Supreme Court of the United States

No.

In the *upreme Court of the Ithiitcb 'tate.

Leon R. Koziol, individually, as natural parent of Child A and Child B, and on behalf of parents similarly situated,

Petitioner, -vs-

Janet DiFiore, Chief Judge of the New York Unified Court System; James Tormey, Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District; James McClusky, New York Supreme Court Judge; Family Judge; James Eby; Magistrate Natalie Carraway and Kelly Hawse-Koziol

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the New York State Court of Appeals

APPLICATION FOR STAY

Leon R. Koziol, J.D Petitioner, pro se 1336 Graffenburg Road New Hartford, N.Y. 13413 (315) 796-4000 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......

INTRODUCTION...... 1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN PETITION...... 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE...... 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...... 8

ARGUMENT...... 11

Point One: A substantial likelihood of success is demonstrated by an ever complicating court process below which "shocks the conscience" of a civilized societ in violation of due process and the rule in Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953)...... 12

Point Two The petitioner attorney -father here continues to be irreparably harmed by a court process which has collapsed under its own weight of judicial bias leading now to an imminent, and potentially fatal outcome...... 21

- Point Three: A stay of family court proceedings below will facilitate overdue precedent for historically prejudiced fathers in domestic relations courts while bringing closure, child support incentive and societal benefit to all respondents...... 24

Point Four: A balancing of interests favors a stay in a case featuring a civil rights attorney, unblemished for over 23 years, who was targeted and censored for controversial speech outside the court on matters of vital public interest...... 29

CONCLUSION...... 34 11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 729(1998)...... 19

Caban v Mohammed, 491 Us 380 (1979) ...... 28

Caperton vAT Massey Coal Co, 556 US 868 (2009)...... 14

Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994)...... 25

Dept of Family v DHHS. 588 F3d 740 (CA 1, 2009)...... 19

Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)...... 24

Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123 (1923) ...... 11

Exxon Mobile v Saudi Industries, 544 Us 280 (2005)...... 19

Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964)...... 30

Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973)...... 5

In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013)...... 19

Konigsberg v State Bar, 353 US 252 (1957)...... 32

Koziol v Hanna 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000)...... 25

Koziol v Hawse-Koziol 60 AD3d 155 (4th Dept 2009)...... 10

Lassitur v Dept of Social Services, 452 US 18 (1981)...... 13

Marshall v Marshall, 547 US 293 (2006)...... 19

Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319 (1976)...... 13

Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923)...... 13

Morin v Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2011)...... 10

New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964)...... 30 Nken v Holder, 556 Us 418 (2009) . 11

Ohio Citizens v NRC, 479 US 1312 (1986)...... 11

Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp.516 (NDNY 2011)...... 10

Parham v J.R.. 442 US 584 (1979)...... 13

Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (CA 2, 2004)...... 9

Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d 367 (NDNY 2011)...... 21

Rippo v Baker, 580 US (2017)...... 5, 14, 17, 23

Rochin v California, 342 Us 165 (1953)...... 1, 12

Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982)...... 12, 23

Sessions v Morales-Santana, 528 US -(2017)...... 13, 28

Snyder v Phelps, 562 US 443 (2011)...... 29

Spevac v Klein, 385 US 511 (1967)...... 33

Sprint Communications v Jacobs, 571 US -(2013)...... 33

Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972)...... 28

Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57 (2000)...... 13

Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510 (1923)...... 14

Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 (2011)...... 13

Warth v Seldin, 442 US 490 (1975)...... 24

WeinberRer v Romero-Barcelo, 456 US 305 (1982)...... 12

Williams v Pennsylvania, 579 US -(2016)...... 14

Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 205 (1972)...... 13 -t

Constitution

U.S. Amend 1 .18

U.S. Amend 14 ...... passim

New York Art. VI, sec. 26(k) . 20

Statutes

18 USC 228...... 26

42 USC sec. 651...... 27

N.Y. Dom. Rel. L 236...... 29

N.Y. Dom. Rel. L. 240...... 29

N.Y. Family Court Act 413...... 27

N.Y. Executive Law 71...... 8

N.Y. CPLR 1012...... 8

Secondary Authority

Arsenault, Dad leaves clues to his desperation, BostonGlobe, 7/10/11...... 22

Bookspan, Phyllis T., From a Tender Years Presumption to a Primary Parent Presumption: Has Anything Changed? 8 BYU Journal of PublicLaw (1993)...... 27

Kohn, The New Whistleblower's Handbook (2017)...... 31

Rocco LaDuca, Rage built Longo to murder-suicide, (Utica, N.Y.) Observer Dispatch, 12/30/09...... 21

Lawlor, White House backs revamp of child Support enforcement to demand more from Parents, Washington Examiner, 8/7/18...... 28 Maxwell, Victim who went to jail: I felt like I was the criminal, Orlando Sentinel, 10/10/15...... 25

Musemeci and Sheehy, Custody battle led dad to family murder-suicide, New York Post, 7/31/18...... 22

Robles and Dewan, Skip child support. Go to jail. Lose job. Repeat. New York Times, 4/15/15...... 25 APPENDIX

Final Order of New York State Court of Appeals denyingmotion for leave to appeal dated June 26, 2018 ...... la

State Supreme Court Order of Support by Agreement signed by Herkimer County Supreme Court Judge on August 23, 2010...... 2a TO THE HONORABLE RUTH BADER GINSBURG

JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:

This is an application for stay in connection with a father's petition for writ of certiorari submitted by overnight express mail on August 14, 2018. It is made necessary by petitioner's exhaustion of remedies in state court and final denial of a stay application by the New York Court of Appeals on June 26, 2018. That order is found in the Appendix included with this application and with the petition at pg. la.

The lower court requests, from trial level to New York's high court, were intended to stay an order entered by a New York State Supreme Court Judge on

August 23, 2010. That "Order of Support by Agreement" between petitioner-father and respondent Hawse-Koziol ("custodial parent") in a domestic relations case has been universally ignored or violated insofar as it established a procedure for satisfying child support delinquencies in a proper court of general jurisdiction.

As relevant here, widespread violations of free speech, due process, equal protection, family privacy and a fundamental right to rear one's offspring have resulted in a protracted twelve year divorce and ten year ordeal which "shocks the conscience" of any civilized society, Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953). As a result of petitioner's exercise of these constitutionally protected rights, grave abuses of federal court deference practices, and public expressions critical of New York's divorce and family court processes, a jail term is being imposed for fraudulent and orchestrated "child support" debts on August 22, 2018. Petitioner will not submit to such non-criminal confinement in a conscientious stand having fatal implications. As relevant here, the order called for a sale of petitioner's home while excluding other assets from seizure with the placement of excess proceeds in escrow to satisfy future support obligations. This procedure had the logical benefit of obviating a succession of recurring petitions in family court for support collection and enforcement. It was not only ideal from the perspective of judicial economy, it allowed the parties to apply energies to income and childrearing priorities.

Instead of complying with the prescribed procedure, respondent applied for violation and incarceration in state family courts, three times in four years, with full knowledge that these lesser courts lacked the general jurisdiction of state supreme court to order a sale of real property. Through the art of projection, respondents, individually or collectively, have passed the blame on to petitioner who was forced to file for relief in federal court and superior state courts.

The malicious by-pass, violation of court order, and breach of contract were pursued for the illicit purpose of terminating petitioner's parental rights through recurring imprisonment for support debts. Such termination was originally sought in 2006 to facilitate an agenda of replacing petitioner, the biological father involved in his daughters' lives since birth, with an unfit, childless millionaire.

That agenda was exposed, resisted by petitioner and ignored by judges for over ten years. It climaxed when court clerks, security and family jurists joined to effect free service of process upon this father on December 11, 2017 for support violations. A security deputy abused his position to interrupt a separate custody

2 hearing for this purpose. The systemic bias compelled petitioner to file a hybrid action in state supreme court leading to the final order at la of the Appendix.

The illicit forum-shopping was never intended to promote legitimate child support interests but to coerce a surrender of parental rights through confinement.

During such confinement, an empty home cannot be maintained, occupied or defended, while support arrears and parental alienation grow. In the process, this illicit scheme could also maximize total projected "child support" beyond the period of formula entitlements set by federal and state child support standards acts.

As it relates to remaining respondents, this scheming "custodial parent" was allowed to pursue the family court option as a mode of retaliation for petitioner's exposure of court corruption before oversight commissions, Congress, central New

York media and his popular viral web site. Everything from express and implied gag orders by family judges and disciplinary agents to the outrageous nature and timing of court orders verified this retaliation and systemic persecution.

The state supreme court order is now being exploited by a clearly biased city judge, the forty-first to be assigned to petitioner's domestic matters. Judge Gerald

Popeo was assigned by respondent Administrative Judge James Tormey to confirm a willful support violation based on fraudulent calculations and six month jail term recommended on May 25, 2018 by respondent Magistrate Natalie Carraway.

Six months prior to assignment, Judge Popeo initiated a conversation with petitioner at a local bar to accuse him falsely of engaging in a "witch hunt" against him. It resulted in findings of racism, intemperate behavior(physical threats to

3 litigants) and unlawful confinements by a judicial commission judge. A public censure was issued in 2015. A recusal motion was later denied without discovery

The figure relied on for the jail term was calculated by a support agent without crediting $45,500 in tax free payments made in 2015. That confinement is set to occur on August 22, 2018 in Oneida County Family Court in Utica, New York without opportunity to obtain a hearing transcript to show a fraud committed by the agent, counsel and respondent Natalie Carraway. In this regard, a procedure uniquely crafted by respondents forces him to waive all appellate recourse to avoid immediate confinement. Petitioner now seeks an order staying such proceedings and further enforcement of the order found in the Appendix at 2a.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN PETITION

Are men in America becoming a discriminated class, and if not, are historically prejudiced fathers nevertheless entitled to protected status?

Are legal residents entitled to genuine protection of their parental rights when the state alienates their children to gain revenues under 42 USC 658a(b)(4).

Is a civil rights attorney, unblemished for more than 23 years, entitled to

First Amendment whistleblower protection due to judicial retaliation?

Did respondents violate the due process rights of petitioner:

a) by assigning a city judge found guilty of racism, violent temperament and unlawful confinements to petitioner's child support case for purposes of unlawful confinement in retaliation for petitioner's exercise of constitutionally protected activities outside the courthouse?

4 b) by failing to prescribe a discovery process in violation of this Court's

objective bias rulings in Rip-Po v Baker, 580 US -(2017) and Gibson v

Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973)?

Did the New York Court of Appeals disregard systemic, longstanding, and objective bias along with its "Rule of Necessity" to foreclose petitioner's recourse?

In light of the foregoing, should proceedings below be stayed to facilitate an alternate petition or conversion of this case to one under Rule 20 regarding extraordinary writs?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case must be read in conjunction with six prior petitions for writ in this

Court, see Matter of Koziol, 70 AD3d 1516 (3rd Dept. 2010), cert denied, 132 S. Ct.

455 (2011) ("Koziol I"); Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516 (NDNY 2011); No.

12-350 (2012)(cert denied) ("Koziol II") In re Koziol, 107 AD3d 1137 (3rd Dept 2013),

No. 13-702 (2014)(cert denied) ("Koziol III"); Koziol v United States District Court,

No.15-1519 (2016)(cert denied) ("Koziol IV"); Koziol v King, No. 16-512 (2017)(cert denied)("Koziol V") and Koziol v Third Department Grievance Committee, No. 17-

993 (2017) (cert denied) ("Koziol VI").

Since January 9, 2008, petitioner has sought relief for unprecedented retaliation by state agents targeting his court reform and whistleblower activities.

Nearly forty trial jurists were disqualified since he filed his uncontested divorce case in 2006, 15-a. Access to this Court was sought for overdue precedent or settlement of conflicting decisions but was impeded or foreclosed by technicalities

5 and bias. With each foreclosure, the said agents (and jurists) escalated their retaliation on a pretense of propriety, rendering all access a gesture in futility. It resulted in chaotic proceedings best understood by a review of the pleading, 12-a.

Over 100 adverse decisions have accumulated since the state upstaged a successful two-year separation agreement. Not a single positive reference was made of the father in a resulting 12-year record despite a stellar professional record, never a criminal charge, no unfit parenting and no child protection agency contact,

69-a. Constitutional rights were raised, but key precedent of this Court cited in support of them was never addressed in any ruling, federal or state, 24-a. Laws and facts were marshalled against him to achieve predetermined outcomes. The orders and decisions below reflect that pattern, 1-a, 2-a, 7-a.

The targeting became so severe that respondent mother, Hawse-Koziol, was able to deprive petitioner-father all access to his precious daughters through fraudulent filings designed to replace him with an unfit, childless, millionaire, 17-a.

Three family judges, Daniel King, James Eby and Gerald Popeo, ignored that agenda while imposing a battery of oppressive conditions to effectively terminate his parental rights. Their goal was to suppress his reform activity through an abuse of their authority over children, 81-a to 83-a

On December 11, 2017, the mother was able to obtain free legal counsel from county social services in a child support violation action despite earning nearly

$100,000 in annual salary alone. She was also able to have a family court clerk contact a deputy sheriff (court security) to obtain free service of process upon petitioner during a separate custody proceeding, 49-a. The presiding judge there, respondent Eby, declared the interruption contrary to court policy but made an exception, 48-a. Meanwhile the father was required to pay for counsel and process at the same deputy's civil division, thereby placing judges, security and entire family court squarely on the side of the mother, Id.

Filed in New York Family Court within days of the father's petition for holiday child access, the support violation petition sought incarceration as a mode of parental termination. This was convincingly proven by a 2010 state supreme court,

"Order of Support by Agreement" which limited her first remedies to a sale of petitioner's home, 8-a. That could only be done under the general jurisdiction of the latter court, but by filing in the lesser one, three times in four years, the public critic could be jailed on a private civil debt.

The cited family judges allowed her to proceed in this manner, thereby showing that "child support" was not their genuine goal. They were collectively retaliating for petitioner's exposure of judicial misconduct before a corruption commission, oversight authorities and media, 30-a. Ethics attorneys went so far as to declare in confidential proceedings in 2013 that they would support an indefinite suspension of petitioner's law license so long as his complaints and public criticisms persisted, now totaling over eight years, 32-a. Judge King went so far as to issue a gag order on petitioner's website which was removed after a show cause order was signed in a 2016 state mandamus action, 33-a.

7 Faced with relentless and climaxing events, petitioner filed another mandamus action to challenge systemic abuse of authority following the in-court service on December 11, 2017, 50-a. It was dismissed on venue grounds in a

January 2, 2018 letter decision by the same judge who signed the 2016 show cause order, 5-a. A state statute directed such actions against a family judge to a state supreme court judge while any against the latter to the state Appellate Division, Id.

As petitioner was required to join necessary parties in a single action, he was left without a forum or access to this Court. He tested that fact in the appeals court but was rejected on similar grounds while having the action's hybrid nature and salient Rule of Necessity unmentioned 2-a. This forced an appeal to the state's high court which was denied without opinion 1-a.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A condensed presentment of facts is tested by the chaotic duration of proceedings below. They arose when an orderly system of justice broke down due to protected retaliation by state jurists in New York's Third and Fourth Judicial

Departments against an unblemished attorney.

It all began on January 9, 2008 when a judge in Syracuse heard argument during an appeal of four decisions arising from three trial courts regarding his family matters.' Petitioner exposed the corrupting of parents and children for fee and revenue purposes. This included an opposing divorce lawyer who was later

' Ina June 27, 2017 report of the New York Bar Association, the state's 11-court trial structure was condemned as chaotic and antiquated particularly when compared to our nation's largest state of California which features one trial court. The bar overwhelmingly supported a constitutional convention, but voters turned it down the same year. learned to be a member of the district ethics committee appointed by the same judge's appeals court, 18-a. On the same day, a first-time ethics prosecution was opened against petitioner under circumstances of illicit directive by that judge.

It featured ten grievances over eight years, six of which were later dismissed on their face but only when a license suspension could be orchestrated through false statements made by the committee's attorney. That Committee was disqualified in

2010. Replacement lawyers in Albany finished the job using anonymous complaints and solicited ex-clients, 86-a. Three resigned in 2013 for falsifying time sheets.

All discovery requested as early as March 2009 by motion was denied. Over the next several years, it was confirmed through third parties and court records that petitioner's secretary was solicited in 2008 to tamper with office mail, court calendars and bank accounts to cause ethics violations while concealing file material needed for a proper defense, 70-a. Circumstantial proof strongly suggested that she was granted prosecutorial immunity, 21-a.

Examples include petitioner's internal report and criminal complaints neglected by county prosecutors and city police until all relevant limitations periods had expired. This secretary was ultimately indicted for crimes committed on later law office employers and sent to jail on multiple felony convictions in 2016, 21-a

Both law enforcement agencies were the subject of successful client cases and civil rights forums, i.e. Patterson v City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2nd Cir. 2004).

A profound witch hunt continues to be convincingly demonstrated as recently as this year by a former client found "not guilty" in 1994 of assaulting an off-duty city police officer. That client was solicited at his workplace in 2008 by an attorney connected to the same city's law department. He was asked to file a false statement against petitioner as his attorney in the criminal and 1998 malicious prosecution cases. That offer was refused and concealed until now with an affidavit from that former client. It is reproduced here at 86-a. This ongoing scheme would not have arisen without the backing of state ethics lawyers.

On the domestic side, the first of forty assigned trial jurists to petitioner's originally uncontested divorce refused to hear his constitutional challenges to support and custody laws in violation of judge duties under New York Executive

Law, Section 71, Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 155 (4th Dept 2009). In Koziol, the

Fourth Department appeals court affirmed a decisional series involving that judge and others in three courts, divorce, custody and support, by focusing on a litigant's duty of notifying the Attorney General of a challenge to any statute.

An "as applied" claim was also never entertained with the effect that a litigant was bound by a legislated law, but a judge could disregard it for an orchestrated outcome. Further, the appeals court failed to reconcile family court matters returned to the divorce judge by respondent Administrative Judge James

Tormey. One was strangely seized by a supreme court judge with no transfer order resulting in suspension of the father's law license for support violations, i.e. 8-a.

An escalating witch hunt followed, and the 2009 Koziol series came only weeks after he filed his first federal action in Parent v New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d

516 (NDNY 2011). There, petitioner sought to bring a class action against a large

10 number of jurists and enforcement agents from conflicting courts. They were overregulating and effectively raising his children without any state remedy, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000); Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908), 20-a.

Petitioner therefore exercised the rights of self-governance repeatedly guaranteed to him by this Court, 45-a He did so by exposing a dysfunctional family court and lobbying for reforms. This then morphed into systemic retributions from members of the bench and bar leading to an unprecedented human rights tragedy.

It features a seizure of petitioner's children, licenses and liberties with confinement set to occur on August 22, 2018 for fraudulent child support debts.

ARGUMENT

A stay application is generally considered under the traditional four-factor test for equitable relief, Nken v Holder, 556 US 418, 433-434 (2009). Those four factors are: "1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; whether issuance of a stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and 4) where the public interest lies." See also Hilton v

Braunskill, 481 US 770, 776 (1987). Ohio Citizens v NRC, 479 US 1312 (1986).

The extraordinary and precedent-seeking nature of this case alone satisfies all four elements. The petition seeks: 1) to remedy longstanding sex discrimination against fathers in domestic relations courts; 2) to establish whistleblower protection for attorneys who expose court corruption and 3) to invalidate mandatory custody

11 classifications which separate good parents from their children. All three derive from rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Alternatively, an extraordinary writ is sought in lieu of certiorari to rectify ten years of persecution against a model citizen, parent and civil rights attorney who took a conscientious stand against his profession. He did so on the belief that our Bill of Rights would be enforced regardless of the status or influence of its violators. Instead, recourse and access to this Court were invidiously foreclosed, making this case anything but routine litigation undeserving of immediate intervention, Weinberger v Romero-Barcelo, 456 US 305, 313 (1982).

An opening excerpt of Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion in the Nken case is highly relevant here:

It takes time to decide a case on appeal. Sometimes a little; sometimes a lot. "No one can make time stand still" while it considers an appeal, Scnpps- HowardRadio, Inc. vFCC 316 US 4, 9 (1942), and if a court takes the time it needs, the court's decision may in some cases come too late for the party seeking review. That is why it "has always been held... that as part of its traditional equipment for the administration of justice, a federal court can stay the enforcement of a judgment pending the outcome on appeal." Id.

Petitioner will now address the traditional stay factors seriatim.

Point One: A substantial likelihood of success is demonstrated by an ever complicating court process below which "shocks the conscience" of a civilized society in violation of due process and the rule in Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953).

In Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982), this Court analyzed a statutory scheme in New York's Family Court Act to decide whether the law fairly terminated parental rights. In a 5-4 opinion, it found that a fair preponderance standard presented too great of a risk that a wrong decision could be made. It then vacated

12 an Appellate Division ruling that approved a seizure of children by the state. Due process called for the heightened "clear and convincing" standard.

Central to the ruling was a fundamental right of parenting recognized in a. long line of cases and even depicted as the "oldest liberty interest protected under the Constitution" Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000)(a protracted custody proceeding can violate this right); Parham v J.R., 442 US 584 (1979)(parents presumed to act in their children's best interests); Wisconsin v Yoder,_406 US 205

(1972)(Amish could home school children in traditional ways); Meyer v Nebraska,

262 US 390 (1923)(early recognition).

Implicit in the adjudication of this natural right is a fair, orderly and civilized process, Lassitur v Dept. of Social Services, 452 US 18, 24, 28 (1981), Rochin v

California, 342 US 165 (1953)(conviction cannot be obtained by conduct which

"shocks the conscience"); Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US .319 (1976)(hearing right for property deprivations); Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 (2011)(due process safeguards

in child support contempt cases); Sessions v Dimaya, 584 US -(2018)(no deportation on vague felony statute).

In Lassitur, this Court had occasion to expound upon the "fundamental fairness" aspect of due process. It was a parent termination case involving a mother prison inmate convicted of murder. The holding there has striking application to this one involving a model father systematically removed from his daughters lives through an oppressive family court process that "shocks the conscience," to wit:

For all its consequences, "due process" has never been, and perhaps never can be, precisely defined. "[U]nlike some legal rules," this Court has said, due

13 process "is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances," Cafeteria Workers v McElroy, 367 US 886, 895. Rather, the phrase expresses the requirement of "fundamental fairness," a requirement whose meaning can be as opaque as its importance is lofty. Applying the Due Process Clause is therefore an uncertain enterprise... though the state's pecuniary interest is legitimate, it is hardly significant enough to overcome private interests as important as those here...

The substantive priority of this right obviates any technical, procedural and even jurisdictional defects orchestrated by respondents to achieve a prohibited end

Their methodology relies, in major part, on preclusion rules which separate, compartmentalize and subdivide this protracted divorce so that a review of its complete record is made impossible. A focus on a six month support or one year custody proceeding in separate courts at the same or differing periods may yield a picture which shocks few. But when a totality of circumstances is analyzed as this

Court has required, a civilized society can never tolerate it.

On the procedural end, due process requires, inter alia, unbiased decision making. Three types of bias were raised to invalidate the total process applied to petitioner below: 1) the oldest "actual bias," Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510, 523 (1923);

2) "systemic or inherent bias," Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973) and 3)

"objective bias," Caperton v AT Massey Coal Co., 556 US 868 (2009); Williams v

Pennsylvania, 579 US (2016); Rippo v Baker, 580 US (2017), 53-a, 78-a.

In the latter case, this Court invalidated a death row, murder conviction because a state court denied him discovery rights on a motion for disqualification.

That motion was based only on circumstantial inferences regarding a criminal trial judge who was surmised to be under investigation for bribery by the same district

14 attorney's office which was prosecuting the convict. When the judge was later indicted, a replacement judge again denied the motion as well as all discovery.

Applying the foregoing to the record below, a "totality of circumstances" requires invalidation of the process which deprived petitioner of his daughters, livelihood and potentially his life by imminent confinement on a fraudulently procured civil debt. Respondents have employed all manner of technical and jurisdictional obstacles to conceal misconduct, collusion and potential bribery in an agenda to replace a model parent with an unfit, childless millionaire.

It utterly "shocks the conscience" when a succession of "family" judges turns a blind eye to father alienation practices so severe that petitioner's teen daughters have expressed no desire to contact him, spending only ten hours under

"supervision" in the last four and one-half years. This "custodial" framework and the beneficiaries who defend it have prevented a dad from being exactly that in a world where children and adults long to know who their male parents were.

The respondents have prevented this genuine, loving and dedicated father from truly "protecting" his daughters. Dan King and company were not present when they were born, they did not make possible their first trip to Disney World or a 2013 parasail ride on Lake George, New York, the last summer daddy and his little girls spent together. And they could care, less now that boyfriends are entering to corrupt this scene. Verily, this dad may never see his offspring again.

Compounding the provocation, respondents have required their public critic to pay for their legalized kidnapping through so-called "child support" orders that

15 reward the state and custody beneficiaries with federal revenues, fees and a projected half million dollars in tax free transfers to this "custodial parent," 43-a. A fatal ending may be imminent with unlawful arrest and confinement in a human cage which must be resisted for the same reasons our Bill of Rights was conceived, the same reasons that our nation was born.

The rights properly asserted in this petition are at the very foundation of an

American society. Equal rights, family privacy, free speech and due process stand in the way of government oppression, but the parenting right extends to the beginning of civilization. It is a right preceding the Constitution and eroding by the day to infect our society like a virus or cancer might.

In 1787, oppressors were commonly understood to be kings, queens and dictators. Today it is not a human element but a technological giant with automated capabilities. Employed by all branches of government, its oppression can be seen in the support collection practices which failed to credit $45,500 in payments, now causing human confinement. It is seen in agency executions based improperly on payroll status that cost petitioner an alternate career, 25-a. And it is seen in a swat- like invasion of a homestead for seizure of vehicles, purportedly for child support.

That seizure was rationalized by an automatic tax lien over support arrears in violation of the express terms of a "Support Order by Agreement," 8-a, 23-a. It was also justified by an administrative hearing right conveyed by automated mailing of notice with 30-day challenge deadline. It did not matter to a reviewing

16 court that this was preempted during that period by that support order of a state supreme court judge.

In short, the state has intervened as a silent party with devastating unrestrained powers to upstage parental agreements across the country. Support enforcement practices have become so draconian that all means for obtaining income by petitioner have been severely undermined with an actual increase in support with interest. It all leads inescapably to a jail term while arrears accrue during confinement. From driving privileges to bank accounts needed for new business development, all have been seized, i.e. 23-a.

The harm created through a federalization of support enforcement has long ago risen to a constitutional dimension. Incentivizing parental conflict serves no national interest. But when court access is frustrated or foreclosed to censor reform, due process is clearly violated. In this case, such suppression was achieved through an abuse of judicial office. Without repeating the many examples already found in this petition and appendix, one invidious tactic must be emphasized.

Oppressive regimes throughout history have abused power to suppress public critics by depicting them as "crazy" or criminal. In this case, petty tyrants such as

Daniel King, James Eby and Gerald Popeo abused the mantle of family judge to dismantle relationships that were destined to produce a wonderful future for all parties hauled into this originally uncontested divorce. Like the facts of Rippo, they concealed their bias before being disqualified altogether. Successor judges then refused to rectify the damage done.

17 Beginning with a series of public forums, editorials and news conferences in

2008, 2009 and 2010, an agenda was put into place to crush reform efforts by concocting a basis for ordering forensic evaluations of this public critic. They were ordered on a pretext of custody adjudication but intended to punish exposure of judicial misconduct. Emotions were provoked by such abuses as petitioner's holding of a pen during trial objections which the first custody judge found to be intimidating to the mother on the witness stand.

Her replacement judge failed to entertain petitioner's timely filed answering papers, cross-motion and oral argument before seizing an entire weekend of limited parenting periods from the father. Her replacement, on the same record, vacated her forensic order for evaluations of both parents and children because they were deemed unnecessary. That judge more than doubled petitioner's parenting time after a second custody trial, but his replacement (King) then reinstated the evaluation order solely against his public critic. It was based on concocted grounds within weeks of petitioner's 2013 testimony before a state corruption commission exposing King's fictional PhD and Masters degrees used to elevate support orders.

The forensic evaluation was expanded to include other defamatory impositions having no support in any incident or record. They derived simply from the lone accusations of a "custodial parent" who had been nowhere near the father for a period of years. Yet those orders remain to be satisfied as a lone "change of circumstances" before petitioner can be reunited with his daughters. Any such compliance is beyond financial capacity and subject to endless exploitation.

Im Nearly five years of alienation, child development, residency changes and other major "circumstances" have failed to impress King's replacements to vacate the stale orders. Meanwhile, supervision was placed in the hands of the ex-mother- in-law who verbally assaulted petitioner in front of his daughters at a summer recital for bringing flowers to the stage at the end of their performance in 2017.

The insanity of judicial abuse may be summarized in the worn-out, art of projection when considering the pedophile admissions of petitioner's custody judge,

Bryan Hedges, Daniel King's preoccupation with a wedding toast to impose a

"prohibited alcohol related gesture," and the violent and racist intemperance of

Gerald Popeo while executing his duties in a robe. Such forensic evaluations are ordered on the slightest accusations without standards, and the reports they generate can irrevocably inflame parental conflict. There are literally hundreds of conditions in the psychiatric DSM-5 manual which can be applied to any given human emotion that erupts naturally in these courts. A psychiatrist who finds normalcy (not defined in that manual) is defying the court referral and subjecting herself to vast losses of income. It is a process which can forever stigmatize a parent with a potential for addiction to prescribed medication resulting in suicide.

In this most recent action, a state venue statute was abused to deny consideration of the merits in addition to select application of a state "Rule of

Necessity." Coupled with similarly abused federal deference practices, Sprint

Communications v Jacobs, 571 US (2013); Marshall v Marshall, 547 US 293

(2006); and Exxon Mobile v Saudi Basic Industries, 544 US 280 (2005), petitioner

19 has been deprived rational recourse and access to this Court. See also Bast v

Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998)(support agreement of two attorney parents earning similar incomes upended by federal support standards act); Dept of Family Puerto

Rico v DHHS of U.S., 588 F.3d 740 (1st Cir. 2009)(federal funding denied based on a failure to satisfy support performance standards).

These funding laws have yielded a complex court process which is destroying family relationships everywhere. The face of the relevant support order proves this.

It arises at "a term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York" by a "Herkimer

County Supreme Court Judge" in the "Supreme Court of the State of New York,

County of Oneida." It derived from a child support enforcement petition filed in

Oneida County Family Court. The latter is purposefully excluded from the text, but it is otherwise undisputed that the petition was filed in Family Court pursuant to a

2007 divorce decree which referred all support matters to the latter.

Hence, when Judge Daley contrived this order, he did so in violation of

Article VI, section 26(k) of the New York Constitution which limits any assigned jurist to the jurisdiction of the court to which he or she has been assigned. In short, this order was entered without proper subject matter jurisdiction, a defense which cannot be waived, agreed upon or otherwise circumvented as it was below over a period of years. Petitioner is now being incarcerated unlawfully for a money debt orchestrated through judge retaliation. Such injury is irreparable and potentially, fatal as demonstrated throughout this petition, motion and record below.

20 Point Two: The petitioner-attorney-father here continues to be irreparably harmed by a court process which has collapsed under its own weight of judicial bias leading now to an imminent, and potentially fatal outcome.

The respondents, their subordinates and family court as a whole, exploited their critic's children to achieve a horrific, inhumane outcome. They either executed or implicitly ratified a permanent separation between father and daughter, between a conscientious attorney and his livelihood, all because their feelings were hurt by valid public criticisms. It has resulted in more than an arrest warrant, but a death warrant when taking a reality check of an epidemic, to wit:

On September 28, 2009, in petitioner's home region, Utica, New York police

Investigator Joseph Longo learned that he would be paying $1,800 in monthly child support, 76-a He answered the same day with a murder-suicide at the former marital home. It left four children permanently without both parents. Even the local district attorney who interacted earlier in the day could not predict this. It also resulted in a $2 million settlement of a civil suit based remarkably on a zone of danger created by city officials as opposed to state family court, Pearce v Longo, 766

F. Supp. 2d 367 (NDNY 2011); Rocco LaDuca, Rage built Longo to murder-suicide,

(Utica) Observer Dispatch, 12/30/09.

On June 15, 2011, a father and war veteran, Thomas Ball, burned himself alive on the steps of a family court to protest years of abuse and separation from his children. It stemmed from a single incident of slapping his daughter, and he left behind a manifesto on how to firebomb courts. Even after such a horrific death, the ex-wife stubbornly defended herself by complaining that her children's dad failed to

21 comply with court counselling, Mark Arsenault, Dad leaves clues to his desperation,

Boston Globe, July 10, 2011.

On April 4, 2015, Walter Scott, an unarmed father was shot dead five times in the back.by a traffic cop while fleeing a support warrant. The shocking murder was captured by a concealed by-stander on his i-phone and shared virally. Contrary to national media hype focused on racism, the victim's funeral pastor 1aidblame on draconian child support confinements. Many concluded that the state was now killing for money given the revolving door confinements, see fn. 6 supra.

On July 30, 2018, a physical therapist with a practice in Manhattan fatally shot his ex-wife, their 6-year old son and current wife in his Astoria (Queens) home.

It became the final edict in a protracted custody battle. After a failed GoFundMe effort to pay his lawyer fees, in a page titled "Child Kidnapping," the abused dad,

James Shield, explained, "I had the perfect life a few years ago but it has spiraled out of control," Moore, Musemeci and Sheehy, Custody battle led dad to family murder suicide, New York Post, July 31, 2018.

Less transparent are the countless cases swarming beneath these four which can easily explode in similar fashion. Corrective action is on no one's radar because the underlying cause is routinely censored, denied, deflected or wrongfully blamed on the parents. The public is duped into believing that an adversarial process yields truth, and justice is achieved in our courts. That may be true in other forms of litigation but when children are taken hostage by unscrupulous lawyers, the opposite is true. A parent will commit perjury on a premise that he or she is

22 "protecting" their offspring. Sparks convert to forest fires, children emulate the dysfunction, and the perpetrators profit.

As it played out here, a termination of parental rights became a mode of retaliation. This, in turn, violated the rule in Santosky .v Kramer, 455 US 745

(1982). Not overtly, but in a series of abusive, conflicting and even bizarre edicts, i.e.

"prohibited alcohol related gestures," (wedding toast), King was able to prevail. He did so under suspicion of bribery or collusion, Rippo, supra. Successor judges merely piled to yield a condition related below of a Rodney King beating with "fists and batons replaced by orders and edicts," 68-a.

To be sure, the restraint exhibited by the father here should have been commended by reviewing justices. Joseph Longo reacted to his first support order with no imminent confinement during a one year divorce. Thomas Ball was not deprived of a livelihood or public image. Walter Scott panicked without expectation of murder by a traffic cop. James Shield suffered no suspension from his practice.

None was subjected to a twelve year ordeal with daughters so alienated, they have no desire to call their only dad in over four years, the one who raised them without incident since birth.

The permanent separation of a loving father from his daughters coupled with the permanent suspension of a law license needed for their sustenance remains highly incendiary, particularly with a long jail term looming. The above four cases present an ominous forecast given the unyielding gold mine which truly defines

"family court." In this case, however, it is not the logical reactions of a seasoned

23 attorney using proper channels which should concern our courts, but the pure hatred relentlessly displayed by a sociopathic "custodial parent" bent on self- importance and greed.

When the machinery of justice is abused to exact revenge, the system itself breaks down, 74-a. People respond by taking "the law" into their own hands with self-help remedies and violence. Perhaps the most devastating example of this is a

Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) which triggered the Civil War. Like fathers imprisoned for profit by discriminatory support orders, slaves were repeatedly turned down by our courts to incur the same "gesture in futility" confronting petitioner today.

Even in the face of blind prejudice in the judicial system, victims have overcome oppression through civil disobedience. It traditionally has been employed to gain standing and remains a species of activity protected by the First

Amendment. Warth v Seldin, 442 US 490 (1975); Garrison, supra. Respondents have circumvented this by abusing state procedure and jurisdiction to foreclose access to a federal forum for a vindication of federal rights, Koziol, supra, lower court record at 1-a, 2-a, 5-a. They simply refused to acknowledge this action and prior ones as test cases, dodging accountability by killing the messenger.

Point Three: A stay of family court proceedings below will facilitate overdue precedent for historically prejudiced fathers in domestic relations courts while bringing closure, child support incentive and societal benefit to all respondents.

A growing number of Americans are awakening to a vast socialist movement which is denigrating men based strictly on gender. It is a movement infecting all of

24 our institutions in adverse ways. For example, the Veterans Administration continues to report that twenty-two (22) veterans are committing suicide each day.

From petitioner's own experience advocating for fathers in these courts, a large

unreported number is connected daily to divorce and family court abuse. 2 The War on Women, the Future is Female, a Violence Against Women Act, women empowerment programs and the very phrase "Women's Rights," are only some of the examples which prove that we are exiting a society of "equal rights" to favor a race for superior rights. 3 That nearly 85% of all parents paying child support today

are still men adds to this reality.4

The vast majority of contested custody cases favor women, and nearly all imprisoned child support violators are men. They comprise as much as 20 % of

names on county warrant lists. The same ratios can be found statewide. 5 Such facts

strongly suggest an unwritten court policy that finds men more suitable for

confinement and revenue exploitation. 6

2 Purple Heart's Final Beat, Second Class Citizen.org. (2009)

3 Petitioner is not strictly a fathers' rights advocate, having represented mothers and a former president of the National Organization for Women. He saved the careers of women whistleblowers and successfully litigated one of his region's first sexual harassment cases after a reversal of an adverse trial decision, Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (NDNY 1994).

' U.S. Census Bureau Reports 1990 to 2015.

Robles and Dewan, Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat, New York Times, April 15, 2015.

6 Little notice is given to fathers imprisoned for many months, even years for support violations. Their pleas of unemployment, disability, and combat depression are answered by humiliation as witnessed by petitioner-attorney. In contrast, when a woman willfully failed to appear on her own petition at a family court trial, a national issue was made of a three-day jail term imposed by a woman judge. So "inhumane," it was met by protests and judge censure, see Scott Maxwell, Victim who went to jail: 'I felt like I was the criminal, Orlando Sentinel, October 10, 2015. As recently as

25 The sexist slur "dead beat dad" was used in Justice Department news releases as recently as 2012. Meanwhile the vast failure to hold scheming women accountable for lodging false, career-ending charges remains elusive and discriminatory. It is a tactical routine in custody or support "battles." A "better safe than sorry" policy in domestic violence targets men.

This case is a watershed example. Respondent "custodial parent," Kelly

Hawse-Koziol filed at least six family offense petitions against the father here over a twelve-year period. All were eventually thrown out on their face, including the most recent one, an overbroad edict that comprised nothing more than a gag order on a website that exposed these inequities.

That site publicized a "notice of child relocation" to a substitute dad's millionaire home with the e-mail address "gmai.com." The transmission was clearly impossible without an "1" character, yet the custody violation was excused by later disqualified judge, Daniel King. In contrast, the same judge made a crusade of incarcerating the male victim to avenge exposure of his incompetence. It included fictitious degrees to impute income for higher support orders.

The discrimination asserted here is not exclusively of the impact variety, but a de jure claim based on the use of "Dead Beat Dad" to federalize child support enforcement and the historical treatment of fathers in state courts, see i.e.

Congressional history of Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, 18 USC 228. Although gender neutral terms have belatedly arrived, the mindsets have remained largely

2016, Arizona's governor was boasting "Wanted Posters" for "dead beat dads" while "dead beat moms" evidently did not exist there, and Mexican border drug lords were thriving.

26 unchanged, see i.e. Bookspan, From a Tender Years Presumption to a Primary

Parent Presumption: Has anything Changed? 8 BYU Journal of Public Law (1993).

As this very petition was being prepared, the Trump Administration announced an overhaul of the federal child support enforcement program to require more cooperation between parents so that the high cost of government support could be transferred. Such an overhaul, commendable as it may be, cannot succeed under the antiquated custody framework of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

That Act mandates a naming of custodial and non-custodial parents for states to qualify for billions of dollars in performance grants, 42 USC 658a(b)(4). Such incentive funds are based on the number and size of child support orders manufactured in the states' family court industries. To maximize such revenues, evidentiary fictions have been erected to impute income beyond the rational means of targeted parents, i.e. N.Y. Family Court Act 413(1)(b)(5)(iv).

As applied, judges know that the excess amounts they concoct will be paid under penalty of confinement in a human cage. Nearly anything can be coerced that way in a nation having the most imprisoned population in the free world. The money will come from loved ones, employers and even loan sharks to mirror practices of underworld organizations. Such legalized extortion is too lucrative to permit any overhaul of support laws.

Opponents to the overhaul point out that any increase in the already inflated financial burdens of "fathers" will escalate domestic violence, see Lawlor, White

House backs revamp of child support enforcement to demand more from parents,

27 Washington Examiner, 8/7/18. Ironically, while identifying the practical limitations, this reporter corroborates the stereotypes:

One (limit) is that the process of identifying deadbeat fathers (emphasis added) and collecting money from them could force the mothers (emphasis added) to confront men (emphasis added) who've treated them abusively. Another is that piling on debts on a noncustodial parent who is already behind could lead him to give up trying altogether, or to face incarceration for failing to pay.

Indeed, the actual prejudice to countless fathers has escalated since this

Court's decisions in Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972) and Caban v Mohammed,

491 US 380 1979). Affirmative action in family courts has lagged far behind the progress made in other contexts when looking at empirical data, criminal punishments and lawlessness based on mistreatment.

The Tenders Years doctrine was long ago rejected, but in practice it is still flourishing through draconian laws and court policies that are not being reformed or contained due to the kind of censorship at the core of this petition. That much was well demonstrated by this Court's majority opinion in Sessions v Morales-Santana,

528 US 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017). This far into the 21st Century, it was disheartening for parents legally residing here to read a pronouncement that would have been more timely a half century ago.

In Sessions, a federal statute was challenged on equal protection grounds because it gave alien unwed mothers favorable treatment over alien unwed fathers in granting citizenship to their children. As relevant here, Justice Ruth Bader

Ginsburg emphasized:

Mat Laws according or denying benefits in reliance on "[s]tereotypes about women's roles," the Court has observed, may "creat Eel a self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination that force[s] women to continue to assume the role of primary family caregiver." Nevada Dept. of Human Resources vHibbs, 538 US 721, 736 (2003). Correspondingly, such laws may disservice men who exercise responsibility for raising their children." 137 S. Ct. at 1693.

In this case, the man who exercised responsibility over his children since birth was utterly punished for doing so. The state intervened to fix something that was never broken through a federal support formula and state collection agency having powers that may be the envy of our CIA, FBI and IRS. In the process, it removed all income capacities, 12-a to 53-a. Petitioner uniquely experienced most, if not all, aspects of this discrimination as an attorney, father and victim.

The current childrearing framework of 42 USC 651 et. seq., N.Y. Domestic

Relations Law 236, 240 and N.Y. Family Court Act 413 violates equal protection rights of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Its harm to society is escalating at epidemic levels. Predicting how these antiquated custody mandates would forever end his father-daughter relations, petitioner sacrificed all to contest the unequal custody classifications. That challenge is found in the First Cause of Action below.

In Snyder v Phelps, 562 US 443 (2011), Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that "[S]peech on 'matters of public concern'... is 'at the heart of the

First Amendment's protection,'" citing Dun & Bradstreet v Greenmoss Builders,

472 US 749, 758-759 (1985). He went on to stress the paramount nature of free speech among our most basic rights under the Constitution: The First Amendment reflects "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," citing New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 270 (1964). That is because "speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government," citing Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64, 74- 75 (1964). Accordingly, "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection," citing Connick v Myers, 461 US 138, 145 (1983).

In Garrison, a district attorney was convicted under a criminal libel statute based on a news conference outside the courthouse in which he depicted eight district judges as lazy and inefficient. By a 9-0 vote, this Court held that the conviction violated free speech unless the attorney's statements were made with reckless or knowing disregard of the truth. In a concurring opinion, Justice

Goldberg declared an absolute right of citizens to criticize official conduct.

In this case, petitioner, a model father and civil rights attorney, took on a public cause outside the courtroom which threatened the pecuniary interests of lawyers and judges on a much larger scale. In a stunning irony, he did so because his divorce judge in 2007 refused to hear constitutional claims inside the court, referring all recourse to appeal or state legislature. There was never a charge or finding of untruthfulness in the appeals and reform efforts which followed.

Instead, the subject of criticisms; family judges, support magistrates, divorce and ethics lawyers, abused entrusted authority and license privileges to punish their public nemesis through overt and discreet abuses of public office. As Garrison instructs, there is no immunity or preference given to the judicial branch in a vindication of this paramount right. However, by orchestrating technical obstacles

30 and denying discovery rights, respondents here were able to conceal truth, justice and proper recourse.

This brings up another species of protected activity commonly known as

"whistleblowing." Petitioner filed at least 25 complaints with the state Judicial

Conduct Commission. All were turned down without so much as an inquiry consistent with over 90% of complaints lodged in New York and California. At the

Moreland Commission hearings, petitioner sought dissolution of the judicial commission citing its "window dressing" nature. Instead the Corruption

Commission was shut down with petitioner incurring the wrath of judges.

As a natural consequence, this conscientious attorney was involuntarily converted to judicial whistleblower. Petitioner's ordeal then became part of a documentary project at the 2017 National Whistleblower Summit adjacent to the

Supreme Court. Among the featured speakers was Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck

Grassley and "nationally acclaimed" whistleblower expert, Attorney Stephen Kohn.

In Kohn's latest book, The New Whistleblower Handbook, Intoduction pg. xiii (2017), the vast benefits that whistleblowers bring to the federal government are extensively documented:

Whistleblowers now account for 70 percent of the civil frauds uncovered by the United States. Whistleblowers were able to detect and report more fraud in government contracting than every government contract officer, inspector general, Justice Department attorney, and other. paid government bureaucrat combined.

Throughout his ordeal in New York's 11 trial court system, petitioner exposed abuses of Title IV-.D funding. Aside from the institutional bias of support

31 magistrates and family judges, federal incentive funds elicit needless conflict among otherwise cooperating parents in separated environments. Today, attorneys are appointed, indirectly at federal expense, for each child and support-seeking mother.

Malpractice and ethical misconduct are commonly ignored to facilitate an ever- expanding industry, 18a- 19a.

Exemplary of this is child attorney, William Koslosky. Petitioner exposed and reported him time and again for his fee enhancing custody tactics which not only harmed his clients' support interests but were found by a judge in 2012 to be counter-productive to the parents' settlement efforts. He removed Mr. Koslosky for that reason but the next judge, Daniel King, re-appointed him months later to include a 2015 support violation case that resulted in a narrowly avoided jail term for the father of Koslosky's unknowing "clients."

In his motion affidavit before the state's high court, petitioner cited William

Koslosky, who like the Third Department ethics lawyers, falsified statements to appeals/licensing courts. This was verified by proofs appended to motions since

2011, never denied, and never mentioned in any decision contrary to ethical duties of referral. Translated, this attorney was hired, ratified and granted an immunity by respondents to harm a whistleblower. It came at taxpayer expense since 2007 with trips to remote courts while one or both parents appeared by teleconference,

62-a.

In Konigsberg v State Bar of California, 353 US 252, 273 (1957), this Court emphasized the importance "both to society and the bar itself that lawyers be

32 ' 4

unintimidated- free to think, speak and act as members of an independent bar". In

New York, this freedom is subject to purposely vague regulations made to

encompass offensive criticisms in fee generating industries such as domestic

relations.

Such overbroad rules can easily be exploited to punish members of the bar

who deviate from an unwritten norm, i.e. In re Snyder, 472 US 634, 645 (1985)("As

officers of the court, members of the bar may appropriately express criticisms"

regarding fee documentation, invalidating a six month suspension).

A relevant excerpt from this Court's opinion in Spevack v Klein, 385 US 511, 516

(1967) is on point:

The threat of disbarment or the loss of professional standing, professional reputation and of livelihood are powerful forms of compulsion to make a lawyer relinquish (a constitutionally protected) privilege. That threat is indeed as powerful an instrument of compulsion as 'the use of legal process to force from the lips of the accused individual the evidence necessary to convict him...', United States v White, 322 US 694, 698; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 461. Lawyers are not excepted from the word 'person' as found in the Constitution. "Like the school teacher in Slochower v Bd of Education, 350 US 551 and the policeman in Garrity v New Jersey, 385 US 493, lawyers also enjoy first class citizenship".

See also Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp. 2d 170 (NDNY 2000. The First Amendment

claim is found at 45-a.

33 CONCLUSION

By reason of the foregoing, petitioner respectfully asks this Court to grant a stay of enforcement of orders and proceedings below, and alternatively, an order converting this petition to one for an extraordinary writ under Rule 20.

Petitioner, Leon R. Koziol, does hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that the foregoing is true to the best of his recollection from a factual standpoint.

August 16, 2018 Respectfully6/c submitted,

Leon R. Koziol

34 Im

In the 'upreme court of the Liniteb 'tatc

Leon R. Koziol, individually, as natural parent of Child A and Child B, and on behalf of parents similarly situated,

Petitioner, -vs-

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the New York State Court of Appeals

APPLICATION FOR STAY APPENDIX

Leon R. Koziol, J.D Petitioner, pro se 1336 Graffenburg Road New Hartford, N.Y. 13413 (315) 796-4000 APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Final Order of New York State Court of Appeals denyingmotion for leave to appeal dated June 26, 2018 ...... la

State Supreme Court Order of Support by Agreement signed by Herkimer County Supreme Court Judge on August 23, 2010...... 2a

Witness Affidavit: Michael Palladino ...... Ga State of New York Court of Appeals

Decided and entered on the twenty-sixth day of June, 2018

Present, Hon. Jenny Rivera, Senior Associate Judge, presiding.

Mo. No. 2018-527

In the Matter of Leon R. Koziol, &c., Appellant, V Janet DiFiore, &c., et al., Respondents.

Appellant having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and for a stay in the above cause;

Upon the papers filed and due deliberation, it is

ORDERED, that the motion for leave to appeal is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the motion for stay is denied as academic.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Stein took no part.

Is! John P. Asiello John P. Asiello Clerk of the Court

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONEIDA

KELLY A. HAWSE-KOZIOL, Petitioner, vs DOCKET NO. F-04606-08/08A

ORDER OF SUPPORT LEON KOZIOL UPON AGREEMENT

Respondent.

NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN

INCARCERATION FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT;

SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE, STATE-ISSUED

PROFESSIONAL, TRADE, BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES AND

RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES AND PERMITS; AND

IMPOSITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS.

IF THIS ORDER IS ENTERED BY A JUDGE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF

THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKEN

WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT,

OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE LAW GUARDIAN UPON

THE APPELLANT, OR 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE

ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, WHICHEVER IS

EARLIEST.

2 IF THIS ORDER WAS ENTERED BY A SUPPORT MAGISTRATE, SPECIFIC

WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER MAY BE FILED WITH THIS COURT

WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED IN COURT OR

BY PERSONAL SERVICE, OR IF THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY MAIL,

WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE ORDER.

An Order to Show Cause and supporting Affidavit having been filed by the

Petitioner, Kelly A. Hawse-Koziol for the enforcement of the willful violation findings and money judgment against Respondent for the non-payment of child support; and

The motion having been heard by this Court; and the Petitioner having appeared with counsel and the Respondent having appeared without counsel; and

The parties having entered into the following agreement:

Respondent agrees to pay to the Child Support Collection Unit within seven (7) days of August 10, 2010, the purge amount of $10,000 by certified check or money order;

Upon payment of said amount Respondent is no longer in willful violation of the child support order;

Beginning September 15, 2010, and due on the 15th of every month thereafter, Respondent agrees to pay the amount of $1,100 in child support and an additional $550 in arrears to Petitioner via the Child Support Collection Unit,

N.Y.S. Child Support Processing Center, P0 Box 15363, Albany, New York 12212-

5376;

0 Respondent agrees to pay the $1,650 per month amount on or before the

15th of every month, and if the 15th day of any particular month falls on a holiday or weekend, the payment is due the business day prior to the holiday or weekend;

Respondent agrees to pay the $1,650 per month amount until such time as the arrears are satisfied, at which time Respondent agrees to continue to pay the previously agreed upon monthly amount of $1,100 on the 15th of each month for the subject children until the happening of any one of the following events: a child attains age of twenty-one (21) years; a child marries, whether or not such marriage may be void, voidable or may subsequently terminate by death, divorce, annulment or dissolution, or in any manner; a child cohabits with an unrelated person of the opposite sex; a child enters the armed forces of the United States or any other country or political entity; child dies; there is a change in custody; a child ceases to permanently reside with the party who is herein designated the "residential custodian;" a child attains the age of eighteen (18) years of age and does not continue to pursue a formal education at an accredited secondary school;

The parties agree that if Respondent misses two monthly child support payments, his residence located at 1336 Graffenburg Road, New Hartford, New

York 13413 shall be immediately sold by Sheriff auction to cover the remaining arrears owed to Plaintiff, and any remaining amount shall be held in escrow for any future child support payments to Petitioner;

4 (Paragraph 7 was crossed out by Judge Daley in his original signed order):

The parties agree that if the sale of the Respondent's residence does not cover the arrears owed by Respondent, Respondent's remaining assets including his Corvette and boat shall be sold to cover the remaining arrears owed and any remaining amounts held in escrow for future child support payments to Petitioner;

Respondent agrees that until the child support arrears have been satisfied, his residence at 1336 Graffenburg Road, New Hartford, New York 13413 shall not be sold or further encumbered; and

The above stated Agreement is approved and shall constitute the ORDER of this Court, a copy of the transcript of the parties' appearance before the Court on

August 10, 2010, shall be attached and made a part of this Order.

Dated: 8/23/10

ENTER,

Is! Michael E. Daley

Hon. Michael E. Daley

Herkimer County

Supreme Court Justice

5 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION FOURTH DEPARTMENT *********************************************** WITNESS Leon R. Koziol, individually, as natural parent of Child AFFIDAVIT A and Child B, and on behalf of parents similarly situated,

Petitioner, -vs- Janet DiFiore, Chief Judge of the New York Unified Court System; James Tormey, Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District; James McClusky, New York Supreme Court Judge; Family Judge James Eby; Magistrate Natalie Carraway and Kelly Hawse-Koziol No. OP 18-00101

Respondents.

************************************************ STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF ONEIDA) SS:

Michael Paladino, being duly sworn, sets forth the following:

I am a friend of the petitioner, Leon Koziol, and offer this statement, sworn under oath, to relate facts concerning the recent assignment of Judge Gerald

Popeo to Mr. Koziol's litigation in Oneida County Family Court and my involvement in this case. As a marine veteran who served his country honorably, I also have some personal information I would like to add.

I am the person who served a clerk of respondent Natalie Caraway with the petition in this case at the Herkimer County Courthouse and an earlier one personally upon her at the Oneida County Courthouse in Utica, New York. I witnessed proceedings conducted by her on December 15, 2017 and can corroborate judge orchestrated service of process regarding two respondents here which was evidently completed at no charge to the respondent mother.

31 For background, I am a lifelong resident of Oneida County, a marine veteran and currently disabled. Immediately following the events on 9-11, I re- enlisted to serve my country in Afghanistan. While training for it, I was hit by a motor vehicle. I died briefly, spent two years in a wheelchair, another one on crutches, and I continue to make progress 17 years later.

It was in that connection that I came across Mr. Koziol at a bar/restaurant last summer known as Lukins on Varick Street in Utica. I had known him as a highly regarded lawyer, father rights advocate and fellow gym patron. I was soon to become homeless, so he offered me space on his property as a temporary residence.

He also took me climbing for physical rehabilitation.

I was present weeks later when an obese woman verbally assaulted him in front of his daughters without provocation. So intense was it that I felt I would have to intervene to prevent her physical advances. Mr. Koziol had simply given flowers to his girls on stage at conclusion of a summer play. I was impressed with what I saw of Mr. Koziol as a loving father especially as I had no such parent. I was shocked to learn that this was the maternal grandmother assigned to "supervise"

Leon during set "visits." I can assure this Court from everything I know about Mr.

Koziol, certainly far more than the judges who imposed this supervision, that it is a travesty.

During that summer period we revisited Lukins from time to time to socialize with mutual and separate friends. On one of these occasions, I was returning from the rest room when I came upon Mr. Koziol at the bar where I had

7 been seated with him. A man in a suit was seated next to him engaged in a heated discussion regarding his belief that Mr. Koziol was somehow connected to a judge misconduct case. There was also discussion of father and racial prejudice.

I cannot give all the details with my limited understanding of legal matters, but the man was clearly perturbed over his feeling of being targeted by various enemies of his while Mr. Koziol persisted in his denial of any involvement. I did not want to interfere because it looked serious, but the man left abruptly when he noted my presence.

At that point I asked what the commotion was all about, and Mr. Koziol explained that it was a dispute with a judge who had presided over some of his cases. The fact that this was a judge shocked me. I can describe him as a heavy-set,

Caucasian male with black hair. I confirmed his identity when shown a photo of

Judge Gerald Popeo on the internet.

I am compelled to add my personal views. I am a veteran advocate who is utterly disgusted with the way our courts treat fathers in this country. Some 22 of my veteran brothers die each day from suicide, and I believe most are caused by abuses in divorce, support and custody cases. I was sent overseas to fight for our rights and liberties here in the states only to return to the kind of persecution inflicted against our domestic defenders like Mr. Koziol. He is exercising the rights we die for and literally saving veterans like me from premature death.

I have begun organizing a group of veterans to make a stand at Mr.

Koziol's home when they come to seize him or that home. I am deeply troubled by 61 the condition that has been forced upon this once prominent civil rights attorney

and model parent. I know of his many successes on behalf of African-American

victims of race and gender discrimination. It was all front page news for many years

before the judges and lawyers ganged up on him. I am also deeply saddened by

whatever he must do now to protect himself from our own government..

11) With all due respect to the judges who read this, you should all be

ashamed of yourselves if you allow this persecution to continue one more day. Every

human being has his limits. You are failing American children, your oaths of office

and duties under our Constitution.

Michael Palladino Sworn to before me this day of March, 2018

Notary Public No.

In the

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Leon R. Koziol, individually, as natural parent of Child A and Child B, and on behalf of parents similarly situated,

Petitioner,

-vs-

Janet DiFiore, Chief Judge of the New York Unified Court System; James Tormey, Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District; James McClusky, New York Supreme Court Judge; Family Judge James Eby; Magistrate Natalie Carraway and Kelly Hawse-Koziol

Respondents.

Statement in support of stay order on PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the New York State Court of Appeals

Michael Brancaccio, does hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 the following:

On August 30, 2018, at approximately 9 pm, I was detained by a patrol officer after leaving the toll booths at Interstate 90 and 87 near Albany, New York. I was driving a vehicle under a corporate registration. The patrol officer claimed that I had failed to signal and was driving erratically to justify a drunk driving charge. None of this was true as I was eventually released to a tow truck driver. It was discovered that the vehicle had an expired inspection.

That vehicle was loaned to me by Leon Koziol, my former attorney who is sharing a similar ordeal regarding back child support. I was supposed to get repair work done for that inspection problem but could not accomplish it due to the cost involved. I had no vehicle of my own and relied on the loaner for transportation purposes.

I was ordered out of the vehicle and accused of harboring a fugitive, among other things. I was unaware of Mr. Koziol' s details, but shortly after the initial stop, a number of additional patrol cars showed up. I was placed in handcuffs, shackled at my ankles despite a knee injury requiring surgery and threatened with felony charges unless I cooperated to track down Leon as if he was some kind of murder fugitive. At the time, I did not know where Mr. Koziol was, but these officers continued to berate and threaten me. At one point, one of the officers (I believe from a place called Colonie) accused me of trying to protect a "cop killer" and that he "would shoot (Koziol) on sight." He even showed me photos of Leon and warned that they "were out to get him."

I have known Leon for over 20 years, I have never seen him harm anyone, he has no criminal record, no gun, and based on my conversations with him to the day of this incident, I know he would not even know how to use one. These cops were completely out of line with regard to the man I know who has been targeted viciously using child support as the excuse. A warrant of arrest was issued against him this past week for that reason.

I have also known Leon as an accomplished civil rights attorney, and that is why he is being targeted. He protected me in a 1994 false arrest regarding an alleged beating of an off-duty Utica, New York police officer. I was acquitted by a jury and won a civil rights settlement as a result of Leon's skills.

Despite repeatedly giving these cops my reasons for heading where I was, the interrogation continued. I was advised of an arrest warrant for my own child support out of Lewis County, New York, but the police there refused to come and get me. I was forced to give up my daughter for child support by family judge Daniel King who put me in jail for six months in 2015. It resulted in near death health issues that landed me in the hospital for three weeks.

Three years later in 2018, Judge King (also Leon's family judge who took his daughters) threatened me with one year again for support arrears despite my disability. It forced me to run out of court and surrender my daughter afterward. My attorney, Michael Young, did not keep me abreast of that process, telling me only that I was no longer required to show up to court. Yet the warrant remains. After hours of abuse, I was finally released with traffic tickets and no basis for the stop. The vehicle was impounded with legal papers needed for Leon's defense. In my current state of fear and impoverishment, I am unable to access that vehicle.

I have given Leon details of my incarceration which is obviously his greatest concern. He believes he will die in jail after being persecuted for over ten years, more than I could even imagine after my own four years in a similar condition. This summer, I swore out a statement regarding a lawyer connected with the City of Utica who tracked me to my workplace. It described an incident where this lawyer (and another person) asked me to file a false statement against Leon in 2008. That is when his problems began due to public criticisms of family court.

Based on my experience with these infuriated police, I believe that Leon's life is in very serious danger. They will do whatever it takes to make Leon look li an Tssor just to even the score for people behind the scenes. /1

Executed: September 4, 2018 / I' Michael Brancaccio