This private criminal complaint originates from the matter of Lou Ann Frederick -vs- Robert Kearns, Jr. [Docket No. 96 GN 2139] in the Common Pleas Court of Blair County, Pennsylvania.
In reaction to a custody order issued by Judge Hiram Carpenter on July 14, 2000 this defendant in the above captioned matter filed a Notice of Appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on August 9, 2000.
In the pursuit of quality legal and technical advice to aid this complainant's filing of an effective brief before the Pennsylvania Superior Court this defendant (hereafter referred to as the complainant) made an appointment with Attorney Anthony Zanoni for consultation. On March 30, 2001 I met with Attorney Zanoni to discuss his appeal and legal brief due on April 23, 2001. Ultimately the discussion led into other matters regarding the complainant's custody case before Judge Hiram Carpenter. During that time I fully apprised Attorney Zanoni of the details of my custody case including that the hearing transcripts had been extensively altered by Judge Hiram Carpenter and his court reporters to cover-up for and/or justify the unethical conduct and vicious abuse of this complainant's child by Blair County Children and Youth Services and various practitioners of the psychiatric profession.
Concluding the consultation meeting Attorney Zanoni asked this complainant if I really wanted to file the brief myself. Since the effectiveness of the brief would have decided the fate of my daughter's life I exhibited reluctance about filing the brief pro se. I told Attorney Zanoni that I really didn't feel comfortable about it and would prefer that someone with broader legal knowledge and experience do the job. Attorney Zanoni asked if the legal costs were part of my apprehensions? I told him that was part of it since I was told by other people that it would take approximately $5,000.00 to have an attorney pursue the appeal. Another reason was I didn't think I could find an attorney who would be willing to jump into this case due to the wide spread publicity and criminal conduct of the court. Attorney Zanoni told me that he could do the job for $2,700.00. Feeling a sense of relief and somewhat uplifted by his gallant offer, I told Attorney Zanoni that if is willing to file the brief for $2,700.00 he has got the job.
On Saturday, March 31, this complainant and his brother delivered to Attorney Zanoni a cash payment in the amount of $2,480.00 with the understanding that $200.00 balance was owed for filing the brief in Superior Court. Also, as requested we had delivered copies of the pleadings of my custody case and some of the transcripts. During the following two weeks this complainant or a member of his family periodically delivered to Attorney Zanoni copies of the transcripts from the hearings. As Attorney Zanoni suggested I marked each transcript where the alterations had taken place and had given him pages of accompanying transcript corrections .
On April 19, 2001 Attorney Zanoni asked to meet with this complainant concerning the appeal in Superior Court. During the meeting Attorney Zanoni told me that he has not completed the brief which was due in just three days. Instead Attorney Zanoni asked if I would consider dropping the appeal in exchange for the reinstatement of the original shared custody scheme as before Judge Hiram Carpenter's order. Attorney Zanoni's selling point was that it would take approximately nine months before the Superior Court would hand down a ruling or sometime by late fall. By abandoning the appeal he touted that I would be reunited with my daughter by late May or early June 2001. Being wary of the endless lies by professionals involved with the legal system and the grueling years of judicial abuse that this complainant and his daughter had already been put through by the court I was leery and disappointed by his new attitude. Feeling dejected I told Attorney Zanoni just to do what he wanted to do. He told me that he couldn't do that, it was a decision that I had to make. I said OK since you are my attorney are you advising me to drop the appeal? Attorney Zanoni said &ldquoyes&rdquo that is what I am advising you to do. Apparently attempting to win my sympathy Attorney Zanoni claimed that if I decided to proceed with filing the brief he would have to work on it all weekend to be ready to file on Monday.
Because I wanted to be reunited my daughter as soon as possible I told Attorney Zanoni that if he is sure the agreement for joint custody can be made without hitches we will drop the appeal. Attorney Zanoni said he saw no problems with that since he and this complainant's daughter's guardian ad litem (Beverly Mears) have a good working relationship. Appearing enthusiastic to get started Attorney Zanoni told me that he will contact Beverly Mears right away to work out the arrangements. Further, because I was dropping the appeal Attorney Zanoni assured me that there was a substantial amount of money left from the $2,480.00 retainer for the appeal and he would keep it in escrow. Because of the new arrangement for settling the custody matter Attorney Zanoni told me that although he had spent a great amount of time reading the record he would not bill me for the full amount of time that he had put into reading it. Believing the matter was going to be concluded for much less than the $2,700.00, I informed Attorney Zanoni that I would pay out of pocket for any further time that he may expend in finalizing the custody agreement. Having no idea why Attorney Zanon wanted to keep in his possesion the remainder of the $2,480.00 this complainant requested that the money only be used in the event I should run short on cash and otherwise should be preserved until the case was completed.
On or about May 10, 2001 this complainant received a letter from Attorney Zanoni outlining the custody agreement that he and Beverly Mears purportedly had reached. On its face the agreement seemed genuine and appeared to facilitate the resumption of my previous shared custody agreement (or a similar arrangement thereof) no later than late May or early June 2001. My obligation to consummate the agreement was to attend two supervised visits for the purpose of reintroduction with my daughter and the guardian ad litem was to forthrightly file a petition with the Common Pleas Court requesting Custody Modification.
For reasons never fully disclosed to this complainant the agreed upon two supervised visits didn't commence until August 2, 2001. Because the Blair County court was in control of the supervised visitation program and historically have been criminally untrustworthy throughout the course of my case I had asked Attorney Zanoni to attend the two supervised visits with me to cover my back. At the inception of the first visit Attorney Zanoni told the supervised visit monitor (Sandy Fluke) that we would only be doing two visits__three at most at which time there will be a custody change. At the conclusion of the first supervised visit Attorney Zanoni asked me how the visit went. After telling him all went well Attorney Zanoni reassured me that following the second visit Beverly Mears was going to petition the court within a week or two for custody modification. Being skeptical of the time already elapsed since dropping my appeal I raised my concerns with Attorney Zanoni that this action could take many more months before a hearing would be scheduled to address the petition. Convincingly Attorney Zanoni dispelled my fears saying that there wasn't going to be a hearing in the matter since a Blair County judge was simply going to sign off. Sarcastically I told Attorney Zanoni that the plaintiff mother was never going to accept that. Attorney Zanoni said the (plaintiff ) mother will not have a choice but to accept the agreement. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni billed this complainant $75.00 paid in full cash for attending the visit.)
Playing on my expectations that I was going to be restored shared custody of my daughter as prearranged, Attorney Zanoni sent a letter dated August 6, 2001 whereby reinforcing the agreement to drop the Superior Court appeal in exchange for restoration of joint custody was alive and well and still in full effect.
By the end of August this complainant became concerned as to why the supervised visits were continuing past the agreed upon two visits. When I finally asked Sandy Fluke why these visits were being scheduled months in advance I was told that the custody office wanted the visits to continue just so I could maintain contact with my daughter until a &ldquomeeting&rdquo was scheduled by the court to finalize the custody change.
As the weeks rolled on into months and the high quality supervised visit reports were piling up and still there was no mention of a custody change in the foreseeable future, it was suspect to me that something went wrong and the alleged agreement was not going to come to fruition. I started developing thoughts that Attorney Zanoni lied about the entire matter and no agreement was ever made with Beverly Mears in the first place. Keeping this in mind, I sent Attorney Zanoni a letter dated August 22, 2001 expressing my concerns as to why Attorney Mears has not filed a Petition For Custody Modification as planned. Suddenly on or about August 23, 2001 this complainant received a letter from Attorney Zanoni dated August 23 with a Petition for Custody Modification drafted by Attorney Zanoni. The letter asked me to review the petition, correct where necessary and return it quickly as possible just in the event that the court should require a formal petition to be filed to make the custody change. Simultaneously what I considered to be a God send to rectify Attorney Zanoni's custody debacle was in late August 2001 the Superior Court again reinstated a briefing deadline for September 30, 2001. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni's rough draft for Custody Modification only requested that the parties should share legal custody of their daughter. I had to correct the petition to include shared physical and legal custody).
Feeling like I had been victimized by an elaborate fraud acted out by one or both of the attorneys this complainant wrote Attorney Zanoni a letter of August 27, 2001 asking him to file the brief in Superior Court or to file the Petition for Custody Modification in Blair County court, preferably to do both. In reply to my August 27, letter Attorney Anthony Zanoni informed me that he had just filed the Custody Modification Petition on September 5, 2001 in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni's petition for custody modification adjusted the date and purpose of his initial employ by this complainant as to appear that he was hired in May of 2001 and only to acquire a more normal custody schedule for this complainant. His petition further alleged that the Superior Court appeal had already expired or had been previously withdrawn by this complainant prior to his involvement with the case).
Not at all satisfied with Attorney Zanoni's dramatic shift in strategy and being upset that the custody agreement unexplainably evaporated into thin air this complainant met with Attorney Zanoni on September 6, 2001 and aggressively pursued him to file the brief in Superior Court. This time Attorney Zanoni rejected filing my brief before the Superior Court on the pretext that the Superior Court is corrupt and would only cover up Judge Hiram Carpenter's crimes of tampering with the court record of the proceedings (96 GN 2139). I argued with Attorney Zanoni that the Superior Court would have to disclose the audio tapes of the trial court in order to achieve an accurate record. Attorney Zanoni said the Superior Court will not disclose the audio tapes and will not grant any meaningful relief to me and further argued that even if the Superior Court found reason to overturn Judge Carpenter's order it would only be sent back to Judge Carpenter to make the corrections. In the latter case Attorney Zanoni forewarned me that Judge Carpenter would just look for another reason to leave my custody situation as it is. Being emotionally devastated by Attorney Zanoni's revelations of the Superior Court I found myself in the hapless position of having no apparent legal recourse for the judicial abuse done to me and my daughter and giving me no other choice but to cling to Attorney Zanoni's professional advice and directives as the truth of the matter. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni billed this complainant a $75.00 cash paid in full payment for this consultation meeting).
On November 5, 2001 this complainant attended his 15th and last supervised visit with his daughter. By the advice and encouragement of Attorney Zanoni I reluctantly permitted Susan Friedenberger (a social worker) from the Altoona Hospital Home Nursing Program to sit in attendance of the supervised visit. Having not been briefed in advace of what to expect was that the social worker's mission in this instance was to prod and encourage my daughter to painfully utter the words that she no longer wished to have contact with her father. Ms. Friedenberger's conduct in this matter revealed the real reason the court wanted the supervised visits to remain ongoing indefinitely. The court and its cronies were waiting for a visible and reportable divide in the father/daughter relationship as a reason not to fulfill the custody agreement that Attorney Zanoni offered and coaxed this complainant to accept. When the expected rift didn't manifest itself during the routine supervised visits and given the court's track record for defrauding this complainant, it was apparent the court recruited Susan Friedenberger to instigate the controversy. (It should be noted that to assist the deception in this matter Sandy Fluke selectively edited the 15th visitation report by omitting and adjusting certain statements made by this complainant's daughter and Susan Friedenberger during the course of the supervised visit).
In complete contradiction to Attorney Zanoni's assertions that no custody hearings would be necessitated to make the custody change this complainant found himself scheduled for a November 14, 2001 Custody Intake Conference. However, as I sat in the hearing room with Attorney Zanoni it was brought to my attention that the plaintiff and her attorney Paula Aigner were not notified by Attorney Zanoni as required to attend the conference . As a result of Attorney Zanoni's legal ineptitude, the Intake Conference had been delayed and rescheduled for January 3, 2002. After we left the courthouse I talked with Attorney Zanoni briefly in his office and told him that I am going to miss another Thanksgiving with my daughter. Pretending to be concerned about my situation Attorney Zanoni disingenuously attempted to elevate my emotions by assuring me that may not be the case. I asked him why he believed that and he told me that my wife (the plaintiff) was going to voluntarily give me custody periods with my daughter. When I told Attorney Zanoni that she would never do that.he reassured me that if she doesn't volunteer custody periods it will be to her legal detriment. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni billed this defendant a $100.00 cash paid in full payment for him attending the canceled November 14, conference).
As the Thanksgiving holiday came and gone without a word from Attorney Zanoni this complainant became distraught that he was not going to see his daughter for the Christmas holiday. Hoping to arrange some form of contact with my daughter for Christmas I met with Attorney Zanoni on December 11, 2001. My primarily objective was to hear when, where and what needed to be done to fulfill the custody agreement. Adding spin to the sordid charade Attorney Zanoni told me that the plaintiff mother &ldquowill not voluntarily&rdquo relinquish any custody arrangement whereby placing me in the hopeless position of having no judicial relief available. Attorney Zanoni then advised me that my only option at that point and time was to abandon my custody battle and walk away from my daughter. When I questioned Attorney Zanoni for a reason why the guardian ad litem failed to uphold her end of the agreed custody arrangement, Attorney Zanoni told me that she reneged on the deal.
Because I forfeited a legal right as a trade off for the purported custody agreement this complainant found Attorney Zanoni's flippant excuse that he provided Beverly Mears was unacceptable and argued that there has to be something that can be done. Attorney Zanoni smugly suggested that if I wanted to see my daughter again I would need to jump through the courts hoops. Consequently, Attorney Zanoni recommended that I start at the bottom by going to counseling and working my way back into his daughter's life possibly starting with one hour &ldquovisits&rdquo at a time. I told Attorney Zanoni that I would not jump through the hoops of criminals and asked him to file a petition to disclose the audio tapes of all the hearings since they would provide the evidence that Judge Carpenter's custody order was fraudulently devised. Attorney Zanoni answered that he wouldn't petition the court for the tapes because he would have to take a criminal action against the court. He claimed that he wasn't hired to do that and wasn't willing to do that, since he has to work there. I reminded Attorney Zanoni that when he took the case he was fully apprised that the record was tampered with and that he even suggested that we would need a witness from the hearing to verify the alterations or we would at least need the tapes disclosed. Hoping to circumvent his built in fears of court retribution I asked Attorney Zanoni if he would care if I petitioned for the tapes pro se? Attorney Zanoni said he didn't want me to do that because that would be the same as him petitioning for the tapes and the court would hold that against him. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni billed me a $50.00 cash paid in full payment for this conference).
On or about December 13, 2001 this complainant received a letter from Attorney Zanoni requesting that he needed to meet with me to discuss a Petition for Psychiatric Evaluation filed by the plaintiff's attorney Paula Aigner. The petition further requested that the custody Intake Conference scheduled for December 18, 2001 be delayed until the psychiatric evaluation was complete. .
On December 17, 2001 this complainant met with Attorney Zanoni. During this conference Attorney Zanoni informed me that Judge Carpenter had just this day dismissed the Petition for Psychiatric Evaluation out of hand, but the plaintiff mother filed for a continuance of the December 18, 2001 Intake Conference because it did not fit her work schedule. The continuance was granted.
On February 5, 2002 this complainant attended a custody Intake Conference with Attorney Zanoni in attendance. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni billed this complainant a $60.00 cash paid in full payment for attending this conference).
On March 19, 2002 this complainant attended a custody Mediation Conference with Attorney Zanoni in attendance. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni billed this complainant a $50.00 cash paid in full payment for attending this conference).
On or about April 11, 2002 this complainant received a letter from Attorney Zanoni notifying that a Custody Evidentiary Hearing had been scheduled for May 14, 2002. The letter also requested a meeting for April 12, 2002 to discuss the plaintiff's most recent Petition to Suspend Supervised Visits. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni billed this complainant a $50.00 cash paid in full payment for the consultation).
On April 16, 2002 Attorney Zanoni requested a meeting with this complainant to discuss his filing of pre-hearing narratives and this complainant's Petition to Disqualify Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses. Being at the point of disillusion with Attorney Zanoni I questioned him why I was now asking the court to allow me to &ldquovisit&rdquo with my daughter when the Custody Modification Petition he drafted was asking for shared physical and legal custody. Putting up new barriers in his web of deceit Attorney Zanoni told me that a &ldquospecial&rdquo presiding judge who wasn't familiar with my case would never award me custody of my daughter for the very reason that I did not have regular contact with her for such an extended period of time. This raised red flags with this complainant since Attorney Zanoni allegedly was going to get joint custody of my daughter restored a year earlier for dropping the appeal in Superior Court and I was now being told that I would only be given partial custody periods in the terms of hours at a time. Attorney Zanoni suggested that I should seek a counselor and only then could I eventually increase visitation periods to perhaps every other weekends over a period of time. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni billed this complainant a $50.00 cash paid in full payment for consultation and a $375.00 cash paid in full payment for reviewing plaintiff's petitions and for drawing up and filing this complainant's documents).
On April 25, 2002 this complainant had a pre-hearing conference in front of court administrator Michael Reighard to discuss the pre-hearing narratives and a sudden decision by Attorney Zanoni to request that I be permitted to hire a counselor of choice to sit in and observe the supervised visits. Supposedly Attorney Zanoni claimed this was to counteract the fifteenth supervised visit report that was spawned by unscrupulous people who had an illegitimate agenda in my custody case. This unilateral action by Attorney Zanoni further postponed the Evidentiary Hearing to June or July 2002. Following the pre-hearing conference Attorney Zanoni recommended that I seek a psychologist/counselor from the Pittsburgh area. However, Attorney Zanoni advised this me that the costs could very well exceed $10,000 dollars. When I informed Attorney Zanoni that the costs for this counseling was beyond my means to pay he suggested that we recruit Psychologist Lynn Kagarise to do the counseling. (It should be noted that Lynn Kagarise is a Blair County court and Children and Youth Services hireling who already was involved with my custody case and whose testimony was one of the many that Judge Hiram Carpenter altered to cover up for his incompetence and professional malpractice). (It should be further noted that Attorney Zanoni billed this complainant $ 100.00 for the pre-hearing conference but accepted a $96.00 cash paid in full payment because he didn't have change on hand).
Because this complainant was extremely discontented and annoyed with Attorney Zanoni's fraudulant misrepresentations and mishandling of his custody case I sent Attorney Zanoni a facsimile message on the evening of April 25, 2002 demanding that he redirect his case strategy towards gaining this complainant full custody of his daughter. On April 26, 2002 Attorney Zanoni responded to my message by letter. What was ironic about Attorney Zanoni's response was that it predicted and pre-warned me that regardless of how inconsistent, incredible, or obscure the testimony may be from the plaintiff or her expert witnesses, the new specially presiding judge would not consider this a viable factor to modify Judge Hiram Carpenter's custody order of July 14, 2000. (It should be noted that any first year law school student knows that court cases are supposed to be based on the constitution, rule of law, facts, and evidence).
On April 29, 2002 this complainant and his brother met with Attorney Zanoni. Reinforcing the contents of his April 26, letter he told us that despite the fact that I could beat the plaintiff mother's expert witnesses at the hearing the specially presiding judge would overlook any inconsistent testimony regardless of how controversial or damaging it might be to the plaintiff's case and will alternatively order me to seek a professional counselor. I told Attorney Zanoni that I had just kept an appointment with another attorney for the purpose of a second opinion about gaining custody of my daughter and was told that I could very well be given shared or full custody of my daughter if the case is aggressively and adequately presented. Given this information Attorney Zanoni affirmed that Judge Carpenter's order was B--S and ridiculous and anybody who reads the order can see that. He then questioned me as to how I planned to beat the plaintiff mother's expert witnesses. In response my brother insisted to Attorney Zanoni that I had beat the expert witnesses handily before and would do it again. Attorney Zanoni then acknowledged that he had seen the witnesses were beat during the hearings before Judge Carpenter just by reading the testimony. However, Attorney Zanoni maintained that a visiting judge would not direct that a custody change be made in this matter unless this complainant seek counseling. In light of Attorney Zanoni's reversal and steadfast position not to seek a full or shared custody arrangement for this complainant as agreed for dropping his appeal, this complainant suggested and supported that Attorney Zanoni use his option to withdraw from the case.
Concluding the meeting Attorney Zanoni informed this complainant that &ldquosome&rdquo money was left on my account. My brother intervened and told Attorney Zanoni that you told my brother that he had a substantial amount of money left. Attorney Zanoni then offered us an illogical rationalization that he had to read the entire record which consumed most of the original $2,480.00 dollars. I reminded Attorney Zanoni that when we met on April 19, 2001, that I was told by him that there was a substantial amount of money left. Nervously Attorney Zanoni recanted his statement and verified that he did say that and there is a substantial amount of money left and that I would be receiving it sometime within the following week along with the case file.
At the July 29, 2002 Custody Evidentiary hearing this complainant represented himself pro se. On August 19, 2002 Judge William Henry interviewed this complainant's 15 year old daughter privately and in violation of [Pa. Code 1915.11- Appointment of Attorney for Child. Interrogation of Child]. Subsequent to the hearing Judge Henry entered an order that identically paralleled Attorney Zanoni's scripted scenario of his April 26, letter and the meeting of April 29, 2002. And while making his order of the court Judge Henry totally ignored and suborned Dr. Bennett's blatant perjury, and the psychiatric and medical abuse of this complainant's daughter which Dr. Bennett exposed and proved via his own presented documentation and testimony. Otherwise speaking Judge Henry allowed a self incriminating child abusing felon to walk free while imposing an abusively restrictive and costly order, punitive in nature against this complainant father and his daughter. This complainant contends that neither Attorney Zanoni, nor Miss Cleo, could have predicted this scenario unless they had been acting in complicity with or forewarned that the judge's determination was preconceived and concocted far in advance of the evidentiary hearing. (It should be noted that Dr. Bennett was the only witness who testified for the plaintiff's case).
On September 6, 2002 this complainant received a telephone call from Attorney Zanoni's office notifying that Attorney Zanoni would like to meet with me to return the money owed and to retrieve the case file.
On September 13, 2002 this complainant met with Attorney Zanoni. Initially breaking the ice Attorney Zanoni inquired as to how I made out in the July 29, 2002 hearing. After giving Attorney Zanoni the details of the hearing and the essence of Judge Henry's custody order he offered to supply me several names of supposedly reputable counselors. In the matter of old business Attorney Zanoni told me that he had itemized an alleged billing statement (which I never received) and calculated the money remaining from the original $2,480.00 amounted to the whopping sum of $275.00. Because I had been paying Attorney Zanoni cash in full for all his legal services aside from the original $2,480.00 retainer left me stunned that there was such a pittance of money left. When I questioned what the expenditures were that allegedly consumed the original retainer Attorney Zanoni explained that he used approximately $1,500.00 of the money to read the case record for preparation of the brief. He said the rest of the money was used during the course of the case. I told Attorney Zanoni that I didn't understand how the money was spent, that was why I paid in cash for all the other legal services. Because I remained mentally numb by my new attorney's abrupt withdrawing from the case I felt it would have been futile at that time to argue with Attorney Zanoni about the financial discrepancy. Diverting me from the money issues Attorney Zanoni began selling the benefits of Judge Henry's custody order. Attorney Zanoni said this will be the first time since this case started that I could obtain a counselor independent of my plaintiff wife's influence, who will be able to listen to me and my daughter's side of the story.
Because Attorney Zanoni displayed an enthusiastic renewed interest in this complainant's case and since Judge Henry's order left me in a judicial vacuum I asked Attorney Zanoni if he wanted back on the case. Attorney Zanoni said he would be willing to get back on the case and see it through to the end. At that time my reasoning for rehiring Attorney Zanoni was founded on my belief that there must have been some ongoing criminal investigation into the court's criminal conduct. I just couldn't believe that an attorney would have been that blatantly stupid to leave a paper trail proving his deceptions. Looking for some source of solace I wanted to believe that Attorney Zanoni was a good guy and was an integral part of this imagined criminal investigation. (It should be noted that Attorney Zanoni inappropriately and unethically used up the retainer money by double billing this defendant for legal services already paid in full subsequent to the fraudulently contrived and defunct custody agreement).
As requested this complainant delivered to Attorney Zanoni, Judge Henry's custody order. On September 18, 2002 Attorney Zanoni supplied me with two counselor's names who were associated with the Bon Secours Behavioral Medicine Services.
After making several attempts to acquire the professional services of Attorney Zanoni's preferred referrals and to no avail, I eventually hired Dr. James Brady to counsel me and my daughter.
On October 1, this complainant contacted Attorney Zanoni's office by phone message requesting that he notify the plaintiff or her attorney that she should make this my daughter available for her first scheduled counseling appointment with me on October 15, 2002
On October 15, 2002 this complainant contacted Attorney Zanoni by phone message informing him that my daughter was not made available for counseling that day.
Attorney Zanoni did not respond to this complainant's October 15, message. On October 17, 2002 I contacted Attorney Zanoni by facsimile in an attempt to clarify and more fully define the events surrounding the missed counseling appointments.
What began a litany of botches, impediments and delays to obviously hinder or destroy the counseling was when on October 18, 2002 Attorney Zanoni contacted this complainant by telephone to explain that he did not understand the phone messages concerning the counseling appointments and misunderstood that he was to notify the plaintiff mother of those appointments. To get back on track I told Attorney Zanoni that my daughter was scheduled to attend two counseling sessions on October 15th, and 22nd, 2002. However, because of the confusion Dr. Brady suggested that the October 22nd, appointment be canceled until the scheduling issues were resolved. Attorney Zanoni suggested that he would send the plaintiff's attorney a fax that day advising that my daughter should be made available for any future counseling appointments.
On or about October 24, 2002 this complainant received a copy of a letter from Paula Aigner in response to a letter Attorney Zanoni had sent her dated October 21, requesting that the plaintiff make my daughter available for counseling appointments. However, the Paula Aigner flat out rejected the letter from Attorney Zanoni as being factually inaccurate. Her conduct in dealing with this issue had aid and abetted plaintiff's defiance of a court order and supported the plaintiff's refusal to make my daughter available for counseling.
Because the plaintiff and her attorney Paula Aigner were in blatant contempt of a court order Attorney Zanoni drafted a petition for special relief requesting the court to redirect the plaintiff to avail the complainant's daughter for scheduled counseling appointments. A hearing was scheduled for November 18, 2002.
On November 18, 2002 this complainant attended the hearing for special relief with Attorney Zanoni. The result of the hearing was that the mother was directed by Judge William Henry to make my daughter available for scheduled counseling periods. As I have always done I offered to pay Attorney Zanoni in cash out of pocket for his attendance of the hearing. This time Attorney Zanoni rejected the money citing that he would deduct his time from the remaining $275.00.
Briefly following the hearing this complainant and family members met with Attorney Zanoni in a courthouse conference room. Attorney Zanoni set out to explain that Judge William Henry highly praised my presentation at the July 29, 2002 custody hearing and the judge allegedly acknowledged that my daughter had been severely brainwashed. Apparently believing that I was fully taken in by Judge William Henry's meaningless custody order, Attorney Zanoni reiterated that I must have presented an excellent case on July 29, 2002 for a judge to make an admittance like that. Building Judge Henry's image while masking his bad order Attorney Zanoni told us that I got a judge on my side. Attempting to make everything appear as legally proper and going well Attorney Zanoni sold the counseling program by claiming that James Brady could now use the sessions to deprogram my daughter.
On November 18, 2002 this complainant contacted his counselor Dr. Brady by telephone message.
On November 20, 2002 Dr. Brady contacted this complainant for the details. Acting on the request of Attorney Zanoni that didn't make any sense, I advised Dr. Brady that he may resume the counseling schedule any time after the next ten days to two weeks. Accordingly, Dr. Brady scheduled just my daughter to counsel on December 10, 2002.
Immediately following the conversation with Dr. Brady this complainant contacted Attorney Zanoni's office and left a telephone message advising that he should contact the plaintiff's attorney to inform the plaintiff that a counseling session has been scheduled for my daughter on December 10, 2002.
On December 6, 2002 this complainant received a facsimile letter from Attorney Zanoni sent to Paula Aigner instructing the plaintiff to make my daughter available for counseling on December 20, 2002. Totally in disbelief of how anyone could make so many mistakes to relay counseling appointments to the plaintiff I contacted Attorney Zanoni's office and advised the secretary that the wrong date was provided to the plaintiff. The secretary apologized and claimed the mistake was entirely hers. As a consequence of the error the plaintiff mother rescheduled the counseling for December 16, 2002. Further, because of the pattern of prior misunderstandings by Attorney Zanoni and the most recent mistake by his secretary had caused this complainant's counselor to become quite upset and to give second thoughts about his professional involvement in counseling this complainant and his daughter.
Because the plaintiff refused to avail herself or the complainant's daughter for counseling anytime after the December 16, 2002 appointment prompted this complainant to seek a contempt of court order against the plaintiff.
On January 30, 2003 this complainant received from Attorney Zanoni a draft of the Petition for Contempt of Court Order. It requested that I review the petition and correct it if necessary and return once signed. On January 30, 2003 I signed the petition without corrections and returned it to Attorney Zanoni.
Because this complainant had a shaky counselor who was about to resign I contacted Attorney Zanoni's office on February 20, 2003 to inquire as to whether the petition was yet filed. I was advised by Attorney Zanoni's secretary that the petition was filed on February 19, 2003. Additionally, the secretary advised me that the court had just contacted Attorney Zanoni's office and asked whether they should schedule a hearing or just have a judge rule on the contempt petition. Attorney Zanoni's secretary informed me that Attorney Zanoni preferred and requested that a hearing be scheduled to fully address the contempt petition.
On February 28, 2003 this complainant received a hearing date of May 14, 2003 to address the petition for the plaintiff's contempt of a court order. Allegedly this date was the earliest that Judge William Henry would be available to hear the case.
On March 19, 2003 this complainant received his very first itemized billing statement from Attorney Zanoni with the starting entry date of November 18, 2002. In essence Attorney Zanoni completely exhausted the remaining $275.00 of the original $2,480.00 retainer, plus an additional $100.00 sent to Attorney Zanoni on January 30, 2003, and included a billing statement for an additional $266.25 to be paid in full immediately.
On March 28, 2003 this complainant paid Attorney Zanoni the bill in full and sent him an accompanying letter requesting that his services would not be necessary at the May 14, 2003 contempt hearing.
On May 14, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. Attorney Zanoni's office left a telephone message with this complainant's sister reminding her to contact me that a contempt hearing was scheduled for May 15, 2003 at 11:30 a.m. At 10:25 a.m. this complainant received a telephone call from Attorney Zanoni's secretary asking me if he I was ready for the contempt hearing tomorrow May 15, 2003 at 11:30 a.m.. I told her yes, but the hearing is today May 14, 2003, at 11:30 a.m. not the 15th. Seeming surprised the secretary told me that she will check her schedule book for the time and date. When she returned she confirmed that the actual date was May 14, 2003. She further told me that Attorney Zanoni told her to call me to make sure that I was aware of my hearing scheduled for May 15, 2003. Adding to the confusion the secretary then informed me that Attorney Zanoni had just received the plaintiff's answer to the contempt petition yesterday (May 13, 2003). She warned me that I should be prepared because the plaintiff was denying everything across the board.
During the course of the May 14, 2003 hearing this complainant requested a continuance on the grounds that he was just notified at 10:30 a.m this morning that an answer had been filed against the contempt petition whereby not giving me adequate time to prepare a defense. Inquisitively, Judge Reilly asked the plaintiffs attorney when the answer was actually filed. Paula Aigner responded that she had filed and sent Attorney Zanoni the answer to the contempt petition on May 5, 2003 and she could not offer any explanation why Attorney Zanoni hadn't received a copy of the answer before May 13, 2003.
On May 14, 2003 this complainant contacted counselor Dr. Brady to advise him that he may resume the counseling with this complainant and his daughter. Several days later Dr. Brady returned the call and advised me that he no longer desired to attempt the counseling with me or my daughter.