Law Office of Leon R. Koziol, Esq.

1518 Genesee Street

Utica, NY 13502
Phone: (315) 735-2271
Fax: (315) 735-0991
Cell: (315) 796-4000
Email: attyleonkoziol@aol.com

Of Counsel: February 8, 2010

Brian Kellogg, Esq.

Hon. Thomas A. Klonick, Commission Chair

NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct
Corning Tower, Suite 2301
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223

Re: Misconduct of Judge Martha Walsh-Hood

Dear Chairman Klonick:

This communication will supplement a formal complaint submitted on December 24, 2009
regarding judicial misconduct of Onondaga County Supreme Court Judge Martha Walsh-Hood
in my domestic relations proceedings. Previously I supplied you with a copy of my “Petition
Charging Diverse Human Rights Violations” which has since been filed with the United Nations
in Geneva, Switzerland.

Judge Walsh is included among the judges featured in the representative cases described in the
United Nations petition. The thread which links these cases is the anti-father prejudice which
pervades domestic relations proceedings in the State of New York, and more particularly, the
barbaric “custody” process which removes innocent children from their natural parents.

BACKGROUND

Before turning to the serious misconduct practiced by Judge Walsh-Hood, some background will
enable you to deliberate upon my formal complaint with a greater sense of awareness of both the
overriding misconduct (gender prejudice) and the particular abuses of power executed by Judge
Walsh-Hood (specific ethical code violations). We begin with Judicial Canon 3(B) (4) which
Commission Complaint
Page two

reads:

(B) (4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in
favor of any person. A judge in the performance of judicial duties shall not, by
words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or
prejudice based upon age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion,
national origin, disability, marital status or socioeconomic status, and shall require
staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to refrain
from such words or conduct.

In the 2006 Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Justice (the Miller Report), widespread
problems were acknowledged in the domestic relations courts of New York, including the
manner in which sensitive and private family matters were “shoe-horned” into an antiquated and
oppositional framework for deciding childrearing controversies. Phrases such as “visitation” and
“custody” were assailed and even recommended for discontinuance; see also Webster v. Ryan,
189 Misc. 2d 86 (Albany Co. Family Court, 2001).

Remarkably, no mention was made in that report of the vast gender disparities in “custody” and
support “awards” entered in these same courts as routinely reported by the U.S. Census Bureau
and other agencies. The 2006 Commission did, however, disclose the results of a confidential
survey of matrimonial judges. This survey revealed an alarming opinion that domestic relations
cases were considered “punishment assignments”. The census and matrimonial reports, read
together, suggested the existence of a subclass of litigants dominated by fathers who were denied
fair and respectful treatment in the unified court system of this state.

Four years later, the problem identified by the commission report was observed in flaming
fashion in my own case by way of the opening remarks and conduct of Acting Family Court
(Supreme Court) Judge Michael Daley who is named along with Judge Walsh-Hood here.
Specifically, Judge Daley opened deliberations on my “confirmation” hearing of May 26, 2009
with rude, abusive and injudicious remarks typical of my treatment throughout four years of
child-taking processes:

My name is Mike Daley; the Judge who has been assigned to preside over
this matter, for God only knows what. I don’t know why it came to me; but,
it did. There is, as I speak, been an order to show cause filed…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 don’t know beyond that but, it has to be dealt with at
some point.

Despite repeat promises throughout the May 26, 2009 teleconference to provide me with a lower
magistrate hearing transcript and an opportunity to be heard on my recusal motion and
objections, neither was facilitated prior to a violation order filed on October 1, 2009. In the
Commission Complaint
Page three

process, Judge Daley overlooked a history of prior disqualifications or transfers involving

himself on my represented and personal cases. This enabled him to abuse his office, outside of a
normal assignment order in Herkimer County Family Court, to issue the violation order that
triggered the mandatory summary process for suspending my professional license.

The above emphasized remarks, classifications, statistics and prejudice support the conclusion
that rampant deviations from of the Judicial Code of ethics are occurring in our domestic
relations courts on a daily basis. As relevant to my representative case here, Judicial Canons
3(B) (3) and 3(B) (6) are reprinted as follows:

(B) (3) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official
capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court
officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

(B) (6) A judge shall accord to every person who has legal interest in a
proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or
consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the
parties or their lawyers concerning a pending or impending proceeding.

In at least one of my client matters, People v. Carol Hall (2005), Judge Daley recused himself on
a controversial case after a motion was necessitated by his prosecutorial bias and plea pressure
tactics. My client was ultimately found not guilty on all counts of a six count indictment before a
substitute judge and jury. At the conclusion of recusal proceedings, transcripts and affidavits
show the same judge promising to transfer the case to a preferred judge who would be appraised
of my so-called “histrionics” during a successful defense process. Judge Daley possessed no such
authority and his preferred Herkimer County colleague was never assigned.

Such ex parte communications constitute clear violations of judicial ethics, but more than that,
they corroborate the unlawful influence which judges wield over attorney livelihood and
professional standing in the community, see Matter of Spargo, 23AD3d 808 (3d Dept. 2005). An
investigation is needed to properly discern the nature of any related ex parte communications on
my child-taking processes between Judge Daley, the actual Herkimer County Family Court
judge, its magistrate G. Stephen Getman a/k/a George Getman, Judge Walsh-Hood and Fifth
District Administrative Judge James Tormey.

The Daley remarks are reproduced in an Article 78 action presently pending at the Appellate
Division level against the same two judges featured here; see exhibit A of United Nations
petition and distinct submission on the subject of Michael Daley. A separate action in another
court, under seal, sets forth additional violations and plenary petitions for relief, however, these
forums are beset by jurisdictional constraints and they do not possess the appropriate capacity for
addressing judicial ethics.
Commission Complaint
Page four

PARENTING DUE PROCESS

The general and specific misconduct depicted here cannot be properly evaluated without a
reading of an illustrative opinion rendered by the high court of New York in David F. Jung,
11 NY3d 365 (2008). A Family Court Judge was removed from the bench for misconduct which
pales in comparison to the diverse range of constitutional violations committed by Judges Daley
and Walsh-Hood as described in the separate court proceedings. On the narrow constitutional
issue in Jung (right to counsel), the Court of Appeals had this to say in the context of
fundamental parenting liberties:

‘The right to be heard is fundamental to our system of justice (citations omitted

here). Parents have an equally fundamental interest in the liberty, care and
control of their children (see Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972); Jones v. Berman,
37 NY 2d 42, 55 (1975). The right to be heard, therefore, necessarily attaches to
family offense proceedings regardless of a party’s status as incarcerated or
otherwise detained…. This right is no less vital to a proceeding for summary
contempt... due process requires that…the contemnor be afforded an opportunity to
be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner (citations
omitted)…Integral to this fundamental interest in the liberty, care and control of
their children, and co-extensive rights to be heard in a meaningful manner, is a
parent’s right to representation of counsel…

Three years of predictable controversies over money (“child support”) between my first
parenting petition and the “custody” decision annexed is a per se violation of any “meaningful”
time requirement under our Constitution. This is especially the case in the context of daily
developing children. As well, the manner requirement was violated repeatedly over the same
period by the 18 trial judges assigned to my petitions and their disregard of parenting petitions in
favor of money petitions.

Certain of these 18 judges never bothered to read my petitions altogether due, in part, to the
overburdened nature of our domestic relations courts. In an insatiable quest to secure increased
incentive payments from the federal government under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and
interest revenues off of these expedited and mass produced “child support” orders, the state has
overloaded its court dockets to the point where parenting petitions are factually not being heard
in any meaningful manner.

A representative case is found in my United Nations petition on the test case involving Alan
Cady. A Family Court support magistrate was found to have carried over figures, findings and
default rulings from another irrelevant father case to the contested post trial Cady decision,
patently disclosing the reckless and dishonest manner in which these “support awards” are
Commission Complaint
Page five

massed produced. As explained in the petition, Mr. Cady is now facing a recommended sentence
of incarceration by the same magistrate, held over his head since December, 2008.

In my case, similar recklessness reared itself on the opening day of “custody” proceedings in
July, 2009. Judge Walsh-Hood was called to task on a June, 2009 letter in which she expressly
denied an April show cause motion that had already been signed by a prior judge. She then
failed to address a June motion for parenting relief which comprised a critical prerequisite to the
custody proceedings one month later. It was evident that she had not read either motion as well
as an April 7, 2009 petition filed by the adversary parent addressed the same day. In a clear
showing of gender and political prejudice, Judge Walsh-Hood actually came prepared to litigate
the mother’s support related show cause petition seeking supervised “visitation” which, on its
face, had neither been signed nor served upon any party.

Apart from the logical frustration which this gross lack of preparedness would produce to same
day deliberations (my adjournment request was also denied), the embarrassment which Judge
Walsh-Hood brought upon herself was then turned against me in retaliation. I was essentially
blamed for my proper and necessary efforts to educate Walsh-Hood to the case she was assigned
and purporting to preside over. I will address this retaliation shortly.

Elsewhere at the concluding paragraph of the Jung opinion, the Court of Appeals stated:

“It is apparent from the record as a whole that (Jung) continues to believe that his
actions were a permissible exercise of the “wide discretion” given Family Court
Justices “for dealing with the complexities of family life.” He fails to grasp that with
such discretion comes grave responsibilities to the litigants before him as well as
their children…We conclude that (the Judge’s) steadfast adherence to longstanding
policies that have seriously compromised the due process rights of litigants justifies
removal.

Longstanding father prejudice and neglect of important responsibilities in these so-called

“punishment assignments” remain the unwritten judicial policy and practice in this state.
However, the formal complaint now before this commission asserts much more in the way of
fundamental rights, public policy concerns and the proper functioning of our court system. It
implicates a right to raise children to become responsible adults free from government intrusions
and retaliation upon the exercise of other fundamental rights. Such additional rights in the
parenting context are central to a civilized society. They derive jointly from a time immemorial.
Commission Complaint
Page six

RETALIATION

When I took up the cause for parenting equity in our courts of law, I was warned by prominent
lawyers in central New York that it would jeopardize my license to practice law and my
preexisting “joint custody” rights with my children. In one such private unsolicited exchange, I
posed the question whether an attorney’s children or his law license constituted the higher
priority in life, and he promptly announced the latter.

At the time of this attorney’s forewarning, he was unaware of disciplinary processes already
instituted against me for the first time in my 23 year unblemished career. My children have since
been seized from me by Walsh-Hood. On a national radio program in 2008, I was similarly
forewarned by a talk show host in Massachusetts who cited a lawyer in that state, disbarred
within one year, simply because of his involvement in a similar cause.

Applied here, issue was raised against me during the July, 2009 “custody” trial regarding my
guest speaker appearance before an audience of parents at a national fathers’ rights convention in
Washington D.C. (summer, 2008). Unrelated websites featured my children running from the
audience to cling to their daddy in a manner I could not control. The scene was heartwarming
and particularly obstructive to feminist ideology of the kind championed by Walsh-Hood.

The Director of the National League of Fathers, Inc., present during that same convention,
testified on my behalf and was similarly exploited to result in the “custody” decision that I am
now bringing to this commission. Before turning to the specifics of that decision, it is crucial to
note that my rights can never be properly heard in a court that functions in the above summarized
fashion. This treatment of me, however, is representative of countless other mainstream fathers.

The far reaching aspect of this complaint is illustrated further by studies and expert reports
generated over the past two decades. Their contents document the assault upon fatherhood as the
prevailing cause behind our nation’s vast decline in productivity and corresponding increase in
social and health care costs. Professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University presents an
alarming report on government’s absorption with the symptoms and not the root of this problem.
He opens discussion as follows:

During the past decade, family issues such as marriage and fatherhood have
rocketed to the top of the domestic-policy agenda. The past two presidential
administrations, along with numerous local governments, have
responded to the continuing crisis of the family by devising measures to involve
governmental machinery directly in the management of what had previously been
considered private family life. The Bush administration has proposed $300 million
annually to “promote responsible fatherhood” and for federal promotion of
Commission Complaint
Page seven

“healthy marriages.” Earlier, President Bill Clinton created a “Presidential

Fatherhood Initiative,” and Vice President Al Gore chaired a federal staff
conference on “nurturing fatherhood.” Congress has established bipartisan task
forces on fatherhood promotion and issued a resolution affirming the importance of
fathers. Almost 80 percent of the respondents to a 1996 Gallup poll saw fatherhood
as the most serious social problem today (NCF 1996).

A generation of fatherhood advocates has emerged who insist that fatherlessness is

the most critical social issue of our time. In Fatherless America, David Blankenhorn
calls the crisis of fatherless children “the most destructive trend of our generation”
1995, 1). Their case is powerful. Virtually every major social pathology has been
linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed
pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders—all correlating more strongly with
fatherlessness than with any other single factor, surpassing even race and poverty.
The majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts,
pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists come from fatherless homes
(Daniels 1998, passim).

Children from affluent but broken families are much more likely to get into trouble
than children from poor but intact ones, and white children from separated families
are at higher risk than black children in intact families (McLanahan 1998, 88). The
connection between single-parent households and crime is so strong that controlling
for this factor erases the relationship between race and crime as well as between low
income and crime (Kamarck and Galston 1990, 14).

see Independence Review, VIII, n.4, Spring, 2004, pp 485 – 486.

Notwithstanding the similar discussion and good faith cause undertaken by at least three NLF
members testifying at my July 2009 hearing and their compelling corroboration of model father-
daughter relationships, a far more alarming decision was finally received on my “custody”
petition on January 25, 2010. This remedy was first sought in November 2006 as a necessary
by-product of dysfunctional state intrusions into a previously functioning separation agreement
arranged exclusively by the parents. Numerous parenting enforcement motions were denied or
ignored over ensuing years while my children developed irretrievably with each passing day.
Retaliation of this kind is not subject to judicial immunity from Constitutional relief, see
Supreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980); Beechwood Restorative
Care Center. v Leeds, 436 F. 3d 147 (2d. Cir. 2006); Friedle v New York, 210 F. 3d 79 (2d. Cir
2000) (prisoner convict denied First Amendment right of access to courts by retaliation).
Commission Complaint
Page eight

A copy of the retaliatory decision, dated January 22, 2010, is annexed under exhibit A along with
a copy of an interim order of October 28, 2009 which will be employed to verify the unethical,
punitive and gender-biased behavior of Martha Walsh-Hood. The October order vacated an ex
parte order of July 28, 2009 which restrained me from contact with the mother (and therefore my
children). The terms of the July order were vague and designed to elicit a “violation by ambush”
through its mailing on the same day as my court ordered make-up “visitation”, both of which
emerged from trial the prior week.

Resumed parenting periods were then endeavored and deprived during the month of November,
2009, ultimately resulting in a November 23, 2009 order by the same Judge Walsh-Hood which
again denied my parenting enforcement petitions and reinstated the original July, 2009 restraint
order. Joint custody was suspended and eventually terminated. The only substantive event
occurring between these July and November orders was the filing and service of my federal court
lawsuit against this judge.

The parenting deprivation was continued one month later when a second (Article 78) action was
filed and served upon Walsh-Hood. My holiday petition was denied at a summary hearing held
on December 22, 2009. Then, magically, unrestricted parenting time was reinstated under the
terms of the January 22, 2010 “custody” decision annexed. The punitive nature of this reduced
parenting time decision will be addressed shortly. There is simply no rational explanation for
this Jeckle-Hyde decisionmaking process which permanently and irrevocably harmed two
innocent little girls. Included with this supplement is a copy of a greeting card published on
Christmas Day which comprised the only effective form of communication safely made available
to me at the time.

Logically and circumstantially, the “custody” decision, as a whole, comprised a retaliatory

assault upon my public cause taken on behalf of aggrieved parents as well as positions rightfully
taken during the course of my domestic relations case. It had absolutely nothing to do with a
court of law acting in the best interests of my children or anyone other than Walsh-Hood for that
matter. This vindictive and out-of-control jurist violated numerous code provisions, including
the very overriding principle of Canon One:

A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A

judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards
of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to
be construed and applied to further that objective.
Commission Complaint
Page nine

SPECIFIC MISCONDUCT OF WALSH-HOOD

Turning now to the more specific misconduct, I have appended an excerpt from my December
2009 Appellate Division show cause order under exhibit B, previously supplied to this
commission, for a rendition of widespread ethical misconduct of Judge Walsh-Hood during the
July 2009 “custody” proceedings encompassed by her (appended) decision. The preamble to
Canon Three provides that a judge shall perform the duties of office “diligently” as well as
impartially. Canon Two provides that a judge shall respect and comply with the law.

In this case, Judge Walsh-Hood, hereinafter “Hood”, applied the law in select and self serving
fashion as a named defendant in two actions previously filed by me. She employed the “law” as
a weapon against the father-litigant and a protective device for the state’s “custodial parent”
acting unnecessarily in the statutory role of both mother and father. Various “asides” were added
in the text of her public opinion without support or purpose simply to disparage my hard earned
51 year unblemished personal, political and professional reputation. Each distinct aspect of that
reputation came under fire during the highly exploited “custody” hearing over a four day period.

Only a few illustrations are in order. At two separate locations of a 14 page decision, Ms. Hood
renders an aside to the effect that my parental “fitness is questionable and could be more
properly accessed xxxxxx ”, see i.e., pg 8. Forgetting for the moment her own Jeckle-Hyde
deliberations, this libelous assault was obviously asserted by an angry and vindictive
decisionmaker whose sole purpose was not to foster the shared parenting arrangements earlier
contemplated by the parents (prior to state intrusions) but to discredit my positions and character
in the ongoing fathers’ rights cause described throughout my submissions. It is a government
tactic not uncommon to civil rights movements, but in this case, children were exploited in a
manner reminiscent of fascist regimes and underworld figures.

Appended to my December, 2009 show cause motion already in the commission’s possession
(under exhibit B) is an affidavit from an off duty Oneida County Sheriff employee who
witnessed the custodial mother’s physical assault upon me in October, 2007. This was during a
child exchange while I was retreating defensively into my home. The attack was triggered by
my unyielding rejection of the mother’s agenda to have me give up my children to a wealthy
childless paramour in exchange for an end to the state’s oppressive and gender biased support
collection process (which she commanded), see page 4 of decision.

The contents of this affidavit were reduced to testimony at my custody hearing, along with the
additional evidence of erratic and abusive behavior on the part of the state’s custodial agent.
One such additional witness insisted upon a trip from Utica to Syracuse, in a mid-body brace for
severe spinal disabilities, against doctor recommendations, to testify about a similar abusive
Commission Complaint
Page ten

event at the mother’s home in 2006. Ms. Hood not only failed to address this combined evidence
altogether, she refused to allow corroborating testimony from me that was critical to the
background behind the mother’s misconduct, including a protection order issued against her as a
result of the same October, 2007 event.

In her decision, Ms. Hood references another protection order secured by the mother in 2006,
however, the record, if properly read, would have disclosed that this order had been vacated
weeks later and that the one she was referencing was actually procured on the mother’s
fraudulent petition derived from the October, 2007 event. These actual conflicting and long
expired ex parte orders demonstrated the commonly exploited, gender-biased syndrome known
as “battered woman”. By misrepresenting the orders actually before her, Ms. Hood was able to
dodge the logic that the mother was seeking to distract attention from her assault through a
fraudulent race to a Family Court judge only weeks before election day on my prominent (failed)
bid for public office.

Other, lesser asides are found sprinkled among the greater disparagements. For example, at the
bottom of page 3, Ms. Hood references one of my motions dated July 20, 2009 as “never
properly filed” while making no mention of the “improperly filed” and never served show cause
application of the mother dated April 7, 2009. As stated, this is the one that Ms. Hood
“improperly” sought to litigate on the opening day of the trial. My choice as a “proper” litigant
was either to ignore her incompetence or face the wrath now seen in her “custody” decision.

GROSS LACK OF PREPAREDNESS

Directing the Commission’s attention now to pages 2-3 of the decision, Ms. Hood identifies at
least eight pending petitions filed at various times during the course of our originally
“uncontested” divorce action first filed in September, 2005. As the Article 78 exhibit states,
there were many more petitions, including at least three incompetently handled by Ms. Hood on
the opening day of trial. Her incompetence was directly traceable to the lack of diligence, bias
and her failure to read those petitions before hearing the first witness (because the outcome had
already been prejudged and decided).

Had Ms. Hood impartially and diligently reviewed the petitions first placed before her in June,
2009, she would have become appraised of four tortuous years of state sponsored child and
father abuse processes occurring as a consequence of this insatiable quest for cash. So powerful
was the state’s greed that the so-called “custody” case was transformed into yet another financial
inquisition into such child quality issues as the cost of playground and playroom improvements
at my home dating back to premarital resources. Hood’s interruptions revealed her callous
indifference to the wonderful father-child activities occurring there in my standard weekend
warrior role.
Commission Complaint
Page eleven

A mature and impartial judge would not respond to this abusive history with personal renditions
of her own private life (i.e. testimony interruptions of late night exigent events as “way past her
bedtime”). An ethical judge would not throw gas upon a forest fire started by the state’s own
intrusions by constraining and demeaning all of my professional petitions and positions by
ignoring the logical reaction of a “loving” father, confirmed on pg. 13, who is being
systematically deprived of his precious little girls by the use of armed police officers.

A more resourceful judge would recognize that such one-sided abuse by the very courts and
governments that produced the four year controversies would lead naturally to “emotional
outbursts”. These exploited outbursts were in reality well restrained when consulting the actual
unmolested record and heroic figures exemplified in such blockbuster films as “Ransom” and
“Taken”. These films involved kidnapping and child prostitution as the cause for immensely
violent and laudable reactions from committed fathers. Such depictions take on a reality
dimension when comparing New York’s custodial institution to oppressive government regimes
that similarly removed and exploited the “State’s” children for reasons other than money.

I am unable to provide this Commission with a transcript of my four day “custody” proceedings
to verify the misconduct set out in my December 2009 show cause document and this
correspondence. This is because of another “bizarre” aspect of these four year processes. Unlike
Family Court, where transcript costs are not born by the parties, Ms. Hood discriminated on
account of my marital status by interjecting a pending stenographer bill during my objectionable
and reversed “custody” case-in-chief.

I have maintained that this $5,000 bill is, in effect, a filing fee for the “non-custodial” father
through one-sided welfare obligations to the mother, sealed in my case at the time of separation
discussions in 2003 (when my second child was still “unborn”). Appended under exhibit C are
copies of two letters from Walsh-Hood and her court reporters that show overbilling practices on
their face and the $5,000 condition precedent for a father to access our domestic relations courts.
Such access is mandatory when the state seizes children and expects their parents to defend them
“civilly”.

BIZARRE DECISIONMAKING

In both versions of my distinct court actions filed against Judges Hood and Daley last year, at
least one pleading paragraph was devoted to a series of parenting (separation) agreements
arranged exclusively between the parents between 2004 and 2006. The actual (unmolested) facts
and record of divorce proceedings established this two year time frame as the most successful
and incident-free parenting period of the children’s six year existence.
Commission Complaint
Page Twelve

Indeed, this commission is able to readily corroborate this crucial fact by resort to all 14 pages of
Hood’s decision to find no references to this period. Instead, Ms. Hood focuses all of her venom
upon the pre-separation (2002 – 2004) and post-intrusion (2006 – 2009) periods to orchestrate a
defamatory public pronouncement. The pleadings describe our several agreements to include
phraseology that was foreign to the true parents’ childrearing philosophy (co-parenting
transition).

Contrary to this philosophy, the parents were forced by the State of New York to employ phrases
such as “joint custody”, “visitation” and “child support”, among others, to disrupt a working
arrangement more aptly patterned around rapidly changing circumstances and more accurate
domestic-related terms. These included time tested roles such as father and mother, husband and
wife, common sense responsibilities and flexible parenting periods, to result in jointly arranged
child events. Instead, the foreign phrases induced the empowerment of an easily inflamed
superior parent over an oppressed sub-class parent.

These foreign terms are more appropriate to socialist state control objectives such as prison
custody and visitation, involuntary institutional confinement and even funeral arrangements.
The bizarre incongruity of these state mandated phrases was explained throughout the four year
record of the third (contested) period of litigation. All of it fell on deaf ears because any near
equal or co-parenting philosophy would negate all justification behind an established custodial
framework that lawyers and forensic bureaucrats feed off of.

In the July, 2009 proceedings, Ms. Hood went to painstaking efforts to exclude this core issue
from the official record. Testimony and documentary evidence on the subject of our first 2003
separation proposal drafted by the mother “at Mr. Koziol’s request” was rejected, even over my
offer of proof, thereby preventing me from exposing a typical gender biased custody tactic
known as “battered woman syndrome” (emotional abuse). There is no established counterpart
for the male parent coming into the same court system.

This historically abused tactic, coupled with Ms. Hood’s extension of admissible evidence to the
remote time frame of the parties’ marriage, consummated the custodial mother’s fraudulent case.
Conveniently, during the remote marital period (2002 – 2004), there would be no adult witnesses
to refute or corroborate fabricated claims. Clearly the mother here was not seeking to escape any
“emotional and verbal abuse” of a marriage developed around “a beautiful four (4) bedroom
home situated on two (2) acres of land containing many child oriented improvements”, pg 6 of
decision. My genuine unimpaired support of my children is well illustrated by such unrefuted
facts.

Contrary to the realities of “joint” childrearing in this case, Ms. Hood drafted her decision to
cover up an underlying modern day design of our domestic relations laws to exploit children for
money and not their so-called “best interests”. She refused to hear the drafting background
(discussions) surrounding our then existing co-parenting transition plans and falsely attributed
the signed agreements exclusively to me (because of my lawyer status). She even assaulted the
Commission Complaint
Page Thirteen

transition and father preservation terms as “bizarre”, enroute to a conclusion that their overall
ambiguities led to parental conflict, see pp 10-11.

Any such conflict cannot begin to compare to the irreconcilable controversy occurring today
after four years of dysfunctional state interferences. In 2005, agreements were successfully
consummated, preschool events were jointly attended and childrearing time and discussions were
liberally shared. Today, mutual “protection orders” have ruled the agenda to the joint destruction
of income producing careers and constructive child development.

GENDER CLEANSING DESIGN

Another design underlying our domestic relations processes is gender-cleansing of father and
mother roles. From the very outset of Hood’s decision, the presentation and conclusions are
laced with male prejudice, anti-man stereotypes, irrelevant assaults upon my 51 year
unblemished character and professional reputation, and vicious asides designed exclusively to
retaliate upon my two prior lawsuits filed against her. In contrast, the state’s “custodial parent”
is described as a near perfect machine, successfully performing the singular modern day role of a
gender-merged parent. The outsider (father) is then marginalized to non-existence.

This gender cleansing agenda is masked by overbroad and easily exploited standards for
deciding “custody” disputes. Most damning is that ever elusive “best interests of the child”
criterion evaluated under a “totality of circumstances”, see pages 11 – 12 of decision. After
damaging my professional income producing career in every imaginable way, and in every
clause and sentence of her so-called “thoughtful consideration” of “factors”, Ms. Hood justifies
her misconduct under the following boundless citation to authority:

“The only absolute in the law governing custody of children is that there are no
absolutes” (citing Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY 2d89 (1982) at page 93.

This judicially crafted rule of law, seized from a 30 year old opinion, states clearly that anything
goes when fashioning a “custody” decision. There are no power constraints upon such authority
once the state takes control over its people’s children. Ms. Hood exploits this wide ranging
power to suppress a dissident litigant with politically incorrect views in “her” courtroom.
Among her abuses are those found at decision pages 13 – 14 to be addressed presently.

This so-called “standard” is more expansive in scope than the harassment and disorderly conduct
statutes typically employed by police and oppressive governments to abuse and punish their
subjects. Ms. Hood’s defamatory rendition was fully predictable by her trial conduct, disparate
control of the evidence and references to the public nature of this private and sensitive “domestic
relations” controversy. The draconian reach of her “asides”, however, could never be anticipated
in a properly constrained decision-making environment.
Commission Complaint
Page Fourteen

As Ms. Hood well knew, this was not any old controversy. Apart from my prominent political
background, she was forced to recognize some of its (bizarre) judicial history on page 3 of her
decision with such acknowledgements that this proceeding “lingered for months” (actually 3 ½
years) due to the retirement of “Judge Grow”, several judges’ recusals (some 15 re-assignments
altogether), a stay (six weeks) and “several decisions on Appeal by the Appellate Division” (four
consolidated decisions proceeding simultaneously with lower court processes other than a six
week period).

While ignoring more proximate events between 2005 and 2009 elicited from at least nine diverse
witnesses on my behalf, Ms. Hood focused on fraudulently asserted events from the custodial
mother’s two exclusive family witnesses. One such event produced the first of three outbursts
over the four day hearing which was then exploited to promote a male stereotype of the father as
violent, temperamental and unfit to raise children.

Due to the many judge transfer orders, discovery limitations which this caused, and Ms. Hood’s
refusal to grant a logical adjournment on our first appearance to properly ferret out petitions and
issues for trial, I could not anticipate the vicious fabrications of the custodial tactician. Indeed,
between the 2002 birth of my first child and the time of the July, 2009 hearing, there was
concededly not a single report or claim of child abuse on my part in any of these numerous
petitions. This did not stop the agenda to color my character otherwise.

Logically, then, when the maternal grandparent testified that I had allegedly “hit” my child
sometime during our 2002 – 2004 marriage, I promptly stood up and accused her of being a bald-
faced liar. She then recanted, explaining that she had not personally observed any such event and
the false sworn testimony was immediately stricken from the record. This malicious scheme by
the “custodial parent” to use her own reluctant mother to traumatize a loving father should have
been reason enough to switch “custody” roles.

Such a switch might have helped reform the predominant 90% composition of women occupying
the state’s custodial positions, but such corrective action was never on anyone’s radar screen in
this gender biased environment. The illusory custodial role continues to be held ever outward
before the male parent until roughly the age of child majority. Conveniently, this promotes
endless controversy that extorts hard earned wealth from the parents to irrelevant outside parties.
There is no genuine child purpose to this destructive custodial framework.
Commission Complaint
Page Fifteen

THE ELEVEN DAY CRUISE

The journey into our remote marriage caused additional one-sided fodder at pg. 6 of the
malicious decision. After minimizing my career expansion to a satellite office in Lake George
(with connected apartment used by the mother and children), Ms. Hood states that I “took an
eleven day cruise without (my) wife or toddler daughter in April 2003 during defendant’s
problem pregnancy”. This “oh-my-gosh” finding produced the intended effect because Ms.
Hood constrained my case in the fashion detailed elsewhere, and she failed to include the
complete picture involving a man who cared so much for his children that he endured an extra
year of career damaging emotional abuse so that the unborn child would not have to suffer future
questions of illegitimacy. This endurance and “privacy” issue remained intact for six years until
Ms. Hood opened the door, over my vigorous objections, to the pre-separation agreement period.

Believing that she had gotten something otherwise damaging to my professional, personal and
political standing, Ms. Hood instead succeeded in ruthlessly damaging my youngest innocent
child for the duration of her natural life. This is born out by the ease with which all other
perceived injuries to me can be dispensed, beginning with the “oh-my-gosh cruise”.

There were actually two cruises during a “problem pregnancy” that had not become problematic
until afterward. Royal Caribbean cruise receipts and itineraries generated exclusively from my
hard earned income will verify the first one, during the mother’s schoolteacher vacation period in
February, 2003, when the ingrate mother, our “toddler daughter” and (emphasis added) my
unborn child accompanied me on a Caribbean cruise. A snow storm and flyer demands
jeopardized post 9/11 air flights, hence, I personally drove my family at the last minute to Florida
in the “Mercedes” I bought for my wife (referenced in her case). I did so through an unexpected
blizzard in Washington D. C. while they slept. We visited family on the return trip.

The second cruise was concededly unknown to her, but the two week excursion was not. It was
designed with her full consent to accommodate the search for a winter home for a newly
purchased motor yacht. Trial observers will recall the judge’s commentary about the maternal
grandfather who resided with his girlfriend on a Caribbean island. We had already obtained a
Yacht Club contract at Newport, Rhode Island (near her father and mother residences at the time)
after I purchased the yacht in 2002, originally intended for Lake George.

Our goal, one year later, altered to accommodate the pregnancy, was to secure a winter home for
the eight sleeper vessel. This goal, under the circumstances, was ideally served by a cruise to
numerous islands on my own given the experience of our first cruise with the children one month
earlier. The mother knew and accepted the two week search, but not the logical manner of its
execution on economic reasons alone. There has never been an allegation that I ever “cheated”
on my wife, but her suspicious television viewing character and my deep seeded religious beliefs
could never be reconciled without a risky argument.
Commission Complaint
Page Sixteen

The insertion of this “oh my gosh” cruise in the “Primary Caretaker” section of Hood’s decision
is additionally suspect because, with a second child in the womb, it was physically impossible
for me to be a primary caretaker at that time. Indeed, this circumstance backfires upon Hood’s
manipulation of the case to support the gender bias claim behind both of my court actions filed
against her.

“CHILD SUPPORT”

Various words and phrases are set out in quotes throughout this submission to denote what I have
long held to be gender biased slurs. The notion that a “child support” order must be entered, as it
was here, at the outset of any domestic relations case, even where “support” is not at issue, is a
declaration by the state that parents are inherently incompetent to manage their own affairs and
that the fathers are presumptively deficient in their money obligations to mothers.

Remarkably, the record of this case establishes that after two years of “child support”
deliberations, the first assigned divorce judge was compelled to find in his October 8, 2008 letter
decision that I had been overpaying the custodial agent by $200 per month. He then arbitrarily
increased the formula finding to the 2005 agreed upon amount to justify the destruction caused in
between. This he did contrary to the so-called Child Support Standards Act which is typically
exploited to inflame one parent to believe that she/he can endlessly oppress the other parent.

These draconian support orders have no accountability requirement to the child. They are
regularly employed toward irrelevant and addicting subjects such as controlled substances,
government sponsored gambling and partner maintenance. In my case, it was exploited to pay
for lawyers, contributions to my political opponents and, among other things, an extortion device
to give up my children. In the “Financial Fitness” section of her decision, Ms. Hood was able to
assist the custodial mother’s case by concluding that she “has demonstrated her ability to provide
for the financial needs of the children on her own”, thereby negating the rationale for one-sided
support (welfare) payments altogether.

What Ms. Hood omits from her slanted rendition on this subject is that I have not only been
doing the same thing, and more effectively so, for the same children, but that I have also taken
care of the ingrate mother for a period of more than six years without anything in return except
the malicious impairments of my income capabilities and parent-child relationships. Ms. Hood
concludes that “plaintiff demands all the benefits of parenthood but blatantly disregards his
financial responsibility to his children”. What a competent judge would have concluded is that
the “defendant demands all of the money it takes to raise children but blatantly disregards her
more important human responsibility to foster a meaningful father-daughter relationship”.
Commission Complaint
Page Seventeen

This latter statement, of course, assumes that either parent should have such life impacting
powers at all. In a presumptive shared arrangement, as opposed to the antiquated power
arrangement (presumptive caregiver), neither parent could “tax and destroy” the other parent.
Here, the four year record shows unequivocally that the only presumptive and now permanent
“custodial parent” abused her state conferred powers over my children to impair, with impunity,
my career income producing capacity for child support purposes. Evidence for this is found in
the never-produced support magistrate transcript and defective October 1, 2009, violation order
issued by Judge Daley.

BURDEN OF LITIGATION

Related to these processes are the findings concerning my former office manager, Veronica
Donahue. Ms. Hood acknowledges her as the person assigned to all of my financial affairs. This
was done as a direct consequence of the state’s support collection processes and the
mother’s/lawyer’s 2006 frivolous and self-serving accusations of “hiding income.” It triggered
the kind of burdensome litigation that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in the parenting
context, see Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57,75 (2000).

Over time, it became apparent that Ms. Donahue, herself a product of multiple transient father
figures, had been abusing her assigned trust at my office. Indeed, even the mother at the hearing,
referenced one of our earlier conversations to contain my suspicions of money
misappropriations. When this was conclusively discovered in November, 2009, I terminated her.
At the November 23, 2009 arguments, the mother’s lawyer confirmed Ms. Donahue’s planned
extortion agenda behind these misappropriations by damaging my ongoing custody case based
upon the mother’s similar and successful design over a prior four year period. The irrefutable
timing of my phone call to the District Attorney’s office preceding her responsive calls to the
grievance committee and mother’s lawyer established this common design which forced me to
choose between my children and my career.

This series of events further demonstrates the damage which prolonged “custody” and “support”
processes bring to our productivity as a nation (related elsewhere in this submission). I could not
hope to effectively manage a small civil rights practice as I successfully did over a prior twenty
year period while addressing all litigation burdens described in the show cause exhibit A (Article
78 petition). Ignoring all of the logical consequential exigencies, Ms. Hood focused upon Ms.
Donahue as a poor substitute for a periodic office babysitter due to a concession that she had
“hit” one of my children during a brief absence on my part. In the process, she omits all
surrounding facts which delimit this “hit” as a pat on the behind when my daughter had
misbehaved and placed herself at risk of injury. Rest assured, I would not and never will tolerate
anyone “hitting” my children anymore than I did when scratches were discovered on my
daughter’s face in 2006 while in the care of the mother.
Commission Complaint
Page Eighteen

At first, Ms. Donahue lied to me about this incident after it was later first brought to my attention
by the mother. Like her own custodial imperfections, I required time to complete a proper
inquiry with two office staff present during the incident. This inquiry was further complicated by
a sworn affidavit of the mother filed in May, 2009, which related three separate dates of alleged
“hitting” by Ms. Donahue including one when she was physically out of state and another
occurring on April 31, 2008 (no such calendar date). In any event, I never called my daughter a
liar unlike her two adult counterparts in this conflicting arena of parental decision making.
Absent from the record is the mother’s employment of a marijuana abusing 16 year old
babysitter, all of which would be unnecessary in a properly enforced shared parenting
environment that Ms. Hood evidently detested for feminist reasons.

RAMPANT GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

The Hood decision possesses numerous punctuation, possessive and grammatical errors
throughout, see i.e. pg 5, 3rd line, (parties petitions) compared to correct use of possessives in
line 22 (parties’ two children); missing commas, passim, i.e. lines 7 and 19, incorrect
punctuation contained at pg 6, line 2 and inconsistent use of possessives at pg 8, lines 2 and 8
(childrens’ schooling). Errors were even found among references to the court itself at line 10
(courts impression); seen also on pg 11, line 3 (missing comma); pg 12, line 13 (both parties
testimony) correctly presented at line 16 (parties’ Separation Agreement) but with additional
errors in punctuation and improper use of capital letters.

These rampant errors are coupled with the judge’s misrepresentation of basic facts, i.e. defendant
employed by “Herkimer Central Schools” (she never left Frankfort) and she “attended Syracuse
University” (she attended Utica College after a failed effort at the University of Connecticut and
prior to a failed effort toward law school). Together with her false and horrid references to an
actual record, the published January 22, 2010 decision further demonstrates not only the reckless
and unprofessional manner in which these “punishment assignments” are handled, but it also
discloses a growing problem among our grammar school graduates.

Ms. Hawse-Koziol, a high school teacher, is lauded for her use of e-mails, pg 8, but if they are
the same versions actually received, the record will illuminate why a “teacher education”
program would benefit the case far more than a “parent education” order will for my children.
For our tax dollars, the public deserves much better than what this decision has to offer in our
esteemed halls of justice bearing a “Supreme Court” letterhead. When I was my children’s
(correctly presented) age, I feared my father’s demeanor for reasons that enabled me to learn the
English language.
Commission Complaint
Page Nineteen

PARENTING TIME

Ms. Hood employs the standard reckless process which removes good fathers from their
children’s lives while empowering bad mothers to the heights of parental unfitness. As
maintained throughout my arguments, this process elevates the “child business”, as one Family
Court put it, to a multi-billion dollar industry. The American workforce is spending as much
time and resources in these “Kangaroo Courts” as Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas once put it
(In re Gault, 387 US 1, 27-28 (1968) as they are teaching their children the ABC’s.

Any mother who would stand before a child support (money) magistrate and demand the
imprisonment of a good father in exchange for cash and access to his children is a per se unfit
parent. This is particularly the case where, as here, Judge Walsh-Hood found Hawse-Koziol to
be fully capable of financially supporting the same children that she has sought to completely
dominate at any cost. Ms. Hood vigorously suppressed any petitions or evidence tending to
expose this crime against humanity.

As my Article 78 exhibit aptly summarizes, the malicious and systematic reduction of already
limited parenting time accorded to the gender prejudiced (sub-class) parent over a period of four
years yields a so-called “custody” hearing which is inherently flawed and a “custody” decision
that comprises a damaging, costly and foregone conclusion. Unless the presumptive dominant
parent is found to have abandoned, abused or waived her “custody” rights, a good father is easily
foreclosed from his children’s lives by a vindictive mother like Kelly Hawse.

No amount of logic, persistence, patience, petitions, courtesies, temper or “fitness” will

overcome such an agenda. Walsh-Hood’s complicity in this agenda is additionally illustrated by
her statements at page 11. “Over the course of time (missing comma), both parties changed
times, took make up time (missing hyphen), took holiday time away from the other (missing
comma) all in violation of the terms of their agreement and judgment”, she states. It should be
noted that whatever her problems with our agreements, a prior Supreme Court judge found the
same acceptable enough to incorporate into that “judgment” on September 17, 2007.

The quoted statement might be overlooked had the case involved near equal parenting time in a
co-parenting environment. However, here, everyone knew the opposite. Assuming we can all
agree with the whitewashing of mutual deprivations, the result possesses a chasmic distinction.
By the time of our “custody” trial in July, 2009, the “presumptive custodial parent” had regularly
reduced my time to an average of five or six days per month while seizing the lion’s share of
childrearing periods.

As stated, this unchecked child deprivation process was designed to exploit a “custody” tactic
made available to the mother by the state at the time of her own birth. Ms. Hood understood the
overriding gender bias completely, however, in an endeavor to stomp it out, she provided the
public with an elementary and fraudulent picture. A weekend or vacation week unilaterally
Commission Complaint
Page Twenty

taken by the mother (without enforced recourse sought repeatedly by the father) is not the same
as the reverse.

In my case, it was undisputed that entire vacation weeks, weekends and overnights were taken
without make-up of any kind. A day taken on a Monday of the 2009 Fourth of July weekend is
not a make-up day for the mother involving a holiday that happened to fall last year on a
Saturday. Yet Ms. Hood made the reckless tit-for-tat conclusion anyway, thereby demonstrating
her utter lack of competency in such crucial decision making processes.

So brazen was the abuse of state conferred powers upon the joint assailants Hood, Hawse and
Koslosky (so-called “attorney for the child”) that an entire weekend was actually seized from the
father on the eve of trial itself (the only participant in these processes wholly devoid of state-
conferred authority). On the first day of trial, I endeavored to seek immediate remedial action
and an adjournment to facilitate some measure of parenting offset to my opponent’s increasingly
dominant period. Ms. Hood would hear none of it, even accusing me of trying to influence the
children.

The record will otherwise unequivocally show that for every petition or motion endeavored on
my part to secure even the minimal periods of parenting time accorded me by agreement and
court order, there was a direct punitive response, no matter how professionally and respectfully I
executed it. Even Judge Daley, a person with growing dislike of me as an aggressive civil rights
attorney, felt compelled to state in the May 26, 2009 record that he had always known me to be
courteous and respectful to the court. Still, only one hour later, he ordered a Herkimer County
Sheriff patrol to my girlfriend’s place of business to investigate her whereabouts, all contrary to a
judicial role, proper notice and logical reason. Talk about “harassment for no legitimate
purpose”.

Similarly, early in the custody hearing, I respectfully brought to Ms. Hood’s attention the
harassment reported to me by two of my witnesses in a waiting area regarding a paid security
officer. This man had evidently been vocalizing loudly some kind of point scorecard of
deliberations in their presence. Such incompetent and irrelevant announcements were sufficiently
intimidating and aggravating to cause the victim’s report. Instead of controlling this harassment
by court personnel consistent with earlier cited Canons of Judicial Ethics, Ms. Hood justified it
based upon my earlier day outburst related to the maternal grandmother’s perjured testimony.
Commission Complaint
Page Twenty One

FATHER DIGNITY

In the event that I ever receive the trial record which I have long paid for, I will be in a position
to cite incident after incident, only partially depicted in my December, 2009 show cause motion,
which demonstrates the malicious fashion in which my most basic rights were violated as a
father and human being. An honest view of my gender disability in such processes and the
resourcefulness of my many responses lead to the correct legal (constitutional) and moral
conclusion that the time has come for fathers to assume a more respected role in society.

Such resourcefulness is well demonstrated by my response to the earliest parenting periods

denied to me in 2006. For example, when Halloween was constrained to 90 early day minutes
(back of the bus analogy), I responded the following year with a weekend trick-or-treat routine
and party for my girls’ preschool friends around my “beautiful two acre property”. This was also
done to avoid humiliating and costly visits to the courthouse and escalating arguments with the
mother.

A two weekend dad does not possess the luxury of altering schedules to accommodate child
activities in the face of an unyielding dominant (use it or lose it) parent. Ms. Hood demeaned all
of my resourcefulness with her regular impatience, insults and irrelevant interruptions. Unless
she walked in my shoes, she could not hope to enter an informed decision, and she exhibited no
desire to learn anything despite her incompetence as an appointed God over my children
(relatively more fit parent?). She knew nothing about my private child rearing experiences and
could not be trusted to learn more at our combined expense. This conclusion is wholly vindicated
by Hood’s 14 page decision and my own decision not to call my girlfriend to the witness stand.

Despite all of the increasingly arbitrary and unremedied impositions and constraints upon my
parenting role over a period of years, all patterned around money and envy, Ms. Hood decided to
fabricate a vicious disparagement surrounding my diverse activities with the girls. Ignoring a
framed photograph of my children (entered into evidence) following a campaign event in 2007,
she audaciously proclaimed with “emphasis” that I engage my children in such activities only for
my benefit, i.e. political interests, see pgs 8-9. The picture shows my happy children in a group
photograph with parade clowns, family related to a campaign volunteer. Testifying witnesses
described the girls’ ecstatic routine of throwing candy to sidewalk bystanders and getting free
rides and refreshments at the field day amusement areas thereafter.

The same Hood insults could be hurled against all the other prominent candidates who similarly
“engaged” their own children and families in the same events. Our very President of the United
States would find himself victim to the Hood version of custodial evaluations if he ever became
unfortunate enough to divorce in New York State.
Commission Complaint
Page Twenty Two

I do not involve my children in such events simply so that they can emulate me, although this is
certainly not a bad thing in my case given the many single mothers seeking such role models
every day. Even Ms. Hood knows this given her own campaign for judgeship; but to use my
children as a tool against any future political aspirations of their father, including a Fifth District
Supreme Court judgeship recommended by a retired Justice in 2006, is well beyond her scope.
Some 25,000 voters in Oneida County might agree. On this assault, Ms. Hood simply imploded
with such jealously and insecurity that placed her in a sisterhood with Kelly Hawse and nothing
more.

Parental emulation and career influences are central to any productive childrearing process. In
fact, the lack of such elements is regularly identified as cause for child dysfunction later in life.
As applied here, my career was exploited for the mother and children’s benefit through the many
traffic tickets and fender benders that I took care of without adverse consequences or
professional fee (in the trial record). Not only does my reputation, advanced through healthy
child interactions, benefit financial support, Ms. Hawse valued it sufficiently to demand payment
in exchange for my request to have her revert to maiden identity.

SEIZURE OF MY CHILDREN

On July 28, 2009 Judge Walsh-Hood issued an ex parte order which deprived me of all
reasonable contact with my children. On November 23, 2009, I learned the reason for this order
directly. Ms. Hood was essentially punishing me for my demeanor at the July hearing and
nothing else. In her decision, she confirmed this by citing comments made “in a very loud tone
of voice” while I was exiting the courtroom. Those comments are reprinted at page 7 of the
decision, but conveniently excluded are the oppressive processes over four years, abusive
treatment over four days at the July hearing and the words selectively omitted from those same
comments on the last day.

After tolerating all that a good citizen should have to under a civilized government, I announced
my surrender to the custodial process because of its design for removing innocent children from
their natural parents (which includes the former functioning “mother” here). Everything leading
up to those comments supported this conclusion. My departure was further made imminent in
order to avoid a certain contempt of court consequence.

Yet in all of my so-called “temper” exhibitions, there was not a single threat made to anyone.
The trial record will actually demonstrate my remarkable restraint under these barbaric
circumstances. In 23 years as a lawyer, I have never been cited for anything despite much louder
arguments with diverse counsel. I have experienced litigant parents convicted of heinous crimes
with prison terms receiving more unrestricted parenting time than the “sentence” accorded me by
Walsh-Hood. We turn now to that sentence in her final order.
Commission Complaint
Page Twenty Three

JECKLE-HYDE PARENTING

After arranging my parenting time with no logical consistency or child purpose over a six month
period (all of which is too burdensome to explain here), Judge Walsh-Hood “awarded” me
“visitation” for several hours on two Saturdays and Sundays per month in her January 22, 2010
decision. Three (reduced) hours were “awarded” for two Thursdays with no overnights.
Miraculously vanquished was the supervised public venue offered for the holiday period in
December, 2009 (common to child abusers and dangerous convicts). Collectively, this Jeckle-
Hyde abuse of my children and their father was orchestrated simply to suppress my parenting
petitions, logical human demeanor and love of my children.

I came to my government courts seeking more parenting time, and after four years of abuse, I
ended up with far less. Not all of this result was accomplished by Walsh-Hood. Hawse-Koziol
registered one of many extortionist custody tactics in September, 2006 when she threatened to
file a fraudulent protection order in the event I continued to visit my daughters at preschool.
This was in clear retaliation upon the discovery of a new girlfriend and her child in my life at the
time. It also explains the dearth in school involvement emphasized without explanation (or
offsetting “aside”) in the decision.

Today, overnight deprivations have been instituted not because of “some fear” by the children,
(pg 10 of decision) but because of a feminist style jealousy over the lovely woman who has
resided with me for the past two years. Present on all days of my July “custody” proceedings
and the November 23, 2009 motion arguments (when the mother was cautioned by the court in
her presence to cease the jealousies), this woman is the only third party to show such
commitment. Until the time of Hood’s intervention, the children enjoyed her bonding and
presence beyond the comprehension of anyone reading this submission today. The punishment,
therefore, inflicted by Ms. Hood was not only directed to me, it was directed to many others in
addition to the innocent “toddlers”.

Unfortunately, for all of the good people involved, the Walsh-Hood decision is so plagued with
reckless and incompatible provisions that its utility is nonexistent. Functionally speaking, it
comprises a “stay-away” order between father and daughter for the balance of our useful lives.
The reward it has bestowed upon a perjurer, extortionist and physically abusive mother can only
encourage more of the same in the event I seek to re-engage myself in my children’s lives (which
is their right too).

As drafted, the Hood decision now precludes all of the Christmas boat parades, play ground
gatherings, and beach activities described in the hearing transcript which Hood periodically
insulted and then selectively excluded from publication. Overnight prohibition prevents proper
parental bonding, bedtime prayers, and weekend excursions to exciting places. Its undeniable
true purpose is to crush the father’s developing family unit out of pure feminist-style jealousy
over my girlfriend and to solidify the status quo behind the state’s custodial institution of child
rearing.
Commission Complaint
Page Twenty Four

For his part, the so-called “attorney-for-the-child” exhibited the same vindictive behavior too
extensive to present here. This lawyer must be held accountable for serious malpractice to his
so-called clients. Third party communications, long denied to me as a way of avoiding the
mother’s set-up tactics (hence the telephone hang-ups), cannot be accommodated by any third
party today, and this “parent education” program is altogether pathetic. It is exclusively punitive
to the father and, if honored, would only cause the custodial parent to further alienate the
children from their daddy. Its imposition is otherwise contrary to law, the Constitution and my
natural rights as a perfectly fit male parent. I will not be feminized in an environment
reminiscent of Nazi re-education camps.

In short, there is no one more qualified to father my children. Ms. Hood does not know them,
and she is utterly incompetent to decide their fate. I will not legitimize Ms. Hood, Koslosky,
Hawse-Koziol, any paramours or self appointed “specialist” as my children’s substitute father.
After indulging herself with a 14 page assault upon my dignity as the only father for these
children, Ms. Hood managed the audacity to state at the conclusion of her decision that
“visitation (slur) is a joint right of non-custodial parent (slur) and the children which should be
regular and frequent so as to promote, enhance and continue any safe and nurturing (slur)
relationship…” The only purpose behind this Jeckle-Hyde conclusion is the justification of a
never ending stream of money payments to state and third parties from a terminated father.
Commission Complaint
Page Twenty Five

CONCLUSION

The date of this submission is my eldest daughter’s birthday. I greeted her into this world on
February 8, 2002, played hide-and-seek with her before that time on the sonogram, and I have
had her on my mind every day since. The same applies to child B whose distinct identity is
obscured by the decision for other insidious “custody” reasons.

Among the scorecard points of custodial decision making employed here was the arbitrary
sibling unity principle. Walsh-Hood and Hawse-Koziol were able to exploit the custody
institution preserving tactic by excluding my pertinent 2002-2004 testimony and enabling the
latter to exploit her “battered woman” fantasy that child B has never really been a part of my life
(literally a thousand witnesses would disagree).

Nowhere in Hood’s “thoughtful consideration” (pg. 5) of my children is provision made for child
B or child A’s unique birthdays. Nowhere in the so-called “Lincoln” hearing was the children’s
plea for repeat celebrations heard. Nowhere is there any advocacy from this state-appointed
attorney. And in this single blatant birthday omission, a conclusive case is made for the barbaric
and gender biased dysfunction which defines New York’s custodial institution of childrearing.
Child birth is uniquely a woman’s privacy decision of which a man plays no part.

Respectfully submitted,

Leon R. Koziol, Esq.

cc: U. S. Justice Department

United Nations
Judge Walsh-Hood
Rebecca Crance
William Koslosky