Being at the end of the rope with all the lies and deception I sent Attorney Zanoni a letter dated August 22, 2001 requesting that he take some alternative action to gain custody of my daughter. Thinking that my appeal before the Superior Court was dead I was surprised when I received an August 21, 2001, letter from the Superior Court advising me that my brief was due on September 30, 2001. Simultaneously I received a letter from Attorney Zanoni dated August 23, 2001, summarizing a well timed chance encounter with Beverly Mears, Esq. and how she was still optimistic about the custody agreement that was proposed back in April 2001. In retrospect I now know that the letter was a ruse to bring me around full circle that gaining custody of my daughter was just over the horizon if I would just play along a little longer. Because all of this action seemed to be more than mere coincidence I remember thinking that somebody from the Superior Court tipped people off in the Blair County Court that the briefing order was forthcoming and that they had better take some immediate evasive action.

To avoid filing my brief in Superior Court, or as I say taking immediate evasive action, Attorney Zanoni did an end run around filing the brief. Instead he asked me to review his instantaneous custody modification petition for errors and inaccuracies just in the event that the Blair County Court would require formal notice to modify the existing custody order. When I corrected the petition I inserted the joint physical custody clause that Attorney

Zanoni just happened to omit in the original draft.

On August 9, 2001, I had my second supervised visit with my daughter, and was particularly relieved that I completed my obligation to be reunited with her, and would soon be given back my equal joint custody. Surpassing my expectations of the first supervised visit my daughter and I were relaxed and we spontaneously communicated. Overall we had a good time. By all respects the visit went without complication and I was anticipating notification that Beverly Mears, Esq. would file her petition promptly for reinstatement of custody. (see the supervised visit feedback form 2) Instead nothing was said or done and I found myself being scheduled for a third supervised visit. When I questioned Sandy Fluke why this was happening. She answered that the custody office wants the visits to continue until a custody modification hearing was scheduled. Again paranoia set in and I began to doubt the validity of Attorney Zanoni’s agreement, if there ever was one. It was apparent to me that somebody in the court system was waiting and hoping for a hostile outbreak or some other rift to occur during the supervised visits just to supply an excuse not give me back custody of my daughter.

After each visit I asked Attorney Zanoni why the supervised visits were continuing when all went so well and I only agreed to attend just two visits. Attempting to validate his breach of promise he would answer that each visit that produces a good report is taking away the court’s reasons not to reinstate the custody arrangement as before Judge Carpenter’s order. As it turned out I continued on with the supervised visits thirteen more times and each visit produced a satisfactory report equal to or better than the first two. However, because things were going too well somebody in the court system devised a plan to derail those quality visits.

Just before the fifteenth supervised visit Attorney Zanoni and I received a letter dated October 22, 2001, from Susan Friedenberger, a social worker from the Home Nursing Agencies’ ( Partial Hospital Program) proposing that she should attend one supervised visit to address concerns that my daughter was supposed to manifest during the fourteen month hiatus that we were separated. Having no trust for this program or its staff I asked Attorney Zanoni what I should do. My concerns were that if I didn’t agree to the meeting it would be used against me, and if I did agree and the report produces negative results it would be used to undermine my perfect record of supervised visits. With all his lawyer guile Attorney Zanoni enthusiastically encouraged me to call Ms. Freidenberger immediately that evening to set up a meeting.

On November 3, 2001, I had my fifteenth supervised visit which also was to be the last visit, and the last time that I would ever see my daughter again. During the course of that visit my daughter was seated across the room some ten feet away from me trembling and nervously shaking her leg uncontrollably during the entire one hour visit. Ms. Freidenberger sat at the opposite end of the room facing both of us. Ms. Fluke sat on the other side of the room pretending to be a neutral monitor of the supervised visit while taking notes for her visitation report. When Ms. Friedenberger asked my daughter her first question my paranoia and gut feelings were transformed into hard cold reality. I was literally being set up with deliberate loaded questions from Ms. Friedenberger all designed to drive a huge wedge between my daughter and myself. Ergo, mission accomplished. As I suspected this was exactly what the court was stretching the visitations out for and my attorney was a willing participant in the scheme. By the end of the supervised visit Ms. Friedenberger had done her job so well that she coaxed the words right into my daughter’s mouth telling Sandra Fluke that she no longer wished to visit with her dad, but would be willing to accept his telephone calls.

The following day I contacted Attorney Zanoni to complain what went down. While it was my gut feeling that he was as corrupt as the rest of the court, I somehow overlooked his unscrupulous, illogical and irrational conduct as being a part of the ongoing investigation of the court that Donald Speice told me about two years earlier. After all who in their right mind would get involved in this vexing nest of corruption and deceit knowing a criminal investigation was already underway. Absent Fluke’s report Attorney Zanoni couldn’t act or give any immediate advice on what I should do next until he had a copy of the last supervised visitation feedback form.

Within a week after the visit I got to review Ms. Fluke’s November 5, 2001, final visitation report and I was devastated at what I found. Things that my daughter actually said at the visit were changed to give a different meaning and impact ... and it wasn’t for the better. Outraged at these people’s unethical conduct I made corrections to Ms. Fluke’s report and forwarded them to Attorney Zanoni hoping for a moral and legal awakening. Seeing that nobody involved with this corrupt court system was incorruptible I was infuriated with what Ms. Friedenberger did, so I sent her a letter to her dated November 21, 2001 expressing my disapproval of how she loaded the questions when presenting them to my daughter in a leading fashion. Obviously her assigned mission that day was to set me up and destroy my last vestiges of hope to gain custody of my daughter. The court needed an excuse to deny me custody and she gave it her best effort to provide them one.

At my first opportunity to meet with Attorney Zanoni I asked him how this Paula Aigner got involved with my case. Hee-hawing around Mr. Zanoni informed me that as of the date of the filed petition Ms. Aigner had not yet decided if she would represent my ex wife. Acting clueless, he could only presume that my ex wife wanted to retain her legal services. Months after Ms. Aigner signed on to represent my ex wife I learned that the Blair County Court system assigned Ms. Aigner to represent her for free. Again in retrospect I eventually come to realize that Ms. Aigner’s assigned mission was to work with Attorney Zanoni to assure that I would never gain custody of my daughter through legal channels. It didn’t matter if she adequately represented my ex wife or not, she was mere window dressing put in place by the court to keep my ex wife satisfied that she had professional legal representation. If Ms. Aigner just happened to prevail through skill and proper legal channels or by a miracle it was all the better for the court. If not the court would get what they wanted through another controlled event to keep Judge Hiram Carpenter’s crimes covered up and his vicious custody order in tact.

Sill not having the complete picture of what was taking place behind my back I continued on with the supervised visits until a hearing was scheduled to change the custody order. I didn’t want to provide any excuses for the court not to give me back the previous joint physical and legal custody of my daughter. Because Beverly Mears’ side of the agreement appeared to evaporate and with no change of custody in sight I faxed a letter dated October 10, 2001, to Attorney Zanoni expressing my discontent with the course that he had taken my case over the last two months, and I wanted a straightforward explanation. Apparently I hit a nerve with my suspicions because the rats scrambled to devise a plan that would release Attorney Zanoni from his custody agreement that he couldn’t keep.