j 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