Pro Se Plaintiff John Cunningham is Totally and Permanent Disabled with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) through the Federal Government’s Department of Veterans Affairs.  As well as having other symptoms, this syndrome severely compromise the sufferer’s ability to maintain concentration and attention to detail.  (Pa5, Pa13, Pa14, Pa1, Pa2, Pa3, Pa4).   Although the claimant functions under much emotional, physical distress due to this case, which adversely impacts his new marriage and other relationships, he is determined to pursue what he believes to be right  (Pa13, Pa6, Pa7, Pa8, Pa9, Pa10, Pa11, Pa12). 

        Maynard & Truland Partner Joe Truland, Esq. knew much details of the Claimant’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, since the Winter/Spring of 2000  (Pa15, Pa16, Pa17).   Maynard & Truland Divorce Attorney Edward Busichio knew details of the Claimant’s disability as of September 6, 2000  (Pa22, Pa23, Pa24).

         On September 6, 2000, the claimant signed a Contract and paid the full $750 Retainer with Maynard & Truland, LLC for the Law Firm to represent me during a divorce case  (Pa18, Pa19).  [For reasons unknown, although the CONTRACT states that  $750 was the full retainer, Robert Correale certified to New Jersey Attorney Ethics that only half of the retainer was paid on September 6, 2000   (Pa29).]  Partner Joe Truland, Esq. represented Maynard & Truland at the signing meeting  (18a).  That day, I begged both Joe Truland and his Divorce Attorney Edward Busichio for their Law Firm not to allow me fall into Divorce DEFAULT   (Pa22, Pa23, Pa24).  Since I already was disabled with PTSD, my Catastrophic-Thinking and Hyper-Vigilance symptoms were at an increased rate.   I hoped that the Law Firm would give me more understanding and accommodations of my emotional disability, especially since my disability was due to my honorable service in the United States Marine Corps.  (If my disability were more physical and visual, I strongly felt that the Law Firm would offer matching benevolence.)  Since there were no real financial assets to divide in the divorce, my two minor children were my biggest concern.  I was terrified about losing my children due to a  Divorce Default.  (Pa22, Pa23, Pa24).   

     During our initial and only meeting, Divorce Attorney Edward Busichio repeatedly tried to reassure me that since he specialized in divorces he completely understood divorce case procedures.   He took it somewhat insulting that I kept repeating myself about my fear of falling into divorce default.

       In spite of my warning phone calls to Maynard & Truland’s Divorce Attorney Edward Busichio, the DEFAULT took place twenty-two (22) days into the Contract on September 28, 2000  (Pa20, Pa22, Possible phone records).    I received no communications from Maynard & Truland until November 2000.  In spite of my phone calls, the DEFAULT and my Oct 6, 2000 Complaint Letter, Maynard & Truland, LLC.  did not start work until November 14, 2000 (Pa21).  Maynard & Truland’s Start Work Date was sixty-nine (69) Days into the CONTRACT.  Maynard and Truland’s General-Practice Attorney Robert Correale (and their representive on Attorney Ethics) certified to New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (Pa29) that Edward Busichio, Esq completed work on an Answer and Counterclaim on my behalf.  However, Correale did not supply Attorney Ethics with any evidence of Busichio’s Answer & Counterclaim.  My former wife’s attorney, Sussex County Superior Court and myself (Pa20) did not receive this Answer and Counterclaim.   And the claimant was never billed for this Busichio work  (21a).   Why Robert Correale certified that this work was completed is unknown.  However, his statement was accepted by New Jersey Attorney Ethics without evidence and without question.  

       Soon after Edward Busichio’s DEFAULT and my October 6, 2000 Malpractice Complaint letter, James Maynard, Esq. and Joe Truland, Esq. switched my divorce representation from their Divorce Attorney Edward Busichio to their extremely influential General-Practice Attorney Robert Correale.  Robert Correale was the Vice-Chairman of the local Attorney Ethics Committee – DISTRICT X.  Both Correale, Busichio and Maynard & Truland Senior Partner James Maynard vaguely explained this switch in their CERTIFICATIONS to New Jersey Attorney Ethics.  Due to his position with Attorney Ethics, Robert Correale did most of the explaining.   However, Divorce Attorney did admit that the DEFAULT was a surprise.  However, Busichio’s certification did not mention that he completed any work on the Answer and Counterclaim  (Pa29, Pa30, Pa32, Pa33).  These May 2003 CERTIFICATIONS were the first time, I ever received details why I was placed into a DEFAULT. 

       November 14, 2000, Robert Correale billed me at an Over-Charged rate for Default Removal  (Pa21).  (Maynard & Truland continued to overcharge me for their first 10 hours of contracted work  (Pa19).  This DEFAULT Removal was the first Maynard & Truland, LLC charges.  For unknown reasons, in Vice-Chairman Robert Correale’s CERTIFICATION to New Jersey Attorney Ethics he listed his firm’s start-work-date as Nov 3, 2000  (Pa29).  In my November 2000 Letter (Pa23), I first complained to the Law Firm about charging me for their Default Removal.   In December 2000, I made these same complaints to District X, Vice-Chairman Correale’s own committee  (Pa25).   (I was not aware that Correale was the Vice-Chairman or a member.  Correale himself verbally informed me of his membership on the committee on March 11, 2003.  A month later, New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics admitted in writing to this CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  Why it took so long to admit to a CONFLICT OF INTEREST is unknown.)   Two years later, these false-charges and over-charges still remained on the Maynard & Truland Final Invoice.  For reasons of their own, the Law Firm made no attempt to correct their Billing Violations. 

      Due to the amount of exacerbated stress (13A) these battles with Maynard and Truland cause me (and my Family), I never followed up with District X on these ethic violations until January 2003.   (In January 2003, I was told by a District X representative, “It is not your former law firm’s fault that you have mental problems.  Just workout a payment plan.”)   Partner Joe Truland, Esq.  stated in his Brief for this Appeal,  “Maynard & Truland filed action to collect after Mr. Cunningham did not seek fee arbitration.”   All Mr. Truland had to do was review his Contract’s Billing Paragraph that he signed on September 6, 2000.  The first ten- (10) hours of contracted work were to be at a $150 rate (19A).   I feel the Honorable Judges will find Correale’s (Pa29) and Senior Partner James Maynard’s (pa32) Attorney Ethics CERTIFICATIONS interpretation of their easy-to-read Contract (Pa19) billing paragraph extremely interesting and perjurious.  Although their CERTIFICATIONS contradicted each other’s Billing CERTIFICATION and even contradicted their own CONTRACT, their CERTIFICATIONS were accepted by Attorney Ethics without question or evidence  (34A).

       Maynard & Truland’s DEFAULT greatly exacerbated (and continues to exacerbate) my PTSD Emotional Disability and the Physical Health Problems that are medically documented and associated to my PTSD.   During their three month Default, I exhausted every legal method I could in order to try to get out of the default.  My October, November and December Complaint Letters (22a, 23a, 24a) to Joe Truland, Edward Busichio and Robert Correale highlighted; their Default, our Contract Signing Meetings, the tremendous stress their lack of communications was causing, false billing charges and some of my actual divorce concerns, especially my former-wife’s false child-abuse charge.   (Vice-Chairman Robert Correale admitted in his CERTIFICATION to Attorney Ethics that his Law Firm received each of these three letters, however, his description of their content were extremely vague and misleading  (Pa29, Pa30).  He did not supply my letters to Attorney Ethics, but I did on a number of occasions.   I also supplied New Jersey Attorney Ethics with much more evidence.

       Still in Default in late December 2000, my stress level continued to climb  (7a, 8a).   Desperate, I wrote to New Jersey’s SUPREME COURT Attorney Ethics – District X (Pa25) and Sussex County FAMILY COURT Judge Christine Miniman  (Pa26).

      On January 9, 2001, over four (4) months into the Contract, and receipt of my complaint letters, Judge Christine Miniman released me from the Divorce Default that Edward Busichio’s “Surprise” (Pa33) placed me in.    Also on January 9, 2000, I was accepted into a Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital’s 45-Day Stress Unit in Montrose,  New York  (Pa6, Pa7, Pa8,Pa9).  It is clear by my VA Medical Records that Maynard & Truland, LLC  was the trigger of my pain and suffering.  Upon the request of Robert Correale I was forced to delay my entry into the stress program  (Pa9).

    On January 10, 2001, the day after I was accepted into the Montrose, NY  VA hospital for exacerbated stress, I appeared in the small Sussex County  Superior Family Court for a DEFAULT HEARING.   I was never informed by Maynard & Truland’s attorneys that the DEFAULT HEARING was cancelled and changed to another purpose.  Confused, during a break in court proceedings, I went to speak to Robert Correale, who had introduced himself earlier to the court.  I had never met him before, so I did not know who he was prior to the court proceedings.   Since, I was never really informed that Vice-Chairman Correale replaced Maynard & Truland’s Divorce Attorney Edward Busichio, I was hoping that Busichio would show up.  Robert Correale felt our first meeting was so important that he described it in a mocking, discriminative and degrading manner to New Jersey Attorney Ethics.  Please read his two Historical Events in his CERTIFICATION that pertains to this same event (29a, 30a  Events 23 & 56).  Although our first meeting was so important that he listed it twice (and last) in his CERTIFICATION, Correale listed the wrong date.  Why he described our first meeting in this degrading manner to Attorney Ethics is not known.  Regardless, it was accepted by Attorney Ethics without question  (34A).

     On February 14, 2001, because Robert Correale came to Sussex County Superior Court unprepared, I was forced to represent myself during Divorce Arbitration (Pa31).  Please read Correale’s CERTIFICATION for this date (Pa30).  Vice-Chairman Correale sat to the left of me during the whole arbitration meeting.  I spoke directly to my former wife’s attorney and worked out the final details of the divorce case, including therapy for my two minor children  (9a).

     In December 2002, Maynard & Truland brought a Special Civil Case (DC-004102-02) against me to Sussex County SUPERIOR COURT for collection of their open bill.  I Counter-Claimed on this same docket for Legal malpractice  (Pa35).  Having already reviewed my clear, yet lengthy evidence and supporting documentation, Honorable Judge Graves tried the case on March 11, 2003 .  Against Robert Correale’s objections, Judge Graves ruled that my Counter-Claim for Legal Malpractice warranted the Law Division for damages.  After Judge Ronald Graves’ decision, I went downstairs in the Sussex County Court room and notified the clerical area that processes Special Civil Part cases.  The woman court clerk , who I spoke to, initialed NSA  “To Be Filed In Law Div” on my Answer & Counterclaim control sheet  (Pa35).   Please be advised that as of this date, the full Court Transcript for Judge Graves’ decision is missing within the Sussex County Court.  I’ve been trying to obtain a full transcript from the Sussex County Court, since early November 2003  (Pa27, Pa28).

      Months later in court documents, Maynard & Truland’s attorney Brian Banasiak clearly downplayed Judge Ronald Graves’ decision and did not detail the results of the Superior Court Case in his Statement of Undisputed Facts  (Pa36).   On August 26, 2003, Brian Banasiak, Esq. represented Maynard & Truland in the Sussex County Law Division of Honorable Judge Karen Russell.   During court proceedings, I tried to bring up the facts of Judge Graves court, however, I was quickly cutoff by Maynard & Truland’s attorney Banasiak  (T5, T6).   Judge Graves’s court decision was so unimportant, Attorney Banasiak stated  “I don’t even know what the disposition was of that.”  (T6 - Lines 16, 17).   

     Moment later, my  LEGAL  MALPRACTICE  LAW  DIVISION  CASE  AGAINST  MAYNARD &  TRULAND, LLC.  WAS  DISMISSED  DUE  TO  THE  LACK  OF  AN  AFFIDAVIT  OF  MERIT.

       From January 2003 to the January 2004, I tried to get an Attorney Ethics Investigation started on Maynard & Truland.  Since Maynard & Truland’s General-Practice Attorney Robert Correale was the Vice-Chairman of the local Ethics Committee, there were delays.  After numerous letters from me  (37a, 38a), it took until April 2003, before the New Jersey’s SUPREME COURT - OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS admitted to Correale’s CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 

     On January 19, 2004, although Edward Busichio, Robert Correale, James Maynard CERTIFICATIONS were loaded with misleading, vague and perjurious statements, which were not supported by any evidence, the New Jersey Office Of Attorney Ethics cleared them of all charges and closed the case  (Pa34).

       Currently, I am in the process of getting an Emotional (Harassment) Discrimination Case started by the Federal Government - Department of Justice on New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.

MY EMOTIONAL  DISABILITY  HAS  BEEN  A  TREMENDOUS  DISADVANTAGE  TO  TRY  AND  KEEP  UP  WITH  MAYNARD & TRULAND’S  TAG-TEAMING  POOL  OF  ATTORNEYS.   MAYNARD & TRULAND’S  TAG-TEAMING  TACTIC  IS  A  FORM  OF  BULLYING  A  PRO  SE,  ESPECIALLY  IF  THE  PRO  SE  SUFFERS  FROM  A  PTSD  EMOTIONAL  DISABILITY?)

-          1.  EDWARD  BUSICHIO,  ESQ.  -  MY  ORIGINAL  MAYNARD & TRULAND  DIVORCE  ATTORNEY,  WHO  FOR  WHATEVER  REASON,  HAD  ME  FALL  INTO  DIVORCE  DEFAULT  IN  SEPTEMBER  2000,   TWENTY-TWO  (22)  DAYS  AFTER  SIGNING  MAYNARD &  TRULAND’S  CONTRACT  WITH  JOE  TRULAND,  ESQ.  (JUNIOR  PARTNER).

-          2.  ATTORNEY  ETHICS  VICE-CHAIRMAN  ROBERT  CORREALE  -   M&T ‘S  GENERAL-

-           PRACTICE  ATTORNEY  WHO  TOOK  OVER  RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  MY  DIVORCE  RIGHT  AFTER   M&T  DIVORCE  ATTORNEY  EDWARD  BUSICHIO  HAD  ME  FALL  INTO  DIVORCE  DEFAULT.     Correale  was  responsible  for  overcharging  and false  billing  of  default  removal   (pa21).

-          3..  Joseph  A.  Molinaro,  Esq.  maynard & truland’S  COLLECTIONS  ATTORNEY. 

-          4.   ATTORNEY  ETHICS  VICE-CHAIRMAN  ROBERT  CORREALE  -  m&t  ATTORNEY  WHO  REPRESENTED  THE  LAW  FIRM  IN  JUDGE  GRAVES’  COURTROOM.

-          5.    BRIAN  BANASIAK,  ESQ.  -  M&T  ATTORNEY  WHO  REPRESENTED  THE  LAW  FIRM  IN  JUDGE  KAREN  RUSSELL’S  COURTROOM.

-          6.    ROBERT  MAYNARD’S  MAY 2003  CERTIFICATION  COVER  LETTER  TO  DISTRICT XI  ATTORNEY  ETHICS COMMITTEE, SECRETARY  ROBERT  STOBER.

-          7.    JOE  TRULAND, ESQ.  -  MAYNARD & TRULAND’S  ATTORNEY  AND  PARTNER,  WHO   SUPPLIED  THE  FINAL  PAPERS  TO THIS   COURT   CASE.