Petition to United States Supreme Court

7/26/2019 Petition to United States Supreme Court

1/45

No. ____________

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

______________________________

In re: Leon R. Koziol,

Petitioner

___________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit

_________________

PETITION

_________________

June 14, 2016

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.1336 Graffenburg Road

New Hartford, N.Y. 13413(315) 796-4000


2/45


3/45

QUESTIONS PRESENTE

This Petition for Writ of Certiorari raises:

1)

The importance of First Amendment rights as

applied to our third branch of government,

2) The protected role of fathers in our families

and institutions of American society, and

3)

Supervisory jurisdiction to assure a fair and

orderly process for vindicating federal rights.

A)

Did a federal Court of Appeals improperly

deny mandamus upon a federal judge who

impaired access to this Court and refused to

respect father-daughter relationships seized

by state judges in retaliation for petitioners

reform efforts and testimony before a state

Commission on Public Corruption?

B) Did the Second Circuit commit fatal error by

refusing to grant extraordinary relief to a

civil rights attorney whose children, home,

office, assets, reputation, licenses, happiness

and liberties were seized due to offensive

speech regarding court corruption after ten

years of fit parenting, 23 years of stellarpractice and 50 years of model citizenship?


4/45

List of All Parties Below:

LEON R. KOZIOL, individually and as naturalparent of Child A and Child B,

DANIEL KING, individually and as New York

Family Court Judge;

JAMES GORMAN, individually and as Family Court

Magistrate;

JAMES TORMEY, individually and as Administrator

for the Fifth District;

ROBERT ROSE, JOHN LAHTINEN, EDWARD

SPAIN and LESLIE STEIN, individually and as

members of New York Appellate Third Department;

MONICA DUFFY, individually and as Chairwoman

Counsel for Committee on Professional Standards;

STEVEN ZAYAS, as an individual and investigator

for said Committee;

NICOLE

CHRISTENSEN, individually and as

supervisor for Oneida County Support Collection Unit

JOHN CENTRA, individually and as member of the

New York Appellate Division;

KELLY HAWSE-KOZIOL, individually and as

Custodial Parent for the state;

WILLIAM KOSLOSKY, individually and as stateAttorney for the Child


5/45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities.................................................. ii

Opinions Below.......................................................... 1

Jurisdiction................................................................ 1

Constitution and Statutes.......................................... 1

Statement of the Case................................................. 3

A.

Procedural Background. 3B.

Factual Background... 6

Reasons for Granting Writ................................. 13

Point One: The Second Circuit disregarded

the standard and propriety for mandamus relief

in an extraordinary case featuring a civil rights

attorney whose children, home, office, assets,

reputation, licenses, happiness and liberties

were seized due to offensive but accurate

speech regarding family court corruption16

Point Two: The Court of Appeals committed

fatal error by refusing to take action beyond the

lower court through injunctive relief upon state

proceedings infected by prejudice and bad faith

which are indisputable on this shocking record.. 20

Point Three: Petitioners vital message ofreform for abused fathers and non-custodial

mothers was sufficiently offensive to trigger


6/45

systemic judicial retributions over time

that cannot be remedied absent

extraordinary relief 27

Conclusion 35

Appendix Volume One

Order of United States Court of Appeals

denying mandamus, March 17, 2016 A- 1

Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition,

November 11, 2015 to Second Circuit................. A-2

October 9, 2015 Anti-filing order on

lower court motion of August 25, 2015 A-51

August 10, 2015 order of district judge

denying Plaintiffs timely filed motion

for extension of time to appeal.. A-64

May 22, 2015 Decision/Order dismissing

Plaintiffs civil rights case A-71

Appendix Volume Two

Plaintiffs civil rights complaint dated

July 15, 2014 pursuant to 42 USC 1983.. passim


7/45

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

American Express v Transamerica

Insurance, 380 F.2d 277 (2ndCir. 1967) ..33

Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998). 30

Beechwood Restorative v Leeds,436 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2006)................................... 14, 21

Caban v Mohammed, 441 US 584 (1979) 28

Cheney v U.S. District Court,

542 US 367 (2004). 15

Daniels v Williams, 474 US 327 (1986)..................... 33

Erdmann v Stevens, 458 F.2d 1205

(2ndCir. 1972) 27

Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908).. 6

Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925) 31

Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964). 33

Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973) 20

In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany,

745 F. 3d 30 (2ndCir. 2014).. 33

In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (1987). 33


8/45

Kerr v United States District Court,

426 US 394 (1976) 15

Koziol v Hawse-Koziol,

60 AD 3d 155 (4thDept 2009) 5

Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). 32

Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2ndCir. 2010) . 21

Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516(NDNY 2011) 4, 14

Parham v J.R., 442 US 584 (1979) 31

Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367

(NDNY 2011). 29

Phillip v Bowen, 278 F.3d 103 (2ndCir. 2002) 20

Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953)................... 13

Snyder v Phelps, 562 US ___ (2011).......................... 27

Sprint Communications v Jacobs,

571 US ___ (December 10, 2013). 4

Supreme Court of Virginia v

Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980)................... 6, 15

Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) 28, 31

United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82

(2ndCir. 2011) 5, 6, 35

Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315


9/45

(Fam. Ct. 2001) 31

Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971) 4

Constitution

U.S. Const. Art. III.. 12

U.S. Amend 1............................................. .. 3

U.S. Amend 14.................................................. 3

Statutes

28 USC 1651 3

42 USC 651 30, 32

42 USC 1983 ........................................................ 14

FRAP 5(a) 3, 15

Secondary Authority

Stephen Baskerville, Is There Really

a Fatherhood Crisis? Independence

Review, vol. VIII, Spring 2004 32


10/45

OPINIONS BELOW

The final order of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit was issued on March 17, 2016

and is reprinted in the Appendix at page 1a. It was

not issued as a published opinion or summary order.

Dispositions of the United States District Court for

the Northern District of New York upon which it was

directed were issued on October 9, 2015 (anti-filing

order); August 10, 2015 (order denying extension ofappeal) and May 22, 2015 (order dismissing civil

rights complaint). They are also reprinted in the

Appendix at pages 51, 64 and 71, respectively.

JURISDICTION

The final order of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit was entered on March 17, 2016.

Jurisdiction is invoked here pursuant to 28 USC

section 1651 (All Writs Act) and 28 USC 1254(1)

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS/ STATUTES

The First Amendment provides that Congress shallmake no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging

the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of

the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Government for a redress of grievances.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides in relevant part

that No State shall make or enforce any law whichshall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any

1


11/45

person of life, liberty or property without due process

of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of

the laws.

28 USC 1651(a) provides: The Supreme Court and all

courts established by Act of Congress may issue all

writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their

respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages

and principles of law.

42 USC 1983 provides in relevant part: Every personwho under color of law of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom or usage, of any state subjects,

or causes any citizen of the United States or other

person within the jurisdiction thereof to the

deprivation of any right, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable

to the party injured in an action at law.

Section 236B(1)(e) of New Yorks Domestic Relations

Law provides a definition of custodial parent to be a

parent to whom custody of a child or children is

granted by a valid agreement between the parties or

by an order or decree of the court.

Section 240-1(a) of the New York Domestic RelationsLaw provides in relevant part: Custody and child

support; orders of protection. 1. (a) In any action or

proceeding brought (3) for a divorce... the court shall

require verification of the status of any child to the

marriage with respect to such childs custody and

support, including any prior orders, and shall enter

orders for custody and support as, in the courts

discretion, justice requires, having regard for thecircumstances of the case and of the respective parties

and to the best interests of the child

2


12/45

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Procedural Background

This petition arises from an unpublished order of the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals which dismissed a

mandamus action brought pursuant to FRAP Rule 21

and the All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651(a). It was directed

to a series of purportedly final orders issued by two

judges of the Northern District of New York.

The first was a May 22, 2015 Decision and Order of

Judge Gary Sharpe which dismissed petitioners civil

rights action on its pleadings, A-71. Filed on July 26,

2014 under 42 USC 1983, it was based on growing

retributions in disciplinary and domestic courts since

two prior actions were dismissed in 2011 and 2012.

Federal claims included First and Fourteenth

Amendment violations set forth at pages 26-29 of the

Complaint reprinted at Volume II of the Appendix.

A second order was filed by Judge Sharpe on August

10, 2015 denying petitioner a timely motion to extend

a deadline for appealing the earlier decision, A-64. It

was based on a missed deadline which fell on the day

after Fathers Day, 2015 when this father learnedthat his children had been relocated and irrevocably

alienated from him. Exigent circumstances satisfied

the good cause factor of FRAP Rule 4(a)(5). However

Judge Sharpe was infected by an inherent prejudice.

The same Judge Sharpe brought his own action

against petitioner on August 25, 2015 for an anti-

filing order. That order was granted by District ChiefJudge Glen Suddaby on October 9, 2015, A-51. It

included a proviso declaring an appeal right to that

3


13/45

order to be in bad faith, thereby severely impairing

access to this Court in light of the sanctions and fines

earlier imposed by Judge Sharpe.

Another purportedly final order was entered by Judge

Sharpe in March, 2016 which has not been appealed.

It assessed opposing counsel fees. The August 10 and

October 9, 2015 orders were appealed and await

decision. However such orders induced Family Judge

King to issue a protection (gag) order on petitioners

website on November 25, 2015. Petitioners motion fora stay of that order was deemed academic in the

mandamus dismissal of March 17, 2016 A-1.

Petitioner filed his latest plenary action based on the

seizure of his children and further suspensions of his

law license in 2013 and 2014. These were new events

and harsher retaliation fueled by effective approval of

earlier misconduct through an abuse of abstention

and other roadblocks to this court for a vindication of

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

In Sprint Communications v Jacob, 571 US ___

(2013), this Court issued a unanimous rebuke to lower

federal courts for an abuse of Younger abstention to

dismiss federal claims. The 2011 and 2012 decisionsfell into that category. The Second Circuit issued a

summary order on June 18, 2012 which affirmed a

dismissal in Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516

(NDNY 2011) but on grounds of Younger Abstention.

It declined to entertain petitioners federal claims.

Hence, the 2014 action was proper on both law and

facts. But its gross mistreatment empowered stateactors to unconscionable levels, causing petitioner to

seek international protection in Paris. Over 100

4


14/45

orders and decrees emerged after more than thirty-

five (35) trial judges were assigned to splintered,

conflicting and interlocutory proceedings. Nearlyevery one of these dispositions under New York law

required a distinct appellate perfection process

because a substantial right was implicated and

irreparable harm would otherwise occur if they were

individually neglected or waived.1

On August 7, 2014 Judge Gary Sharpe issued an

order denying a temporary restraining order soughtby petitioner. Dismissal motions and a cross-motion

for preliminary injunction followed. They were made

returnable on submission in December, 2014. During

that period, an earlier mandamus action sought,

among other things, removal of Judge Sharpe from

the case and its transfer to another federal district.

Grounds included fatal (genetic based) misconduct of

Judge Sharpe condemned by a unanimous court in

United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2ndCir. 2011). It

also raised collegiality with judges necessarily named

in this action pursuant to the rule laid out in Ex Parte

1

Such appeals were further hampered by a unique rule under NewYork law which enables a trial level judge to control the contents of a

record as its final arbiter and thereby insulate issues from review. In this

case, the first assigned (divorce) judge, John Grow, relied upon this rule to

subvert petitioners first consolidated appeal of four decisions over a single

year, citing Blackoff v Blackoff, 392 NYS2d 26 (1 Dept. 1977). Because

the same judge had deferred decision on petitioners constitution and

custody claims on January 11, 2007, over the fathers objections, the

question of notice to the state Attorney General pursuant to New York

CPLR 1012 was placed in limbo. Moreover the companion notice rule

under Executive Law 71, applicable to the judges themselves, was neverrecognized in early proceedings. This became a dispositive injury in that

first consolidated appeal because it usurped access to the Supreme Court in

the state system, Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 1435 (4 Dept. 2009).

5


15/45

Young, 209 US 123 (1908) and Supreme Court of

Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980).

That mandamus action was dismissed on February

18, 2015 on grounds that mandamus is a rare

exception to standard appellate channels. In both

mandamus orders, the Second Circuit disregarded

crucial human rights and alternate extraordinary

relief made available by this Courts ruling in Cheney

v United States District Court, 542 US 367 (2004).

As will be shown through later argument, a vast

segment of law cited in support of the fathers case

was ignored in Judge Sharpes May 22, 2015 decision

after being re-cited in the first mandamus petition

served upon him in November, 2014. Judge Sharpe

selectively presented higher authority to concoct a

fictional case for dismissal in further suppression of

the father-attorneys criticisms and parental liberties.

Judge Sharpe was then able to issue sanctions, fines

and fees as a pretext for harming protected activities,

thereby joining his state colleagues. His torturing of

the record and highly disparaging decisional content

were designed to discredit the father, his message and

exposure of judge misconduct including that of JudgeSharpe made public again from the Cossey case.

B. Factual Background

This ordeal began on January 5, 2006 when this

father filed for an uncontested divorce based upon two

years of successful separation. The parents had given

birth to two children in 2002 and 2003. At all times,childrearing was cooperative, both parents were fit,

6


16/45

and there were no reports to indicate anything but a

promising future for all concerned, A-II passim.

This productive environment gradually deterioratedthrough state intervention when the ex-spouse

employed a divorce lawyer seated on the local

attorney ethics committee, A-17, 18. After years of

challenges to the parents agreed upon support

obligations, a divorce judge ruled on October 8, 2008

that the amounts were proper. By then, needless

conflicts had been fueled between the parents.

For example, this lawyer disclosed confidential

information during his representation to undermine

the fathers campaigns for state Senate and county

executive, hence impairing child support capacities

contrary to client interests. A protection order was

issued against that lawyer in 2007 but no discipline

resulted for ethics violations, A-17. Instead a first

time ethics prosecution began the next year against

petitioner based on a collection of stale, withdrawn

and unknown grievances. When petitioner raised

constitutional claims regarding his invidious

treatment in both domestic and disciplinary forums,

he was ignored or referred elsewhere, A-17.

Accordingly, petitioner embarked upon a campaign tosecure accountability in these courts, employing

contemporary modes of self governance to remedy

father discrimination, abuse of ethics processes and

oppressive practices in his case and others across the

country. Over the next eight years, it included

organizing activity, civil rights forums, blog postings,

editorials, media conferences, public testimony,

parent conventions, fundraising efforts and lobbyinginitiatives in Congress, New York City and state

capital, among other venues, A-II passim.

7


17/45

Consistent among petitioners activity was a quest to

secure equal treatment for fathers in Americas

domestic relations courts. This quest was based on anetwork of complaints, studies and suicide cases

submitted to petitioners website and his National

League of Fathers, Inc. with nominal membership due

to the retributions here, Id. It was also based on

personal victim status which continues unabated.

Mandatory custody classifications were employed by

the parents in separation proposals in 2003 and 2004,A-18. The term baby Koziol unborn was required to

describe a second child to the marriage but ignored in

custody decisions, Id. For legal separation to occur,

custodial parent could only mean the mother under

these circumstances and prevailing gender based

doctrine, including primary care and sibling unity.

The father was relegated to sub-class parental status.

When the respondent-mother announced an agenda

for replacing petitioner with a wealthy, childless and

unfit substitute, petitioner filed for relief in various

state courts as his case became highly contested and

splintered among general jurisdiction judges, family

court, assorted magistrates and hearing officers, some

overlapping, and supported for judicial office bycompeting lawyers at the local bar associations.

Petitioner was not a member of any such bar, and

those avenues for relief were foreclosed anyway due to

his reform activity which threatened the vested

interests of these lawyers. Such concealed bias, along

with petitioners civil rights history in the same

judicial district, resulted in the chaos depictedthroughout the records below and in this petition.

With each complaint, news conference or public

8


18/45

criticism, a proximate act of retaliation arose among

state judges, a lawyer appointed for petitioners

children, state support agents and even local police.2

Joint targeting derived from interacting domestic and

attorney regulatory processes. The retributions were

so severe and pervasive that petitioner was forced to

file for every nominal parenting liberty, exemplified

by a hearing officers denial of a single overnight stay

for petitioner and children at a remote mountain lake.

Between 2008 and present, petitioner receivedunsolicited reports of father bias and targeting by

lawyers and state judges in New Yorks Fifth Judicial

District where he resided and practiced law, A-II

passim. They included a court reporter relaying

custody bias in 2009, a 2011 e-mail from a parent

disclosing judge comments at a ball game, and ethics

2 Police threats became a daily fear of petitioner after a veritable swat

team converged upon his homestead in October, 2010 accompanied by

state and county tax agents to provoke a violent arrest based merely upon a

private support debt between self-sustaining parents. Such show of force

comprised retribution for recent news reports regarding petitioners civil

rights cases and law license suspension. This private debt was restructured

by parental agreement in a state Supreme Court order issued on August 23,

2010, but the states vast involvement as a non-party empowered it toviolate that agreement in a manner which cannot be reconciled by common

sense obligors. Even the first judge to review this event in the states

capital questioned the involvement of tax agents later explained to be

acting on a lien for support collection purposes acquired from an order

expressly excluding the seized assets. Such police threats were aggravated

by ex-parte petitions which left this petitioner-father-attorney in a constant

state of ambush. For example driving suspensions can be issued without

notice. Hence in May, 2009, three patrol cars converged at the mothers

request during a child exchange for an arrest. Her fraudulent petitions were

dismissed by the time of a hearing on May 3, 2010. But the favorable orderwas never formally issued to petitioner to show the clear abuses of our

courts. Coupled with unrecorded hearings, this enabled Family Judge King

to falsify a record for child seizure and incarceration purposes in 2014.

9


19/45

lawyers in 2013 declaring opposition to license

reinstatement as long as the criticisms continued.

An official report in opposition to petitioners third

petition for reinstatement to the practice of law was

prepared or ratified by Third Department respondents

in 2014. It appended seven of 200 blog posts since

2009. One post was a mere dedication to petitioners

recently departed mother reflecting the sadistic

nature of all this. The issues were never prosecuted or

withdrawn, there creating a condition of contempt byambush for continued speech.

A motion for change of venue had been denied by the

first assigned divorce judge, and the retributions

escalated over time, yielding a ten year record so

chaotic that it defied rational presentment. The

pleading and motion filings below comprised a good

faith effort to show institutional bias and a concerted

effort to suppress petitioners First Amendment rights

through unlawful retaliation, abuse of judicial office

and activity outside the scope of that office. This was

further corroborated by absurd court orders explained

only by a systemic retaliatory agenda, A-II passim.

Examples too numerous to relate here includephantom college degrees (PhD and Masters) nowhere

in the record used by respondents Gorman and King,

respectively, to elevate support obligations, a post hoc

condition of prohibited alcohol related gestures

regarding a wedding toast when no evidence of unfit

parenting could be found, threatened removal from

court for making five early objections to narrative

custody testimony of a scorned ex-wife seeking toestablish incompetent family genetic connections,

fabricated admissions to ethical misconduct to prolong

10


20/45

law license suspension, and protracted investigatory

processes based, inter alia, on gossip forums and

anonymous complaints to transform an 18 monthsuspension into six extant years of punishment, Id.

On the domestic side, Respondent Family Judge

Daniel King exceeded his limited jurisdiction by

defying higher court orders of August 23, 2010 and

December 13, 2013 regarding support violations and

decision received Christmas Eve, 2013 subjecting

petitioner to a battery of forensic orders, arrest andsuspension of child contact, A-22, 23.

These orders were devised outside of judicial scope,

i.e. joint reactions to misconduct complaints passed

among judges at administrative courthouse. They

were based improperly on renewed (prior decided)

issues, a fabricated record from other courts and

public criticisms. A venomous content was evident

throughout these edicts in contrast to countless cases

in the same family court where criminals, drug

abusers and imprisoned felons are given child contact.

Recourse was predetermined or summarily decided

without discovery in both federal and state courts,

and because the respondent mother was favored withevery concoction endeavored, petitioner remains at

risk of contempt by ambush in any effort to see his

precious daughters at school events or elsewhere. His

calls to them since Judge Kings improper assignment

to petitioners family matters have yielded only severe

parental alienation. Since 2013, Respondent King did

nothing to remedy these inhumane deprivations

which inflame petitioner to uncontrolled levels.

11


21/45

Respondent mother consummated her agenda to

terminate petitioners parental rights in favor of an

unfit, childless, millionaire substitute through statepower jointly abused by respondents Koslosky, King,

Tormey, Gorman and Centra. When his childrens

long concealed residence was discovered on Fathers

Day, 2015, an infinitely tortured petitioner was forced

to leave the area, missing a next day appeal deadline.

Petitioner was compelled to file numerous appeals to

such orders to avoid potential waiver. For example,during one appeal on December 13, 2013, respondent

Judge Centra issued a stay order based on structural

flaws in Family Judge Kings personally crafted

evidentiary hearing of November 25, 2013, A-25. That

hearing occurred on a first appearance with no notice

or recording and ten minute case limitations.

It resulted in the seizure of petitioners children and

absurd evaluation orders beyond conscientious

compliance, Id. However the appeal was summarily

dismissed without explanation one month later after

intervening public criticisms. In short, petitioner

could not logistically appeal so many punitive orders

over ten years, thereby leaving false college degrees

and bizarre parental conditions as the law of the case.

This petition is now crucial to remedy a colossal

failure in human rights. It seeks to assure aggrieved

citizens that a right of access to our highest court is

real and protected distinctively under the First

Amendment and Article III of the Constitution. This

is unquestionably an extraordinary case ripe for a

writ to this Court in aid of its own jurisdiction.

12


22/45

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT

This is a case drawing upon both the supervisory and

adjudicative authority of our nations highest court to

rectify family court processes in the states that shock

the conscience, Rochin v California, 342 US 165

(1953). Through an unchecked expansion ofparens

patriaeauthority over Americas children, local family

judges have been able to abuse equity jurisdiction to

invade every aspect of private life. Such power canexceed that exercised by the NSA, IRS and CIA.

A resulting erosion of fundamental rights ranging

from free speech to gender equality has vastly

increased the number of aggrieved parents seeking

recourse in our federal courts. Petitioner can verify

through his reform activity underway in virtually all

states that unfettered abuses are leading to elevated

atrocities. Due to antiquated deference practices, the

courts charged with the highest duty of safeguarding

federal rights are actually promoting the violations

through inaction. This case is a watershed example.

In Rochin, this court was called upon to review a court

process featuring a prosecution made possible by theforcible removal of bodily content from an accused to

obtain evidence for a drug conviction. Such a process

was deemed to violate the conscience of civilized

societies. It is one of many cases ignored by the courts

below without explanation presumably due to the lack

of physical invasion and criminal processes here. But

a closer look at the voluminous record in the ten year

process applied to petitioner proves otherwise. It is inall functional respects a far greater invasion with long

term physical, family and reputation harm.

13


23/45

The Rochin opinion became precedent for excessive

force claims under 42 USC 1983 following the

landmark decision for civil rights actions which thisCourt handed down in Monroe v Pape, 365 US 167

(1961). That case opened the door to countless victims

of federal law violations who could obtain monetary

relief without physical contact or prosecution, see i.e.

Beechwood Restorative v Leeds, 436 F.3d 147 (2ndCir.

2006). It was enough that a state regulatory agency

was nit-picking and selectively enforcing laws in

retaliation for misconduct complaints for a health carefacility to recover damages under 42 USC 1983.

This case presents a fact pattern far more egregious

than the license revocations and financial losses at

stake in Beechwood. A federal judge of New Yorks

Northern District was one of the panel (by designation

to the Second Circuit), who decided that case. He also

decided the consolidated case here in Parent v New

York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011). Yet not a

single federal, state or appeals court jurist to date has

addressed that case law. By simply ignoring the law,

they were able to frustrate or foreclose all access to

this Court through protracted abuses of process.

Here the misconduct features a full range ofconstitutional violations with seized offspring and

orchestrated civil imprisonment devoid of any crime.

Petitioners due process rights were tortured beyond

recognition due to his public criticisms and exposure

of misconduct in our third branch of government, the

very arena where civil recourse is to be obtained.

In the end, this father was made to pay $75,000 intax-free child support in eighteen months under

penalty of incarceration for the unlawful seizure of his

14


24/45

daughters to the point of homelessness and fugitive

status. Meanwhile the states custodial parent was

not held accountable for expenditures while engagingin misconduct of greater public concern to secure it.

She concealed the relocation of children to the home of

an unfit, childless, millionaire on the family court

record for over eight months. This absurd outcome

alone warrants a substantive due process violation

under this Courts shock the conscience standard.

If the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel andunusual punishment had not been limited by case law

to inmate victims, it would comprise the textual right

clearly violated here, an ordeal that might be depicted

as judicial water boarding. There is certainly enough

to declare this entire process unconstitutional without

invading absolute immunity which these judges have

raised. Like other cases, Supreme Court of Virginia v

Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980) was ignored.

In Cheney v United States District Court, 542 US 367

(2004), a mandamus action was allowed to proceed

based on executive privilege from disclosure ordered

in a civil action brought by Judicial Watch, Inc. and

Sierra Club. It was granted despite expiration of an

appeal deadline under FRAP Rule 4(a). Relying on theAll Writs Act, 28 USC 1651, and Kerr v United States

District Court, 426 US 394 (1976), it was reiterated

that exceptional circumstances amounting to judicial

usurpation of power will justify mandamus relief.

This is such a case. Appellate recourse is unavailing

due to an egregious abuse of decisional authority, fees,

sanctions, fines, multiple final orders and anti-filingorder. The right to relief is clear and indisputable as

will be further proven with the segments that follow.

15


25/45

POINT ONE: The Second Circuit disregarded

the standard and propriety for mandamus reliefin an extraordinary case featuring a civil rights

attorney whose children, home, office, assets,

reputation, licenses, happiness and liberties

were seized due to offensive but accurate

speech regarding family court corruption.

Abuses of the kind exposed by petitioner have turned

our nations divorce and family courts into a trilliondollar industry, hence why unprecedented retaliation

was inflicted. It remains ongoing and could occur to

any parent or conscientious lawyer. To press the need

for supervisory intervention and extraordinary relief,

the following is only a short list of speech retributions

summarized in a 30-page pleading reprinted at Vol. II

of the Appendix and in the stay application below:

Petitioner was subjected to a first time

ethics prosecution on January 9, 2008 after

23 unblemished years as a successful civil

rights attorney. It was opened on the same

day he exposed the serial misconduct of a

divorce lawyer to a court which, unknown to

petitioner, had named this lawyer to theethics committee on that prosecution;

That Committee was disqualified two years

later when the entire Fourth Department

disciplinary/appeals court belatedly ordered

a transfer of petitioners matters to the

Third Department in Albany after a private

conference between presiding justices. Itresulted in a one year license suspension.

16


26/45

Petitioner exposed the misconduct of ethics

prosecutors to a point where he was forced

to publicize their witch hunt as the work ofan unethical ethics committee. The

retributions therefore escalated. He was

vindicated when the chief attorney and

deputy lawyers of this Albany committee

were terminated for falsified time sheets;

These lawyers were allowed to resign with

no public charges, criminal or ethical, everbrought. Such protection contrasted with

treatment of legislators following the

Moreland hearings. U.S. Attorney Preet

Bharara and petitioner testified with the

latter focused on judicial corruption;

These standard bearers of lawyer ethics

were charged with a duty of preventing

overbilling practices that swallow up entire

family estates and college funds. As

representatives of our courts, they violated

the public trust no differently than state

legislators subjected to high prison terms;

The same lawyers targeted petitionerspublic forums where divorce lawyers were

exposed by those giving testimony for

ultimate inclusion in a report to the Justice

Department. Petitioner was required to

explain why he did not introduce himself at

those forums as a suspended attorney prior

to first suspension to discredit his work;

The same lawyers were asked by a presiding

Third Department Justice on May 22, 2013

17


27/45

what reasons remained to deny petitioners

application for reinstatement to the practice

of law. The reply was simple at a hearingclosed to the public: the ethics committee

would oppose it as long as the public

criticisms and complaints continued;

Domestic and disciplinary retributions

inflicted major distractions from law office

oversight which enabled a secretary to

embezzle six figure amounts from officeaccounts. It led to the first suspension in

February, 2010 for back support because

this witch hunt prevented disclosure until

the crimes could be investigated;

Matters purposely left off an office calendar

resulted in a 2015 ethics hearing which

petitioner requested to be opened to the

public. There he defended himself as a crime

victim. A presiding justice responded with

an ethical duty of supervision which was

conceded only to the extent the court had

the same duty over its fired ethics lawyers.

Instead of disbarment, the ethics petition

was confidentially dismissed retroactively.

Petitioners testimony before the Moreland

Commission focused on judge corruption.

Days after its premature dissolution, a

committee report issued on April 8, 2014

opposing the next reinstatement process.

Seven of petitioners 200 blog posts since

2010 were appended without specificity orcharge, thereby ambushing future speech.

18


28/45

One post comprised the entire Moreland

testimony, another depicted a program

referring divorce victims to conciliation,another exposed family judges for fabricated

degrees used to inflate petitioners support

obligations and another comprised a mere

dedication to petitioners departed mother,

adding a sadistic flavor to the retributions;

A protection (gag) order on that site was

vacated on the eve of trial due to a lack ofany threats in its face content after a grossly

overbroad and defamatory prohibition of

assault, stalking, menacing, reckless

endangerment, strangulation, criminal

obstruction of breathing, identity theft,

grand larceny, coercion, or any other

criminal offense nowhere alleged in a

dismissed family court petition;

Petitioner has now been subjected to more

than six years of suspension after multiple

reinstatement denials on an eighteen month

punishment period with no accusation of

any crime. Meanwhile local lawyer Robert

Sossen suffered no loss of license after tax

evasion convictions and jail time on some $2

million in unreported client income;

While career options have been undermined

by support executions that violate a

Supreme Court order by agreement,

marginal income has failed to keep up with

inflated orders due to reputation damage.This has led to incarceration orders on false

19


29/45

pretenses avoided only by chance, third

party rescue or flight to a foreign country.

Civil rights cases are typically won on circumstantial

facts of a violation or crime. Put simply, a guilty party

is not going to admit or overtly evince misconduct. It

is an evidentiary principle especially important when

the violator boasts superior power or sophistication,

see i.e. Beechwood, supra, Phillip v Bowen, 278 F.3d

103 (2ndCir. 2002)(violations reach a critical mass).

The only logical conclusion to be drawn from these

combined facts is that systemic retributions were

devised or ratified behind closed doors, Gibson v

Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973). It resulted in a chaotic

ordeal related to the extent possible in a pleading

which the district judge callously dismissed as

incomprehensible. In reality, he was insulating the

censorship with pre-discovery dismissals while

abusing his own power to discredit the public critic.

POINT TWO: The Court of Appeals committed

fatal error by refusing to take action beyond the

lower court through injunctive relief upon state

proceedings infected by prejudice and bad faithwhich are indisputable on this shocking record.

The loss of livelihood, home, law office, vehicles, boat,

driving privileges, personal liberty, law license,

fiance, unblemished reputation and six figure

savings accumulated over a lifetime was a severe

enough consequence of free speech at the hands of

those charged with the highest duty of safeguardingit. But the seizure of a loving fathers children purely

for the sake of money and ego was a reprehensible act

20


30/45

which exceeded all others. In this case it constituted a

government kidnapping under orchestrated pretenses

which violates the conscience of any civilized society.

Plainly shown in petitioners record, many judges

were forced to step down after prejudicial misconduct

was displayed or uncovered. One of them was a

Syracuse family judge assigned to his custody case.

Petitioner moved for disqualification of Bryan Hedges

based on political espionage disclosed by a chief

family court clerk against a handicapped and sincedeceased family judge competitor. It resulted in the

clerks $600,000 civil rights recovery in federal court

only because a court employee, unlike a litigant, is not

subject to judicial immunity defenses.

Petitioner raised the outcome in Morin v Tormey, 626

F.3d 40 (2ndCir. 2010) for judge removal not only due

to the political retributions on a conscientious court

clerk but because he was opposed to a joint scheme by

the appointed lawyer for his children and the Morin

co-defendant, Judge Hedges to harm his parental

rights in chambers without either parent allowed in

(known as a Lincoln hearing). The motion was

granted over lawyer claims that this judge had a

reputation beyond reproach. Shortly afterward, JudgeHedges was removed from the family bench altogether

upon admitting to sexual misconduct on his

handicapped five year old niece.

Further relevant, Morin co-defendant James Tormey

was the Syracuse Fifth District Administrative Judge

who sent a politically resistant family court clerk to

distant assignments. Such retributions mirroredjudge assignments upon petitioner corroborating the

source of joint retributions by other respondents

21


31/45

named below having offices at that same Syracuse

courthouse. Many assignments were made contrary to

standard practice of retaining judges familiar with acase or out of proper order with adverse outcomes

along political lines. Petitioner had been an endorsed

candidate for state Senate and potential judge

candidate based on a recommendation of a retired

Supreme Court Justice.

One assignment in particular was made to newly

seated Judge Daniel King in Lowville Family Court.This occurred despite a Supreme Court judge in the

parties home county with superior jurisdiction to

decide inter-dependent support and real estate issues

both pending before him at the time. It also occurred

despite a veteran judge who had been deciding

custody issues the same year. Petitioner was forced to

travel north instead for numerous hearings and

retributions to such a degree that he lost contact with

his daughters for two years and continuing.

This assignment was intended to finish off the public

critic. Within weeks of his 2013 Moreland Commission

testimony publicized on its website and major media,

the government seizure of petitioners children was

complete. It forced him to seek recourse in federalcourt only to be victimized further by Judge Gary

Sharpe as detailed elsewhere. Removal of Family

Judge Daniel King was regularly sought in vain

despite relentless misconduct without remedy due to

systemic judicial bias. It is summarized as follows:

1) A competent jurist does not issue or ratify a

PhD and Masters degree for purposes ofmaliciously elevating his public critics child

support for incarceration purposes;

22


32/45

2) A competent jurist does not insulate the

foregoing misconduct from appeal andaccountability by coercing a willful support

violation under threat of imprisonment;

3) A competent jurist does not participate in

the concealment of his critics daughters at a

millionaires home on his own family court

record through delays and rationalization.

4) A competent jurist does not accept the clear

fraud and perjury of his critics opposing parent

who testified under oath at a January, 2016

hearing that her required notice of residential

change was confirmed under electronic address

gmai.com. This would be akin to testimony of

a letter successfully mailed from a trash can

outside the post office.

5) A competent jurist does not issue

defamatory forensic orders for the purpose of

discrediting the public message and character

of his critic without competent support of any

kind, only the perjuries of a scorned litigant

having no timely personal knowledge;

6) A competent jurist does not refuse to correct

his own appalling errors by motion of the court,

he does not retain college degrees as the law of

the case while imposing an arrest warrant and

maximum jail term of six months on a

fraudulently supported debt;

7) A competent jurist does not threaten his

critic with removal from a public courthouse at

23


33/45

the opening of a custody hearing based on five

objections (two that were granted) to narrative

and unrepresented testimony of a perjuring andinfinitely scorned parenting opponent to create

a record that would justify his prior forensic

weapons of suppression.

8) A competent jurist would not violate a stay

order by an Appellate Justice by issuing orders

suspending his critics parenting time ten days

later on Christmas Eve 2013, thereby placingthat critic in a condition of arrest by ambush

due to conflicting orders;

9) A competent jurist would not sign every

requested show cause order by his critics

parenting opponent after every ex-parte

protection order obtained by her was vacated

since 2006 including a trial where the critic was

not even required to put in a defense.

10) A competent jurist does not ignore an

ongoing extortionist scheme in every decision to

date, to wit: the parenting opponents threat to

a loving father to give up his children to a

millionaire replacement for an end to childsupport. Her conduct remains criminal;

11) A competent jurist would not conduct an

evidentiary hearing on a first appearance

without notice, resulting in orders suspending

child contact on such grounds as prohibited

alcohol related gestures when no other unfit

evidence could be offered.

24


34/45

12) A competent jurist would not fabricate

such an overbroad prohibition that could not be

understood, and it was directed to a toast at thewedding of his critics niece. When an appeal

was taken, it was later learned that this

hearing had allegedly not been recorded;

13) A competent jurist does not retain an order

of arrest and confinement of his public critic for

inflated support obligations after proof by the

critics lawyer showed that it was impossible tocomply, to wit: certified funds at full purge

amount, albeit in violation of a 2010 superior

court order, to be paid to an agency without

legal authority to accept it;

14) A competent jurist does not retain forensic

orders in the wake of perjured gmai.com proof

from the only witness supporting those orders

strictly to continue a sadistic campaign of

punishment against his public critic.

15) A competent jurist does not retain forensic

orders on double standards. Judge King

frequents a tavern in Lowville, New York with

his own children while enjoying cocktails that abarmaid has committed to memory. He has

exhibited all sorts of absurd behavior.

16) A competent jurist does not ignore every

plea for simple phone contact by a father to his

daughters over an 833 day period with sadistic

satisfaction while an unfit millionaire

substitute continues to cement a bond whichhas them exhibiting abnormal father hatred.

25


35/45

17) A competent jurist does not issue serial

rulings laced with sadistic disparagements of

his critic to avenge accurate disclosures even inthe wake of former veteran family judge and

current Appellate Division Judge John Centra

who emphasized that the real father had no

record to support suspended child contact when

issuing his 2013 stay order.

Significantly the latter appeals court judge is the

jurist who heard arguments on January 9, 2008 whenthe ethical misconduct of the ex-spouses divorce

lawyer, newly appointed to the ethics committee, was

exposed. This is the same day when the witch hunt

began. Petitioner continues to be denied parenting

rights while two jailed drug addicts whose child was

removed by a state agency have been given custody

orders in the same Family Court.

Judge Centra issued the appellate court order at the

Syracuse courthouse restraining further proceedings

by Judge King based on a hearing process he found to

be structurally flawed. However he later joined four

other judges of an appellate department which had

disqualified itself three years earlier to vacate his own

order after its violation by Judge King.

It is believed that the stay order was entered, in part,

because the witch hunt initiated in 2008 had gotten

out of control and vacated to insulate a lower judge in

contempt of a higher court order. Put simply, it would

be more expedient for judicial reputation if the

consequences of judge misconduct be continued upon

an expendable public critic. A blog post relating thosestructural flaws preceded the latter order by days.

26


36/45

POINT THREE: Petitioners vital message of

reform for abused fathers and non-custodial

mothers was sufficiently offensive to triggersystemic judicial retributions over time that

cannot be remedied absent extraordinary relief.

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, the more

offensive a message becomes, the more likely the

retributions. As a self-governing nation, he explained,

such retributions are to be condemned. Speech

everywhere in America should be robust, Snyder vPhelps, 562 US __ (2011).

The shocking aspect of this case is that petitioners

public message was vital to all constituencies of a free

society. It did not involve an obscure church group

protesting at the funeral of a fallen gay soldier

(Phelps) or a lawyers depiction of Appellate Division

Justices as madams and whores in a magazine

article, speech that was ultimately protected in

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

For this reason, those profiting off the misfortunes of

parents and children had to orchestrate a means for

damaging the credibility and reputation of their

public critic as his message was finding its way intothe media, public convocations, viral social media and

even Congress during a 2012 lobbying initiative.

There is a well established trend in states across

America to eradicate lawyer critics of this trillion

dollar divorce industry, or those most qualified to

publicly comment and elicit meaningful reforms.

Father prejudice in Americas divorce and familycourts remains the last bastion of institutionalized

discrimination remaining unchecked in America

27


37/45

today. The last time this Court granted certiorari on a

father related claim was the case of Turner v Rogers,

564 US ___ (2011) and that was limited to explainingdue process when jailing a dad for child support.

The last time parental liberties were addressed, it

was in Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) but that

case focused on grandparents rights against a

custodial mother. In Michael H. v Gerald D., 491 US

10 (1989) this Court turned down a biological fathers

parenting claims due to a California statute whichpresumed legitimacy of a child born during a lawful

marriage. In Caban v Mohammed, 441 US 380 (1979),

this Court recognized one of the few discrimination

claims ever accorded to a father regarding equal

consent to adoption of his own offspring.

Clearly there is a long overdue pronouncement

required from our nations highest court on this very

timely subject under the Constitution. Fathers still

comprise an oppressed classification even though we

are over 70 million in number across America. Abuse

continues in family courts because advocates such as

petitioner are treated in the horrific manner shown. It

offers up yet another imperative for granting writ.

A natural outcome of the foregoing is lawlessness.

Although examples abound, in petitioners small home

city, a police investigator committed a murder-suicide

upon his ex-spouse after leaving support court which

had him living on $28 per week deductions and asset

executions. Draconian enforcement practices produce

seizures of various licenses leading to homelessness.

Facing such prospects, this law man used a common

kitchen knife to complete his crime, voiding any

28


38/45

deterrent effect of inflammatory protection orders. It

left three children with no parents and city taxpayers

responsible for a $2 million wrongful death pay-out,see Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011).

In his book,A Promise to Ourselves, actor Alec

Baldwin gives a scathing report of his protracted

divorce with Kim Basinger. After a voice message to

his daughter was anonymously made public, Mr.

Baldwin was condemned as an abusive parent.

Largely censored were the alienation tactics whichfueled this exchange. So painful was the aftermath

that Mr. Baldwin admitted to suicidal tendencies at

his New York high rise apartment and during a drive

to the Berkshires. Years later the same daughter was

featured in a second wedding ceremony for her father.

The 2011 case of Thomas Ball is also instructive. An

oppressed father seeking to ignite protest burned

himself alive in front of a family courthouse in Keene,

New Hampshire. There was no mainstream coverage

in contrast to a similar self-immolation in Morocco

which attracted world protest. An unarmed black

father, Walter Scott, was shot dead five times in the

back by a police officer in South Carolina simply

because he was fleeing a child support warrant at atraffic stop.

And so, while our federal government escalates its

military involvement around the globe, soldiers are

returning to empty homes, child alienation and felony

support warrants. Petitioner was able to save the life

of one such victim from suicide at a parenting

convention he sponsored in 2011, but the unsuccessfulinstances are more telling, see i.e.Purple Hearts

Final Beat,Second Class Citizen.Org (2009). Virtually

29


39/45

all responders on 9-11 were men entitled to equal

treatment in these courts. Yet a vast number became

eternally separated without any reform.

Petitioner addressed national media at the Walter

Scott funeral in April, 2015. Only after murder

charges were lodged against the traffic cop was it

publicized with petitioners input in the New York

Times that one of eight persons incarcerated in South

Carolinas prison system were fathers for back

support debts. The lawlessness is escalating as wecontinue to boast the most imprisoned population in

the free world. Case law is legion on the rule that

retaliation for the act of filing a complaint is unlawful

under the First Amendment regardless of its merit.

Yet here the revenge was unprecedented.

That is because petitioner was challenginga highly

protected industry orchestrated under Title IV-D of

the Social Security Act, 42 USC section 651 et. seq.

States are rewarded by the number and size of child

support orders manufactured by their courts.

Superior and inferior custody classifications are

essential to these money transfers and mandated by

federal statute even when parents with near equal

incomes and childrearing periods set up contraryagreements, Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998).

Accordingly support judges have been rendered

inherently biased against all those classified under

the inferior non-custodial label with or without

justification. Such classifications are arbitrary,

stigmatizing and institutional in countless cases,

requiring otherwise cooperative parents to competeover their children. Their infringement of a

fundamental right to parent ones offspring is easily

30


40/45

replaced by childrearing plans and orders which

retain more family oriented labels such as mother,

father and parent, see i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at fn. 1(veteran

family judge declaring custody and visitation to be

offensive terms in an antiquated system bringing out

the worst in parents when children need their best).3

However such less intrusive custody substitutes are

foreclosed by the blanket classifications and

marginalized by overburdened courts committed tothe funding scheme. Over time, such injustices have

reached constitutional dimension while ever elusive,

utopian and overbroad child rearing standards

displace parental discretion without compelling state

interest contrary to a right declared by the Supreme

Court to be the oldest liberty interest protected by

our Constitution, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57

(2000)(prolonged custody case can itself violate

parental rights), Parham v JR, 442 US 548 (1979)(fit

parents presumed to act in childrens best interests).

A full range of constitutional rights is easily trampled

under principles of equity, or the power seized by

family judges to father our children, Finlay v Finlay,

3 Petitioners revenue-bias conclusion was deemed frivolous by the

district court. However it is supported by our nations top civil rights

experts at the Justice Department. They issued a report on March 4, 2015

after the Ferguson, Missouri race riots concluding that the regions

municipal courts were committing civil rights violations through concocted

arrests and excessive fines as part of a revenue generating scheme. There is

nothing to distinguish that conclusion from petitioners long asserted

claims here regarding family courts which incite needless controversy to

exact excessive support orders and attorneys fees. Unequal custody

classifications are the workhorse behind all this with rampant prejudiceagainst male parents which can no longer be denied or tolerated. The

Census Bureau and private entities continue to report that nearly 85% of all

support obligors are men.

31


41/45

240 NY 429 (1925)(paternal jurisdiction derived

from feudal common law). In plain terms, the

Constitution is being ignored because the custodyscheme is lucrative for those who depend upon family

controversy for their livelihood. It is being facilitated

by judges charged with the highest duty of

safeguarding such rights, Federalist Paper No. 78;

Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).

In his highly researched study, Is There Really a

Fatherhood Crisis, Professor Stephen Baskervilleplaces the blame on government: What many are led

to believe is a social problem may in reality be an

exercise of power by the state, Independence Review,

vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, at pp 485-486.

Unsuspecting litigants are also exploited by an

expanding bureaucracy under Title IV-D to finance

welfare costs created by unrelated and irresponsible

parents. The ones properly devoted to their children

therefore shoulder an unjust burden merely because

they reside separately from their partners. These

support judges engage in highly abused fictions such

as imputed income to raise obligations beyond

realistic capacities. There is no express provision for

shared parenting under the federal entitlementstatute, and the regulatory scheme has replaced the

childs needs with way of life standards to elevate

support even further.

This petition consequently seeks relief which is

central to any self-governing society, namely, the

right to seek reforms to this overregulated and

oppressive system of child control. In that vein, itmatters not whether the decision makers here agree

with the foregoing legal posture concerning a federal

32


42/45

statute. It matters only that the petitioner is accorded

his inalienable human right to express views and

raise his offspring free of the severe retributions hesustained for criticizing our third branch of

government, Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964).

A writ is therefore proper under this Courts cited

authority. Mandamus is not to be used as a substitute

for appeal, but as the Second Circuit noted in Von

Bulow, 828 F.2d 97, the touchstones of review by

mandamus are usurpation of power, clear abuse ofdiscretion and the presence of an issue of first

impression, (emphasis added), citing American

Express v Transamerica Insurance, 380 F.2d 277, 283

(2ndCir. 1967). All three conditions are present here

and much more in the way of jurisdictional

infringements, In re Roman Catholic Diocese of

Albany, 745 F.3d 30 (2ndCir. 2014).

As this Court reiterated in both procedural and

substantive contexts:

By requiring the government to follow

appropriate procedures when its agents decide

to deprive any person of life, liberty or

property, the Due Process Clause promotesfairness in such decisions. And by barring

certain government actions regardless of the

fairness of the procedures used to implement

them, e.g. Rochin (v California, 342 US 165), it

serves to prevent governmental power from

being used for purposes of oppression, Daniels

v Williams, 474 US 327, 331 1986).

In this case the oppression came from the judicial

branch. There is little to distinguish petitioner from

33


43/45

Chinese civil rights lawyer, Chen Guangcheng. He

avoided personal demise by securing asylum in

America for human rights violations through ourformer secretary of state.

When Judge Gary Sharpe was assigned petitioners

civil rights case, a motion was filed after it became

clear that his fairness was seriously doubt. The basis

for removal was sound. Petitioner asserted that

family genetics underlying forensic family court

orders abused against petitioner requireddisqualification in light of the Cossey debacle.

Taken from the unanimous appeals court reversal

which also removed him from the case, the following

is very alarming from a competency standpoint:

One reason (Judge Sharpe) offered (for his six

year sentence) was that (he) did not have a lot

of faith in that (psychiatric and psychologist)

profession in the first place The court

continued, informing Cossey it needed to share

a view thats a little different than what youre

hearing from your psychiatrists and thats

because Im not sure theres any answer for

what I see here beyond what Im about to tellya. The court predicted that some fifty years

from now Cosseys offense conduct would likely

be discovered to be caused by a gene you were

born with. And its not a gene you can get rid

of. The court expressed its belief that although

Cossey was in therapy, it can only lead, in my

view, to a sincere effort to control, but you cant

get rid of it. You are what youre born with. Andthats the only explanation for what I see here.

34


44/45

Such predisposition can never be erased or corrected.

No amount of judge therapy can convince a father

litigant challenging what he was born with toovercome status discrimination at the core of his

claims against Family Judge Daniel King and others.

Yet in his later decision, Judge Sharpe denied

petitioners motion for disqualification labeling it a

Hail Mary pass as if this was some sort of ball game.

In it, and in every federal and state decision to date,

precedent crucial to the petitioners case was nevermentioned to contrive an illegal outcome.

Put another way, Judge Sharpe placed himself above

the law, refusing to honor Congress and higher courts

as he treated other professions. Like his decision in

Cossey, he may have felt that legislators and Supreme

Court Justices were similarly all over the board,

United States v Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2ndCir. 2011).

In lay terms, Judge Sharpe decided petitioners claims

like an impaired motorist dodging obnoxious traffic

devices until he crashed with no regard for the

innocent people harmed along the way. A look at

those devices in the form of applicable cases, some of

which have already been addressed, will show why heblew through them for the ulterior purpose of

discrediting petitioner and his vital reform message.

In relevant aspects this case will constitute the

substantive and civil counterpart of this Courts

ruling in Williams v Pennsylvania, 579 US__2016;

handed down five days ago.

35


45/45

CONCLUSION

By reason of the foregoing, petitioner, Leon R. Koziol,

respectfully asks this Honorable Court to grant his

petition for writ of certiorari with exigent relief by

mandamus and such other relief as may be just.

June 14, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Documents

Petition to United States Supreme Court