Does William Halaz have a crush on me?

My name appeared in another child custody case.

William Halaz, from the website of his employer, Cordell and Cordell

Last month, I wrote about the bizarre turn in the child custody case involving Evita Tolu.

It’s bizarre primarily because both of Evita’s sons are over eighteen but her ex-husband, Robert Steintjes, filed a motion to ask for a change in custody.

It’s even more bizarre because he filed this motion in 2020 but the court hasn’t heard it until now. Furthermore, Evita has not had contact with either of her sons for several years.

Evita has had no contact with one son since 2017 and the other 2020. Here is part of my last article.

In March 2017, after the parties’ divorce, Respondent willfully and secretly relocated Alex from Olivette, Saint Louis County, Missouri, to Defiance, Saint Charles County, Missouri, in violation of the Parenting Plan and without providing Mother and the Court with the statutory required notice of relocation. Respondent never had the best interests of {their two sons}.

Respondent cut off Mother’s access to {their older son} and threatened Mother that if she sought any type of relationship with {their older son}, Respondent would embroil Mother in endless litigation and would make sure Mother never saw {their older son} again. Despite Respondent’s threats, Mother always supported Respondent’s relationship with their sons and never interfered with Respondent’s relationship with {their older son} and {their younger son}.

Mother’s countless attempts begging Respondent to comply with the 2016 Parenting Plan providing for joint legal and physical custody of {their older son} were futile. Respondent never had the best interests of {their two sons}.

I wrote that article in anticipation of the upcoming hearing on this matter which was held on October 13, 2022.

There has been no decision, but Steintjes’ attorney, William Halaz, spent an awful lot of time talking about me and this previous article. Over ten times my name came up and in ways that have nothing to do with child custody.

“You have spoken with Michael Volpe? Did you call reporters to talk about your case?” Halaz asked Evita.

“Not really. Are you asking me if I had given an informal interview?” Evita responded.

Later on, Halaz brought me up again, “Okay.  Michael Volpe does this name ring a bell?”

“I talk to Michael once in a while. Yes. But I talk to him about all sorts of other things.” Evita responded.

Halaz continued, “All right.  And Michael wrote an article Evita Tolu’s Legal Abuse Continues.  Have you seen this article?”

That’s the article from October.

What relevance does this have? This is a question Evita raised.

It has no relevance to custody, but Halaz was attempting to collect lawyer’s fees and it apparently had relevance to that.

“Your Honor, it goes to the attorney fee award issues. One of the statutory factors is the actions and the conduct of the parties during pendency of the case.” Halaz told the judge during the hearing. “Here, Ms. Tolu’s conduct created a considerable distress for my client, and my coworkers, my law partner, Ms. Zurek, and myself after we received numerous inquiries from these individuals, who put the information into the article, the information in these articles which is otherwise is not known and available to the public.  And so this information ties back neatly to Ms. Tolu and her actions relative to this case and the attorney fees and we ask the court to award us for her to pay.”

First, it appears he wants Evita to pay him lawyer’s fees because I reached out to him to ask for comment.

Second, he claims that my emails to him and his colleagues were somehow stressful.

Ms. Zurek, referred to in his answer, is Kristin Zurek, and she has represented Steintjes for some time.

She also works at Halaz’s law firm, Cordell and Cordell.

Here is my email to her.

My name is Michael Volpe. I'm an investigative journalist and I run this site. 

I have been following Evita Tolu's case for about two years.

You filed a motion to modify in 2019. According to a recent response, Evita said you never properly served her but rather tried to serve her through publication though she lived in St. Louis. Is that accurate? 

Also, Evita's response states your client actively interfered with her relationship with her children, bribing one while coercing another. She hasn't seen one son since 2017 and the other since 2020. 

Meanwhile, he is constantly in court asking for more money. He now wants Ms. Tolu to pay for the children's college fund, though it should be funded. 

This seems like a strategy that a toxic person employs. Cut off the replationship with the other parent while demanding more and more custody. What do you say? Evita's response is also attached.

It may take years of therapy for Ms. Zurek to recover.

My question to Mr. Halaz was different. He had recently joined the case and he has had a number of- let’s call them- controversial cases. In all the “controversial” cases- including this one- his client is accused of sexual abuse. Here’s my email to him.

I have been following Evita Tolu's case for about two years.

I've been following your career, particularly more recently. You filed an entry of appearance on this Tolu V Steintjes case on September 7, 2022. It's attached. Why are you so involved in so many controversial cases: this one, Van Den Bergh, Chuck Haynes. 

In all three, your client was accused of sexual abuse; is that right? Is that a coincidence? Why do you wind up representing so many people accused of sexual abuse? 

Also, I have a motion your firm filed on Steintjes behalf from 2020, but nothing updated. Aren't you supposed to go to trial on October 13, 2022, over custody. How does one go to trial over custody for children who are over 18? This looks suspicious and as you know, {the} St. Louis area is a big swamp. 

You probably know about Elaine Pudlowski; her problems and that Zoom conference: all about Evita. 

This looks shady. Do you have a statement; comment; how about doing a phone interview?

I’m not sure how he made it to work- traumatized as he must be- after he received that email.

I also sent Mr. Halaz and Ms. Zurek a follow up email with a link to the article. So, obviously, their trauma was magnified even more.

Mr. Halaz was not done in this October 13 hearing.

“I am looking at this document and there is a reference to October 6 of this year, Stientjes v. Tolu, it doesn’t reference the prior case.  Then the article continues to talk about this present matter. It begins with your words that you indicated to Michael Volpe that…Again it talks about this current matter.” Mr. Halaz asked.

In this interlude, he tried to pin Evita down on just how much she contributed to the previous article.

If you follow Mr. Halaz logic, the more Evita’s contributed, the worse that is.

“Here, I just want to draw your attention to the following ‘Evita told me this trial is being done so that her ex-husband, Robert Steintjes, can shift even more of the responsibility for paying for their son’s college education to her from him.’ So, are you saying that you did not make that specific statement in 2021?” Mr. Halaz asked.

Evita responded, “I agree with this statement.  I was complaining to Michael and many other people about being sued in 2021 by Mr. Steintjes seeking me to pay for the children’s’ college when we have specific college savings accounts that are sufficient to pay for the college education of our children.”

“Then you did in fact make this statement,” Halaz retorted.

I bet he thought he had a Perry Mason moment.

She did make the statement. She has spoken to the press.

This isn’t news, and it has nothing to do with who should have custody of two kids who are in college.

I reached out to Mr. Halaz to talk about this, but he did not respond to a voicemail at his office.

He may be playing hard to get, or maybe, he doesn’t have a crush. I’ll get to the bottom of this.

Mr. Steintjes hung up on me after I asked him to explain why my name came up so much.

I also reached the judge in the case, Patrick Flynn, by email but received no response.

Post-Script

Here are the previous articles in this series on Missouri: Part one, Part two, Part three, Part four, Part five, Part six, and Part seven.

Find the Missouri fundraiser to support more stories like this.

Note: I erroneously referred to Kristin Zurek as Karen Zurek. That has been fixed. Hopefully, she won’t be too traumatized.