James Gorman Resignation Request

7/30/2019 James Gorman Resignation Request

1/15

1

Office of Leon R. Koziol

Civil Rights Advocate1518 Genesee Street

Utica, NY 13502

[email protected](315) 796-4000

May 10, 2013

Support Magistrate James GormonOnondaga County Family Court401 Montgomery StreetSyracuse, New York 13202

Re: Koziol v Hawse-Koziol; Oneida County Docket No. F-04606-08/12E

Dear Magistrate Gormon:

This will constitute my formal request for your resignation as a Support Magistrate with theOnondaga County Family Court in Syracuse, New York. It is designed to prevent further harm toparents, families and innocent children caused by gross incompetence of the kind displayed inyour May 3, 2013 decision and continued invidious processes designed to impair free speech.

Your decision contained all sorts of egregious error, including my PhD status which is purefabrication. I am utterly speechless over this phantom accomplishment. Because I was not

present at the ceremony when it was conferred, and I am unaware of any source for it in the courtrecord, I must ask for pertinent information, including the university which issued the certificateand a copy of the dissertation which supported it, so that I might apply it as you state in thesearch for new employment (pg. 3 ofdecision). Obviously, there is a serious problem here.

Public outcry for reform to our system of justice is reaching epic proportions. Your decision isan example of how suppression of such reform is achieved through the decision making process.Absolute judge immunity originating from a by-gone era prevents meaningful accountability andour judicial code limits public comment. Therefore, my request represents a necessary effort tooverride the abuse of such privileges. Your decision constitutes little more than a brazen assaultupon a citizens right to criticize our domestic relations courts outside the litigation process.

Only ten days earlier, I filed and publicized a 25 page complaint before the state Commission onJudicial Conduct naming you and certain colleagues as serious violators of judicial ethics.Among my grievances was a five month delay in producing your decision. Based on its timingalone, I believe you are well aware of my complaint. Your decision tracks its contents and I willelaborate further below. This seven year divorce odyssey defies all manner of due process andcompetent decision making. My complaint provided alarming detail of the rampant misconduct.Clearly an outside investigation is required into the operation of Family Court in this state.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/15

2

In recent years, various judges in the Onondaga County courthouse have been forced to resign,become terminated or removed from the bench by the state Commission. In every case, theremoval came too late, well after grave misconduct was completed upon assorted litigants,attorneys and even a handicapped five year old girl. A federal civil rights lawsuit by a clerk ofthis court resulted in a $600,000 recovery against a still seated judge. Taxpayers should not have

to wait until the damage is done. Your misconduct calls for similar resignation or removal.

Events involving these and other judges were detailed in my complaint, shared with legislativeleaders in Albany, and featured on our website. This site and my related public forums have beenmonitored by so-called ethics lawyers and others opposed to my reform efforts outside of thecourts highly controlled environment. Activities in both our nation and state capitals have beenused against me in Family Court hearings. A copy of my April 23, 2013 complaint was alsodelivered to the chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee but, in a bizarre twist, he wasarrested this week on felony charges, making any oversight on his part ludicrous indeed.

On April 15, 2012, the Syracuse Post Standard featured a story by Jim OHara regarding secrecy

in Onondaga Family Court. It focused on the sudden resignation of a judge assigned to mycustody case (later announced as a retirement). The judge was under investigation for sexualmisconduct involving a five year old niece. What alarmed me most about this article was the fearinstilled among government employees and lawyers to speak publicly. My case is a shockingexample of what happens when an accomplished civil rights attorney seeks court reform. Ittracks my ordeal as corporation counsel in Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000).

Background

On August 28, 2012, I filed a show cause petition for downward modification of support basedon more than two years of employment efforts which showed that an imputed earnings figureand support calculation were both excessive and unsustainable. They were imposed during aperiod when I enjoyed a successful and unblemished 23 year law practice. As soon as my publiccriticisms and reform activities were reported, a retribution agenda set in behind closed doors onJanuary 9, 2008, resulting in a one year suspension of my law license. This punishment continuesinto a fourth year based on an abusive inquiry process delaying reinstatement indefinitely.

After hearing from the parties one month later, you issued a temporary order on October 5, 2012which lowered monthly obligations a mere 25% on grounds that there had been a change ofcircumstances, the modification of the order was necessary and proper, and any additionalamounts would cause financial hardship. The reduction was not nearly enough to match thereality of headline stories regarding back-to-back license suspensions upon a prominent civilrights advocate, the depressed upstate economy where I live, and transportation costs associatedwith a recently obtained employment opportunity in Syracuse, 60 miles from my home.

Nevertheless, over the next two months, motions were filed on both sides regarding informationrequests, William Koslosky as court appointed attorney, and various constitutional challenges tothe support process. These subjects were laid out in extensive motion papers, and they werenecessitated by a federal courts deference to ongoing state processes to decide such questions.As explained in the record, the federal case, John Parent (pseudonym) v State of New York ,


3/15

3

Supreme Court docket 12-350, was dismissed and declined ultimately by the high court onabstention grounds (not decided on the merits). This required me to pursue my constitutionalclaims in this court. Thus, my First Amendment, due process, equal protection and parentingrights, as impaired by excessive support orders and abusive appointments, were properly raised.

In further verification of their importance, the Attorney General was notified of my constitutionbased claims pursuant to statute. A letter dated October 26, 2012 was then sent by that office toyou verifying receipt of correct notice. Because state statutes were at issue, it contained a requestfor a copy ofany final decision and reserved the Attorney Generals right to participate at anylater (appellate) stage. This procedure was carefully observed under additional authority ofKoziol v Hawse-Koziol, 878 NYS2d 524 (4th Dept. 2009) to preserve my ability for reaching ourSupreme Court. This ruling on my case was cited at par. 18 of my November 6, 2012 affidavit.Your recently filed decision fails to copy the Attorney General consistent with common practice.

A single ruling on our motions was issued in November, 2012. William Koslosky was removedonly days prior to trial set for November 28, 2012 on grounds that his continuation would harm a

productive outcome. None of the constitutional issues was decided, leaving the understandingthat they would be addressed in the final decision. Meanwhile, the career opportunity in Syracusewhich triggered my petition in the first place, was lost due to a state support intercept based onlyupon your questioning at our opening appearance. This effectively consumed all income, and itwas better explained at our evidentiary hearing concluded with the statement, not supported byany law, that the courts case file would be placed at the bottom of the pile in the event either

party made a status check prior to a deadline for decision set for the end of December, 2012.

The Decision

When a parent is hauled into Family Court on fraudulent or career damaging accusations, he orshe has a right to expect minimal due process. That means, at the very least, that a judge will bedignified, impartial and competent in the treatment of evidence. In your decision, there wereerrors of fact in virtually every paragraph, i.e. date of 2010 support order, representation status,motion requests. These are the ones found on the first page alone. Such errors, added together,enable a parent to conclude that the outcome was predetermined and that the entire court processwas a costly gesture in futility while under regular threat of incarceration for a civil support debt.

In plain terms, your decision stands for the sexist rule that our laws will be bent to favor maternalparties whereas the same laws will be strictly observed or privately abused to harm those whocriticize inequality in our courts. We begin with your own words on the last page to prove this.You declared that the temporary orderwas issued purposely to afford Mr. Koziol some relieffrom the total amount he was being charged as this matter ran its way through my court untilfinal determination (emphasis added). In the next sentence, you state that Court is well awarethat there is no statutory authority for Magistrates to set payment on arrears (except sometimeswith the consent of the parties) and as such necessarily has to vacate its temporary order...

Obviously we know that there can no longer be any consent of the parties after so many earlieragreements were tortured by lawyers and the state for fee and revenue generating purposes. Butyou omitted constitutional infirmities as a further reason to modify payment. Hence, in this one


4/15

4

paragraph, you created all sorts of confusion after admitting that you willfully violated our lawsand as such, you would have to dismiss my entire case. Worse yet, as we were all runningthrough (your) court, the constitutional claims would have to be tossed. At page 2, you state thatCourt has not entertained any of the extraneous material either involved in current litigation orprevious litigation andyou do not intend to rule onany of those extraneous issues... You may

not like or understand such issues, but you have no power to deny my access to higher courts.

Extraneous Issues

The extraneous issues are all related to our United States Constitution, still the supreme law inthis country, and they are here because the Supreme Court and a number of federal judges haverequired that I continue raising them here or be forever precluded from having them decidedanywhere else. As for their presence in a motion filed subsequent to the petition, this is certainlynot unusual, and they became crucial when you appointed William Koslosky as attorney for thechild for the first time on a support matter in my seven year ordeal. As explained in my 25 pagecomplaint, and conceded in your own words, William Koslosky would do little to aid in the

decision making of this matter and in all likelihood would probably have caused more difficultybetween the parties. This came after reviewing Kosloskys long history in our custody process.

Despite such findings, you managed to go outside the scope of proceedings and contradictyourself along the way: It should be made perfectly clear that the reason the Court reverseditself and ended up not assigning Mr. Koslosky was strictly because of this matter being of childsupport in nature and as such attorney for children are not normally assigned. Concededly, I haddifficulty reproducing that sentence verbatim because of its structure, no doubt hastily derivedfor other reasons, but you then bolstered your ruling with the declaration that it in no wayvacates Mr. Kosloskys possible future involvement with other litigation... (page 2, top par).

I am not sure how any judge can vacate a future possibility, but the more important questionis what motivated you to go to such contradictory extremes involving truly extraneous matterwhen the cited ruling was issued back in November, 2012. The only logical answer is that itderived from my April 23, 2013 complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission where a moresophisticated but controversial presentation was made concerning William Koslosky. Afterdescribing his history of abuse and the series of re-appointments to harm free speech, I stated inthat William Koslosky was finally removed by you consistent with your accurate version.

Evidently there was some reason to make it clear outside of the record that you were notagreeing with my conclusion, although forced to employ the logical word removed anyway.You even fashioned the unorthodox term unassigned to describe your removal order. Why wasthis elaborate rationalization required when your removal order took effect prior to the relevantNovember, 2012 hearing upon which your recent decision was based? It is obvious that you areprotecting this person not as the independent lawyer which our laws require but as a subordinatecreated by an admittedly needless appointment in violation of Judicial Code, section 100.3(C)(3).

Theres more. On pages 4 through 12 of my complaint, after noting from the top down, thatjudicial misconduct readslike a docket sheet in any criminal court, I took issue with ourupstate Appellate Division. It had ignored the fact that this court appointed attorney, William


5/15

5

Koslosky, lied in sworn papers submitted to two appellate licensing courts without correction,retraction or accountability. Indeed you made no mention of it either in your rambling text, eventhough, unlike my commission complaint, I appended the pertinent proofs to my October 12,2012 motion. This is because our courts are effectively using tax dollars to hire the suppressor.

Publicly Financed Suppressor

The Koslosky events occurred since the time of our last support hearing with Magistrate Daviesin January, 2011, they directly impaired my job search as you indirectly conceded in this paradeof litigation, and they were certainly proper subjects for consideration given the resulting cancerinflicted upon the parents childrearing processes. Now in this request for your resignation, Irepeat: William Koslosky stated under oath in formal papers submitted to both the Third andFourth Departments that I sought in Family Court to revoke Appellate Division Orders from theThird and Fourth Department suspending (me) from practicing law. This anything but alegitimate legal argument, it is a fraud upon the court designed to harm my licensing interestsand income capacity. The courts are purposely overlooking it as you did to promote retribution.

This publicly paid attorney, authorized by the same courts, cited a cross motion dated March 3,2011 as his only support for such a bizarre statement. I filed this cross motion with OnondagaFamily Court Judge Pirro-Bailey. In response to his sworn factual submissions, I appended acomplete copy of that cross motion containing all thirteen (13) requests for relief. None of itremotely contained any such request. The brazen fabrications were obviously submitted with theillicit goal of impairing my lawyer reinstatement process by two appellate courts charged withcontemporaneous but separate regulatory duties. In short, Kosloskys income harming objectivescould be executed off the public radar without even a proper hearing. Worse yet, this attorneyfor the child did it contrary to his own clients interests. They were too young to understand.

All of this is found in the record before you involving my motion for Kosloskys removal. Inresponse, an arrogant Koslosky never denied his statements or my proofs. Instead, in a singleparagraph 5 of his motion reply affirmation, he simply declared that my arguments were void offactual substance, consist of conjecture and are meritless; thus no further comment thereon iswarranted. How convenient this is indeed. Such a limited, cursory and cautious reply mightinsulate him from additional perjury, but it cannot whitewash a material false factual statementmade under oath allegedly to promote the best interests of my children,particularly as he neverasserted any omission or mistake. Quite the contrary, he continued to stand by his earlierfabrications. Meanwhile, his (involuntary) clients continued to rely upon me for support.

Child support was the ostensible overriding purpose of our court proceeding. If such egregiousfabrications (legally ascribed to my own little girls) are not refuted, they can be used against mein reinstatement inquiries more fully addressed in my recent commission complaint. Hence, itis no small matter, and it needlessly aggravated the parade of litigation which you condemnedin your decision but blamed entirely upon the parents, in particular Mr. Koziol. We will get tothat parade shortly, however, it must be emphasized that Koslosky is manufacturing litigationusing public money placed into his personal bank accounts. As explained in my complaint, anyratification of this by our judges in the face of ethical duty sends a message to the unwillingclients that it is perfectly proper to lie under oath to our higher courts of law (pg. 12).


6/15

6

Permanent Harm to Children

It was obvious at the time Family Court proceedings were pending before Judge Bryan Hedgesthat William Koslosky was conspiring to create an impression that I was unfit to practice law orremain as a father. Emboldened by the prior misconduct of Judges Pirro-Bailey and Walsh-

Hood, described in my commission complaint, William Koslosky simply went too far with hislies. To the extent this resignation demand must also be used to support alternate means for yourremoval, the case of Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2010) may convince authorities thatKoslosky was not acting alone. That case was cited in my motion, also in my complaint, and itfeatured an appointed chief clerk of this court who refused to engage in political espionagedirected by Judge Hedges and others against a handicapped judge competing for higher office.

In 2006, as an endorsed candidate for state Senate, I was urged by a retired Supreme Court Judgeto run for judicial office. I continue to maintain that my divorce process was abused to harm mypolitical career back then, but as it relates to William Koslosky, I have stressed that he routinelyexploits his appointments to suppress my public criticisms through bizarre petitions of the kind

he filed with the Fourth Department on July 30, 2011. If he chooses to do this as a privatecitizen, that may be his prerogative, but he is doing it instead through an abuse of state powerunder cloak of immunity using public money in the representation of my unsuspecting children.

You have needlessly endorsed Kosloskys continued involvement with my children through yourextraneous reversal explanation. Accordingly this must be answered with additional derangedbehavior on his part which is also found in your court record. Like my successful motion toremove Judge Bryan Hedges, this one was well founded. William Koslosky possesses a deephatred of his father which impairs any ability to represent children of other parents who, incontrast, love their own fathers and require their presence over a lifetime. Indeed even JudgeWalsh-Hood was forced to recognize that both parents here loved their children in her 2010Decision After Trial. In that decision, she made a once-sided attack upon me after I wascompelled to excuse myself with the courts permission on the last day of custody hearings.

My premature exit was necessitated by contempt risks orchestrated through joint misconduct andan abdication of judicial office. In my most recent complaint before the commission, I madeextensive reference to campaign parades used against me in Walsh-Hoods decision. She andKoslosky portrayed them as a form of child exploitation even though our president and theJudges own father (a late congressman opposite my political party) engaged in this same timehonored American tradition. The judge also failed to take issue with the following extraneous

statement made by Mr. Koslosky in his closing pontifications after I left the courtroom:

One thing that I remember is disagreement between my mom and my dad. My dad was a

policeman and one day he came home and he was mad because we didnt have red-skinned potatoes and all that she could say is we have Yukon Gold and I was terrorized.Id never seen dad arguing like this and, my God, hes in the police uniform with a gun.What is he going to do? So I went to the store to get red-skinned potatoes and I dont likeYukon Gold. (found in transcripts appended at paragraph 15 of my motion affidavit).


7/15

7

As explained before your prior colleagues, including Judge Hedges, this was not an idleoffering by Mr. Koslosky. It is reflective of a childhood disorder which is finding its way intolawyer decisions that he routinely makes for countless innocent children, or as he likes to declareand reiterate, his clients. In this day of family-fleecing court processes, children are beingencouraged to confide in such attorneys to the exclusion of their own parents under threat of

contempt. There is no logical reason for William Koslosky to become terrorized by a father inthe Koslosky homestead more than a half century earlier simply because we didnt have red-skinned potatoes. Moreover, a father in the police uniform with a gun is an utter exploitationof inconsequential fact unless more is offered in a separate hearing of the kind ordered prior tosuch disclosure by our first judge. No hearing occurred here, yet your rehabilitations followed.

In short, Koslosky is exhibiting a disorder which is harmful to all children in Family Court. I didnot ask for his extraneous offerings in a closing statement not supported by anything in thecase record. My children did not as well. But here it is, an elephant in the courtroom, continuingto prevent any foreseeable conclusion to this parade of litigation with me as its focal victim.Kosloskys childhood renditions ultimately helped convince Judge Walsh-Hood to deny me

contact with my children for ten months until exactly three years ago when the same Kosloskywith the conspiring ex-spouse had their fraudulent petitions thrown out for lack of evidence.Upon obtaining their opportunity to prove any case for ongoing parenting deprivations before thesame custody judge, I was not even required to take the stand or present any defense.

My children and I are fine these days, more than three years after this fiasco, enjoying the samegender prescribed weekends and vacation periods existing prior to Walsh-Hoods opinions.We recently toured the Saratoga National Battlefield where a museum guide recognized that bothmy girls were studying the subject in their fourth and fifth grade classes. It was more than aneducational experience involving our freedoms as an American nation, but also an orientation toa history lesson not taught in primary schools. We visited the site where Thadeus Kosciuszkoengineered fortifications impressive enough to stop the advance of the most powerful army in theworld during the British Campaign of 1777. I explained why this man came to America as aprelude some day for my girls understanding of a grandfather imprisoned in a Nazi war camp.

On more active subjects, I have risen at 4 am on two occasions to get the girls out of bed forswim meets near the same location in the middle of winter. We have climbed mountains andplayed soccer. I was to enjoy a weekend with them in a hotel where a cheerleading competitionwas occurring with long time friends of mine (also fathers), but the ex-spouse seized my entireweekend contrary to court order on the ever bizarre excuse that because an extracurricular eventstarted by trip departure on a Friday morning, it could justify retention of our girls until Sundaywhen I would then get a few hours. This is not the only time such kidnapping occurred.

Conflicts of this sort necessarily lead to a parade of litigation as you have described it, but notbecause we parents have nothing better to do. Such problems occur because of an antiquatedcustody system that rejects long overdue shared arrangements in favor of a battle over moneyand power awards. Children are placed strategically in the middle so that lawyers can reap heftyprofits from the conflict naturally created by this unequal and oppositional framework. It hasbecome a gold mine for others too: therapists, evaluators, case workers and a parade ofbeneficiaries who feed off the emotions fired up by lawyers. Who are they to raise our children?


8/15

8

Parade of Litigation

Summarily, you stated that you reviewed this file in its entirety and taken judicial notice of allprior proceedings and pleadings while simultaneously finding that I possessed a PhD on thesame page 3 of your decision. I do not know where you found this degree, but I can assure you

that I never possessed any such PhD. It may help you to know that I did give testimony aboutthe Syracuse firm which employed me briefly as a placement consultant. I described lawyerswith PhDs from Harvard and elsewhere being placed with law firms around the world, but if youreviewed the record as you claim, you would have learned that this job was lost not so muchbecause of inordinate transportation costs as it was because ofa state support intercept.

You declined to entertain my relevant argument as not being valid (pg. 3) but in reality youwere hiding the real cause for my job loss. Once again it was the dysfunction of this court systemwhich sounded the death knell for a career opportunity. You caused the support intercept throughyour unauthorized temporary order, copied on the states money collection center (OCSCU)prior to the November evidentiary hearing when a more competent assessment could have been

made after all the evidence was in. This was an independent consulting position in whichcontingent fees were earned only after months of effort, especially significant at the outset ofcontract employment. This is why I asked the ex-spouse in vain to agree to temporary relief priorto my August, 2012 show cause petition (explained at our first appearance).

The support intercept was not designed for contract consulting work but for regular salarygarnishments. Hence, one of our office interpretations of its boiler plate text is that all earnedmonies would have to be turned over to the state even though I was deemed not to be inviolation ofthe operative August 10,2010 support order which you retained in your decision.Indeed that was the conclusion coming out of hearings completed only weeks before yourassignment in Oneida County Supreme Court on a failed support violation petition in thisparade of litigation. That costly process was caused not by me but by state tax agents.

On that subject, you have to bear with me because the synopsis which follows is not made up, itreally happened, and it is required to offset the additional damage caused by your decision to myonce unblemished standing in the profession. These tax agents converged upon my homestead onOctober 19, 2010 to seize personal property not for the purpose of satisfying any tax obligationbut to collect on a private child support debt. They arrived only two months after that operativesupport order took effect in violation of its express terms. But this was not just any old seizure.It came in a matter of weeks, after front page news featured my civil rights case against townpolice on behalf of a falsely arrested and later acquitted father for alleged domestic harassment.My law license was suspended the same month and also featured days apart from one another.

The seizure was turned into a public spectacle in an otherwise peaceful suburban setting when aswat team worthy of a major drug bust made its assault. Multiple police cars, flatbeds and taxagents purporting to act on a private child support obligation appeared, blocking all exits.Armed officers banged on my door and announced their purpose with a warrant signed not by aneutral and detached magistrate but by a deputy commissioner of the state tax department inAlbany. His purpose was not to honor our Fourth Amendment, but to seize revenues for an everbloated bureaucracy. It was issued for another location in another municipality. Moreover, it was


9/15

9

utterly contemptuous (as argued before an appellate court last month) because it violated theterms of that August 10, 2010 (wrong date) support order by agreement.

Incident reports obtained during the course of a resulting parade of litigation showed that therewas no issue of danger, the seizure was otherwise uneventful , and the reason for diverting law

enforcement from other town priorities was my status as a lawyer. Yes, you read that correctly.And the call for police assistance was not made from an everyday cell phone but from aneighbors home minutes before operation get-that-expletive lawyer. This was the same townpolice department named in that civil suit necessarily placed with a substitute lawyer due to mysuspension. It was dismissed before trial years later along with other crucial civil rights cases.

Are you convinced yet that my government is targeting me? Was this a legitimate exercise ofpolice authority, or was it a covert scheme to provoke a good father and successful civil rightslawyer to a breaking point? Surely, the publicity alone will impair any job search. Regardless, astate Supreme Court judge ruled last year that the monies obtained by this seizure wereimproperly applied, and he ordered a recalculation of support which may impact your recent

dismissal order. I did not ask for this, and despite your offensive extraneous finding that I amjust talking a good game, I am actually trying to make sense out of a government gone wild.

Against this backdrop, it can now be understood why I lost a promising employment opportunityeven with all the combined impairment to my livelihood inflicted by this state. What prominentfirm would want to expose itself to a government assault upon its offices for income and assetseizures because a support intercept was interpreted wrongly after consultation with lawyers andcounty agents, when one hand does not know what the other is doing? This will also explain forour governors benefit (even though he knows it already) why so many firms are leaving NewYork. As relevant here, it prevents me from succeeding on this new job search that you believe

can produce at least as much earnings potential as I had as a 23 year attorney (without a license).

There are no remedies for this endless parade of litigation. The federal courts are looking theother way while our state continues its abuse of our American Constitution. Even you have toagree that your PhD finding cannot be allowed to stand. It must be appealed to avoid havingyet another material fabrication used against me in a future violation proceeding. In a bizarre turnof events then, after condemning me in particular for this parade of litigation, you inparticular have forced us all to continue that parade. And this leads us to more of yourcolleagues, in particular, Support Magistrate Davies and Family Court Judge Pirro-Bailey.

The last time I necessarily filed support objections, largely for the same reasons here, a biasedJudge Pirro-Bailey denied me an extension to accommodate an overworked court reporter whowas late in producing a hearing transcript. I received it within weeks of a dismissal order enteredonly one week before the same judge disqualified herself from my case altogether. This wasdone pursuant to a June 10, 2011 motion which I filed before her dismissal order entered fourdays later. It was based on sexist deprivations ordered shortly before my youngest daughtersFirst Holy Communion which fell on my weekend. The same event involving my eldest daughterwas missed completely one year earlier due to the fiasco before Judge Walsh-Hood.


10/15

10

During the second custody process in Onondaga County Family Court, three in a three year

period, the game was focused upon a facetious text which everyone, including the politicallycorrect monitors fully understood. I sent a text to the ex-spouse while visible from her owndriveway to the effect that I was en route to Rio with the girls. It came in response to herincessant scrutiny over our whereabouts prior to child drop-offs. Koslosky and associates

managed to get Judge Pirro-Bailey to twist this event into a kidnapping scheme contrary to allcommon sense during a hearing two months later. It created lots of legal fees while empoweringthe ex-spouse to seek more punitive orders for ulterior reasons, including geographic restrictions.

During argument on the conflicting communion submissions, Judge Pirro-Bailey announced thatshe was too busy to read my side of the case, and without advance opportunity to even be heardorally, she seized the event from me and placed it with the mother despite my participation inpreparatory sessions at the church (after Rio). I was allowed to attend but only as a commonobserver under risk of another orchestrated violation of a court order. If a judge is not interestedin anything I have to present, there is no purpose for coming to court. I consequently obtainedpermission once again to exit the courtroom and filed the proper motion for disqualification.

Shortly after all this occurred, I received an unsolicited e-mail on July 10, 2011from a dad whowas interrupted during a parenting chat at a school event by a Child Support Magistrate in

Onondaga County. She complimented these parents for their cooperation in extracurricularactivities with an added harangue about me and one other attorney who give Family Court a badname. The father was privately a supporter of my reform efforts and tried to defend me inpublic, but this magistrate persisted with her slander, resorting to disclosure of her official titlefor persuasion purposes in violation of Rule 100.2(C) of the Judicial Code. Because herintervention and abuse of authority caused the audience to walk away with a negative view ofour justice system, this magistrate also violated Rule 100.2(A) of the same Code. As relevanthere, it demonstrated the institutional bias within your courthouse which you refused to entertainin my motion. A copy of this e-mail was appended at exhibit C to my October 12, 2012 motion.

Only two months later, yet another judge in this same courthouse vacated one of the June, 2011orders of Judge Pirro-Bailey after a two sided briefing on the subject. He did so as a same-leveltrial judge after review of the same record relied upon by the earlier one. It averted a fourthappeal from taking its course. Transcripts alone on a single appeal can cost thousands of dollars,like the one ordered at parental expense by Judge Walsh-Hood as a punitive measure. This isthe same transcript she stated was necessary to draft her January, 2010 Decision After Trialreplete with factual errors and grammar defects. That decision was later modified without anyhearing transcript by yet another replacement judge, Michael Hanuszczak after a third costlyhearing. As stated in my complaint, the pre-Walsh-Hood parenting periods were restored.

Based on these experiences, it was reasonable to expect that you would make similar correctiveadjustments. You proceeded in that direction until my April 23, 2013 commission complaint waspublicized. Now in violation of my First Amendment rights, you reversed everything, makingmatters worse than they were when we came in to your court. How can anyone claiming to havereviewed the history of these proceedings rule as you did? The offensive use of this paradeterm is particularly troubling, not so much because it tracks the campaign parades addressed inmy commission complaint, but because it chills the exercise of yet another constitutional right.


11/15

11

Court Access

As you know, courts are supposed to act as civil substitutes for controversies otherwise properfor the streets (i.e. the days of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton). But there is nothing

civilized about the processes applied to me over a seven year period in New Yorks domesticrelations courts particularly here in the Syracuse county courthouse. In my commissioncomplaint, I was extensively critical of your supervising Family Court Judge Martha Walsh-Hood where any misconduct on your part must now be directed. A Supreme Court justice oncedescribed family court as a kangaroo court, In re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967). My treatment hereshould not change on a more professional depiction of the same court as a star chamber. By allmeasures of a free society, both descriptions fit properly in our courts and in public discourse.

Because I was born male, current antiquated laws, i.e. primary care giver, allow you to convertme into a subservient workhorse whose principal role in a childs life is to provide money for theupper class parent. The obligations you orchestrate are not based upon a childs need or the

reality of a divorced environment, but a way of life standard that can easily be exploited togenerate the highest rationalized payment streams for the benefit of third parties and our nationswelfare system. There has not been a petition or hearing yet in this seven year ordeal in which Ihave not been placed on the defensive for the sake of money.

In my commission complaint, I supported that conclusion and my public criticisms extensively. Iexplained it also in the motions which you neglected. You may not want to hear this, but I had toexperience the insults of your decision and I retain a right to defend myself especially when thesystem has failed me so insidiously as a father, taxpayer and American citizen. Performancegrants under the federal welfare statute and interest revenues generated by state supportcollection units are based on the number and magnitude of child support orders massedproduced with little or no regard for the homelessness, alienation, suicide and debtor prisonscaused. This money engine creates a personal benefit for presiding judges during deliberations.

As a perfectly logical, natural but highly despised consequence, child support orders across theUnited States are subject to direct and collateral attack on this basis alone. This is because ourdue process rights under the Constitution are compromised by the salary enhancements whichthese orders produce for the decision-makers especially during a time when New Yorksjudiciary was engaged in litigation against the other two branches for pay raises, Chief Judge vGovernor, 65 AD3d 898 (First Dept. 2009). These orders also generate opportunities for jobcreation through the courts appointment powers which, in turn, dilute a truly impartial anddetached decision making process, Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973).

This may also explain why tax agents invaded my homestead and why you found in yourdecision that I have not demonstrated sufficiently why this Court should reduce child support(page 4). I thought this was a civil and not a criminal case where the burden of proof is muchhigher. Moreover, we must be honest here, no amount of evidence would have been sufficient inview of everything that has been presented. About the only positive thing you stated is that I ama talented gentleman but only in connection with many good employable qualities, includinga PhD, for money purposes. You then justify this revenue generating scheme and the prison


12/15

12

threat for non-payment by once again placing the child on top of the states war tank. You findthat my children deserve probably more than the imputed income assessed against me.

All the Parents Fault

After all the lucrative controversy visited by this dysfunctional system upon two formerlycooperating parents with joint custody, the final straw came when you concluded your decisionunabashedly with that tired, worn-out shifting of blame to the parents once their money wassufficiently depleted. You can find some version of it in child custody and support decisionseverywhere, to wit: this Court joins with previous others who have pleaded with these parties,and in particular Mr. Koziol... to concentrate on the best interests of their children. I thoughtthat is what we were doing when we came into your courtas opposed to taking the law intoour own hands. At least that is your reason for existence. This candid summation of my casehistory shows that there was no one pleading for child focus. Instead a group of money seekersmasquerading as substitute parents were engaged in an underlying scheme to suppress speech.

There seems to be no shame in the level of abuse willfully heaped upon me simply because Ichose to do more than participate in useless studies at taxpayer expense to address a growingproblem. The 2006 Matrimonial Report to New Yorks Chief Justice specifically attacked theoppositional framework described here using the terms shoe horn effect when it came to achilds genuine best interests. I first started quoting this report when it was hot off the press.Yet here we are today with a system more costly, congested, embattled and dysfunctional thanever. About the only recommendation which I have seen implemented from this seven year oldreport is the influx of more lawyers known as attorneys for the child, people exactly likeWilliam Koslosky, inventing all sorts of issues to keep the fees flowing into their bank accounts.

This was a problem I targeted, among others, in 2008 and 2009, just prior to my suspension. Idiscovered a support magistrate carrying over boiler plate phrases and irrelevant findings fromclosed cases into the next ones in a revolving door featuring similarly victimized fathers. Andhere we are again today with fabricated findings which you are exploiting to reward yet anotherattorney, Rebecca Crance. This is the same lawyer who demonstrated her ignorance of the veryobjections process which we must now pursue in order to correct your clear errors. If she wasqualified to receive any legal fee, a prerequisite to the motion you have now invited, she wouldhave developed a record on this PhD finding, she would have found it during discoveryprocesses, she might have alerted you to your errors on her own initiative assuming she botheredto digest the contents, and she would certainly have done more than read from a client sheet.

Ironically, although I hate to state this, the client did a better job of objecting to your temporaryorder and moving for a subpoena, among other things, than Rebecca Crance ever did. Youincorrectly stated in your decision that she had been represented by Ms. Crance throughoutdeliberations when you were the one during opening appearances to insist that she obtaincounsel. Regardless, this entire process could have been averted had a single judge held the ex-spouse accountable for frauds and parenting deprivations carried out over many years.

A key example is the argument occurring on March 15, 2011. A very distraught Judge Pirro-Bailey admonished the ex-spouse in a rare moment when she feigned a fear incident right in


13/15

13

open court. It was patterned on the frauds and rewards obtained earlier before Judge Walsh-Hood. She asserted a fear of my pen once again, forcing this replacement judge, in command ofevents in her full view over a two hour period, to direct Kelly Hawse-Koziol to turn around andface the wall. But nothing of substance came of it, and the ex-spouse was once again rewardedwith the communion event described above. How can a litigant access our court for a responsible

remedy and a natural parenting right when he is subjected to fabricated abuse incidents occurringin open view of the presiding judges. One after another has refused to address the core issues inany meaningful fashion. As a result, we continue to deal with the symptoms.

Core Civil Rights

With any support order, even in this oppressive environment, there is a dependent duty placedupon any enforcement court to assure that a parent-child relationship is facilitated. However,once again, due to money fixations, the courts have managed to divorce themselves from thismoral imperative by creating separate tribunals like this one so that payments can be orderedwith greater efficiency. This absurd severance of naturally integrated duties may explain why a

veteran police officer took his life and that of his ex-spouse in my home town recently, leavingthree children without their birth parents.

This murder-suicide was executed with a common kitchen utensil shortly after a support courtleft the officer subsisting reportedly on $26 per week. It came well after all the weapons wereconfiscated by the city employer and despite a protection order put into effect by another court.Still, the police department was blamed and even sued for damages with no inquiry into theabusive proceedings which inflamed it, Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011). Inthe same year, a deputy commissioner of child support enforcement was issuing a caseworkers

guide in Albany to maximize support collections for revenue purposes. She also becameaffiliated with Deloitte Consulting Services which reaped profits from this same guide.

In my case, a status oriented parent has orchestrated all sorts of conditions simply to keep themoney coming even if it means depriving the father of all contact with his children. It did nottake you long to see through her schemes when soliciting the tutoring income and other moneysources from her during our opening appearance. I later provided you with proof of a teachingsalary with benefits far in excess of what she was presenting in opposition to my request fortemporary relief. To show how viciously these support obligations are being abused, thismother offered to terminate them in October, 2006 if I would give up rights of access to mychildren so that a wealthy childless paramour could substitute as my girls father.

As part of that agenda, with the help of her current attorney, Kelly Hawse-Koziol managed todeprive me of ten months contact with my daughters at such a precious young age in 2010. Asstated earlier, she did this through fraudulent petitions thrown out by the same Judge Walsh-Hood who imposed the restrictions. To date, there has been no compensation for this willfulabuse of court process orchestrated with a vindictive ex-secretary of mine, recently arrested andsent to jail on $10,000 bail for falsely representing herself as a lawyer in a court of law. Instead,this court has now invited that same attorney to petition for a fee award against me based on apartial report of dates by a court clerk which caused me to miss one appearance inadvertently.


14/15

14

An American Response

There comes a point when a court process becomes so abusive and utterly incomprehensible thatit must be challenged. This seven year ordeal began as an uncontested divorce in 2005.Unfortunately, as the oppositional custody and support process set in, with mom fearful of

losing money through shared parenting transitions, cooperation and joint participation inchildrearing systematically faded. The same is true for families all across America made subjectto a duplicate system. Like socialism and communism, this model of parenting is an utter failure.

Accordingly, I will not be making any more payments to facilitate it. I must take this standbecause our family court processes have long passed from a legitimate institution to a civil rightsmovement for oppressed parents. When a divorce judge refuses to even acknowledge a provisionin a parenting agreement calling for an end to basic support, I cannot acknowledge its moneybased aftermath. When Susan B. Anthony committed a crime by voting in the 1872 presidentialelections, she was convicted near Syracuse by a state Supreme Court judge who conducted herhearings not unlike the ones before Judges Walsh-Hood and Pirro-Bailey in your courthouse.

It may be that after 150 years of civil rights history, the only thing we have learned is thatwomen are just as capable of practicing discrimination and injustices today as men were backthen. Independent studies and Census Bureau reports still show that 85% of child supportobligors are men and 90% of contested custody awards go to women. Despite all forms ofprotest, including a loving father who set himself on fire in front of a New Hampshire familycourt in 2011, our U.S. Justice Department still issued a release last year featuring the sexist slurdead beat dad. Extreme feminists are now promoting God as a woman presumably toneutralize founding declarations and courtroom plaques which proclaim us as one nation under

God. But the same extremists are not depicting the devil wearing a tight skirt and lip gloss witha pitch fork that impales all our venerable books of religion. For those lacking in any faith, I canassure that the devil is alive and well, and shes living in Family Court.

What we are seeing here is an attempt to correct centuries of oppression by placing the blame ontodays fathers not unlike the landowners who were sued for eviction during the Oneida landclaim litigation. In your decision, you were quick to cite the disciplinary violations I suffered as alawyer during my precedent seeking cases without regard to the retribution process logicallytriggered as a consequence. You never even uttered a value for equal treatment under the law orthe many successful decisions I obtained for woman and minorities so that I could pay support.

A little over ten years ago, I led a courageous group which crashed a news conference conductedby our state governor, local dignitaries and nation leaders to announce a settlement of the thirtyyear old Oneida Indian land claim. It featured a $500 million payment by our state and federalgovernments. We managed to influence the collapse of that agreement within a matter of weeks.A few years later, I secured a final judgment declaring the Turning Stone gaming compactunconstitutional as a counter-action to this land claim. Five years after that, the entire claim wasextinguished by the United States Supreme Court, saving our taxpayers all that money.

And yet, the Oneida Nation is no worse off for it as the same taxpayers are giving it all back inthe way of gambling profits, proof that like child support, people will respond more favorably


15/15

15

through a free exercise of rights. The imposition of a child support order as a condition fordivorce is tantamount to a declaration that fathers do not want to support their children and thatparents cannot competently agree to do so privately. It is a terrible presumption which is causingfar more conflict than your support courts are capable of handling competently. This case is aclassic example. I did not come to yourcourt or to any of your previous colleagues to talk a

good game. When I come into our courts, I testify, argue and present, I dont just talk. Talkingis what I do at public forums and organizing activities for court reform, and that is the real targetof your decision. I came to this court simply because I wanted to be a real dad for my children.

Respectfully submitted,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

cc: Commission on Judicial ConductSupervising Judge Martha Walsh-Hood

U.S. Justice DepartmentNew York Division of Human RightsState Senate Judiciary CommitteeState Assembly Oversight Committee

Documents

James Gorman Resignation Request