May 01, 2003
Mr. David Cates
1416 South Huntington
Syracuse
Indiana 46567
Re: Cause No. 20D050010DR640
The Marriage of : Alison Gratzol (Petitioner) vs. Amir H. Sanjari (Respondent)
N.B. This is not the “confidential statement”
Dear Mr. Cates,
With respect to our telephone conversations of April 29 & 30, 2003, I am confirming in writing some of the issues (please see below) we discussed including provision of some tentative dates for mediation.
.
Additionally, I am enclosing a copy of the Motion (a hard copy already mailed to you today) I filed with the Court today to which I’d like to draw your attention including the impediment the Court has placed upon my financial ability to participate in the mediation.
1. This is primarily a custody case with the Respondent/Father’s first and foremost consideration being the current and future safety and well-being of his children,
2. This mediation / counseling Order is unethical and illegal (please see enclosed filed Motion- May 01, 2003) and is contrived not with the Court having the well-being and safety of the minor children in mind, but as a way of preserving the self-interest of the Court and preventing the emergence of evidence and testimony embarrassing and damaging to the current Court and the previous judge, Mr. Shewmaker of Goshen whose removal was requested by the Respondent/Father due to unethical conduct (conflict of interest without recusing himself or informing the Respondent/Father of it for nearly year!) involving the Petitioner/Mother’s attorney (for further information, please see earlier petitions and the website). The course of events and the Court’s prejudicial (in)actions, at least since August 2002, and the psychological and physical trauma to the minor children (while in the custody of the Petitioner/Mother), specifically the older child, testify to this. Hence, the Court’s continuing the delay tactic instigated by itself or in conjunction with the Petitioner/Mother and her attorney at the expense of traumatizing the minor children.
The Court’s discriminatory actions against the Respondent/Father began with it unethically and illegally removing the latter’s joint (legal & physical) custody of the children in his absence.
Therefore, Respondent/Father has no confidence in the integrity and conduct of this Court, nor in its decisions including the mediation / counseling Order. He has petitioned the Court to recuse itself and transfer the case to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where the former lives,
3. The Petitioner/Mother has already (recently) stated that she has no intention of discussing custody in the mediation process, hence rendering this process useless and a waste of time which is detrimental to the safety and well-being of the minor children (the most important factor) as it prolongs the status quo, leaving the children in an unsafe environment (proof available).
4. Due to the unethical, discriminatory and illegal (violating IN Code and US Constitution- please se earlier petitions/motions) actions by the Court against the Respondent/Father, the latter is in no financial position to afford the mediation, counseling and related expenses as required by the Order. Indeed, knowing this fact, the Court appears to have deliberately contrived the status quo in the erroneous belief that it would prevent the Respondent/Father from pursuing this case to its necessary and logical conclusion. It has done this again at the expense of psychological and physical trauma to the minor child(ren)—the latest self-mutilation carried out by the older minor child took place in March 2003, while in her mother’s custody with the Court’s continued acquiescence and inaction evident! Despite the unjust, unethical and illegal manner in which this Court has conducted this case, the Respondent/Father has tried to abide by its rulings at every turn. Primarily as a result of such Court actions, conduct and decisions, the Respondent/Father is heavily in debt, and therefore, unable to raise the necessary funds as required by the Order.
Your office may wish to consult with the Court on this issue as the latter can not expect to place the Respondent/Father in a position to incur further debt. The Court has already threatened and tried to intimidate the Respondent/Father (on the record) once.
5. Financial issues not withstanding, of course it would be more desirable to go through the process as soon as possible in view of the damage the delay and attempted cover up has been, and is, inflicting upon minor children. I am providing the following tentative dates on which the Respondent/Father could be available. These are: May 5, 7, 9, 12, and June 16, 2003.
The dates of June 2, 9 or 23, 2003, may be potentially available upon further confirmation nearer the time.
It may be noted that the above issues have been brought to the attention of the Court, et. al, and that proof, evidence and witnesses would be available upon request.
Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I thank you in anticipation for your endeavor in this matter and look forward to your confirmation of the outcome of a solution to the above (financial) dilemma.
Yours Sincerely,
Amir H. Sanjari (father)
Respondent (Pro se)
CC: Elkhart Superior Court No. 5
Judge Michael Cook – Marshall 72nd Circuit Court
Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications
Indiana Attorney General
Mr. Max Walker
______
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