Law Office of Leon R. Koziol, Esq.1518 Genesee Street

Utica, NY 13502Phone: (315) 735-2271Fax: (315) 735-0991Cell: (315) 796-4000

Email: attyleonkoziol@aol.com

Of Counsel: February 8, 2010Brian Kellogg, Esq.

Hon. Thomas A. Klonick, Commission ChairNYS Commission on Judicial ConductCorning Tower, Suite 2301Empire State PlazaAlbany, NY 12223

Re: Misconduct of Judge Martha Walsh-Hood

Dear Chairman Klonick:

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

Commission ComplaintPage two

reads:

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

In the 2006 Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Justice (the Miller Report), widespreadproblems were acknowledged in the domestic relations courts of New York, including themanner in which sensitive and private family matters were “shoe-horned” into an antiquated andoppositional 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” andsupport “awards” entered in these same courts as routinely reported by the U.S. Census Bureauand other agencies. The 2006 Commission did, however, disclose the results of a confidentialsurvey of matrimonial judges. This survey revealed an alarming opinion that domestic relationscases were considered “punishment assignments”. The census and matrimonial reports, readtogether, suggested the existence of a subclass of litigants dominated by fathers who were deniedfair and respectful treatment in the unified court system of this state.

Four years later, the problem identified by the commission report was observed in flamingfashion 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, 2009with rude, abusive and injudicious remarks typical of my treatment throughout four years ofchild-taking processes:

My name is Mike Daley; the Judge who has been assigned to preside overthis 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 motionfor me to recuse myself. I have yet to get through all of it. Some of it isbewildering to me. I don’t know beyond that but, it has to be dealt with atsome point.

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

Commission ComplaintPage three

process, Judge Daley overlooked a history of prior disqualifications or transfers involvinghimself on my represented and personal cases. This enabled him to abuse his office, outside of anormal assignment order in Herkimer County Family Court, to issue the violation order thattriggered the mandatory summary process for suspending my professional license.

The above emphasized remarks, classifications, statistics and prejudice support the conclusionthat rampant deviations from of the Judicial Code of ethics are occurring in our domesticrelations courts on a daily basis. As relevant to my representative case here, Judicial Canons3(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 officialcapacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, courtofficials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

(B) (6) A judge shall accord to every person who has legal interest in aproceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, orconsider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of theparties 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 ona controversial case after a motion was necessitated by his prosecutorial bias and plea pressuretactics. My client was ultimately found not guilty on all counts of a six count indictment before asubstitute judge and jury. At the conclusion of recusal proceedings, transcripts and affidavitsshow the same judge promising to transfer the case to a preferred judge who would be appraisedof my so-called “histrionics” during a successful defense process. Judge Daley possessed no suchauthority 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 andprofessional standing in the community, see Matter of Spargo, 23AD3d 808 (3d Dept. 2005). Aninvestigation is needed to properly discern the nature of any related ex parte communications onmy child-taking processes between Judge Daley, the actual Herkimer County Family Courtjudge, its magistrate G. Stephen Getman a/k/a George Getman, Judge Walsh-Hood and FifthDistrict Administrative Judge James Tormey.

The Daley remarks are reproduced in an Article 78 action presently pending at the AppellateDivision level against the same two judges featured here; see exhibit A of United Nationspetition and distinct submission on the subject of Michael Daley. A separate action in anothercourt, under seal, sets forth additional violations and plenary petitions for relief, however, theseforums are beset by jurisdictional constraints and they do not possess the appropriate capacity foraddressing judicial ethics.

Commission ComplaintPage four

PARENTING DUE PROCESS

The general and specific misconduct depicted here cannot be properly evaluated without areading 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 whichpales in comparison to the diverse range of constitutional violations committed by Judges Daleyand Walsh-Hood as described in the separate court proceedings. On the narrow constitutionalissue in Jung (right to counsel), the Court of Appeals had this to say in the context offundamental parenting liberties:

‘The right to be heard is fundamental to our system of justice (citations omittedhere). Parents have an equally fundamental interest in the liberty, care andcontrol 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 tofamily offense proceedings regardless of a party’s status as incarcerated orotherwise detained…. This right is no less vital to a proceeding for summarycontempt... due process requires that…the contemnor be afforded an opportunity tobe heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner (citationsomitted)…Integral to this fundamental interest in the liberty, care and control oftheir children, and co-extensive rights to be heard in a meaningful manner, is aparent’s right to representation of counsel…

Three years of predictable controversies over money (“child support”) between my firstparenting 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 dailydeveloping children. As well, the manner requirement was violated repeatedly over the sameperiod by the 18 trial judges assigned to my petitions and their disregard of parenting petitions infavor of money petitions.

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

A representative case is found in my United Nations petition on the test case involving AlanCady. A Family Court support magistrate was found to have carried over figures, findings anddefault 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 ComplaintPage five

massed produced. As explained in the petition, Mr. Cady is now facing a recommended sentenceof 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 inJuly, 2009. Judge Walsh-Hood was called to task on a June, 2009 letter in which she expresslydenied an April show cause motion that had already been signed by a prior judge. She thenfailed to address a June motion for parenting relief which comprised a critical prerequisite to thecustody proceedings one month later. It was evident that she had not read either motion as wellas an April 7, 2009 petition filed by the adversary parent addressed the same day. In a clearshowing of gender and political prejudice, Judge Walsh-Hood actually came prepared to litigatethe mother’s support related show cause petition seeking supervised “visitation” which, on itsface, had neither been signed nor served upon any party.

Apart from the logical frustration which this gross lack of preparedness would produce to sameday deliberations (my adjournment request was also denied), the embarrassment which JudgeWalsh-Hood brought upon herself was then turned against me in retaliation. I was essentiallyblamed for my proper and necessary efforts to educate Walsh-Hood to the case she was assignedand 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 hisactions were a permissible exercise of the “wide discretion” given Family CourtJustices “for dealing with the complexities of family life.” He fails to grasp that withsuch discretion comes grave responsibilities to the litigants before him as well astheir children…We conclude that (the Judge’s) steadfast adherence to longstandingpolicies that have seriously compromised the due process rights of litigants justifiesremoval.

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 offundamental rights, public policy concerns and the proper functioning of our court system. Itimplicates a right to raise children to become responsible adults free from government intrusionsand retaliation upon the exercise of other fundamental rights. Such additional rights in theparenting context are central to a civilized society. They derive jointly from a time immemorial.

Commission ComplaintPage six

RETALIATION

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

At the time of this attorney’s forewarning, he was unaware of disciplinary processes alreadyinstituted against me for the first time in my 23 year unblemished career. My children have sincebeen seized from me by Walsh-Hood. On a national radio program in 2008, I was similarlyforewarned by a talk show host in Massachusetts who cited a lawyer in that state, disbarredwithin 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 myguest speaker appearance before an audience of parents at a national fathers’ rights convention inWashington D.C. (summer, 2008). Unrelated websites featured my children running from theaudience to cling to their daddy in a manner I could not control. The scene was heartwarmingand 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 amnow bringing to this commission. Before turning to the specifics of that decision, it is crucial tonote that my rights can never be properly heard in a court that functions in the above summarizedfashion. 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 reportsgenerated over the past two decades. Their contents document the assault upon fatherhood as theprevailing cause behind our nation’s vast decline in productivity and corresponding increase insocial and health care costs. Professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University presents analarming 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 haverocketed to the top of the domestic-policy agenda. The past two presidentialadministrations, along with numerous local governments, haveresponded to the continuing crisis of the family by devising measures to involvegovernmental machinery directly in the management of what had previously beenconsidered private family life. The Bush administration has proposed $300 millionannually to “promote responsible fatherhood” and for federal promotion of

Commission ComplaintPage seven

“healthy marriages.” Earlier, President Bill Clinton created a “PresidentialFatherhood Initiative,” and Vice President Al Gore chaired a federal staffconference on “nurturing fatherhood.” Congress has established bipartisan taskforces on fatherhood promotion and issued a resolution affirming the importance offathers. Almost 80 percent of the respondents to a 1996 Gallup poll saw fatherhoodas the most serious social problem today (NCF 1996).

A generation of fatherhood advocates has emerged who insist that fatherlessness isthe most critical social issue of our time. In Fatherless America, David Blankenhorncalls the crisis of fatherless children “the most destructive trend of our generation”1995, 1). Their case is powerful. Virtually every major social pathology has beenlinked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwedpregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders—all correlating more strongly withfatherlessness 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 troublethan children from poor but intact ones, and white children from separated familiesare at higher risk than black children in intact families (McLanahan 1998, 88). Theconnection between single-parent households and crime is so strong that controllingfor this factor erases the relationship between race and crime as well as between lowincome 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 NLFmembers 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 necessaryby-product of dysfunctional state intrusions into a previously functioning separation agreementarranged exclusively by the parents. Numerous parenting enforcement motions were denied orignored 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, seeSupreme Court of Virginia v Consumers Union, 446 US 719 (1980); Beechwood RestorativeCare Center. v Leeds, 436 F. 3d 147 (2d. Cir. 2006); Friedle v New York, 210 F. 3d 79 (2d. Cir2000) (prisoner convict denied First Amendment right of access to courts by retaliation).

Commission ComplaintPage eight

A copy of the retaliatory decision, dated January 22, 2010, is annexed under exhibit A along witha 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 exparte order of July 28, 2009 which restrained me from contact with the mother (and therefore mychildren). 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 whichemerged 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 whichagain denied my parenting enforcement petitions and reinstated the original July, 2009 restraintorder. Joint custody was suspended and eventually terminated. The only substantive eventoccurring between these July and November orders was the filing and service of my federal courtlawsuit against this judge.

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

Logically and circumstantially, the “custody” decision, as a whole, comprised a retaliatoryassault upon my public cause taken on behalf of aggrieved parents as well as positions rightfullytaken during the course of my domestic relations case. It had absolutely nothing to do with acourt of law acting in the best interests of my children or anyone other than Walsh-Hood for thatmatter. This vindictive and out-of-control jurist violated numerous code provisions, includingthe 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. Ajudge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standardsof conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity andindependence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are tobe construed and applied to further that objective.

Commission ComplaintPage nine

SPECIFIC MISCONDUCT OF WALSH-HOOD

Turning now to the more specific misconduct, I have appended an excerpt from my December2009 Appellate Division show cause order under exhibit B, previously supplied to thiscommission, for a rendition of widespread ethical misconduct of Judge Walsh-Hood during theJuly 2009 “custody” proceedings encompassed by her (appended) decision. The preamble toCanon Three provides that a judge shall perform the duties of office “diligently” as well asimpartially. 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 servingfashion as a named defendant in two actions previously filed by me. She employed the “law” asa 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 addedin the text of her public opinion without support or purpose simply to disparage my hard earned51 year unblemished personal, political and professional reputation. Each distinct aspect of thatreputation 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. Hoodrenders an aside to the effect that my parental “fitness is questionable and could be moreproperly accessed xxxxxx ”, see i.e., pg 8. Forgetting for the moment her own Jeckle-Hydedeliberations, this libelous assault was obviously asserted by an angry and vindictivedecisionmaker whose sole purpose was not to foster the shared parenting arrangements earliercontemplated by the parents (prior to state intrusions) but to discredit my positions and characterin the ongoing fathers’ rights cause described throughout my submissions. It is a governmenttactic not uncommon to civil rights movements, but in this case, children were exploited in amanner 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 whowitnessed the custodial mother’s physical assault upon me in October, 2007. This was during achild exchange while I was retreating defensively into my home. The attack was triggered bymy unyielding rejection of the mother’s agenda to have me give up my children to a wealthychildless paramour in exchange for an end to the state’s oppressive and gender biased supportcollection process (which she commanded), see page 4 of decision.

The contents of this affidavit were reduced to testimony at my custody hearing, along with theadditional 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 forsevere spinal disabilities, against doctor recommendations, to testify about a similar abusive

Commission ComplaintPage ten

event at the mother’s home in 2006. Ms. Hood not only failed to address this combined evidencealtogether, she refused to allow corroborating testimony from me that was critical to thebackground behind the mother’s misconduct, including a protection order issued against her as aresult 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 vacatedweeks later and that the one she was referencing was actually procured on the mother’sfraudulent petition derived from the October, 2007 event. These actual conflicting and longexpired ex parte orders demonstrated the commonly exploited, gender-biased syndrome knownas “battered woman”. By misrepresenting the orders actually before her, Ms. Hood was able tododge the logic that the mother was seeking to distract attention from her assault through afraudulent 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 thebottom of page 3, Ms. Hood references one of my motions dated July 20, 2009 as “neverproperly filed” while making no mention of the “improperly filed” and never served show causeapplication 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” litigantwas 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 atleast 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 onthe opening day of trial. Her incompetence was directly traceable to the lack of diligence, biasand her failure to read those petitions before hearing the first witness (because the outcome hadalready 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 andfather abuse processes occurring as a consequence of this insatiable quest for cash. So powerfulwas the state’s greed that the so-called “custody” case was transformed into yet another financialinquisition into such child quality issues as the cost of playground and playroom improvementsat my home dating back to premarital resources. Hood’s interruptions revealed her callousindifference to the wonderful father-child activities occurring there in my standard weekendwarrior role.

Commission ComplaintPage eleven

A mature and impartial judge would not respond to this abusive history with personal renditionsof her own private life (i.e. testimony interruptions of late night exigent events as “way past herbedtime”). An ethical judge would not throw gas upon a forest fire started by the state’s ownintrusions by constraining and demeaning all of my professional petitions and positions byignoring the logical reaction of a “loving” father, confirmed on pg. 13, who is beingsystematically 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 andgovernments that produced the four year controversies would lead naturally to “emotionaloutbursts”. These exploited outbursts were in reality well restrained when consulting the actualunmolested record and heroic figures exemplified in such blockbuster films as “Ransom” and“Taken”. These films involved kidnapping and child prostitution as the cause for immenselyviolent and laudable reactions from committed fathers. Such depictions take on a realitydimension when comparing New York’s custodial institution to oppressive government regimesthat 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” proceedingsto verify the misconduct set out in my December 2009 show cause document and thiscorrespondence. This is because of another “bizarre” aspect of these four year processes. UnlikeFamily Court, where transcript costs are not born by the parties, Ms. Hood discriminated onaccount of my marital status by interjecting a pending stenographer bill during my objectionableand reversed “custody” case-in-chief.

I have maintained that this $5,000 bill is, in effect, a filing fee for the “non-custodial” fatherthrough one-sided welfare obligations to the mother, sealed in my case at the time of separationdiscussions in 2003 (when my second child was still “unborn”). Appended under exhibit C arecopies of two letters from Walsh-Hood and her court reporters that show overbilling practices ontheir 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, atleast one pleading paragraph was devoted to a series of parenting (separation) agreementsarranged exclusively between the parents between 2004 and 2006. The actual (unmolested) factsand record of divorce proceedings established this two year time frame as the most successfuland incident-free parenting period of the children’s six year existence.

Commission ComplaintPage Twelve

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

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

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

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

This historically abused tactic, coupled with Ms. Hood’s extension of admissible evidence to theremote 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 witnessesto 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) bedroomhome situated on two (2) acres of land containing many child oriented improvements”, pg 6 ofdecision. My genuine unimpaired support of my children is well illustrated by such unrefutedfacts.

Contrary to the realities of “joint” childrearing in this case, Ms. Hood drafted her decision tocover up an underlying modern day design of our domestic relations laws to exploit children formoney 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 attributedthe signed agreements exclusively to me (because of my lawyer status). She even assaulted the

Commission ComplaintPage Thirteen

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

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

GENDER CLEANSING DESIGN

Another design underlying our domestic relations processes is gender-cleansing of father andmother roles. From the very outset of Hood’s decision, the presentation and conclusions arelaced with male prejudice, anti-man stereotypes, irrelevant assaults upon my 51 yearunblemished character and professional reputation, and vicious asides designed exclusively toretaliate 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 agender-merged parent. The outsider (father) is then marginalized to non-existence.

This gender cleansing agenda is masked by overbroad and easily exploited standards fordeciding “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. Afterdamaging my professional income producing career in every imaginable way, and in everyclause and sentence of her so-called “thoughtful consideration” of “factors”, Ms. Hood justifiesher misconduct under the following boundless citation to authority:

“The only absolute in the law governing custody of children is that there are noabsolutes” (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 anythinggoes when fashioning a “custody” decision. There are no power constraints upon such authorityonce the state takes control over its people’s children. Ms. Hood exploits this wide rangingpower 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 conductstatutes typically employed by police and oppressive governments to abuse and punish theirsubjects. Ms. Hood’s defamatory rendition was fully predictable by her trial conduct, disparatecontrol of the evidence and references to the public nature of this private and sensitive “domesticrelations” controversy. The draconian reach of her “asides”, however, could never be anticipatedin a properly constrained decision-making environment.

Commission ComplaintPage Fourteen

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

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

Due to the many judge transfer orders, discovery limitations which this caused, and Ms. Hood’srefusal to grant a logical adjournment on our first appearance to properly ferret out petitions andissues 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 wasconcededly not a single report or claim of child abuse on my part in any of these numerouspetitions. This did not stop the agenda to color my character otherwise.

Logically, then, when the maternal grandparent testified that I had allegedly “hit” my childsometime 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 andthe false sworn testimony was immediately stricken from the record. This malicious scheme bythe “custodial parent” to use her own reluctant mother to traumatize a loving father should havebeen reason enough to switch “custody” roles.

Such a switch might have helped reform the predominant 90% composition of women occupyingthe state’s custodial positions, but such corrective action was never on anyone’s radar screen inthis gender biased environment. The illusory custodial role continues to be held ever outwardbefore the male parent until roughly the age of child majority. Conveniently, this promotesendless 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 ComplaintPage Fifteen

THE ELEVEN DAY CRUISE

The journey into our remote marriage caused additional one-sided fodder at pg. 6 of themalicious 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 aneleven day cruise without (my) wife or toddler daughter in April 2003 during defendant’sproblem 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 thecomplete picture involving a man who cared so much for his children that he endured an extrayear of career damaging emotional abuse so that the unborn child would not have to suffer futurequestions of illegitimacy. This endurance and “privacy” issue remained intact for six years untilMs. 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 andpolitical standing, Ms. Hood instead succeeded in ruthlessly damaging my youngest innocentchild for the duration of her natural life. This is born out by the ease with which all otherperceived 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 problematicuntil afterward. Royal Caribbean cruise receipts and itineraries generated exclusively from myhard earned income will verify the first one, during the mother’s schoolteacher vacation period inFebruary, 2003, when the ingrate mother, our “toddler daughter” and (emphasis added) myunborn child accompanied me on a Caribbean cruise. A snow storm and flyer demandsjeopardized post 9/11 air flights, hence, I personally drove my family at the last minute to Floridain the “Mercedes” I bought for my wife (referenced in her case). I did so through an unexpectedblizzard 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 wasdesigned with her full consent to accommodate the search for a winter home for a newlypurchased motor yacht. Trial observers will recall the judge’s commentary about the maternalgrandfather who resided with his girlfriend on a Caribbean island. We had already obtained aYacht 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 forthe eight sleeper vessel. This goal, under the circumstances, was ideally served by a cruise tonumerous islands on my own given the experience of our first cruise with the children one monthearlier. The mother knew and accepted the two week search, but not the logical manner of itsexecution 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 beliefscould never be reconciled without a risky argument.

Commission ComplaintPage Sixteen

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

“CHILD SUPPORT”

Various words and phrases are set out in quotes throughout this submission to denote what I havelong held to be gender biased slurs. The notion that a “child support” order must be entered, as itwas here, at the outset of any domestic relations case, even where “support” is not at issue, is adeclaration by the state that parents are inherently incompetent to manage their own affairs andthat 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 letterdecision that I had been overpaying the custodial agent by $200 per month. He then arbitrarilyincreased the formula finding to the 2005 agreed upon amount to justify the destruction caused inbetween. This he did contrary to the so-called Child Support Standards Act which is typicallyexploited 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 areregularly employed toward irrelevant and addicting subjects such as controlled substances,government sponsored gambling and partner maintenance. In my case, it was exploited to payfor lawyers, contributions to my political opponents and, among other things, an extortion deviceto give up my children. In the “Financial Fitness” section of her decision, Ms. Hood was able toassist the custodial mother’s case by concluding that she “has demonstrated her ability to providefor the financial needs of the children on her own”, thereby negating the rationale for one-sidedsupport (welfare) payments altogether.

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

Commission ComplaintPage Seventeen

This latter statement, of course, assumes that either parent should have such life impactingpowers at all. In a presumptive shared arrangement, as opposed to the antiquated powerarrangement (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 inthe never-produced support magistrate transcript and defective October 1, 2009, violation orderissued by Judge Daley.

BURDEN OF LITIGATION

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

Over time, it became apparent that Ms. Donahue, herself a product of multiple transient fatherfigures, 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 moneymisappropriations. 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 plannedextortion agenda behind these misappropriations by damaging my ongoing custody case basedupon the mother’s similar and successful design over a prior four year period. The irrefutabletiming of my phone call to the District Attorney’s office preceding her responsive calls to thegrievance committee and mother’s lawyer established this common design which forced me tochoose 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 nothope to effectively manage a small civil rights practice as I successfully did over a prior twentyyear period while addressing all litigation burdens described in the show cause exhibit A (Article78 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 allsurrounding facts which delimit this “hit” as a pat on the behind when my daughter hadmisbehaved and placed herself at risk of injury. Rest assured, I would not and never will tolerateanyone “hitting” my children anymore than I did when scratches were discovered on mydaughter’s face in 2006 while in the care of the mother.

Commission ComplaintPage Eighteen

At first, Ms. Donahue lied to me about this incident after it was later first brought to my attentionby the mother. Like her own custodial imperfections, I required time to complete a properinquiry with two office staff present during the incident. This inquiry was further complicated bya 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 anotheroccurring on April 31, 2008 (no such calendar date). In any event, I never called my daughter aliar 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 oldbabysitter, all of which would be unnecessary in a properly enforced shared parentingenvironment that Ms. Hood evidently detested for feminist reasons.

RAMPANT GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

The Hood decision possesses numerous punctuation, possessive and grammatical errorsthroughout, see i.e. pg 5, 3rd line, (parties petitions) compared to correct use of possessives inline 22 (parties’ two children); missing commas, passim, i.e. lines 7 and 19, incorrectpunctuation 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 partiestestimony) correctly presented at line 16 (parties’ Separation Agreement) but with additionalerrors in punctuation and improper use of capital letters.

These rampant errors are coupled with the judge’s misrepresentation of basic facts, i.e. defendantemployed by “Herkimer Central Schools” (she never left Frankfort) and she “attended SyracuseUniversity” (she attended Utica College after a failed effort at the University of Connecticut andprior to a failed effort toward law school). Together with her false and horrid references to anactual record, the published January 22, 2010 decision further demonstrates not only the recklessand unprofessional manner in which these “punishment assignments” are handled, but it alsodiscloses 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 arethe 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 ouresteemed 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 theEnglish language.

Commission ComplaintPage Nineteen

PARENTING TIME

Ms. Hood employs the standard reckless process which removes good fathers from theirchildren’s lives while empowering bad mothers to the heights of parental unfitness. Asmaintained throughout my arguments, this process elevates the “child business”, as one FamilyCourt put it, to a multi-billion dollar industry. The American workforce is spending as muchtime 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 theimprisonment of a good father in exchange for cash and access to his children is a per se unfitparent. This is particularly the case where, as here, Judge Walsh-Hood found Hawse-Koziol tobe fully capable of financially supporting the same children that she has sought to completelydominate at any cost. Ms. Hood vigorously suppressed any petitions or evidence tending toexpose this crime against humanity.

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

No amount of logic, persistence, patience, petitions, courtesies, temper or “fitness” willovercome such an agenda. Walsh-Hood’s complicity in this agenda is additionally illustrated byher statements at page 11. “Over the course of time (missing comma), both parties changedtimes, took make up time (missing hyphen), took holiday time away from the other (missingcomma) all in violation of the terms of their agreement and judgment”, she states. It should benoted that whatever her problems with our agreements, a prior Supreme Court judge found thesame 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 aco-parenting environment. However, here, everyone knew the opposite. Assuming we can allagree 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 regularlyreduced my time to an average of five or six days per month while seizing the lion’s share ofchildrearing periods.

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

Commission ComplaintPage Twenty

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

In my case, it was undisputed that entire vacation weeks, weekends and overnights were takenwithout make-up of any kind. A day taken on a Monday of the 2009 Fourth of July weekend isnot a make-up day for the mother involving a holiday that happened to fall last year on aSaturday. Yet Ms. Hood made the reckless tit-for-tat conclusion anyway, thereby demonstratingher 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 andKoslosky (so-called “attorney for the child”) that an entire weekend was actually seized from thefather 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 actionand an adjournment to facilitate some measure of parenting offset to my opponent’s increasinglydominant period. Ms. Hood would hear none of it, even accusing me of trying to influence thechildren.

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

Similarly, early in the custody hearing, I respectfully brought to Ms. Hood’s attention theharassment reported to me by two of my witnesses in a waiting area regarding a paid securityofficer. This man had evidently been vocalizing loudly some kind of point scorecard ofdeliberations in their presence. Such incompetent and irrelevant announcements were sufficientlyintimidating and aggravating to cause the victim’s report. Instead of controlling this harassmentby court personnel consistent with earlier cited Canons of Judicial Ethics, Ms. Hood justified itbased upon my earlier day outburst related to the maternal grandmother’s perjured testimony.

Commission ComplaintPage 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 positionto 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 afather and human being. An honest view of my gender disability in such processes and theresourcefulness of my many responses lead to the correct legal (constitutional) and moralconclusion 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 periodsdenied 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 routineand party for my girls’ preschool friends around my “beautiful two acre property”. This was alsodone to avoid humiliating and costly visits to the courthouse and escalating arguments with themother.

A two weekend dad does not possess the luxury of altering schedules to accommodate childactivities in the face of an unyielding dominant (use it or lose it) parent. Ms. Hood demeaned allof my resourcefulness with her regular impatience, insults and irrelevant interruptions. Unlessshe walked in my shoes, she could not hope to enter an informed decision, and she exhibited nodesire 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 andcould not be trusted to learn more at our combined expense. This conclusion is wholly vindicatedby 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 myparenting role over a period of years, all patterned around money and envy, Ms. Hood decided tofabricate a vicious disparagement surrounding my diverse activities with the girls. Ignoring aframed 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 formy benefit, i.e. political interests, see pgs 8-9. The picture shows my happy children in a groupphotograph with parade clowns, family related to a campaign volunteer. Testifying witnessesdescribed the girls’ ecstatic routine of throwing candy to sidewalk bystanders and getting freerides 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 UnitedStates would find himself victim to the Hood version of custodial evaluations if he ever becameunfortunate enough to divorce in New York State.

Commission ComplaintPage Twenty Two

I do not involve my children in such events simply so that they can emulate me, although this iscertainly not a bad thing in my case given the many single mothers seeking such role modelsevery day. Even Ms. Hood knows this given her own campaign for judgeship; but to use mychildren as a tool against any future political aspirations of their father, including a Fifth DistrictSupreme 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 implodedwith such jealously and insecurity that placed her in a sisterhood with Kelly Hawse and nothingmore.

Parental emulation and career influences are central to any productive childrearing process. Infact, 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 manytraffic tickets and fender benders that I took care of without adverse consequences orprofessional fee (in the trial record). Not only does my reputation, advanced through healthychild interactions, benefit financial support, Ms. Hawse valued it sufficiently to demand paymentin 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 allreasonable contact with my children. On November 23, 2009, I learned the reason for this orderdirectly. Ms. Hood was essentially punishing me for my demeanor at the July hearing andnothing else. In her decision, she confirmed this by citing comments made “in a very loud toneof voice” while I was exiting the courtroom. Those comments are reprinted at page 7 of thedecision, but conveniently excluded are the oppressive processes over four years, abusivetreatment over four days at the July hearing and the words selectively omitted from those samecomments on the last day.

After tolerating all that a good citizen should have to under a civilized government, I announcedmy surrender to the custodial process because of its design for removing innocent children fromtheir natural parents (which includes the former functioning “mother” here). Everything leadingup to those comments supported this conclusion. My departure was further made imminent inorder 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 barbariccircumstances. In 23 years as a lawyer, I have never been cited for anything despite much louderarguments with diverse counsel. I have experienced litigant parents convicted of heinous crimeswith prison terms receiving more unrestricted parenting time than the “sentence” accorded me byWalsh-Hood. We turn now to that sentence in her final order.

Commission ComplaintPage Twenty Three

JECKLE-HYDE PARENTING

After arranging my parenting time with no logical consistency or child purpose over a six monthperiod (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, 2010decision. Three (reduced) hours were “awarded” for two Thursdays with no overnights.Miraculously vanquished was the supervised public venue offered for the holiday period inDecember, 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 parentingpetitions, logical human demeanor and love of my children.

I came to my government courts seeking more parenting time, and after four years of abuse, Iended up with far less. Not all of this result was accomplished by Walsh-Hood. Hawse-Koziolregistered one of many extortionist custody tactics in September, 2006 when she threatened tofile 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 thetime. It also explains the dearth in school involvement emphasized without explanation (oroffsetting “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 hasresided with me for the past two years. Present on all days of my July “custody” proceedingsand the November 23, 2009 motion arguments (when the mother was cautioned by the court inher presence to cease the jealousies), this woman is the only third party to show suchcommitment. Until the time of Hood’s intervention, the children enjoyed her bonding andpresence 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 inaddition to the innocent “toddlers”.

Unfortunately, for all of the good people involved, the Walsh-Hood decision is so plagued withreckless and incompatible provisions that its utility is nonexistent. Functionally speaking, itcomprises 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 onlyencourage more of the same in the event I seek to re-engage myself in my children’s lives (whichis their right too).

As drafted, the Hood decision now precludes all of the Christmas boat parades, play groundgatherings, and beach activities described in the hearing transcript which Hood periodicallyinsulted and then selectively excluded from publication. Overnight prohibition prevents properparental bonding, bedtime prayers, and weekend excursions to exciting places. Its undeniabletrue purpose is to crush the father’s developing family unit out of pure feminist-style jealousyover my girlfriend and to solidify the status quo behind the state’s custodial institution of childrearing.

Commission ComplaintPage Twenty Four

For his part, the so-called “attorney-for-the-child” exhibited the same vindictive behavior tooextensive to present here. This lawyer must be held accountable for serious malpractice to hisso-called clients. Third party communications, long denied to me as a way of avoiding themother’s set-up tactics (hence the telephone hang-ups), cannot be accommodated by any thirdparty today, and this “parent education” program is altogether pathetic. It is exclusively punitiveto the father and, if honored, would only cause the custodial parent to further alienate thechildren from their daddy. Its imposition is otherwise contrary to law, the Constitution and mynatural rights as a perfectly fit male parent. I will not be feminized in an environmentreminiscent 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 thesechildren, 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 beregular 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 anever ending stream of money payments to state and third parties from a terminated father.

Commission ComplaintPage Twenty Five

CONCLUSION

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

Among the scorecard points of custodial decision making employed here was the arbitrarysibling unity principle. Walsh-Hood and Hawse-Koziol were able to exploit the custodyinstitution preserving tactic by excluding my pertinent 2002-2004 testimony and enabling thelatter 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 childB or child A’s unique birthdays. Nowhere in the so-called “Lincoln” hearing was the children’splea for repeat celebrations heard. Nowhere is there any advocacy from this state-appointedattorney. And in this single blatant birthday omission, a conclusive case is made for the barbaricand 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 DepartmentUnited NationsJudge Walsh-HoodRebecca CranceWilliam Koslosky