I wish you well and hope you know that your not at all alone.
Life can give us skills whether we want them or not.
In time, every father facing custody and court cases involving family law will develop a ‘thicker skin’ as we all know that nothing is more personal then an attack against your human rights, your rights as a parent and your ability to parent a child.
I would like to express a very important concept today.
This is extremely bold and progressive. I believe their is no ‘movements’ in the world today to change the opinion of culture in the way that will actually build up momentum.
I would like to give you an example*…
“Equality for homosexual relationships in the USA have become popular.
Single Male parents seeking Equality in Custody and Family law is NOT.”
*The example is not aimed to defame or harm homosexual couples in any way, simply a random example.
Who do you believe will be the first to win Public approval in the equality of raising children?
A large portion of Society will back gay rights to have two males or two females raise a child… Will Society recognize the human rights of a Male parent to have ABSOLUTE EQUALITY in custody decisions or family court?
The reason behind this is because Gay rights do not threaten the power of women as much as the concept of ‘ MAN VS WOMAN ‘
As a civil rights advocate, Dr. Koziol has been invited to a family promotion event at the United Nations on Monday. Today he is meeting with father advocates in the New York Metropolitan area regarding a rally on June 10 in New York Supreme Court.
Leon is seeking funding for a shared parenting initiative nationwide. It is important to join this cause if we are ever going to secure long overdue reforms for the sake of families and our children. He has been working with the Trump campaign because his Democrat opponent has been the cause for lucrative and needless parental conflict in divorce and family courts. The fundraising gala here was to promote cutting edge medical breakthroughs which save people from addictions and costly health programs. Our initiative is similar regarding the legal profession. However we remain non funded to date. Call our office at (315) 380-3420 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.
Newt Gingrich at a political conference in Orlando, Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Well you heard it today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, but the question was posed by Leon Koziol publicly the night before at a fundraising gala in Manhattan. After thrilling attendees with politics and his enthusiasm for Donald Trump, keynote speaker Sean Hannity boldly opened himself up to questions. Leon stepped forward and put him on the spot.
“Who should be Trump’s VP and why not you?”
Sean quickly reacted,
“not me, but I can tell you who I think it should be: Newt Gingrich.”
For anyone reading this blog, TFRM does not, I repeat, DOES NOT endorse Donald Trump for president. We have not endorsed a presidential candidate. It is dishonest for Dr. Koziol to make a presidential endorsement using the TFRM logo. Please cease and desist using the logo on this blog.
TFRM is an official nonprofit organization. We have not endorsed Donald Trump, and for very good reason. He has not made one statement for Family Law reform.
In fact, when every single one of the republican presidential candidates were presented a family law reform question that was voted on by thousands, Trump didn’t even bother to answer. Other candidates at least answered the question, albeit poorly.
Fathers and Free Speech Case to be Argued June 10 in New York Supreme Court | Leon Koziol.Com
Divorce and family court victims as far away as Florida and California are already committed to attend public hearing on gag order, equal rights and parental alienation.
After ten years of litigating for parental justice as high as the United States Supreme Court, Dr. Leon Koziol may finally get his day in court on behalf of divorce and family court victims everywhere. A New York Supreme Court Justice has just signed an order to hear arguments in a mandamus proceeding on June 10 at 10:30 a.m. at the Oneida County Courthouse in Utica. Mandamus is considered extraordinary, in this case directed at a family court judge named Daniel King in Lowville, New York, and it is open to the public.
In the past, Leon was bombarded with technical dismissals, jurisdictional chaos and judge misconduct designed to suppress his overdue reform efforts in our third branch of government. Unscrupulous lawyers across Americahave turned our children into a lucrative trillion dollar industry eating alive our life’s earnings, retirement savings, health and college funds. And the corruption is escalating for reasons found in Leon’s ordeal described with horrific detail at Leon Koziol.com.
After 23 unblemished years practicing law in federal and state courts, he was suspended, threatened with contempt, deprived of a livelihood, denied access to (important people in his life) and now they are seizing his home. We can’t disclose who those important people are because this site is still subject to a gag order which Leon seeks to remove on June 10th so that fraud, perjury and judge misconduct can be conveyed to you when government commissions fail us.
The timing before Fathers Day and location of these arguments are also extraordinary. An opportunity like this may not occur for another ten years. Leon has sacrificed too much for this cause and is destined to lose this case because the establishment and gold mine he is seeking to reform are too powerful. But if we can finally rally together at the Oneida County Courthouse in a judicial district which includes the Fort Drum Army Base and former Griffiss Air Force Base, a profound message can be sent to courts all across America.
Leon is highly focused on protecting military, minorities and law enforcement, or those mostly harmed by the antiquated custody system. Instead of promoting shared parenting, our federal government today is obsessed with transgender bathrooms in North Carolina with Attorney General Loretta Lynch accusing us of being racists if we don’t support her. What??? Leon was a highly accomplished civil rights attorney and lawyer for a past president of the National Organization for Women. Racism and religious convictions are not the same. And while everyone else is demanding equal rights, fathers are still discriminated through an abuse of Title IV-D federal funding.
This courthouse in the center of New York state is three hours from New York metropolitan area and Buffalo, two hours from the Canadian and Pennsylvania borders. Already supporters are committed to attend from as far away as Florida and California. Hotel Utica and the Radisson downtown are less than a mile from Thruway Exit 31 (Interstate 90). These were the sites of various civil rights forums sponsored by Leon that were targeted by ethics lawyers engaged in the witch hunt against Leon. They were ultimately fired by a licensing court for falsifying their time sheets. No public charges were ever brought against them.
You may have heard about Arkansas Judge Joe Boeckmann charged this week with sexual predator crimes over a thirty year period through judicial favors. In the mandamus lawsuit and at Leon Koziol.com, you will read about Leon’s custody judge, Brian Hedges, removed from the bench for admitting to sexual misconduct on his five year old handicapped niece, family judges who fabricated college degrees to elevate Leon’s support obligations, and his consequential testimony before the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption which led to more severe retributions. You will read about judges sent to prison in Brooklyn and Albany for soliciting custody and divorce bribes, and of course the “Kids-for-Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania.
It’s out of control people. Stop keyboarding in the comfort of your homes to one another and people who don’t care. “Raising awareness” this way is misguided and creates false hope. It’s time to make a stand against parent waterboarding by a corrupted system. Spread the word every way you can. After the June 10 arguments, Leon will file a petition for writ at the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. concerning a similar mandamus action dismissed by a federal appeals court in Manhattan. An opening excerpt is provided below. For more information and desperately needed donations, contact our office, Parenting Rights Institute, at (315) 796-4000 or Leon direct at (315) 796-4000.
U.S. SUPREME COURT WRIT (OPENING):
While our federal government asserts itself around the globe to advance human rights, its military is returning to divorce and family courts which exploit children for profit. Public safety officers, such as our responders on 9-11, are being hauled into the same courts and subjected to discrimination on account of their gender or line of duty. Many are alienated from their children, committed to debtor prisons or oppressed as inferior parents to feed a trillion dollar industry.
It is a highly protected industry orchestrated under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 USC section 651 et. seq. States are rewarded by the number and size of “child support” orders manufactured by their courts. Superior and inferior custody classifications are essential to these money transfers and mandated by federal statute even when parents with near equal incomes and childrearing periods set up contrary agreements, see i.e. Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998).
Accordingly support judges have been rendered inherently biased against all those classified under the inferior “non-custodial” label with or without justification. Such classifications are arbitrary, stigmatizing and institutional in countless cases, requiring otherwise cooperative parents to compete over their children. Their infringement of a fundamental right to parent one’s offspring is easily replaced by childrearing plans and orders which retain more family oriented labels such as mother, father and parent, see i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at fn. 1(veteran family judge declaring “custody” and “visitation” to be offensive terms in an antiquated system which brings out the worst in parents when children need their best).[1]
However such less intrusive custody substitutes are foreclosed by the blanket classifications and marginalized by overburdened courts committed to the funding scheme. Over time, such injustices have reached constitutional dimension while ever elusive, utopian and overbroad child rearing standards displace parental discretion without compelling state interest contrary to a right declared by the Supreme Court to be the “oldest liberty interest” protected by our Constitution, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000)(prolonged custody case can itself violate parental rights), Parham v JR, 442 US 548 (1979)(fit parents presumed to act in their children’s best interests).
A full range of constitutional rights is easily trampled under principles of equity, or the power seized by family judges to “father” our children, see often cited Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925)(“paternal jurisdiction” derived from feudal common law). In plain terms, the Constitution is being ignored because the custody scheme is lucrative for those who depend upon family controversy for their livelihood. It is being facilitated by judges charged with the highest duty of safeguarding such rights, Federalist Paper No. 78; Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).
Support inequities triggered by this scheme (child support standards act) are typically countered with custody tactics to result in untold harm to our children, i.e.Pearce v Longo, 766 F.Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011)($2 million city liability for police investigator committing murder-suicide with ex-spouse after exiting support court leaving children without parents). In his highly researched study, Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis, Professor Stephen Baskerville places the blame on government: “What many are led to believe is a social problem may in reality be an exercise of power by the state,” Independence Review, vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, at pp 485-486.
Unsuspecting litigants are also exploited by an expanding bureaucracy under Title IV-D to finance welfare costs created by unrelated and irresponsible parents. The ones properly devoted to their children therefore shoulder an unjust burden merely because they reside separately from their partners.[2] These support judges engage in highly abused fictions such as “imputed income” to raise obligations beyond realistic capacities.[3] There is no express provision for shared parenting under the federal entitlement statute, and the regulatory scheme has replaced the child’s needs with “way of life” standards to elevate support even further. It has removed critical discretion from proper decision makers with outcomes that shock the conscience, see fn 3 and 4.
The “band plays on” in our nation’s family courts because civil rights attorneys and parental advocates such as petitioner are subjugated, vilified and punished for their exercise of reform efforts otherwise protected under the American Constitution. Meanwhile, gay, lesbian and trans-gender parents, soon to be victimized by this same lucrative system, have achieved far greater strides in equality with repeat court actions than fathers have over a century of discrimination.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition directed to the federal court of the Northern District of New York. It seeks relief which is central to any self-governing society, namely, the right to seek reforms to this over regulated and oppressive system of child control. In that vein, it matters not whether the decision makers here agree with the foregoing legal posture concerning a federal statute. It matters only that the petitioner is accorded his inalienable human right to express public views and raise his offspring free of the severe retributions he sustained for criticizing our third branch of government, see i.e Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964).
[1] Petitioner’s revenue-bias conclusion was deemed frivolous by the lower court. However it is supported by our nation’s top civil rights experts at the Justice Department. They issued a report on March 4, 2015 after the Ferguson, Missouri race riots concluding that the region’s municipal courts were committing civil rights violations through concocted arrests and excessive fines as part of a revenue generating scheme. There is nothing to distinguish that conclusion from petitioner’s long asserted claims here regarding family courts which incite needless controversy to exact excessive support orders and attorneys fees. Unequal custody classifications are the workhorse behind all this with rampant prejudice against male parents which can no longer be denied or tolerated. The Census Bureau and private entities continue to report that nearly 85% of all support obligors are men. In his court filings, petitioner has described this as “the last bastion of institutionalized discrimination remaining un-checked in America today.”
[2] As this case verifies, money interests have displaced the “best interests of the child” in family court. Financial disclosures are mandatory for gauging child support but exploited by unscrupulous lawyers to concoct needless and even bizarre issues for fee maximization. When resources are exhausted from both parents, they orchestrate cause for settlement or client abandonment. Ethics violations are so numerous and even accepted as part of a litigious child control process that attorney disciplinary agents cannot logistically police all the abuses. Worse yet, these agents are able to abuse their entrusted positions to suppress accountability. This case features a chief ethics attorney and two lawyer subordinates who engaged in the witch hunt against the petitioner-attorney (and father) for his public disclosure of vast misconduct. They were terminated from their court-appointed positions as standard bearers of lawyer ethics after an Inspector General discovered their falsified time sheets. No public charges, ethical or criminal, were ever instituted, see Robert Gavin, Oversight lawyers quit amid inquiry, (Albany) Times Union, July 10, 2013.
[3] The injustices have reached epidemic proportions. Only one month after the Ferguson report, a fit and unarmed father named Walter Scott was shot dead in the back while fleeing a child support warrant during a traffic stop in South Carolina. He had been imprisoned a number of times due to a growing support debt based on imputed income capacities. Under prevailing law, an imprisoned parent for any reason continues to face support obligations at pre-commitment levels. Upon release, the debtor is typically overwhelmed and unemployable. He is nevertheless subjected to a rule that one should not profit from the mis-deeds which caused the incarceration even with full rehabilitation. Only because of the “mis-deeds” of this traffic cop, quickly charged with murder, was it publicly revealed that one out of every eight persons imprisoned in South Carolina resulted from support debts. Nearly all are male parents, and a review of warrants lists across New York reveals a similar pattern. South Carolina boasts one of the strictest support enforcement laws with jail terms of up to one year, yet it reports one of the worst collection rates under the federal (performance) statute, partial source: Robles and Dewan, Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat, New York Times (front page), 4/19/15. Debtor prisons have been invalidated since the mid 19th century but re-introduced through willful support violations. As the case before this court demonstrates, such a contempt avenue is an illusion behind a de facto debtors’ prison due to biased judges having a financial stake in the outcomes of support litigation. Such jurists bring court revenues and personal advancement through support performance measures and payments derived from sources other than the debtor parent, see i.e. Bast, supra. As relevant here, the petitioner-father issued public statements at the Walter Scott funeral before national media, civil rights groups and reporters of the New York Times as part of his ongoing reform efforts. He suffered further retributions in the lower court, state family courts and attorney disciplinary tribunals by actions and decisions beginning only weeks later.
Fort Drum Military Base, one of America’s largest, is surrounded by the judicial district where this case, Koziol v King, is being heard. Isn’t it time we sent a message of support on the home front when our service people return to courts that still discriminate against fathers? Census Bureau reports continue to show that 85% of child support payers are dads who also comprise nearly 100% of those committed to debtor prisons when they cannot hold a good job. Of the 58,000 soldiers who gave their lives for this country on the Viet Nam Memorial Wall in D.C., eight are women.
A University of Chicago study found that in just 26 years the number of married couples with children decreased 71%, and the percent of adults who were married decreased from 75% to 56%, which is evidence of an absolutely shocking cultural implosion. At the same time, the number of unmarried households with no children increased 230%, the number of children in single-mother households increased 417%, and the number of children living with neither parent increased 1,440%. Only 51% of American children, or 36.4 million of them, lived with both parents, and 18.2%, or 13 million of them, lived with a single parent, in 1998. This left 31% of the nation’s children, or 22 million of them, living with neither parent.
The US Statistical Abstract, Table 76, confirms the figures from this study by using different terms and arriving at a similar figure for children who are not living with at least one parent. This table shows that 25.7 million children live in “two parent family groups”, and that 11.9 million live in single parent households, leaving 22.5 million children living with neither parent. 10 million of these 11.9 million children live in single-mother households where they are twenty times more likely to be fatally abused than children living with their families.
Why call families “two parent family groups”? Because as many as 13 million of these 25.7 million children now living with “two parents” are actually living with step-parents, most of them step-fathers, where they are seven times more likely than children living with families to be sexually abused.
That is bad enough by itself, but where are these 22 million children if they aren’t with either parent? It’s truly hard to imagine that they could all be with other remote relatives, in foster homes, or in the care of Child Protective Services.
How did we get to this state? How could and why did the country which was once the paragon of social stability suddenly subject 22 million children to a parentless upbringing, and another 11.6 million to the physical, emotional, financial, educational, and psychological abuse of single-mother households, and another 13 million to step-parents, without our knowing about it? 78% of the nation’s jail and prison inmates grew up in a fatherless household, even though only 15% of today’s adult population grew up fatherless. This makes adults who grew up fatherless 20 times more likely to be imprisoned than adults who grew up with a father present. At any one time, more than 5% of those who grew up fatherless in this country are in prison, and now almost half of the nation’s children are growing up without a father who, when they become adults, will be 20 times as likely to be imprisoned and 8 times as likely to commit murder.
Do they commit more crimes? Of the 24,926 murders in 1994, 14,660 were committed by the 30 million Americans who grew up fatherless, and only 10,304 were committed by the 170 million who grew up in father headed families.
Why are they so much more likely to go to prison when the rate at which they commit crimes is only 6-8 times greater than the rate at which children of non-SMHs commit crimes? If they were only 8 times more likely to go to prison rather than 20 times, 936,000 of the 1,560,000 inmates in prison right now who grew up fatherless wouldn’t be there. This would be only 624,000 in prison, still a huge number, but only 40% of the current figure.
The recent decrease in the murder rate was due solely to a temporary decrease in the age group between 15-24 which commits the most crimes. When that age group increases to its regular level, coupled with the increase in the percent of fatherless children becoming adults, the murder rate will begin its long term, rapid acceleration to 12 murders per 100,000 population within the next 20 years. The additional 33.6 million fatherless children added to the already 30 million adults who grew up fatherless, will cause the murder and incarceration rates to reach unprecedented levels. A linear projection of the known data shows that we can expect fatherlessness to cause an extra 2.8 million American citizens to be in prison and an extra 25,000 American citizens to be murdered annually. Instead of our already record high incarceration rate of 730 per 100,000 population, it will be 1,100, and instead of the already record high murder rate of 10.5 murders per 100,000 population in 1991, it will be 12.
Why are these other 936,000 adults who grew up fatherless now in prison if they aren’t committing more crimes than this? Why are these adults 2.5 times more likely to be imprisoned than they are to commit a crime?
The answer is related to the source of the 22 million children now living with neither parent. Fathers and mothers aren’t abandoning their children–government bills like CAPTA, VAWA, and thousands of other hideous programs are subverting the families of these children and placing them in harm’s way. But where did they come from and where did they go?
1,262,000 children were born to unwed mothers in 1997, which means that 20 million children have been born to unwed mothers in the last twenty years. Another 24 million have been subjected to the vagaries the nation’s corruptible divorce courts. This is 44 million children who SHOULD be with either a remarried mother or father, or a single mother or father, but half of them, or 22 million, are NOT.
Fathers who believe the court system is “unfair” haven’t seen one ten millionth of what is unfair. “Unfair” doesn’t even begin to characterize putting HALF of the nation’s children who have been placed under the jurisdiction of the state in a fatherless environment, and putting another 11.6 million in an SMH where they are guaranteed to be at greater risk of abuse. Congress is not implementing a casual prescription for disaster–they are consciously implementing an intentional, well planned blueprint for the systematic destruction of our society.
US Households 1972 to 1998 per University of Chicago study, reported in CNN
Percent
Million
Change %
Change number
1972 population
100%
207
1999 population
100.0%
272.0
31.4%
65.0
Children under 19 in 1972
29.2%
60.4
Children under 19 in 1999
28.9%
71.4
18.1%
11.0
Adults 1972
70.8%
146.6
Adults 1999
73.8%
200.6
36.9%
54.0
Households 1972
68.3
Households 1998
102.5
Nonfamily households 1998
30.8%
31.6
Family households 1998
69.2%
70.9
Family households with children 1998
38.7%
39.6
Married couple families 1998
53.0%
54.3
Married couples with children 1970
45.0%
93.2
Married couples with children 1998
26.0%
26.7
-71.4%
-66.5
Adults married in 1972
75.0%
109.9
Adults married in 1998
56.0%
112.3
2.2%
2.4
Children with “both parents” 1972
73.0%
44.1
Children with “both parents” 1998
51.0%
36.4
-17.5%
-7.7
Children with both biological parents 1998
25.5%
18.2
Unmarried households no children in 1972
15.0%
10.2
Unmarried households no children in 1998
33.0%
33.8
230.2%
23.6
Children with single parents 1972
4.7%
2.8
grew up with mother
3.7%
2.2
Children with single parents 1998
18.2%
13.0
357.4%
10.2
grew up with mother
16.2%
11.6
417.2%
9.3
grew up with father
2.0%
1.4
Children in “other” households 1972
5.5%
3.3
Children in “other” households 1998
30.8%
22.0
1440.0%
20.6
other relatives besides a parent
2.0%
1.4
CPS or foster homes “neither parent”
2.0%
1.4
Children not in families, foster homes, or CPS
26.8%
19.1
Per 1999 US Statistical Abstract
Table 76
Two parent “family groups”
25.1%
25.7
Single mother households
9.6%
9.8
Single father households
2.0%
2.1
Total “family groups” with children
36.7%
37.6
Children in “family groups” at 1.3/household
68.5%
48.88
Children not in “family groups”
31.5%
22.5
Adults Raised in Fatherless Households vs Adults Raised in Father Headed Families
Total
Fatherless Households
Father-headed Families
Ratio
Population over 18 (millions)
200.6
30.3
170.3
0.18
Population over 25
63.6%
173.0
raised in SMHs
3.0%
5.2
Population 18-25
7.5%
20.4
raised in SMHs
10.0%
2.0
Current adults raised in SMHs
3.6%
7.2
Current adults raised in “other households”
11.5%
23.1
In prison
2,000,000
1,560,000
440,000
3.55
Percent in prison
1.00%
5.15%
0.26%
19.94
Murders 1994
24,926
14,660
10,304
1.42
Murder rate
12.4
48.4
6.05
8
In fatherless households today
47.0%
33.6
In father headed families today
53.0%
37.8
Total
71.4
Current fatherless adults
30.3
Attrition rate over 20 years
6.057712
Still alive in 20 years
24.2
Current children become adults in 20 years
33.6
Total adults raised fatherless in 20 years
57.8
Expected number in prison
2,976,391
Expected murders committed
27,970
Total population in 2020
320
Population over 18 in 2020
236
Over 18, grew up in father headed family
178.2
In prison
460,409
Expected murders committed
10,782
Total in prison
3,436,800
Total murders
38,752
In prison at father headed family rate
609,707
Murders at father headed family rate
14,278
Additional in prison due to fatherlessness
2,827,094
Additional murders due to fatherlessness
24,474
Survey from the University of Chicago, reported in CNN.
Jasmin Newman discusses her experiences with anger in men and the place of compassion and empathy before judgment.
Angry, aggressive, toxic, irritated, hateful. These are all words used to describe many of the men with whom I communicate on a daily basis. They are accused and judged as bitter and resentful, often being described as misogynistic and promoting violence against women, even though there is no basis for these accusations.
Women hating, violent and aggressive men – if I were the judgmental type, there would be a lot to fear about them, but I don’t.
I’m not naïve, ignorant, blind or uneducated. I am a coach, and my primary skill set is to ask poignant questions as a vehicle to hear the experiences and stories of men. I don’t ask questions so that I can give an opinion or to fix men’s problems. I ask questions so that they can find their voice to speak about their pain.
And then I listen.
You silently scream at everyone you know for help. “Tell me I’m not alone; tell me that life will one day be better, tell me that I matter and that I make a difference. Tell me that I’m loved, that someone, anyone please tell me you care about what I am going through.”
When you are in that place you hurt, you hurt so badly there really aren’t words to describe it. Your soul has been cut and it’s haemorrhaging. You don’t know how to stop it; you don’t know how to patch it up. Your entire existence, every single moment of every part of the day revolves around that hurt
When I first started speaking to men in my groups about anger it was something that I thought they shouldn’t have. I still believe to this day that we need to move on from anger to heal; however what I think about what they need for the future is irrelevant until such time as they are heard in the present.
We’re just inviting you to take a timeout into the rhythmic ambiance of our breakfast, brunch and/or coffee selections. We are happy whenever you stop by.
I would like to express a very important concept today.
A large portion of Society will back gay rights to have two males or two females raise a child… Will Society recognize the human rights of a Male parent to have ABSOLUTE EQUALITY in custody decisions or family court?
Americans for Equal Rights for Fathers 