Office of Leon R.

Koziol
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13502
Phone: (315) 735-2271
Fax: (315) 735-0991
Cell: (315) 796-4000

NEWS RELEASE

TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES

FROM: LEON R. KOZIOL

SUBJECT: NYS LAW LICENSE SUSPENSION

DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2010

The following statement is submitted in response to a decision of the Third Department

Appellate Division in Albany, New York issued on today’s date:

“Some of the most basic protections of our Constitution are found in the First Amendment: the
rights to Free Speech, Free Press, Free Religion and Redress of Grievances. These are liberties
which not only define us as a nation, but they provide critical checks upon abuses of government
power. When state officials retaliate against a citizen for his exercise of these rights, they
suppress these freedoms, sending the message to others that a similar fate will occur in the event
the same rights are exercised.”

“Throughout my history as a constitutional rights attorney, I have brought controversial cases

against government officials. However in all the retaliation that I received as a consequence,
nothing proved to be so ruthless as that which I experienced when criticizing oppressive bench
and bar practices in domestic relations matters. The one year suspension of my law license on the
heels of a process which effectively destroyed my father-daughter relationships represents a
continuation of this unconstitutional retaliation process”.

“This all began when I declared a run for Congress in December, 2005. I was in the midst of an
uncontested divorce supported by a successfully concluded separation agreement. During a prior
period of 18 months, my ex-spouse and I cooperatively raised our children without incident.
However in the weeks which followed, a state judge decided to intervene and rearrange our
childrearing agreements, essentially taking the position that he knew how to raise our children
better than we did. After three years of unneeded and escalating controversy, benefiting only the
revenue seeking objectives of the state and its lawyers, this judge found that I had been over-
paying so-called “child support” by about $200 per month. Nevertheless, in order to rationalize
News Release
Page Two

the damage that had been done by that time to the parents and children, he arbitrarily increased
my obligations to the amounts previously agreed upon.”

“On March 1, 2006, my ex-spouse retained a divorce lawyer, a long time confidante of my
opponent at the time. In fact this attorney had been employed by Mr. Arcuri in his District
Attorney’s Office. Within days of this retainer, a substantial contribution was made by this
attorney to Mr. Arcuri’s campaign. At the same time, demands were being made upon my
finances which I opposed because the information would be shared with outsiders to our private
case. I objected based on a conflict of interest and made a substantial “child support” payment to
appease my ex-spouse for settlement purposes, all to no avail. Instead upon switching to the state
Senate race the following month, another contribution was promptly made to my new opponent.
In short, the money intended for my children was being diverted for political purposes while
simultaneously impairing my ability to advance career objectives beneficial to my children”

“On January 3, 2008, I submitted a consolidated appeal of four rulings that had established a
discriminatory pattern between support and parenting time. These rulings were producing a
systematic extinguishment of my father-daughter relationships. Included before the appeals court
were arguments that domestic relations processes were dysfunctional, conducted as a star
chamber of sorts and unrestrained in terms of unethical behavior practiced by the opposing
divorce lawyer. I was not aware at the time that this lawyer was a member of the ethics
committee. An appearance was scheduled in Syracuse for January 11, 2008, the same day that a
letter was being drafted by an ethics committee representative only several blocks away which
claimed ethics violations going back to events of the year 2000.”

“ Three of these complaints were reversed on their face and at least one was recanted as false in a
subsequent affidavit. Nevertheless the process continued with a piling on of anything that could
be used against me, including petty discrepancies in my response report. This witch hunt caused
me to describe this ethics entity as an “unethical ethics committee”. My bold and forthright
positions then produced additional retaliation based upon statements wholly concocted against
me by committee representatives. This upgraded treatment ultimately led to the license
suspension issued today. It should be noted that the appeals court hearing my consolidated
domestic relations appeal was the same court in charge of attorney licensing matters. On April
28th of this year, after I filed separate actions in another court against the retaliating judges,
attorneys and ethics committee, this (Fourth Department) appeals court stepped down from my
disciplinary case, and later, all of my domestic relations appeals”.

“My ex-spouse discharged this unethical ethics attorney later the same year (2008) but by that
time the damage to family relations was irrevocable. For the past four years, I have been
endeavoring to pursue the most important civil rights movement of our day, one that seeks to
restore parenting rights to the people. As my many public positions and court filings have
described, parents, children and families have fallen victim to a multi- billion dollar child
industry exploited by the judiciary itself. Innocent parents and children are being unnecessarily
fleeced of their life earnings by lawyers, forensic “experts” and the revenue generating State of
News Release
Page Three

New York. The best way to eliminate a dissident like me seeking meaningful reform is to take
away his license to practice law, his children, his home, his freedom and, indeed, even his
citizenship if need be.”

“The decision by the Third Department will accomplish all of this. Its content has discredited my
character and profound public positions so that this civil rights cause can die a quick death.
When courts are directly involved in child taking processes which increase state revenues,
someone has to question and challenge these processes beyond the formalities and meaningless
commissions we see today. These processes are impairing moral values and the productivity of
an entire nation. In my case, drug dealers, con-artists and convicted criminals were believed over
me during the ethics investigation opened on January 11, 2008. No innocent being can survive
such a process. It is akin to the practice commonly associated with dictatorships and socialist
countries.”

“Curtis Brown is a grievant who harbored a 15 year old in a hotel while on duty as a Syracuse
police officer. In a race discrimination case subsequently filed in federal court, I refused to bow
to extortionist demands using police personnel files protected by court order. I properly sought
and received a discharge of representation as a consequence consistent with ethical obligations.
Ironically, the same former client was brought up on contempt charges along with substitute
counsel for violating these same confidentiality orders six years later. Mr. Greany is a drug
dealer who sought to purchase a property I once owned. I refused to take his case when I learned
of this and he retaliated using an attorney since disbarred on criminal convictions and
apprehended in Utica thereafter with illegal drugs confiscated from the trunk of his car. Mr.
Pritchard sought to have me file a federal court action against various local municipalities which
lacked merit according to findings preceding my retainer which he kept from me. Mr. Tanoury
withdrew his complaint in 2005 and filed a sworn statement during the 2008 investigation which
explained how the false complaint was influenced by political opponents.”

“The combining of complaints and processes without rights of disclosure and a jury has made it
impossible for me to respond further to this retaliatory witch hunt. Instead I must pursue avenues
where possible in other courts. I will not bend to this miscarriage of our Constitution and do my
best to continue the most important civil rights cause of our day. When comparing my treatment
to that accorded to attorneys convicted of crimes and truly unethical behavior, the retaliation here
is clear. A key example is our former Governor Eliot Spitzer and others too numerous to mention
for purposes of this release. The message behind this suspension is simply this: America’s
citizenry can criticize the executive and legislative branches of government, but our rights lose
their force and effect when those same criticisms are leveled against the judiciary.”

END OF STATEMENT