national father's day message & complaint

8/6/2019 National Father's Day Message & Complaint

1/28

NATIONAL FATHERS DAY

MESSAGE

TO: ALL PARENTING/CHILD ADVOCATES

FROM: PARENTING RIGHTS INSTITUTE ANDNATIONAL LEAGUE OF FATHERS, INC.

RE: PARENTING RIGHTS CONVENTION REPORTLITIGATION UPDATE

DATE: JUNE 10, 2011

As promised at our national Parenting Rights Convention held in upstate New York on April 15-17, 2011, a Report has now been completed for review by attendees, supporters and variousgovernment agencies. Issued in the form of a formal Complaint filed this morning with theNew York Commission on Judicial Conduct, copies are being furnished to the U.S. JusticeDepartment, United Nations, legislative leaders and various human rights organizations. Weexpect to complete this process on June 17, 2011 in Washington D.C. (Fathers Day weekend).

A copy of the 25 page Complaint is available for viewing at www.leonkoziol.com. Copies arealso being sent to our followers. It incorporates the testimony and contributions of those whoattended the April convention. However, names and personal details were excluded to protect the

participants from retaliation in their private litigation. Instead civil rights advocate Leon Koziol,J.D. employed his own experiences with references and recommendations common to similarlysituated parents. The Complaint easily shows why reform is not going to occur from within.

This Complaint has immense practical value as a free information product for those victimizedby domestic relations courts around the country. We parents are experiencing an epidemic instate control practices over our private affairs and exploitation of innocent children for profit.This document should be shared everywhere as a personal defense resource. It can be used tobetter understand the Family Court environment and as a tool for evaluating the performance ofcostly legal representation. In addition, it may serve as a background piece for seminars andpublic assemblies given the complex nature of these court processes. If this Complaint can save a

parent-child relationship from abuse or demise, it will be well worth the sacrifice made by itsauthor and sponsor. You may contact Mr. Koziol personally for this purpose at (315) 796-4000.

On a related note, a 25 page opinion was handed down in federal court in a case filed by LeonKoziol on behalf of parents similarly situated in Parent v State and its consolidated membercase Koziol v Lippman. Originally filed on February 26, 2009, this challenge to abusivecustody and support laws was held up for two years on a court issued ruling which raised the
http://www.leonkoziol.com/http://www.leonkoziol.com/


2/28


3/28

Office of Leon R. Koziol

1518 Genesee StreetUtica, NY 13502

(315) 796-4000

June 9, 2011

COMPLAINT

State of New YorkCommission on Judicial Conduct

Corning TowerSuite 2301Empire State PlazaAlbany, NY 12223 Re: Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman

Appellate Division Justices, Third and FourthFamily Court Judge Michelle Pirro-BaileyFamily Court Judge Martha Walsh-HoodSupreme Court Judge Michael Daley

Dear Commission:

This Complaint is asserted in connection with ongoing sex discriminatory in New YorksUnified Court System, invidious judge refusals to comply with established laws, and judicialretaliation for the exercise of protected activities. Widespread harm to families and communitiescaused by needless court disputes is a major focus of this document and reform effort.

Until I took up a public cause to promote parenting rights in New Yorks domestic relationscourts, I enjoyed 23 unblemished years as a civil rights attorney. I secured six figure recoveriesfor victims of government abuse, ran as an endorsed candidate for state Senate and obtained afinal judgment in state Supreme Court declaring the largest casino in New York unconstitutional.

My public interest work over the years has been featured on the CBS program 60 Minutes, CNNand multiple editions of the New York Times. What follows is a compelling story which may becompared to the plight of Gao Zhisheng, the Chinese lawyer stripped of his law license, basicliberties and child contact as a result of his representation of Christian groups and publiccriticisms of a communist government.

In November, 2007, I began a process of representing parenting groups and victims ofdiscrimination in New Yorks Family Court. I publicly criticized unethical lawyer practiceswhich caused parents to fight over their own offspring. I also promoted shared parentinginitiatives and equal rights for fathers. Shortly afterwards, I was deprived of my law license,


4/28

driving privileges and rational access to my children. I have never been found to be an unfitparent. In short, the courts simply killed the messenger, making it clear that free expression ofthis kind would not be tolerated and the abuses upon New Yorks families would continue.Koziol v LippmanPage 2

Accordingly, in February, 2009, I filed a federal court action against the state, its court system,various judges and unethical lawyers seeking declaratory relief and compensation for the takingof my children and livelihood. I was deprived all discovery opportunities to prove my claims in aconsolidated and sealed process. Then, in a 45 page decision issued on May 24, 2011, my casewas dismissed based upon judicial immunity and technical barriers which a private litigantcannot overcome. The decision essentially insulated serious misconduct from accountability.

Although a show cause motion is forthcoming before the U.S. Court of Appeals in New YorkCity, complete relief can only occur through official duties charged upon this Commission andother human rights entities. Government control of children for profit is a serious matter which

requires far greater scrutiny than its beneficiaries are providing. As this Complaint willdemonstrate, expansive contract employment is harming judicial ethics, worker productivity andpublic health and safety. Needless processes are impairing the liberties of an entire nation.

This Complaint is derived additionally from a meeting which I sponsored at the Plaza Hotel inNew York City on December 26-27, 2010 and Parenting Rights Convention held in upstate NewYork on April 15-17, 2011. I have incorporated testimonials from parenting groups, familyadvocates and court victims among the grievances and recommendations made here.

There are two fundamental aspects of this Complaint against the above named judges necessarilycombined for economy reasons. The first is a systemic one involving the states judicial branch.The second involves particularized violations of Judicial Code. Because the implications are farreaching, copies have been submitted to the governor, pertinent legislative leaders, U.S. JusticeDepartment and the United Nations, among others, for further action.

I. SYSTEMIC VIOLATIONS

In Supreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980), the U. S. Supreme Courtruled that the Virginia chief judge, state court system and attorney disciplinary agents were notimmune from liability under the Constitution. In that case, the bar of the state hid behind aconsumers group in a First Amendment cause to promote lawyer advertising. Its architects ofjustice feared discipline and retaliation for the exercise ofevolvingprotected activities.

In this Complaint, a comparable fact pattern features systemic discrimination and retaliation formy exercise of established protected activities. Unfortunately the violators and targets of mycriticism were the decision makers over a disciplinary process tailored to remove me from thelegal profession. In that sense, the process applied to me was very much unlike other forms ofprofessional regulation and public employment. Judges were able to seize extraordinary powerand abuse our laws when a multi-billion dollar child control industry was called into question.


5/28

I have always believed strongly in the principles behind our American Constitution. Unlike thebar of Virginia, however, I placed myself directly in the line of fire by seeking limits upon thisunrestrained expansion into private affairs. The 2006 Matrimonial Report to the New York ChiefKoziol v LippmanPage 3

Justice promotes a related cause. Nevertheless, I became subject to undue scrutiny for my publicstatements and court filings on this subject. I accurately portrayed certain courts as starchambers needlessly engaged in private childrearing at the hands of unethical lawyers. Onesuch lawyer who exemplified this unethical behavior, since discharged by my ex spouse, sat onthe ethics committee which later pursued discrepancy charges as a basis for license suspension.

I certainly understood my cause to be an uphill battle and I did not expect the targeted parties toagree with everything I asserted or represented. But then again, I was also far from expressingextreme views of the kind which received First Amendment protection for flag burning andfuneral protests against the gay military. My cause was central to our mainstream parenting

population. While the governor is actively promoting bureaucratic downsizing today to stem theexodus of residents from our state, the judiciary is actively promoting absentee parents, needlesscontroversy, consequent lawlessness and a wasteful, overbuilt court system.

My case is exemplary as the state has indefinitely confined me to a form of house arrest withoutcommission of any crime. Absent a proper drivers license, I cannot even facilitate employmentinterviews. A chronology of events is provided in the federal complaint appended under exhibitA. In substance, I am challenging over inclusive laws which mandate custodial classificationsin all separated family units. A consequently overburdened docket, coupled with budget cuts,impairs due process and the fundamental right of parents to reach childrearing agreements.

A. Human Rights

Human rights violations are routinely ignored in domestic relations processes on a pretense thatthe state is the parent of its people, a highly abused legal fiction also known as parens patriaepower. It finds its roots in a British monarchy which our Constitution was specifically designedto oppose. However, if you can make the people believe that the state is at all times acting intheir childrens best interests, they will happily endure any curtailment of basic liberties, seei.e. Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler and Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429, 431 (1925).

In America, led by New York government, we are not building a war machine so much as we area domestic battlefront through this unchecked seizure and abuse of parens patriae power. It is abattlefront which exploits a rule of nature. Lawyers know that they can manufacture lucrativecontroversies by making false and incompetent commitments among parents who will doanything to preserve a relationship with their loved ones. In an effort to maximize revenues, ourjudiciary then becomes immersed in endless trivia as part of its child control bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, this antiquated custodial institution of childrearing, as I call it, is promoted bypowerful beneficiaries. Hence the bench and bar of this state is likely to preserve it at all costs.Increasingly, veteran Family Court judges are recognizing that custody and visitation have


6/28

long outlived their usefulness, i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany 2001)(reversed onother grounds). Simply stated, innocent children are being exploited by government for profit.The issue is certainly far more pressing for a free society than lawyer advertising.Koziol v LippmanPage 4

We need go no further than my home town region (90,000 urban pop) to see the effects. A policeinvestigator took his life and that of his ex spouse, leaving his children without parents afterexiting child support court. Not long after that, a woman took a knife to her husbands throatand was sentenced to 13 years of imprisonment. Two minor children were left behind to figure itall out. A father shot his boy in front of police during a domestic standoff, and a Purple Heartsoldier attempted suicide rather than continue a prison sentence on a so-called child support debt.

As this Complaint was being released, a 24 year old deputy sheriff was gunned down in anotherdomestic standoff locally. It caused the victims wife to go into premature labor on the couplessecond child while the murder suspect left a teen child without a father. The victim was a

decorated war veteran who received metals for global terror service. Federal statistics areshowing an alarming trend of veteran fatalities on the domestic front, see i.e. Purple HeartsFinal Beat at second class citizen.org.

This is only some of the needless carnage and certainly not a heros welcome for those returninghome from the capture of Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, genuine responsibility is vacated bysimply blaming the parents. A seminal case is Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 (1998) where ourstates highest court actually cited a nursery rhyme character to explain how the courts cannotrepair the pieces of a broken marriage. No recognition was given to the abusive and recurringprocesses which pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall while agreement was still possible.

Not everyone in this day and age should be made subject to these antiquated custody andsupport processes simply because of residential separation. Unless a child is on publicassistance or victimized by an abusive or neglectful parent, determined beforehand by the stateitself, parents should be allowed to make their own childrearing arrangements unmolested bymandated support formulas. Instead, all incentive for harmony and cooperation is lost for reasonswholly unrelated to the child. We have socialized the family structure on a grand scale.

The real life impact of this fraud is everywhere today. Only weeks ago, a mother intentionallydrove her children into the Hudson River, prompting authorities to question the uninvolvedfather to discern whether he encouraged it somehow. At the above referenced sentencing, anadult stepson justified his mothers attempted murder by claiming, among other things, that thevictim was not a good father figure. The absurdities and gender prejudice are at an alarmingtrend, but because Family Court profits are at their core, our state disregards any study or reform.

B. Abuse of Power

Intervention by this Commission, legislative committees and human rights organizations isfurther supported by the unconstitutional actions of the judiciary itself. In 2008, it brought anaction in its own courts against the other branches of government seeking pay raises. This was a


7/28

clear usurpation of powers under the Constitution. Base salaries at $136,000 were neitherprejudicial nor seriously substandard to impair the functioning of our judiciary. In addition, itproduced anomalies of the kind which caused this Commission to enter the power dispute.Koziol v LippmanPage 5

Various judges began an overt process of retaliation against legislators which prompted censuresby this Commission and the potential for widespread removals from the bench. Judges weredenying or frustrating court access to legislators, lawyers and others deemed responsible for payraise failures. In recent news articles, the current chief judge declared that budget cuts woulddelay justice for such things as child support orders without addressing the victimization offathers caused by discriminatory laws and a highly invasive custodial bureaucracy. The childhas been publicly exploited here in a manner reminiscent of Adolph Hitlers socialist manifestos.

Revenue generation is now central to all judicial childrearing decisions. It is an insidiousdevelopment contrary to a neutral design under the state constitution. My reform efforts have

subjected me to the very retaliation which this Commission prosecuted in the pay raise trilogy.My petitions have been invidiously delayed or denied and calculated to suppress my liberties.Abuses of power were both subtle and overt, see i.e. Quinn v Syracuse Corp., 613 F. 2d 438, 447(2d Cir. 1980)(subtle effort to discredit a professional treated as proclamation from City Hall).

Here, ethics and Family Offense charges were maliciously fabricated or influenced by judgesthemselves and exploited even after they were dismissed or exposed on the face of documents.Unless our public servants in the legislature are accorded special protection by this Commissionfrom judicial retaliation, my Complaint warrants a full investigation. It is not an isolatedproblem. I represent numerous victims in a broad constituency served by state government. Youcan learn more by consulting our Parenting Rights Institute website at www.leonkoziol.com.

II. PARTICULAR VIOLATIONS

The annexed pleading describes a full range of judicial code violations by a number of judges.However, in the segments which follow, I show how the systemic violations occur in practice,how individual judges abused their office and acted invidiously to harm my professional careerand father-daughter relationships. The code was designed to prevent this kind of public abuse.

Prior to my exercise of protected activities, my ex-spouse and I enjoyed a cooperative workingrelationship with our children over a two year period of legal separation. I was able to providefor their futures, access them with the flexibility of a phone call, and provide a lifetime fatherfigure which they deserved. By comparing that environment with the destruction existent today,a powerful level of circumstantial evidence further supports the code violations asserted here.

A.Jonathan Lippman

As the Chief Judge of New Yorks Unified Court System, Jonathan Lippman possessed crucialresponsibility over the conduct of lawyers, judges and case management. Yet despite notice ofthe issues detailed in federal court pleadings and motions, there is no indication that he took
http://www.leonkoziol.com/http://www.leonkoziol.com/


8/28

corrective action. A federal directive was sought behind a study of abuses and gender bias instate processes. The 2006 Matrimonial Report was cited along with its failure to acknowledgefather prejudice exemplified by this case, common knowledge and Census Bureau reports.Koziol v LippmanPage 6

A shocking 22 trial level judges were assigned to my originally uncontested divorce over a fiveyear period with transfer orders that were not copied upon the parties pursuant to existing courtpolicy. This not only undermined my ability to gage proper jurisdiction, but it failed to accord aninterested party a right to be heard in a meaningful and timely fashion. Due process was utterlytortured by the assignment and re-assignment of overburdened decision makers who blamed theirpredecessors for defective or ineffectual orders. Nearly 50 were made subject to New Yorkscostly (30 day) appeal requirements to avoid waiver of substantial rights under the CPLR.

Rules 100.3(B)(6)and (7) provide the relevant code sections, however, additional violations arefound in the bias and integrity provisions elsewhere in the same Code. The federal court

complaint describes how judges were confused over their own authority and jurisdiction duringmy domestic relations processes, see i.e. Judge Daley below. In addition, unethical ethicsprosecutions and the lack of child representation in support court were clearly demonstrated.

While these prosecutions and violations were occurring, Jonathan Lippman retained a New YorkCity law firm to represent our court system in the pay raise litigation. Reportedly no fee wascharged for years of professional service by a large firm which regularly engages its lawyers inlitigation presided over by this client group of judges. Fees estimated to exceed $1 million werenever charged for services ranging from trial level to the states high court and beyond.

Rule 100.4 (D)(5) provides that a judge should accept no gift from a person likely to appearbefore him or become a subject of litigation. Rule 100.5 provides that a judge should refrainfrom inappropriate political activity. Pro se activity is permitted under these provisions but nofurther exceptions are even arguable to encompass this conveyance of free services. Pro bonowork is contemplated to mean needy litigants and certainly would not apply to this activity.

The foregoing must be contrasted with the ethics process tailored against me. The spontaneousmoving of office furniture in 2004 was falsely attributed as a service for fee exchange in 2008even though the client withdrew his complaint and admitted its concocted nature before theThird/Fourth Department disciplinary courts. Nevertheless this isolated and fleeting assistanceby a client enjoying an excursion on my boat was twisted into a fee event by disciplinary agentsand courts. The accusation was derived from substitute counsel in a civil rights case whoengaged the ethics committee as part of an extortionist scheme to avoid my attorneys lien.

This same attorney later abandoned his client (who returned to me) and was eventually convictedof multiple theft and drug charges. He was then disbarred. The event nevertheless became one offive former client grievances over a five year period to cause a suspension of my license. Theannexed federal complaint makes parallels to Eliot Spitzer and lawyers convicted of crimes whowere allowed confidential admonitions and public censures. This was my first experience with


9/28

the ethics process and I was denied all opportunity to refute three utterly concocted chargesrelated to grievance discrepancies that were years apart. The Court of Appeals denied review.

Koziol v Lippman

Page 7

The pay raise trilogy, because of its unauthorized nature under the state constitution, requiresfollow up investigation, including a review of separate cases brought by Judge Lippmanslawyers. Properly described, the pay raise litigation was a political event designed to coercemoney from those lawfully charged with budgetary duties. The court systems exploitation of arule of necessity leads to all sorts of self authorized abuses of judicial office. It can even leadto anarchy with litigants fashioning their own rules of necessity to protect child relationships,for example, under the same constitution.

The pay raise litigation produced an untenable situation which impaired judicial integrity and

impartiality, among other code standards. For example, the prolix complaint was drafted inviolation of CPLR 3014 and, in the normal course, should have been made subject to a motion tostrike scandalous, prejudicial, immaterial or redundant matter under CPLR 3024. Lawyers wereacting at their peril when faced with a sequence of anonymous judge allegations which includedan inability to pay for a daughters wedding because I am only a Supreme Court Judge.

The complaint was obviously designed not to follow the law but to substitute for a publiclobbying initiative. It was filled with case citations, select reports, historical references and vaguerepresentations which would place any responder in a bizarre predicament. It was drafted on apremise that judicial office is sought only by those who seek monetary reward. The bench isfilled with esteemed lawyers who have already made it in private practice and are properlyseated in accordance with a detached public service role supported by our founding framework.

In domestic relations cases coming before these same plaintiff judges, an established judicialpractice features arbitrary imputed income which is abused to generate government revenues.Fathers unable to find commensurate employment in New Yorks declining economy areremanded to a debtors prison without any ability to attend, let alone pay for, their daughtersweddings. In these same cases, fraudulent claims by unrestrained lawyers and litigants clog ourcourts. Due process is by-passed and money intended for the child is diverted to pay for it all.Five years of abusive litigation forced me to represent myself. Class discrimination is evident.

B.Third and Fourth Department Justices

Crucial to Code Rules 100.1 and 100.2 is that part of the annexed complaint which describesfabricated ethics charges, findings and a confirmed decision by the Third Department onSeptember 23, 2010 which suspended my law license for a second time in the same year.Among them is one on the face of a response letter to a 2005 grievance which described anallegation as Lie # 26. The disciplinary hearing referee treated this lie passage as a statementof fact on my part. This enabled him to concoct an ethics discrepancy with my submissionthree years later when a witch hunt was assembled in retaliation for my criticisms.


10/28

This misconduct, executed in tandem by presiding and reviewing judges, is completelydemonstrated by reference to the papers appended under exhibit B. The first, page 10 of adisciplinary referees report states: In correspondence to Petitioner (court appointed grievanceKoziol v Lippman

Page 8

committee), Respondent (me) stated that he advised Complainant (client) that Complainantwould have to join other indebted clients of Respondent in Lake George to move furniture forhim, in lieu of the replenishment retainer payment and that Complainant agreed to same.

The referenced exhibit page is reproduced in its entirety to show that this quoted statement,attributed to me as fact, is found in a passage containing the prefix: Lie # 26. I had properly setapart a sequence of false accusations from the clients original complaint letter to better assist its2005 recipient. A discrepancy charge was not asserted until 2008 when my criticisms surfaced.

On page 18 of the same report, which follows my accurate passage under the same exhibit, thereferee recommends ethics violations based upon discrepancies concocted not by the client,who withdrew and recanted the original complaint, but by the court appointed GrievanceCommittee. The next page is excerpted from my 2010 cross motion before the Third Departmentseeking to set aside this Report. It shows the concoction in plain view from the face of pertinentdocuments and how they are in lockstep with the entire retaliatory scheme.

Notwithstanding this clear showing, reiterated orally before the court only days prior to decision,the Third Department confirmed this Report in its entirety. A copy of decision is included forcomparison with the earlier pay raise charges and more egregious misconduct of repeat ethicsoffenders. In addition to those referenced here, various lawyers prosecuted or found guilty ofserious crimes are cited at paragraph 110 of the federal pleadings. As stated, the two year casewas ultimately dismissed principally upon various immunities from private action.

This is misconduct of the highest order because it comes from the court system itself. Ourcitizens entrust their most crucial disputes to these forums in lieu of taking the law into onesown hands. The question, therefore, presented before this Commission is whether judicial ethicspermit a judge or panel of judges to knowingly issue false statements of fact. Is it okay to convictan innocent person of career damaging charges which destroy his ability to support innocentchildren? Do we simply sweep this under the carpet? Does the ethics code apply to all judges?

Adding to the seriousness of this Complaint, copies of hearing transcript pp 399-407 close outexhibit B to show how I was prevented from defending myself and providing my side of thethree committee discrepancy charges. It was these three discrepancies which elevated anoriginal confidential recommendation to formal charges in 2008. The referee simply treated myattempted defense as mitigation for review at a future confirmation hearing. Translated, thismeant that I was presumed guilty with the added effect of insulating the record on any appeal.Even our terrorist detainees are allowed due process and opportunity to confront their accusers.


11/28

This was a bizarre hearing process tailored to protect the misconduct of ethics prosecutorsengaged in a scheme of retaliation upon a dissident lawyer properly seeking reform. The readerwill note the baseless objection of junior attorney Mary Gasparini at page 400 as my defenseturned to her personal misconduct. When receiving her recklessly compiled Report to the

Koziol v LippmanPage 9

Grievance Committee on February 16, 2008, featuring eight years of events, I logically filed awritten request for adjournment to properly prepare an informed response report.

Mary Gasparini then reported falsely to the full committee that I had never sought anadjournment contrary to express acknowledgement beforehand on her own (public) officestationery. In contrast, she was granted an adjournment at the February 28, 2008 meeting toscrutinize my consequently expedited response for discrepancies. Over a three month period,she came up with only three purported examples in diverse and voluminous submissions dating

back many years. The burdens placed upon me were more than simply unreasonable, they werehumanly impossible to overcome, particularly given the vague standards used against me.

Consequently, I presented the Fourth Department with a motion to dismiss or stay the process onmisconduct grounds and to secure needed discovery for my defense. The motion was deniedwithout opinion on May 22, 2009. Of course this then required me to present the same events asa logical defense at the ensuing evidentiary hearing. Ms. Gasparini was again able to prevent hermisconduct from being presented on the record through a regularly employed retired judge whoassisted her scheme with an additional ground crafted around post hearing mitigation.

The Fourth Departments suppression of misconduct coming from its own appointed lawyers andthe timing of its first review of my appeal papers establish further violations of Judicial Code, i.e.Rules 100.3(E)(1)(a); 100.3(B)(4) and 100.4(A). These appeal papers, filed on January 3, 2008,contained extensive criticisms of domestic relations processes with clear examples of unethicallawyer abuses upon unsuspecting parents. Only six days later, on the same day as oral argument,the Fourth Department staff opened an investigation into my unblemished two decade career.

As all civil rights lawyers know, whistleblower and unlawful retaliation claims are commonlyshown through a proximate relationship between an exercise of protected activity and adversegovernment reaction, see i.e. Beechwood Care Center v Leeds, 436 F. 3d 147 (2d Cir. 2006).This proceeds on the logic that a state actor will not concede back room tactics which suppresscomplaints and public expression. In my case, this logic was set aside. I was prevented fromsecuring evidence in all matters: my custody case, federal claims and even my ethics defense.

The ethics investigation purported to address complaints neglected over a period of five yearsincluding one I had never received (filed only weeks earlier). Additional aspects of this witchhunt are provided in the federal pleading. My opposing divorce counsel was among thosecriticized in my contemporaneous appeal papers and, unbeknownst to me, he sat on the samecourts appointed Grievance Committee. Although he disqualified himself at the relevantmeeting, his personal misconduct and malpractice comprised a main subject of my appeal.


12/28


13/28

The Departments invidious refusal to abide by established laws legislated by the peopleselected representatives is clearly seen in Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 1435 (4th Dept. 2009)(following Third Department precedent). Nowhere is the court obligation under section 71mentioned after years of consolidated appeal processes. By overtly disregarding the law, thesejustices encourage litigants to do the same especially when forced to repeat costly and child

sensitive processes, still underway at trial level on constitutional issues first raised in 2006.Koziol v LippmanPage 11

C. Michael Daley

As the pleadings further describe, Judge Michael Daley denied me an opportunity to be heard ona recusal motion using jurisdictional excesses as his weapon. In an earlier complaint before thisCommission, his misconduct was asserted in connection with events culminating in March,2010. Since then, Judge Daley has continued to deny the same opportunity to be heard on thesame recusal and constitutional questions in a timely fashion. Instead he coerced a stipulationafter multiple delays and improper conditions (eventually satisfied) to insulate misconduct and

error from review. He also insulated issues against Support Magistrate G. Stephen Getman.

It was Judge Daleys misconduct which directly caused the first suspension of my law license foralleged child support violations. Due to the disjointed nature of multiple judge assignments, Icould not logistically produce a comprehensive record for appellate review. I was unable to showhow a prior, now retired, judge had maliciously disregarded a proviso in the parents separationagreement which called for a termination of basic support transfers as the fathers time withhis children increased. Put another way, I could not keep up with all of the orchestrated abuses.

On May 26, 2009, Judge Daley committed himself on the record at a first appearance in asupport confirmation process to hear my petitions on an adjourned date never provided. Openingremarks were rude, injudicious and reflective of the punishment assignments identified in the2006 Matrimonial Report. Committed fathers are particularly prejudiced because they aretypically the targets of money extraction processes which, in turn, depend upon a superior-inferior class structure. They are made to feel incompetent or irrelevant in parenting decisions.

The presentment of these issues in federal pleadings and motions gave notice to JonathanLippman that a serious problem existed in our court system. Money obsessions were causingparents to be needlessly separated from their children. Copies of relevant transcript and violationorder are annexed under exhibit C to show the judges commitments, failures and consequentialinjuries to innocent victims. A very troubling introduction is set apart in light of the pay raiselamentations, jurisdictional confusion, and code violations addressed throughout this Complaint:

My name is Mike Daley, the Judge who has been assigned to preside over this matter,for God only knows what. I dont know why it came to me; but it did Re: show causemotion, he continues: So you are aware of it, it is a motion for me to recuse myself. Ihave yet to get through all of it. Some of it is bewildering to me. I dont know beyondthat. But, that has to be dealt with at some point. It never was over a 15 month period.


14/28

Rule 100.3(B)(4) provides that A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants...and others whom he or she is called upon to address. There is no rational defense to JudgeDaleys violation of this rule in connection with these opening comments. Petitions from twolitigants were placed in good faith before him, one who had never met the man and another froma parent who had previously secured recusal orders from the same judge as a lawyer. One recusal

involved a volatile exchange in open court which raised multiple violations of judicial code.These were readily discernible from a transcript appended to the recusal motion then pending.Koziol v LippmanPage 12

Judge Daley was demeaning the same motion not because of its bewildering nature butbecause he was incensed by it and sought to contain the impact. He was well aware of the felonycase, People v Carol Hall. Judge Daleys intimidation tactics upon both Ms. Hall and her lawyer(this complainant) to accept a plea dictated an earlier recusal. The case against Ms. Hall was sodeficient that a jury was eventually discharged by a replacement judge who ruled that there wasnot enough evidence to be considered for conviction. There was much humiliation for Mr. Daley.

The failure to schedule or facilitate the promised hearing on threshold constitutional questionswas more egregious. As relevant here, Judge Daley violated Code Rules 100.1; 100.2(A); 100.3(A) and (B)(4), (6) and (7). The next event was a willful support violation order which caused anautomatic suspension of my rights to practice law and provide for my children. This in turn led tofurther career damage, public disgust with the judicial system and prejudice in later disciplinaryprocesses before the Third and Fourth Departments, see pleadings for further implicated judges.

The prejudice was so egregious that my part of this first appearance was conducted by telephone.I was positioned at a remote location, fully prepared to seek federal court relief in lieu of arecommended jail sentence held over my head for a period of 17 months on a civil supportissue. Judge Daley induced all of this by abusing his position out of standard order in theHerkimer County Family Court to punish me for unrelated personal issues using my children ashis weapon. The appended complaint describes this punishment to include a directive of theSheriff to investigate my girlfriend at her business after the conference was successfully closed.

Code Rule 100.4(A) provides that a judge shall not engage in extrajudicial conduct that wouldcast reasonable doubt as to his impartiality or interfere with his judicial function. The Sheriffdirective clearly constitutes a violation of this rule, but equally serious violation is found in Rule100.3(B)(7). This provision requires that all judicial matters be disposed of promptly, efficientlyand fairly. Yet after this Commission evidently excused the misconduct cited in my complaint oflast year, Judge Daley continued to neglect commitments and processes. In addition to the May26, 2009 transcript, a copy of a June 23, 2010 transcript is annexed to show repeat recusal issuesin some bizarre continuation of a process first committed to the same litigants one year earlier.

The August 23, 2010 order by consent is also annexed. This plea was finally coerced after myrepeat threshold motions were frustrated, delayed and never decided over a 15 month period.This civil case outcome mirrors the pressure tactics exerted by the same Judge Daley in the CarolHall case. Both cases in a period of four years demonstrate a pattern of judicial misconduct.


15/28

Congested dockets may explain such results in many cases, but here the retaliation was personaland evidenced by irrefutable violations of Judicial Code.

There was never any recusal hearing as promised. Instead Judge Daley attempted to insulate hismisconduct the following year by wrongfully applying motion filing fees as a predicate to

recusal in a Family Court case. This adds to the administrative abuses for Judge Lippmansattention, but Rule 100.3(E)(1) requires recusal in this instance even without such a motion.Imagine, if you will, waking up every morning for a period of 15 months wondering if an out-of-Koziol v LippmanPage 13

control judge caused an arrest warrant to be issued on a civil debt. Even accused and convictedfelons receive speedier outcomes on recommended sentences. Only recently did the ThirdDepartment agree to hear the issue without granting my restraint request despite its own bias.

D.Michelle Pirro-Bailey

(1) Carry-Over Retaliation

The Complaint against this Family Court judge, the 21 st decision maker assigned to my originaluncontested divorce petition, focuses upon the ongoing invidious process of frustrating my basicpetitions in order to instigate needless controversy between the once cooperating parents. It is acontinuing agenda carried over from Judge Walsh-Hood and others identified in the federalcomplaint. After orchestrating an untenable and lopsided environment for dispute resolution, thecourt system, through Judge Pirro-Bailey completed the seizure of my little girls.

An open ended custody decision recklessly and vindictively drafted by Judge Walsh-Hood onJanuary 22, 2010 and Judge Daleys coerced support order of August 23, 2010 causedpredictable complications resulting in multiple petitions by the impacted parents before JudgePirro-Bailey. On November 1, 2010, I filed a show cause motion seeking a remedy for vehiclesseized from my residence by a Child Support Collection Unit contrary to express terms andagreement in the support order. I also sought to rectify grossly incomplete custody provisos.

These needlessly separated support and custody processes established a priority for moneycollections and no concern for father-daughter relations as they progressed. It was as if myfundamental parenting rights never existed. Judge Walsh-Hoods disparaging, grammaticallydefective and unsupported Decision After Trial failed to provide basic details to facilitatequality childrearing time for the dissident civil rights advocate. A competent judge entrusted withsuch life impacting duties could not be excused from such elementary provisos.

If state Supreme Court is allowed to issue sloppy decisions containing blatant grammaticalerrors, how can the public be expected to maintain a high regard for its edicts? What kind ofprecedent are we truly establishing? Retaliation explains much of this due to the naming ofcertain judges in my (protected) filings in federal court. However, a system of justice works bothways. A judge cannot disregard the Constitution, and victims have a right to access all courts for


16/28

accountability. Contrary to threats by judge defendant G. Stephen Getman, there was no Rule 11sanction, and I overcame profound threshold obstacles to secure proper federal court jurisdiction.

(2) Needless Complication

On March 15, 2011, I consented to Judge Pirro-Baileys invitation to hear matters despite herstatus as a nominal respondent in my second (still pending) prohibition action in the ThirdDepartment. Such matters arose in both her trial and appellate capacities after my singular filingon November 1, 2010 was once again bifurcated between a support magistrate and the FamilyKoziol v LippmanPage 14

Court Judge. In one proceeding, an attorney for the child is allowed to participate whereas heis precluded by law from the other (support hearing). This enables the state to expedite revenuesthrough mass produced support orders which draw bank interest and federal incentive payments.

While I oppose such appointed attorneys due to competency issues, needless complication anddamage to parent-child relations, the legal process itself reveals the inherent flaws in thiscustodial institution of childrearing. If a support proceeding has no child representation, therecan be no child interest behind a purported private debt which increasingly causes fathers to endup in jail. The state has essentially contradicted its claim to be acting in a childs best interests.

When a court authorizes a state Child Support Collection Unit to institute actions whichseparate parents from their children in this barbaric and stigmatizing fashion, Code Rule100.3(B)(6) is clearly violated from a systemic standpoint. Money collection becomes a tacticaldevice in separated custody cases which harms innocent children for life. This anomaly alsoforms a due process basis for reversal of the above cited district court ruling in the federalappeals court. However, as can be seen here, the endless isolation of countless issues creates aninordinate financial and logistical burden for victim appeals and judicial accountability.

(3) Child Surrender

Unlike any other form of litigation, domestic relations processes are effectively designed tocoerce child surrender when the money runs out. Protracted deliberations induce predictablepsychological torture as recognized in the 2006 Matrimonial Report. It is the worst kind of stateinjury because parents are programmed to fight over their own offspring. Judges then visit thesins of this barbaric process upon the victims, ordering all sorts of evaluations and re-educationprograms to compel adherence to a superior-inferior class structure contrary to laws of nature.

When adding a retaliation factor to this process, judicial misconduct reaches intolerable levels.Time and again, as oral argument and eventual testimony unfolded, it was clear that Judge Pirro-Bailey was not familiar with the petitions that she was purporting to decide. In this vein, she wasmirroring the unpreparedness of her predecessors. My childrens true interests were repeatedlydisregarded in favor of a select practice which denied a dissident father any judicial relief. Therewas no need to examine my submissions because decisions had already been made. Moreover,all common sense was surrendered to ongoing fraudulent tactics freely allowed to the mother.


17/28

A crucial example is the repeat failure to order protected phone contact between father and childwhich in turn caused me to lose track of child development and extracurricular schedules. I knowlittle about these activities even if I do attend. This failure not only produced a calculatedprejudice in my ability to compete for custody but it incited predictable conflict between the

parents and children. After so many judge assignments, not one judge saw fit to honor this utterlybasic parenting right. This translated into judge complicity in father-child alienation tactics.


The obvious lack of burden upon the mother to direct child contact with the father showsunequivocally that the court system itself was retaliating. By failing to facilitate protectedcontact, which these processes necessitated, judges were forcing me to risk fraudulent claims bycontacting the mother. If the state is unwilling to enforce father-child relations in this most basic

manner, it can claim no authority to impose money obligations upon the victim. These judiciallyseized duties are inextricably bound to one another and provide critical incentive for support.

(4) Child Exploitation

The conduct of Judge Pirro-Bailey essentially revolved around the position that a father must payto see his child. Mothers, by virtue of their gender, are excused. This is properly construed toconstitute a form of child prostitution of the worst kind because government is giving itsauthorization to this unwritten practice. Beyond that, child support is wholly unjustified betweenself sufficient parents. It is exploited to punish one parent for unrelated reasons, it allows thestate to monitor strictly private affairs, and it has a discriminatory impact upon fathers. Thesearchaic practices promote father absenteeism and exploitation of the sexist slur dead beat dad.

When balanced against the combined damage to family relations, the entire child supportstructure cannot be justified on best interests propaganda. The state essentially mandatesremoval of one parent from a childs life without adhering to the elevated standard of proof laidout in Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982). This incites anger and dispute rather thancooperative discourse. The victims are not even compensated for their loss. Instead they aremade to pay for the process which destroyed their relations through diverted child support.Shared parenting would resolve this but also put lawyers and forensic feeders out of work. Theirtactical routines are facilitated by judges such as this one because accountability is non-existent.

To make their jobs more appealing or manageable, judges are increasingly farming out theirjudicial duties to incompetent outsiders who are, in turn, benefitted by the appointing authority.This is simply political patronage for those like Judge Pirro-Bailey who seek periodic re-electionor acclimation to higher positions. When abused in this fashion, the practice implicates numerouscode violations. Child interests do not factor into the farming process because there can be noutopian parenting philosophy for the kind of pathetic issues exploited here.

(5) Coerced Custody Tactics


18/28

Repeatedly I maintained to diverse presiding judges that my parenting opponent wasemploying fraudulent petitions and tactics to maintain her welfare check (child support). Iasserted that this unearned, untaxed and disrespected award compels its recipient to seekcomplete control of innocent children and, for that matter, the private life of the payor. The

benefits are so intoxicating that custodial parents are routinely processing fraudulent claimsusing the regular flow of free money to destroy adversary parents created by state statute. Oneparent is forced to combine mother and father role models based upon an outdated system.


Again, my case is exemplary. After years of abuse, a hearing before Judge Walsh-Hood on May3, 2010 resulted in a dismissal of joint petitions orchestrated outside of my presence by thejudge, mother and judge-appointed attorney for the child. Evidence was so deficient that thecareer damaging case was dismissed without my having to put on a defense. Restraint orders

were then vacated but not before I lost ten precious and irretrievable months with my daughters.

At this juncture of the Complaint, the reader is asked to imagine ten months without any contactwith his or her own children. Imagine knowing nothing of their whereabouts or well being. In mypetitions, I repeatedly cited a single incident involving the custodial mother (my ex spouse)reacting to only two weeks without her children. In the summer of 2007, I took my girls for twosuccessive weeks of vacation. After the first week, the mother arrived at my home to retrievethem against my will, running to every ground floor entrance and window crying and carrying onas if the world was coming to an end. Judge Walsh-Hood frustrated this testimony throughout.

Now imagine the impact of a ten month separation based on false pretenses and maliciouslyprotracted court processes. Why is it that our custody laws assume that dads can handle theloss of their offspring better than moms? How can the state continue to relegate fathers to thestandard weekend visitor status on the pretext of childrearing stability when it busses the samechildren to schools and extracurricular events each day? When will it finally concede that thiswhole system is increasingly designed to exploit transfer payments called child support?

To date there has been no recourse for the mothers fraudulent, dismissed petitions. They weresimply substituted for a proper custody hearing. My undeserved absence was further exploitedto show a lack of consistent care giving (a gender biased custody factor), thereby effecting awin-win situation for the perjurer. No district attorney will prosecute such crimes in familydisputes but is pressured regularly to prosecute domestic violence which is often triggered as aconsequence. Dismissal of the mothers fraudulent charges was also disallowed for purposes ofcustody modification. Instead the judges here simply made it harder for a good father to see hisdaughters each time he returned to court.

(6) Sex Discrimination

Discrimination against fathers is well known and commonly accepted in New Yorks domesticrelations courts for the same reasons that race and other forms of discrimination were practiced


19/28

in America. Economic exploitation thrives upon the arbitrary classification of people so that onecan oppress the other. Such violations are masked or rationalized under the above referencedpropaganda that the state is at all times acting for the benefit of children. In the 45 page federalcourt decision, a judge continued this illusion by holding that fathers have never been found tocomprise a suspect class.

I have compared such edicts to fictions of the kind announced in Plessy v Ferguson, 163 US 537(1896)(separate but equal doctrine established in favor of a judge defendant). The fiction hereis that fathers are accorded equal treatment under the law while a primary caregiver doctrineKoziol v LippmanPage 17

makes this all but impossible. Knowingly or not, good fathers are lumped together with absenteefigures under these federal child support formulas and placed on the defensive at virtuallyevery domestic relations proceeding. The Daley transcript at exhibit C is typical and my federalcomplaint shows this throughout. My gender was repeatedly abused to issue adverse decisions.

To illustrate, a new battery of bizarre charges has arisen, including the same kidnapping plotdismissed one year ago. Judge Pirro-Bailey purports to follow custody principles when shereceives these claims, but in reality she is applying negative male stereotypes to promote thefraudulent behavior, thereby removing herself as a neutral arbiter and encouraging morelucrative disputes. After years of custody abuse and judicial retaliation, I resorted to my ownself crafted remedy when I returned my girls home from a single eight hour visitation on April3, 2011. I had been deprived previously enjoyed overnights based on the kidnapping accusations.

The mother repeatedly contacted me on this particular Sunday by text to discern my location.She does this simply to provoke me when she knows I am taking two extra hours as make-up fortime she unilaterally seizes from me on Thursdays (part of that time specific defect left open inWalsh-Hoods prior order). As we came into the mothers driveway, I sarcastically texted amessage to the effect that we were in Rio with the children for 10 months to remedy thedeprivation she caused in 2009-2010. The mother then flew out of her home in a demented rageand proceeded to orchestrate an incident out of this which a police officer later refused to honor.

A Family Court petition nevertheless followed with additional concocted accusations to give theincident some flavor of importance (a self inflicted fear of being killed). Even Judge Walsh-Hood had observed and reprimanded this mother for jealousy exhibited in open court concerningmy girlfriend one year earlier (in the record). However, Judge Pirro-Bailey essentiallydetermined that this newest incident could be exploited as yet another means for delaying andultimately denying my November 1, 2010 petition. The limited resources of our judiciary wereactually applied to discern whether supervised visitation was now required over the Rio joke.

(7) Abuse of Police

Judge Pirro-Bailey continues to deny reinstatement of overnight child periods despite repeatpetitions while maintaining child exchanges exclusively and punitively at the mothers home.This has had the predictable effect of increasing the number of needless exchanges while setting


20/28

the stage for additional abuse of police services through fraudulent custody tactics. Unlike theprior neutral location at a nearby mall, our record clearly showed that the mothers home hadbeen regularly exploited to concoct false incidents. The judge nevertheless retains it for preciselyits damaging impacts upon my rights and career alone. It is as if she enjoys the outcomes whichare orchestrated in this fashion because the remedy here is too simplistic and burden free.

Inciting further incident, Judge Pirro-Bailey then purported to remedy her orchestrated outcomesby ordering costly forensic processes in a parallel process which takes these five years of abuse


to a level somewhere in outer space. I can best compare this outrageous forensic hiring decisionto a lynching of a slave for refusing to accept his sub-human status. This latest retaliationoccurred outside my presence when I left the court room on May 2, 2011 after learning that thejudge had not read my opposition papers filed the prior week. With biased demeanor, she made

clear that she would not consider them in arguments that day. This enabled her to orchestrate allsorts of harm including seizure of my childs Holy Communion Day. Judicial misconduct isdirectly causing needless public controversy with each passing day.

A change in demeanor on the part of Judge Pirro-Bailey accompanied the treatment of thispetition. It was readily discernible by a lawyer-litigant who likely performed more trial work as apractitioner than the presiding judge. In my opposition papers, I justified my disjointed andoffensive text messages to my ex spouse as a by-product of a disjointed, dysfunctional andunbalanced court process over five years. Whether this judge actually read my extensiveexplanations may never be known. However, if the papers were being summarized to her, againdue to overburdened dockets, I should be allowed some insight into the decision making process.

Such insight, part of the discovery sought in my federal action, is allowed extensively in juryselection processes. Notwithstanding the equity status exploited to insulate these courts fromsimilar inquiry, insight here is justified by my circumstances and egregious seizures. My childrenand assets were seized in separate but related processes, and my liberties were severely harmedand stigmatized in all the same respects as a criminal prosecution. My submissions defending theparenting rights, emotional reactions and male characteristics of fatherhood would likely offendany feminist ideology. Such prejudice could be discovered and remedied in a criminal or money(jury) case but not from processes like these which are simply adjourned for months at a time.

(8) Involuntary Court Absence

The mothers relevant petition was filed on April 5, 2011 and served more than a week laterwithout deadline for opposition papers. If a judge will not consider a properly filed opposition,not even a few minutes of recess to become acquainted with the continuing frauds, there is nopurpose for my being in court. Judge Pirro-Bailey assumed the bench wholly unprepared with acallous disregard of a citizens rights because she had no intention of honoring them. This isverifiable on the open court record of May 2, 2011 and it comprised violations of additional codeprovisions, most notably Rules 100.3(B)(6); 100.3(B)(7); 100.3(C)(3) and 100.3(E)(1).


21/28

Before my departure from this one sided court appearance conducted more than 50 miles frommy home, with driver escort, I was summarily denied my second childs First Holy Communionscheduled on my time. As everyone knew, this produced the second of two successivedeprivations of religious celebrations. My elder daughter could not be accessed the prior year

due to the Walsh-Hood fiasco (below). Judge Pirro-Bailey simply adopted everything the motherwas claiming without a hearing while subjecting me to an isolated multiple day process over aperiod of months to determine whether I should be supervised during child visits.


Such supervision will mean a permanent end to all father-daughter relationships because afather must be respected for his function, not some bone thrown to him to justify money transfersand a defective conscience. Beyond that, the abuse is certain to continue even if I did agreeagainst all logic and dignity to participate in this juvenile process. The entire basis for this

current level of abuse is the fleeting moments of child exchange as seen through the eyes of ademonstrated drama queen with a history of false petitions. There is no independent support.

(9) Bizarre Processes

The only (disjointed) evidentiary hearing to date regarding my November 1, 2010 custodypetition began on May 19, 2011, limited to the issue of supervision. It actually featuredquestioning from the so-called attorney for the child which will not be believed by any rationalminded reader. Fortunately there is a record. William Koslosky actually asked me if I wasphysically present in Rio while positioned in the mothers driveway during my text.

This contract attorney presented other questions featuring baseless content to provoke outragewith tacit support of the presiding judge. There was no sensible intervention from the court or alogical scope to this inquisition other than retaliation. For example, the mother was allowed tofabricate a fear event while I was disallowed the right to assert self defense. I was preventedfrom explaining how five years of court abuse and physical attacks by the mother caused me tobe deprived of all civil remedies when I directed her to return to her home on April 3, 2011.

The oddities here go well beyond any level of sanity for a legitimate government proceeding.How do you logically conform a victim to a process which defies all conscience and commonsense? However, for purposes of this Complaint, these events typify the waste, abuse andabsurdity of Family Court. The code violations are rampant. They include Rules 100.1;100.2(A); 100.3(B)(4); 100.3(B)(6); 100.3(C)(3) and 100.3(E)(1).

(10) Open Court Fraud

In various petitions over the years, I have sought to have child exchanges completed through athird party or public venue until this originally uncontested case could be finalized. Instead, thecurrent unworkable arrangement has been maliciously continued. Judge Pirro-Bailey has been


22/28

the recipient of patently obvious custody tactics, but she knows that career damaging events orchild surrender by the father are inevitable.

A unique and dispositive example with overtones of sex discrimination lies in her disregard of afraud committed by the mother in open court. At the same time, this judge exploited the logical

emotional reactions of a father who is losing his children to a government process which makeshim pay for the taking. Routinely, our courts accept the emotions experienced when a child isunlawfully kidnapped by criminals. However somehow that measure changes when the stateitself is complicit in a comparable scheme.


On March 15, 2011, during two hours of oral argument, Judge Pirro-Bailey witnessed afabricated Family Offense before her very own eyes. The mother, fearing adverse momentumduring a custody motion, suddenly bolted from her trial table without counsels involvement,

to register a claim that she was in fear of the manner in which I held my pen at a table across thecourtroom. The judge, at all times in direct view of my conduct, responded by telling the motherthat she was out of control and should face the wall. This was before her receipt of April, 2011opposition papers which explained the source of this concoction as Martha Walsh-Hood (infra).

It was a unique event because a complete fraud was played out before the courts very own eyes.It could not have otherwise been proven beyond any doubt outside of court. However, in theinterest of protecting the woman, both judges Pirro-Bailey and Walsh-Hood focused insteadupon my rightful anger over the constant harassment and state exploitation of my girls. Theymanipulated all of my adverse reactions to order costly forensic contracts to be paid for entirelyby the father through diverted support obligations and my depleted financial condition.

(11) Arbitrary Imbalance

All basis for these orders existed exclusively from the mouth of a demonstrably deceitfultactician and fleeting moments during child exchanges. The bulk 99% of my childrearing periodswas trivialized or disregarded altogether notwithstanding photographs of happy interactions anddirect testimony from involved witnesses. When a man is repeatedly denied all meaningful reliefover a five year period of unbalanced and abusive processes, uncharacteristic behavior willlogically follow. The lack of a properly functioning judiciary makes it inevitable.

Such disputes are cultivated and continued indefinitely until the money runs out. In this case,Judge Daley had seized control of my last asset, my home, to assure continued support for theduration of my childrens minority, well beyond any authority under state law. Judge Pirro-Bailey is now exploiting this knowledge purely as a punitive measure, drawing upon her dualcapacity as an appellate support court judge and trial level custody judge.

Rule 100.3(C)(3) of the Judicial Code provides that a judge should not make unnecessaryappointments so that nepotism and favoritism may be avoided. In the case of Family Court judges, like Pirro-Bailey, this logical principle is circumvented and abused through forensic


23/28

appointments of this variety. In my experience as a practitioner, I have seen bizarre reportswhich attributed unproven accusations to such things as battered woman syndrome and othergender biased conclusions. My ex spouse has been well schooled in this routine and it will leadto permanent separation with my daughters because every human being has his limits.

(12) Violation By Ambush

My adversaries have obviously found a simple solution for silencing me once and for all. In myfederal pleadings, I describe a practice employed by both judges, Walsh-Hood and Pirro Bailey,which had the effect of ambushing me into a violation of gender biased court orders. By causingKoziol v LippmanPage 21

certain restraint and scheduling changes to be received after their effective date, this practice setthe stage for criminal arrest sought by a scheming custodial parent having exclusive possessionof an operative order. Only by chance was I fortunate to avoid this outcome.

As recently as May 7, 2011, I arrived to pick up my girls only to be humiliated with a modifiedorder intended for me in the mail days later. Comparison of postmarks on court issued lettersshows that timely notice could have been easily facilitated. In the 45 page federal court opinion,judicial immunity was broadly construed to encompass malicious behavior. Some examples werecited while others were left out. However our courts are not private corporations created tofacilitate public abuse. Without meaningful accountability, they degenerate into the kangaroocourts described by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in In re Gault, 387 US 1, 27-28 (1967).

These endless anomalies and invidious abuses have forced me, ever reluctantly, to abandon allfuture contact with my seven and nine year old daughters. The time we spend together these daysis regularly prejudiced by sibling secrets and spy activities orchestrated by the state and itscustodial arsenal. Government scrutiny is applied to all manner of fatherhood, including theremoval of a hand dressing to evaluate a healing process. The childs attorney, whose lucrativeappointments would be cut back through my reform positions, found it necessary to scold mebecause I failed to heed his seven year old clients directives to leave her alone.

It has come to a point where I have refused to answer some of the most asinine questions ever todisgrace an American court of law. These hearings can no longer be considered judicial innature. They have been transformed into highly abused inquisitions focused on the fleecing of achilds ultimate estate. Such inquisitions feature inverted and perverted treatment of parentswhich defies a natural order of childrearing. This all translates into crime and immorality on agrand scale which, in turn, induces government to throw more money at our escalating carnage.

E. Martha Walsh-Hood

As both a lawyer and victimized parent, I should not be vilified simply because I am able to stripthese abusive custody laws of their propaganda and euphemisms. It is my right under theConstitution to express myself and be properly heard without invidious repercussion. However,the consistent discriminatory rejection of my petitions and the profit motives which I have


24/28

challenged further support institutional bias as a judicial ethics violation, see i.e. Caperton v A.T.Massey Coal Co., 129 US 2252 (2009); Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973). As with the payraise censures, I am being denied proper court access due to my exercise of protected activities.

In the case of Family Court Judge Martha Walsh-Hood, coming to my case in a stated role of

Acting Supreme Court Judge, I am supplementing my complaint of last year with eventsoccurring since it was discussed in follow-up inquiries by a Commission attorney. As stated, onMay 3, 2010, this judge dismissed all Family Offense petitions orchestrated by the court,custodial parent and attorney for the child on or about July 24, 2009. To date, despite my


requests, I have not received the dispositions (appealable paper) which vacated restraint ordersthat caused me to lose ten months with my children. My adversaries have never disputed this.

This order vacating the restraint is needed not only to avoid an orchestrated violation byambush but also to perfect and consolidate the custody appeal pending since June, 2010. Asstated in federal and state court papers, a January 22, 2010 Decision After Trial (custody) leftopen the scheduling of a restraint hearing and was not worth the paper upon which it was draftedwithout a concluding order. It required me to bring a second costly Article 78 action in 2010 formandamus/prohibition which, as stated, is still pending before the Third Department.

Code Rule 100.3(B)(7) provides that a judge should dispose of all judicial matters promptly,efficiently and fairly. If this rule of judicial ethics retains any meaning, a delay of more than oneyear which causes irreparable harm clearly constitutes a serious violation. However much moreis available for this Commission to review to know just how malicious this particular judge wasin her judicial misconduct. Salient pages of my show cause (cross) motion are appended underexhibit D to provide a summary of events which prejudiced subsequent proceedings. This is theopposition referenced earlier which Judge Pirro-Bailey refused to timely consider.

In addition to what has been presented elsewhere, emphasis is once again placed on the openingpages of a July, 2009 hearing transcript where the prejudice against fathers is readily ascertained.On a particular code issue, Judge Walsh-Hood by-passed due process by reversing the order ofpresentment as a purported means of satisfying acknowledged notice defects. She did this toexpedite long neglected and disjointed petitions caused through no fault of the victims.

These included one dating back to November, 2006 and another served upon me the same day. Itwas her first introduction to the parties and this judge was hopelessly unfamiliar with thecomplex nature of issues which she seized upon for decision. That decision was not finalizeduntil June, 2010 and, as stated, remains subject to receipt of a dependent (companion) order. Herpeculiar treatment finds no authority in the Constitution and no transfer order was provided.

One Code provision must be re-emphasized for purposes of this Complaint because both custodyjudges violated it extensively to cause permanent long term injury to father-daughter relations.Rule 100.3(B)(6) provides that a judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a


25/28

proceeding, or that persons lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Such law includesthe option of representing oneself, Foretta v California, 422 US 806 (1975). This person cannotbe treated differently from a represented adversary simply because he chooses not to associatewith lawyers. Demeanor accordingly exhibited in open court while advocating for or against aposition cannot be used to prejudice the outcome. Any other conclusion would chill the

exercise of this option in favor of lawyer retention and fee profits.

Yet throughout multiple proceedings before Judge Walsh-Hood, my demeanor as a selfrepresented party was used to prejudice my ability to be heard. One such order which referencesan outburst after being excused from the witness stand is appended as exhibit E. TrialKoziol v LippmanPage 23

transcripts show incident after incident where my demeanor off the witness stand was used toprejudice my case, including a pen fear event fabricated by the judge herself. There was nothingclaimed by my adversary witness or placed in the record by a neutral judge to support it.

Particularly invidious and frustrating was a condition first imposed by Judge Walsh-Hood on thesecond day of a four day hearing after denying my request for adjournment to ferret out the manypetitions and ground rules during our prior day introductions. This judge announced that I wouldbe required to present a question-answer format for my case which was grossly impractical atthat point in time. I was representing myself with more than ten hastily arranged witnessesburdened by a 120 mile round trip to the courthouse. I responded by declining to take the stand.

This was only one of many surprises which led to outbursts not unlike some I have made in othercourt proceedings as a lawyer, but laced with far greater provocation here. As explained, I hadnever been made subject to such an order and without use of a notebook, I would be prejudicedunlike my opponents lawyer (paid by me through diverted child support). The child lawyerchimed in to defend his appointing authoritys edict by accosting me with the rationale that suchformats are commonly used in state Supreme Court and that, as an attorney, I should knowbetter. This was a Family Court proceeding with no transfer order provided to discern otherwise.

This court appointed lawyer, William Koslosky, had previously appeared at a July, 2008 hearingbefore Supreme Court Judge John Grow during which I testified in narration form, as I didbefore Judge Getman in January, 2009, as I did before a Fourth Department grievance hearing inJune, 2009, as I did even before Judge Pirro-Bailey two years later on May 19, 2011. In short,the judge and lawyer were simply piling on. After much discourse, a compromise was struckto the effect that I would testify using a notebook to better structure narration with court scrutiny.

Well into my testimony on the last day, however, the child lawyer interrupted to question my useof this notebook. The judge joined in and seized it on some basis of appealable error which sheclaimed prejudiced my adversary somehow. The entire orchestrated fiasco caused me to seekpermission to leave this (star chamber) inquisition due to a logical escalation of emotions leadingto contempt. Judge Pirro-Bailey distanced herself from the Walsh-Hood format when it wasraised by me two years later.


26/28

This kind of father-litigant prejudice and judicial misconduct not only induced my parentingopponent to fabricate an identical pen-fear event during the March 15, 2011 arguments describedabove, but these and other incidents transformed the decision maker (acting without a jury) into awitness subject to cross examination. It should have produced a self disqualification under Rule100.3(E)(1)(a). Here we find clear fact orchestration well beyond the conventional role of a

judge seeking to maintain decorum or the marshalling of evidence. It is a common tactic which aproper study will undoubtedly prove to be widespread in these courts. It provides additionalsupport to my position that domestic relations judges have become needlessly, prejudicially andexcessively involved in private childrearing matters to the point of self defeat.


F. William Koslosky

William Koslosky has not been named in this Complaint for the fortunate reason that he is not ajudge. However, by my experience in law and politics, these law guardian appointments are

typically exploited to make entry level runs for judicial office. The 2006 Matrimonial Reportcaused a change in title and function for these judge appointments. Today they are referred to asAttorney for the Child, but the same Report cautioned that this new role was largely undefined.

In fact, the role of Attorney for the Child has no scope or purpose. In the case of WilliamKoslosky, it was exploited to avenge my naming of him as a defendant in the above referencedfederal court action. Examples of his abuse of state conveyed authority are found in both exhibitsA and D to this Complaint. Such roles provide employment to upstart lawyers and a majorsource of income for people like William Koslosky. Throughout three years of proceedings, hesought every means of concoction, bizarre interpretation and personal assertion to permanentlyseparate a good father from his loving children.

This man knows nothing about my children and he gave no effort whatsoever to discovermeaningful facts about me prior to trial. I have repeatedly sought his removal before furtherharm is visited upon his so-called clients. However the custody judges appear quite satisfiedwith the damage he has inflicted. His father prejudice was demonstrated to exist well beyond theanimus he exerted against me, thereby casting serious doubt upon his competency altogether inthese kinds of crucial appointments. I simply presented Judge Pirro-Bailey with pertinent copiesof his closing statement, wholly permitted by Judge Walsh-Hood at conclusion of our July, 2009custody trial. I did so to enlighten the decision maker to what lied ahead.

An excerpt is now provided to conclude this Complaint. It shows the widespread danger andpotential for abuse when a profit seeking lawyer is brought between fit parents and their childrento perform some imaginary function. Certainly nothing meaningful can be gained from childrenas young as newborn status (the new extreme for appointment). The only discernible ethicalstandard or purpose is one which attaches to this lawyers bank account insofar as infant clientslack the maturity to evaluate such professional services. The excerpt further leaves the rationalperson to question what standards are being employed to advocate for such clients when thisone harbors deep seeded animosities against his own father based on an argument over potatoes.


27/28

The fact that William Koslosky felt obligated to convey a fear of his police officer father toeveryone in my case raises serious concern over his mental condition since childhood. These arenot real estate deals or ambulance chaser cases we are dealing with. These are my babies andthey deserve something more in their father-child experience than this demented figure. The selfexposing event from 50 years earlier in the Koslosky homestead underscores the inherent

problems faced by innocent victims when appointments are made without a finding of need or ahearing to ferret out prejudice.

Four and five year old clients at the time of Kosloskys state retainer cannot possibly fire theirinvoluntary legal representation. By the time they reach sufficient age to sue for malpractice,Koziol v LippmanPage 25

precious experiences with their daddy can never be restored by any court or legislature. WilliamKoslosky has never been married, never had children, and has some preoccupation with BoyScouts. Beyond that, I know nothing about the stranger who is profiting off of my little girls. I

gave no consent to his private exchanges with them. In any event, I will let the reader figure outWilliam Koslosky from his own words:

One thing that I remember is disagreement between my mom and my dad. Mydad was a policeman and one day he came home and he was mad because wedidnt have red-skinned potatoes and all that she could say is we have YukonGold and I was terrorized. Id never seen dad arguing like this and, my God, hesin the police uniform with a gun. What is he going to do? So I went to the store toget red-skinned potatoes and I dont like Yukon Gold.

CONCLUSION

At a time when father absenteeism is being cited as a major factor in the moral decline of anentire nation, the State of New York is doing everything in its power to assure my abandonmentof two precious little girls. Meanwhile, a married congressman is sexting countless disgustingimages of himself to young girls, lying about it to everyone, blaming his victims, and thenclaiming to be honest only when caught with his pants down.

Good fathers have every reason to be concerned. Nevertheless, our policymakers continue tothrow more laws and the peoples money at crime and immorality in our communities. Should itbe any wonder that the solution all along may have existed within their proverbial glass slippers?Unless and until our government facilitates the retention and re-entry of good fathers in theirchildrens lives, these problems will continue. You will not correct them.

Money is not, and never has been, the reason why a loving father will sacrifice everything tomaintain a relationship with his children. The judges named here have no regard for this.Children are here to be exploited. For this reason, I am requesting their removal from the bench.

June 9, 2011


28/28

Respectfully submitted,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

national father's day message & complaint

Documents