10 b 2 b “ 15 16 1 » 20 an 22 a 2a 25 YR, WAXMAN: Few more areas of inquiry and 1/11 be done. Pirst T want to, as an administrative matter, the Court has indicated it will take judicial notice of the divorce judgment. T want to read three paragraphs of that, which T would like to ask the witness questions about. So, couRT: Well, you don’t need to read it into the record if there's judicial notice of it. Show it to the witness WIMMESS: TI believe he’s already asked for judicial notice of that several times today (cAdSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Well, you understand that Dr. Kabacoff found that you have a narcissistic personality- A This is irrelevant. --aisorder, right? ‘this is irrelevant. He's COURT: what is the-—just--all right, there’s an objection on the grounds of relevancy. what is the relevancy to the fabacoff finding? Ts it in MR. WAMMAN: It’s in the divorce judgment. COURT: Okay. $0, what is the question? MR. WAXMAN: 1/11 withdraw the question (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAKHAN © You want this Court to believe that Michael Waxman is the aggressor in this case, correct? A 11d like to be able to present the evidence that10 a 2 a3 14 1s 1s a 18 a9 20 2 2a 23 24 25 documents this Q Okay. And you would testify that at all times your concern hag been for the best interest of your child, right? A Absolutely Q Okay. By the way, in the Spurwink report, it details a conversation and interview that you had with Joyce wentsin, right? A Unless we can provide the report as evidence, Your Honor, this is--1 mean if he wants-~ you~ to enter the report as evidence, I'd be happy to G0) over it piece-by-piece, but, again, I don’t see the relevance of this. ME. WAXMAN: Is it a relevant objection? COURT: It sounds Like it's a relevance objection. what is the relevance of the wentsin report? ME. WAXMAN: The relevance is that she made several horrendous allegations of sexual abuse of her child claiming that these disclosures were made and that never was that-- never was that conveyed to any third party. And--and that she publ ished—— WITNESS: Your Honor, -- MR. WaaiAN: --this horrendously defamatory report to @ multitude of people, including Jackie Couture [sic] at News 30110 a 2 a3 ery as 16 uw 26 25 axnery cour: I'm-I'm sorry, I'm not sure T understand. what —-wnat are you referring to? MR. WAOIAN: ‘There--as part of the Child Protective services investigation Spurwink was asked to do sone interviews. Okay? And a report was produced by Spurwink. part of that report was Ms. Handrahan’s over-the-top accusations about disclosures that had been made regarding her daughter and pretty horrific sexual abuse. The evidence would be--my offer of proof. the evidence would be what--that she then tosk this and published to all manner of people, including Channel 8 TV. wrmess: Your Honor, -~ cour: So, is the question whether or not the witness published the report to-~ MR. WAMIAN: Let's make it that question (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN qe’ true, is it not, that you published this report? 1 aid not publish this report well, you sent it to a lot of people, right? > oro f sent it £0 some people, I didn’t publish it. Sending it as an e-mail is not publishing, mess: But, Your Honor, I'm very concerned because he pulled out pieces from the report. He just told a mistruth to you. You're gonna walk away with~ 30210 u 2 3 aa 15 16 aw 18 29 20 a 22 23 2a 25 cour: You'll have--you'll have a chance to give further testimony if you think that there’s some mischaracteri zation CROSS EXAMINATION CONFINED BY MR. WAIQIAN vou sent it to Jackie Couture at Channel 8, right? ° AT did send it to Jackie Couture 2 Okay. a ‘Channel 8, yes. By the way, every single person who's not done what you wanted then to do in the divorce case you've either slandered or grieved or both, right? A Akeolutely not true Q okay. You filed a grievance against Dr. Kabacoff, right? A Yes You Slandered Liz Stout at a legislative hearing and caused her to-- A Absolutely false. | ~witharaw? Absolutely false. You're aware that she filed a motion to withdraw citing fas the reason that you had spoken negatively about her at that hearing, correct? A Yes, T--we’ve gone over this-~ Q Okay A ~-alzeady in the morning. Otay. Good enough. You filed three grievances against 30310 a 2 B 4 1s 16 w 18 24 a5 ne, right? ‘There may have been more against you, Me. Wassnan oh, there were three more. Sut you filed three, right? r may have filed four. I can't quite remenber~ okay. <-how many I filed now oro roe oh, and, by the way, previously you were treated by a--by a Dr. Shawn McCloid (Phonetic) against whom you filed = grievance, right? wrmvess: Your Honor, this is irrelevant, and it‘s--T mean we're 0 off track now. He's going back into pri--this has notning to do with anything. MR, WAXYAN: Oh, it does WITNESS: Does not. MR, WAXMAN: Every single: wimwess: He was not even involved in the family-~ MR. WAXMAN: --person that suggests~ WITWESs: | --case Mr. WNON: Excuse me. I'm making a record. Every single person that: winwess: I strongly object court; Just one moment, please. Go ahead, Mr. Waxman’ wm. WAXMAN: every single person that suggests that MS wandraban bas some mental issue--mental health issue perceptional issue gets railed against. Every single one 30410 a 23 a a5 16 a7 1 w 20 a 2 23 24 25 WINES: Absolutely not true. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Didn't you or did you not file a complaint against Dr. Shawn Mecloid? wrmmess: T need to act as my own attorney. This is ierelevant. Dr. Shawn MeCloid was a pediatrician t had years ago before the divorce. I mean this is totally irrelevant, oP oy oO CROSS BXAMINATEON CONPINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Did you or did you not-~ COURT: I'm gonna--you can answer the question. wrmwess: I dia (CROSS FXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Wat's that? raid. okay. and against his assistant, true? raid, yes. ves. and you published and authored an article in the nangor Daily News on June 2nd, 2008--1’m sorry, nine, extitled ‘american Courts Have Never Been Kind to Women, Kids" [sie] right? Yeah, 1 would Like that admitted to the zecord. Abst utely. I~ AIL right --am not at all ashamed of publishing that, mr. Waxman you said in this particular article-- 305A. Well, are we going to admit it or are you~ @ — ’m gonna examine you- AT don’ Know what-~ Q © ~-the way T see fit AL don't know what T said. 1 don’t have it in front of courr: We don’t have a question completed yet. Just wait for the question. WITNESS: Okay. MR. WROHN: Okay. Well, may I look on with the witness? wrmess: I'd prefer not that close contact with Mr Waxman MR. WAXMAN: Okay. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q bid you or did you not say, “Maine family courts, Like fenily courts elsesnere, are placing children, infants, Little girls and boys into the unsupervised custody of parents, usually fathers, who until the separation were atusing, often severely, the children and the other parent, often the mother. Family courts are calling mothers liars. Judges are calling mentally healthy women with no prior mental health issues mentally unstable pecause they dare to tell the truth of domestic abuse ink they have the right to protect their because they children from further abuse. Judges are telling mothers 30510 a 2 3 ua 16 an ae rey 20 22 23 2a they, quote, have a problem with reality, end quote, that they are not, quote, credible, end quote. Judges are rendering invisible entire days of testimony, first-hand witnesses, police records. Judges are simply saying the mocher had, quote, no corzohorating evidence, end quote, for abuse, I know because it has happened to me. MY twv-year-old Little gixl has been given unsupervised custody with her father, a man on a green card and a long and well-documented history of violence.“ Those your words? A "Those sound Like my words, yes Okay. wwNess: Can that be entered as a--I mean is he allowed “one didn't read the entire thing. Tt’s--if he's gonna-~ shouldn't the entire document be entered? That's what he was doing with Ms. Campbell and other people. court: All right. You'll have an opportunity to offer that. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAAMAN @ pidn't you also, in the course of this very PFH hearing, insinuate that Judge Moskowitz-—that you had to file this jn Elloworth because Judge Moskowitz Likely couldn't give you a fair trial? ‘True? A That is true. 0 oxay, And that’s because you believe I’ve influenced 30710 a 12 a cay 15 16 un 1 Fey 20 a 22 23 2a 25 hin? 1 said t have no proof, but it woulda’ surprise me, because you've gone after absolutely everybody. And you have an e-mail that we had already admitted saying that you would use your vast family fortune, you would stop at nothing, that this case was personal for you, you were never gonna stop, you would do--I mean--so, you have-~ this is why I asked for electronic discovery of your communication with Child Protection, Mx. Waxman You also sent an e-mail to about twenty people having to do with LD 1143 on oF about Decenber 6, 2009 in which you talk about this case--this-- well, Twas part--I wrote legislation and T was part of that working group, And that was privileged cenmunication. I did an update to the case on--to the werking group. Somebody sent it to Mr. Waxman. T meant this was-- all right, ave you objecting to my referring to it pecause it's privileged? om not--1 don’t know the Rules of Evidence, T don’t jnow if it's privileged or not, but that would be my guess. 1 mean this was an e-mail confidentially that T gent to the working group that T was part of to write icy to write legislation to get a rebuttable presumption jn Maine because most other states are now moving to have 308,10 a 2 3 u a5 16 a 1 1 20 an 22 23 24 25 rebuttable presumptions. And this is what Lois Reckitt was trying to testify to this morning, the work that she had done with me on the rebuttable presumption. So, court: what is--what is the question, whether or not-- Wwimess: Tf he's going to enter this, T--1'd Like to-~ CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 9 Did you or did you not send an e-mail to about twenty aifferent people who are part of this LD 1143 working group which had to do with the family matter case? AT sent the working group up--some updates, yes. okay. And part of those updates included some critical coments about Judge Moskowitz, right? hr don’t--1 mean this is--you know, T don’t know how to answer: this if he’s not gonna produce--and I think this js privileged communication. 1 was part of a government working group and he obtained a copy of an e-mail T sent as an update, and he's now trying to use it against me senchow, count: I'm not aware of what privilege that might invoke under the Rules of Evidence Wwimwess: I don’t either. But if he's going to admit that, T/@ like to have the-- ccuRT: Anything that you would Like to have adnitted—— WITNESS: ALL right COURT: --you need to wait until it’s your opportunity to 309ao n 12 23 a4 15 16 a7 a8 3 20 a 22 23 24 vestity MR. WAXMAN: T’d be happy to admit that wrmess: Absolutely fine with me. MR, WAXMAY: So, I’m going to move the admission of what tim marking as Defendant’s Exhibit 3, and I'll put the date on there, 12/6/09, and this is Defendant‘s Exhibit 3 CouRT: Not the--not the date of the document-- MR. WAXMAN: Oh. court: --it's the date--today’s date. MR. wMAN: Oh, T see. I'm sorry court: There are prior proceedings here and I don’t want the exhibits mixed up. MR, WAXMAN: Sorry, ccuRT: It’s 3/4/10 is what t'm looking for, please. Mm, WAXMAN: T see. courr: Thank you ME. WAXMAN: 3/4/10. Boy this is messy. court: All right. There being no objection, as I vnder— stand it, ig that right? wiwess: No, there’s no objection, ye. wom: okay cour: Defendant's Exhibit 3 is adnitted. couRD OFFICER: Mike, you got any questions on that? MR, WRGIAN: No: CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN 310)10 u 2 a 1 15 16 uv 1 13 20 a 23 24 25 By the way, it’s been your claim that 1 have threatened to stop at nothing to strip your daughter from you, right? Well, you're trying to get me to enter inte a false statement, as you did before, You said you would stop at nothing, and then I believe that the transcript had a Got, dot, dot. But it’s been fairly implied through many, many e-mails, “This is personal, I won't get off the case, I won't rest until justice is done." [sic] don’t have the exact words. You did say, “I would stop at nothing." We went through this in the tenporary order: yeah, that's what I wanted to talk about. We had a hearing in this case on my motion to dissolve a couple ‘weeks ago before Judge Beaudoin, correct? cezrect and at that time you testified on the stand, under oath, that I had testified in the dis--disqualification hearing that 1 would stop at nothing to take your child from you. ‘Tke--the-- bid you or did you not testify to that at the hearing? yeu said you would stop at nothing. ig you will not stop thie Litigation until T eive up my daughter or you take her-~ okay,--from me, Absolutely i'n asking you a very simple question. Please try to follow it. 1 shoulda’t be tricked into trying to give a false statement when I’m being incredibly honest, Your Honor courr; All right. Just--just listen to the question and if you can answer the question. What is the question? CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WwAQAN At the dissolution hearing on February 12th, a Friday, 2010, before Judge Beaudoin, you testified from the witness stand, under oath, that Michael Waxman had said, at the disqualification hearing, that I would stop at nothing to take your child from you, Did you or did you et say that? vr. Waxman, I don't recall exactly what T said, but T renenber saying very clearly that you had said you'd step at nothing, I don't recall the exact words that I said. I will not be tricked inte making a false statement on the stand. AIL right ard there is no transcript from that, so we can’t go back ard say-~ ob, there's a transcript —cexactly what I said, From the disqualification earing- 31210 a 2 B aa a5 16 ra 18 20 a 22 23 2a 25 on, <-there was no transcript okay, Well, this-- $0, you--this is--1 mean o> or 0 —-transcript from the disqualification hearing. [sic] ‘You were there, right? cour: r'm sorry, are we talking about the dissolution hearing or the disqualifica-~ MR. WAKUN: No, the disqualification, — court: --tion hearing? MR. WAXMAN: --which you tried to-- wrmmss: But there is no-- MR. WAXUAN: --disqualify me from this case (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAIHAN You were present, correct? Twas, yes Your attorney asked, “Mr. Waxman, there is nothing you won't do, no boundaries to this case that you won't do until justice is done." And then, ‘Mr. Waxman, is there?’ and my response, *No, T want justice done. I certainly won't do anything that’s unethical or illegal, but 1 will*--question, *Do you know any other boundaries? Will you talk to anybody? will you threaten anybody? iculd you intimidate anyone until you see justice served?" Answer, “That’s a dumb question. I'11 do 31310 a a2 a 4 as 16 7 18 ety 20 a vuhat*--question, “The answer is no?* Answer, "What is* question, "Mr. Waxman, answer." ‘No, the answer isn't T won't do anything. ‘11 do what I think is appropriate under the circunstances.* [sic] That was my testimony, wos it not? well, you just read it out, so obviously it was. 1 don’t have a copy of that-~ be you have any reason to disagree that I've read that correctly? Mr, Waxman, I wouldn't put anything beyond you actually, 50 I don't know if you've read it correctly or not actually. okay. Now, in the PFA against Mr. Malenko that you filed i Elleworth District Court back in August, you claimed that he was terminated from the Yugoslavian Army for pointing a gun at an officer's head, true? qwrote in the PFA--and, again, I don't have it front of me so I don’t want to be tricked into I didn’t say this exact word or that, so T need to qualify this with Mr valenko had told me that he had gotten a psychiatric discharge during the war because he didn't want to serve in the war and so he put a gun to an officer's head to get out of the war. And I hed said something like this because the PFA asks has he ever threatened anybody with a weapon, Mr, Malenko also told Dr. Kabacoff this, and 31410 a 2 13 a a5 16 uv 18 19 20 2 22 2 2a yore Liz Stout. and it turns out when we got his records, he was discharged from the Army in 1990, a year before the Ms, Handrahan--Ms. Handrahan, you may stop now, a year before the war. So, that information about 1992 and the war and the gun to the officer’s head was false. But Me. Malenko- is. Handeahan, ~~ had told-- --that wae the first time in the Fit case that you'd ever tcld anybody that you believed he was separated from the yegoslav Army because he put a gun to an officer's head, right? He had told me that‘s how he got-a psychiatric discharse. ‘that wasn't my question. ‘That’s the first time-- don't know if that’s the first time ox not well, you didn’t testify about it at trial, did you? it's all a blur tome, Mr. Waxman, IE we could get his records, we would know, But you have apposed-— you said-- “-getting his records. $0, I would-- --you wrote-- --love to get his records Excuse me. You wrote on the PFA--typed rather-—"The defendant told me that he was discharged from the Army 3s10 u 2 3 a 15 16 uv 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 oy o> » o> oy for pointing a gun at an officer's head,” right? Yosh, that's what he told me. If we could get the records, we could Find out if it’s true or not you've never seen a docunent in your life that corroborates that assertion, have you? ‘This is what Mr, Malenko told me, okay. and, ence again, -~ and that’s what T said in that PFA. —-once again, if we look at the five-volune divorce transcript, nowhere in here an I going to find any allegation that Mr. Malenko was discharged from the Army for putting a gun to an officer's head, right? Not entirely true, because Miss-~ Excuse me? Miss stout~ Show me where. Miss stout talked about how hard we had fought to get a waiver signed so we could get his full psychiatric record 50 we would know what had happened. I don’t know if Ms pevoe put that in her report or not because it wasn’t allowed to be entered into the court. We were very concerned about getting the full psychiatric records to did happen. Dr. Kabacoff and Liz find out exactly stout and you felt that we didn’t need to get these records 31610 un 12 a uu a5 16 18 2 20 at 22 23 24 > oe OPO 50, you just decided to say it--or say it in the context of a PPA case, without any corroborating documentation, right? 1 love to get corroborating doc--let’s get ‘em. mean sign a waiver and let’s find out if it’s true or not Rosolutely. Please. Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute I could be totally wrong gust hold on for a second. You signed a PFA, under oath, and you actually had to sign, when you did that, a separate document that says you understood that perjury isa crime, right? and I said that this is what Mr. Malenko told me, and he aid tell me that. But 50, ~ —-but--wait a minute. once again Let's find out if it's true or not, Mr. Waxman, —-you never told Dr. Kabacoff that? 1 don’t know, because Dr. Kabacofé's record was 50 inaccurate, and she won't release my records to me because she's claiming that I wasn’t her client, that Lic stout was her client. $0, I have no way of knowing what Dr. Keb-- You never told Liz Stout that? 319an 12 a 4 a5 16 uv ae 19 20 a 22 24 25 A You don't--I don’t know that either, she won't release the records 0 mall the hearings that we've had in this case, never once had you make that allegation, correct? A That's not actually true. T mean that's what I've just said to you, Mr. Waxman, © Wait a minute I made-~ Hold on. Point out to me--tell me and the Court what hearing, before what Court, you claim that he was @ischarged from the Army for putting a gun at an officer's head? A. No, T--in the PPA, I wrote that in the PFA. T don’t believe I testified to that ever in court, I& doesn’t mean it wasn't in the proceedings or I didn’t tell anybody this. I may have told Ms. Devoe. 1 may have teld Dr. Kabacoff. 1 may have told Liz Stout. It was @ very salient point. MG. WAXMAN: x'm all done with this witness: ccort: All right. We need to recess for the day. It's now four thirty, So, we will, You'll have an opportunity to present your redirect-~ WITNESS: Okay. ccURT: --testimony tomorrow morning, We'll start at eight thirty in this courtroom. Are we in this courtroom 31810 u a a ry 15 16 uv 18 w 20 a tomorrow? COURT OFFICER: I'm not sure. courr: vou may step down. WITWESS: Thank you. COURT: All right. We will be in this courtroom tomorrew, so: ME. WAXMAN: And--and then tomorrow back here at eight thirty? COURT: Yes. In this courtroom, MR, WAXMAN: Okay. ccuRT: Thank you. COURD OFFICER: ALL rise MACHINE OFF - HEARING RECESSED MARCH 4, 2010 | (CONTINUED TO VOLUME Ir) 31(CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing, pages 4 through 319, is a true transcript of Tape Number 1658, Index munbers 4- 7089, and Tape Number 1659, Index Numbers 6388, recorded on ‘hureday, March 4, 2010, at the Maine District Court located at Portland, Maine, of the case entitled LORI HANDRANAN v._ MICHAEL MAXMAN Dated: September 24, 2010 ‘TRANSCRIBER A TRUE COPY, dated at Bangor, “el this 24th day of September, A.D., 2010. ry Maine District Court