State of Indiana

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 PERMANENT INJUNCTION

VERIFIED PERMANENT INJUNCTION FOR: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CONTEMPT AND COMPENSATION

COMES NOW, the Respondent/Father, Amir H. Sanjari, and being duly sworn upon his oath say:

1. That, he is respondent in the above-entitled cause of action,

2. That, in accordance with the relevant IN Codes, the Respondent/Father “…a- has been granted visitation rights [Court Order of 02.04.2002 - appended here] with the child[ren]…” in accordance with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, and “…b- regularly pays support ordered by a court for the child[ren],”

3. That, the Petitioner/Mother has a history of covering up the elder minor child’s self-mutilation (evidence such as photos available) while in the custody of the Petitioner/Mother,

4. That, the Petitioner/Mother has a history of violating Court Orders, and as a result of the Court’s inaction, she has become emboldened in doing so to the detriment of the minor children. Indeed, the Petitioner/Mother has failed, on a number of occasions (05.13.2003, 05.02.2003, 04.14.2003, 04.11.2003, 04.07.2003, filed Motions by the Respondent/Father and evidence provided) and in violation of Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines and IC 31-17-4-4 (Family) as well as the IC 35-42-3-4 (Criminal), to present the minor child(ren) for Respondent/Father’s visitations sometimes lasting seven (7) days or more, as well as other violations including perjury.

The Respondent/Father seeks, and will continue to seek maximum penalty under both Family and Criminal Codes (above) against the Petitioner/Mother at this or any other any judicial venue,

5. That, once again (see 3 above for list of such violations in 2003 alone) the Petitioner/Mother has violated the 02.04.2002 and 08.08.2002 Court Orders and Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines and IC 31-17-4-4 (Family) Code by failing to produce the elder minor child for the monthly Court Ordered visitation with the Respondent/Father over the weekend of 09.12.2003-09.14.2003,

6. That, furthermore, in her violation of the said Orders and Guidelines, the mother / her husband failed to facilitate the Respondent/Father talking with the elder minor child on 09.13.2003 when the father [tape recorded] telephoned the mother’s residence to speak with the child, whom had not been produced the day before for weekend visitation, and enquire about the child’s safety and well- being,

7. That, the previous time, in April 2003 (that the father is aware of - see 3 above for dates- just before Judge Cook was sued in the federal Court and compelled to recuse himself for, amongst other violations, negligence vis-à-vis the safety of the children due to his continued inaction in this case such as setting a hearing) that the Petitioner/Mother violated such Orders and Parenting Time Guideline and failed to produce the elder minor child was soon after the child had self- mutilated (late March 2003) in the mother’s custody , and by deliberately failing to produce the child, the mother attempted to cover up the extent and severity of such self-mutilation, (on earlier occasions – the child has been continually self-mutilating while in mother’s custody at least since January 2002 with the knowledge of the Court! -- the Respondent/Father had succeeded in taking photographs of the cuts on the minor child),

8. That, it is against natural justice to interfere, as the Petitioner/Mother and her husband do, with the communication and relationship between the father and his children,

9. That, the Respondent/Father holds the Court, as well as the Petitioner/Mother, responsible for the contrived delay in setting a hearing (and hence a resolution to this case) and the subsequent adverse effect and negligent endangerment to the minor child(ren). Furthermore, by its inaction to punish the Petitioner/Mother for her violations (above) and its refusal to set a hearing on this case, the Court effectively encourages her in such violations, positions itself as her accomplice in such violations, acts in a discriminatory manner, perpetrates obstruction of justice in violating the Indiana Codes, US Codes and Constitution (Due Process,…), Guideline and Court Orders, and most importantly, perpetrates negligent endangerment vis-à-vis the safety and well-being of the minor children ,

10. That, a Judge … has no lawful authority to issue any order which violates the Supreme Law of the Land. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that all entities have the mandatory right of an adequate, complete, effective, fair, full meaningful and timely access to the court. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children, is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the court, Troxel V. Granville, USC, (2000). “Parents have a liberty interest of the custody of their children, hence, any deprivation of that interest by the state must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requirements of due process.” Hooks v Hooks, United States Court of Appeals (1985). Indeed, the right to rear one’s children is so firmly rooted in our culture that the Unites States Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Hawk v. Hawk, Tennessee Supreme Court, (1993). The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Due Process and Equal Protection to all. “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” United States Constitutional Amendment XIV.

The Respondent/Father seeks permanent injunction against the Petitioner/Mother and requests the following:

A. Injunctive Relief

1. The Respondent/Father seeks permanent injunction to enforce parenting time under IC 31-17-4-4 to include visitation (including telephonic contact),

2. The Respondent/Father further seeks permanent injunction to prevent the Petitioner/Mother from further future interference in visitation and telephonic contact,

3. The Respondent/Father seeks permanent injunction to enforce the 02.04.2002 Order and the 08.08.2002 Agreed Orders, compelling the Petitioner/Mother to abide by the said Court Orders and provide to the father the necessary information, and consult with him on the matters affecting the minor children. All this to be done in a timely manner.

B. . Contempt

1. The above, at the very least, represent Petitioner/Mother’s multiple violations of Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines and IC 31-17-4-4 as well as the Criminal Code IC 35-42-3-4 (please see her previous violations – listed above). Respondent/Father seeks permanent injunction against the Petitioner/Mother, and requests that the Court hold the Petitioner/Mother accountable and in contempt based upon the above Codes and summon her to show cause as to her actions in interfering with the paternal visitation and contact and her violation of the Court Orders and IN Parenting Guidelines and above Codes. The Respondent/Father seeks, and will continue to seek, maximum punishment of the Petitioner/Mother for such violations under both Family Codes (IN Parenting Guidelines & IC 31-17-4-4) as well as Criminal Code 35-42-3-4.

C. Compensation For Expenses

1. That, the Respondent/Father further seeks reasonable relief and compensation ($500) from the Petitioner/Mother, for the cost of having to file this Injunction and any and all related expenses in dealing with this matter (including lost time, etc…) caused by the Petitioner/Mother, as well as punitive damages against her. This is not the first time that Petitioner/Mother and/or her husband have interfered with the Respondent/Father’s visitation and contact.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent/Father, Amir H. Sanjari, requests the Court, - issue a permanent injunction to enforce parenting time without interference by the Petitioner/Mother, compel the latter to abide by the said Court Orders, - hold the Petitioner/Mother accountable and in contempt and apply to her maximum punishment for these violations under both Family and Criminal Codes, - award the Respondent/Father all the appropriate and relevant expenses and costs incurred in dealing with this matter, as well as awarding punitive damages to the Respondent/Father and against the Petitioner/Mother.

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 this_16th_day of_September_, 2003