UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

______________________________________________________________________________

LEON R. KOZIOL, individually and as natural

parent of Child A and Child B

Plaintiff,

-against-

Case No.

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 the New York

Appellate Division, Third Department; MONICA DUFFY,

individually and as Chairwoman/Counsel for the New York

Committee on Professional Standards; STEVEN ZAYAS, as

an individual and investigator for said Committee; NICOLECHRISTENSEN, individually and as supervisor for the

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

Defendants

_____________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EXIGENT RELIEF

______________________________________________________________________________

Date July 28, 2014

Submitted by

Leon R. Koziol

1518 Genesee Street

Utica, New York 13502

(315) 796-4000

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is an application for exigent relief pursuant to FRCP 65(b) and 42 USC Section 1983. It is based on pervasive violations of federally protected rights committed by judges, disciplinary authorities and enforcement agents connected to New Yorks domestic relations courts. Since 2008, plaintiff has become victim to escalating retributions directed to his reform activity and misconduct complaints beyond the scope of attorney regulation and Family Court processes.

Relevant complaints were also filed in this Court but dismissed on Younger abstention grounds. This occurred despite plaintiffs many submissions arguing that the rule did not apply. On December 10, 2013, plaintiff was proven correct when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Sprint Communications v Jacobs, 571 US ___ (2013). By a unanimous ruling, the high court criticized lower federal courts for abusing the 1971 Younger v Harris case to dismiss meritorious actions simply because parallel state proceedings were pending.

Judge Lawrence Kahn of this Court had occasion to apply Sprint very recently to an attorney disciplinary matter in Neroni v Zayas, 3:2013-cv-00127 (March, 2014). The case was allowed to proceed against Third Department Justice Karen Peters, Monica Duffy and Steven Zayas, or the same defendants named here and in prior litigation with the latter exposed to monetary liability. The facts of this case are far more compelling as these submissions demonstrate. Because Younger was misapplied, state retributions have escalated with impunity on a pretense of federal approval. The result has been an extraordinary case of civil rights violations without recourse.

These violations are set out progressively and categorically in the supporting papers. In addition to textual violations of the Constitution, this case compels a declaration of substantive due process violations based upon eight years of oppressive state processes which shock the conscience, Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953); Sprint, supra; Daniels v Williams, infra.