Dear Judge Cook by HC120624203846


									                                                                April 21, 2003

Judge Michael Cook
Marshall Circuit Court
501 North Center Street
Suite 301
IN 46563

                                    Re:      Cause No.     20D050010DR640

          The Marriage of :      Alison Gratzol (Petitioner) vs. Amir H. Sanjari (Respondent)

                                    Dear Judge Cook,
                                                         In response to the Petitioner/Mother’s
attorney’s letter of April 15, 2003, I am hereby emphasizing the following points.

    1. As has been the case throughout, the Petitioner/Mother has been manipulating the
       children and lied to the detriment of the said minor children. Her counsel has contributed
       (whose record speaks for itself) by behaving, at the very least, unethically and taking
       advantage of the bias persistent in this Court’s (in)actions and conduct all to the detriment
       of the minor children. Obviously he is not desisting from his questionable conduct.
       E.g., he hopes, by misstating the child’s age (A’s age is 14, and not 15 years), the Court
       more likely see the issues their way.
       Similarly, the Respondent/Father has not “requested extended parenting time during the
       summer months”, as Mr. Walker puts it. The father is entitled to it by the Court order and
       IN Parenting Guidelines, and has NO intention of forfeiting his time with his children.
       Although the Petitioner/Mother and her husband have been manipulating the children
       precisely to bring about their stated aim of “getting you [the Respondent/Father] out of
       the children’s lives”.

        Any attempt to reduce Respondent/Father’s time with his children will be vehemently
        resisted to the fullest extent of the law and the Constitution.
        Furthermore, a hearing on this limited issue will similarly be resisted.
        The Court may recall that it has repeatedly ignored the Respondent/Father’s petitions
        even when they concerned the safety of the minor children (much to their detriment), and
        a hearing on this issue, as requested by Mr. Walker, will be another evidence of this
        Court’s unethical, illegal, negligent and discriminatory conduct.

    2. As a way of self-interest and cover for any legal consequences, various parties seem to
        suggest the provision of a CASA or Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) just so that they could
        pass the responsibility to yet another entity. Please refer to my letter of April 08, 2003.
       This case, and the minor children, do not require another layer of prejudicial decision
       making, much less on the recommendation of someone such as Ms. Lou Ann Todd or Mr.
       Walker whose roles, along with those of some others, in this case are highly questionable
       and will inescapably be subject of scrutiny. The Respondent/Father strongly objects to any
       role for a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL).

     Amir H. Sanjari (Dr), Member: American Nuclear Society, American Association of Physicists in Medicine
                              206 Berkley Manor Drive, Cranberry, PA 16066, USA
                                           Tel: +1 (724) 741 0678
       It should be noted that the minor child, A’s, anger has been developed through the
       infliction of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) while in the custody of the
       Petitioner/Mother as, amongst others, a way of benefiting from the financial gain (the so
       called “child” support) while minimizing the Respondent/Father’s parenting time.

    3. The Court is guilty of inaction on this matter by not instituting a full hearing on this
       custody case, hence allowing the Petitioner/Mother exacerbate and deteriorate the well-
       being of the minor children by pandering to the Petitioner/Mother’s tricks of continually
       postponing the hearing, and, playing on its own prejudice by instituting mediation and
       counseling ostensibly based upon a biased and inaccurate report by Dr. Berardi whose
       veracity and accuracy the Respondent/Father has not been permitted to challenge in the
       The Court, by its inaction and prejudiced actions, has allowed the Petitioner/Mother,
       through dirty tricks and manipulation, to erode the parental rights and visitation times of
       the Respondent/Father, and hence making its own role in this case unacceptable and
       indefensible. It might appear that the Court has no experience of parenthood and
       appreciation for parental contact and time with one’s children!

    4. This Court is legally, ethically and morally guilty of negligence, prejudice and
       endangering the safety of the minor children and pandering to the unethical
       manipulations of the Petitioner/Mother’s counsel regarding this case.

    5. As regards the counseling order, the Respondent/Father understands that none of the
       proposed counselors have any expert knowledge of PAS, hence they are unable to
       distinguish between the issues involved and recognize the damage (PAS) the
       Petitioner/Mother and her husband have been inflicting upon the minor children,
       particularly A. Hence, rendering any such counseling ineffective.

    6. As regards mediation, the Petitioner/Mother has gone on the record to refuse any
       discussion of the custody in mediation. Therefore, this process too is pointless. The Court
       would do well to ask the Petitioner/Mother if she even has any intention of showing good
       faith in mediation such as to discuss custody, which is the whole point of this, and
       subsequent, legal action to come. This would spare waste of time and resources, but more
       importantly, spare the children unnecessary hurt and agony.
       Indeed, the Petitioner/Mother’s role in the latest self-mutilation (March 28, 2003) by the
       minor child is highly dubious, especially in view of her conflicting account of this
       episode with the account given by the child’s school (please see Respondent/Father’s
       petition of April 17, 2003).

    7. The Respondent/Father believes that the underlying reason for counseling and mediation
       is merely to spare the Court and various Court officials (past and present) the
       embarrassment which an open Court hearing would entail due to their unethical and
       illegal conduct. This, therefore, has the effect of prolonging the pain, agony and hurt to
       the children while they are in the Petitioner/Mother’s custody, not to mention various
       Court violations of the codes of IN, U.S. Constitution and ethics.

In conclusion, the Respondent/Father’s position is as follows:

     Amir H. Sanjari (Dr), Member: American Nuclear Society, American Association of Physicists in Medicine
                              206 Berkley Manor Drive, Cranberry, PA 16066, USA
                                           Tel: +1 (724) 741 0678
             A. The mediation and counseling Order is a device to derail the Court hearing and
                the Respondent/Father’s case and his attempt in obtaining fair and unbiased
                hearing on this issue.

             B. Any “limited” hearing or Order on visitation (unless it increased
                Respondent/Father’s time with the children- e.g. compensation of the time lost
                due to the mother’s violation of visitation Orders) would be viewed as further
                discriminatory conduct by the Court and resisted through legal and constitutional
                means. Any Order assigning a Guardian Ad Litem would be similarly regarded,
                especially in view of the dubious role of Ms. Parson who was assigned by Mr.
                Terry Shewmaker.

             C. What is needed is a full hearing of the custody case as soon as practically
                possible to deal with this case which would be most beneficial to the minor

             D. If the Court does not and/or can not (as it has been shown to be the case) deal
                with this case in a fair and unbiased manner, it should act upon the
                Respondent/Father’s earlier petition of recusing itself as the Respondent/Father,
                as will be proven, has no confidence in this Court’s impartiality.
                Additionally, it could be proven that this Court has willfully and prejudicially
                acted negligently and endangered the safety of the minor child(ren).

Does it take my daughter to carry out the unimaginable before this Court would take action and
transfer the custody to the Respondent/Father until an unbiased hearing is held ?!

                                                                         Yours Sincerely,

        Amir H. Sanjari (Dr)

        Respondent (pro se)

CC:              Elkhart Superior Court No. 5
                 Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications
                 Indiana Attorney General
                 Mr. Max Walker

                                          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 this _22nd_day of April_, 2003
     Amir H. Sanjari (Dr), Member: American Nuclear Society, American Association of Physicists in Medicine
                              206 Berkley Manor Drive, Cranberry, PA 16066, USA
                                           Tel: +1 (724) 741 0678
  Amir H. Sanjari (Dr), Member: American Nuclear Society, American Association of Physicists in Medicine
                           206 Berkley Manor Drive, Cranberry, PA 16066, USA
                                        Tel: +1 (724) 741 0678

To top