No.

15-1519

In the Supreme Court of the United States

______________________________________________________________________________
Leon R. Koziol,
Petitioner,
-vsUnited States District Court for the Northern District of New York
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICE
RUTH BADER GINSBURG, ORDER CONVERTING
PETITION TO ONE FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
UNDER RULE 20, STAY ORDER AND ADJOURNMENT
_____________________________________________
DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICE RUTH
BADER GINSBURG, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THIS
COURT ASSIGNED TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FROM WHICH THIS CASE ARISES OR,
WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE FULL SUPREME COURT
_____________________________________________

August 5, 2016

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Petitioner, pro se
1336 Graffenburg Road
New Hartford, NY 13413
(315) 796-4000
0

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......... 3
Preliminary Statement 6
Issues Presented and Relief Sought. 7
Background of Case. 8
Background of Judicial Whistle Blower. 14
Censored Public Message.. 17
Systemic Bias Impeding Access to this Court. 21
Perilous State of the Judicial Whistle Blower. 28
Federal Judge Gary Sharpe. 33
Disqualification of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 37
Conversion to Extraordinary Action.. 40

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Alexander v United States, 509 US 544 (1993) 40
Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 535 US 234 (2002) .. 17
Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998). 8
Beechwood Restorative v Leeds, 436 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2006)............................. 28, 29
Brown v Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954) 32
Cheney v U.S. District Court, 542 US 367 (2004)

Clinton v Jones. 520 US 681 (1997)

45

Connick v Meyers, 462 US 138 (1983)

30

Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (1994)

16

Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)...... 32

Erdmann v Stevens, 458 F.2d 1205 (2nd Cir. 1972)

18, 29

Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 US 410 (2006)

30, 32

Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964) 24

Gault, 387 US 1 (1967) 25
Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973)

34

Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013)

14

Hirschkop v Virginia State Bar, 604 F.2d 840 (4th Cir. 1979)

28

Holland v United States, 348 US 121 (1954)

30

Hunter v Virginia State Bar, 285 Va. 485 (2013)

29

Jones v Clinton, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (ED Ark. 1999)

43

Konigsberg v State Bar of California, 353 US 252 (1957).... 28

3

Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 155 (4th Dept 2009) 23

Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000)... 16
Lane v Franks, 573 US ___ (2014).. 34
Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) 23
Marshall v Marshall, 547 US 293 (2006).................................................................

23

Middlesex v Garden State Bar, 457 US 423 (1982)..

29

Mikhail v Kahn, 991 F.Supp. 2d 596 (E.D.Pa. 2014). 35

Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010) . 17
NAACP v Button, 371 US 415 (1963) 29
New York Times v Sullivan, 276 US 254 (1964).. 17
New York Times v United States, 403 US 713 (1971) 40
Oneida Nation v Oneida County, 132 F. Supp 2d 71 (NDNY 2000) 15
Palaimo v Lutz, 837 F. Supp.55 (NDNY 1993)..

16

Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011)... 35

Parham v J.R., 442 US 584 (1979).. 27
Parratt v Taylor, 451 US 527 (1982)
Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004)..

39

16, 31

Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011)

35

Phillip v Bowen, 278 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 2002).. 29

Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968)

24

Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953)...................................................................

18

Ruffalo, 347 US 483 (1954) 32

Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982) 13

Nichols v Sivilli, CV No. 2:14 (DCNJ 2014)

40

Snyder v Phelps, 562 US ___ (2011)........................................................................... 17

Sprint Communications v Jacobs, 571 US ___ (2013).......................................... 23, 35
Supreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980)....................... 29
Texas Dept Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248 (1981)... 30
Tinker v Des Moines School District, 393 US 503 (1969). 28
Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) 35
Turner v Safley, 482 US 78 (1987) .

28

United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011) 13, 36

Waters v Churchill, 571 US 661 (1994) 17
Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Fam. Ct. 2001) 22
Willowbrook v Olech, 528 US 566 (2000)...

36

Yik Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1886)..

26

Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971) ..

34

Constitution and Statutes

U.S. Amend 1................................................................................................. passim
U.S. Amend 14...................................................................................................... passim
28 USC 1651 (All Writs Act).

13

42 USC 651 (Title IV-D) . 26

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

24

Preliminary Statement
On June 17, 2016, this Court docketed Case No. 15-1519 entitled Leon R.
Koziol v United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It is an
extraordinary action based, inter alia, on this Courts ruling in Cheney v United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 US 367 (2004). It seeks vital
recourse for civil rights violations by judges and their agents who impeded access to
this Court. These violations were conceived beyond the scope of judicial office and
executed through an abuse of such office. They comprise retributions for petitioners
ten year exposure of corruption in our third branch of government.
It is an ordeal that reads like a John Grisham novel but plays out in real life
as a dark side to justice meted out against judicial whistle blowers as a way of
covering up serious misconduct. It is a lesson for advocates of free speech and press
everywhere who dare to risk their families and livelihoods on the misplaced notion
that those entrusted with the highest duty of safeguarding our constitutional rights
will do so even when they are themselves the necessary subjects of public criticism.
Quite apart from the unconscionable injuries inflicted upon a native born
American, these violations have serious implications for all citizens in that they
usurp the self-governing authority of a free society, they make the case that other
whistle blowers such as Edward Snowden can never expect fair treatment in the
states, and that money and influence will invariably prevail over the rule of law in
our nations courts. Indeed, on all fronts and in all branches of government, we are
at a crossroads in that never ending quest to guarantee liberty and justice for all.
6

Issues Presented and Relief Sought

As relevant to this motion, the civil rights violations are summarized in a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari supported by a two volume appendix and an extensive
record in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The opening
page contains general and narrow questions for review emerging from a mandamusprohibition action against federal district Judge Gary Sharpe and others, to wit:
1) The importance of First Amendment rights as applied to our third branch
of government,
2) The protected role of fathers in our families and institutions of American
society, and
3) Supervisory jurisdiction to assure a fair and orderly process for
vindicating federal rights.
Sufficient particularity concerning the facts was supplied on the same
opening page of the petition in accord with Rules 10(a),(c) and 14(1)(a) of this Court:
A) Did a federal court of appeals improperly deny mandamus upon a federal
judge who impaired access to this Court and refused to respect fatherdaughter relationships seized by state judges in retaliation for petitioners
reform efforts and testimony before a Commission on Public Corruption?
B) Did the Second Circuit commit fatal error by refusing to grant
extraordinary relief to a civil rights attorney whose children, home, office,
assets, reputation, licenses, happiness and liberties were seized due to
offensive speech regarding court corruption after ten years of fit parenting, 23
years of stellar practice and 50 years of model citizenship?
Since the time of filing, events have occurred which necessitate this motion
for 1) disqualification of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; 2) conversion under Rule 20
to an extraordinary petition, 3) stay of enforcement of unconstitutional orders, and
4) order postponing conference set for September 26, 2016 until after election day.

Background of the Case

This case originates as a civil rights action in the Northern District of New
York under the title Koziol v King, A-II. Familiarity with the filings in this Court is
presumed. On January 5, 2006, petitioner (father) filed for an uncontested divorce
based on two years of successful separation. The parents had given birth to children
in 2002 and 2003. Childrearing was cooperative, both parents were fit, and there
were no reports to indicate anything but a promising future for all concerned.
This productive environment systematically eroded due to state intervention
where it was not needed. A federal funding law, Title IV-D of the Social Security
Act, commonly referred to as the Child Support Standards Act, created incentives
for states to maximize revenues for court operations based on the number and size
of support orders issued by their judges, Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998). This
had the effect of incentivizing parental conflict with an untold harm to children,
rendering state support magistrates inherently biased in their decision making.
Petitioner became a victim of this unconstitutional design when his ex-spouse
employed a divorce lawyer seated on the local attorney ethics committee to contest
parenting arrangements through illusory support increases strictly for fee purposes,
A-17, 18. After years of challenges to the parents agreed upon support obligations,
a divorce judge ruled on October 8, 2008 that the amounts were proper, but by that
time needless and lucrative conflict had been predictably incited among the parents.
For example, this lawyer disclosed confidential information to undermine
petitioners campaigns for state senate and county executive, hence impairing child
8

support capacities contrary to client interests. A protection order was issued against
him in 2007 but no discipline resulted, A-17. When petitioner complained about it, a
first time ethics prosecution ensued against him instead, based on stale, withdrawn
or unknown grievances. When he consequently raised his constitutional claims in
both domestic and disciplinary forums, he was defamed or referred elsewhere, A-17.
Accordingly, he embarked upon a reform campaign to secure accountability in
these courts, employing contemporary modes of self governance to remedy father
(gender) discrimination, abuse of ethics processes and oppressive practices in his
case and others across the country. Over the next eight years, it included organizing
activity, civil rights forums, blog postings, editorials, media conferences, and lobby
initiatives in Congress, New York City, state capital and other venues, A-II passim.
Consistent among petitioners activity was a quest to secure parent equality
in Americas domestic relations courts. It was based on a network of complaints,
studies and suicide cases submitted to petitioners website and the National League
of Fathers, Inc. which he founded in 2008. It was also based on victim status which
continues unabated. Misconduct of numerous judges was exposed publicly, resulting
in a calculated effort to harm petitioners livelihood and father-daughter relations.
It began with mandatory custody classifications employed by the parents in
separation proposals in 2003 and 2004, A-18. The term baby Koziol unborn was
required to describe a second child to the marriage but ignored in custody decisions,
Id. For legal separation to occur, custodial parent could only mean the mother

under the support standards act and gender based doctrine, including primary care
and sibling unity. The father was thereby relegated to sub-class parental status.
Such status was exploited to punish constitutionally protected activity
unrelated to childrearing. When the respondent-mother announced an agenda for
replacing the only father with a wealthy, childless and unfit substitute, petitioner
filed for relief in various courts as his case became highly contested and splintered
among general jurisdiction judges, family court magistrates and hearing officers,
some supported for judicial office by competing lawyers at the local bar associations.
Petitioner was not a member of any such bar, and those avenues for relief
were foreclosed anyway due to his reform activity which threatened the vested
interests of these lawyers. Such concealed bias, along with petitioners civil rights
history in the same judicial district, resulted in the chaos depicted throughout the
records below. With each complaint, news conference or criticism, a proximate act
of retaliation arose among entwined domestic and disciplinary processes, including
support agents and even local police.1 He was required to petition for every nominal
liberty, including an overnight with his girls while at a remote mountain lake.

Police threats became a daily fear of petitioner after a veritable swat team converged upon his homestead in
October, 2010 accompanied by state and county tax agents to provoke a violent arrest. It was based merely upon a
private support debt between self-sustaining parents. Such show of force was a direct response to recent news
reports regarding petitioners civil rights achievements and defamatory law license suspension. This private debt
was restructured by parental agreement in a state Supreme Court order issued on August 23, 2010, but the states
vast involvement as a non-party empowered it to violate that agreement in a manner which treated this as a debt to
the state for revenue purposes. Such police threats were aggravated by ex-parte petitions which left this petitionerfather-attorney in a constant state of ambush. For example driving suspensions were issued without notice. Hence in
May, 2009, three patrol cars converged at the mothers request during a child exchange for an orchestrated arrest.
Her fraudulent petitions were dismissed by the time of a hearing on May 3, 2010. But the favorable order was never
formally issued to petitioner to show the clear abuses of our courts. Coupled with unrecorded hearings, this enabled
respondent Judge Daniel King to falsify a record for child seizure and attempted incarceration in 2014 and 2015.

10

During this ordeal, petitioner received unsolicited reports of bias and

targeting by lawyers and judges where he resided and practiced law, A-II passim.
They included a court reporter relaying maternal bias, an e-mail from a parent
disclosing judge comments at a ball game, and ethics lawyers in 2013 conceding
their focus on the public activity, A-II at 45, 65. Petitioner was compelled to simplify
their witch hunt as the product of an unethical ethics committee which led to law
license suspensions. He was vindicated when the chief counsel and deputy lawyers
of this committee were terminated for falsifying their time sheets, A-II at 68, 69.
A confidential report in opposition to a third motion for license reinstatement
was prepared and ratified by Third Department respondents in 2014. The focus was
petitioners website and court filings colored by orchestrated ethics issues and the
logical consequence of suspension which prevented satisfaction of mounting debts.
This report was made accessible only after objection to an earlier (secret) one still
believed to contain further evidence of First Amendment violations, A-II at 150.
The 2014 report appended seven of 200 offensive blog posts to keep petitioner
in an indefinite state of license suspension which is nearing seven years on an
eighteen month penalty period. Meanwhile, numerous attorneys in petitioners
judicial district suffered no loss of licensing privileges despite commission of serious
crimes, i.e. Robert Sossen who served a jail term after conviction for tax evasion
involving some $2 million in unreported income over a ten year period. One of the
targeted posts featured petitioners testimony before a corruption commission,
another depicted a court education program for parents to resolve their differences

11

without lawyers, and yet another was a mere dedication to petitioners departed
mother, adding a sadistic flavor to all this, A-II at par.151.
The issues were never prosecuted or withdrawn, thereby creating a condition
of contempt by ambush for continued speech. A motion for change of venue had
been denied by the first judge, yielding an unprecedented 35 trial jurists assigned to
family matters and a ten year record so chaotic that it defied presentment. The
pleadings below comprised a good faith effort to show institutional bias and joint
action to punish a public critic through an abuse of judicial office. This was
corroborated by absurd court orders having a retaliatory agenda, A-II passim.
Examples too numerous to relate here include phantom college degrees (PhD
and Masters) nowhere in the record used to elevate support obligations, a post hoc
parenting condition of prohibited alcohol related gestures regarding a wedding
toast when no evidence of unfit conduct could be found, threatened removal from
court for making five early objections (two that were granted) to expert genetic
testimony of an unrepresented ex-spouse in order to manufacture a custody record
to support earlier defamatory (forensic) orders, one sided abuses of authority to
discredit petitioners public message and contrived admission to ethical misconduct.
Respondent Judge Daniel King was assigned contrary to logic and proper
order in 2013 to finish off the public critic in family court. He exceeded his limited
jurisdiction by defying higher court orders of August 23, 2010 and December 13,
2013 regarding support agreements and appellate stay order. A decision during the
holidays in 2013 subjected petitioner to a battery of conflicting orders and ongoing

12

suspension of child contact, A-22, 23. These were devised outside of judicial scope,
i.e. joint reactions to misconduct complaints passed among judges at administrative
courthouse. Id. A venomous content was evident throughout these edicts in contrast
to cases in the same family court where felons were given child contact, A-II at 152.
Recourse was predetermined or summarily decided without discovery in both
federal and state courts, and because the respondent mother was favored with every
concoction endeavored, petitioner remained at risk of contempt by ambush in any
effort to see his precious daughters at school events or elsewhere. His calls to them
since Judge Kings improper assignment have yielded only severe alienation. Since
2013, respondents have done nothing to remedy these inhumane deprivations.
The punitive agenda to terminate fathering rights was contrived in defiance
of this Courts decision in Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982). The childrens
concealed residence was discovered on Fathers Day, 2015, causing an infinitely
tortured petitioner to leave the area, missing a next day deadline for appealing
Judge Gary Sharpes decision dismissing this 2014 federal court action, A-71.
A timely filed extension to appeal was denied on August 10, 2015 despite
motions for Judge Sharpes disqualification, A-64. It was backed by genetic based
decisions condemned in United State v Cossey, 632 F. 3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011). After an
early motion was denied on suspect grounds, it was evident that the genetic custody
concoctions here could not receive fair treatment. An anti-filing order then issued on
October 9, 2015 impairing access to this Court, A-51. The Second Circuit referenced
none of this in its (unpublished) mandamus dismissal order of March 17, 2016, A-1.

13

Background of the Judicial Whistleblower

Prior to his public criticisms, complaints and other protected activity directed
at our nations divorce and family courts, petitioner maintained an unblemished 23
year career as a civil rights attorney. Respondents knew that a direct restraint upon
such activity would be legally untenable or unpopular. Hence they simply abused
entrusted public offices to kill the messenger through contrived ethics charges and a
prolonged process of reducing him to a harmless neophyte lacking in credibility.
Such a process is not new to oppressive governments. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
was exiled to the United States after a campaign by his native Soviet Union to
discredit his award winning publications. In the record below and petition before
this Court, pg. 34, the public critic here has been compared to Chinese lawyer Chen
Guangcheng who secured asylum in this country through our former secretary of
state. It occurred after his children, livelihood and liberties were seized due to his
support of family interests against communist policies. In a similar vein, petitioner
was forced to seek international protection in Paris in late 2014, Pet. at pg. 4.
The petition contains no professional background of the whistle blower here,
but given the events occurring since the time of complaint filing (addressed shortly),
a summary is now required to dispense with collective disparagements inflicted and
expected from respondents and others. Certain of them ridiculed petitioners motion
for disqualification of the parents custody judge based on a reputation beyond
reproach until he was banned from family court after admitting to sexual abuse on
his handicapped, five year old niece, see Matter of Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

14

Leon R. Koziol, J.D. 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.
Petitioners 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, he secured final judgment in state Supreme Court invalidating
the largest casino gaming compact in New York on constitutional grounds.

15

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. He 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.
Petitioners 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 from New York Supreme Court 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 petitioners unyielding quest for justice derives from his own
father who shared horror stories of his five years spent in a Nazi internment camp.

16

Censored Public Message

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, the more offensive a public message
becomes, the more likely that retributions will follow. But as he also explained,
speech everywhere in America should be robust. Any censorship, particularly as
here, a prior restraint, must be scrutinized, see Snyder v Phelps, 562 US __ (2011)
quoting New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964). Speech is the essence of a
self governing nation. Indeed it eclipses voting which is isolated in time and events.
Every member of this Court has weighed in forcefully and eloquently on this
first and foremost right of democracy. For example, here is how Justice Anthony
Kennedy described it in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 535 US 234, 253 (2002):
First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks
to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right
to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the
government because speech is the beginning of thought.
The targeted public message here is twofold: reining in court corruption and
rectifying father discrimination. Petitioners quest for accountability remains highly
offensive to the district court and respondents. Their unrelenting persecution is well
cited, paragraph after paragraph, in the pleadings and stay application, see A-I at 2
and Vol II passim. However, as this Court has observed in public employment cases,
there is considerable value in encouraging rather than inhibiting speech by public
employees (f)or government employees are often in the best position to know what
ails the agencies for which they work, Waters v Churchill, 571 US 661, 674 (1994).
Applied to this case, petitioners activity was vital to all constituencies of a
free society, and it featured the exercise of rights found in every clause of the First
17

Amendment. It did not involve an obscure church group protesting at the funeral of
a fallen gay soldier (Phelps), a child pornography statute (Ashcroft) or a lawyers
depiction of appeals court justices as madams and whores in a magazine article,
speech ultimately protected in Erdmann v Stevens, 458 F.2d 1205 (2nd Cir. 1972).
It is for this very reason that respondents and Judge Gary Sharpe came
unglued, employing weapons unique to our judiciary to suppress and eventually kill
the messenger of reform. Under cloak of absolute judicial immunity and expendable
party treatment, these government actors exploited their offices through calculated
decisions, forensic orders, contempt powers, commitment authority and even an
arrest warrant on an orchestrated support debt. Functionally, there is little to
distinguish such abuse of public employment from the conduct which this Court
found to be shocking and uncivilized in Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953).
It is all sufficiently detailed in the pleadings and well corroborated for
purposes of joint state action. Indeed other than the identity of the actors (judicial
officers), the complaint here is the same as the successful pleadings analyzed in
Palaimo, supra, prior to petitioners whistle blowing activity. Unlawful retaliation
can only explain the invidious treatment by Judge Gary Sharpe below, A-I at 71.
Joint action is further corroborated by such respondents as Fifth Judicial
District Administrative Judge James Tormey who assigned all 38 trial jurists to
petitioners ten year ordeal, many out of proper order, often along political party
lines, to censor petitioner for his many publicized judicial misconduct complaints.
Contemporaneously, a civil rights case was brought against Judge Tormey by the

18

chief family court clerk in their Syracuse courthouse for directing against her will
the conduct of political espionage outside the scope of judicial employment, see
Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010), A-II at 83. Unlawful retributions led to
a $600,000 recovery tracking the very same treatment applied to petitioner when,
like her job assignments, family court assignments were made to remote locations.
The plaintiff was successful in Morin because judges enjoy no immunity as
employers. But once again there is little to distinguish that circumstance from the
livelihood which the same judges control through licensing (referral powers) and
child support investigations (imputing false income at same levels earned as lawyer
despite indefinite license suspension). The improper assignment to respondent King
occurred when judges were already assigned to related issues in the parents home
county. The Morin case became the basis for removal of petitioners custody judge
(Hedges) for an appearance of impropriety, A-174 of Second Circuit record.
The more recent focus of censorship was petitioners six year website, Leon
Koziol.com. As explained in the pleadings and petition, respondents were tagged,
where relevant, on postings which exposed their misconduct to bring them typically
on the first page of any Google search of their name or position, A-II at par. 114. It
caused infuriation to a point where reports were issued, as stated, against license
reinstatement. All doubt was removed when family Judge King issued a protection
(gag) order on this site only weeks after the anti-filing order was issued below.
Respondent King was incensed by 2013 posts and public testimony before the
Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. This triggered a chain reaction of

19

retributions and absurd orders ending father-daughter relations. It began within

weeks of Kings assignment, A-II ap par. 6 -8, 106-143. The content reveals why:
Third, I am asking this Commission to investigate our current chief judge,
four appellate division judges in the Third Department and one in the Fourth
Department for their unlawful targeting of my civil rights activity
Compelling precedent behind my requests can be found in the case of ex-chief
judge Sol Wachtler. He directed publicly paid court staff to investigate a New
Jersey lawyer to impair his licensing interests in New York because he
represented a threat to the judges criminal activity. Given the limited time
allotted to me here as a speaker, I am offering (you) print material
From the top down, judicial misconduct reads like a docket sheet in any
criminal court. Examples include New York Supreme Court Judge Gerald
Garson, convicted of bribery and official misconduct in 2007. He was caught
on camera accepting a $9,000 bribe from a divorce lawyer in chambers to fix a
custody case. Had the mother not sought assistance from the FBI, she would
have lost her children for a payment much less than most contested divorce
retainers. The judge served minimum time in prison due, in part, to the many
references from his colleagues.
Supreme Court Judge Thomas Spargo was convicted for soliciting $10,000
from a lawyer facing a personal divorce in exchange for favorable treatment.
The money was required for growing legal fees to defend against ethics
charges. Much of the misconduct in my case involved judges with offices in a
Syracuse courthouse. ..
Only last month, a Michigan judge was exposed for presiding over a child
support case in which the mother was his secret lover. He admitted a practice
of allowing the female litigant privileged access to his chambers for the
purpose of engaging in special relations. It caused an unplanned pregnancy
and major back peddling to explain impartiality. The list goes on: a
Pennsylvania judge convicted for imprisoning 4,000 children in newly built
facilities in exchange for contractor kickbacks, and a Texas family judge
exposed on his daughters video for child abuse.
This is only a sampling of judges actually caught for their misconduct. Many
more would be exposed if judges honored related code obligations which
mandate accountability for unethical conduct. In my case, they simply passed
20

the damage on to successor proceedings as a mode of retribution, thereby

causing serious injuries, costly appeals and vacated orders...
On the lawyer end, collusion between the bench and bar is implicated in civil
rights cases brought by New York City ethics counsel, Christine Anderson
and Nicole Corrado. They paint a very disturbing picture of insider protection
for lawyers committing serious misconduct and discipline for targeted
lawyers outside the system
Petitioners website was made necessary by the paucity of mainstream media
coverage regarding corruption in family court matters. Indeed secondary and social
media have become the necessary by-product, championing the American traditions
of free press dating back to the trial of John Peter Zenger. The pleadings, petition
and record reveal by overwhelming direct and circumstantial proof that petitioners
sudden fall from grace with an inability to obtain fair treatment in the Northern
District of New York was caused by his highly monitored website. Due to corruption
reform, it also featured timely posts of the presidential election and Donald Trump.
Systemic Bias Impeding Access to this Court
The second major subject being censored is father discrimination. It is a
modern day civil rights phenomenon highly suppressed in the Northern District of
New York and elsewhere due to the lucrative nature of money transfers. Yet it
cannot be denied. Unlike all other targeted groups, fathers comprise the last
bastion of institutional discrimination remaining unchecked in America today, a
declaration by petitioner ignored in all court rulings and government replies since
this uncontested divorce began in 2006, see i.e. pg. 27 and fn 3 of petition. Census
Bureau reports and others continue to show that men are nearly 85% of support

21

debtors, nearly 100% of violators sent to debtor prisons (under pretext of civil
contempt), and about 10% of parents successful in contested (fit) custody cases.
Sexist slurs such as dead beat dad persist among official pronouncements
such as Arizona Governor Doug Duceys 2016 State of the State address where a
wanted poster program was unveiled to hunt down dads only. It was condemned by
petitioner on his website and by complaints directed to the governor himself. The
same slur was publicized in news releases by the U.S. Justice Department as
recently as 2011 until challenged by petitioner and his National League of Fathers,
Inc. in a Washington D.C. protest and lobby initiative in Congress the same year.
It has risen to epidemic levels as explained in petitioners 2016 report to a
Congressional oversight committee regarding federal funding abuses in our nations
divorce and family courts. Suicides, child abandonment, domestic violence, police
shootings and unfit parents are actually being manufactured by government. It is
the silent killer of loving moms and dads alienated from their offspring simply
because a judge has been improperly influenced or a veteran is unable to maintain
gainful employment. Dallas Police Chief David Brown may have summed it up best
when he declared that police today are being required to rectify everything that
society is throwing at them, from loose dogs to domestic disputes of all variety.
A 2016 government study found that 20 veterans per day are committing
suicide traced to everything but father discrimination. Yet an untold number return
from active duty to empty homes, child estrangement and felony support warrants,
see i.e. Purple Hearts Final Beat, Second Class Citizen.org (over 100,000 views). As

22

related in the petition and record, systemic bias in the Northern District of New
York is harming petitioners capacity for preventing suicides and rectifying public
injustices, thereby contradicting the purported protection objectives of respondents.
These are not facts which require citations. Judicial notice must be taken of a
constitutional crisis textually committed to this Court for a remedy, Marbury v
Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). It was facilitated by an abuse of abstention doctrines in
our federal courts, including those condemned by unanimous opinions of this Court
in Sprint v Jacobs, 571 US __ (2013) and Marshall v Marshall, 547 US 293
(2006)(forcefully written by Justice Ginsburg). Therefore it calls upon this Court to
exercise supervisory authority in addition to the All Writs Act in aid of jurisdiction
so that the people are properly served under Article III of the Constitution.
The censorship in this case is extraordinary because it is being executed
exclusively by the judicial branch which is not excluded from the operation of our
Bill of Rights. The state track to this Court was foreclosed by an utter disregard of
Executive Law section 71 which requires judges to direct notice to the Attorney
General when constitutional challenges are made as they were here. The Fourth
Department ignored it and authorized continuing jurisdiction on other claims but
Judge King found otherwise and refused to entertain such challenges in his 2013
decision, S.C.A. at A-342; Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 155 (4th Dept 2009).
Petitioners claims of Title IV-D abuses and father discrimination are backed
by petitioners involvement in communities across America. These are the villages
that Hillary Clinton has progressively ignored for more than three decades of her

23

public life. In one such community, an unarmed father was shot dead five times in
the back by a traffic cop while fleeing a child support warrant at a routine stop. This
horrific murder was inciteful due to a cell phone video which captured the incident.
Petitioner attended Walter Scotts funeral in April, 2015, endeavoring to
convince national media and Congress that this was more of a father discrimination
issue than a racially charged incident. It revealed that one of every eight inmates in
the South Carolina system were child support debtors in a state with the longest
terms and worst collection rates, Robles & Dewan, Skip Child Support. Go to Jail.
Lose Job. Repeat, NY Times, April 19, 2015. It has contributed to our nations
dubious distinction as having the most imprisoned population in the free world.
For all the eloquent oratory coming from speakers at our political conventions
this year, not one mention was made of fathering issues which impact nearly all
others addressed. The clearest case of unlawful brutality in the Black Lives Matter
movement was the Walter Scott murder. Yet his name was excluded from protest
banners and left out among those named in a convention interview with Megyn
Kelly. This father crisis is borne out by numerous studies and opinions of veteran
judges. After an exhaustive review in an article entitled, Is There Really a
Fatherhood Crisis? Professor Stephen Baskerville puts the blame on government:
Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children:
violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide,
and psychological disorders all correlating more strongly with
fatherlessness than with any other single factor, surpassing even race and
poverty. The majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school
dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists come from
fatherless homes. Children born from affluent but broken families are much
24

more likely to get into trouble than children from poor but intact ones, and
white children from separated families are at higher risk than black children
in intact families. The connection between single-parent households and
crime is so strong that controlling for this factor erases the relationship
between race and crime as well as between income and crime.
Marshalling federal agencies to promote something as private and personal
as a parents relationship with his own children raises questions. The
assumption that the government has a legitimate role in ameliorating the
problem of fatherlessness also glides quickly over the more fundamental
question of whether the government has had a role in creating the problem.
What we see in the fatherlessness crisis may be an optical illusion. What
many are led to believe is a social problem may in reality be an exercise of
power by the state. Independence Review, vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, 485-486.
Petitioner is a lifelong Democrat who prefers the depiction Kennedy
Republican (civil rights with family values). As President Reagan explained, he did
not leave the party, it left him. This is how a growing number of fathers, veterans
and public safety officers are feeling about government today, especially in family
court. It all verifies how reform is viciously blocked and unlikely any time soon.
If Hillary Clinton is to be gauged by her acceptance speech, after accusing
Donald Trump of dividing America, she opens by cutting it in half, craftily targeting
every one of the 161 million women and girls across America (for) the opportunity
she deserves. Despite her professed work with the Childrens Defense Fund and
book, It Takes a Village, not a word was committed to the 70 million fathers, their
daughters, partners, sisters, mothers and yes, men, horribly abused in divorce and
family courts which easily exceed her coveted female voters. Justice Abe Fortas once
described these courts as Kangaroo operations, In re Gault, 387 US 1, 27 (1967).
Their draconian practices have been neglected by this Court for too long, Pet. pg. 28.
25

As for petitioners challenge to the unequal custody mandates under Title IVD, wrongfully undermined by respondents, the inequities are beyond question. This
statute makes no provision for shared parenting as the presumptive starting point
in domestic proceedings. Federal grants and lucrative contests are the pretext
behind facially neutral laws that have gross discriminatory impacts on fathers in
violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Yick Wo v
Hopkins,118 US 356 (1886). In Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS 2d 315 (Family Ct. 2001),
a veteran judge condemned the use of the statutes antiquated terms. The bold
opinion was quickly reversed on other grounds, but footnote one warrants a reprint:
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.
Obviously this jurist was ahead of his time and his views have been shared
by countless others privately. Five years later, a Matrimonial Commission would
make the same recommendations to New Yorks Chief Justice (The Miller Report).
Nevertheless the damaging terms have survived to this day only because the federal
support statute mandates their exclusive use as a condition for mass funding.
The wisdom of that footnote has remained suppressed in the fourteen years
since it was published. During that time, tremendous harm has occurred. Countless

26

fathers never knew the experience of placing a child on a school bus, thousands of
children were psychologically damaged, and non-custodial parents were held to selfcrafted rules of their severed partners. It became a twisted form of parenting.
This all occurred even though no utopian standards for childrearing existed.
The Miller Report emphasized that our custody laws create a shoe horn effect. To
make the unequal scheme work, judges simply appointed custodial parents as
court supervisors over their counterparts, thereby inciting more conflict. The state
has become an uninvited party to all cases to produce a dysfunctional court system.
Regarding yet another misapplication of judicial office, petitioners revenuebias conclusion was deemed frivolous by the lower court. However it is supported by
our nations top civil rights experts at the Justice Department. They issued a report
on March 4, 2015 after the Ferguson, Missouri race riots concluding that the
regions municipal courts were committing civil rights violations through concocted
arrests and excessive fines as part of a revenue generating scheme. There is little to
distinguish that conclusion from petitioners long asserted claims regarding family
courts which thrive on conflict to exact excessive support orders and lawyer fees.
It all translates into corruption of our Constitution and a fundamental right
of parenting derived from the beginning of humanity itself, Parham v J.R., 442 US
584 (1979)(parents presumed to act in their childrens best interests). The state has
seized this right by codifying the best interests standard applicable to childrearing
and treading upon every aspect of family privacy through abuses of equity powers
having common law roots in feudal England, Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925).

27

If our third branch of government is to assume such vast power which finds
no authority in our Constitution, it must be held to high standards. Instead recent
reports in California and New York show that over 90% of judicial misconduct
complaints are never even investigated. In the petition at page 22, seventeen clear
violations of Judicial Code are itemized regarding Judge King alone to confirm his
free pass and systemic bias that negate any rational due process in the Northern
District. Despite sound proof, not one complaint was given so much as an inquiry.

Perilous State of the Judicial Whistleblower

This Court has repeatedly accorded First Amendment protection for the acts
of whistle blowers principally in the public employment context beginning with its
decision in Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968). Such protections
have been extended to prison inmates, students, unions and health care providers,
see i.e. Turner v Safley, 482 US 78 (1987); Tinker v Des Moines School District, 393
US 503 (1969); and Beechwood Care Center v Leeds, 436 F. 3d 147 (2nd Cir. 2006) .
However the First Amendment was never accorded general whistle blower
status. Hence, this case is extraordinary because the court-censored publisher was
employing expert and lay opinions as a victimized parent outside the court room on
matters of clear public import. There are over 300,000 attorneys in New York and
California alone who could become subject to similar abuse. Their livelihood must
not be exploited to harm family interests, Konigsberg v State Bar of California, 353
US 252, 273 (1957)(importance to society that lawyers are free to think and speak).

28

First Amendment protection in this context has never been explicitly

declared by our Supreme Court and, at best, left in conflict or limbo among our
federal circuits, see i.e. Erdmann v Stevens, supra; Hirschkop v Virginia State Bar,
604 F. 2d 840 (4th Cir. 1979)(advertising or self promotion can subject attorney to
discipline). Middlesex v Garden State Bar, 457 US 423 (1982); Supreme Court of
Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980)(judicial immunity no bar to relief).
As relevant here, in Hunter v Virginia State Bar, 285 Va. 485 (2013), cert
denied 133 S. Ct. 2871 (2014), an attorney was disciplined for failing to use a
disclaimer for political speech on his website deemed by ethics prosecutors to be
advertising under its rules. In petitioners case, regulatory respondents cited
offensive blog posts just as their Virginia counterparts did, but unlike that case, no
prosecution, declaration or clarification was obtained from state respondents, their
agents or Judge Gary Sharpe below despite repeated First Amendment claims,
leaving petitioner in a state of prior restraint, ambush and indefinite suspension.
In Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964), this Court ruled that a prosecutor
criticizing trial judges as lazy and inefficient was entitled to First Amendment
protection from criminal libel statutes notwithstanding its adverse impacts on the
administration of justice. See also NAACP v Button, 371 US 415 (1963)(First
Amendment protection for disciplined lawyer despite participation in organization
activity). But those cases did not involve sadistic retaliation over a prolonged period
proven by circumstantial and direct evidence, Beechwood Care Center v Leeds, 436
F.3d 147 (2nd Cir. 2006); Phillip v Bowen, 278 F.3d 103, 109 (2nd Cir. 2002).

29

The latter cases instruct that a retaliation claim can be established by a

temporal nexus between protected activity and adverse state action or events that
reach a critical mass over time. Pretext such as the protection of the public and
the child can be shown through compelling inferences, Texas Dept of Community
Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248 (1981). Circumstantial proof has long been allowed to
show federal law violations inasmuch as those in a position of power are unlikely to
admit guilt or evince overt misconduct, Holland v United States, 348 US 121 (1954).
In this case involving our third branch, such rules have incurred a disappearing act.
In Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 US 410 (2006), this Court ruled in a 5-4 opinion
by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Thomas
and Alito on the current bench, that speech by a deputy district attorney was not
protected because it was a part of his internal job duties and not a subject of public
concern. While the predecessor ruling in Connick v Meyers, 462 US 138 (1983), also
involving a deputy district attorney, was more tenable in limiting the impacts of
Pickering, supra, the decision in Garcetti may have gone too far. Here is why.
On January 31, 2012, petitioner submitted an internal report to his local
district attorney and police chief regarding an inside scheme by his ex-law office
secretary to orchestrate ethics charges with outside influences, A-44, 45; A-II at 67.
She tampered with mail and files, keeping matters off the calendar, pilfering bank
accounts, and operating a divorce practice without law license or education.
Among petitioners criticisms of this unequal custody framework was its
collective impact on worker productivity and entrepreneurship. Time and resources

30

diverted to family court by witnesses, parents and a slew of costly experts were
profound. Here it included an entire day hearing based on a facetious text to the
custodial parent during a child exchange in her driveway that dad and the girls
were in Rio, A-II at 66-69, 87. Such foolishness detracted from law office supervision
physically and emotionally. For most Americans, children are their whole life.
An investigator replied by letter and referral to the city police department for
formal action against the secretary. Complaints were filed by office attorneys and
clients but they were allegedly lost and misplaced. Six months later the matter was
referred to civil recourse, forming part basis for a civil rights action dismissed by
Northern District Judge Thomas McAvoy in Koziol v Peters (November, 2012).
That decision emphasized the lack of constitutional right to a prosecution. In
reality, the complaint was asserting actionable First Amendment retaliation by city
authorities leaving petitioner in a precarious state as an open crime victim, see i.e.
exhibit A in both lower court records (news articles) and Patterson v City of Utica,
supra. Judge McAvoy knew the merits based on select mistreatment but shirked his
duties under the Constitution to protect judge colleagues in the Northern District.
The narrow, bad faith reading by Judge McAvoy and ensuing adverse
publicity then empowered the criminal to elevate her crime spree. The investigation
was reopened only after petitioner and other victims caused her to be arrested in
court for acting on behalf of a client in another county, see Second Circuit A-118 to
121. Still no prosecution went forward in petitioners home county despite lengthy

31

forensic exchanges between petitioner and District Attorney agents. An investigator

was anxious to move on the evidence in 2014 but was retired two months later.
This ex-secretary was finally arrested in 2015 on a fugitive warrant in Illinois
based on forgeries and crimes committed against later offices including a chairman
of the Fifth District ethics committee (as predicted in the 2012 report). Among the
files stolen and only partially recovered from an ex-boyfriend was the proof needed
to defend against the earliest ethics charges of January, 2008. This sociopathic exsecretary would not have been so bold in her crimes absent some grant or feeling of
immunity. She was finally committed to prison in March, 2016 for a term less than
the one ordered against petitioner for support debts partially caused by her crimes.
The ruling in Garcetti and pre-answer dismissal in Koziol v Peters have
prevented petitioner from securing justice and obtaining vital information from the
District Attorneys office to verify the extent of this conspiracy. In short, absent
corrective action by this Court, it is a case that will forever stand for the conviction
and persecution of an innocent civil rights attorney by our judicial branch of
government, Ruffalo, 390 US 544 (1968); Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857).
Bold action free of political influences is needed here as it was in Brown v
Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954) when a newly appointed Chief Justice Earl
Warren convinced an unwilling majority to join him in a unanimous opinion that
condemned unlawful segregation. It contrasts with disgraced New York ex-Chief
Justice Sol Wachtler who explained in his book, After the Madness, that judges are
trained to think as gods. It is a lesson which fell on ears with the next judge.

32

Federal Judge Gary Sharpe

This petition seeks a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit which denied mandamus, prohibition and extraordinary relief
directed to federal district Judge Gary Sharpe of the Northern District of New York.
Such relief was necessitated by reason of his abuse of a life tenure position to crush
a public critic of the judiciary and the self-governing rights of a free nation.
These rights were asserted throughout a pleading filed by petitioner on July
26, 2014, A-II at 154 to179. However because it set forth a serial display of judicial
abuse, Judge Sharpe was faced with a decision on whether to permit the veteran
lawyer and parent victim to obtain discovery rights that were likely to expose more
misconduct and a civil rights conspiracy in the Northern District of New York.
The easy way out of this dilemma was to kill the messenger, an expendable
litigant, by crafting a decision so disparaging that this public critic would finally get
the real message to an effect that judges in his district were above the law. He
exploited the high regard of our federal judiciary by prejudging the case, excluding a
full one-third of the case law cited in support of it, and omitting material (foregoing)
facts since 2012, A-I, 42 to 48 to reduce this entire case to mere gripes, A-I at 76.
This enabled Judge Sharpe to doctor a self-serving outcome, a fictional case
ripe for dismissal together with sanctions, fines and attorneys fees against his
public critic. He finished him off with an anti-filing order containing further threats
in the event an appeal was taken to this Court. When coupled with systemic judicial
bias demonstrated over time, the conditions imposed against petitioner were so

33

severe that it rendered any filing in the Northern District of New York a gesture in
futility while inciting a recurrence of civil rights violations for years to come.
Crucial facts ignored by Judge Sharpe included the 2013 Moreland corruption
testimony clearly protected by the First Amendment, Lane v Franks, 573 US ___
(2014), proximate family court retributions of the worst kind, events that could only
be contrived outside the scope of judicial office, secret reports of Third Department
respondents, an employer-employee relationship between disciplinary decision
makers and ethics lawyers rendering the process inherently biased, circumstantial
proof of retaliation and conspiracy, a 2014 report attacking petitioners website and
departed mother (presented at exhibit R of his record), and non-final proceedings
infected by structural flaws according to respondent appeals Judge John Centra.
Indeed all the foregoing events were properly presented in the complaint with
most occurring after the last (2012) ruling by Judge McAvoy. Hence, even if a
continuing injury theory of civil rights liability was unavailing (never mentioned),
this case was clearly meritorious on both law and facts. Indeed in yet another case
ignored below, this Court ruled in Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973) that an
inherent bias existed with disciplinary jurists due to competing pecuniary interests.
The defense of Younger abstention and proof of actual bias were rejected. The bad
faith exception to abstention in disciplinary cases was also never addressed below.
In the mandamus petition, A-I at 25 and exhibit E of the Appendix of both
lower courts, petitioner attached a series of photographs to emphasize the special
nature of father-daughter relationships which respondents crushed in order to

34

achieve unlawful ends. They treated petitioner and his children as objects and not
as human beings subject to the dignity required by federal law, Troxel v Granville,
530 US 57 (2000)(oldest liberty interest protected by the Constitution).
When an infinitely tortured petitioner confirmed the loss of his children on
Fathers Day, 2015, he was forced to leave the area to relieve uncontrolled emotions,
missing a next day appeal deadline. Judge Sharpe callously rejected this crisis as
good cause for extension despite cited cases where victims in petitioners city took
the law into their own hands on lesser abuses, i.e. Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d
367 (NDNY 2011)(murder-suicide by police investigator after support court leaving
children without parents and city with $2 million liability despite protection order).
The Sharpe ruling contrasts sharply with Judge Hurd who found no frivolity
in petitioners first of three federal court decisions, see Parent v New York, 786 F.
Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011)(no frivolous motions filed). As detailed in the petition at
pg. 4, the filing here in Koziol v King was proper due to the Second Circuits refusal
to entertain petitioners constitutional claims in a June 18, 2012 summary order
affirming the dismissal in Parent on alternate grounds of Younger abstention.
When that decision was discredited by unanimous decision of this Court in Sprint
Communications v Jacobs, 571 US, __ (2013), this case became further justified.
Sharpes decision also contrasted with federal judges in other districts. When
confronted with highly disparaging motions against a pro se father, Judge Pratter
had this to say in Mikhail v Kahn, 991 F. Supp.2d 596 (E.D. Pa. 2014) at footnote 4:
The Courts ruling should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement, or even
an acceptance, of the tone, accusations, or any ad hominem remarks leveled
35

against Mr. Mikhail in some of the motions to dismiss. Indeed the Court is
quite unimpressed with such language, style or tactics. For example, labeling
as a disgruntled litigant a father who is seeking to regain custody of his
child and vindicate what he sees as the violation of his constitutional rights,
is unhelpful and even callous, even if case law militates strongly against him.
In this case, the ad hominem attacks were far worse and even welcomed to
censor petitioner in every way. One became the cited basis for career destroying
forensic orders in Kings December 20, 2013 decision. It also caused nearly 1,000
days of father-child deprivations and ordered with no personal, competent or
corroborating proof after years of non-contact due to the many dismissed fraudulent
petitions of a scorned ex-spouse. She retains tenured high school teaching status at
Frankfort-Schuyler School despite grammar atrocities averaging one per sentence:
His interaction with her [Fathers girlfriend] infront [sic] of the children are
(sic) inappropriate & unhealthy. His mental health is deteriorating. He is
dillusional [sic] about his ex-girlfriend and secretary and I [sic] being friends.
He is paranoid that people are out to get him and needs help. S.C.A. at 346.
This is the same woman who enjoyed a wonderful marital home for years and
adored petitioner in love notes and greeting cards prior to state intervention. When
Judge Sharpes mission became evident in an August, 2014 order denying early
exigent relief, petitioner filed for his removal. It was based additionally on United
States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2011). There he earned a unanimous rebuke
and removal from the case with his truly delusional announcement of a human gene
that scientists would discover fifty years from now to gauge criminal behavior.
Such a sentencing process would negate the need for juries, lawyers, forensics
and evidence itself, ushering in a Hitler-esque framework for justice. In Cossey, a
six year sentence for a non-violent offense was imposed. Judge Sharpe also trashed
36

psychiatric opinions obtained in the case because they were issued by a profession
that was all over the board. Petitioner has maintained that Judge Sharpe is
privately treating this Court the same way by ignoring its case law, A-I at 42 to 49.
The Second Circuit cited misconduct of Judge Sharpe that seriously affects
the fairness, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings, Cossey, 632
F.3d at 88. Such ingrained thought cannot be rectified by any amount of judge
therapy, and given the family traits at issue here, petitioner was entitled to notice
for per se disqualification. Instead the fatal character flaws were trivialized as a
Hail Mary pass as if this was some sort of ball game. Coupled with his insulation
from review, Judge Gary Sharpe assumed the role of a one-man Supreme Court.
Under Article III, sec. 1 of the Constitution, federal judges are accorded life
tenure during good behaviour. Only the illusory recourse of impeachment has
been defined for bad behavior of which decisional gene theories are clearly an
example. Impeachment has been sparsely employed over the past two centuries
with only one judge removed for non-criminal misbehavior (abuse of contempt
power). Under these circumstances, extraordinary relief is necessary and proper.

Disqualification of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg

Against this backdrop, during the week of July 14, 2016, while this petition
was awaiting responses from defending parties, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
commenced a public crusade against Donald Trump, demeaning his character and
maligning his campaign for president. She did this from her chambers, not as a

37

private citizen, and effectively placed our nations high court on the side of her
candidate whose husband was responsible for her appointment.
There was no resolution or formal statement distancing this Court from her
remarks, thus giving voters an impression that our Supreme Court was supporting
Donald Trumps opponent, see i.e. Cheney v United States, supra, where Justice
Scalias impartiality was challenged by motion. Mr. Trump is a private citizen
whose support base was misunderstood by Justice Ginsburg for whatever purpose.
There is a growing hysteria in this country rightfully caused by the vast level
of corruption which is being protected at our highest levels of government. The
Arizona tarmac meeting between our highest law enforcement official, Loretta
Lynch, and Bill Clinton is exemplary. A two class justice system is arising as those
seeking accountability are exterminated. This case is a quintessential example.
In Donald Trump, the American people see promise for overdue change from
a person bold enough to make it happen beyond rhetoric, lies and platitudes. The
Justices complaint that a future president of the United States speaks his mind is
the very essence of our First Amendment, and this Courts precedent is legion on
that subject. The fact that he raised the partiality of a federal judge based on his
background and Trumps politics is also not so shocking, perhaps even justified, by
the gene theories long held by federal Judge Gary Sharpe as condemned in Cossey.
A more formidable wall has been erected to keep parents out of our federal courts.
This is borne out by the arsenal of technical obstacles applied to petitioner below,
i.e. Younger abstention, judicial immunity, Rooker-Feldman and preclusion rules.

38

With all the respect deserving of Justice Ginsburg whose opinions in Sprint
and Marshall, supra, have not only been commended here but relied upon for
petitioners very liberty and freedoms, this motion is required consistent with a
conscientious lawyers oath and principles as they were with many of the 35 trial
jurists disqualified in the lower courts. The public attacks by Justice Ginsburg were
as spontaneous as the ones she criticized. This much is proven by her later regret
over them. They are also inconsistent with the dignity of our Supreme Court as the
neutral arbiter between our political branches of government and the people.
As further relevant here, there are postings on petitioners targeted website
at the core of this case which feature such events as a Trump rally in New Yorks
capital, a political action group created by petitioner entitled Moms and Dads for
Trump, and even a parody in August, 2015, debunking a liberal myth championed
by Megyn Kelly, Hillary Clinton and others known as the War on Women.
The political activism displayed by Justice Ginsberg has now impaired fair
consideration of this petition. It is augmented by a full spectrum of commentators
weighing in with such depictions of her as Darth Bader and the Ruth of all Evil,
New York Post, July 14, 2016. The New York Times ran an editorial condemning
her public stance in the capacity of a Supreme Court Justice. The list goes on.
Accordingly an order of disqualification, clarification or official limitation is
required. Petitioner asks that the conference set for September 26, 2016 be
adjourned until after the November election to avoid an appearance of impropriety
while allowing Mr. Trump and others to offer fair reply in the way of amicus briefs.

39

Conversion to Extraordinary Action

Under Rule 20 of this Court, aggrieved parties are authorized to file petitions
for mandamus, prohibition and extraordinary relief. Technical requisites are the
same as those already satisfied by the current petition. Therefore, it is respectfully
requested that this Court consider converting it to an extraordinary action in light
of the unprecedented nature of this case and events occurring since it was docketed
on June 17, 2016 and since the pleadings were filed in both lower courts.
The escalating level of abuse inflicted upon a conscientious parent and civil
rights attorney due to his valid criticisms of our third branch of government has
reached intolerable levels under our Constitution. These incredible circumstances
viewed in their totality have created a chaotic outcome ripe for invalidation under
principles of substantive due process, Pet. at 13 to 15, 33. It can also be likened to a
Class of One equal protection violation, Willowbrook v Olech, 528 US 562 (2000).
If the misplacement of a prison hobby kit valued at $23.50 can warrant the
grant of a civil rights writ by this Court, Parratt v Taylor, 451 US 527 (1982), then
assuredly a destruction of American families and judicial whistle blower through
corrupt government practices deserves corrective precedent here. All semblance of
an orderly system of justice was sacrificed to conceal an abuse of equity powers to a
point of erecting constitution free zones, Nichols v Sivilli, Civ. No. 2:14 (DCNJ
2014); Alexander v United States, 509 US 544 (1993); New York Times v United
States, 403 US 713 (1971). A law practice and website were shut down or censored
in a manner which shocks the American conscience while inviting further abuses.

40

And so it happened. Judge Sharpes anti-filing action began on August 25,

2015, A-I at 51. Syracuse media was put on notice prior to petitioners knowledge of
it to yield a calculated publication. At the time, respondent King was reviewing
motions properly seeking an order reopening a support violation order obtained
through joint fraud, namely the concealment of petitioners 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 and arrest warrant.
That warrant 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 petitioners 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.
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 so that
the true agenda of censorship and punitive incarceration could be achieved. He
refused despite notice from petitioners attorney and possession of certified funds.

41

In early October, 2015 the arrears were satisfied by mail, the warrant and
commitment vacated, and petitioners motions denied despite the respondent
mothers claims to have satisfied her own court ordered obligations to notify the
father of residential relocation within 24 hours by e-mail or text. She later testified
under oath that such notice had been confirmed on her home computer under
address gmai.com (l character missing unlike all 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 the 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 for the second time while his gag order was being
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.
One week prior to a public hearing and protest at the courthouse on the
mandamus action, Judge King stepped down while continuing his 2013 and 2014
suspensions of fathering periods. The case was then transferred to family Judge
42

James Eby in a more remote county. Prior to the first appearance, he denied an
exigent motion for Fathers Day time which petitioner nevertheless obtained
without incident through outside pressure on the mother. This only infuriated the
newest judge to a point of sarcasm and abuse at the July 12, 2016 hearing in which
he essentially closed all courtrooms to petitioner until the daughters came of age.
Judge Eby predetermined his involvement with notices stating that civil
practice rules will be strictly observed for no cited reason and that teleconferences
will not be considered (contrary to recent 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 disqualification motion or alienation remedy.
Among the issues also ignored was the serial misconduct of the attorney
continually appointed by these judges since 2007 to represent petitioners children
(respondent William Koslosky). All remedy was limited to futile complaints to an
ethics committee which had been engaged in the witch hunt against petitioner. As
stated, their chief counsel and deputy lawyers were fired for falsifying time sheets
without public charges, criminal or ethical, filed against them (respondent Zayas).
In Jones v Clinton, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 1999), a federal judge
found President Bill Clinton in contempt of court after admitting on national
television that he had lied under oath during discovery proceedings regarding his
adulterous sexual activity at the White House. After issuing sanctions, a federal
judge referred the law license issues to an Arkansas ethics committee resulting in a
five year suspension, less than the six plus years imposed against petitioner in

43

perpetuity based on discrepancies and orchestrated non-criminal issues. No such

referral has been made by any of the judges below despite false sworn affirmations
submitted by respondent, William Koslosky, and his attorney, Paul Ferrara, before
an appeals court (Fourth Department) having dual authority to discipline attorneys.
Proof is readily available on the face of a state mandamus record and exhibit
L of both lower court records, A-215. Respondent Koslosky stated in an attorneys
affirmation that petitioner sought to revoke authority of the Fourth Department
court by having his law license reinstated in family court, a serious charge to show
incompetence and tactical grounds for a custody consummating forensic order. He
cited a March 3, 2011 cross-motion in family court as his lone source of fact.
Both attorneys affirmation and the motion showing no such reinstatement
request were provided to state and federal judges. Yet to this day there has been no
mention of it anywhere in any respect including all decisions in the appendix here.
If fraudulent filings and perjury indisputably shown on the face of court filings have
no significance to a judiciary, then what purpose is there for respecting it? Victims
are left to an undeserved condition of taking the law into their own hands.
In the same representative capacity, on September 24, 2015, respondent
Koslosky stated at public foreclosure before a judge unfamiliar with the family
proceedings that petitioner was subject to a drug test (nowhere ordered or found
in any record). In opposing dismissal of Kings gag order, Koslosky stated under
oath that petitioner had been terrorizing his children on his targeted website.
Terrorists fly planes into buildings. They do not sacrifice careers for their children.

44

In the pleadings here, petitioner recited Kosloskys custody closing statement

regarding a childhood hatred of his own father based on a dinner argument over red
skin potatoes fifty years ago, A-II at 142. He was removed by respondent Judge
Gorman but reappointed with that knowledge by Judge King in 2013. These and
countless other deviations from ethical scope of public employment were directly
harmful to the public reputation and support interests of Kosloskys clients.
The chaotic record here can only be explained by unpublished directives to
William Koslosky and others, at taxpayer expense, to employ all means necessary to
destroy a judicial whistle blower. For these reasons extraordinary relief is required
in the way of conversion. Recognizing a need to control discovery involving judges
and otherwise immune parties, petitioner sought appointment of a special master in
the Second Circuit, i.e. Clinton v Jones, 520 US 681 (1997); Oneida Nation, supra.
This Court has exercised vast power to decide constitutional issues, to elect a
president, desegregate Americas public infrastructure and incite our only Civil
War. The question here is whether it can order a phone call to a loving father from
his daughters (impeded by every court and judge below). To that end, a stay order is
sought upon the custody, support and suspension orders appended under exhibit A
which will temporarily reinstate the pre-King 2012 custody order under exhibit B.
August 5, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
Petitioner, pro se
1336 Graffenburg Road
New Hartford, NY 13413
(315) 796-4000
45