware of my complaint. Your decision tracks its contents and I will elaborate further below. This seven year divorce odyssey defies all manner of due process and competent decision making. My complaint provided alarming detail of the rampant misconduct. Clearly an outside investigation is required into the operation of Family Court in this state.

In recent years, various judges in the Onondaga County courthouse have been forced to resign, become terminated or removed from the bench by the state Commission. In every case, the removal came too late, well after grave misconduct was completed upon assorted litigants, attorneys and even a handicapped five year old girl. A federal civil rights lawsuit by a clerk of this court resulted in a $600,000 recovery against a still seated judge. Taxpayers should not have to wait until the damage is done. Your misconduct calls for similar resignation or removal. Events involving these and other judges were detailed in my complaint, shared with legislative leaders in Albany, and featured on our website. This site and my related public forums have been monitored by so-called ethics lawyers and others opposed to my reform efforts outside of the courts highly controlled environment. Activities in both our nation and state capitals have been used against me in Family Court hearings. A copy of my April 23, 2013 complaint was also delivered to the chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee but, in a bizarre twist, he was arrested this week on felony charges, making any oversight on his part ludicrous indeed. On April 15, 2012, the Syracuse Post Standard featured a story by Jim OHara regarding secrecy in Onondaga Family Court. It focused on the sudden resignation of a judge assigned to my custody case (later announced as a retirement). The judge was under investigation for sexual misconduct involving a five year old niece. What alarmed me most about this article was the fear instilled among government employees and lawyers to speak publicly. My case is a shocking example of what happens when an accomplished civil rights attorney seeks court reform. It tracks my ordeal as corporation counsel in Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000). Background On August 28, 2012, I filed a show cause petition for downward modification of support based on more than two years of employment efforts which showed that an imputed earnings figure and support calculation were both excessive and unsustainable. They were imposed during a period when I enjoyed a successful and unblemished 23 year law practice. As soon as my public criticisms and reform activities were reported, a retribution agenda set in behind closed doors on January 9, 2008, resulting in a one year suspension of my law license. This punishment continues into a fourth year based on an abusive inquiry process delaying reinstatement indefinitely. After hearing from the parties one month later, you issued a temporary order on October 5, 2012 which lowered monthly obligations a mere 25% on grounds that there had been a change of circumstances, the modification of the order was necessary and proper, and any additional amounts would cause financial hardship. The reduction was not nearly enough to match the reality of headline stories regarding back-to-back license suspensions upon a prominent civil rights advocate, the depressed upstate economy where I live, and transportation costs associated with a recently obtained employment opportunity in Syracuse, 60 miles from my home. Nevertheless, over the next two months, motions were filed on both sides regarding information requests, William Koslosky as court appointed attorney, and various constitutional challenges to the support process. These subjects were laid out in extensive motion papers, and they were necessitated by a federal courts deference to ongoing state processes to decide such questions. As explained in the record, the federal case, John Parent (pseudonym) v State of New York , 2

Supreme Court docket 12-350, was dismissed and declined ultimately by the high court on abstention grounds (not decided on the merits). This required me to pursue my constitutional claims in this court. Thus, my First Amendment, due process, equal protection and parenting rights, as impaired by excessive support orders and abusive appointments, were properly raised. In further verification of their importance, the Attorney General was notified of my constitution based claims pursuant to statute. A letter dated October 26, 2012 was then sent by that office to you verifying receipt of correct notice. Because state statutes were at issue, it contained a request for a copy of any final decision and reserved the Attorney Generals right to participate at any later (appellate) stage. This procedure was carefully observed under additional authority of Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 878 NYS2d 524 (4th Dept. 2009) to preserve my ability for reaching our Supreme Court. This ruling on my case was cited at par. 18 of my November 6, 2012 affidavit. Your recently filed decision fails to copy the Attorney General consistent with common practice. A single ruling on our motions was issued in November, 2012. William Koslosky was removed only days prior to trial set for November 28, 2012 on grounds that his continuation would harm a productive outcome. None of the constitutional issues was decided, leaving the understanding that they would be addressed in the final decision. Meanwhile, the career opportunity in Syracuse which triggered my petition in the first place, was lost due to a state support intercept based only upon your questioning at our opening appearance. This effectively consumed all income, and it was better explained at our evidentiary hearing concluded with the statement, not supported by any law, that the courts case file would be placed at the bottom of the pile in the event either party made a status check prior to a deadline for decision set for the end of December, 2012. The Decision When a parent is hauled into Family Court on fraudulent or career damaging accusations, he or she has a right to expect minimal due process. That means, at the very least, that a judge will be dignified, impartial and competent in the treatment of evidence. In your decision, there were errors of fact in virtually every paragraph, i.e. date of 2010 support order, representation status, motion requests. These are the ones found on the first page alone. Such errors, added together, enable a parent to conclude that the outcome was predetermined and that the entire court process was a costly gesture in futility while under regular threat of incarceration for a civil support debt. In plain terms, your decision stands for the sexist rule that our laws will be bent to favor maternal parties whereas the same laws will be strictly observed or privately abused to harm those who criticize inequality in our courts. We begin with your own words on the last page to prove this. You declared that the temporary order was issued purposely to afford Mr. Koziol some relief from the total amount he was being charged as this matter ran its way through my court until final determination (emphasis added). In the next sentence, you state that Court is well aware that there is no statutory authority for Magistrates to set payment on arrears (except sometimes with the consent of the parties) and as such necessarily has to vacate its temporary order... Obviously we know that there can no longer be any consent of the parties after so many earlier agreements were tortured by lawyers and the state for fee and revenue generating purposes. But you omitted constitutional infirmities as a further reason to modify payment. Hence, in this one 3

paragraph, you created all sorts of confusion after admitting that you willfully violated our laws and as such, you would have to dismiss my entire case. Worse yet, as we were all running through (your) court, the constitutional claims would have to be tossed. At page 2, you state that Court has not entertained any of the extraneous material either involved in current litigation or previous litigation and you do not intend to rule on any of those extraneous issues... You may not like or understand such issues, but you have no power to deny my access to higher courts. Extraneous Issues The extraneous issues are all related to our United States Constitution, still the supreme law in this country, and they are here because the Supreme Court and a number of federal judges have required that I continue raising them here or be forever precluded from having them decided anywhere else. As for their presence in a motion filed subsequent to the petition, this is certainly not unusual, and they became crucial when you appointed William Koslosky as attorney for the child for the first time on a support matter in my seven year ordeal. As explained in my 25 page complaint, and conceded in your own words, William Koslosky would do little to aid in the decision making of this matter and in all likelihood would probably have caused more difficulty between the parties. This came after reviewing Kosloskys long history in our custody process. Despite such findings, you managed to go outside the scope of proceedings and contradict yourself along the way: It should be made perfectly clear that the reason the Court reversed itself and ended up not assigning Mr. Koslosky was strictly because of this matter being of child support in nature and as such attorney for children are not normally assigned. Concededly, I had difficulty reproducing that sentence verbatim because of its structure, no doubt hastily derived for other reasons, but you then bolstered your ruling with the declaration that it in no way vacates Mr. Kosloskys possible future involvement with other litigation... (page 2, top par). I am not sure how any judge can vacate a future possibility, but the more important question is what motivated you to go to such contradictory extremes involving truly extraneous matter when the cited ruling was issued back in November, 2012. The only logical answer is that it derived from my April 23, 2013 complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission where a more sophisticated but controversial presentation was made concerning William Koslosky. After describing his history of abuse and the series of re-appointments to harm free speech, I stated in that William Koslosky was finally removed by you consistent with your accurate version. Evidently there was some reason to make it clear outside of the record that you were not agreeing with my conclusion, although forced to employ the logical word removed anyway. You even fashioned the unorthodox term unassigned to describe your removal order. Why was this elaborate rationalization required when your removal order took effect prior to the relevant November, 2012 hearing upon which your recent decision was based? It is obvious that you are protecting this person not as the independent lawyer which our laws require but as a subordinate created by an admittedly needless appointment in violation of Judicial Code, section 100.3(C)(3). Theres more. On pages 4 through 12 of my complaint, after noting from the top down, that judicial misconduct reads like a docket sheet in any criminal court, I took issue with our upstate Appellate Division. It had ignored the fact that this court appointed attorney, William 4

Koslosky, lied in sworn papers submitted to two appellate licensing courts without correction, retraction or accountability. Indeed you made no mention of it either in your rambling text, even though, unlike my commission complaint, I appended the pertinent proofs to my October 12, 2012 motion. This is because our courts are effectively using tax dollars to hire the suppressor. Publicly Financed Suppressor The Koslosky events occurred since the time of our last support hearing with Magistrate Davies in January, 2011, they directly impaired my job search as you indirectly conceded in this parade of litigation, and they were certainly proper subjects for consideration given the resulting cancer inflicted upon the parents childrearing processes. Now in this request for your resignation, I repeat: William Koslosky stated under oath in formal papers submitted to both the Third and Fourth Departments that I sought in Family Court to revoke Appellate Division Orders from the Third and Fourth Department suspending (me) from practicing law. This anything but a legitimate legal argument, it is a fraud upon the court designed to harm my licensing interests and income capacity. The courts are purposely overlooking it as you did to promote retribution. This publicly paid attorney, authorized by the same courts, cited a cross motion dated March 3, 2011 as his only support for such a bizarre statement. I filed this cross motion with Onondaga Family Court Judge Pirro-Bailey. In response to his sworn factual submissions, I appended a complete copy of that cross motion containing all thirteen (13) requests for relief. None of it remotely contained any such request. The brazen fabrications were obviously submitted with the illicit goal of impairing my lawyer reinstatement process by two appellate courts charged with contemporaneous but separate regulatory duties. In short, Kosloskys income harming objectives could be executed off the public radar without even a proper hearing. Worse yet, this attorney for the child did it contrary to his own clients interests. They were too young to understand. All of this is found in the record before you involving my motion for Kosloskys removal. In response, an arrogant Koslosky never denied his statements or my proofs. Instead, in a single paragraph 5 of his motion reply affirmation, he simply declared that my arguments were void of factual substance, consist of conjecture and are meritless; thus no further comment thereon is warranted. How convenient this is indeed. Such a limited, cursory and cautious reply might insulate him from additional perjury, but it cannot whitewash a material false factual statement made under oath allegedly to promote the best interests of my children, particularly as he never asserted any omission or mistake. Quite the contrary, he continued to stand by his earlier fabrications. Meanwhile, his (involuntary) clients continued to rely upon me for support. Child support was the ostensible overriding purpose of our court proceeding. If such egregious fabrications (legally ascribed to my own little girls) are not refuted, they can be used against me in reinstatement inquiries more fully addressed in my recent commission complaint. Hence, it is no small matter, and it needlessly aggravated the parade of litigation which you condemned in your decision but blamed entirely upon the parents, in particular Mr. Koziol. We will get to that parade shortly, however, it must be emphasized that Koslosky is manufacturing litigation using public money placed into his personal bank accounts. As explained in my complaint, any ratification of this by our judges in the face of ethical duty sends a message to the unwilling clients that it is perfectly proper to lie under oath to our higher courts of law (pg. 12). 5

Permanent Harm to Children It was obvious at the time Family Court proceedings were pending before Judge Bryan Hedges that William Koslosky was conspiring to create an impression that I was unfit to practice law or remain as a father. Emboldened by the prior misconduct of Judges Pirro-Bailey and WalshHood, described in my commission complaint, William Koslosky simply went too far with his lies. To the extent this resignation demand must also be used to support alternate means for your removal, the case of Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010) may convince authorities that Koslosky was not acting alone. That case was cited in my motion, also in my complaint, and it featured an appointed chief clerk of this court who refused to engage in political espionage directed by Judge Hedges and others against a handicapped judge competing for higher office. In 2006, as an endorsed candidate for state Senate, I was urged by a retired Supreme Court Judge to run for judicial office. I continue to maintain that my divorce process was abused to harm my political career back then, but as it relates to William Koslosky, I have stressed that he routinely exploits his appointments to suppress my public criticisms through bizarre petitions of the kind he filed with the Fourth Department on July 30, 2011. If he chooses to do this as a private citizen, that may be his prerogative, but he is doing it instead through an abuse of state power under cloak of immunity using public money in the representation of my unsuspecting children. You have needlessly endorsed Kosloskys continued involvement with my children through your extraneous reversal explanation. Accordingly this must be answered with additional deranged behavior on his part which is also found in your court record. Like my successful motion to remove Judge Bryan Hedges, this one was well founded. William Koslosky possesses a deep hatred of his father which impairs any ability to represent children of other parents who, in contrast, love their own fathers and require their presence over a lifetime. Indeed even Judge Walsh-Hood was forced to recognize that both parents here loved their children in her 2010 Decision After Trial. In that decision, she made a once-sided attack upon me after I was compelled to excuse myself with the courts permission on the last day of custody hearings. My premature exit was necessitated by contempt risks orchestrated through joint misconduct and an abdication of judicial office. In my most recent complaint before the commission, I made extensive reference to campaign parades used against me in Walsh-Hoods decision. She and Koslosky portrayed them as a form of child exploitation even though our president and the Judges own father (a late congressman opposite my political party) engaged in this same time honored American tradition. The judge also failed to take issue with the following extraneous statement made by Mr. Koslosky in his closing pontifications after I left the courtroom: One thing that I remember is disagreement between my mom and my dad. My dad was a policeman and one day he came home and he was mad because we didnt have red skinned potatoes and all that she could say is we have Yukon Gold and I was terrorized. Id never seen dad arguing like this and, my God, hes in the police uniform with a gun. What is he going to do? So I went to the store to get red-skinned potatoes and I dont like Yukon Gold. (found in transcripts appended at paragraph 15 of my motion affidavit).

As explained before your prior colleagues, including Judge Hedges, this was not an idle offering by Mr. Koslosky. It is reflective of a childhood disorder which is finding its way into lawyer decisions that he routinely makes for countless innocent children, or as he likes to declare and reiterate, his clients. In this day of family-fleecing court processes, children are being encouraged to confide in such attorneys to the exclusion of their own parents under threat of contempt. There is no logical reason for William Koslosky to become terrorized by a father in the Koslosky homestead more than a half century earlier simply because we didnt have redskinned potatoes. Moreover, a father in the police uniform with a gun is an utter exploitation of inconsequential fact unless more is offered in a separate hearing of the kind ordered prior to such disclosure by our first judge. No hearing occurred here, yet your rehabilitations followed. In short, Koslosky is exhibiting a disorder which is harmful to all children in Family Court. I did not ask for his extraneous offerings in a closing statement not supported by anything in the case record. My children did not as well. But here it is, an elephant in the courtroom, continuing to prevent any foreseeable conclusion to this parade of litigation with me as its focal victim. Kosloskys childhood renditions ultimately helped convince Judge Walsh-Hood to deny me contact with my children for ten months until exactly three years ago when the same Koslosky with the conspiring ex-spouse had their fraudulent petitions thrown out for lack of evidence. Upon obtaining their opportunity to prove any case for ongoing parenting deprivations before the same custody judge, I was not even required to take the stand or present any defense. My children and I are fine these days, more than three years after this fiasco, enjoying the same gender prescribed weekends and vacation periods existing prior to Walsh-Hoods opinions. We recently toured the Saratoga National Battlefield where a museum guide recognized that both my girls were studying the subject in their fourth and fifth grade classes. It was more than an educational experience involving our freedoms as an American nation, but also an orientation to a history lesson not taught in primary schools. We visited the site where Thadeus Kosciuszko engineered fortifications impressive enough to stop the advance of the most powerful army in the world during the British Campaign of 1777. I explained why this man came to America as a prelude some day for my girls understanding of a grandfather imprisoned in a Nazi war camp. On more active subjects, I have risen at 4 am on two occasions to get the girls out of bed for swim meets near the same location in the middle of winter. We have climbed mountains and played soccer. I was to enjoy a weekend with them in a hotel where a cheerleading competition was occurring with long time friends of mine (also fathers), but the ex-spouse seized my entire weekend contrary to court order on the ever bizarre excuse that because an extracurricular event started by trip departure on a Friday morning, it could justify retention of our girls until Sunday when I would then get a few hours. This is not the only time such kidnapping occurred. Conflicts of this sort necessarily lead to a parade of litigation as you have described it, but not because we parents have nothing better to do. Such problems occur because of an antiquated custody system that rejects long overdue shared arrangements in favor of a battle over money and power awards. Children are placed strategically in the middle so that lawyers can reap hefty profits from the conflict naturally created by this unequal and oppositional framework. It has become a gold mine for others too: therapists, evaluators, case workers and a parade of beneficiaries who feed off the emotions fired up by lawyers. Who are they to raise our children? 7

Parade of Litigation Summarily, you stated that you reviewed this file in its entirety and taken judicial notice of all prior proceedings and pleadings while simultaneously finding that I possessed a PhD on the same page 3 of your decision. I do not know where you found this degree, but I can assure you that I never possessed any such PhD. It may help you to know that I did give testimony about the Syracuse firm which employed me briefly as a placement consultant. I described lawyers with PhDs from Harvard and elsewhere being placed with law firms around the world, but if you reviewed the record as you claim, you would have learned that this job was lost not so much because of inordinate transportation costs as it was because of a state support intercept. You declined to entertain my relevant argument as not being valid (pg. 3) but in reality you were hiding the real cause for my job loss. Once again it was the dysfunction of this court system which sounded the death knell for a career opportunity. You caused the support intercept through your unauthorized temporary order, copied on the states money collection center (OCSCU) prior to the November evidentiary hearing when a more competent assessment could have been made after all the evidence was in. This was an independent consulting position in which contingent fees were earned only after months of effort, especially significant at the outset of contract employment. This is why I asked the ex-spouse in vain to agree to temporary relief prior to my August, 2012 show cause petition (explained at our first appearance). The support intercept was not designed for contract consulting work but for regular salary garnishments. Hence, one of our office interpretations of its boiler plate text is that all earned monies would have to be turned over to the state even though I was deemed not to be in violation of the operative August 10, 2010 support order which you retained in your decision. Indeed that was the conclusion coming out of hearings completed only weeks before your assignment in Oneida County Supreme Court on a failed support violation petition in this parade of litigation. That costly process was caused not by me but by state tax agents. On that subject, you have to bear with me because the synopsis which follows is not made up, it really happened, and it is required to offset the additional damage caused by your decision to my once unblemished standing in the profession. These tax agents converged upon my homestead on October 19, 2010 to seize personal property not for the purpose of satisfying any tax obligation but to collect on a private child support debt. They arrived only two months after that operative support order took effect in violation of its express terms. But this was not just any old seizure. It came in a matter of weeks, after front page news featured my civil rights case against town police on behalf of a falsely arrested and later acquitted father for alleged domestic harassment. My law license was suspended the same month and also featured days apart from one another. The seizure was turned into a public spectacle in an otherwise peaceful suburban setting when a swat team worthy of a major drug bust made its assault. Multiple police cars, flatbeds and tax agents purporting to act on a private child support obligation appeared, blocking all exits. Armed officers banged on my door and announced their purpose with a warrant signed not by a neutral and detached magistrate but by a deputy commissioner of the state tax department in Albany. His purpose was not to honor our Fourth Amendment, but to seize revenues for an ever bloated bureaucracy. It was issued for another location in another municipality. Moreover, it was 8

utterly contemptuous (as argued before an appellate court last month) because it violated the terms of that August 10, 2010 (wrong date) support order by agreement. Incident reports obtained during the course of a resulting parade of litigation showed that there was no issue of danger, the seizure was otherwise uneventful, and the reason for diverting law enforcement from other town priorities was my status as a lawyer. Yes, you read that correctly. And the call for police assistance was not made from an everyday cell phone but from a neighbors home minutes before operation get-that-expletive lawyer. This was the same town police department named in that civil suit necessarily placed with a substitute lawyer due to my suspension. It was dismissed before trial years later along with other crucial civil rights cases. Are you convinced yet that my government is targeting me? Was this a legitimate exercise of police authority, or was it a covert scheme to provoke a good father and successful civil rights lawyer to a breaking point? Surely, the publicity alone will impair any job search. Regardless, a state Supreme Court judge ruled last year that the monies obtained by this seizure were improperly applied, and he ordered a recalculation of support which may impact your recent dismissal order. I did not ask for this, and despite your offensive extraneous finding that I am just talking a good game, I am actually trying to make sense out of a government gone wild. Against this backdrop, it can now be understood why I lost a promising employment opportunity even with all the combined impairment to my livelihood inflicted by this state. What prominent firm would want to expose itself to a government assault upon its offices for income and asset seizures because a support intercept was interpreted wrongly after consultation with lawyers and county agents, when one hand does not know what the other is doing? This will also explain for our governors benefit (even though he knows it already) why so many firms are leaving New York. As relevant here, it prevents me from succeeding on this new job search that you believe can produce at least as much earnings potential as I had as a 23 year attorney (without a license). There are no remedies for this endless parade of litigation. The federal courts are looking the other way while our state continues its abuse of our American Constitution. Even you have to agree that your PhD finding cannot be allowed to stand. It must be appealed to avoid having yet another material fabrication used against me in a future violation proceeding. In a bizarre turn of events then, after condemning me in particular for this parade of litigation, you in particular have forced us all to continue that parade. And this leads us to more of your colleagues, in particular, Support Magistrate Davies and Family Court Judge Pirro-Bailey. The last time I necessarily filed support objections, largely for the same reasons here, a biased Judge Pirro-Bailey denied me an extension to accommodate an overworked court reporter who was late in producing a hearing transcript. I received it within weeks of a dismissal order entered only one week before the same judge disqualified herself from my case altogether. This was done pursuant to a June 10, 2011 motion which I filed before her dismissal order entered four days later. It was based on sexist deprivations ordered shortly before my youngest daughters First Holy Communion which fell on my weekend. The same event involving my eldest daughter was missed completely one year earlier due to the fiasco before Judge Walsh-Hood.

During the second custody process in Onondaga County Family Court, three in a three year period, the game was focused upon a facetious text which everyone, including the politically correct monitors fully understood. I sent a text to the ex-spouse while visible from her own driveway to the effect that I was en route to Rio with the girls. It came in response to her incessant scrutiny over our whereabouts prior to child drop-offs. Koslosky and associates managed to get Judge Pirro-Bailey to twist this event into a kidnapping scheme contrary to all common sense during a hearing two months later. It created lots of legal fees while empowering the ex-spouse to seek more punitive orders for ulterior reasons, including geographic restrictions. During argument on the conflicting communion submissions, Judge Pirro-Bailey announced that she was too busy to read my side of the case, and without advance opportunity to even be heard orally, she seized the event from me and placed it with the mother despite my participation in preparatory sessions at the church (after Rio). I was allowed to attend but only as a common observer under risk of another orchestrated violation of a court order. If a judge is not interested in anything I have to present, there is no purpose for coming to court. I consequently obtained permission once again to exit the courtroom and filed the proper motion for disqualification. Shortly after all this occurred, I received an unsolicited e-mail on July 10, 2011from a dad who was interrupted during a parenting chat at a school event by a Child Support Magistrate in Onondaga County. She complimented these parents for their cooperation in extracurricular activities with an added harangue about me and one other attorney who give Family Court a bad name. The father was privately a supporter of my reform efforts and tried to defend me in public, but this magistrate persisted with her slander, resorting to disclosure of her official title for persuasion purposes in violation of Rule 100.2(C) of the Judicial Code. Because her intervention and abuse of authority caused the audience to walk away with a negative view of our justice system, this magistrate also violated Rule 100.2(A) of the same Code. As relevant here, it demonstrated the institutional bias within your courthouse which you refused to entertain in my motion. A copy of this e-mail was appended at exhibit C to my October 12, 2012 motion. Only two months later, yet another judge in this same courthouse vacated one of the June, 2011 orders of Judge Pirro-Bailey after a two sided briefing on the subject. He did so as a same-level trial judge after review of the same record relied upon by the earlier one. It averted a fourth appeal from taking its course. Transcripts alone on a single appeal can cost thousands of dollars, like the one ordered at parental expense by Judge Walsh-Hood as a punitive measure. This is the same transcript she stated was necessary to draft her January, 2010 Decision After Trial replete with factual errors and grammar defects. That decision was later modified without any hearing transcript by yet another replacement judge, Michael Hanuszczak after a third costly hearing. As stated in my complaint, the pre-Walsh-Hood parenting periods were restored. Based on these experiences, it was reasonable to expect that you would make similar corrective adjustments. You proceeded in that direction until my April 23, 2013 commission complaint was publicized. Now in violation of my First Amendment rights, you reversed everything, making matters worse than they were when we came in to your court. How can anyone claiming to have reviewed the history of these proceedings rule as you did? The offensive use of this parade term is particularly troubling, not so much because it tracks the campaign parades addressed in my commission complaint, but because it chills the exercise of yet another constitutional right. 10

Court Access As you know, courts are supposed to act as civil substitutes for controversies otherwise proper for the streets (i.e. the days of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton). But there is nothing civilized about the processes applied to me over a seven year period in New Yorks domestic relations courts particularly here in the Syracuse county courthouse. In my commission complaint, I was extensively critical of your supervising Family Court Judge Martha WalshHood where any misconduct on your part must now be directed. A Supreme Court justice once described family court as a kangaroo court, In re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967). My treatment here should not change on a more professional depiction of the same court as a star chamber. By all measures of a free society, both descriptions fit properly in our courts and in public discourse. Because I was born male, current antiquated laws, i.e. primary care giver, allow you to convert me into a subservient workhorse whose principal role in a childs life is to provide money for the upper class parent. The obligations you orchestrate are not based upon a childs need or the reality of a divorced environment, but a way of life standard that can easily be exploited to generate the highest rationalized payment streams for the benefit of third parties and our nations welfare system. There has not been a petition or hearing yet in this seven year ordeal in which I have not been placed on the defensive for the sake of money. In my commission complaint, I supported that conclusion and my public criticisms extensively. I explained it also in the motions which you neglected. You may not want to hear this, but I had to experience the insults of your decision and I retain a right to defend myself especially when the system has failed me so insidiously as a father, taxpayer and American citizen. Performance grants under the federal welfare statute and interest revenues generated by state support collection units are based on the number and magnitude of child support orders massed produced with little or no regard for the homelessness, alienation, suicide and debtor prisons caused. This money engine creates a personal benefit for presiding judges during deliberations. As a perfectly logical, natural but highly despised consequence, child support orders across the United States are subject to direct and collateral attack on this basis alone. This is because our due process rights under the Constitution are compromised by the salary enhancements which these orders produce for the decision-makers especially during a time when New Yorks judiciary was engaged in litigation against the other two branches for pay raises, Chief Judge v Governor, 65 AD3d 898 (First Dept. 2009). These orders also generate opportunities for job creation through the courts appointment powers which, in turn, dilute a truly impartial and detached decision making process, Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973). This may also explain why tax agents invaded my homestead and why you found in your decision that I have not demonstrated sufficiently why this Court should reduce child support (page 4). I thought this was a civil and not a criminal case where the burden of proof is much higher. Moreover, we must be honest here, no amount of evidence would have been sufficient in view of everything that has been presented. About the only positive thing you stated is that I am a talented gentleman but only in connection with many good employable qualities, including a PhD, for money purposes. You then justify this revenue generating scheme and the prison 11

threat for non-payment by once again placing the child on top of the states war tank. You find that my children deserve probably more than the imputed income assessed against me. All the Parents Fault After all the lucrative controversy visited by this dysfunctional system upon two formerly cooperating parents with joint custody, the final straw came when you concluded your decision unabashedly with that tired, worn-out shifting of blame to the parents once their money was sufficiently depleted. You can find some version of it in child custody and support decisions everywhere, to wit: this Court joins with previous others who have pleaded with these parties, and in particular Mr. Koziol... to concentrate on the best interests of their children. I thought that is what we were doing when we came into your court as opposed to taking the law into our own hands. At least that is your reason for existence. This candid summation of my case history shows that there was no one pleading for child focus. Instead a group of money seekers masquerading as substitute parents were engaged in an underlying scheme to suppress speech. There seems to be no shame in the level of abuse willfully heaped upon me simply because I chose to do more than participate in useless studies at taxpayer expense to address a growing problem. The 2006 Matrimonial Report to New Yorks Chief Justice specifically attacked the oppositional framework described here using the terms shoe horn effect when it came to a childs genuine best interests. I first started quoting this report when it was hot off the press. Yet here we are today with a system more costly, congested, embattled and dysfunctional than ever. About the only recommendation which I have seen implemented from this seven year old report is the influx of more lawyers known as attorneys for the child, people exactly like William Koslosky, inventing all sorts of issues to keep the fees flowing into their bank accounts. This was a problem I targeted, among others, in 2008 and 2009, just prior to my suspension. I discovered a support magistrate carrying over boiler plate phrases and irrelevant findings from closed cases into the next ones in a revolving door featuring similarly victimized fathers. And here we are again today with fabricated findings which you are exploiting to reward yet another attorney, Rebecca Crance. This is the same lawyer who demonstrated her ignorance of the very objections process which we must now pursue in order to correct your clear errors. If she was qualified to receive any legal fee, a prerequisite to the motion you have now invited, she would have developed a record on this PhD finding, she would have found it during discovery processes, she might have alerted you to your errors on her own initiative assuming she bothered to digest the contents, and she would certainly have done more than read from a client sheet. Ironically, although I hate to state this, the client did a better job of objecting to your temporary order and moving for a subpoena, among other things, than Rebecca Crance ever did. You incorrectly stated in your decision that she had been represented by Ms. Crance throughout deliberations when you were the one during opening appearances to insist that she obtain counsel. Regardless, this entire process could have been averted had a single judge held the exspouse accountable for frauds and parenting deprivations carried out over many years. A key example is the argument occurring on March 15, 2011. A very distraught Judge PirroBailey admonished the ex-spouse in a rare moment when she feigned a fear incident right in 12

open court. It was patterned on the frauds and rewards obtained earlier before Judge WalshHood. She asserted a fear of my pen once again, forcing this replacement judge, in command of events in her full view over a two hour period, to direct Kelly Hawse-Koziol to turn around and face the wall. But nothing of substance came of it, and the ex-spouse was once again rewarded with the communion event described above. How can a litigant access our court for a responsible remedy and a natural parenting right when he is subjected to fabricated abuse incidents occurring in open view of the presiding judges. One after another has refused to address the core issues in any meaningful fashion. As a result, we continue to deal with the symptoms. Core Civil Rights With any support order, even in this oppressive environment, there is a dependent duty placed upon any enforcement court to assure that a parent-child relationship is facilitated. However, once again, due to money fixations, the courts have managed to divorce themselves from this moral imperative by creating separate tribunals like this one so that payments can be ordered with greater efficiency. This absurd severance of naturally integrated duties may explain why a veteran police officer took his life and that of his ex-spouse in my home town recently, leaving three children without their birth parents. This murder-suicide was executed with a common kitchen utensil shortly after a support court left the officer subsisting reportedly on $26 per week. It came well after all the weapons were confiscated by the city employer and despite a protection order put into effect by another court. Still, the police department was blamed and even sued for damages with no inquiry into the abusive proceedings which inflamed it, Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011). In the same year, a deputy commissioner of child support enforcement was issuing a caseworkers guide in Albany to maximize support collections for revenue purposes. She also became affiliated with Deloitte Consulting Services which reaped profits from this same guide. In my case, a status oriented parent has orchestrated all sorts of conditions simply to keep the money coming even if it means depriving the father of all contact with his children. It did not take you long to see through her schemes when soliciting the tutoring income and other money sources from her during our opening appearance. I later provided you with proof of a teaching salary with benefits far in excess of what she was presenting in opposition to my request for temporary relief. To show how viciously these support obligations are being abused, this mother offered to terminate them in October, 2006 if I would give up rights of access to my children so that a wealthy childless paramour could substitute as my girls father. As part of that agenda, with the help of her current attorney, Kelly Hawse-Koziol managed to deprive me of ten months contact with my daughters at such a precious young age in 2010. As stated earlier, she did this through fraudulent petitions thrown out by the same Judge WalshHood who imposed the restrictions. To date, there has been no compensation for this willful abuse of court process orchestrated with a vindictive ex-secretary of mine, recently arrested and sent to jail on $10,000 bail for falsely representing herself as a lawyer in a court of law. Instead, this court has now invited that same attorney to petition for a fee award against me based on a partial report of dates by a court clerk which caused me to miss one appearance inadvertently.

13

An American Response There comes a point when a court process becomes so abusive and utterly incomprehensible that it must be challenged. This seven year ordeal began as an uncontested divorce in 2005. Unfortunately, as the oppositional custody and support process set in, with mom fearful of losing money through shared parenting transitions, cooperation and joint participation in childrearing systematically faded. The same is true for families all across America made subject to a duplicate system. Like socialism and communism, this model of parenting is an utter failure. Accordingly, I will not be making any more payments to facilitate it. I must take this stand because our family court processes have long passed from a legitimate institution to a civil rights movement for oppressed parents. When a divorce judge refuses to even acknowledge a provision in a parenting agreement calling for an end to basic support, I cannot acknowledge its money based aftermath. When Susan B. Anthony committed a crime by voting in the 1872 presidential elections, she was convicted near Syracuse by a state Supreme Court judge who conducted her hearings not unlike the ones before Judges Walsh-Hood and Pirro-Bailey in your courthouse. It may be that after 150 years of civil rights history, the only thing we have learned is that women are just as capable of practicing discrimination and injustices today as men were back then. Independent studies and Census Bureau reports still show that 85% of child support obligors are men and 90% of contested custody awards go to women. Despite all forms of protest, including a loving father who set himself on fire in front of a New Hampshire family court in 2011, our U.S. Justice Department still issued a release last year featuring the sexist slur dead beat dad. Extreme feminists are now promoting God as a woman presumably to neutralize founding declarations and courtroom plaques which proclaim us as one nation under God. But the same extremists are not depicting the devil wearing a tight skirt and lip gloss with a pitch fork that impales all our venerable books of religion. For those lacking in any faith, I can assure that the devil is alive and well, and shes living in Family Court. What we are seeing here is an attempt to correct centuries of oppression by placing the blame on todays fathers not unlike the landowners who were sued for eviction during the Oneida land claim litigation. In your decision, you were quick to cite the disciplinary violations I suffered as a lawyer during my precedent seeking cases without regard to the retribution process logically triggered as a consequence. You never even uttered a value for equal treatment under the law or the many successful decisions I obtained for woman and minorities so that I could pay support. A little over ten years ago, I led a courageous group which crashed a news conference conducted by our state governor, local dignitaries and nation leaders to announce a settlement of the thirty year old Oneida Indian land claim. It featured a $500 million payment by our state and federal governments. We managed to influence the collapse of that agreement within a matter of weeks. A few years later, I secured a final judgment declaring the Turning Stone gaming compact unconstitutional as a counter-action to this land claim. Five years after that, the entire claim was extinguished by the United States Supreme Court, saving our taxpayers all that money. And yet, the Oneida Nation is no worse off for it as the same taxpayers are giving it all back in the way of gambling profits, proof that like child support, people will respond more favorably 14

through a free exercise of rights. The imposition of a child support order as a co ndition for divorce is tantamount to a declaration that fathers do not want to support their children and that parents cannot competently agree to do so privately. It is a terrible presumption which is causing far more conflict than your support courts are capable of handling competently. This case is a classic example. I did not come to your court or to any of your previous colleagues to talk a good game. When I come into our courts, I testify, argue and present, I dont just talk. Talking is what I do at public forums and organizing activities for court reform, and that is the real target of your decision. I came to this court simply because I wanted to be a real dad for my children. Respectfully submitted,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. cc: Commission on Judicial Conduct Supervising Judge Martha Walsh-Hood U.S. Justice Department New York Division of Human Rights State Senate Judiciary Committee State Assembly Oversight Committee

15