Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Complaint
Citation preview
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
************************************************
LEON R. KOZIOL, individually and as natural
parent of Child A and Child B
Plaintiff,
-against- COMPLAINT
Case No.
DANIEL KING, individually and as New York
Family Court Judge; JAMES GORMAN, individually
and as Family Court Magistrate; JAMES TORMEY,
individually and as Administrator for the Fifth District; Jury Trial ROBERT ROSE, JOHN LAHTINEN, EDWARD SPAIN and Demand
LESLIE STEIN, individually and as members of the New York
Appellate Division, Third Department; MONICA DUFFY,
individually and as Chairwoman/Counsel for the New York
Committee on Professional Standards; STEVEN ZAYAS, as
an individual and investigator for said Committee; NICOLE
CHRISTENSEN, individually and as supervisor for the
Oneida County Support Collection Unit; JOHN CENTRA,
individually and as member of the New York Appellate
Division; KELLY HAWSE-KOZIOL, individually and as
Custodial Parent for the state; WILLIAM KOSLOSKY,
individually and as state “Attorney for the Child”
Defendants.
************************************************
Plaintiff, as and for a Complaint against the above-named defendants, sets
forth the following:
Preliminary Statement
(1) The State of New York maintains an oppressive scheme of childrearing laws
in its domestic relations courts which severely impairs the liberty and equality
interests of fit parents under the American Constitution and human rights doctrine.
(2) Superior and inferior custody classifications are mandated as preconditions
for legal separation, divorce and judicial relief, creating a structural imbalance
2
among litigants to justify money transfers. Arbitrary support formulas lock parents
in an antagonistic state of childrearing which impairs finality and family stability.
(3) These unequal classifications, common among states, derive from antiquated
dogma which holds that a child’s upbringing is best served by maternal nurturing
and father servitude. Draconian enforcement measures are fashioned upon relative
financial positions and lifestyle speculations rather than the true needs of children.
(4) Inordinate fees are thereby cultivated with artificial disputes and needless
regulation further harming resources and cooperation between parents separated
by residence. The blanket classifications are routinely imposed without justification.
(5) Progressively invasive and chaotic processes consequently emerge driven by
incentive funded arbiters, evaluators and case workers, among others, substituting
their judgments for the parents based on elusive, utopian or phantom standards.
Standing
(6) As a parental advocate and civil rights attorney seeking to reform this child
rearing system, plaintiff testified before the New York (Moreland) Commission on
Public Corruption regarding misconduct in the third branch of state government.
(7) The September 17, 2013 testimony targeted New York’s Judicial Conduct
Commission for its failure to investigate numerous complaints involving serious
violations of ethics. Four of eleven members are appointed by the Governor.
(8) The Moreland Commission was prematurely disbanded in March, 2014. One
month later, a licensing committee in Albany issued a confidential report opposing
plaintiff’s reinstatement as an attorney citing, inter alia, the Moreland testimony.
3
(9) This case originates with plaintiff’s private, uncontested divorce in 2006,
transformed into an eight year spectacle by state officials exploiting natural bonds
between a father and his daughters to censor valid criticisms and judicial reform.
(10) On January 11, 2007, June 12 and October 7, 2008, a state Supreme Court
Judge foreclosed plaintiff’s constitutional challenges to this lucrative, oppositional
custody scheme contrary to law, referring them to other forums for a remedy.
(11) Accordingly, plaintiff embarked upon an effort to reform the laws and
processes summarized at paragraphs 1-5. It required organization of victim parents,
fund-raising and collaboration with public interest groups across the country.
(12) Over the next seven years, plaintiff appeared in news programs, internet
forums and rallies in Albany, New York City and Washington D.C., among other
venues, lobbying for change while securing participants for a class action lawsuit.
(13) During these activities, plaintiff uncovered widespread corruption, serious
injustices and parental suicides attributable to this trillion dollar industry causing
exponential harm to children, families, education and productivity as a nation.
(14) With each public statement or complaint made in connection with plaintiff’s
protected activity, there arose a proximate act of retaliation in domestic and
disciplinary processes orchestrated in violation of civil rights and judicial ethics.
(15) Prior to these good government efforts, plaintiff held a highly successful and
unblemished 50 year record. He remains a committed parent and citizen, including
former service to a city council and school board. The retributions here have harmed
our “oldest liberty interest” and self-governing principles under the Constitution.
4
Jurisdiction
(16) This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 1985 and the
First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Jurisdiction exists by virtue of 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1367(a), 2201
and 2202. Injunctive relief is proper to safeguard non-judicial protected activities.
(17) The State of New York has abused powers under a parens patriae fiction to
erode rights retained by the people to raise children. Special tribunals have been
erected under color of law to act as super-parents, operating contrary to judicial
character and in disregard of supreme laws on the pretext of protecting the child.
Parties
(18) Plaintiff, Leon R. Koziol, is a father of two and upstanding citizen residing
in New Hartford, New York. Between 1986 and 2010, he maintained a successful
law practice. As relevant here, he was not a member of any bar association.
(19) Defendant, Daniel King, is a resident of Lewis County, New York where he
assumed the position of Family Court Judge in January, 2013. Six months later, he
became the 30th trial level judge assigned to plaintiff’s child rearing matters.
(20) Defendant, James Gorman, is a resident of Onondaga County, New York
where he was appointed support magistrate. In August, 2012, he became one of
thirty (30) trial level judges assigned to plaintiff’s child rearing matters.
(21) Defendant, James Tormey, is a resident of New York appointed to an
administrative role over the state’s Fifth Judicial District including security and
personnel assignments at the Onondaga County Courthouse in Syracuse.
5
(22) Defendants, Robert Rose, John Lahtinen, Edward Spain and Leslie Stein
are residents of New York and members of the state Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, Third Department with a principal place of operation in the city of Albany.
(23) Defendant, Monica Duffy, is the former chairperson and current chief
counsel of the Committee on Professional Standards in Albany, New York appointed
by the Third Department court to set policy and discipline for lawyers assigned to it.
(24) Defendant, Steven Zayas, is former counsel for the Third Department ethics
committee acting in special capacity as investigator over matters involving plaintiff.
He was discharged for ethical misconduct in 2013 regarding falsified time sheets.
(25) Defendant, Nicole Christensen, is a supervisor for the Oneida County
Support Collection Unit with a principal place of business located in Utica, New
York and special assignment over income and asset executions involving plaintiff.
(26) Defendant, John Centra, is a resident of New York and member of the state
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, with a principal place of
business located in Rochester and the Onondaga County Courthouse in Syracuse.
(27) Defendant, Kelly Hawse-Koziol, is the birth mother of Child “A” and Child
“B” with a residence in New Hartford, New York who was accorded presumptive
authority as “Custodial Parent” under the laws of the State of New York.
(28) Defendant, William Koslosky, is a divorce and Family Court lawyer in
Utica, New York repeatedly appointed “Attorney for the Child” over plaintiff’s
children despite ethical conflicts in order to suppress protected activity in a manner
which harmed the long term interests of his “clients” (Child “A” and Child “B”).
6
Procedural and Fact Summary
(29) On December 23, 2013, defendant Judge Daniel King violated a higher
court stay order, re-wrote an eight-year record, adopted serious misconduct of state
actors and participated in the fabrication of evidence to elicit a seizure of plaintiff’s
children in response to public criticisms, reform efforts and petitions in this Court.
(30) In so doing, this defendant exceeded his function and limited jurisdiction as
a Family Court judge. An accurate record supports the relief sought by this action.
(31) Plaintiff and defendant Hawse-Koziol were married on May 19, 2001. Two
children, A and B, were born of this marriage in 2002 and 2003. On July 14, 2004,
an agreement was signed to improve childrearing. One month later, Hawse-Koziol
established a nearby home in the same school district with plaintiff’s assistance.
(32) On January 5, 2006, the plaintiff filed for a consensual divorce under then-
existing laws which required successful completion of a one year separation period.
(33) On March 1, 2006, Hawse-Koziol employed a lawyer to maintain the highest
possible payments under an arbitrary statutory (support) formula. Weeks later, a
preliminary order was entered based on the unequal classifications challenged here.
(34) Until his discharge in 2012, this divorce lawyer, Keith Eisenhut, committed
numerous acts of malpractice and ethical misconduct purely to advance his fee
objectives while harming the long term interests of plaintiff’s children, to wit:
(a) repeat violations of disclosure prohibitions resulting in protection
orders issued against Eisenhut, his client and entire law office;
(b) filing of papers concededly in “the wrong court” resulting in dismissal
of his client’s case and costly renewal one year later;
7
(c) drafting of a divorce decree, corrected by plaintiff, which had his own
client guilty of cruel and inhumane treatment contrary to agreement;
(d) maliciously delayed and contrived support bills which collapsed
his client’s 2006 settlement, causing additional needless conflict;
(e) costly proceedings in 2012 adverse to his client which could have
been avoided altogether with competent review of the case record;
(35) On October 25, 2006, defendant Hawse-Koziol issued an ultimatum which
called for a surrender of parenting rights in exchange for an end to child support so
that a wealthy, childless substitute could father plaintiff’s daughters.
(36) Steadfast opposition to this ultimatum moved defendant to abuse joint
custody rights by orchestrating a series of career damaging petitions originating
with a fraudulent, ex parte order of Onondaga Family Court Judge Bryan Hedges.
(37) Over the next seven years, resulting controversies came before numerous
trial level judges who refused to remedy the ultimatum. A divorce was entered on
September 17, 2007 despite escalating issues bifurcated between supreme and
family courts, producing lucrative, excessive and conflicting cases in diverse forums.
(38) On January 3, 2008, plaintiff filed for a stay of overlapping proceedings
before appeals court Judge John Centra at the Onondaga Courthouse in Syracuse.
The filing included matter found at paragraphs 1-5, 17 and 31-37 of this Complaint.
(39) On January 11, 2008, Judge Centra heard arguments regarding plaintiff’s
application. Under the Judicial Code of Ethics, he was duty-bound to take action
regarding Eisenhut’s substantial, undisputed ethics violations summarized above.
(40) Instead, on the same day, an ethics prosecution was commenced against
plaintiff after more than two decades of unblemished practice. On information and
8
belief, it was directed by defendant Judge Centra as member of an appeals and
disciplinary court using means outside of established channels and judicial scope.
(41) Unknown at the time, Eisenhut had been appointed by Centra’s (Fourth
Department) court to be an ethics representative on its Fifth District committee in
Syracuse which was now charged with the prosecution of plaintiff. Defendant
Centra was offended by plaintiff’s criticisms due to his prior career in Family Court.
(42) The prosecution directed against plaintiff was not designed to further any
legitimate ethics objective but to make an example of plaintiff by suppressing his
accurate criticisms of Family Court and discouraging long overdue reform.
(43) The conduct of this prosecution further corroborated the illicit goal. A
January 11, 2008 notice to plaintiff combined wide-ranging matter unearthed by the
Fifth District committee to concoct and expedite any stigmatizing ethics charge.
(44) The notice recklessly cited stale, uninvestigated or withdrawn complaints
with conceded fabrications in committee files. The resulting prosecution included:
(a) knowingly false or seriously misleading statements by ethics lawyers to
committee members and Fourth Department Justices in violation of ethics;
(b) misconduct determinations on a grievance lodged and relayed to plaintiff
for the first time only one month earlier, contrary to standard practice of
affording the accused (attorney) an opportunity for fair response;
(c) a voluminous report haphazardly assembled by a committee lawyer
alleging excessive violations of vague and irreconcilable code provisions in
order to coerce confessions regarding first time disciplinary charges;
(d) adverse recommendations which failed to account for basic facts over a
period of years that showed the father-attorney’s proper adherence to ethics
as vindicated by later events and self-dismissals on the same complaints;
9
(e) three alleged discrepancies concocted through dishonest means from
grievance replies that were years apart, based on supplemental discoveries
and subjected to standards which could ambush any targeted lawyer.
(45) Plaintiff thereafter received unsolicited e-mails and information from
diverse sources showing concerted action on the part of security and judicial officers
in the Fifth District to exact retributions for plaintiff’s public criticisms.
(46) One targeted mode of criticism involved an internet practice of tagging the
names of judicial office holders with critical reviews, formal complaints and other
disclosures which could apprise parents of misconduct or biased decision making.
(47) Such mode of publication comprised a vital exercise of free press insofar as
mainstream media had long restrained itself from reporting family matters, thereby
insulating domestic relations courts from public or independent accountability.
(48) In June, 2008, plaintiff filed an action in state court on behalf of a public
interest group challenging the laws described at paragraphs 1-5. It was later
abandoned due to the escalating retributions described throughout this complaint.
(49) During the same period, state court judges were refusing to hear plaintiff’s
personal applications for relief in diverse contexts including shared parenting rights
under prior agreement calling for a phase-out of child support obligations.
(50) Select disregard of plaintiff’s petitions foreclosed appellate/federal recourse
while preserving a highly abused practice of issuing pretrial orders on false claims.
In support matters, impartiality was undermined by court policies tied to federal
funding formulas that reward states on the number and size of awards issued.
10
(51) By the time a custody trial was commenced in July, 2009, years after it was
first requested, plaintiff’s status as a non-custodial visitor in his children’s lives was
cast by these orders. Protracted litigation was then conformed to justify them.
(52) Influenced by politics and outside directives, Onondaga Judge Walsh-Hood
ordered a trial upon a first appearance without opportunity to define issues for
resolution. Coupled with a gross lack of case familiarity, it caused needless conflict.
(53) Record corrections by plaintiff then moved this judge to retaliate with
obstacles to self representation, orders prohibiting use of a pen as a weapon of
intimidation, notes seized from the stand to foreclose testimony covering years of
events, and disregard for the fundamental nature of father-daughter relationships.
(54) This judge also exploited male traits and stereotypes to cast an impression
of parental inferiority while excluding plaintiff’s photos, documents and testimony
showing the opposite as part of her orchestrated record for cancelling joint custody.
(55) After a four day period of abuse, including un-remedied fear antics
exhibited by defendant Hawse-Koziol in and around the court, plaintiff received
permission to exit the witness stand and court room to avoid contempt by ambush.
(56) The same judge responded in plaintiff’s absence by treating all evidence in
favor of the adversaries with orders terminating child access for ten months until
another trial resulted in removal of such orders for lack of evidence on May 3, 2010.
(57) Meanwhile, Judge Michael Daley, since returned to private practice, seized
control over plaintiff’s support matters contrary to chain of assignment, without
jurisdictional order, and despite prior disqualifications for personal or political bias.
11
(58) Plaintiff timely filed a motion for recusal which Judge Daley committed on
the record to be heard prior to decision. Instead, he entered a willful violation order
devoid of any hearing to cause automatic suspension of plaintiff’s law license.
(59) The suspension was published by (Centra’s) Fourth Department court to the
media days after plaintiff’s January 19, 2010 forum which vetted Family Court
complaints. A 2009 motion for disqualification was not granted until April 28, 2010.
(60) Plaintiff’s private family matters were thereby turned into a public spectacle
without prior notice and sent to the Third Department. On September 23, 2010,
that court issued another suspension based on the Fourth Department prosecution.
(61) Three paper discrepancies at par. 44(e) were exploited under vague codes to
transform a confidential admonition to formal charges, resulting in punishment of
an innocent man confirmed on the face of a record adjudicated without jury rights.
(62) One 2003 grievance in federal court was never pursued but taken up by the
Syracuse state committee five years later featuring a client who predictably caused
himself and replacement attorneys to be brought up on federal contempt charges.
(63) Meanwhile, attorneys with jury rights charged with felonies and thefts of
client money incurred no suspensions. Steven J. Lever, convicted of child predator
crimes was referred by a disciplinary referee for a six month (modified) suspension.
(64) Ethical misconduct by ethics lawyers engaged in the prosecution of plaintiff
was confirmed in defense papers and publicly described as an “unethical ethics
committee” thereby causing aggravated retributions in the Third Department.
12
(65) On May 22, 2013, lawyers with the Committee on Professional Standards
conceded before their employers, the Third Department disciplinary/appeals court,
that they had been targeting plaintiff’s court challenges and public criticisms.
(66) The court failed to disqualify itself or hear First Amendment claims on the
unanticipated concessions. Instead, it denied attorney reinstatement and imposed a
third license suspension on June 6, 2013 without note of constitutional issues.
(67) The cause of this latest punishment was limited to plaintiff as the victim of
mail tampering crimes committed by an ex- secretary seeking employment with the
divorce lawyer cited at paragraphs 33-39. Three years after discharge, she was
committed to jail on $10,000 bail for practicing law without a license or education.
(68) The court arbitrarily treated these conceded facts as a concession of guilt by
plaintiff as office supervisor contrary to the record, firing the ethics lawyers who
brought the charges weeks later due to misconduct relating to falsified time sheets.
(69) The same lawyers had abused taxpayer money to violate plaintiff’s civil
rights, yet neither they nor their supervisors, including defendant Monica Duffy,
were ever held publicly accountable for ethics violations in contrast with plaintiff.
(70) Regular disqualifications of the Fourth Department from plaintiff’s Family
Court appeals caused all legal matters to be merged and passed through the Third
Department and its policy committee engaged in the targeting of protected activity.
(71) Such appeals included defendant child attorney, William Koslosky, who
submitted sworn statements claiming that plaintiff had sought reinstatement of his
law license in Onondaga Family Court in a scam to fabricate lawyer incompetence.
13
(72) The sworn statements were countered by an actual record showing the
factual absence of any such event together with collusion on the part of the lower
judge. No action was taken by either Department regarding the misconduct of both.
(73) Substantive and grammatical defects contained within a recklessly drafted
“Decision After Trial” by Judge Walsh-Hood led to conflicting orders and aggravated
disputes between the parents, thereby necessitating a new round of proceedings.
(74) These were assigned to Onondaga Family Court Judge Pirro-Bailey. Upon
acclimating her to the controversial history of the case, plaintiff was heard on
March 15, 2011 concerning his motion challenging the ongoing classifications.
(75) Unlike prior processes, notice to the state Attorney General was directed by
a court of limited jurisdiction, but hearings were again colored by fears of such
things as plaintiff’s pen, prompting the judge to order Hawse-Koziol to face the wall.
(76) Decision was reserved, but in the meantime, Hawse-Koziol and Koslosky
lodged false claims to the effect that plaintiff had arranged a kidnapping plot in Rio
de Janeiro based on ex-secretary fabrications and a text message ridiculing it.
(77) Plaintiff had never been to Rio, yet despite the conceded fiction, this judge
ordered an evidentiary hearing strictly to humiliate plaintiff for his public activity
while generating taxpayer fees for defendant Koslosky in the retributive process.
(78) On May 3, 2011, the same judge addressed a further petition to seize
plaintiff’s long set parenting time for an upcoming weekend which included a
religious ceremony for Child “B”. Plaintiff valued this event after his exclusion from
an identical ceremony for Child “A” due to the false charges dismissed in 2010.
14
(79) Prior to hearing plaintiff’s position, Judge Pirro-Bailey granted defendant’s
petition. Plaintiff then contested the one-sided decision citing timely filed opposition
papers, but Pirro-Bailey noted a judge conference which prevented their review.
(80) Accordingly plaintiff was compelled to exit proceedings as a non-entity with
a further goal of avoiding contempt by ambush. In his absence, Judge Pirro-Bailey
retaliated with an order for costly forensic evaluations of the parents and children.
(81) Upon being deprived again of his daughters’ religious celebrations and
learning of the further orders, plaintiff moved for judge disqualification on June 10,
2011. This was granted but not before all of plaintiff’s crucial petitions were denied.
(82) Defendant Hawse-Koziol followed with motions for contempt alleging
plaintiff’s failure to comply with Pirro-Bailey’s tainted forensic orders. These were
assigned by defendant Tormey to Onondaga Family Court Judge Bryan Hedges.
(83) Plaintiff responded with written and oral motions for disqualification after
yet another one-sided round of arguments. Grounds included contemporaneous
litigation by a successful court clerk against Judge Hedges and defendant Tormey
for “political espionage” practiced within the Onondaga County Courthouse.
(84) Objection was also raised to any “Lincoln hearing” between the judge and
plaintiff’s infant girls without the parents present on grounds which included
further child alienation from the father through joint action of multiple defendants.
(85) Participating lawyers defended Judge Hedges as a man beyond reproach.
Plaintiff’s motion was nevertheless granted on the “appearance of impropriety.”
15
Months later, the same judge was cited for sexual misconduct upon his handicapped
5-year old niece and removed altogether from the Family Court bench in 2013.
(86) Proceedings were then transferred to Onondaga Family Court Judge
Michael Hanuszczak who vacated the forensic orders imposed by Judge Pirro-Bailey
on express grounds that a review of the full record demonstrated no basis for them.
(87) Another custody trial was held in December, 2011 after shortcomings were
cited in the one conducted by Judge Walsh-Hood in 2009. Plaintiff’s ex-secretary
was a surprise witness for defendant Hawse-Koziol but her testimony was stricken.
(88) On January 25, 2012, Judge Hanuszczak issued a custody order which
doubled plaintiff’s parenting time set by Walsh-Hood. Coupled with another judge’s
support order, it returned the parents to pre-litigation periods and money transfers.
(89) Dissatisfied with the costly outcome, Hawse-Koziol reverted to false charges
as a means for by-passing father termination processes and abusing support orders
as a further means for coercing surrender to her wealthy, childless substitute.
(90) This longstanding agenda was formally ignored or otherwise advanced by
defendants. For example, plaintiff was denied written order of Judge Walsh-Hood
dismissing the offense petitions and restraint orders in 2010, thereby foreclosing its
later use in the record. Mandamus relief was then denied by the Appellate Division.
(91) Emboldened by the lack of accountability for her false petitions, defendant
Hawse-Koziol continued a worn-out practice of feigning fears of plaintiff in court
contrary to unsolicited contacts she initiated in outside locations without incident.
16
(92) By way of example, during enforcement hearings before Onondaga Support
Magistrate Davies in 2011, Hawse-Koziol was favored with a public practice of
according her special security escort to her vehicle beyond sight of the courthouse.
(93) While this was occurring, a violent incident erupted within the same
courthouse involving a Family Court participant in handcuffs. Plaintiff was forced
to seek corrective action for public safety reasons with security chief James Tormey.
(94) Continuing court preoccupations and injury to plaintiff’s livelihood caused
support delinquencies which were then exploited to seek incarceration. This was
countered with searches for alternate employment which defendants also impaired.
(95) For example, plaintiff secured a position projected to satisfy accumulating
support arrears in July, 2012. Due to Eisenhut’s failed litigation, Hawse-Koziol
refused cooperation or restraint, forcing plaintiff to file for downward adjustment.
(96) One month later, plaintiff’s case was assigned to defendant Onondaga
Support Magistrate, James Gorman, who issued a later conceded unlawful order
with minor temporary relief that failed to advance plaintiff’s long term goals.
(97) During a first appearance, defendant Gorman asked plaintiff to identify his
new employment but not its nature. Plaintiff had joined an attorney placement firm
as an independent consultant. Hence it could not comply with a support intercept
triggered by Gorman’s inquiry applicable to employers issuing regular income.
(98) By virtue of her custodial classification, Hawse-Koziol was able to jointly
impair driving and employment liberties with defendant Nicole Christensen. They
17
did so pursuant to an unlawful intercept to enforce private debts as opposed to
public assistance recoupment with judgments assigned to the state tax department.
(99) On October 19, 2010, shortly after an offensive newspaper story and Third
Department suspension, a “child support” sting operation was executed at plaintiff’s
home featuring police cars, flatbeds and tax agents with a design to incite an arrest.
(100) In light of such excesses, the 2012 intercept forced contract terminations to
avoid “employer” fines, contempt threats or costly litigation after Hawse-Koziol,
Christensen and other state actors failed to recall the unlawful support intercept.
(101) Such impairments were further aggravated by Gorman’s appointment of
defendant William Koslosky to represent plaintiff’s children for the first time in a
support proceeding between these parents despite a history of joint misconduct.
(102) Weeks later, defendant Gorman countermanded his own October, 2012
appointment by removing Koslosky on grounds that his presence would be counter-
productive. A hearing was then completed with a year-end commitment for decision.
(103) On April 23, 2013, plaintiff published a 25-page complaint on his website to
the Judicial Conduct Commission regarding the inordinate delays and employment
injury caused by Magistrate Gorman and other judges at the Onondaga Courthouse.
(104) Ten days later, defendant Gorman issued a four month late decision which
reversed his unlawful order, imposed lawyer fees contrary to record commitments,
imputed income based on a fabricated PhD, and hiked support obligations to
unmanageable levels. Misconduct complaints before defendant Tormey and Walsh-
hood were passed around at the Onondaga courthouse and referred back for appeal.
18
(105) The Gorman decision was laced with employment stigmatizing matter in
contrast with prior rulings. For example, despite removal of Koslosky prior to the
hearing of November, 2012, he was gratuitously rehabilitated in the later decision.
(106) Continuing abuse led to additional complaints before the Judicial Conduct
Commission, all to no avail. Objections filed with defendant Daniel King only
produced more fabrications, a Masters Degree, in defense of Gorman’s misconduct.
(107) More than one hundred (100) orders and rulings over an eight year period
implicating substantial rights were insulated from review by non-service, impaired
records, institutional retributions, prohibitive costs and/or comprehensive futility.
(108) Ongoing replacement agendas and jealousies over plaintiff’s fiancée led to
yet another round of specious petitions in July, 2013 by Hawse-Koziol acting jointly
with Koslosky. These were assigned to Judge Daniel King in Lewis County.
(109) This round targeted plaintiff’s first upcoming two-week vacation with his
children which was opposed incessantly. Fatefully it facilitated unimpaired family
participation in the funeral of the paternal grandmother whom the children adored.
(110) An ex parte order was issued by defendant King based upon the lone “shock
value” accusations of a scorned ex-spouse exploiting an innocuous event at a lake
resort with coerced hearsay from unsuspecting children and no personal knowledge.
(111) Despite Hawse-Koziol’s history of false claims, i.e. paragraph 56, and futile
petitions for recourse, Judge King added to geographic (Rio) limits while duplicating
penal laws to further stigmatize plaintiff. The latest controls included a prohibition
on lawful alcohol use without cause or trial, hence plaintiff sought their removal.
19
(112) Judge King refused to hear plaintiff or vacate an order imposed only days
earlier on a pretext of protecting children. Plaintiff replied that he had protected his
own children without incident, neglect or showing of unfitness since their birth.
(113) Judge King reacted with a spite further inflamed by Hawse-Koziol’s later
note of plaintiff’s website criticizing his decision at paragraph 106. Plaintiff publicly
asked Family Court to confer no more fictional degrees given a lack of recourse.
(114) Such criticisms were tagged as referenced at paragraph 46 and presented
in testimony before the New York Public Corruption Commission on September 17,
2013 causing them to reach top levels on a Google search of Judge King’s name.
(115) Similar impacts on Koslosky and Hawse-Koziol produced joint fabrications
from plaintiff’s website to suppress protected activity. Defendant King knowingly
adopted this agenda in bad faith orders which voided plaintiff’s capacity as a father.
(116) These orders arose from preposterous claims, such as “Retaliation Ahead”
(par. 113) to mean a threat. A self-described educated teacher, Hawse-Koziol lodged
incoherent petitions reprinted in King’s decisions with numerous (sic) notations.
(117) Earlier abuses forced plaintiff to end all personal and verbal contact with
this defendant, making it therefore impossible for her to know or impair plaintiff’s
separate parenting environment and otherwise provide credible complaints.
(118) Hawse-Koziol nevertheless resorted to isolated text messages which she
purposefully twisted into imaginary events to perpetuate abuses. It forced plaintiff
to file for an order assuring child participation as flower girls at a niece’s wedding
during his own parenting weekend set by Judge Hanuszczak on January 25, 2012.
20
(119) The filing was simply intended to secure early departure on November 15,
2013 for a Friday rehearsal in Albany and to forestall defendant’s practice of seizing
entire targeted weekends through inconsistent child exchange times and locations.
(120) Instead of enforcing the basic request, Judge King imposed more conditions
which could have been avoided by late arrival. These included separate lodging for
children and fiancée, removal from the vicinity of persons under influence of alcohol
at a wedding, and parents transporting simultaneously to a church 90 miles away.
(121) The weekend events occurred happily and without incident, however, on
November 25, 2013, Judge King ordered plaintiff to answer violation charges. A
peculiar inquisition was held the same morning as a first appearance contrary to
notice and practice with the parents limited to ten minutes each for making a case.
(122) As a consequence, plaintiff was foreclosed from presenting photo, witness
and video proofs clearly showing separate lodging at a hotel reserved for wedding
guests and shuttle transport. The many specious charges led to utter confusion.
(123) Defendant King became personally incredulous with plaintiff’s testimony
regarding a champagne toast made without consumption and other peculiar steps to
satisfy peculiar orders. He therefore seized a party role by creating his own evidence
and adding post hoc prohibitions such as never-mentioned alcohol related gestures.
(124) Defendant King abandoned judicial office and his limited jurisdiction by
performing a traffic court prosecution under a presumption of guilt. He then found
plaintiff guilty of unlicensed operation contrary to contemporaneous road patrol
checks and an actual traffic court case featuring one equipment violation charge.
21
(125) Unlike 2009 treatment of plaintiff, Hawse-Koziol was allowed use of pen
and notes, participation at remote hearings by phone, special treatment by county
support agents, alcohol use with children and father substitute at a friend’s 2012
wedding, and child lodging in a tent near the substitute’s home to hide misconduct.
(126) On December 13, 2013, the parents and Koslosky appeared by court order
at the Onondaga Courthouse for a hearing on plaintiff’s petition for appellate court
stay of Judge King’s resulting order which suspended plaintiff’s parenting time.
(127) Judge John Centra presided despite his disqualification at paragraph 59.
After emphasizing that all party submissions had been carefully reviewed, he found
“structural flaws” in King’s court with no history, arrest record or impaired driving
accusations. On the same day, he reinstated plaintiff’s rights in time for holidays.
(128) In absence of all jurisdiction, Judge King defied the higher court order in a
decision received on Christmas Eve. It rearranged the record set by other courts at
paragraphs 31-126 to justify more punitive orders. The new case was a personal one
constructed solely to discredit plaintiff’s public criticisms monitored outside of court.
(129) King’s decision excluded equal party evaluations on a pretext of averting
publicity by plaintiff contrary to the actual record at paragraphs 34(a) and 86-88. It
also retained conflicting directives, thereby orchestrating a condition of arrest by
ambush given Hawse-Koziol’s volatile threats to disregard Judge Centra’s order.
(130) On January 14, 2014, one day prior to another hearing set by Judge King, a
panel of the previously disqualified Fourth Department court dismissed plaintiff’s
22
appellate petitions and the stay order with Centra presiding in agreement. There
was no change to the record between these dates, only further published criticisms.
(131) Judge King went forward with his hearing despite a filed petition which
implicated contempt of a higher court order or collusion to whitewash the violation.
The petition was never noted. Plaintiff accordingly announced his lack of readiness,
and defendant Hawse-Koziol was nevertheless directed to the witness stand.
(132) As a pro se litigant, this defendant had previously explained her inability
to continue legal representation absent child support payments while asking Family
Court repeatedly to harm plaintiff’s support capacities by reporting him to ethics
authorities. Her far-flung petitions implicated grave risks of irrevocable prejudice.
(133) Plaintiff therefore lodged four objections during early narrative testimony
including her “feeling of stupidity” (harassment) allegedly derived from a text
message backed by “a copy.” Foundation and relevance were therefore raised, two
were accepted, yet plaintiff was ordered to hold his objections for cross-examination.
(134) Judge King defended this order by falsely accusing plaintiff of objecting to
entire testimony whereas, for example, the one triggering it was based upon a cited
lack of dates. Plaintiff was directed to “be quiet” or be “removed” from the court.
(135) Judge King thereby facilitated false testimony regarding plaintiff’s home
and matter beyond Hawse-Koziol’s knowledge or petitions. In virtually all matters
over eight years, she testified or made accusations alone, without corroboration,
asserting strange beliefs devoid of factual support to invent a defamatory record.
23
(136) When this defendant was allowed to venture off into plaintiff’s childhood
with sadistic “expert” opinions of family members which included plaintiff’s recently
deceased mother, plaintiff secured permission to leave. Judge King followed with an
arbitrary directive of security to assure plaintiff’s departure from a public building.
(137) Proceedings had been converted to a father-bashing session infected by
rumor and innuendo beyond the repair of cross-examination before a spiteful judge.
The true record all along showed that Hawse-Koziol had no case to bring apart from
her father replacement agenda with its costly transcripts and taxpayer expense.
(138) Needless litigation was complicated by yet another judge assigned to
alleged support violations. Hearing Officer, Patricia LaRue, generated no criticisms.
On the same record, she found a parent alienation defense for plaintiff and referred
it to Judge Tormey. He then sent it to Judge King who denied it on June 6, 2014.
(139) Support incarceration and parent termination schemes carried out under a
substandard level of proof were central to plaintiff’s petitions. Their constitutional
dimension was routinely ignored, causing plaintiff to overcompensate by filing
extensive submissions which Judge King reduced to two paragraphs for decision.
(140) In a February 4, 2014 notice from King’s court clerk, plaintiff was advised
that no (disc) recording had been made on November 25, 2013 “as the matter was on
for calendar purposes.” Hence the peculiar inquisition containing “structural flaws”
and seizure of plaintiff’s children was removed from appeal or accountability. It was
nevertheless exploited to support later edicts and a battery of parental conditions.
24
(141) Ongoing misconduct was executed jointly with defendant Koslosky contrary
to Gorman’s earlier removal order strictly to suppress offensive but accurate content
on plaintiff’s website and despite clear notice of his inherent father prejudice.
(142) A fatal childhood experience by Koslosky 50 years earlier was volunteered
at the parties’ 2009 custody trial and ignored by Judge King in the record, to wit:
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 didn’t have red-skinned potatoes and all that she could say is we have
Yukon Gold and I was terrorized. I’d never seen dad arguing like this and,
my God, he’s 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 don’t like Yukon Gold.
(143) Joint action was further reflected by an April 13, 2012 inquiry authorized
by defendants Zayas and Duffy asking plaintiff to explain why he did not introduce
himself as a “suspended attorney” at a forum featuring family court complaints.
(144) Plaintiff was not suspended for the first time until the month following this
“January 19, 2010” forum. Fully explained by the record in Zayas’ possession, this
inquiry was never enforced or withdrawn in order to discredit plaintiff and chill his
rights including 2014 participation in a national documentary on family law reform.
(145) The same inquiry targeted plaintiff’s lawsuit in Parent v New York which
progressed to the Supreme Court without issue of ethics raised by anyone. Contrary
to such expertise, and a recent vindicating decision, these defendants abused vague
rules to fault plaintiff for an error of a federal judge corrected by the Second Circuit.
(146) Recent inquiries by defendant Duffy have comprised a fishing expedition on
plaintiff’s website, demanding names of donors without basis for misconduct, follow-
up on closed files and even notary details behind a duly filed reinstatement petition.
25
(147) Joint action was also shown by a judge who cleared plaintiff of specious
malpractice claims in a decision noting illogical ethics issues regarding a failure to
move for discharge on a case that was not pending. Another anonymous complaint
led to charges for “ambulance-chaser” claims which plaintiff refused to pursue.
(148) Discreet harassment, undue scrutiny and draconian conduct by these
defendants and other unnamed parties have made it virtually impossible for
plaintiff to function as a father, civil rights advocate or gainfully employed citizen.
(149) The prohibited act of rendering any opinion on “the law” has been exploited
to void plaintiff’s law degree, chill participation in other branches of government
and preclude educational seminars, even parent-child discourse in plaintiff’s home.
(150) A “secret” report was submitted by defendants Duffy and Zayas in 2012 on
request of their Third Department employers in response to plaintiff’s petitions for
reinstatement without right of access to raise likely constitutional violations.
(151) Reinstatement was again opposed in a 2014 report alleging misconduct
regarding seven website posts from over 200 issued. These included the corruption
testimony (par. 114), news items and even a dedication to plaintiff’s deceased mom.
(152) Unprecedented abuse and the fallacy behind New York’s custody laws were
conclusively shown by such cases as Jonza v Baker, pending in the same Family
Court and time frame as this one with the same William Koslosky as an attorney.
(153) Mark Baker was granted sole custody of his infant child in March, 2014
despite parole status, 2013 release from prison and other serious dysfunctions. As
this Complaint was being prepared, he was returned to prison for drug abuse.
26
First Cause of Action: Due Process
(154) Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-153 and 176-179
of this Complaint against all defendants as if set forth here in full.
(155) Defendants have acted individually, jointly or pursuant to policies and
practices to violate plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
(156) Both procedural and substantive due process have become infringed by
conduct which collectively shocks the conscience of civilized societies.
(157) On the procedural side, plaintiff was denied a fair, efficient and orderly
process. Proper notice, opportunity to confront accusers and compulsory disclosure
were also denied. Inherent bias through performance based revenue policies and
conflicting standards for ethics violations and license reinstatement are challenged.
(158) On the substantive end, recurring and non-final processes orchestrated
against plaintiff, taken as a whole, were unconscionably oppressive. The reckless
assignment of 30 trial level judges in multiple forums to decide numerous fractured
petitions derived from a 2006 consensual divorce constitutes a per se violation.
Second Cause of Action: Parental Privacy
(159) Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-153 and 176-179
of this Complaint against all defendants as if set forth here in full.
(160) Due process applied to the extraordinary facts here takes on heightened
scrutiny given the effective termination of plaintiff’s parental status on a
substandard level of proof. The irrational exploitation of children to generate fees
and government revenues is particularly offensive to the American conscience.
27
(161) The state has invaded family privacy contrary to rights retained under the
Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. As a model and fit parent, plaintiff has been
invidiously overregulated in his family relationships and private household.
Third Cause of Action: Equal Protection
(162) Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-153 and 176-179
of this Complaint against all defendants as if set forth here in full.
(163) The superior and inferior custody classifications mandated by Section
240(1) of the New York Domestic Relations Law and companion proviso under the
Family Court Act violate equal protection rights, on their face and as applied here.
(164) Such classifications harm shared parenting interests without requisite
protections in life altering preliminary orders procurable now by text request. There
is no compelling state interest behind these blanket, stigmatizing impositions.
(165) Unequal custody orders furthermore promote intentional and de facto
discrimination based on gender. Fathers continue to account for 85% of all child
support obligors according to Census Bureau reports, and they are increasingly
subjected to draconian enforcement practices unlike their maternal counterparts.
(166) As relevant to defendants in attorney regulation, select enforcement of
ethics with substandard levels of proof for code violations and higher standards for
reinstatement has produced an additional “Class of One” equal protection violation.
Fourth Cause of Action: First Amendment
(167) Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-153 and 176-179
of this Complaint against all defendants as if set forth here in full.
28
(168) This action seeks a proper remedy for diverse violations of free speech, free
press, free religion, free association and judicial access, all rights protected under
the First Amendment. Such violations have forced plaintiff to cancel public forums,
blog posts and planned website under a secured domain name, lawyer reform.com.
(169) Plaintiff is further challenging vague, overbroad or prior restraints, to wit:
(i) license suspension orders issued and outstanding on their face
and as enforced against plaintiff by Third Department defendants;
(ii) restrictions imposed by Family Court in retaliation for plaintiff’s
protected activity including “alcohol related gestures.”
(iii) Rules 8.4 (d) and (h) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct
regarding activity prejudicial to justice and fitness as a lawyer
Fifth Cause of Action: Declaratory/Injunctive Relief
(170) Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-169 of this
Complaint against all defendants as if set forth here in full.
(171) In addition to the foregoing claims, plaintiff is entitled to a judgment
declaring out-of-court censorship to be a non-judicial act for constitutional purposes.
(172) A permanent injunction is sought, where proper, to enforce any declaratory
decree with retained jurisdiction. Plaintiff seeks orders invalidating all edicts of
Judge King together with Third Department inquiries, secret 2012 and confidential
2014 reports, and license suspensions dated September 23, 2010 and June 6, 2013.
(173) Plaintiff also seeks a separate order restoring his law license in this Court
based upon the continuing violations of due process in state court which produced
29
reciprocal suspensions in the federal system contrary to plaintiff’s unblemished
record in the Northern District of New York since February, 1987.
Sixth Cause of Action: State Law Tort
(174) Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-153 and 176-179
of this Complaint against all defendants as if set forth here in full.
(175) Defendants, jointly and severally, have maliciously harmed the plaintiff
without cause simply to retaliate for his public criticisms and reform efforts in a
manner which satisfies the elements of a prima facie tort under New York law.
Damages
(176) By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered the seizure of his children,
termination of father-daughter relationships, personal alienations and impairments
of family bonds developed over a half century, among other unconscionable losses.
(177) Plaintiff has also suffered a complete destruction of his unblemished 50-
year reputation, 23-year law practice and savings accrued over a lifetime. Plaintiff’s
home is in foreclosure and his vehicles seized, leaving him no means for sustenance.
(178) Plaintiff has incurred substantial consequential debts without capacity for
career rehabilitation in light of the ongoing scrutiny and executions applied to all
manner of employment over an eight year period.
(179) Plaintiff’s privacy and personal security have been subjected to daily threat
of invasion since October 19, 2010. Child phone calls in 2014 have remained absent
on birthdays, Easter and Father’s Day. Compensatory damages exceed $25 million.
30
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
1) An award of compensatory damages in the amount of $25 million
on the first four and sixth causes of action;
2) An award of punitive damages in an amount to be set by this Court;
3) A permanent injunction, where proper, upon interacting processes
challenged by this action and on custody/support orders and license
suspensions issued by defendants together with related relief;
4) A judgment declaring unconstitutional Section 240(1) of the New
York Domestic Relations Law, the parental classifications enforced
in New York, and a practice of censoring out-of-court criticisms
5) A judgment declaring unconstitutional Section 8.4 (d) and (h) of the
New York Attorney Rules of Conduct and the terms of suspension
upon plaintiff’s law license which prohibit opinions and employment
related to the law in undefined and wide ranging contexts.
6) Orders restoring plaintiff’s law license in this Court, sealing the
records and parenting time sufficient to overcome child alienations.
7) Attorneys fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action
together with such other relief as may be just and proper.
Date: July 15, 2014 _______________________________
Leon R. Koziol
Plaintiff pro se
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, New York 13502
(315) 796-4000
