10 2 a3 a4 15 16 a 18 cry 20 a 23 24 25 from this witness. The question that--to which there's an objection is based on a question with specific reference to bills from attorney Altshuler, and I--the question is, how is chat relevant? WS. HANDRAHAN: Well, Margo actually had to pay one or two of those bills. and my point was, every tine I'd get a bill it would be three or four thousand dollars a month because of the incessant e-mails and motions, and I kept saying, “I’m not~-I don't--I'm not draining my retirement, I'd Like this litigation to stop." court: So, the--the question is whether she specifically paid bills to counsel for you? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. And the effect of these extrenely high bills that 1 wasn’t generating COURT: You can answer the question as to whether those bills were paid. WITNESS: Yes, T think T paid two of the bills to Mr, Altshuler, and, once again, T just think it was an extremely horrific process for you. And T think you were getting extremely frustrated with the fact that all these e-mails were being sent back and forth, that you were not generating the majority of them, and that you felt that mich of the expense was as a result of Mr. Waxman DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 0 Was there any evidence that any of this was intentional? 20010 a 2 aa aa as 16 W 38 ce 20 22 a 24 25 MR. WAXMAN: Objection. I don’t know how--is this--this person being offered as an expert in order to look at e-mails and derive ay intent from--from e-mails? COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN You are very close to Mila, are you not? ves, T am Does she call you her second mother? She definitely has at some point in time, yes. Could you describe your bond with Mila? » Oro eS My bond with Mila has been very strong, as has the bond with my daughters and Mila, We saw her fairly regularly before. We have not been able to see her as regularly since it seens freedom of movement has been sonewhat restricted. But we try to keep up with phone conversa- tions and sending packages. And T would say that my girls think of her as a little cousin. and we are quite fond of her and amazed at how fabulous of a mother you've been, especially in light of ‘this ordeal © When you saw the packet of e-mails that T have already submitted to the court after the temporary protection order was put in place, where Mr. Waxman wrote again and again that he had developed and nurtured a bond for Mila, that he wasn’t allowed to give her a Christmas present, that T was destroying his relationship with mila, how did 20110 a 2 3 a is 16 uv 18 19 20 2 22 23 2a talk those make you feel and what was the effect on me? MS. HANDRAHAN: Am T allowed to do a compound question? cour: No. MR, WAXMAN: No. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN How--what was the effect of those e-mails on me? I object. The witness--the plaintiff can MR. WAXMAN about the effect herself. We don’t need another witness to do that. It’s redundant. COUR: I'21 allow the witness to testify if she made observations specifically related to that. WITNESS: The effect of the e-nails on you? DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN since the temporary order has been-put in place, T believe there was a series of e-mails ves “-that were generated, that I introduced to the Court this morning, Right --that once Mr, Waxman could no longer have contact with Mila he was sending, again, three or four or five e-mails a day expressing his outrage that he couldn't have contact, that he had nurtured a bond with her, 1 was denying con--do you remember all of these e-mails? ves. 202B 4 a5 16 uv ae 19 20 a 22 23 Q Could you describe the effect it had on me? MR. WAXYAN: I'm sorry, but, for the record, T need to continue to ledge objections to questions that are full of argument CURT: The question, as T understand it, was what was the reaction to the e-mail in which there was a statement that a bond had been--being nurtured, is that right? Ms. HANDRAHAN: Yes. court: Between Me. Waxman and the child? MS. HANDRAHAN: That's right. courr: You can answer that question. wvmwess: Prom what T observed, you were absolutely horrified. don't know what mother wouldn't be horrified. Zt was extreme enotional distress for you. Despite everything else, I think that was--it was just--it was a huge blow to think that this man who has vowed to destroy the bond with your child that he is promoting his bond with your child. 1 Just wes outraged. YR. WAKAN: T--I'm gonna have to move to strike the piece vhere she said, ‘iho has vowed to destroy the bond." and 1 now you way say this is for cross examination, but there's no evidence that’s been introduced that this Court could look at that would support that statement. couRT: You'll be able to cross examine on that basis Go aheed. 20319 n 2 3 1 15 16 uv 18 9 20 22 23 28 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN © Would you describe--how would you describe an opposing attorney spending overnights with a then two-year-old geughter--how would you describe that effect on me? MR. WAXMAN: A, couRT: I'm sorry, what is the question? MS. HANDRAHAN; It’s the--it's to the e-mail not the overnights, when T learned that Mila was spending overnight we--we did the e-mail with Mr. Warman, which--could she just: con the bond, and then there’s an e-nail about the overnights couRT: ‘The question is, what was your reaction? Mg. HANDRAHAN: No, what was the effect on me. she--when 1 called her and said, “This is what I've now discovered.* couRr: You may answer the question. wimess: I think you were--I mean you were devastated You-- just--I don’t--I don’t know what else to say. I’ve talked to people that I know about it, and everybody's horrified Ym, WAXMAN: Objection. Move to strike WIMWESS: Tt's just obscene. Mm. WAXMAN: Hearsay. couar: Sustained. That portion is stricken regarding what other people say. MS. HANDRAHAN: 1 would (Indiscernible) DIRECD EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 20410 a 2 23 rr a5 16 uv ry Fry 20 a 2 23 24 @ could you just talk about your--you--how you witnessed my reaction, Margo, to this A Well, T think you were beside yourself, 1 mean here it is this child that you have raised, pretty mich single- handedly, since birth and have loved and devoted so much time and attention to, and--and now all of a sudden the opposing counsel--she’s spending weekends with him, or whatever it is. Té it’s a gift, it’s—-you know, x just ehink you just--you were in shock, you were upset, you were distressed, and understandably so © Okay. Can--T may not be allowed to ask this question so T/l1--t’m not quite clear on the Rules of Evidence. 2/11 txy, can you think of any reason that any contact with Mr. Waxman would be in Mila’s best interest? Mm. WAOAN: T object to that couRT: Sustained, MS. HANDRAHAN: And because she also has @ relationship with Mila, is she allowed to talk about the effect that this has on Mila? MR. WROIAN: The effect that what has on Mila? Ms. HANDRAHAN: The effect of the Litigation, the harassment, the intimidation MR. WROIAN: Well, let me-- MS. HANDRAHAN: The effect of spending overnights and Geveloping a bond with Mr, Waxman when she’s two and she hasno ability to say for herself, *T don’t want to be around this nan." She's two. And Margo is like a second mother to her court: I’m going to sustain the objection. MS, HANDRAAN: So, T can’t ask about her relationship to Mila? couRT: You already asked about her relationship to Mila “this witness’ relationship to Mila. hs, MANDRAHAN; Yes. And her observing the effects that that would have on Mila. ccurt: ‘That it would have or did have? Mg. HANDRAHAN: The--well, it would have and it is having. Mg, WAWAN: Your Honor, this wonan is not being proffered as a child psychology expert ccurr: 1/m going to sustain the objection DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Ard what about your bond with mila? ‘what has happened to yeur--which would be--if a normal, healthy woman has good friends, she has people around her, she has the support of comunity to raise her daughter--you've been one of the most key characters as well, Could you talk about what you've seen that has happened to your bond with mila? ME. WAXMAN: Objection. Relevance. How is that relevant the harassment alleged in this case? 20810 a 2 a3 aa 15 16 w 18 9 20 a courr: I'm going to sustain the objection, unless no nexus between that- MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. Tt (Indiscernible) the knock-on effect of all those lies. Bonds, and support systems, and people around me have been--been destroyed. 1/11 reframe the questicn DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Q Were you--how did you feel about coming to testify today, Margo? MP. WAXMAN: Objection. Relevance MS. HANDRAHAN: It’s again, the knock-on effect because all the people around me are terrified to even come and testify because they’re scared Mr. Waxman is going to sue them and start harassing them because he’s done this to everybody: where's a consistent pattern of behavior here, Your Honor, that I need the Court to be able to see, otherwise T can’t present the evidence COURT: But is it ba--1 need to know the foundation as to what this opinion is based on. MS. HANDRAHAN: Her-—what she-~ COURT: Ts it some contact with Mr. Waxman? MS. HANDRAHAN: No, what she's observed has happened to ne and :o others--she knows other people in the case who don’t want to even come and testify anymore. she knows two other key caregivers, and go I wanted to know what her feeling was 20710 an 2 3 u 18 16 uv 18 19 20 22 23 2a 25 about testifying today. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, that would have to be based on hearsay and I object. MS. HANDRAHAN: Her own feelings about testifying today. Is that--does that not go to the--the case--in my opinion, it goes to this--1 mean if my own witnesses are terrified to testify, what must I be feeling? And they're terrified to testify because he has launched an ongoing: COURT: But this witness is being asked to testify as to what other-- now did she feel about MS. HANDRAHAN: No, what her: coming to testify today, MB, waKAN: I don’t think that’s relevant, Your Honor And the foundation for her being reticent or hesitant to cone and testify is because Lori Handrahan has said this man's a monster, that doesn't get us anywhere. MS, HANDRAHAN: That's hearsay. This is--that’s not that’s not the case. courr: 1/21 allow her to answer this question. MS. HANDRAHAN: Thank you very mich, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN How did you feel about coming to testify today? 1 was not very happy about coming to testify, and 1 really was actually dreading it. 1 have--I don’t know what the correct word is--seen, heard, read things that 2081 have happened to people or threatened people that have 2 befriended you or supported you in some way, and 3 besically I was definitely very scared to cone here. T 4 aian’t want to be cross examined by Mr. Waxman. You 5 yrow, 1 just--with his vast resource I just--1 didn’t 6 yrow what would be, and it was an expense to come here 7 ard take off of work. And it’s been--it's been traumatic 8 or all fronts. So, no. I mean of course I would be here 9 to support you and stand up for what's right, but T was 10 definitely nervous about coming here ui | @ ate you scared that Mr. Waxman may sue you? 2 ME, WABN: Objection. Your Honor, that would have to 13 | be based on hearsay. I've never had contact with this woman, 4 CcURT: I'm going to sustain the objection 45 ME. HANDRAHAN: Z'm done, Your Honor. Thank you very 16 | much: uv cour: Cross examination? 18 MR. WAXYAN: May T begin, Your Honor? a9 cour: Yes. 20 MR. WAXYAN: Thank you. Good afternoon a WITNESS: Good afternoon 22 MR. WAXYAN; I’m Michael Waxman. I'm the person that 23 | you've been talking about 24 (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR, WAXMAN 25| Q and you're aware, by the way, that Ms, Handrahan 20910 a n a 1 16 uv 18 Fry 20 a 2 23 2a 25 previously filed a protection from abuse claim against Igor Malenko claiming that he was sexually abusing: MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, again, I’m sorry, T have to-~ MR, WAXMAN: --his daughter, correct? MS. HANDRAHAN: --object. This is irrelevant. He's trying to bring it back to the sex abuse case. and he’s purposely trying to do this for other litigation purposes which 1 believe is illegal COUR: What is--what is-~ MS. HANRAHAN: —T may be wrong, but~ CouR?: —-what is the question? Mm, WAXMAN: The question was, are you aware that there was a previously filed PFA case against Mr. Malenko claiming that he was sexually abusing his daughter. court: Okay. And the purpose of the question, since there’s a relevance-- MR. WAXMAN: Right court: | --ebjection. MB. WAXMAN: Well, I want the Court to understand that. it's a many-headed attack, and that initially it was always against Mr. Malenko. and, in fact, I want to get into the-—T want to question her as to why it was Ms. Handrahan wasn’t present at the final hearing in the PFA case when she’s been present for every hearing with regard to Michael Waxnan CURT; I'm sorry, what--from this witness?10 u 22 3 aa 15 16 18 19 20 a 22 23 2a 25 MR. WAXMAN: Yeah. she’s her best friend. 1° like to imow if she’s made statements to Ys. Pyes about why she didn’t attend the final hearing ina case where she was claiming horrific sexual abuse against her daughter MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, again, I would just say this couRT: Would you stand up, please Mg. HANDRAHAN: Oh, I’m sorry. ‘This is again irrelevant, and thet Sf she can't make statements about specific things with me, 1 don’t know why she can make statements about that. 1 mean he's trying--this is what he did before. He's trying to brirg it all back to the sex abuse case, and unless I can proffer the Spurwink report, it leaves me very vulnerable to ato court: Well, as I said earlier, we're not here to litigate the-- Ms. HANDRAHAN: Right. ccuRT: | --allegation of sexual abuse. But your purpose in this Line of questioning, Mr. Waxman, is to--is--is: Mi, WAXMAN: A, COUR; --ig what? If you can just clarify for me why you feel you need to take this road MR, WAXMAN: Well, couRT: --or this Line of questioning MR, WAXMAN: --it has to do, in part, with this witness’ aan10 u a a 14 1s 16 0 18 Fey 20 2 2 23 2 25 credibility, because she’s been claiming from the stand that-- that I'm terribly intimidating and--and she's fearful to cone hecause of me. And the--and that she’s been trying to help her friend who has been suffering from my problens--ny harasanent, my intentional conduct, when, in fact, not long ago it was the claim that it was Mr. Malenko who was doing some bad things to their daughter. And I just wanted to get Sf that’s not something you want me to get into that, but if into, T'11--1/11 back away from that. 1/11 withdraw the question CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN @ — You-you don’t know anything about me, do you? A No, not except what--about this case now? You don’t know how many kids I have, do you? A Yes, 1 do. Oh. How many? A Four, @ Dc you know if they're good kids? AT would hope so. 0 De you know if I’ve ever been accused of sexually abusing a chile? AT would hope not. MS, HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, I don’t--relevancy here. wnat's this have to do with anything? He Keeps going back to thie issue. 2210 a 2 a 4 15 16 a7 18 19 20 a 23 24 25 YR, WAXMAN: Excuse me, but the plaintiff has this case on behalf of the daughter as well cour: ALL right. Go ahead. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN @ Are you aware of my having done anything inappropriate with a ehila? A We. MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, could he describe “inappropriate, * because T'm not accusing hin of sexual abuse if that’s what he’s trying to get at, But ‘inappropriate* constitutes a broad range of behavior. So, could he clarify that, please, for the witness? MR. WAXMAN: I got my response. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q Have you reviewed the divorce judgment in this case? CouR?: tas a late objection, so-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Sorry. (C#OSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAKIAN Q Have you reviewed the divorce judgment? A AL, yes. Not thoroughly, but 1 have: @ Have you reviewed the appeals decision? A We Q Have you reviewed Dr. Kabacoff’s in-court testimony about your friend? MS, HANDRAHAN: Your--Your Honor, ~~10 pry 2 a rr 15 16 ww 18 19 20 aa 2a 24 25 » WIINESS: Yes, T was there. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN ob, you were there? Twas there, And you continue to be her friend? Absolutely. vou don’t have any contact with Igor, correct? No, thank goodness. You're aware that this is a--has been a bitter custody battle, correct? T guess if you want to frame it that way Well, my question to you is, are you aware this has been a bitter custody battle? Yes oray eR. WAOOW: That's all 1 have. WS. HANDRAHAN: An T allowed to redirect? cour: Yes REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HANDRAHAN Just one redirect. Mr. Waenan just asked you if he believes that--you believe that there’s been inappropriate contact with Mila, and t had objected late about range of conduct, Do you believe an overnight of the two-year-old daughter with the opposing counsel is inappropriate contact?a0 u 2 a 15 16 7 18 rey 20 a1 22 23 24 25 MR. WAXYAN: That wasn't what T asked, Tt’s beyond the scope of what I asked. I object MS. HANDRAHAN: Ye said has there been-~ COURT: I'11 allow the question-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Thank you cour: --whether or not she thinks-- WITNESS: I believe his contact with Mila is inapprosriate. ° oy o> MS. HANDRAHAN: Thank you. MR. WAXMAN; Okay. Why don’t we probe that a bit. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WAXKAN you have not been present for any contact that I’ve had with this child, have you? to. You're not aware that I spent--you're not aware of the situation when I spent Thanksgiving with her, are you? you know nothing about my family, do you? You are aware, are you not, that T spent Thanksgiving with Igor, Mila, my ex-wife, my four children, my ex- wife's new husband, and two other people and lots of dogs? You aware of that? MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, the relevancy here. cout: overruled. Proceed. ais.10 n 2 3 a 15 16 rr 18 1 20 a 22 23 2a 28 rr RECROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN Are you aware of that? of some of the people, not lots of dogs, and not ‘everybody on--I didn’t have the invitation list ‘and you don't know anything about how the visit to my parents’ house the weekend after Thanksgiving went. correct? Wo, you don't know that we had @ Little birthday party because her birth-~ yes, I did know that you did know that? yes, I did. 1 found that very inappropriate vou did? yes, T did. T see. You're not a lawyer, are you? No, I'm not. okay. What do you do for work? r'm a teacher: you never nade--you've never made one personal observation of how I have related to Mila, correct? ‘That is correct go, when you say that you believe my relationship with her is inappropriate, what is that based on? ly on you tn cagence, it’s not--it’s not based necessa:10 ua 2 3 aa 15 a7 18 Fry 20 a 23 24 25 oy om personally. I find the fact that opposing counsel, @ man of your age, has taken such a strong interest ina very, ‘very young child. And this is a child whose mother you have repeatedly referred to as despicable, mentally challenged, incompetent--just constantly vilified in e- mails and I can't see how it’s in Mila’s best interest in any way--the woman who she loves most in the world--to spend time with opposing counsel who cannot stand the nother. That's inappropriate Do you believe that I talk about Lori andrahan in front of her daughter? Tt's--T would not put it past you. Do you have any evidence to support that contention? No, 1 do not ard when you say to this Court that you find it strange that a man of my age would have a bond with a young chil. What do you mean by that? Well, you're not family. You've had no connection to either party before this case. You're not a long-term friend, I just find this situation a little bizarre It's very unusual You're aware, are you not, that T've becone friends with Tope Malenko, my client, correct? yes and his daughter is Mila Malenko?20 a 2 a 4 20 au 2 23 A Right @ Would it surprise you to learn that 1/ve become friendly with his dog, Bika [sic]? A I think there's a little bit of a difference there. 1 Just think in light of this bitter custody and acrimony that you keep referring to, 1 just--from--I/m not a lawyer. From my personal point of view, I find the connection--strong connection you have with her daughter snappropriate. @ De you find it strange that Ms. andrahan prevents Mr Malenko from bringing the daughter, Mila, to her mother and stepfather for visits? hg. HANDRAHAN: Your--it’s hear--that’s hearsay, and it's irrelevant count: I'm concerned that we're getting farther afield and into the family matter issues here. WR. WAXMAN: That's all I have. vs. HANDRAHAN: Thank you, Am I--I'm not quite sure just procedurally. I don't know if T’m allowed to make a--a question--a point of procedure. The fact that what Mr. Waxman just said on record, that he's having her overnights and introducing her to his parents on Thanksgiving, that, to me, is an act of harassment and intimidation. That's part of the heart of my matter MR. WAXMAN; Objection, This is argument. 1/11 be on 21810 a a 3 a a5 16 0 18 a9 20 2 2 2 2a 25 the stend shortly enough. court: That‘) be-- NS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. Thank you. COURT: ‘This is argunent. It's inappropriate, Ms. HANDRAHAN: Thank you very much, COURT: ‘Thank you. You may step down, MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, may I--may I call Polly campbell? MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, T -we--you--this Court afforded the plaintiff the courtesy of permitting her to take fa couple of witnesses out of context (sicl. I don't know if Ys. Campbell was one of those. If not, T/d Like to resume my MS. HANDRAHAN: I’m sorry, I'm just confused. whatever is procedurally appropriate, Your Honor. T wasn’t-- court; Well, is--is Ms. Canpbell--let me ask you thie How much time do you anticipate for your cross examination of Ms. Handrahan? hm, WAXMAN: Twenty minutes, Fifteen minutes court: and is there--how much time for direct. exenination of Polly Campbell? MS. HANDRAHAN: T just have four questions, Your Honor courr: 1/11 allow Ms. Campbell to testify and then go back to the--the parties, ‘cause that probably will take more eine. 21910 u 12 3 a 15 16 uv a8 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 COURT OFFICER: Please renain standing, face the Judge and raise your right hand. COURT: Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? TNESS: Yes COURT: ‘Thank you. Be seated, please, POLLY CAMPBELL, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFTED AS FOLLOWS, DIRECT EXAMINAPTON BY MS. HANDRAHAN Q Polly, can you please describe your credentials and-- COURT: Excuse me. Could we just have your name first for the record, please WITNESS: Yes, it’s Polly Campbell. ccurr: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN © Could you please describe your credentials? A Yes. I'ma registered nurse. I’ve been an RN for four years and I am the director of the Sexual Assault Forensic #xaminer Progran in the Office of the Attorney General for the State @ — Cosld you involve in the--could you describe your involvenent with the case? A Um, yes. Back in Decenber of “08 T got a call from you You had gotten my name from some folks. You were asking ne for support while you went through this divorce--this 22010 a 2 a3 a4 15 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 2 25 aifficult divorce. and you had gotten my nane because 1/4 been doing interpersonal violence work twenty-four years--twenty-three, twenty-four years. And I said that T would support you. and what happened next? hm. WAXMAN: Objection. That's way too open @ question. court: that’s a bit broad. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONPINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Polly, Mila--you were one of two people that Mila had Gisclosed to and you made the report to HHS, is that correct? yes, T did. okay. And has Mr. Waxman tried to get you fired from your job? mr, Waxman has launched an incredible campaign to destroy my professional credentials. He's gone after my license. He has demanded that my work place do a full Anvestigation of me, that they should fire me. He has Unreatened me with a lawsuit numerous times. Tt has een--it’s been a nightmare, It’s been a nightmare. T have changed how T am in the world. T am fearful, tam making changes in iy hone MR. WAMIAN: Objection. This is not relevant court: Do you wish to be heard in response? Ms, HANDRAHAN: I was gonna let you make a decision, Your zaia5 16 uv 1s Fey 20 a 2 23 24 25 Honor: curr: I'm going to allow the witness to testify, Objection's overruled. Proceed. winwess: I've been doing this work for years, and I have met many, many attorneys, I've worked with them, I've worked with many batterers. 1 have never been afraid until now. 1 cone to Portland, I'm hypervigilant. My family wants te hire a bodyguard for me. 1 don’t sleep. I’m incredibly stressed because of the potential of a lawsuit, The Board of Nursing complaint was a nightmare. In forty years of professional nursing I've never ever had a complaint. Fortunately the poard of Nursing has dismissed that complaint, which is a huge relief to me, Now I am facing the continued harassment and threats through a--a Lawsuit. DIREC? BXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 0 be you have the e-mails that Mr. Waxman sent to your boss tzying to get you fired? A Thave a whole series of e-mails that 1 found threatening, harassing and intimidating, yes MS. HANDRAHAN: Would we be able to proffer these to the court as evidence of-~ wvmess; they started last sunmer ME, WAXMAN: Your Honor, I--I think we must have a voir dire or something at this point, because the nexus between-- the antipathy between myself and this witness has very little 22220 nh 2 3 14 a 16 uv 18 » 20 a 22 23 2a 25 to do, quite frankly, with Ms, Nandrahan, and I can point that out very quickly if you'd Like. MS. HANDRAHAN: Your--should 1 make @ response? COURT: what is--1'm sorry, were you going to say sonething else-- MR. WAXMAN: No, I'd be happy to do-~ court: --but through a voir--a voir MR. WAXMAN: --1'd be happy to do a quick voir dire to establish that there is no nexus really at this point between this witness and me and Ms. Handrahan MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, this--this is to my point, Your Honor, about how unbelievably horrific Mr. Waxnan's campaign of harassment and intimidation against me has been, that he’s gone after anybody who has cone into my 1ife and my child's Life. And most of those people are not willing to cone to court and I'm not going to subpoena them because they begged me. And there’s a very few left who are willing to come and testify to what Mr. Waxman did. What Mr. Wasnan is doing to Ms. Campbell is what he's doing to other people, and threatening other people. There are many e-mails that you may or may not take in. hen T asked the child support be enforced, he went after HHS child MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, once again, I'm sorry, but this COURT: We're getting a little farther afield and to 22310 a 2 a3 ry 15 16 a as a 20 aa argument if she’s terrified for her own MS. HANDRAHAN: But it’s: sake, what does it do to me that people around me are terrified? what does that mean? what level of fear is that causing me? Anybody--it’s really, Your Honor, absolute persecution, There is nobody can cone into my life who Mr wasman doesn't go after. And he won't stop. He goes after anybody. And this is one example of one brave witness who's going to cone forward and show simply because Ms. Pol--¥s campbell did what was required of her, Mr. Waxman is trying to destroy her in the sane way that he's trying to destroy me and he’s been very successful in destroying me, Your Honor, T must sey. cour: what--what is the voir dire that you wanted to conduct? Mm, WANN: Well--and perhaps some of the e-mails that she’s got gets to this, but this witness knows, because Z/ve had exchanges with her counsel now, and with her, that the reason for my threats of a lawsuit, which T have indeed nade, is not that she’s a mandated reporter who reported what she thought was a disclosure, but rather that she accused my computers-~ client of having child pornography on Ms. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, relevance MR. WAXMAN: --with no evidence. That’s a federal felony that che specifically made mention of this to DHHS, and 22410 a 2 a a a5 16 wv 18 19 20 2 22 23 aa 25 specifically told them she had no evidence about that. That's defanation. that’s intentional infliction of emotional distress. and T an-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, -~ ME. WAXMAN: --going to sue her on behalf of Mr. Malenko. Absolutely, I will stipulate to that. Zt will happen. MS. HANDRAVAN: AS T understand, too, you're not--if you make threats of a lawsuit in order to gain an advantage in a Litigation--and tr. Waxman has done that. Ken Altshuler testified to that this morning, Polly's now testified That's why Lois didn’t even want to get her agency involved because she was scared Fanily Crisis would be sued. court: Well, T understand that--T understand that’s your I/11 allow the witness to testify, and then argument. I will the cross examination I think will address the issues that you're-you're raising, Mr. Waxman. Ms, HANDRAHAN: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 0 Tbelieve I was just at the point where I asked you if e-mails that Mr. Waxman sent trying you could proffer ro get you fired co the Court as an exhibit. Yes? AT have them. 0 okay. Can I take them from you? AT think T--well,-~ @ Oh, what 22520 a 2 3 cy 15 36 uv 18 rey 20 a 2 23 2a ME. HANDRAHAN: I’m not quite sure what to do with them, 1 wanted to proffer these e-mails as evidence to the Court. ‘These are e-nails--r think he sent two, or three, or four a gay, it looks like, to all of Ms. Campbell's bosses at the Attorney General's office trying to get her fired and defaning her character and going after her because she was involved in the case. aR. upawAN: You know what, Your Honor, T have no objection to then coming in. Bring ‘em on, I just got to see vem before they go in. (eausey MR. WAXMAN: No objection, except the absolute privilege that 1've-~ ccuRT: understood. MR, WAXMAN: I'm sorry, But T do have to lodge an objection. This is a hodge podge compilation of documents, some regarding me, some regarding Mr. Malenko and his grievance before the Nursing Board. tts not a comprehensive time Line of communications that T had with Ms. Campbell regarding her participation in the DHHS related referral t's not fair to me to have that and, therefore, T don’t admitted inte evidence Ms. HANDRAHAN: I was proffering them as--1 haven’t seen ‘them, Your Honor. Folly had told me about then. cover: Well, can you take a look at what ir is that you 226un 12 13 14 15 1s a 18 19 20 aa 2 23 24 25 are specifically trying to introduce. And, Mr, Waxman, you can identity in that packet what you think is not something you would-~ Mg, HANDRAHAN: The one that I--that Folly had told me-- cour: --agree to. Me. HANDRAHAN: ~-about T think that caused the most fear, intimidation and--and outrage--what people would descrike as outrageous--is one that was sent to many, many people, including her bosses, asking that she be fired wimwess: It's at the--I think it’s at the end of that ME. HANDRAHAN: AM T allowed to ask Polly, ‘cause I've never seen these before, We wanted to keep--you know, so that the accusations of witness tampering, or anything. We've tried to keep everything very professional (Indiscernible) ME. WAXMAN: Your Honor, T can do without all the preamble and explanation. Really it’s not fair to me that I have no opportunity to object to this, and it just continues to come in. (rause) CURT; You need to show that to Mr. Waxman’ MS. HANDRAKAN: Oh, I'm sorry. curr: Is there any objection to that particular document, ir. Wasman? MR. WAXMAN: Mo, Your Honor. cour: All right.a0 u 2 13 ul 15 16 uw 18 19 20 n 22 2 2a 25 MR. WAXMAN: | -Except-~ COURT: why don’t we--why don’t we sever that from the rest of the packet, since the: ME, WAXMAN; No objection whatsoever. court: we need to take it--it’s no longer going to be offered as a packet, I believe. COURT OFFICER: Just this one? MS, HANDRARAN: Yeah. And I do--if there were other ones that Polly wanted to--to speak to. couRT: All right. why don’t we have that marked, MS, HANDRAHAN: I'm sorry. wiMess: This is the one you want MS. HANDRAHAN: That's the one you want DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN @ Are there others that are important in this packet of information, Polly? A Well, from the very beginning, the first e-mail 1 ever got was--1 was dunbfounded and--and got very scared. COURT; But are--your specific reference to-~ COURT OFFICER: ‘That would be the--the very first one? WIWESs: I think so, Yes, sir COURT OFFICER: Okay. So, do you want to put that one and this one-— WETNESS: And the second one, COURT: Show that one to the witness--1 mean, excuse me, 22810 1 2 a3 aa a5 as Ft 19 20 a 22 24 25 xo coursel, please. (eause) MR. WROAN: Yeah, that’s fine, T have no objection to that court: All right. and that's the one that’s been now marked as Exhibit No. 24. And it consists of two pages. Two pages? couRT OFFICER: Yeah. courr: Is this a separate document? CCURT OFFICER: Yeah. Okay, Now, this document is the other one that you--they peeled away fron this Ccur: All right. They need to--those need to be marked separately, please CURT OFFICER: Right ceause) MS. NANDRAHAN: Yes. I guess they go to Polly. I (indiscemnibie). Or do they go to the Court? WITNESS: | Those--those-- court: I’m sorry, has Mr. Waxman seen those documents? WITNESS: Yes, he has MS. HANDRAIAN: I believe he has (ruse) MR. WAXMAN: Yes courr: Any objection? yAXMAN: No objection, MR. 22910 cr 2 3 4 15 16 u a8 » 20 an 2 2 24 court: All right. Thank you. $0, 24 and 25 are adnitted without ebjection. MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN @ Could you speak to the--the content of the e-mails and the effect that it had? A Yes, well, the first one-- COURT: Could you tell ne what nunber you're referring to? WIMESS: Yes. Number 24. This was right after z had filed the report with child Protective Services intake, and T pave--then T got this e-mail from-—fron Mr, Wasman wanting to Jmow if it was--if I was the Polly Campbell that had filed the zeport with them. And then T told him that 1 received his e- nail and I preferred not to talk with him, even though he Genandei that I come to his office and mect with his private investigator and be recorded. And I was freaked out--totally freaked out MR. WAXMAN: Objection. That mischaracterizes the e-mail you're looking at right now. urmess: Yes. "I would Like to record our conversation, have a private investigator there as well to witness the MR, WAXMAN: I--excuse me, Your Honor, but the e-mail speaks for itself, And I did not say that T wanted her to 230 Pod10 u 22 a aa a5 16 a 18 1 20 a 2 23 aa 25 cone to my offices. NESS: I was welcome to come. You're absolutely right, Mr. Waxman, I stand corrected. MR, WAXMAN: Thank you. wmess: After 1 told him that I didn’t want to talk with him, about twenty minutes later he said that--and it says chat, “If your report was, in fact, made in good faith and if you had real and honest concerns about the well-being of Mila while in Tgor's care, then you truly should have nothing to hide and you will agree to an interview with me," which found very intimidating because T know, after talking to some lawyers, that I had no obligation to talk with him, And then At said 4f T don't agree, then “when t finally do have the opportunity to exemine you under oath in court I shall make clear to the judge that you were unwilling to speak with me beforehand and 1/11 suggest to the judge that he might infer from that fact that your report was not made in good faith,* [sic] or that T had something to hide. 1 found this really intimidating and insulting. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN @ Was it just one e-mail, Ms. Campbell, that Mr. Waxman sent? A No, there were more. He--there was a series started in cetober about him wanting to file a complaint on behalf of his client with the Board of Nursing 23110 a a 3 14 a5 a6 u 18 a 20 EN 22 24 25 MR. WAXMAN: Okay. Objection. Objection. objection ‘The conplaint--the evidence will be that the grievance is Mr. Malenko's to file. All right? WrIMESs: That's what T just-~ COURT: I’m sorry, I’m not sure-~ wrmess: That's what T just said YR. WAXMAN: The--the-- COURT: Hang on one second. MR. WAXMAN: The complaint that she just testified I was con--contacting her about, or I aid contact her about in october, had to do with Mr. Malenko's wish to file a grievance, he indicated that was my complaint MS, HANDRAHAN: No, she-~ WETNESS: No, I didn’t. MR. WAMMAN: Tt was not mine. wrmess: 1 didn't say that at all. couRT: ALL right WEMNESS; I said on behalf of mr. Malenko. MR, WAREMAN: Okay. wrmEss: Tsn’t that correct? MR. WAXMAN: That is correct wrTWess: Okay. MS. MANDRAHAN: Can I~ com: All right. So, that--the objection is with-- withérau? 23210 a 2 2B ery 6 16 uv 38 Ee 20 a1 22 23 24 28 BR. WAXMAN: withdrawn, cour: ALL right. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN @ In October--the end of October he contacted ay off—-ny boss, Mike Kearney of my office as well, that he wanted to file a complaint against me with the Board of mursing. And he contacted me directly about that. and he was asked not to use the State e-mail system once again and to contact me through my attorney. and then--so, that’s how T found out that they were filing a complaint against ne with the Board of Nursing and going after my license to practice nursing. Was there an e-mail--1 think there was one that we just get an exhibit stamp on--where he suggested you should tase your job? A Yes. Yes, he sent an e-mail to Janice Stuver, who's Chief of the Child Protective Litigation division in my office, and to Mike Kearney, and to all of the child protective folks involved in the case, And he demanded that--he wanted to know if employees of the Attorney General's office were authorized to make the kinds of statements that T made in my report to Child Protective sis iv MR. WAXMAN: Excuse me, I’m going to have to lodge an objection now under the rule of completeness because this is 23310 a 12 a3 4 a8 16 wv 1a a 20 a 22 23 24 happening way too frequent. Rule 107--106 rather suggest that nen it would be otherwise unfair to me to have certain excerpts read, the entire e-mail should be read. And I think that's appropriate at this point in time. WIMESS: Do you want me to read-- court: I’m sorry, is the--is--do we have the entire e- mail in the doc-- wR. mOBN: Yes. court: --in the--in the exhibit? MR. WAXMAN: Yes court: So, the exhibit is complete, is that right? MR. WAXMAN: Yes. court: Okay. But right now-~ Mg, HANDRAHAN: The--the-~ ccurt; --she can testify to portions of it. You'll have an opportunity to follow up with cross examination if you think that there was something that was omitted MR. WAXMAN: I--that's fine. curr: as long as the document itself is complete. Me. wwo@N: ‘That's true, Your Honor. However, T still think that it would be unfair co read a portion of it at this point, and 1 think that should have the opportunity-- court; You'll have an opportunity to cxoss exanine-- Mm. WAXMAN: ‘That's fine coun: --and have the rest of it elicited if you think10 u a a uu a5 16 ay a8 19 20 2 22 23 2a 25 there's something that was left out in the testimony. As long--we need to make sure that the document is complete, not a--a portion of the document. and I'm satisfied, based on your representation, that the document is complete. Go ahead, please. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Please continue, Polly. ‘A Well, in--in--in the document he asked if employees of the Attorney General’s office were authorized to make such statements, and he's referring to the statement that I made around-~ishen 1 called Child Protective intake they asked me questions about other things connected with the Je, and I brought up that if there was sone criminal investigation that, because of the link between child sexual abuse and child pornography, they might want to check Mr. Malenko’s computers, that I didn’t have any proof, but that it was a suspicion. and in his e-mail te my office he asked about whether we were authorized to make such statements. He also went further, "Zs it your position that she,* meaning me, *is protected because she was acting within the scope of her employment when she said this? and if and when we decide to file suit,* once again the threat of a lawsuit, ‘against Ms. Campbell for defamation end intentional infliction of emotional Gistrees, will the State of Maine be defending this 235a 2 3 Pry 1s 16 7 18 cry 20 a aa 2a 25 conduct? will you accept service for the process of lawsuit?" And he said, “This is outrageous. 1 demand an investigation be undertaken into Ms. Campbell's atement. She deserves to lose her job over this cenduct and you should certainly reject anything she might say or demand given the remarkable prejudice she iMlustrates.” [sic] $0, T was-- qhere--there was one day, T don’t know what day it was-— this is what you had told me--and maybe you can read the times from the e-mails, that there was just an onslaught, which is quite characteristic of his harassment-— MS. WAXMAN: Okay, Excuse me. This is a leading question with a large preamble. ccurr: I'm going to sustain the objection DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN could--could you read--am I allowed--could you read the times of--and the days of the e-mails that we're discussing? Well, the very first one, Exhibit 24, was duly 15th. ‘rat was three--three days, four days after I made the report to Child Protective, This is August--the most recent one is August 2ath. ‘That’s Exhibit 25. and then others started in October, October 26th, October 27th Sometimes more than one a day. At three o'clock, and then four ocleck--and just goes on. 23610 aa a2 3 aa a5 16 uv 18 1» 20 a1 22 23 24 Q Never ending? ME, WAXMAN: Excuse me. couRT: sustained MS. HANDRAHAN: Sorry. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Board of Overseers Did you File a complaint with the Bar about Mr. Waxnan’s behavior, Ms. Campbell? MB. WAKMAN: I'm going to object to that. That's not relevant to this proceeding. That's a separate tribunal. And what they do or don’t do is not necessarily relevant to this proceeding -1'11 get the Rules of MS. HANDRAHAN: I--T under~ Bvidence you're the Judge, Your Honor, so I--I'm not sure if I'm right, but I understood that proceedings of other tribunals could be brought into evidence. ME. WAXMAN: ‘There has been no decision by the Bar. hs. HANDRAIAN: No, T didn’t ask~ MG. WAXMAN: There has been no-- Ms. HANDRAHAN: | ~-her that. MR. WAMYAN: Excuse me. MS. HANDRANAN: | T asked if-- MR. WAXMAN: ‘There has been no actual hearing. and T've demanded one, so there will be at some point ccurt: 1'm going to sustain the objection Mg, HANDRAHAN: So, I’m not allowed to ask her about if 237a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 she filed a complaint? court: 1 don’t see the relevance to this proceeding MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Polly, my last question is, you've been describing what's happened to you and the effect it’s had on you. What effect have you seen this has had on me? MR, WAXMAN: Ab, MS. HANDRAHAN: I’m allowed to ask that. Me, WAXMAN: T just-~ Mg. HANDRAHAN: | Tt’s-~ MR. WAQAN: Objection. Foundation. Because I under~ stood from previous hearings that Ms. Campbell's relationship with Ms. Handrahan is fairly limited and quite professional S0, 1 don’t think she has the foundational background to testify about this coun? I think you need to lay the foundation as to whether she can answer this question. MS, HANDRAHAN: Well, she’s, again, somebody like Lois~ curt: Not--not--you need to do it through the witness. MS. MANDRAIAN: 08, I'm so Sorry. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY HS. HANDRAHAN © Ms, Campbell, what--you've been involved in this case for how long now? A Since Decenber of ‘08 2382] Q and what kind of contact have we had over that period of 2 time? 3] A Fairly frequent phone contact. Mostly phone contact and 4 e-nail contact. Of course it got--in the spring of ‘03 5 we were talking sometimes several times a day, and then T 6 night go a week without talking with you, But very 7 frequent contact in terms of supporting you and listening 8 to you and providing options perhaps for things you might 9 went to do, ‘that kind of thing 10] @ and how have you witnessed the effect that this has had a on me? a2] a mel2,-~ a MR. WAXMAN; Objection. Form. Vague and ambiguous. 1 1a |, don’t ‘mow what "this" means a5 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 0 The effect that the never ending litigation, the refusal uv to mediate to get this out of the court system, the 18 constant character defamation, the constant e-mailing, Fry going after anybody who cones in--stands up on behalf of 20 ne and my daughter, losing my job, losing my day care a provider, losing my pediatrician--what effect has all 2 this had on me, because you've been in close proximity to 23 ne this entire tine 2a] ath 25 MR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, I object that that’s--that's a 239a a2 aa aa a5 16 uv 18 19 20 a 22 23 a4 25 compound question. t's an argument, It’s not a--it’s not a legitinate question. MS. HANDRAHAN: ust trying to lay a foundation couR?: T'm going to allow the answer. MS. HANDRAHAN: Thank you wiINESs: The role of an advocate--and that's how I see myself in many ways with--with our relationship--is to Listen and to support you. Aané I have spent many hours on the phone with yeu as you have cried and railed and expressed just incredible distress about what's happening to you and to--and to your daughter. and I've tried my best to be as supportive fas I can, but it’s been many hours. You've been incredibly traumatized DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Have you been surprised at the continual Litigation that hes been never ending? Have you heard me say, “I just went out, I want to go on with my life and be a mother to my daughter, 1 want this to end." A ves MR, WAXMAN: Objection. Compound question. Leading. And contains facts that are not in evidence, couR?: Sustained, MS, HANDRAHAN: No further questions, Your Honor. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WAXMAN Q Ms. Campbell, I’ve questioned you at least twice before 2a010 Pry 2 B 1 18 16 uv 18 19 20 an 22 28 25 o> oh o> on the stand about your participation in this case, true? you have indicated today, and two weeks ago before Judge Beaudoin, that you have been doing this work, meaning being a nurse, which is obviously a mandated reporter, for twenty-four or twenty-five years, right? No. tive been a nurse for forty years. for twenty-four. okay, And you testified before Judge Beaudoin, as you aia today, that you found my behavior moze aggressive than any lawyer you'd ever dealt with in your life ves. ‘Ard you and 5 can agree that as a mandated reporter if yeu hear what you believe is a disclosure of sexual abuse yeu have an obligation to report that to Child Protective services, correct? ves. Heven‘t I been clear to you from the start, when T started making threats, or started making--saying things that concerned you, that piece that I had a problem with wes where you told Child Protective Services that Mr: 2aa0 a a Fey 14 15 1s 0 18 29 20 2 22 23 25 o> oe © oy o> Malen--that you suspect Mr. Malenko has child pornography fon his computers but that you don’t have any evidence just your sixth sense? ‘That was one of many concerns that you had. You had issues with the fact that T even made the report, You hed issues with the fact that T apparently said I wanted my name to be kept confidential. 1 never know what it's gonna be with you, Mr, Waxman. But most recently in a conmunication, probably last week with my attorney, Leuragon (Phonetic), you narrowed down the scope of your complaint to the child pornography issue. cen T see those-- put ie wasn’t ~-e-maile? sure In this Exhibit 25, which is an e-mail to--from me to wichael Kearney, Janice Stuber and others, I said, in the second paragraph--you've read this a number of times, yeah. ~-correct? yeah. Most troubling is that you said the following, quote, sthe referent suspects that there is child pornography on igor Malenko's computers. The referent does not have any evidence about this, just her sixth sense.”oy om ‘That was the subject of my displeasure in this e-mail dated August 24, 2009, correct? Yes, in that e-mail it was and, in fact, in the forty years you've functioned as a nurse never once before have you ever claimed to DHS that you suspected somebody had child pornography on his computer but that you didn’t have any evidence. Never once before did you ever do that, correct? iow do you know that? How would you even know that? Because you testified to this in front of Judge Beaudoin. court: Excuse me, (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN pid you not? MR. WAQAN: Excuse me, Your Honor. (CHOSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN ‘Yeu asked me a question. How do T know that? I know that because you testified to this two weeks ago in front of Judge Beaudoin, -~ that's xight --did you not? teat's vight T'm correct, right? yeah. 1 did testify about that, yeah. sc--s0, never before in your professional Life have you made an allegation that somebody has committed a federal 20310 rr 12 hope oy op OD felony by having child pornography on his computer with no evidence, right? Right. and, as you sit here today, can we agree that it’s not fun to be accused of something? veah in fact, you want to get a bodyguard to deal with a five- seven Jewish attorney who's made accusations against you, right? Net just you, Mr.--Mr. Waxman okay. Can you imagine that being accused of child peenography on your computer might be a bit upsetting-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, ~~ (MR. WAXMAN: --to someone? WITNESS: 1 imagine it would be very upsetting. I would that it would be upsetting (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN ard let's just be clear, at the time you made that statement you'd never met him--Mr, Malenko? i had not met him, I’ seen him in court, okay. You'd never spoken with him? you'd never seen his computers? No. ‘the only things you knew about hin came about through 24a10 rt 2 3 a a 16 an 18 9 20 a 2 24 25 leri Handrahan, correct? A Te was also my background and training in sexual abuse of children, x'm very well trained. I have to train other nurses about it. I’m very aware that there's a link between child pornography and child sexual abuse. MR. WAXMAN: Objection. Move to strike the answer. Tt was nonresponsive, (C80SS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXNAN © My question to you-- ME. WAXMAN: Can I get a--my question was, the only thing you knew about Mr. Malenko came about through Lori Handrahan, and the response went on about background in child pornography or child cour: ALL right. r'11-~ MP, WRIMAN: --molestation. court: All right. 1/11 sustain the objection. MR, WAXMAN: And--and-~ COURT: So, you need to answer the question that he’s posed. WITWESS: Oh, okay. MR. WAKIAN: She did, I think WITNESS: I also was aware of reports, Like Dr. Jackie canphell's [sic] report. She had done an assessment of the situation. So, I was aware also of that. But, you're right, kr was--I did not know him, And T knew most of what 1 know18 is uv a8 Fey 20 a 2 23 24 25 about Mr. Malenko through Lori. You're absolutely right MR. WAXMAN: That's all I have. court: Redirect? wrmess: Do I give these to you? couRT: Any other questions of this witness? MS. HANDRAIAN: No. No, Your Honor, court: ‘Thank you. You may step down, And I'll take the exhibits. Thank you, Okay, So, I believe then we are--are we ready to proceed again with the parties as opposed to any other other witness out of order? Is that right? MS, MANDRAHAN: Yes. I have only one--well, possibly two nore witnesses which I suppose would go on tomorrow if we don't finish up today. Potentially a police officer. I’m waiting to hear back, and Lesley Devoe. court: and you're prepared to go forward with your-— MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes court: --the completion of your cross examination? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. court: why don’t we just take a brief recess before we ao that. We'll go back on the record at three o’clock MACHINE OFF ~ MACHINE ON courr: Be seated, please. We're back on the record You remain under oath, Ms. Handrahan you may have a ses WITNESS: Thank you. MR. WAXMAN; (Indiscernible) Trank you. 286a2 3 14 15 16 18 9 20 a 22 23 2a 25 o> o> > play my lawyer or play my witness A LORI HANDRAKAN, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY SWORN, TESTISTED AS FOLLOWS, CROSS EXANINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN br, Handrahan, it’s your view that ay relationship with your daughter is inappropriate, correct? I would even call it offensive contact. A what? offensive contact okay. You don’t know how T relate to my own children, do you? I believe that’s irrelevant Please answer the question wrmwess: Your Honor, I just--I don’t know when I should qt's a little difficult curt: You can answer that question, wires: Okay. = don’t, ME. wRKMAN: Okay: (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN and can we agree that if T have a friendship with a high school classmate who has a two-year-old or three-year-old daughter that--you don't have any reason to believe that that’s an inappropriate relationship, right? No, that's not the situation at hand though, Mr. Waxman. Right. But we can agree that I can have a relationship with a friend and his daughter without that being inappropriate, right? 247un 2 a 4 a5 16 a a 9 20 a 22 23 24 Ar, Wayman, context is everything, I can’t answer a general question Like that. @ Are you refusing to answer my question? AT believe it’s very vague and general COURT: The question is? (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN @ Do you have any reason to contend or opine that I’m not able to have an appropriate relationship with a childhood friend and his three-year-old daughter? courr: You may answer the question rmess: Me. Malenko is a childhood friend of yours? Ts that what you're claiming, Me. Waxman? He’s your childhood friend? MR. WAXMAN: I'm distinguishing between my relationship with your daughter--r'm trying to understand what the basis for your claim is. So, I’m trying to distinguish between my relationship with your daughter and a relationship that T might have with a good friend's daughts wumumss: 1 just--T can't answer a hypothetical. I’m not quite clear where he’s going here, Your Honor CROSS EXAMINATION CONPINUED BY MR. WAXFAN 0 Do you have any reason to say thet I, Michael Waxman, can't have an appropriate relationship with a three-year- old child of a friend? A Tevwhat you do with your other friends and other children 24810 n 12 3 a4 a5 16 a a8 Ff 20 a 22 23 2 25 is not any of my business. This is specifically about my daughter and your role in this case. This is very specific 0 What I'm trying to get at, with all due respect, is precisely why you label my relationship with your daughter inappropriate. All right? and go that’s what i'm trying to get at. Roe 0 f don't have to explain myself to you, but. A =-T can ex 9 ~-t'm going to: RO Tecan 0 Now, let me ask you another question. Do you have any reason to suggest that 1, Michael Waxman, am not able to have an appropriate relationship with a three-year-old child of a friend? A tee larmess: Your Honor, I’m not quite clear whether T should be an advocate for myself or a witness. couRT: What's your ebjection to the question? wenvess: He's asking me a vague hypothetical which has-- he can have relationships with other friends and children, that's completely irrelevant to the proceedings today ccuRT: You can answer the que wrmWess: T don't know, Me. Waxman,a aa as 16 uv ae a9 20 a 22 aa 2a 25 MR. WAXKVAN: Right (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAOIAN You have no idea how I relate to people in the world besides yourself, right? Well, that’s not entirely true, Mr. Waxman, T have a pretty good idea how you relate to many people in the eonmunity, and-- well, -- --r've had people cone to testify about how you relate-- MR, WAXMAN: Let me withdraw that question urmEss: --to those ques--those people in the com- (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXHAN Yeu have no idea how T relate to children, correct? well, that's not also entirely true. I think the fact that you are trying to nurture @ bond with the mother Isic] of an opposing party when you've put forward such herrendous things about me and you've driven this Litigation, I think that that does raise concerns about yeur relationship to children Well, let's get to that. Ts it your belief that 1 discuss your ongoing custody battle with your daughter? It's inappropriate because she’s so young and-- T asked a different question. wouldn't know, Me. Waxman. I’m not there during the time that you have contact with my child, 25010 a 2 a3 14 1s 36 v Fr a9 20 aa 2 23 24 25 ie it your belief that I discuss Lori Handrahan in any manner whatsoever in front of your daughter? you certainly would have the opportunity. she is a potential witness, and T believe that you are intentionally trying to alienate her affections from me over the long term. I think it’s the ultimate parent alienation schene, to be quite honest with you, Mr: Waxman, so, you think that my relationship with your daughter is fan intentional behavior on my part to an intentional rel harm you? apd to harm my child, Yes, I do, okay. You have no way to rebut my testimony and Tgor's that on the--on every occasion when your daughter has been in my presence she's had fun, right? Mr. Waxman, she’s two. So, $f you throw birthday parties for her--in fact, she thought it was a birthday party for you because she couldn't figure out why you--who you were and why you were throwing a party for you [sic]. She cane hone and she said to me, “why does Michael love me, rnenmy,* which prompted me-~ bm. WAKKAN: Okay. I'm going to object to your response in that it contains hearsay. Move to strike, winNess: Your Honor, that’s my point. She's so young couRT: But you--you still cannot give testimony as to10 a 2 23 uu as 16 aw aa a 20 a 22 23 2A 25 what she has told you. wrmess: okay. and that’s when I started to learn she was spending overnights because my former husband did confirm that they were spending overnights WR. WROMAN: Right. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN She pent two nights, you now understand, at my parents’ house in Moultonboro, New Hampshire, right? AT 4on’t know, T wasn’t there. okay, You weren't there. 0, you have no reason to give this Court any testimony about how that relationship displayed itself on that weekend, correct? A tr. Waxman, the point is any relation-~ No. Excuge me. I’m asking you a question. Please respond to my question. 1 don’t want to hear your point gust respond to my question. Please A Could you restate your question, please? Yes. You have no reason to tell this Court that there was anything inappropriate about how T dealt with your aeughter on the weekend after Thanksgiving in Moultonboro, New Hampshire, right? A tm not quite sure I can answer that question because 1/m not claiming that you have per se done @ specific act that’s inappropriate to my daughter. I'm claiming that you're nurturing a bond with my daughter, given your role 25220 a 2 B aa 15 16 uw 18 9 20 2a 23 24 5 in this case, it’s entirely inappropriate and it’s offensive contact for you te have that kind of contact with my daughter. © okay. You feel it to be offensive, right? A Absolutely Q tt offends you? A It absolutely does. Okay. te agree, do we not, that I've developed a friend- ship with Igor Malenko? A Tdon't know. T have no knowledge of that, Mr. Waxman, 0 You have no knowledge of that? Okay MR. WAXMAN: 1 will stipulate that I've developed a Eciendsnip with Igor Malenko. Okay? And I will stipulate that I’ve also developed a friendship with your daughter okey? (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 0 Other than your upset that T happen to be the opposing lawyer in this case, what else do you have to suggest that my bond with your daughter--ny relationship with your daughter is inappropriate? and A Well, as Thad testified previously, Mr. Waxman, and rive been trying to show a lot of these e-mails--if you were acting as an appropriate, professional attorney, respecting professional boundaries and not launching a horrendous canpaign of harassment and intimidation on mecr 2 B 4 as 16 uv 18 a9 20 a 23 24 25 ani anybody who comes into contact with my life, and you haypen to meet Igor for coffee from time to time and she hagpened to be with him, that would be entirely different than--there’s a two-prong thing. ‘There's a scorched- earth litigation against me and anybody comes into contact with me, massive character defamation, obsession with destroying me, and then there's an obsession that you have with nurturing a bond with my daughter and contact with my daughter. Tt really concerns me that after the temporary order was put in place and you couldn't have contact with Mila, it seemed to me at that point it became very clear what the case was about because Mr. Malenko was having every weekend contact ‘here's ne problem with his contact, and you sent e-mail after e-mail talking about how you can’t have contact anynore with this two-year-old daughter, You were very unset that you couldn't have contact with her. You were very upset you couldn't give her Christmas presents, give her Happy New Year, that Twas denying you and your children tine with her, T find that to be--1 mean there’s no words. It's utterly outrageous. I mean just when I think that things can’t get any worse, to have my come hone two-year-old daughter then--now she’s three: and tell me these things and have it be confirmed by you, Atrs--f mean it boggles the mind actually. Tt reallya0 u aa 13 14 15 16 aw 18 19 20 a 22 23 2a 25 does, Mr, Waxman. And T have no idea why you're doing this, and t just wish you would stop. I have a duty to care and protect for my child. And duty is protected by tthe Suprene Court. You're not a relative. You're not a family friend, You're the opposing attorney and you've been a very, very, very unprofessional opposing attorney ‘who has launched extremely bitter litigation, who has admitted to abuse of process, who has admitted to using the courts to abuse process. And 1 know you're smiling Scause you think T’m hanging myself, but T feel that these things need to be said very clearly. I can't see how you can justify developing a bond with my daughter and claim that that is okay. I believe it is intentional infliction of emotional, distress on your part. I believe that you are trying to push me over the edge because you have not yet been successful at doing so through the Litigation. So, when that failed, you staxted to send e- nail after e-mail knowing that that would cause any nother to feel horrified. Have you completed your answer? have oxay. $0, you have no idea why T have a relationship with your daughter? That's what you just testified to, right? i can't remember exactly what I said. T don’e want to be10 u a a a a5 16 uv 18 1 20 22 23 24 a5 misquoted, but-- All right. And then turning to your claims against ne, because you've got a two-pronged PFH. One is with regard to your daughter and one is with regard to you. 1 believe you testified previously that the reason this case has been so acrimonious is because of Michael Waxnan, correct? correct. And I think you testified previously that had it not been for Michael Waxman, this case would have settled long ago? correct, okay. Now--and how, by the way, would it have settled? How would that have taken place? may T act as my own attorney at this point and say that that's irrelevant, unless can provide--I mean I provided some of those e-nails this morning, and Ken Altshuler testified that he spent the entire time on the case trying to settle. okay, But that's not my question, You've just testified that this case would have settled but for Michael Waxman. How would it have settled exactly? Waxman, because you have refused It's a hypothetical, ™ you won’t--we offered to to--you won't do mediation, yo! even pay entirely for a negotiator. You wouldn't get it 25610 n 2 3B u 15 16 38 3 20 a 2 23 2a ou: of the court system, You've consistently refused to take it out of the court systen. So, it’s a hypothetical question which I don’t believe T can provide an adequate answer to okay. Well, let‘s--let’s just say, if we can go back though the time Line. You filed a PFA against Igor Malenko--and we discussed this earlier--on May 23rd, 2008, correct? May I act as my own attorney and--he's trying to bring this back to the custody case again. t's not relevant uel, I’m entitled to probe this witness’ claim that I’m the reason this case hasn't settled umes: I have other e-nails that I can provide as, evidence. I don't know if I do that when he's the witness wR. WAXMAN; I’m asking you the question couRT: gust answer the question. 1 believe you are the reason that the wrrwess: Yes. case hasn’t settled. Absolutely. YR, WRUMAN: Okay. (CROSS EXANTNATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN New, my question is, on May 23rd, 2008 you filed a PFA against Tgor Malenko, correct? 1 don't--1 don’t have the documents in front of me. I dcn’t know the exact date, But I did file a protection from abuse at the very start of all of this, absolutely. 25710 nn 2 a a4 a5 1s 18 Fey 20 a 22 23 24 28 MR, WAXWAN: Okay. May T approach the witness? cour: Yes MR. WAXMAN: Let me just see if this refreshes your recellestion. I’m not going to admit it es an exhibit, but see if that helps you renenber whether you filed something on May 23¢2, 2008. WITWESS: I mean I did file a protection from abuse MR. WAXMAN: Okay. wrnwess: I did, I don’t see the date here. I don't want to be tricked inte giving a false answer. MR. wwaN: Please turn the page. wrrwess: Yes, it is May 23rd, ~~ MR. WAXMAN: Okay, wiNEss: --'08. YR. WAXYAN: Can T have that back? WITNESS: You may. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 0 ‘Tkat also happened to be the date that you were served with the divorce complaint, correct? ivmwess: Your Honor, this is really irrelevant, He’s trying to relitigate the custody case. his has been litigated already. court: Answer the question, please. Objection’s overruled WINESS: Yes 25810 a 2 3 a 15 1s u 18 a9 20 aL 22 28 25 MR. WRXMAN: Okay. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN And we had a Little back and forth earlier about whether or not in this PFA you accused Mr. Malenko of suffering from PTSD. So, let me ask you once again, did you not, in this PFA, on May 23rd, 2008, accuse Mr. Malenko of having been diagnosed with PrSD? again, I need to see that in front of me T'd be happy to show it to you Z have said he was diagnosed with PTSD by Prue North [sic], and he did get a psychiatric discharge fron Does that document refresh your recollection? And it says that he was diagnosed by [sic] PTSD by True north, which he has been. Yes. Thank you, May I have it back? Did you also say, “Z also believe he suffers from bipolar disorder, although I am not certain whether there has ever been a formal diagnosis." Did you say that as well? I really don't want to be Again, 1/6 need to see the doc: tricked into giving a false statement, as you've done in the past, - T wouldn't do that to you --Wr. Waxman, Could you tell me what paragraph this is that we're talking about? again, this--the whole rec--am T allowed to ask the whole record question, because he’s 25810 ca 2 2 u a5 16 uv 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 picking out small things here 1/11 be happy to highlight the section I’m talking about. it’s on the first page of the typewritten part of this. and now I’ve highlighted that in yellow. Does that refresh your recollection about whether you said that-- “1 also-~ <-in the PFA? —-pelieve he suffers from bipolar, although I am not certain whether there has been a formal diagnosis, ‘There has not one--been one here, but there may have been one in Yugoslavia. oray, swe was a member of the Yugoslav Army, and he was tortured in the Balkan war.* But that actually was @ Lie, 1 subsequently found out okay. Ma’am,—~ “that wasn’t true when we got the evidence from the state Department Ma’am, But that’s what I believed-- <-with all due respect. -~ --at the time couRP: You just need to ans~~ MR, WAXMAN: --examining you10 a a a ut as 16 a a8 1 20 22 23 24 25 coURT: --just need to answer the question, please: MR, WRIMAN: ‘Thank you. Okay (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 8c, when this divorce began on May 232d, 2008, oF thereabouts, you were accusing him of suffering from mental illness, right? I wasn’t accusing, I said that he'd been diag--the exact werds, as we just went over, was diagnosed by True North. okay. and you obtained a PFA which prohibited him from all contact with his child as of May 23rd, 2008, correct? 1 did. 1 obtained that PFA because there was one more treat on my life that day. ovay. Listen to me, please, witness. I'm sorry, I have te address you in this manner, but I'm asking you, small gestions. Please simply respond to my question. You'11 heve your chance to say-~ court: Mr. Waxman, what is the question? CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXNAN So, there was a period of time, after May 23rd, 2008, when Me. Malenko had no contact of any kind with his aeughter, right? No, T--as I recall, I asked the Court if we could have deily phone calls, and 1 paid for his supervised visits, and I paid for his intake. So, he had-- okay,a5 a6 uv 20 a 22 23 28 25 > o> eo» --lots of contact, And I believe in the beginning it was tnree times a week, and then T think we went to weekends only, but I’m not entirely clear as to-- Was there not a period of at least five weeks after you got the PFA in which he did not see his daughter--your daughter? mat was his choice, Mr. Waxnan. Is that a yes or a no? 1 don't know, because I--I don’t know the exact time frame. I renenber that Connections for Kids told me that they couldn't contact him, they'd e-mailed him, they'd contacted him, they had no response, they didn’t know where he was, and they couldn’t set up supervised visits until he did his intake. and at that point I voluntarily Jmow how long it agreed to pay for his intake. I don't was. T don’t know what was going on. I do remember that being said to me okay. By the way, Betsy (Indiscernible) works for connections for Kids, right? She Gid at the time, I don’t know if she still does and you filed a grievance against her, too, right? No, that’s not true. sect? You claimed that she acted inappropriately, co xr didn't file a grievance against her. I didn’t claim she acted inappropriately, to the best of my knowledgea0 a 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 2 20 Lis--what I recall from that incident is that Liz Stout haa claimed that they--Connections for Kids had said some thinge that they didn’t say, and Connections for Kids aczually wrote a letter saying that the guardian's report was inaccurate, but it wasn’t admitted to court. x can ger that letter again from Connections for Kids if you'd Like. 1 don't have it here, but-- QI just want to follow the tine line, So, PFA gets filed, and not long thereafter Liz Stout gets appointed as a guardian, correct? A Well, are we going to relitigate the entire custody case? Tim not quite clear where we’re going here. court; I don’t see this as being--getting into the substance of the case, it’s just the proc--what procedures occurred? MR. WAXMAN: | Yes court: all right wrmess: Okay. Té we--if we're gonna do the time Line, we need to go back, Your Honor, even further when we talk about the arrest for domestic assault on me before I filed. ccunt: gust answer the questions that are pending, please, mess: Yes, -- ME. WAXMAN: Okay, mes: --the quardian was appointed. 26310 n 2 13 14 15 16 7 a8 19 20 2 22 23 2a 25 pore (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN And thon she had--she requested, and we all agreed, that br. Carol Lynn Kabacoft would do parental capacity evaluations on each of you, correct? it's not entirely correct okay. Let me rephrase it. Dr. Carol Lynn Kabacoff did, in fact, do parental capacity-~ She did. “evaluations? Okay. And then in August of 2008 you understand that the guardian, Liz Stout, was reconmending that Mr. Malenko have the ability to bring his child from Comections for Kids to his apartment while supervised, right? Iothis is very vague. I don't--there’s some-- renenber sonething about wanting to--I renenber that Liz filed notion asking that the supervised contact be renoved, and guage Kennedy ruled against it. She said based on his police record alone. I--1 don't remember going to-~ rim sorry. excuse me. ‘his apartment, but-- Bxcuse me, what did you just say? 1 remenber that Liz filed to try to lift supervised visits and Judge Kennedy denied that motion. and renenber at that point Judge Kennedy knew that biz-- Lesley Devoe was involved, and she had asked Liz Stouta 2 B a 16 u a 13 20 a aa 23 2a and Dr. Kabacofé to work with Lesley Devoe, and T believe--I can’t testify, but I believe Ms. Devoe can, that Dr, Kabacoff either never contacted her or refused, okay A ~-and I know that Judge Kennedy denied the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Okay. True, is it not, that in che sunmer of 2008 Liz Stout was of the view that Igor Malenko should be able to have unsupervised visitation with your daughter, Mila Yalenko? A Te is true, and that was denied, @ You didn’t Like that, did you? was very concerned for my daughter's life based on his a history of violence, 0 okay. I’m asking you what is a very simple question. A You asked if I liked it and 1 sald: Q You didn’t Like that, did you? A 1 aid not @ Okay. And you made your discontent known, correct? A Yes. again, this is wITNESs: Your Honor, I’m not quite sure getting into the substance of the custody case and it's going to be unfair for me if Tt can’t bring up other pieces of evidence that--which document my legitimate concern. T mean this is-- 265ao a a2 a 15 16 uv 18 w 20 2 2 2 2a 25 MR. WAXMAN; Your Honor, the witness will have her opportunity, COURT: Well, we're not--I'm--as I listen to this, it aounds so far like just a procedural recitation, We're not getting into the merits, as I understand it MR. WAXMAN; Can T explain to the Court--let me be very clear about why this is all relevant curr: T'm not--T'm not saying it’s not relevant. I'm saying that at this point in time, in response to the plaintife’s concern here that we're getting into the merits of the family matter, I don't see that as being the merits at this point in time, If it does, T would certainly have concerns that we ave relitigating something that is in another docket number: ME, WAXMAN: ALL right CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN © Se, Ms. Stout recommends unsupervised visitation, You don’t Like that, right? A Yes. (0 okay. Then about a month after that you approach Lesley pevoe and you asked her to look at the case through 2 domestic violence paradigm, correct? No, T don't recall when T approached Lesley Devoe. Tt ney have been long before Liz had tried to 1ift supervised visits and- 26610 u 2 3 a4 a5 16 uv 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 Q TET represent co you that Ms, Devoe will testify that ha was approached by you in August or September of 2008, do you have any reason to disagree with that? A My best recollection is that it was August or September. ie was just before the hearing that Judge Kennedy denied Mp. Stout's motion. Tt was just before we had just got tesley Devoe on the case. And T do remember clearly that guage Kennedy was very concerned and wanted to hear fron Lesley Devoe what was going on in the case. © Okay. In any event, just a time line. The guardian recommends unsupervised visitation. Not long thereafter yeu employ, at your own expense, another person you consider to be an expert. A. Well, T may have-~ Excuse me. To look at the case through a domestic violence paradigm, right? A Generally, correct. @ okay. And then, in the course of preparing for the divorce trial, Ms. Devoe viewed a home video that you and Me. Malenko had made of your newborn child which had at least six different clips, correct? WITNESS: Your Hon--Your Honor, I must act as my own advocate. ‘The relevancy. He--he’s getting a chance to present a case in a very personally distorted way that T wouldn't be able to rebut the way he’s going through this. = 26710 a 12 3 a 1 16 a0 18 29 20 a 22 23 En 25 don't see the relevance of his behavior, his harassnent. YR, WAXMAN: Shall T explain? court: what is the purpose of this question? YR, WAQAN: what is the relevance of this—— court: The--yeah. ‘what is the purpose of that? MR, WAXMAN: I want to show the Court that this has been acrimonious from the beginning. Tt began with mental illness accusations, morphed into donestic violence accusations, and then morphed into sexual abuser allegations, al1 through Ms Handrahsn. So that it also rebuts her contention that this case could have settled were it not for me. WIINESS: Your Honor, what I would proffer even if Mr Yalenko and I had serious problens and issues that in the best interest of the child one hopes to mediate and settle out of court. The Litigation that destroys my daughter's financial future is not in her best interest, And what I would hope that the Court would see is that this is about Mr. Waxman’s behavior, not about what went on per s@-- court: well, WImWEss: —-at every--the entire time line of the fanily court: I’m--r'm going to overrule your objection and or the alow the question to show the procedures that wer procedures that were followed. I don’t think this is yet getting into any substance, and it’s in response to an issue10 n 2 Bb u 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 that you raised on your claim that there has been interference with settlement. So, I will allow the question, as long as T understand we're not getting into the merits of anybody's testimony or-~ MR. WAXMAN: T will try not to, Your Honor court: Well,-- MR. WAIMAN: Let me rephrase the question to make it--or repeat the question, (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXOIAN 9 Taa't it true that as you prepared for trial in the aivorce hearing your new expert, Lesley Devoe, viewed sone home videos that you and Igor Malenko had made of your newborn daughter? WIINESS: Your--Your Honor, T just would--T don’t quite know what you mean by--if we're going over the time line of legal procedures and filings, that’s entirely different than, you knox, a blowby-blow about who viewed what, because then T would like to Jackie Campbell's testimony, which was previously denied, and Frank (Indiscernible)--I mean there was many pesple who got involved in the case. Lesley Drudge [sic] in california, one of the top experts. You know, it's--he’s-— the COURT: Let me stop you there. Are you--what i purpose of talking about the videos? 1’m not clear about why that’s relevant-~ MR. WRN: Let me ask-~ 26910 an 2 a uw 15 16 w 18 cry 20 a 2 23 24 25 cour: --as to procedures MR, WAMDN: I/11 ask a better question. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN 0 Tan’t it true that as you prepared for trial Lesley Devoe viewed a hone video that you gave her to view, and in that video of your newborn daughter and Mr. Malenko, at one point he's sucking her finger and she; that is, Ms Devoe, claimed that was a sexualized behavior that concerned her, true? A Actually, it was Margo Pyes who sent the video because T aidn’t have a copy, and 1 didn’t even renenber seeing it And when all of this started to come up, I think Margo sent that to Lesley Devoe. I could be wrong. and it wasn't only Lesley Devoe, Liz Stout expressed concerns as well corr; A11 right. I’m concerned that when you're talking about the content of the video you're talking about the substance or the merits of a particular issue that’s been Litigated, as I understand it, Is that correct? WITNESS: Tt has MR. WAXYAN: Your Honor, I agree that the--the case has been tried and some of those allegations were made at the Givorce trial, and you can look at the divorce judgment to see what the Judge did with those things. But you can see it’iL be a step-by-step process, because from that one allegation in 27010 n 2 3 aa 45 16 av 1 9 20 a 22 23 2a 25 pecenber of 2008, we then had what's gonna happen next, which was detonating a nuclear bomb in--in guly, that this court: But that was something that was litigated, is that not correct? MR, wAaIAN: Oh, it was Litigated, We had a protec cour: okay, $0, what is--is your question just what was raised as an issue, or what was filed as a motion? MR. won: Yeah. I want to get into, before this court, the things that T had to deal with in this case, because her contention is it’s been Michael Waxman taking @ proactive stance to make her life miserable. court: But--but is-~ nn. waoQaN: And the evidence will be--please let se finish, Your Honor. The evidence will be that every single tine 1 filed something or sent an e-mail it was in response to sone new and nefarious conduct by the plaintift ccunr; I understand what your position is in this ‘the matter, but the--when you're talking about the content: specific content of videos, it seems to me you're getting into the merits on the substance of issues that have been Litigation. MR. WAXMAN coURT; AS I under--when you arque why you should be able to proceed here, you're talking about having to respond to other notions or other allegations. 1 don’t-~a 2 a 4 as 16 a as cry 20 a 2 2 4 25 MR, WAXYAN: Okay. COURT: --that’s--that's the distinction I see here, and I see us getting onto-- MR, WAXMAN: Okay. COURT: --a slippery slope if we get into the merits of the allegation. MR. WAKMAN: I’ve gone as far as I need to with that particular issue urmess: May I ask a procedural point, Your Honor? what do T do if MR. WAXMAN: Excuse ne. urmwess: --Mr. Waxman has just said MR. WAXMAN: I don’t believe she can urmess: --something untrue? COURT: ell, you'll have an opportunity to respond afterwards. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN All right. So, the divorce judgment was handed down at the end of December, correct? A Tbelieve we got it in January 9 Okay. And gives shared rights and responsibilities, correct? A Correct. and it gave Mr. Malenko visitation with his daughter from nine to four Monday, Wednesday and Friday, correct? 22.10 u 2 3 a 15 16 uv Ft 19 20 2a 23 2 25 correct And you now know, by the way, that the Judge 1a! unfer a misimpression that Mr. Malenko worked a third shift and, therefore, that he was available during the Gay to be with his daughter. You know that now, right? Well, it’s hearsay. T was told that okay. By whom? Your lawyer? Ken Altshuler told me that Liz Stout had told the Judge that he was working the night shift, so the Judge tried te give the best schedule possible for him, and it was—— biz didn’t snow that he had gone to day shift. So, T’m not--you know, I--that’s--this is all hearsay. That’s what 1 was told, but--you know. okay. In any event, you two agreed that Mr. Malenko, since he actually was working from six to two thirty, weuld be able to visit with his daughter Monday, ednesday and Friday from four o'clock to seven o'clock, and Sunday from nine o'clock to five o'clock, correct? well, yeah. and this actually points to, you know, cooperation. I could have-~ Excuse me, T don’ -1 could have stuck-- --need you to explain your answer, Please just answer the question, Isnt that true? T gave Mr. Malenko the hours that he wanted when he gothours from the Court that would have prevented him from seeing Mila Q Okay. and, by the way, part of the reason that you wented the--for visitation to begin at four o’clock was, because you didn’t want him to have any contact at all with the day care provider, Little Barth? A That's not erve © That’s not true? qs it true that you told stephanie liright [sic], the omer of tattle Earth day care, that he was a dangerous, psychologically-~ COURT: Excuse me. Are we getting into areas that relate to the substance and the merits of the FM case--the family matter case? How does it relate to this harassment proceed:ng? MR. WAOAN: Well, it relates to the harassment proceeding, Your Honor, because time and tine again Mr. Malenko was having the difficulty of being with his daughter because obstacles are put in his way at every possible juncture COURT: But you--r thought you just indicated there was an agreed contact schedule. MR. WAXMAN: Yes couRr: Okay. MR. WAXMAN: There was COURT: And I don't see the necessity for getting into 274a5 16 wv 18 19 20 2 23 2A 25 the merits of-- MR, WAIN: Okay. couRT: --contact. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY HR. WAXMAN At some point in May Mr. Malenko’s schedule changed, in terms of going to school, and he requested that you shift Menday, Wednesday, Friday to maybe Tuesday, Thursday, right? ves. Otay. I mean I don’t see the relevance of--he’s gonna go detail te detail, x mean--and then I can't provide a ccurt: All right, just--just-~ wimess: , yes ccuRT: --answer the question (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN and, in fact, there was some negotiations that went back and forth with you finally saying, "I want to keep Monday, Wednesday and Friday, why don't we give you an extra hour on each of those days to make out the twenty- one hours that you would have had under the divorce decree," right? Well, T--you know, I don’t have all of the e-mails in front of me. And what hap--T--really, this is very difgicult to answer because he’s manipulating the20 a 2 3 1 16 uw a8 2 20 2 23 24 situation to make it look different than it is, and I Gon't see how any of this is relevant, Your Honor. Do you have a menory of that? should I answer what I recall? A What T recall. at. Court: Well, again, I'm wondering what is the purpose of this line of questioning? MR. WAXMAN: ‘The purpose is gonna be to show, with my next question, that she then retracted this, and then Mr. Malenko was beset with the option of having his daughter three hours a week, one per day. That was in May. And that then caused us to file a munber of motions to modify, because that seemed exceptionally unfair to him and bad for the child. and s0 I'm explaining to the Court why it is T filed e-nail after e-mail and motion after motion, because T had to. COURT: But is--were any of these agreements reduced to court orders? Are you talking about the parties agreeing thenselves? MR. MAMAN: Parties agreed. COUR: All right. So, that what you’ze saying here, there was a need to--to go beyond the divorce judgment because there were problens with the way the visits were set up, is that MR, WROIAN: Yes COURT: --what T understand you're-~10 un 2 B 4 16 ay 18 19 20 2 23 2a 25 MR. WAXMAN; Yes court: --alleging here, because of the work schedule~ MR. WRUAN: Yes. cour: --issue? MR. WAXMAN: Yes. You know, T don't intend to belabor these points at all. T'm gonna move right along, court: Well, it seens Like we’re getting into more detail aere than--that then gets into the merits of those issues, and I want to make sure we're not getting into the nerita of the family matter case. So, that’s fine if you're Just trying to indicate that there was a need for further action MR. WAXMAN: Okay (CROSS EXAMTNAPION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 0 Can we agree that sometime in Nay Igor was left with trree hours per week visitation with your daughter? A Your Honor, this is entirely unfair because you'd have to see the entire business record on this point. And he's unfairly characterizing something, and it's really irrelevant. And unless I can show all of the e-mails--he doesn’t even proffer e-mails, and 7 was trying to proffer many e-mails that went back and forth court: I don’t think this is addressing e-mails, is--is MR, WAXMAN? No.10 uu 12 a a a5 16 uy 18 19 20 a 22 23 25 wait (cADSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN pidn’t--wasn’t there a period of time where he only saw Mila Monday, Wednesday, Friday one hour each day? ‘that was his choice, Mr. Waxman, T believe that there was a period of time that that occurred. But, Your Honor, this is-- oxay. I'm moving on now. court: All right. Just--just answer the question and for the next question, (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN And then, not long after that situation was in place, we began to file motions to modify, correct? Well, I don’t really recall. This is why I put the binder together, because, Mr. Waxman, you have been doing sc much on this case it all begins to blur after a period of time. And you just—— okay. Your answer is you don’t recall, is that right? Yeah. T mean-~ ‘okay. Good enough. And then--you're aware though that T filed @ lot of motions in May, right? you've filed so motions this entire time. As I said before, we can’t even count them all. Right. You're also aware that 1 began to write letters to Judge Moskowitz asking for him to pay attention to this case and give us a hearing, correct? 27810 an a2 3 aa a5 a6 a7 ae 19 20 2 22 23 a 25 x believe Ken only forwarded me one because ne didn’t want to create more stress for me, But, as I recall, Ken bad told me you were filing letters every day or something like that. that's right. ‘That is correct. I will stipulate to that, was filing letters every day for a period of time to seek a hearing on the motions to modify. You're aware of chat, right? ves. okay. And then on July 7, 2009 the Court issued six notices of hearing indicating that there would be hearings on July 29, 2009, right? Again, T don’t have the docunents that-- ‘There they are. Tf they refresh your recollection. “a hearing has been scheduled for motion to enforce. A hearing has been--motion to modify." {sicl Mata, I’m just asking if that refreshes your recollection. well, 1m Does it help the Light bulb go on? Tim--I'm refreshing it right now. you don’t need to read it Well, I think- --out loud. “it's important because the Court needs to--I mean this10 a n 3B au a5 16 a 18 Fe 20 a 22 23 24 25 is part of my argunent, isn’t it? Motion for expedited hearing-- cour: Excuse me, dust read--just review the document You don't need to recite what they are wrewess: Yes. YR. WAXKIAN: Okay. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXYAN 9 And you saw these on or about the tine the Court released these, correct? A Thave no idea when T saw those, Mr. Waxman, oxay, Do you have any idea what date the referral by Polly Campbell was made by any chance? A Talso have no idea, 0 okay., Does it strike you as beyond the realm-- A Your Hon-- 0 ~-of possibility that could have been- A I feel I need to act as my advocate. This is-- Q --four days later, on duly 11th? A Me's relitigating the entire case here. court: 1 don’t think we're litigating the substance here with walking through what che procedural process was WITNESS: But this is--he's misrepresenting the procedural process is what I’m saying and I'm not getting 4 chance to-~ count: Is there a docket record that could be used here 280un 2 3 uM 16 n 18 Fey 20 a 2 23 24 wriwess: 1 dia court; --establish what the-~ wimmss: --1 did get that. And I can proffer-~ cout: I’m not asking that question of you. Just one monent, please. ts there a docket record that you have? MR. WAXMAN: ‘There's a piece of paper I'd like to have her read--lock at to see if it refreshes her recollection. couRT: The docket record of the case? MR. WAXMAN: Oh. court: Of the family-— MR. WAXMAN: Oh, yeah, the family--well, this is a--a CDs case--a child--a DHHS case. 1 can give you the report number. court; I'm not--T thought you were trying to recite the procedures that went on in the family matter case. And t Mm. WAXMAN: Well, okay. couRT: --was going to ask you if there was-~ wm. waxman: Right courr: --wowld it have been simpler to address just what the docket-~ YR. WAXMAN: Oh, T see, No, there's no- count: --court docket is, which would establish what motions were filed when MR. WAXMAN: Oh, I’m sorry. Yeah, T have that information. Well, the docket is simply FM-08-520 2811 2 3 4 10 a 12 3 au a5 16 a 18 29 20 2 2 a 2a 25 couRT: The docket entzy--the docket record from the court is what I was asking about MR. WAXMAN; For what, the notices of hearing? couRT: No, the entire FM case. 1 thought you were trying to elicit: MR, WAXMAN: Oh. count: --what-~ MR, WAXMAN: Oh. court: --from this witness what was~-what motions were filed wien, and T was asking you whether it would not be helpful, Lf that’s what your concern was, to just address the docket record. MR. WaxMAN: T understand what you're saying. I'm less 1/1) stipulate that I filed motion after interested in: motion in this case, and I'm trying to get the Court to under- stand vay that was the case and why I felt that--and 1/11 testify about this as well ccuRT: Right. Me, WAXMAN: But T simply want to take the witness through this. I think it’s important to understand the timing of these matters, and that’s really all 1’11 be establishing so, may T ask again? court: ves wm. WAXMAN: ALL right (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 28210 a 2 3 1 a5 16 at 18 2 20 a 22 2a 24 25 so, is it true that four days after the notices of hearing went out your friend, Polly Campbell, called DHHS co make a report of suspected child abuse? 1 do not know, Mr, Waxman, Would you please review this document and see if it refreshes your recollection. this was dated on guly 7--sorry, July 11th, All of those no--when--I’d just like to state for the record when T had an attorney, I didn’t see--f mean Mr, Altshuler would handle the case for me, so there were many things T didn’t actually see. I was trying to be a full-time mother and I had a very denanding job. 1 was working many hours. $0, 1 wasn’t xeading and waiting with baited breath for every one of these motions. I do know that. they're just incessant. and I've tried very mich to insulate myself and not xead them all because, quite henestly, you know, I could do nothing else but read them. I-what I recall in the summer, the--but, again, we'ze getting into the sex abuse. He's trying to re~ litigate this. That happened around the sane time that we had the disqualification hearing, and there was an attempt that you made to have a hearing with Judge Moskowitz, and we had lots of witnesses present. And Ken Altshuler said that because the case was under appeal none of those motions could be heard, so there wasn’t any 28310 u 2 3 14 15 a6 uv Fa 19 20 22 23 24 25 hearing and we all went home okay. Can I--that's enough. Thank you. T think you just testified that you were busy with your--with your job at CARE [sic] at this time and that was one of the things that prevented you from being able to testity akout the various things-- you know, again, you're trying to trick me ett, into precise dates and I really don't want to be tricked into precise dates again, 1 said it’s all very much a blur, 1 had my job at CARE until a certain point, and then 1 aign't-- Well, that's--excuse me, that’s what I wanted to get to. You gave me a stack of documents. I'd never seen nost of them before, but I did happen upon one, which I've now marked for identification as Defendant’s Fxhibit 1. And it’s a letter dated July 28, 2009 from Nannette Cantrell [sic] at CARE indicating to you that your job ended on July 10, 2009, is that not correct? Tt was the--actually, I was given notice and I had the job until the end of July, because I believe I had two weeks or three weeks’ notice. And I was terminated because I couldn't move to Washington, and everybody-— okay, excuse me. --mew that-- Excuse me. 28410 a Fey a aa 18 16 7 18 3 20 a 22 23 24 A --f would be terminated by the end of June. MR. WAXMAN: Excuse me, Your Honor. Objection, Non responsive. wove to strike. couRT: what is the question again, please MR. WAXMAN: The question was, “Didn't your job end on guly 107" wrmwess: No, I--I worked through the end of July, They gave me notice and I continued working. And that was on July eh at any rate, so I--you know, I don't know what you're--T don't Jaow where you're going here, wasn’t that just on July Ten? (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Well, is that a letter--is that a letter that you provided a copy of to me? ‘A 1 aid. Yes, I provided it also to the Court, this was actually not--the letter wasn’t issued until July 28th 9 Did you put that in a stack of documents for my perusal today? A Yes. Yes, because I--1 wanted to make sure you had an exact copy of what T wanted- Thank you A =-to admit to the Court MR, WAXMAN: So, can I nove that adnission--admission of hat decunent? ccuRT; Any objection to Defendant's 17 285.uu 12 a ua 1 1s Pa 1 1 20 a 2 4 25 urmess: No, that’s fine. There was a--it's not a full record, Your Honor, because the other letter that he’s leaving out was a letter from CARE that CARE wrote to the Court saying Lf 1 didn’t relocate to Washington I would lose my job. And they knew this. So, it's not a complete business record. You i had in the binder the two letters from CARE to provide need: for the Court, and he's only providing one of then. and it’s not a complete record. mm. WAXMAN: This is the one that I want to-~ COURT: What is the--what is the MR, WAXMAN: --adait court: --all right. what is the puzpose of the-~ YR, WAIMAN: ‘The purpose—— court: --document? MR. WAXYAN; —-of that is to show that she lost her job on duly 10th, 2009, which contradicts her previous testimony that, she was quite busy with a full-time job at CARE. wimess: Well, I was, I worked till the end of July ae T recall, But you--not for--it's not a complete business record, He’s trying to misrepresent-~ court; 1/11 allow this in, and if you have additional information or: wimMEss: 1 do, court: --other exhibits, you'll have an opportunity to present those. 28610 an 2 a a4 a5 16 v 18 a9 20 a 22 23 25 wWrMESs: Okay courr; Defendant's 1 is admitted. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN © there was a period of time after the DHHS investigation began when Igor agreed not to have visitation with mila to allow the investigation to go forward, right? A Yes, I believe that’s true. Okay. And this investigation went on for at least a oath, right? A Sonething Like that, yeah, okay. And towards the end you know because I sent you fan e-mail on August 14 indicating that he would no longer agree not to have visitation with his daughter? A Well, that was the exact date that Spurwink came out with the report strongly recommending supervised contact because they believed-- Ma'an, A =the sex abuse was happening Q ~-ma’am, it’s my turn to cross examine you, with all due respect, Zs it not true that on August 14-— A Your Honor, if he’s gonna go through the proceedings, he needs to put the entize--and he’s not, he’s picking and-- COURT: Excuse me, you‘Ll have an opportunity to respond afterwards. If you'd just answer the question that is asked wviwess: Okay. Just--it’s a--the relevancy~10 u a Fey 16 a5 16 uv 18 1 20 22 23 4 25 court: --and then you’1l have a chance--if there’s other information you feel is relevant, based on these questions, you'll have a chance to present that information. But it’s after you have-- WETWEss: Okay. courT: --answered the questions. UITNESS: It's just a dietorted view of the things. Te’s an incomplete record. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAKYAN Tim showing you now what I've marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit 2. That’s an e-mail that T sent to you on the morning of Friday, August 1dth, A Yes A You did, And 1 think you just testified previously that you hadn't had any direct contact with me, but you did have quite a lot, when T was in between lawyers, of direct contact. And this is one of the pieces of evidence. © Well, let me see if--why don’t you keep that document, MR, WROYAN: Let me move the admission of this document wrmwess: That’s fine with me. T have no objection, MR, WXQEN: Okay, COURT: Defendant's 2 ie admitted. Is it marked? MR. WAXMAN: Yes 288a 2 a 1a 15 16 7 18 rey 20 a 22 23 2a COURT: Do we have it here? Thank you. Put the date on the stickers, please. Or whoever’s marking these exhibits, we need the date on the stickers YR. WAXMAN: Oh, okay. Good enough. court: Thank you. MR. WAXMAN; Can the witness have that exhibit? And if the Court would like another copy to peruse while I’m examining the witness, I have another copy. couRT: So, why don't you--let me have the copy. ‘Thank you. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAKKAN Q ‘This was sent to you, to Tgor, as well as to Ken Al--Ken Altshuler, correct? A Tt appears that way, yes. okay. You know that Kengcrfsalaw.com is, in fact, Ken a Altshuler's A eis, yes ° mail address, right? A Yeah. © Okay. And then I wrote to you at the beginning, “Lori, .cted me to contact you since he’s no longer formally in this case and because he is too busy today to try and assist." Now, you're aware of that, right, that he told me to contact you, right? A Apparently, yes. 28910 a 2 3 ry 15 16 a 38 ce 20 an 22 23 24 25 @ and you know that in the mornings Ken is a radio talk show host, right? A 1 do, ves Q okay. And then 1 write, ‘1 informed DHS and Ken by e- mail yesterday that Igor would no longer agree to have his visits supervised, nor would he agree to Limit the tine he is entitled to spend with Mila pursuant to the @ivorce judgment. Here is the e-mail I sent yesterday.” Right? A. Yeah, I--/m a little confused. wimmss: Do I act--can T act as my own attorney at the moment, Your Honor? What I’m confused about is that all morning Mr. Waxman was fighting not to have any of his e-mails admitted, and now he’s fighting to have only a few of his e mails admitted. and, again, if we're going to adnit sone, we need to admit the entire body so that you can see. T mean-~ court: No, we're dealing with one document at a time, because I have to make a determination each time whether it has a bearing on this case WHINESS; But he's been arguing privileged and that none of his e-mails should be admitted at all, and now he's asking for e-mails to be admitted. So, it’s a little confusing for courT; 1 understand that you may be confused, but we th one docu--one decunent at a time so we're need to deal10 n 2 3 1 is 16 ” 18 w 20 a 22 23 24 25 not burdening the record with wholesale information, some of which may be irrelevant, DIRECT EXAMINATION CONFINUED BY MR, WAXMAN And, Ms. Handrahan, you learned on about August 14, 2009 by @ phone call from DHHS that they were not going to put in any obstacles to Mr. Malenko exercising his visitation with bis daughter, right? A Right okay. And then you took your daughter and you drove up to Sorento, deposited her at your vacation house in Sorento, drove dom to Ellsworth and filed a PFA? Absolutely false, ur. Waxman absolutely false? yoa did file a PRA on or about August 14, did you not? yoy Om 4 don’t remember the exact date, but when Spurwink issued their decision and you said you were not going to--well that the contact wasn’t to be supervised and His said they weren't gonna do anything, 1 did file a PFA based on tke Spurwink report and Dr. Ricci’s strongest recommendation. okay. And that PFA also prohibited Mr. Malenko from heving any contact with his daughter for a period of time, right? A Well, even that PPA we offered to settle, and T have many 9110 uu 12 3 a a5 16 v 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 e-mails where we--Sophie Spurr and-~ YR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, wrENess: --Bi11 Harwood attempted many times to allow Me. Malenko contact, even unsupervised contact. And T have all of chose e-mails where they refused. So, we did not--we courp: All right. You just need to answer the-~ WITNESS: No, so that’s not true, That’s-~ cour: --actual question. WITNESS: --not true. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN © "The temporary PFA, where it was signed by Judge Staples in Ellsworth District Court on or abeut August 14, 2009, correct? AT believe that’s correct Okay. 1, as Mr. Malenko's lawyer, moved to have the case transferred dom to Portland because all. the witnesses were down in Portland, right? A You dia. okay. TF actually had to drive up to Ellsworth and appear at a hearing and had discussions with the Judge about this very issue, right? A 1 believe so. © The case was then transferred down to Portland, right?an 12 2B uu 16 a7 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 We had a full hearing before sudge Moskowitz, correct? A Yes and it had--it was your contention from the time you filed the PFA that Mr. Malenko had sexually abused your daughter, correct? A V’n not an expert so I left it up to Spurwink to make that determination. If Spurwink had denied it, I wouldn't have filed the PFA. 9 You believed, and that’s why you filed the PFA, that Mr Malenko had sexually abused your daughter, right? A Based on the Spurwink finding T believed there was cause for concern. okay. And you wanted to prevent your daughter from being sexually abysed any further, right? A. Thave a duty of care, and if there's evidence and cencern that’s substantiated by the top professionals from the state that they’re as concerned as T an-- wines: And this was already litigated, Your Honor, where cr. Ricci talked extensively about how this-- ME, WAXAN: I’m not getting into the merits. wrmvess: --this is--T mean this is really not~ ME, WAXMAN: I’m not getting into the merits. wimess; --this is very biased presentation. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN © You were the natural guardian-- 29310 a 12 23 a 15 a6 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 » Or o> counT: Just answer the question, please. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN You were the natural guardian of your daughter and you were gonna do your best to protect her from sexual abuse, that is my duty. All right, ‘The final hearing was scheduled, Dr. Ricci showed up, Joyce Wentsin (Phonetic) showed up, Igor Malenko showed up, T showed up, Polly Campbell showed up. you didn't show up, did you? 1 aid not You didn’t ask the Court for a continuance, did you? 1 Hid not. vihy weren't you there? Bill Harwood represented me in my capacity as is my legal right. I was trying to take care of my daughter. It’s very difficult for me to drive all the way down to portland, to find anybody who's willing to do child care because of your threats and harassment. And Bill Harwood --there was a couple of other times Bill said, "Don’t show up, T/11 represent you, you don’t need to drive all the way down here, try to find child care for your child, spend a night at a hotel, spend money you don’t have." = don't see the point, T mean t'm allowed to be represented by counsel. And, quite frankly, 1 wouldn't 294PFA, be here today if there was any lawyer who would deal with--deal with you, okay. $0, you chose not to go because it was inconvenient, right? Yes, absolutely olay. That-- MR, WAXMAN; The Court can take judicial notice of that after the final hearing, was denied. And I have a copy of the transcript if it’s necessary. But-- a WETNESS: Yeah. MR. WAXMAN; --will the Court take judicial notice? court: court can take judicial notice of the-- wrmess; There's also--that’s under appeal as well, couRT: Of the decision? wrmess: Yes. MR. WAXMAN: Right. Let's get into that (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN So, you've appealed the decision, right? ves And I've had to respond to that, right? I believe you responded, yes You also filed a motion to disqualify me, right? ves, we did. ‘That was a hearing you actually attended, correct? 1 aiaa0 12 2 a4 a5 16 uv 18 2 20 a 22 23 2a 25 and you asked for additional conclusions--rather, Eindings of fact and conclusions of law, right? A 1 don’t know what that means. I’m not-- can’t answer hat After the Judge rendered what was a decision from the bench, you, through your attorney, Ken Altshuler, asked the Court to give a larger explanation of why he ruled the way he did, right? AT renen--we wore going to try to appeal that, but T had no money for the transcript or to appeal that. That's the--that's the time that I ran out of money to pay Ken Altshuler. As I recall, that was Ken's last act, and then T ran out of money, So, I remenber we started the proceedings. 1 don't kngw what those are technically celled. and then we had to stop because T had no--no more funds a Okay. court: can you just--Mr. Waxman, hang on one second, (MAUDIPLE CONVERSATION) court: I'm sorry. Go ahead YR, WAXMAN: ‘Thanks, Your Honor CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXIAN All right. From the time that the PFA was finally dismissed in Portland District Court by Judge Moskowitz until the present time we. Malenko has had unsupervised 296 po10 a 2 3 aa 15 16 uv 18 as 20 a 22 23 2a visitation with Mila Malenko, right? Right, And, in fact, at some point you reached a stipulated agreenent that gave him every single weekend with your child, right? 1 do ves, but it’s not the whole answer. I mean this have to say the relevancy of ali of this is concerning Well, was there or was there not a stipulated interim order dated Novenber 2nd, 2009 signed by me, Mr. Harwood, your lawyer, and Judge Jeff Moskowitz? There was. okay. And this gave Mr. Malenko Thursday through Sunday one week and Friday through Sunday the next with your daughter, right? that's correct. Yes. and that schedule has been observed from early Noverber until now, right? Well, the last--r actually have a recording to play ‘There's been some contempt of court most recently where Mr. Malenko refused to return her and he was told that yeu counseled him not to zeturn her. So, there's been three times that he’s refused to return her after a visit i'm doing my best to keep that I believe. So, Malenko will continue it in place. I don’t know if te refuse to return her or not. 29710 a 2 a u a5 16 uv 18 a 20 a aa 24 25 Q And, by the way, you've continued to reside in Sorento, right? A Im there, yes. Q That's about three and a half hours away from South Portland, is it not? A It depends on the driving conditions. Tt can be four there has not been a hearing in this case about whether or not relocation is in the best interest of your child, hhas there? A Well, T mean this-- couRT: Are--are we getting to substantive issues in the fanily matter? MR. WAXMAN: I’m just, as a matter of procedure--this Court has to pnderstand-~ ccuRT: Has something been filed? MR. WAXMAN: Oh, of course T filed a motion for a--for a hearing on the relocation. Absolutely (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXHAN 0 You're aware of that, right? That 1 filed a motion? AT don't know how-~ COURT: All right, the--so, the question is whether or WIENESS: 1 say again-- cout: --there’s been a filing with MR, WAXMAN: Well 298n a 3 a4 a5 16 a7 18 19 20 aa 2 23 2a 25 comm: --a subsequent filing regarding relocation? MR, WAXMAN: Let me ask--I'11 back away and ask another question. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN Q You're aware that 1 filed a motion seeking to have a hearing on relocation? A Ie-to be very honest, Bill Harwood has stopped reading your motions. I think the last motion he wrote to the court he said, *Please," you know, “prevent Mr. Waxman from continuing to file these." He--we just filed--r Just put it ina folder. I haven’t read anything actually recently, 9 Okay. Have you or have you not relocated te Sorento, Maine? A Yes, I'm there right now,-~ Q Okay: A --Living chere with my daughter 0 You're aware that the divorce judgment contained a provision requiring notice to the court-— A This is getting into the matters that-— COURT: I’m concerned that we are getting into the issue about compliance with the divorce judgment and relocation issues on their merits now bm. WAXMAN: ALL right. covar: show me how I’m misreading this 299)