NATIONAL FATHERS DAY MESSAGE

TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ALL PARENTING/CHILD ADVOCATES PARENTING RIGHTS INSTITUTE AND NATIONAL LEAGUE OF FATHERS, INC. PARENTING RIGHTS CONVENTION REPORT LITIGATION UPDATE JUNE 10, 2011

As promised at our national Parenting Rights Convention held in upstate New York on April 1517, 2011, a Report has now been completed for review by attendees, supporters and various government agencies. Issued in the form of a formal Complaint filed this morning with the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, copies are being furnished to the U.S. Justice Department, United Nations, legislative leaders and various human rights organizations. We expect to complete this process on June 17, 2011 in Washington D.C. (Fathers Day weekend). A copy of the 25 page Complaint is available for viewing at www.leonkoziol.com. Copies are also being sent to our followers. It incorporates the testimony and contributions of those who attended the April convention. However, names and personal details were excluded to protect the participants from retaliation in their private litigation. Instead civil rights advocate Leon Koziol, J.D. employed his own experiences with references and recommendations common to similarly situated parents. The Complaint easily shows why reform is not going to occur from within. This Complaint has immense practical value as a free information product for those victimized by domestic relations courts around the country. We parents are experiencing an epidemic in state control practices over our private affairs and exploitation of innocent children for profit. This document should be shared everywhere as a personal defense resource. It can be used to better understand the Family Court environment and as a tool for evaluating the performance of costly legal representation. In addition, it may serve as a background piece for seminars and public assemblies given the complex nature of these court processes. If this Complaint can save a parent-child relationship from abuse or demise, it will be well worth the sacrifice made by its author and sponsor. You may contact Mr. Koziol personally for this purpose at (315) 796-4000. On a related note, a 25 page opinion was handed down in federal court in a case filed by Leon Koziol on behalf of parents similarly situated in Parent v State and its consolidated member case Koziol v Lippman. Originally filed on February 26, 2009, this challenge to abusive custody and support laws was held up for two years on a court issued ruling which raised the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a bar to federal court jurisdiction. Younger abstention was also raised, among other obstacles, by the many law firms defending this action. Although the claims were dismissed, the jurisdiction obstacles were overcome. Unlike countless other challenges around the country, this court took jurisdiction over the state court issues, giving others a precedent for accessing federal court to raise constitutional questions. The adverse components of this ruling are now being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City. A show cause motion is expected on Friday, June 17, 2011. We will keep you informed as you remain cognizant of the uphill battle we face. To put this in perspective, fathers rights cases feature a 100% failure rate in our nations history. Then, in the usual manner, our politicians wonder why we face so much father absence and moral decline in Fathers Day speeches.

Office of Leon R. Koziol

1518 Genesee Street Utica, NY 13502
(315) 796-4000 June 9, 2011

COMPLAINT
State of New York Commission on Judicial Conduct Corning Tower Suite 2301 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Re: Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman Appellate Division Justices, Third and Fourth Family Court Judge Michelle Pirro-Bailey Family Court Judge Martha Walsh-Hood Supreme Court Judge Michael Daley

Dear Commission: This Complaint is asserted in connection with ongoing sex discriminatory in New Yorks Unified Court System, invidious judge refusals to comply with established laws, and judicial retaliation for the exercise of protected activities. Widespread harm to families and communities caused by needless court disputes is a major focus of this document and reform effort. Until I took up a public cause to promote parenting rights in New Yorks domestic relations courts, I enjoyed 23 unblemished years as a civil rights attorney. I secured six figure recoveries for victims of government abuse, ran as an endorsed candidate for state Senate and obtained a final judgment in state Supreme Court declaring the largest casino in New York unconstitutional. My public interest work over the years has been featured on the CBS program 60 Minutes, CNN and multiple editions of the New York Times. What follows is a compelling story which may be compared to the plight of Gao Zhisheng, the Chinese lawyer stripped of his law license, basic liberties and child contact as a result of his representation of Christian groups and public criticisms of a communist government. In November, discrimination which caused initiatives and 2007, I began a process of representing parenting groups and victims of in New Yorks Family Court. I publicly criticized unethical lawyer practices parents to fight over their own offspring. I also promoted shared parenting equal rights for fathers. Shortly afterwards, I was deprived of my law license,

driving privileges and rational access to my children. I have never been found to be an unfit parent. In short, the courts simply killed the messenger, making it clear that free expression of this kind would not be tolerated and the abuses upon New Yorks families would continue. Koziol v Lippman Page 2 Accordingly, in February, 2009, I filed a federal court action against the state, its court system, various judges and unethical lawyers seeking declaratory relief and compensation for the taking of my children and livelihood. I was deprived all discovery opportunities to prove my claims in a consolidated and sealed process. Then, in a 45 page decision issued on May 24, 2011, my case was dismissed based upon judicial immunity and technical barriers which a private litigant cannot overcome. The decision essentially insulated serious misconduct from accountability. Although a show cause motion is forthcoming before the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City, complete relief can only occur through official duties charged upon this Commission and other human rights entities. Government control of children for profit is a serious matter which requires far greater scrutiny than its beneficiaries are providing. As this Complaint will demonstrate, expansive contract employment is harming judicial ethics, worker productivity and public health and safety. Needless processes are impairing the liberties of an entire nation. This Complaint is derived additionally from a meeting which I sponsored at the Plaza Hotel in New York City on December 26-27, 2010 and Parenting Rights Convention held in upstate New York on April 15-17, 2011. I have incorporated testimonials from parenting groups, family advocates and court victims among the grievances and recommendations made here. There are two fundamental aspects of this Complaint against the above named judges necessarily combined for economy reasons. The first is a systemic one involving the states judicial branch. The second involves particularized violations of Judicial Code. Because the implications are far reaching, copies have been submitted to the governor, pertinent legislative leaders, U.S. Justice Department and the United Nations, among others, for further action. I. SYSTEMIC VIOLATIONS In Supreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980), the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia chief judge, state court system and attorney disciplinary agents were not immune from liability under the Constitution. In that case, the bar of the state hid behind a consumers group in a First Amendment cause to promote lawyer advertising. Its architects of justice feared discipline and retaliation for the exercise of evolving protected activities. In this Complaint, a comparable fact pattern features systemic discrimination and retaliation for my exercise of established protected activities. Unfortunately the violators and targets of my criticism were the decision makers over a disciplinary process tailored to remove me from the legal profession. In that sense, the process applied to me was very much unlike other forms of professional regulation and public employment. Judges were able to seize extraordinary power and abuse our laws when a multi-billion dollar child control industry was called into question.

I have always believed strongly in the principles behind our American Constitution. Unlike the bar of Virginia, however, I placed myself directly in the line of fire by seeking limits upon this unrestrained expansion into private affairs. The 2006 Matrimonial Report to the New York Chief Koziol v Lippman Page 3 Justice promotes a related cause. Nevertheless, I became subject to undue scrutiny for my public statements and court filings on this subject. I accurately portrayed certain courts as star chambers needlessly engaged in private childrearing at the hands of unethical lawyers. One such lawyer who exemplified this unethical behavior, since discharged by my ex spouse, sat on the ethics committee which later pursued discrepancy charges as a basis for license suspension. I certainly understood my cause to be an uphill battle and I did not expect the targeted parties to agree with everything I asserted or represented. But then again, I was also far from expressing extreme views of the kind which received First Amendment protection for flag burning and funeral protests against the gay military. My cause was central to our mainstream parenting population. While the governor is actively promoting bureaucratic downsizing today to stem the exodus of residents from our state, the judiciary is actively promoting absentee parents, needless controversy, consequent lawlessness and a wasteful, overbuilt court system. My case is exemplary as the state has indefinitely confined me to a form of house arrest without commission of any crime. Absent a proper drivers license, I cannot even facilitate employment interviews. A chronology of events is provided in the federal complaint appended under exhibit A. In substance, I am challenging over inclusive laws which mandate custodial classifications in all separated family units. A consequently overburdened docket, coupled with budget cuts, impairs due process and the fundamental right of parents to reach childrearing agreements. A. Human Rights Human rights violations are routinely ignored in domestic relations processes on a pretense that the state is the parent of its people, a highly abused legal fiction also known as parens patriae power. It finds its roots in a British monarchy which our Constitution was specifically designed to oppose. However, if you can make the people believe that the state is at all times acting in their childrens best interests, they will happily endure any curtailment of basic liberties, see i.e. Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler and Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429, 431 (1925). In America, led by New York government, we are not building a war machine so much as we are a domestic battlefront through this unchecked seizure and abuse of parens patriae power. It is a battlefront which exploits a rule of nature. Lawyers know that they can manufacture lucrative controversies by making false and incompetent commitments among parents who will do anything to preserve a relationship with their loved ones. In an effort to maximize revenues, our judiciary then becomes immersed in endless trivia as part of its child control bureaucracy. Unfortunately, this antiquated custodial institution of childrearing, as I call it, is promoted by powerful beneficiaries. Hence the bench and bar of this state is likely to preserve it at all costs. Increasingly, veteran Family Court judges are recognizing that custody and visitation have

long outlived their usefulness, i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany 2001)(reversed on other grounds). Simply stated, innocent children are being exploited by government for profit. The issue is certainly far more pressing for a free society than lawyer advertising. Koziol v Lippman Page 4 We need go no further than my home town region (90,000 urban pop) to see the effects. A police investigator took his life and that of his ex spouse, leaving his children without parents after exiting child support court. Not long after that, a woman took a knife to her husbands throat and was sentenced to 13 years of imprisonment. Two minor children were left behind to figure it all out. A father shot his boy in front of police during a domestic standoff, and a Purple Heart soldier attempted suicide rather than continue a prison sentence on a so-called child support debt. As this Complaint was being released, a 24 year old deputy sheriff was gunned down in another domestic standoff locally. It caused the victims wife to go into premature labor on the couples second child while the murder suspect left a teen child without a father. The victim was a decorated war veteran who received metals for global terror service. Federal statistics are showing an alarming trend of veteran fatalities on the domestic front, see i.e. Purple Hearts Final Beat at second class citizen.org. This is only some of the needless carnage and certainly not a heros welcome for those returning home from the capture of Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, genuine responsibility is vacated by simply blaming the parents. A seminal case is Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 (1998) where our states highest court actually cited a nursery rhyme character to explain how the courts cannot repair the pieces of a broken marriage. No recognition was given to the abusive and recurring processes which pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall while agreement was still possible. Not everyone in this day and age should be made subject to these antiquated custody and support processes simply because of residential separation. Unless a child is on public assistance or victimized by an abusive or neglectful parent, determined beforehand by the state itself, parents should be allowed to make their own childrearing arrangements unmolested by mandated support formulas. Instead, all incentive for harmony and cooperation is lost for reasons wholly unrelated to the child. We have socialized the family structure on a grand scale. The real life impact of this fraud is everywhere today. Only weeks ago, a mother intentionally drove her children into the Hudson River, prompting authorities to question the uninvolved father to discern whether he encouraged it somehow. At the above referenced sentencing, an adult stepson justified his mothers attempted murder by claiming, among other things, that the victim was not a good father figure. The absurdities and gender prejudice are at an alarming trend, but because Family Court profits are at their core, our state disregards any study or reform. B. Abuse of Power Intervention by this Commission, legislative committees and human rights organizations is further supported by the unconstitutional actions of the judiciary itself. In 2008, it brought an action in its own courts against the other branches of government seeking pay raises. This was a

clear usurpation of powers under the Constitution. Base salaries at $136,000 were neither prejudicial nor seriously substandard to impair the functioning of our judiciary. In addition, it produced anomalies of the kind which caused this Commission to enter the power dispute. Koziol v Lippman Page 5 Various judges began an overt process of retaliation against legislators which prompted censures by this Commission and the potential for widespread removals from the bench. Judges were denying or frustrating court access to legislators, lawyers and others deemed responsible for pay raise failures. In recent news articles, the current chief judge declared that budget cuts would delay justice for such things as child support orders without addressing the victimization of fathers caused by discriminatory laws and a highly invasive custodial bureaucracy. The child has been publicly exploited here in a manner reminiscent of Adolph Hitlers socialist manifestos. Revenue generation is now central to all judicial childrearing decisions. It is an insidious development contrary to a neutral design under the state constitution. My reform efforts have subjected me to the very retaliation which this Commission prosecuted in the pay raise trilogy. My petitions have been invidiously delayed or denied and calculated to suppress my liberties. Abuses of power were both subtle and overt, see i.e. Quinn v Syracuse Corp., 613 F. 2d 438, 447 (2d Cir. 1980)(subtle effort to discredit a professional treated as proclamation from City Hall). Here, ethics and Family Offense charges were maliciously fabricated or influenced by judges themselves and exploited even after they were dismissed or exposed on the face of documents. Unless our public servants in the legislature are accorded special protection by this Commission from judicial retaliation, my Complaint warrants a full investigation. It is not an isolated problem. I represent numerous victims in a broad constituency served by state government. You can learn more by consulting our Parenting Rights Institute website at www.leonkoziol.com. II. PARTICULAR VIOLATIONS The annexed pleading describes a full range of judicial code violations by a number of judges. However, in the segments which follow, I show how the systemic violations occur in practice, how individual judges abused their office and acted invidiously to harm my professional career and father-daughter relationships. The code was designed to prevent this kind of public abuse. Prior to my exercise of protected activities, my ex-spouse and I enjoyed a cooperative working relationship with our children over a two year period of legal separation. I was able to provide for their futures, access them with the flexibility of a phone call, and provide a lifetime father figure which they deserved. By comparing that environment with the destruction existent today, a powerful level of circumstantial evidence further supports the code violations asserted here. A. Jonathan Lippman As the Chief Judge of New Yorks Unified Court System, Jonathan Lippman possessed crucial responsibility over the conduct of lawyers, judges and case management. Yet despite notice of the issues detailed in federal court pleadings and motions, there is no indication that he took

corrective action. A federal directive was sought behind a study of abuses and gender bias in state processes. The 2006 Matrimonial Report was cited along with its failure to acknowledge father prejudice exemplified by this case, common knowledge and Census Bureau reports. Koziol v Lippman Page 6 A shocking 22 trial level judges were assigned to my originally uncontested divorce over a five year period with transfer orders that were not copied upon the parties pursuant to existing court policy. This not only undermined my ability to gage proper jurisdiction, but it failed to accord an interested party a right to be heard in a meaningful and timely fashion. Due process was utterly tortured by the assignment and re-assignment of overburdened decision makers who blamed their predecessors for defective or ineffectual orders. Nearly 50 were made subject to New Yorks costly (30 day) appeal requirements to avoid waiver of substantial rights under the CPLR. Rules 100.3(B)(6)and (7) provide the relevant code sections, however, additional violations are found in the bias and integrity provisions elsewhere in the same Code. The federal court complaint describes how judges were confused over their own authority and jurisdiction during my domestic relations processes, see i.e. Judge Daley below. In addition, unethical ethics prosecutions and the lack of child representation in support court were clearly demonstrated. While these prosecutions and violations were occurring, Jonathan Lippman retained a New York City law firm to represent our court system in the pay raise litigation. Reportedly no fee was charged for years of professional service by a large firm which regularly engages its lawyers in litigation presided over by this client group of judges. Fees estimated to exceed $1 million were never charged for services ranging from trial level to the states high court and beyond. Rule 100.4 (D)(5) provides that a judge should accept no gift from a person likely to appear before him or become a subject of litigation. Rule 100.5 provides that a judge should refrain from inappropriate political activity. Pro se activity is permitted under these provisions but no further exceptions are even arguable to encompass this conveyance of free services. Pro bono work is contemplated to mean needy litigants and certainly would not apply to this activity. The foregoing must be contrasted with the ethics process tailored against me. The spontaneous moving of office furniture in 2004 was falsely attributed as a service for fee exchange in 2008 even though the client withdrew his complaint and admitted its concocted nature before the Third/Fourth Department disciplinary courts. Nevertheless this isolated and fleeting assistance by a client enjoying an excursion on my boat was twisted into a fee event by disciplinary agents and courts. The accusation was derived from substitute counsel in a civil rights case who engaged the ethics committee as part of an extortionist scheme to avoid my attorneys lien. This same attorney later abandoned his client (who returned to me) and was eventually convicted of multiple theft and drug charges. He was then disbarred. The event nevertheless became one of five former client grievances over a five year period to cause a suspension of my license. The annexed federal complaint makes parallels to Eliot Spitzer and lawyers convicted of crimes who were allowed confidential admonitions and public censures. This was my first experience with

the ethics process and I was denied all opportunity to refute three utterly concocted charges related to grievance discrepancies that were years apart. The Court of Appeals denied review. Koziol v Lippman Page 7 The pay raise trilogy, because of its unauthorized nature under the state constitution, requires follow up investigation, including a review of separate cases brought by Judge Lippmans lawyers. Properly described, the pay raise litigation was a political event designed to coerce money from those lawfully charged with budgetary duties. The court systems exploitation of a rule of necessity leads to all sorts of self authorized abuses of judicial office. It can even lead to anarchy with litigants fashioning their own rules of necessity to protect child relationships, for example, under the same constitution. The pay raise litigation produced an untenable situation which impaired judicial integrity and impartiality, among other code standards. For example, the prolix complaint was drafted in violation of CPLR 3014 and, in the normal course, should have been made subject to a motion to strike scandalous, prejudicial, immaterial or redundant matter under CPLR 3024. Lawyers were acting at their peril when faced with a sequence of anonymous judge allegations which included an inability to pay for a daughters wedding because I am only a Supreme Court Judge. The complaint was obviously designed not to follow the law but to substitute for a public lobbying initiative. It was filled with case citations, select reports, historical references and vague representations which would place any responder in a bizarre predicament. It was drafted on a premise that judicial office is sought only by those who seek monetary reward. The bench is filled with esteemed lawyers who have already made it in private practice and are properly seated in accordance with a detached public service role supported by our founding framework. In domestic relations cases coming before these same plaintiff judges, an established judicial practice features arbitrary imputed income which is abused to generate government revenues. Fathers unable to find commensurate employment in New Yorks declining economy are remanded to a debtors prison without any ability to attend, let alone pay for, their daughters weddings. In these same cases, fraudulent claims by unrestrained lawyers and litigants clog our courts. Due process is by-passed and money intended for the child is diverted to pay for it all. Five years of abusive litigation forced me to represent myself. Class discrimination is evident. B. Third and Fourth Department Justices Crucial to Code Rules 100.1 and 100.2 is that part of the annexed complaint which describes fabricated ethics charges, findings and a confirmed decision by the Third Department on September 23, 2010 which suspended my law license for a second time in the same year. Among them is one on the face of a response letter to a 2005 grievance which described an allegation as Lie # 26. The disciplinary hearing referee treated this lie passage as a statement of fact on my part. This enabled him to concoct an ethics discrepancy with my submission three years later when a witch hunt was assembled in retaliation for my criticisms.

This misconduct, executed in tandem by presiding and reviewing judges, is completely demonstrated by reference to the papers appended under exhibit B. The first, page 10 of a disciplinary referees report states: In correspondence to Petitioner (court appointed grievance Koziol v Lippman Page 8 committee), Respondent (me) stated that he advised Complainant (client) that Complainant would have to join other indebted clients of Respondent in Lake George to move furniture for him, in lieu of the replenishment retainer payment and that Complainant agreed to same. The referenced exhibit page is reproduced in its entirety to show that this quoted statement, attributed to me as fact, is found in a passage containing the prefix: Lie # 26. I had properly set apart a sequence of false accusations from the clients original complaint letter to better assist its 2005 recipient. A discrepancy charge was not asserted until 2008 when my criticisms surfaced. On page 18 of the same report, which follows my accurate passage under the same exhibit, the referee recommends ethics violations based upon discrepancies concocted not by the client, who withdrew and recanted the original complaint, but by the court appointed Grievance Committee. The next page is excerpted from my 2010 cross motion before the Third Department seeking to set aside this Report. It shows the concoction in plain view from the face of pertinent documents and how they are in lockstep with the entire retaliatory scheme. Notwithstanding this clear showing, reiterated orally before the court only days prior to decision, the Third Department confirmed this Report in its entirety. A copy of decision is included for comparison with the earlier pay raise charges and more egregious misconduct of repeat ethics offenders. In addition to those referenced here, various lawyers prosecuted or found guilty of serious crimes are cited at paragraph 110 of the federal pleadings. As stated, the two year case was ultimately dismissed principally upon various immunities from private action. This is misconduct of the highest order because it comes from the court system itself. Our citizens entrust their most crucial disputes to these forums in lieu of taking the law into ones own hands. The question, therefore, presented before this Commission is whether judicial ethics permit a judge or panel of judges to knowingly issue false statements of fact. Is it okay to convict an innocent person of career damaging charges which destroy his ability to support innocent children? Do we simply sweep this under the carpet? Does the ethics code apply to all judges? Adding to the seriousness of this Complaint, copies of hearing transcript pp 399-407 close out exhibit B to show how I was prevented from defending myself and providing my side of the three committee discrepancy charges. It was these three discrepancies which elevated an original confidential recommendation to formal charges in 2008. The referee simply treated my attempted defense as mitigation for review at a future confirmation hearing. Translated, this meant that I was presumed guilty with the added effect of insulating the record on any appeal. Even our terrorist detainees are allowed due process and opportunity to confront their accusers.

This was a bizarre hearing process tailored to protect the misconduct of ethics prosecutors engaged in a scheme of retaliation upon a dissident lawyer properly seeking reform. The reader will note the baseless objection of junior attorney Mary Gasparini at page 400 as my defense turned to her personal misconduct. When receiving her recklessly compiled Report to the Koziol v Lippman Page 9 Grievance Committee on February 16, 2008, featuring eight years of events, I logically filed a written request for adjournment to properly prepare an informed response report. Mary Gasparini then reported falsely to the full committee that I had never sought an adjournment contrary to express acknowledgement beforehand on her own (public) office stationery. In contrast, she was granted an adjournment at the February 28, 2008 meeting to scrutinize my consequently expedited response for discrepancies. Over a three month period, she came up with only three purported examples in diverse and voluminous submissions dating back many years. The burdens placed upon me were more than simply unreasonable, they were humanly impossible to overcome, particularly given the vague standards used against me. Consequently, I presented the Fourth Department with a motion to dismiss or stay the process on misconduct grounds and to secure needed discovery for my defense. The motion was denied without opinion on May 22, 2009. Of course this then required me to present the same events as a logical defense at the ensuing evidentiary hearing. Ms. Gasparini was again able to prevent her misconduct from being presented on the record through a regularly employed retired judge who assisted her scheme with an additional ground crafted around post hearing mitigation. The Fourth Departments suppression of misconduct coming from its own appointed lawyers and the timing of its first review of my appeal papers establish further violations of Judicial Code, i.e. Rules 100.3(E)(1)(a); 100.3(B)(4) and 100.4(A). These appeal papers, filed on January 3, 2008, contained extensive criticisms of domestic relations processes with clear examples of unethical lawyer abuses upon unsuspecting parents. Only six days later, on the same day as oral argument, the Fourth Department staff opened an investigation into my unblemished two decade career. As all civil rights lawyers know, whistleblower and unlawful retaliation claims are commonly shown through a proximate relationship between an exercise of protected activity and adverse government reaction, see i.e. Beechwood Care Center v Leeds, 436 F. 3d 147 (2d Cir. 2006). This proceeds on the logic that a state actor will not concede back room tactics which suppress complaints and public expression. In my case, this logic was set aside. I was prevented from securing evidence in all matters: my custody case, federal claims and even my ethics defense. The ethics investigation purported to address complaints neglected over a period of five years including one I had never received (filed only weeks earlier). Additional aspects of this witch hunt are provided in the federal pleading. My opposing divorce counsel was among those criticized in my contemporaneous appeal papers and, unbeknownst to me, he sat on the same courts appointed Grievance Committee. Although he disqualified himself at the relevant meeting, his personal misconduct and malpractice comprised a main subject of my appeal.

Over time, such known facts presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for me to properly treat the Fourth Department court as a complainant. I then moved for its disqualification after a formal petition was processed months later. While such disqualification should have occurred on the courts own motion, it was eventually granted on April 28, 2010, nearly one year after issuance Koziol v Lippman Page 10 of its May 22, 2009 decision on my misconduct motion. In this manner, my due process right to present a meaningful defense and confront my accusers was utterly tortured. This led to the logical assertion that our taxpayers were financing the work of an unethical ethics committee. The First Amendment guarantees me the right to publicly and internally criticize the process which wrongfully seized my children. Our judicial forums were created by state constitution as a substitute for anarchy and self help. However when those who stand in judgment participate in the retaliatory fabrication of charges, evidence and findings, the courtroom doors are effectively closed to the victim. It makes no difference in such a case whether budgetary constraints produce the same outcome. These judges caused unnecessary, costly and recurring processes which harmed other litigants seeking rightful redress. This judicial misconduct carried over to the Fourth Departments direct treatment of my divorce matters. The same points regarding domestic relations abuses highlighted two petitions for extraordinary relief under CPLR Article 78 against the above named lower level judges. As the pleadings explain, the first was summarily denied on the Fourth Departments own motion on April 30, 2010, two days after an order was issued by the same court transferring disciplinary matters to the Third Department. The latter was based on a recusal motion I filed prior to the same Fourth Departments hearing and suspension order of February 5, 2010 for alleged support delinquencies, see Judge Daley misconduct below. The court refused all constitutional challenges under Judiciary Law section 90-1, leaving me without remedy. The second petition was similarly transferred to the Third Department in February, 2011 but not before Judge John Centra adversely decided a show cause motion for exigent relief. His peculiar decision prejudiced a re-submitted application in Albany, but together with the circumstances surrounding the second license suspension order, a motion was necessitated seeking transfer to the First or Second Departments. The latter was denied and the Third Department agreed to hear the petition. However any decision was long tainted by the wholesale confirmation order of September 23, 2010. In short, the courts disciplinary process prejudiced its neutral character. Similarly prejudicial is the decision making process exerted by the named appellate justices in my domestic relations appeals. Both Departments continue to enforce laws applicable to the public while disregarding related ones applicable to the courts. The pleadings describe how an approved lower court practice causes litigants to be ambushed in the select enforcement of CPLR 1012 and Executive Law 71. These are the respective mandatory notice requirements to the state Attorney General regarding certain constitutional claims. It leads to wasteful court processes.

The Departments invidious refusal to abide by established laws legislated by the peoples elected representatives is clearly seen in Koziol v Hawse-Koziol, 60 AD3d 1435 (4th Dept. 2009) (following Third Department precedent). Nowhere is the court obligation under section 71 mentioned after years of consolidated appeal processes. By overtly disregarding the law, these justices encourage litigants to do the same especially when forced to repeat costly and child sensitive processes, still underway at trial level on constitutional issues first raised in 2006. Koziol v Lippman Page 11 C. Michael Daley As the pleadings further describe, Judge Michael Daley denied me an opportunity to be heard on a recusal motion using jurisdictional excesses as his weapon. In an earlier complaint before this Commission, his misconduct was asserted in connection with events culminating in March, 2010. Since then, Judge Daley has continued to deny the same opportunity to be heard on the same recusal and constitutional questions in a timely fashion. Instead he coerced a stipulation after multiple delays and improper conditions (eventually satisfied) to insulate misconduct and error from review. He also insulated issues against Support Magistrate G. Stephen Getman. It was Judge Daleys misconduct which directly caused the first suspension of my law license for alleged child support violations. Due to the disjointed nature of multiple judge assignments, I could not logistically produce a comprehensive record for appellate review. I was unable to show how a prior, now retired, judge had maliciously disregarded a proviso in the parents separation agreement which called for a termination of basic support transfers as the fathers time with his children increased. Put another way, I could not keep up with all of the orchestrated abuses. On May 26, 2009, Judge Daley committed himself on the record at a first appearance in a support confirmation process to hear my petitions on an adjourned date never provided. Opening remarks were rude, injudicious and reflective of the punishment assignments identified in the 2006 Matrimonial Report. Committed fathers are particularly prejudiced because they are typically the targets of money extraction processes which, in turn, depend upon a superiorinferior class structure. They are made to feel incompetent or irrelevant in parenting decisions. The presentment of these issues in federal pleadings and motions gave notice to Jonathan Lippman that a serious problem existed in our court system. Money obsessions were causing parents to be needlessly separated from their children. Copies of relevant transcript and violation order are annexed under exhibit C to show the judges commitments, failures and consequential injuries to innocent victims. A very troubling introduction is set apart in light of the pay raise lamentations, jurisdictional confusion, and code violations addressed throughout this Complaint: My name is Mike Daley, the Judge who has been assigned to preside over this matter, for God only knows what. I dont know why it came to me; but it did Re: show cause motion, he continues: So you are aware of it, it is a motion for me to recuse myself. I have yet to get through all of it. Some of it is bewildering to me. I dont know beyond that. But, that has to be dealt with at some point. It never was over a 15 month period.

Rule 100.3(B)(4) provides that A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants... and others whom he or she is called upon to address. There is no rational defense to Judge Daleys violation of this rule in connection with these opening comments. Petitions from two litigants were placed in good faith before him, one who had never met the man and another from a parent who had previously secured recusal orders from the same judge as a lawyer. One recusal involved a volatile exchange in open court which raised multiple violations of judicial code. These were readily discernible from a transcript appended to the recusal motion then pending. Koziol v Lippman Page 12 Judge Daley was demeaning the same motion not because of its bewildering nature but because he was incensed by it and sought to contain the impact. He was well aware of the felony case, People v Carol Hall. Judge Daleys intimidation tactics upon both Ms. Hall and her lawyer (this complainant) to accept a plea dictated an earlier recusal. The case against Ms. Hall was so deficient that a jury was eventually discharged by a replacement judge who ruled that there was not enough evidence to be considered for conviction. There was much humiliation for Mr. Daley. The failure to schedule or facilitate the promised hearing on threshold constitutional questions was more egregious. As relevant here, Judge Daley violated Code Rules 100.1; 100.2(A); 100.3 (A) and (B)(4), (6) and (7). The next event was a willful support violation order which caused an automatic suspension of my rights to practice law and provide for my children. This in turn led to further career damage, public disgust with the judicial system and prejudice in later disciplinary processes before the Third and Fourth Departments, see pleadings for further implicated judges. The prejudice was so egregious that my part of this first appearance was conducted by telephone. I was positioned at a remote location, fully prepared to seek federal court relief in lieu of a recommended jail sentence held over my head for a period of 17 months on a civil support issue. Judge Daley induced all of this by abusing his position out of standard order in the Herkimer County Family Court to punish me for unrelated personal issues using my children as his weapon. The appended complaint describes this punishment to include a directive of the Sheriff to investigate my girlfriend at her business after the conference was successfully closed. Code Rule 100.4(A) provides that a judge shall not engage in extrajudicial conduct that would cast reasonable doubt as to his impartiality or interfere with his judicial function. The Sheriff directive clearly constitutes a violation of this rule, but equally serious violation is found in Rule 100.3(B)(7). This provision requires that all judicial matters be disposed of promptly, efficiently and fairly. Yet after this Commission evidently excused the misconduct cited in my complaint of last year, Judge Daley continued to neglect commitments and processes. In addition to the May 26, 2009 transcript, a copy of a June 23, 2010 transcript is annexed to show repeat recusal issues in some bizarre continuation of a process first committed to the same litigants one year earlier. The August 23, 2010 order by consent is also annexed. This plea was finally coerced after my repeat threshold motions were frustrated, delayed and never decided over a 15 month period. This civil case outcome mirrors the pressure tactics exerted by the same Judge Daley in the Carol Hall case. Both cases in a period of four years demonstrate a pattern of judicial misconduct.

Congested dockets may explain such results in many cases, but here the retaliation was personal and evidenced by irrefutable violations of Judicial Code. There was never any recusal hearing as promised. Instead Judge Daley attempted to insulate his misconduct the following year by wrongfully applying motion filing fees as a predicate to recusal in a Family Court case. This adds to the administrative abuses for Judge Lippmans attention, but Rule 100.3(E)(1) requires recusal in this instance even without such a motion. Imagine, if you will, waking up every morning for a period of 15 months wondering if an out-ofKoziol v Lippman Page 13 control judge caused an arrest warrant to be issued on a civil debt. Even accused and convicted felons receive speedier outcomes on recommended sentences. Only recently did the Third Department agree to hear the issue without granting my restraint request despite its own bias. D. Michelle Pirro-Bailey (1) Carry-Over Retaliation The Complaint against this Family Court judge, the 21st decision maker assigned to my original uncontested divorce petition, focuses upon the ongoing invidious process of frustrating my basic petitions in order to instigate needless controversy between the once cooperating parents. It is a continuing agenda carried over from Judge Walsh-Hood and others identified in the federal complaint. After orchestrating an untenable and lopsided environment for dispute resolution, the court system, through Judge Pirro-Bailey completed the seizure of my little girls. An open ended custody decision recklessly and vindictively drafted by Judge Walsh-Hood on January 22, 2010 and Judge Daleys coerced support order of August 23, 2010 caused predictable complications resulting in multiple petitions by the impacted parents before Judge Pirro-Bailey. On November 1, 2010, I filed a show cause motion seeking a remedy for vehicles seized from my residence by a Child Support Collection Unit contrary to express terms and agreement in the support order. I also sought to rectify grossly incomplete custody provisos. These needlessly separated support and custody processes established a priority for money collections and no concern for father-daughter relations as they progressed. It was as if my fundamental parenting rights never existed. Judge Walsh-Hoods disparaging, grammatically defective and unsupported Decision After Trial failed to provide basic details to facilitate quality childrearing time for the dissident civil rights advocate. A competent judge entrusted with such life impacting duties could not be excused from such elementary provisos. If state Supreme Court is allowed to issue sloppy decisions containing blatant grammatical errors, how can the public be expected to maintain a high regard for its edicts? What kind of precedent are we truly establishing? Retaliation explains much of this due to the naming of certain judges in my (protected) filings in federal court. However, a system of justice works both ways. A judge cannot disregard the Constitution, and victims have a right to access all courts for

accountability. Contrary to threats by judge defendant G. Stephen Getman, there was no Rule 11 sanction, and I overcame profound threshold obstacles to secure proper federal court jurisdiction. (2) Needless Complication On March 15, 2011, I consented to Judge Pirro-Baileys invitation to hear matters despite her status as a nominal respondent in my second (still pending) prohibition action in the Third Department. Such matters arose in both her trial and appellate capacities after my singular filing on November 1, 2010 was once again bifurcated between a support magistrate and the Family Koziol v Lippman Page 14 Court Judge. In one proceeding, an attorney for the child is allowed to participate whereas he is precluded by law from the other (support hearing). This enables the state to expedite revenues through mass produced support orders which draw bank interest and federal incentive payments. While I oppose such appointed attorneys due to competency issues, needless complication and damage to parent-child relations, the legal process itself reveals the inherent flaws in this custodial institution of childrearing. If a support proceeding has no child representation, there can be no child interest behind a purported private debt which increasingly causes fathers to end up in jail. The state has essentially contradicted its claim to be acting in a childs best interests. When a court authorizes a state Child Support Collection Unit to institute actions which separate parents from their children in this barbaric and stigmatizing fashion, Code Rule 100.3(B)(6) is clearly violated from a systemic standpoint. Money collection becomes a tactical device in separated custody cases which harms innocent children for life. This anomaly also forms a due process basis for reversal of the above cited district court ruling in the federal appeals court. However, as can be seen here, the endless isolation of countless issues creates an inordinate financial and logistical burden for victim appeals and judicial accountability. (3) Child Surrender Unlike any other form of litigation, domestic relations processes are effectively designed to coerce child surrender when the money runs out. Protracted deliberations induce predictable psychological torture as recognized in the 2006 Matrimonial Report. It is the worst kind of state injury because parents are programmed to fight over their own offspring. Judges then visit the sins of this barbaric process upon the victims, ordering all sorts of evaluations and re-education programs to compel adherence to a superior-inferior class structure contrary to laws of nature. When adding a retaliation factor to this process, judicial misconduct reaches intolerable levels. Time and again, as oral argument and eventual testimony unfolded, it was clear that Judge PirroBailey was not familiar with the petitions that she was purporting to decide. In this vein, she was mirroring the unpreparedness of her predecessors. My childrens true interests were repeatedly disregarded in favor of a select practice which denied a dissident father any judicial relief. There was no need to examine my submissions because decisions had already been made. Moreover, all common sense was surrendered to ongoing fraudulent tactics freely allowed to the mother.

A crucial example is the repeat failure to order protected phone contact between father and child which in turn caused me to lose track of child development and extracurricular schedules. I know little about these activities even if I do attend. This failure not only produced a calculated prejudice in my ability to compete for custody but it incited predictable conflict between the parents and children. After so many judge assignments, not one judge saw fit to honor this utterly basic parenting right. This translated into judge complicity in father-child alienation tactics. Koziol v Lippman Page 15 The obvious lack of burden upon the mother to direct child contact with the father shows unequivocally that the court system itself was retaliating. By failing to facilitate protected contact, which these processes necessitated, judges were forcing me to risk fraudulent claims by contacting the mother. If the state is unwilling to enforce father-child relations in this most basic manner, it can claim no authority to impose money obligations upon the victim. These judicially seized duties are inextricably bound to one another and provide critical incentive for support. (4) Child Exploitation The conduct of Judge Pirro-Bailey essentially revolved around the position that a father must pay to see his child. Mothers, by virtue of their gender, are excused. This is properly construed to constitute a form of child prostitution of the worst kind because government is giving its authorization to this unwritten practice. Beyond that, child support is wholly unjustified between self sufficient parents. It is exploited to punish one parent for unrelated reasons, it allows the state to monitor strictly private affairs, and it has a discriminatory impact upon fathers. These archaic practices promote father absenteeism and exploitation of the sexist slur dead beat dad. When balanced against the combined damage to family relations, the entire child support structure cannot be justified on best interests propaganda. The state essentially mandates removal of one parent from a childs life without adhering to the elevated standard of proof laid out in Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982). This incites anger and dispute rather than cooperative discourse. The victims are not even compensated for their loss. Instead they are made to pay for the process which destroyed their relations through diverted child support. Shared parenting would resolve this but also put lawyers and forensic feeders out of work. Their tactical routines are facilitated by judges such as this one because accountability is non-existent. To make their jobs more appealing or manageable, judges are increasingly farming out their judicial duties to incompetent outsiders who are, in turn, benefitted by the appointing authority. This is simply political patronage for those like Judge Pirro-Bailey who seek periodic re-election or acclimation to higher positions. When abused in this fashion, the practice implicates numerous code violations. Child interests do not factor into the farming process because there can be no utopian parenting philosophy for the kind of pathetic issues exploited here. (5) Coerced Custody Tactics

Repeatedly I maintained to diverse presiding judges that my parenting opponent was employing fraudulent petitions and tactics to maintain her welfare check (child support). I asserted that this unearned, untaxed and disrespected award compels its recipient to seek complete control of innocent children and, for that matter, the private life of the payor. The benefits are so intoxicating that custodial parents are routinely processing fraudulent claims using the regular flow of free money to destroy adversary parents created by state statute. One parent is forced to combine mother and father role models based upon an outdated system. Koziol v Lippman Page 16 Again, my case is exemplary. After years of abuse, a hearing before Judge Walsh-Hood on May 3, 2010 resulted in a dismissal of joint petitions orchestrated outside of my presence by the judge, mother and judge-appointed attorney for the child. Evidence was so deficient that the career damaging case was dismissed without my having to put on a defense. Restraint orders were then vacated but not before I lost ten precious and irretrievable months with my daughters. At this juncture of the Complaint, the reader is asked to imagine ten months without any contact with his or her own children. Imagine knowing nothing of their whereabouts or well being. In my petitions, I repeatedly cited a single incident involving the custodial mother (my ex spouse) reacting to only two weeks without her children. In the summer of 2007, I took my girls for two successive weeks of vacation. After the first week, the mother arrived at my home to retrieve them against my will, running to every ground floor entrance and window crying and carrying on as if the world was coming to an end. Judge Walsh-Hood frustrated this testimony throughout. Now imagine the impact of a ten month separation based on false pretenses and maliciously protracted court processes. Why is it that our custody laws assume that dads can handle the loss of their offspring better than moms? How can the state continue to relegate fathers to the standard weekend visitor status on the pretext of childrearing stability when it busses the same children to schools and extracurricular events each day? When will it finally concede that this whole system is increasingly designed to exploit transfer payments called child support? To date there has been no recourse for the mothers fraudulent, dismissed petitions. They were simply substituted for a proper custody hearing. My undeserved absence was further exploited to show a lack of consistent care giving (a gender biased custody factor), thereby effecting a win-win situation for the perjurer. No district attorney will prosecute such crimes in family disputes but is pressured regularly to prosecute domestic violence which is often triggered as a consequence. Dismissal of the mothers fraudulent charges was also disallowed for purposes of custody modification. Instead the judges here simply made it harder for a good father to see his daughters each time he returned to court. (6) Sex Discrimination Discrimination against fathers is well known and commonly accepted in New Yorks domestic relations courts for the same reasons that race and other forms of discrimination were practiced

in America. Economic exploitation thrives upon the arbitrary classification of people so that one can oppress the other. Such violations are masked or rationalized under the above referenced propaganda that the state is at all times acting for the benefit of children. In the 45 page federal court decision, a judge continued this illusion by holding that fathers have never been found to comprise a suspect class. I have compared such edicts to fictions of the kind announced in Plessy v Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896)(separate but equal doctrine established in favor of a judge defendant). The fiction here is that fathers are accorded equal treatment under the law while a primary caregiver doctrine Koziol v Lippman Page 17 makes this all but impossible. Knowingly or not, good fathers are lumped together with absentee figures under these federal child support formulas and placed on the defensive at virtually every domestic relations proceeding. The Daley transcript at exhibit C is typical and my federal complaint shows this throughout. My gender was repeatedly abused to issue adverse decisions. To illustrate, a new battery of bizarre charges has arisen, including the same kidnapping plot dismissed one year ago. Judge Pirro-Bailey purports to follow custody principles when she receives these claims, but in reality she is applying negative male stereotypes to promote the fraudulent behavior, thereby removing herself as a neutral arbiter and encouraging more lucrative disputes. After years of custody abuse and judicial retaliation, I resorted to my own self crafted remedy when I returned my girls home from a single eight hour visitation on April 3, 2011. I had been deprived previously enjoyed overnights based on the kidnapping accusations. The mother repeatedly contacted me on this particular Sunday by text to discern my location. She does this simply to provoke me when she knows I am taking two extra hours as make-up for time she unilaterally seizes from me on Thursdays (part of that time specific defect left open in Walsh-Hoods prior order). As we came into the mothers driveway, I sarcastically texted a message to the effect that we were in Rio with the children for 10 months to remedy the deprivation she caused in 2009-2010. The mother then flew out of her home in a demented rage and proceeded to orchestrate an incident out of this which a police officer later refused to honor. A Family Court petition nevertheless followed with additional concocted accusations to give the incident some flavor of importance (a self inflicted fear of being killed). Even Judge WalshHood had observed and reprimanded this mother for jealousy exhibited in open court concerning my girlfriend one year earlier (in the record). However, Judge Pirro-Bailey essentially determined that this newest incident could be exploited as yet another means for delaying and ultimately denying my November 1, 2010 petition. The limited resources of our judiciary were actually applied to discern whether supervised visitation was now required over the Rio joke. (7) Abuse of Police Judge Pirro-Bailey continues to deny reinstatement of overnight child periods despite repeat petitions while maintaining child exchanges exclusively and punitively at the mothers home. This has had the predictable effect of increasing the number of needless exchanges while setting

the stage for additional abuse of police services through fraudulent custody tactics. Unlike the prior neutral location at a nearby mall, our record clearly showed that the mothers home had been regularly exploited to concoct false incidents. The judge nevertheless retains it for precisely its damaging impacts upon my rights and career alone. It is as if she enjoys the outcomes which are orchestrated in this fashion because the remedy here is too simplistic and burden free. Inciting further incident, Judge Pirro-Bailey then purported to remedy her orchestrated outcomes by ordering costly forensic processes in a parallel process which takes these five years of abuse Koziol v Lippman Page 18 to a level somewhere in outer space. I can best compare this outrageous forensic hiring decision to a lynching of a slave for refusing to accept his sub-human status. This latest retaliation occurred outside my presence when I left the court room on May 2, 2011 after learning that the judge had not read my opposition papers filed the prior week. With biased demeanor, she made clear that she would not consider them in arguments that day. This enabled her to orchestrate all sorts of harm including seizure of my childs Holy Communion Day. Judicial misconduct is directly causing needless public controversy with each passing day. A change in demeanor on the part of Judge Pirro-Bailey accompanied the treatment of this petition. It was readily discernible by a lawyer-litigant who likely performed more trial work as a practitioner than the presiding judge. In my opposition papers, I justified my disjointed and offensive text messages to my ex spouse as a by-product of a disjointed, dysfunctional and unbalanced court process over five years. Whether this judge actually read my extensive explanations may never be known. However, if the papers were being summarized to her, again due to overburdened dockets, I should be allowed some insight into the decision making process. Such insight, part of the discovery sought in my federal action, is allowed extensively in jury selection processes. Notwithstanding the equity status exploited to insulate these courts from similar inquiry, insight here is justified by my circumstances and egregious seizures. My children and assets were seized in separate but related processes, and my liberties were severely harmed and stigmatized in all the same respects as a criminal prosecution. My submissions defending the parenting rights, emotional reactions and male characteristics of fatherhood would likely offend any feminist ideology. Such prejudice could be discovered and remedied in a criminal or money (jury) case but not from processes like these which are simply adjourned for months at a time. (8) Involuntary Court Absence The mothers relevant petition was filed on April 5, 2011 and served more than a week later without deadline for opposition papers. If a judge will not consider a properly filed opposition, not even a few minutes of recess to become acquainted with the continuing frauds, there is no purpose for my being in court. Judge Pirro-Bailey assumed the bench wholly unprepared with a callous disregard of a citizens rights because she had no intention of honoring them. This is verifiable on the open court record of May 2, 2011 and it comprised violations of additional code provisions, most notably Rules 100.3(B)(6); 100.3(B)(7); 100.3(C)(3) and 100.3(E)(1).

Before my departure from this one sided court appearance conducted more than 50 miles from my home, with driver escort, I was summarily denied my second childs First Holy Communion scheduled on my time. As everyone knew, this produced the second of two successive deprivations of religious celebrations. My elder daughter could not be accessed the prior year due to the Walsh-Hood fiasco (below). Judge Pirro-Bailey simply adopted everything the mother was claiming without a hearing while subjecting me to an isolated multiple day process over a period of months to determine whether I should be supervised during child visits. Koziol v Lippman Page 19 Such supervision will mean a permanent end to all father-daughter relationships because a father must be respected for his function, not some bone thrown to him to justify money transfers and a defective conscience. Beyond that, the abuse is certain to continue even if I did agree against all logic and dignity to participate in this juvenile process. The entire basis for this current level of abuse is the fleeting moments of child exchange as seen through the eyes of a demonstrated drama queen with a history of false petitions. There is no independent support. (9) Bizarre Processes The only (disjointed) evidentiary hearing to date regarding my November 1, 2010 custody petition began on May 19, 2011, limited to the issue of supervision. It actually featured questioning from the so-called attorney for the child which will not be believed by any rational minded reader. Fortunately there is a record. William Koslosky actually asked me if I was physically present in Rio while positioned in the mothers driveway during my text. This contract attorney presented other questions featuring baseless content to provoke outrage with tacit support of the presiding judge. There was no sensible intervention from the court or a logical scope to this inquisition other than retaliation. For example, the mother was allowed to fabricate a fear event while I was disallowed the right to assert self defense. I was prevented from explaining how five years of court abuse and physical attacks by the mother caused me to be deprived of all civil remedies when I directed her to return to her home on April 3, 2011. The oddities here go well beyond any level of sanity for a legitimate government proceeding. How do you logically conform a victim to a process which defies all conscience and common sense? However, for purposes of this Complaint, these events typify the waste, abuse and absurdity of Family Court. The code violations are rampant. They include Rules 100.1; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(4); 100.3(B)(6); 100.3(C)(3) and 100.3(E)(1). (10) Open Court Fraud In various petitions over the years, I have sought to have child exchanges completed through a third party or public venue until this originally uncontested case could be finalized. Instead, the current unworkable arrangement has been maliciously continued. Judge Pirro-Bailey has been

the recipient of patently obvious custody tactics, but she knows that career damaging events or child surrender by the father are inevitable. A unique and dispositive example with overtones of sex discrimination lies in her disregard of a fraud committed by the mother in open court. At the same time, this judge exploited the logical emotional reactions of a father who is losing his children to a government process which makes him pay for the taking. Routinely, our courts accept the emotions experienced when a child is unlawfully kidnapped by criminals. However somehow that measure changes when the state itself is complicit in a comparable scheme. Koziol v Lippman Page 20 On March 15, 2011, during two hours of oral argument, Judge Pirro-Bailey witnessed a fabricated Family Offense before her very own eyes. The mother, fearing adverse momentum during a custody motion, suddenly bolted from her trial table without counsels involvement, to register a claim that she was in fear of the manner in which I held my pen at a table across the courtroom. The judge, at all times in direct view of my conduct, responded by telling the mother that she was out of control and should face the wall. This was before her receipt of April, 2011 opposition papers which explained the source of this concoction as Martha Walsh-Hood (infra). It was a unique event because a complete fraud was played out before the courts very own eyes. It could not have otherwise been proven beyond any doubt outside of court. However, in the interest of protecting the woman, both judges Pirro-Bailey and Walsh-Hood focused instead upon my rightful anger over the constant harassment and state exploitation of my girls. They manipulated all of my adverse reactions to order costly forensic contracts to be paid for entirely by the father through diverted support obligations and my depleted financial condition. (11) Arbitrary Imbalance All basis for these orders existed exclusively from the mouth of a demonstrably deceitful tactician and fleeting moments during child exchanges. The bulk 99% of my childrearing periods was trivialized or disregarded altogether notwithstanding photographs of happy interactions and direct testimony from involved witnesses. When a man is repeatedly denied all meaningful relief over a five year period of unbalanced and abusive processes, uncharacteristic behavior will logically follow. The lack of a properly functioning judiciary makes it inevitable. Such disputes are cultivated and continued indefinitely until the money runs out. In this case, Judge Daley had seized control of my last asset, my home, to assure continued support for the duration of my childrens minority, well beyond any authority under state law. Judge PirroBailey is now exploiting this knowledge purely as a punitive measure, drawing upon her dual capacity as an appellate support court judge and trial level custody judge. Rule 100.3(C)(3) of the Judicial Code provides that a judge should not make unnecessary appointments so that nepotism and favoritism may be avoided. In the case of Family Court judges, like Pirro-Bailey, this logical principle is circumvented and abused through forensic

appointments of this variety. In my experience as a practitioner, I have seen bizarre reports which attributed unproven accusations to such things as battered woman syndrome and other gender biased conclusions. My ex spouse has been well schooled in this routine and it will lead to permanent separation with my daughters because every human being has his limits. (12) Violation By Ambush My adversaries have obviously found a simple solution for silencing me once and for all. In my federal pleadings, I describe a practice employed by both judges, Walsh-Hood and Pirro Bailey, which had the effect of ambushing me into a violation of gender biased court orders. By causing Koziol v Lippman Page 21 certain restraint and scheduling changes to be received after their effective date, this practice set the stage for criminal arrest sought by a scheming custodial parent having exclusive possession of an operative order. Only by chance was I fortunate to avoid this outcome. As recently as May 7, 2011, I arrived to pick up my girls only to be humiliated with a modified order intended for me in the mail days later. Comparison of postmarks on court issued letters shows that timely notice could have been easily facilitated. In the 45 page federal court opinion, judicial immunity was broadly construed to encompass malicious behavior. Some examples were cited while others were left out. However our courts are not private corporations created to facilitate public abuse. Without meaningful accountability, they degenerate into the kangaroo courts described by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in In re Gault, 387 US 1, 27-28 (1967). These endless anomalies and invidious abuses have forced me, ever reluctantly, to abandon all future contact with my seven and nine year old daughters. The time we spend together these days is regularly prejudiced by sibling secrets and spy activities orchestrated by the state and its custodial arsenal. Government scrutiny is applied to all manner of fatherhood, including the removal of a hand dressing to evaluate a healing process. The childs attorney, whose lucrative appointments would be cut back through my reform positions, found it necessary to scold me because I failed to heed his seven year old clients directives to leave her alone. It has come to a point where I have refused to answer some of the most asinine questions ever to disgrace an American court of law. These hearings can no longer be considered judicial in nature. They have been transformed into highly abused inquisitions focused on the fleecing of a childs ultimate estate. Such inquisitions feature inverted and perverted treatment of parents which defies a natural order of childrearing. This all translates into crime and immorality on a grand scale which, in turn, induces government to throw more money at our escalating carnage. E. Martha Walsh-Hood As both a lawyer and victimized parent, I should not be vilified simply because I am able to strip these abusive custody laws of their propaganda and euphemisms. It is my right under the Constitution to express myself and be properly heard without invidious repercussion. However, the consistent discriminatory rejection of my petitions and the profit motives which I have

challenged further support institutional bias as a judicial ethics violation, see i.e. Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 US 2252 (2009); Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973). As with the pay raise censures, I am being denied proper court access due to my exercise of protected activities. In the case of Family Court Judge Martha Walsh-Hood, coming to my case in a stated role of Acting Supreme Court Judge, I am supplementing my complaint of last year with events occurring since it was discussed in follow-up inquiries by a Commission attorney. As stated, on May 3, 2010, this judge dismissed all Family Offense petitions orchestrated by the court, custodial parent and attorney for the child on or about July 24, 2009. To date, despite my Koziol v Lippman Page 22 requests, I have not received the dispositions (appealable paper) which vacated restraint orders that caused me to lose ten months with my children. My adversaries have never disputed this. This order vacating the restraint is needed not only to avoid an orchestrated violation by ambush but also to perfect and consolidate the custody appeal pending since June, 2010. As stated in federal and state court papers, a January 22, 2010 Decision After Trial (custody) left open the scheduling of a restraint hearing and was not worth the paper upon which it was drafted without a concluding order. It required me to bring a second costly Article 78 action in 2010 for mandamus/prohibition which, as stated, is still pending before the Third Department. Code Rule 100.3(B)(7) provides that a judge should dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly. If this rule of judicial ethics retains any meaning, a delay of more than one year which causes irreparable harm clearly constitutes a serious violation. However much more is available for this Commission to review to know just how malicious this particular judge was in her judicial misconduct. Salient pages of my show cause (cross) motion are appended under exhibit D to provide a summary of events which prejudiced subsequent proceedings. This is the opposition referenced earlier which Judge Pirro-Bailey refused to timely consider. In addition to what has been presented elsewhere, emphasis is once again placed on the opening pages of a July, 2009 hearing transcript where the prejudice against fathers is readily ascertained. On a particular code issue, Judge Walsh-Hood by-passed due process by reversing the order of presentment as a purported means of satisfying acknowledged notice defects. She did this to expedite long neglected and disjointed petitions caused through no fault of the victims. These included one dating back to November, 2006 and another served upon me the same day. It was her first introduction to the parties and this judge was hopelessly unfamiliar with the complex nature of issues which she seized upon for decision. That decision was not finalized until June, 2010 and, as stated, remains subject to receipt of a dependent (companion) order. Her peculiar treatment finds no authority in the Constitution and no transfer order was provided. One Code provision must be re-emphasized for purposes of this Complaint because both custody judges violated it extensively to cause permanent long term injury to father-daughter relations. Rule 100.3(B)(6) provides that a judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a

proceeding, or that persons lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Such law includes the option of representing oneself, Foretta v California, 422 US 806 (1975). This person cannot be treated differently from a represented adversary simply because he chooses not to associate with lawyers. Demeanor accordingly exhibited in open court while advocating for or against a position cannot be used to prejudice the outcome. Any other conclusion would chill the exercise of this option in favor of lawyer retention and fee profits. Yet throughout multiple proceedings before Judge Walsh-Hood, my demeanor as a self represented party was used to prejudice my ability to be heard. One such order which references an outburst after being excused from the witness stand is appended as exhibit E. Trial Koziol v Lippman Page 23 transcripts show incident after incident where my demeanor off the witness stand was used to prejudice my case, including a pen fear event fabricated by the judge herself. There was nothing claimed by my adversary witness or placed in the record by a neutral judge to support it. Particularly invidious and frustrating was a condition first imposed by Judge Walsh-Hood on the second day of a four day hearing after denying my request for adjournment to ferret out the many petitions and ground rules during our prior day introductions. This judge announced that I would be required to present a question-answer format for my case which was grossly impractical at that point in time. I was representing myself with more than ten hastily arranged witnesses burdened by a 120 mile round trip to the courthouse. I responded by declining to take the stand. This was only one of many surprises which led to outbursts not unlike some I have made in other court proceedings as a lawyer, but laced with far greater provocation here. As explained, I had never been made subject to such an order and without use of a notebook, I would be prejudiced unlike my opponents lawyer (paid by me through diverted child support). The child lawyer chimed in to defend his appointing authoritys edict by accosting me with the rationale that such formats are commonly used in state Supreme Court and that, as an attorney, I should know better. This was a Family Court proceeding with no transfer order provided to discern otherwise. This court appointed lawyer, William Koslosky, had previously appeared at a July, 2008 hearing before Supreme Court Judge John Grow during which I testified in narration form, as I did before Judge Getman in January, 2009, as I did before a Fourth Department grievance hearing in June, 2009, as I did even before Judge Pirro-Bailey two years later on May 19, 2011. In short, the judge and lawyer were simply piling on. After much discourse, a compromise was struck to the effect that I would testify using a notebook to better structure narration with court scrutiny. Well into my testimony on the last day, however, the child lawyer interrupted to question my use of this notebook. The judge joined in and seized it on some basis of appealable error which she claimed prejudiced my adversary somehow. The entire orchestrated fiasco caused me to seek permission to leave this (star chamber) inquisition due to a logical escalation of emotions leading to contempt. Judge Pirro-Bailey distanced herself from the Walsh-Hood format when it was raised by me two years later.

This kind of father-litigant prejudice and judicial misconduct not only induced my parenting opponent to fabricate an identical pen-fear event during the March 15, 2011 arguments described above, but these and other incidents transformed the decision maker (acting without a jury) into a witness subject to cross examination. It should have produced a self disqualification under Rule 100.3(E)(1)(a). Here we find clear fact orchestration well beyond the conventional role of a judge seeking to maintain decorum or the marshalling of evidence. It is a common tactic which a proper study will undoubtedly prove to be widespread in these courts. It provides additional support to my position that domestic relations judges have become needlessly, prejudicially and excessively involved in private childrearing matters to the point of self defeat. Koziol v Lippman Page 24 F. William Koslosky William Koslosky has not been named in this Complaint for the fortunate reason that he is not a judge. However, by my experience in law and politics, these law guardian appointments are typically exploited to make entry level runs for judicial office. The 2006 Matrimonial Report caused a change in title and function for these judge appointments. Today they are referred to as Attorney for the Child, but the same Report cautioned that this new role was largely undefined. In fact, the role of Attorney for the Child has no scope or purpose. In the case of William Koslosky, it was exploited to avenge my naming of him as a defendant in the above referenced federal court action. Examples of his abuse of state conveyed authority are found in both exhibits A and D to this Complaint. Such roles provide employment to upstart lawyers and a major source of income for people like William Koslosky. Throughout three years of proceedings, he sought every means of concoction, bizarre interpretation and personal assertion to permanently separate a good father from his loving children. This man knows nothing about my children and he gave no effort whatsoever to discover meaningful facts about me prior to trial. I have repeatedly sought his removal before further harm is visited upon his so-called clients. However the custody judges appear quite satisfied with the damage he has inflicted. His father prejudice was demonstrated to exist well beyond the animus he exerted against me, thereby casting serious doubt upon his competency altogether in these kinds of crucial appointments. I simply presented Judge Pirro-Bailey with pertinent copies of his closing statement, wholly permitted by Judge Walsh-Hood at conclusion of our July, 2009 custody trial. I did so to enlighten the decision maker to what lied ahead. An excerpt is now provided to conclude this Complaint. It shows the widespread danger and potential for abuse when a profit seeking lawyer is brought between fit parents and their children to perform some imaginary function. Certainly nothing meaningful can be gained from children as young as newborn status (the new extreme for appointment). The only discernible ethical standard or purpose is one which attaches to this lawyers bank account insofar as infant clients lack the maturity to evaluate such professional services. The excerpt further leaves the rational person to question what standards are being employed to advocate for such clients when this one harbors deep seeded animosities against his own father based on an argument over potatoes.

The fact that William Koslosky felt obligated to convey a fear of his police officer father to everyone in my case raises serious concern over his mental condition since childhood. These are not real estate deals or ambulance chaser cases we are dealing with. These are my babies and they deserve something more in their father-child experience than this demented figure. The self exposing event from 50 years earlier in the Koslosky homestead underscores the inherent problems faced by innocent victims when appointments are made without a finding of need or a hearing to ferret out prejudice. Four and five year old clients at the time of Kosloskys state retainer cannot possibly fire their involuntary legal representation. By the time they reach sufficient age to sue for malpractice, Koziol v Lippman Page 25 precious experiences with their daddy can never be restored by any court or legislature. William Koslosky has never been married, never had children, and has some preoccupation with Boy Scouts. Beyond that, I know nothing about the stranger who is profiting off of my little girls. I gave no consent to his private exchanges with them. In any event, I will let the reader figure out William Koslosky from his own words: One thing that I remember is disagreement between my mom and my dad. My dad was a policeman and one day he came home and he was mad because we didnt have red-skinned potatoes and all that she could say is we have Yukon Gold and I was terrorized. Id never seen dad arguing like this and, my God, hes in the police uniform with a gun. What is he going to do? So I went to the store to get red-skinned potatoes and I dont like Yukon Gold. CONCLUSION At a time when father absenteeism is being cited as a major factor in the moral decline of an entire nation, the State of New York is doing everything in its power to assure my abandonment of two precious little girls. Meanwhile, a married congressman is sexting countless disgusting images of himself to young girls, lying about it to everyone, blaming his victims, and then claiming to be honest only when caught with his pants down. Good fathers have every reason to be concerned. Nevertheless, our policymakers continue to throw more laws and the peoples money at crime and immorality in our communities. Should it be any wonder that the solution all along may have existed within their proverbial glass slippers? Unless and until our government facilitates the retention and re-entry of good fathers in their childrens lives, these problems will continue. You will not correct them. Money is not, and never has been, the reason why a loving father will sacrifice everything to maintain a relationship with his children. The judges named here have no regard for this. Children are here to be exploited. For this reason, I am requesting their removal from the bench. June 9, 2011

Respectfully submitted, Leon R. Koziol, J.D.