1. Judge Walker effectively postponed my trial process and my constitutional right to speedy and public trial because of my refusal to attend a program that he referred me to

On Dec 8, 2005 my wife filed unfounded stalking charge against me. In January 2006 this charge was transferred from Westchester County Court to IDV Court before Hon. Walker.

Since I felt that Hon. Walker’s bias would disallow him to properly try the charge and my request for immediate dismissal was rejected, I requested jury trial and was granted one by Hon. Walker.

In February 2006 this case was forwarder for jury trial before Judge Colangelo.

I had [pre] trial conferences on March 8 and April 5 before Judge Colangelo.

On May 17, Judge Walker effectively postponed my trial due to my refusal to go to “Domestic Violence Program for Men” and transferred back the case to himself in IDV Court.

When again I requested jury trial on May 21, Judge Walker re-granted it and scheduled a pretrial conference for July 12, but only after a so called “compliance” court appearance scheduled for June 22 takes place. “Compliance” refers to attending the “Domestic Violence Program for Men”.

With his acts Judge Walker demonstrated to me that I would get a trial only on condition that I attend the so called “Domestic Violence Program for Men”. I have reasonable fears, based on my previous experience that my right to trial would be revoked again by Judge Walker if I refuse to go to this program.

With imposing condition on my constitutional right to trial and delaying it due to “non compliance” Judge Walker effectively violated the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

2. Judge Walker violated the principle of presumption of innocence by imposing me to attend a program called “Domestic Violence Program for Men”

On January 19, 2006 Hon. Walker referred me to a “Domestic Violence Program for Men”, as a result of unfounded stalking allegations against me. At this time he was aware that I deny any allegation and plead not guilty.

My multiple requests to Hon. Walker to cancel the referral, backed by my non guilty plea were denied even after I requested a jury trial on the matter.

This is clearly a presumption of guilt since only domestic aggressors and never the general population is referred to this program. By presuming my guilt Judge Walker effectively violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the instant Order to Show Cause be granted in its entirety, and the Court grant such other and further relief as may seem just and proper under the circumstances.

Dated: …………..., 2006                                                                       _________________

White Plains, New York                                                                         PETER PETROV

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
PETER PETROV, pro se,
                   Plaintiff,
             -against-
 Mariya Basheva-Petrova,
                  Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
STATE OF NEW YORK    )
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER   ) ss:
 

AFFIDAVIT OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, BIAS AND PREJUDICE
 

Index No.:21006-05

Comes now Plaintiff, PETER PETROV, pro-se, who, being first duly sworn, states that:
1. Honorable Walker committed ex parte communication with Defendant’s attorney
2. Plaintiff believes that Honorable Walker is biased and prejudiced against him personally as a father seeking custody and significant involvement with his child and against Plaintiff’s son.
3. Plaintiff believes that Honorable Walker’s latest actions are intended mostly to cover up and justify the previous wrong decisions by this judge.
 

1.0.1. Judge Walker committed ex parte communication
On April 26 2006 Plaintiff received a letter and a Proposed Order from the Defendant’s attorney Neveen Nesheiwat. The letter was dated April 24, 2006 and as it can be seen from the attached Exhibit 1 was mailed to Plaintiff at 5:48PM on the same day and scheduled for delivery on April 26.
The proposed order was received on the next day April 25 by Supreme Court Clerk and was signed “as is” on the same day by Honorable Walker.
Therefore Plaintiff was not given any opportunity to object the proposed order, which constitutes a violation of judicial ethics and de facto ex parte communication.
 

1.0.2. The “as is” order signed by Hon Walker heavily distorted Hon. Walker’s own oral rulings from the bench during the preceding hearing on the matter
On April 24, 2006 the Defendant’s Attorney sent me a “Proposed Order” in which she deliberately changed the amounts of pendent elite spousal support from $800 to $900. The $800 amount was determined by Hon. Walker during the hearing on April 18. The pendent elite word was removed from the “Proposed Order” which makes it automatically permanent.
The amount of the child support was frivolously diminished too from $1142 to $1100.
The Order contained other elements such as that the sole legal and physical custody of my son to be granted to Defendant, etc. that were not discussed at all during the hearing.
For my greatest surprise this Defendant attorney’s “Order” was signed “as is” by Hon. Walker on April 25.
It is possible that there was a “secret” hearing with the Defendant in the mean time that Plaintiff was not aware of and therefore not represented.

1.0.3. Hon. Walker ignored Plaintiff’s request to review and eventually cancel this order as distorting Hon. Walker’s own ruling from the bench
During the appearance on May 4 before Hon. Walker, Plaintiff told the judge that the Order distorts his own rulings. Hon. Walker ignored the request.

1.2. The office of Judge Walker returned only a part of a letter that Plaintiff submitted to him (which was reasonably considered ex parte communication). Judge Walker kept a document attached to the letter and used it to ridicule Plaintiff during his next court appearance
On April 28 I sent a letter to Hon. Walker in which I notified him that I canceled my initial appointment for child custody forensic evaluation.
My letter was returned by the law secretary of Hon. Walker as ex parte communication, but an attached to the letter document – copy of another letter that I had sent to the head of the forensic custody evaluation program was missing.
During my court appearance on May 04, 2006, Hon. Walker pulled out the missing letter and read it in the court room. While reading Hon. Walker was laughing. He did not provide me a reasonable answer when I asked him what so funny he found in my letter.
Copy of this letter is shown Exhibit 2
 
2. The fact that Plaintiff complained about his son’s unfortunate situation to the child protection services (CPS) turned Hon. Walker extremely vindictive and resulted in suspension of the regular visitations between son and Plaintiff
It is already 6 months that my son is under custody of his neglecting and sometime abusive mother. Since November 1, 2006 when a sole custody was granted to my wife, she stopped my 5-year old son from visiting the two schools that he used to attend.
After a family court order by Family Court Judge Devlin, my wife resumed bringing my son to one of the schools, but after the case was consolidated in the IDVC court before Hon. Walker, she again stopped my son from school and has never resumed it.
As a result my son’s English language skills deteriorated to the level that he is no more fluent in English (because my wife moved from White Plains to a Bronx neighborhood where she communicates mostly with Bulgarians).
During my first regular visitation with my son on March I noticed that my son was developing a slight speech defect (stammer), which is noticeable when he speaks in Bulgarian.
During my regular visitations I noticed clear signs of brainwashing to my son:
- The first thing he said to my sister when he met her was “My mom loves you now” (as opposite to what he asked my sister several months ago “My mom told me that you are bad, aren’t you?”, a statement that is written as an instance in my grounds for divorce)
- One of the first thing that my son told me during my first regular visit was – “You beat me when I don’t arrange my toys. I know this.”,
In sworn affidavits filed with the Court on March, my wife issued absurd claims, such as I evaded paying taxes by transferring $180,000 to Bulgaria; that I have one million dollar financial portfolio and $477,000 in stocks; that in fact I tried to kill her during an incident on I-95 in CT, by throwing her out of the car while speeding on the interstate (per contrast in her earlier description of the incident before police she stated only that I hit her; in a conversation with a friend she stated that she grabbed the steering wheel (this friend provided me a sworn notarized testimony).
Those facts show clearly that my wife might be mentally ill, and as a sole custodian of my son she represents danger to the child.
I was concerned and notified the CPS about these facts.
In my belief Judge Walker, instead of investigating the matter, launched a cover up and vindication operation, which resulted in suspension of the regular visitations between me and my son.
As a reason for the suspension judge Walker stated that I was not in compliance with the “Domestic Violence Program for Men”, which was not true – one month before the suspension when I truly refused to go to this program and was truly out of compliance, judge Walker did not revoke my visitation right. Of course, Judge Walker got the support of my son’s Law Guardian, because she was also implicitly blamed in my compliant to CPS.
This above fact indicate Hon. Walker’s bias against men seeking custody, his extreme vindictiveness, even at a child’s expense and his readiness to even break the law in order to justify and cover  previous wrong decisions.
 
3. Hon Walker keeps transferring the charges against me back and forth between different judges in order to deny me due process
In December, 2005 my Matrimonial attorney filed a petition for removal and consolidation of all the Family Court matters with the divorce action.
This petition was de facto granted until on April 6, 2006 Hon. Walker issued a decision and order denying it.
I believe this late decision was due to the fact that Hon. Walker was afraid that the pending baseless charges against me in CT would be soon dismissed and all his rulings up to date to deny my son time with his father and parenting time to me would prove to be wrong.
I believe Hon. Walker wanted to keep the domestic violence charge against me in the Family Court in order to poison my case, even if during one of the early court appearances before him, he ruled from the bench that a duplicating charge cannot exist against me in White Plains Family Court while the same charge exists in Stamford Criminal Court. This ruling de facto dismissed the charge from the White Plains Family Court, however later on Hon. Walker resurrected it during my court appearance on May 4, when I notified him that the charge against me in Stamford, CT was dismissed. Hon. Walker told me literally “there are still pending charges in the Family Court against you”.
On Dec 8, 2005 my wife filed a ridiculous stalking charge against me. In January 2006 this charge was transferred from Westchester County Court to IDV Court before Hon. Walker.
Since I felt that Hon. Walker’s bias would disallow him to properly try the charge and my request for immediate dismissal was rejected, I requested jury trial and was granted one by Hon. Walker.
In February 2006 this case was forwarder for jury trial before Judge Colangello.
On May 17, however Judge Walker decided to transfer back this charge to himself in IDV Court.
I strongly believe this latest baseless transfer was again an attempt by Judge Walker to cover up his previous wrong decisions and to deny me justice.
(see Exhibit 3)
 
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the instant Order to Show Cause be granted in its entirety, and the Court grant such other and further relief as my seem just and proper under the circumstances.
 
Dated: …………..., 2006                                                                       _________________
White Plains, New York                                                                         PETER PETROV
 

Exhibit 1
Letter to the head of Forensic Evaluation Program at WJCS
 Dear Ms. McKay,
1. A couple of weeks ago we had a phone conversation regarding my request for statistical information about the child custody forensic evaluations at WJCS.
During this conversation you told me that you do not do recommendations with respect to custody of children.
However, the Court Order for forensic evaluation that you have send me yesterday states in its Report part that:
“A recommendation as to residence and access arrangements that best suit the child(ren)’s emotional development and psychological needs, a recommendation with respect to the custody of the child(ren)… and any other issues with respect to which the forensic evaluator believes is appropriate to advise the Court.”
Please confirm or deny that what you told me over the phone (that you do not provide recommendations with respect to child custody).
Please explain how do you plan to execute this Court Order if you do not provide the child custody recommendations, requested by it.
2. The Court Order in question states that “Matter has a domestic violence component”. Hon. Walker made a mistake here – the matter does non have domestic violence component, it rather involves allegations in domestic violence, which I’m fighting in the criminal courts in Stamford, CT and White Plains, NY (I requested a jury trial in WP).
3. I have serious concerns about the part of the Court Order regarding the confidentiality of the Forensic Evaluator’s Report. I find inadmissible the possibility stated in the Order that the report won’t be accessible to the concerned parties (my wife and me).
4. Let me point to your attention that my son was forcibly alienated from me during the last 6 months. In the period from November 1, 2005 to April 6, 2005 I was allowed to see him only 7 times under the WP YWCA supervised visitations program.
Since April 6 I’m only allowed to see my son for 4 hours a week.
During the last six months my son was kept isolated (my wife stopped him from the two schools he used to attend).
I was systematically disparaged in the eyes of my son by my wife.
I strongly believe that before any forensic evaluation with regards to the custody takes place, my son and I should be allowed to have more substantial parenting time (3.5 days a week) in order to revert the alienation process.
I’m ready and willing to discuss more in depth with you on how to revert this unnatural alienation process in order to insure proper and fair forensic evaluation.
Please postpone my appointment with Dr Schiller scheduled for May 8, until the matters in 1, 3 and 4 are clarified.
Kind Regards,
Peter Petrov
phone: 914-309-7463
e-mail: peter@letq.com
_____________________________________________
From: Peter Petrov
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 1:00 PM
To: 'kmckay@wjcs.com'
Subject: Request for Info
Dear Mrs. McKay,
I'm divorcing my wife and the Court will probably offer forensic evaluations at WJCS to help determine the custody of my 5 years old son.
I would like to have some statistical information about the evaluations performed by WJCS.
This would help me to make sure that your evaluations are not unacceptably gender biased.
I'll appreciate if you can send me recent statistics on:
1. What is the percentage of custody recommended for fathers/mothers for 2 to 10 years old children (or 5-year-old children or children between 0 and 10, 4 and 6, etc)?
2. What are the percentages from 1 when both parents are from the same race?
3. What are the percentages from 1 when both parents had physical custody during the evaluation (first time custody battle)?
4. How the figures from 1 vary in the latest few years?
5. How many court ordered custody evaluations do you perform yearly?
6. Do you have statistic on how often the final Court ruling follows your recommendations?
7. How the figures from 6 vary for recommended custody for mothers and fathers.
I don't expect you to have exactly the same statistics as above; I'll appreciate anything close or anything that could help me evaluate the effect of possible gender bias.
Thank you,
Peter Petrov
phone: 914-309-7463
e-mail: peter@letq.com