STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT NO. 5
) SS:
ELKHART COUNTY ) CAUSE NO. 20D050010DR640
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: )
)
ALISON GRATZOL, )
PETITIONER )
)
V. )
)
AMIR H. SANJARI, )
RESPONDENT ) VERIFIED MOTION
VERIFIED MOTION FOR:
STAY AND RESCINDING THE MEDIATION & COUNSELING ORDER
AND
SETTING AN EARLY HEARING DATE
COMES NOW, the Respondent/Father, Amir H. Sanjari, say:
That, he is respondent in the above-entitled cause of action.
1. That, on August 09, 2002, and September 10, 2002, respectively, the
Respondent/Father filed for Rule To Show Cause against the Petitioner/Mother
and Verified Emergency Petition for Modification of Custody, Support, and
Visitation. The younger minor child’s wish to live with the Respondent/Father
was included in the latter petition,
2. That, the Petitioner/Mother has been exercising Parental Alienation Syndrome
(PAS) upon the minor children with the aim of alienating them from the
Respondent/Father. (PAS, simply, is a syndrome whereby the children are
manipulated, coerced, intimidated, bribed by one parent, in this case the
Petitioner/Mother, to believe her and identify with her hostile and negative views
of the other parent, the Respondent/Father, hence gradually alienating the
children from the father. This is re-enforced by the passage of time until it could
result in permanent psychological damage to the children and damage to their
relationship with the father). This PAS has been exercised pervasively by the
mother upon the elder minor child, and also the younger one,
3. That, after the Court transferred the sole custody (from joint) to the
Petitioner/Mother under legally dubious circumstances, the father became aware
of and reported to the Court that the elder minor child was self-mutilating while
in the custody of the Petitioner/Mother, with the latter covering the fact up,
4. That, after multiple contrived delays by the Court and the Petitioner/Mother, the
hearing for this case was eventually set for February 12 & 13, 2003,
5. That, on February 21, 2003, after having learnt that the Respondent/Father had
subpoenaed two judges (one of whom was Terry Shewmaker of Goshen, IN) to
testify at the hearing, the Court (Judge Michael Cook) issued an Order (hereafter
referred to as the February Order) canceling further Court hearing on this matter
indefinitely, ordering counseling and mediation, as a way of muzzling the
Respondent/Father and a mistaken way of sparing Judges Shewmaker and
Michael Cook the embarrassment due to their conducts that would have been
further exposed in the open Court.
Issuance and enforcement of this Order amounts to obstruction of justice by the
Court,
6. That, the February Order was based upon prejudiced and erroneous evidence,
which the Respondent/Father was not permitted to challenge (cancellation of
hearing) in the Court in contravention of the latter’s legal and constitutional
rights. This illegal Order further exacerbates the psychological and physical
safety of the minor children and deprives them and the Respondent/Father of the
Due Process, as the latter intended / intends to present evidence in Court refuting
the lies and erroneous assertions and conclusions therein, as well as produce
evidence to support change of sole legal and primary physical custody to the
Respondent/Father,
7. That, the contrived and willfully negligent delay (by imposing Mediation and
Counseling) by the Courts (see 3 above) further contributed, and is contributing
to the psychological and physical endangerment of the minor children while in
the Petitioner/Mother’s custody. Indeed, the elder minor child self-mutilated
again (in late March 2003- the latest that the Respondent/Father is aware of -- the
mother has a history of covering up the child’s self-mutilation) after the Court
canceled the February hearing, whose impartial conduct could have brought this
case to a resolution and healed the minor children and stopped their plight and
self-mutilation,
8. That, IN Code 31-17-2.4-1 on Mediation states that
“In making this determination [whether the proceeding should be referred to
mediation], the court shall [Respondent’s italic]consider:
(1) the ability of the parties to pay for the mediation services; and
(2) whether mediation is appropriate in helping the parties resolve their
disputes.”
The February Order is illegal due to its violation of both of these two provisions
due to the Respondent/Father’s financial disposition (8.1) and lack of its serious /
good faith consideration by the Court, as well as the undue delay, and hence
danger to the safety of the minor children, this unnecessary and contrived process
has caused and continues to cause(8.2), in addition to the Petitioner/Mother’s
stated refusal to discuss custody in mediation,
9. That, IN Code 31-17-2.4-2 states that
“Sec. 2. When a case is ordered to mediation, the case shall [Respondent’s italic]
be placed on the court docket for final hearing. The mediation process must be
completed not later than sixty (60) days after the mediation order is entered.”
The issuance of February Order violates this Code as no date for a final hearing
has been placed on the Court docket. Furthermore, it has been longer than sixty
(60) days since the mediation Order was entered (February 21, 2003) and the
process has not been completed,
10. That, the Order is additionally erroneous and prejudicial against the
Respondent/Father as indicated in the latter’s petition of February 27, 2003,
objecting (with reasons) to the Order in accordance with Rule 2.2 Case
Selection/Objection of IN Rules of Court- Rules for Alternative Dispute
Resolution,
11. That, in violation of the Rule 2.2 above, the Court has failed to
a. seriously address, let alone “…promptly consider…” (Rule 2.2), the
Respondent/Father’s objections to mediation and counseling Order. This
further supports the assertion that this Order is primarily contrived to
spare embarrassment to Judges Terry Shewmaker and Michael Cook,
b. “…consider the willingness [lack there] of the parties [Petitioner/Mother]
to mutually resolve…” issues. This is first and foremost a custody case
and the Petitioner/Mother has gone on the record (documentary
evidence) as saying that she has no intention of discussing custody,
hence rendering this Order ineffective for this purpose,
c. consider “… the ability [financial, …] of the parties [Respondent/Father]
to participate in the mediation [and counseling] process, …”. [petition of
February 27, 2003],
d. consider the usefulness and relevance of counseling and/or mediation in
this case as the central issue is the safety and well-being of the minor
children (the elder minor child self-mutilated again in March 2003, after
the Order, hence rendering the Order ineffective for its stated
purpose. As a result the children’s custody status, which is a legal issue,
needs, ultimately, to be dealt with in a Court of law, preferably sooner
rather than later for the sake of the minor children. The Petitioner/Mother
has consistently refused to discuss such issues on many occasions, the
most recent of which was not long ago,
12. That, in view of the above, the motives for replacing the Court hearing, in which
various points maybe rebutted and the veracity of statements [the
Petitioner/Mother’s lies] challenged openly, with closed session mediation are
questionable. (Please see the Respondent/Father’s petition of February 27, 2003),
13. That, the Court has, as events have shown, endangered (and continues to do so)
the physical and psychological safety and well-being of the minor children and is
responsible, through its prejudicial conduct, for the actual bodily injury to one
minor child, and the psychological trauma of the minor children. The Court has,
furthermore, deprived the minor children and the Respondent/Father of their Due
Process rights by refusing to allow the latter to challenge the evidence this Order
was ostensibly based upon, hence effectively, and prejudicially, decided in favor
of the petitioner/Mother. This Order also violates the children’s and
Respondent/Father’s 14th Amendment rights,
14. That, the Rule 2.4. Selection of Mediators, of Indiana Rules For
Alternative Dispute Resolution states “… Alternately, each side shall
strike the name of one mediator. The side initiating the lawsuit will strike
first …”. The custody lawsuit was initiated by the Respondent/Father,
but the Petitioner/Mother struck a mediator name first, hence violating the
Rule 2.4 herein. This violation adds to a long list of irregularities and
unjust decisions and actions by various Court officials, and further
discredits the whole process and substance of the case as conducted by the
Courts in Northern Indiana in this case,
15. That, the appointed Mediator, David Cates, of Syracuse, has shown his
conduct to be less than impartial vis-à-vis the Respondent/Father (please
see the latter’s earlier Motions such as those of June 16 & 27, 2003),
16. That, Judge Cook, who presided over the case and issued this discredited
mediation and counseling Order, asked to be recused from this case after
the Respondent/Father filed a lawsuit against him in the US District Court.
He was replaced by Judge Rex Reed, of Kosciusco Circuit Court.
Judge Cook’s last Order allowed refilling of all the Motions since the
issuance of the February Order,
17. That, in view of this case being incapable of being dealt with fairly and
impartially (or even legally) for the benefit of the minor children, and the
previous and the current Courts’ neglect of the same, the
Respondent/Father has, amongst other legal and constitutional actions,
filed a request / Motion to the Indiana Supreme Court requesting the
change of venue and the judge to outside Northern Indiana.
The IN Supreme Court’s decision is pending.
Therefore, due to the above reasons, each compelling in its own right, the
Respondent/Father objects to the discredited February mediation and counseling
Order, and requests that the Court stay and rescind the said Order, and cancel any
scheduled mediation and or counseling sessions, and set an early hearing date for this
custody case.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent/Father, Amir H. Sanjari, requests the Court,
- stay and rescind the February 21, 2003, mediation/counseling Order, and set an early
Court hearing on this custody case.
I affirm under the pains and penalties for perjury that the above and foregoing
representations are true.
______________________________
Amir H. Sanjari, Respondent (Pro Se)
206 Berkley Manor Drive
Cranberry
Pennsylvania 16066
Ph: (724) 741 0678
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document was served upon the following:
Max K. Walker, Jr., Attorney at Law
131 East Franklin Street, Suite 12, Elkhart, IN 46516
By Fax and/or United States Mail postage prepaid on _05th_day of _September_, 2003.