10 un a2 3 14 a5 16 ” 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 45 vou had-~ MR. RODWAY: Excuse me, let me read this first. cexvse) (maudible conversation) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Uh, you had, uh, contact with Stephanie Wright's attorney, uh, attempting to have some information from Stephanie Wright, correct? ‘That's right okay, And, this Exhibit 1 is a letter from Attorney Neil Jamieson [sic] to you, correct? ves, it is. And, in the letter, uh, he indicates to you, um, that any information [sic] you could procure through his office, is that correct? uh, yes, Mell, that's what he says You clearly understood Stephanie Wright was represented by counsel? 3 ta. okay. You went to Stephanie Wright's house? Well, you're not conflating a time frame remarkably [sic]. So, yes, at some point, I did go to her daycare provider [sic] After this--after the date you received this letter, yos went to her daycare provider [sic]? You went to10 a Fry 3B 14 as 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 46 Steph [sic]-~ Mr. Waxman, this letter was February- MR, RODWAY: Judge: Judge, 22 courr: well, -— MR, RODWAY: —-him answer the question, plea: CouRT: okay, well, (indiscernible) -~ MR, RODWAY: He's asking these questions, and he doesn't 1ike the answers, and: cour: Well, wait a minute MR, RODWAY: --he's cutting him off. cor: Folks, wait a minute, It would--it would helpful if we simply ask a calm question and--and just a calm answer, and then proceed. So, the question is, actually, the--the question I have is, what's the date the letter from Mz. Jamieson? MR. WAXMAN: February 4, 2008. count: February 4, 2008. Thank you DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Okay. And you received this letter from Mr., ub: Neil Jamieson, correct? In response to my request to the daycare-~ That wasn't the question a-provider, I did receive-~ ey o> Did you rec—~ A That's misleading. Okay? This happened in February be give of from10 un 12 33 aa as 16 a ae 19 20 a1 22 23 26 2s a7 anit, yes Did you receive this letter from Mr. Jamieson? Tid, yean. oe o> And, uh, when you received this letter, fair [sicl--uh, would it be close to February 4th, 2009 [sic]? » yor 2 Okay MR. AUTSHULER: Uh, Defendant's Exhibit 1, your Honor couRT: Okay, any objection? MR. RODWAY: Um, hold on, (PAUSE) Has the letter been, uh, shown to Me. Waxman? court: Yes MR. RODAAY: I have no objection COURT: Okay, It's admitted DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER CONTINUED @ Following that date that you received that letter, did you go to Stephanie Wright's house, or daycare——where she provides daycare for Mile? MR, RODWAY: Judge~-Judge, T have @ relevance this letter—~uh, I--I think what-—what objection. uh, this: Me, Altshuler is tryin’ to get at is she was represented by counsel, and theefore Me. Waxman shouldn't have had contact, with her because she was represented by counsel, -~ MR, ALTSHULER: Correct MR. RODWAY; --really doesn't have anything to do with20 a 12 3 14 a5 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 2s 48 him being a witness to the case, doesn’t have anything to do with, um,~ MR, ALTSHULER; Well, first of all, it's a violation of a bar rule, which is relevant~- count: Well, it may or may not be. Uh, T need to re— I re-need [sic] to re--refresh my memory of the rule MR. ALTSHULER: And T'll--I'11 also--while you're locking it up, your Honor, —~ COURT: Because the context may also really matter here MR. ALTSHULER: ‘The other [sic] context is that she, of course, was a witness in the case in chief. A witness for br. Handrahan. She was identified as a witness for Dr Handraban. MR. RODWAY: And there isn't anything at all wrong with a lewyer interviewing witnesses or having contact with witnesses, Expert witnesses, there's something wrong with, but not- MR. ALTSHULER: If she--if the-— MR. ROOWAY: --not fact witnesses MR. ALTSHULER: --the purpose is to intimidate that count: Well, all right, well,--all right, folks, let's just calm down, ALL right? Let me just, uh-- (eavsz)20 a a2 13 14 as 16 v 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 49 (Inaudible conversation) COURT: ALL right, the bar rules, uh, regarding communications with, uh, represented persons has te do with parties, not witnesses, The rule is, uh, 3.6(£) [sic]. The rule reads as follows; "During the course of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in that matte, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawer representing such other party, or as authorized by law to do so.” And then it goes on in the second paragreph in similar vein, rt--it--it--this rule relates to parties, not witnesses MR, ALTSHULER; 1/11 pursue this strand [sic]--um, oF allegation that it is intimidation, your Honor DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED When you went to Stephanie Wright's house, did Stephanie Wei--Weight-- MR, RODWAY; First of all, I object to that characterization of, uh, "intimidat COURT: Well, the allegation—— MR. RODWAY; You knox, telling you that it's-— couRT: sis intimidation MR. RODWAY: --intimidation, COURT; I'm perfe [sic]--I understand it’s en10 a a2 a3 14 1s 16 a ae a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 50 allegation, Mr. Rodway. Go ahead, Me. Altshuler, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED @ When you went to Stephanie Wright's house, she did not wish to engage with you, is that-— MA. RODWAY: Objection, that's misleading. It's the daycare that he went to. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER CONTINUED @ When you went to Stephanie-- MR. RODWAY: He! s—-he'a--he's--he's trying to~ MR. ALTSHULER: I'11 correct it MB. RODWAY: --he's trying to--to convince the Court that Mr. Waxman showed up at her house, and that is not-- that--that's a mischaracterization of the facts. COURT: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER CONTINUED Where--where did you show up? T showed up at Little arth [sie] Daycare It's her daycare? It's a daycare, Is it also her house? > or Deo I didn't know it was also her house until 1 showed up that day, and she came downstairs @ When you showed up that day, when you first got there land locked at the facility, did you then realize it was her house?10 a 2 33 14 as 16 uv 18 1s 20 aa 22 23 24 2s si A We. Q Ste did not wanna speak with you, is that correct? A That's not correct. Q she willingly engaged with you? A ves @ And, she did--she did not appear to be intimidated in any manner [sic] by you, is that correct? aA We. MR, ALTSHULER: Your Honor, I'm gonna briefly touch on the financial issues, even though I understand that that strand is not in front of you [sic]. Uh, I'll do it for the record. COURT: Suze, go ahead. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED @ Ub, I'm gonna show you what's been marked as Exhibit 2, and, Mr. Waxman, I did not highlight the pertinent part because T feel highlighting is inappropriate. T wanna call your attention to-~ MR RODWAY: Is this, uh ALISHULER: -—(indiscernibie) — RODWAY: --is this appended to the motion? ALTSHULER: Yes RODWAY: where? § 55 5 8 AUISHULER; Why--what do you mean? No, t's an exhibit. It's not appended to a motion, it's my exhibit.10 a a2 a3 1a 15 16 uv 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 52 I'm happy to (indiscernible) ~ MR. RODWAY: T mean, hag it been provided previously? MB. ALTSHULER: No. MB. RODWAY: All right, T need to read it ME. ALTSHULER: Okay, Let me show you what I'm-—r'm sure ycu've read this before, but here--actually, it's mentioned in my motion. Right here (inaudible conversation) cenuse) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER CONTINUED Q Me. Wayman, T assume you recognize this email? vee. Okay. And, this is an emaii you sont to me on April 29th, 20097 A reas @ Okay, Wanna cai your attention to about, oh, three quarters of the way down, I'm gonna point it to you [siel--it says, "T want you and Lori to understand you see where that is? A 1 do, yes well, read a couple @ Could you read that untit you: sentences, please cexvse) MR, RODWAY: Objection. Un, I think the proper way to get at this is to ask him if he renenbers saying something10 nt 2 13 14 as 16 re 18 a9 20 a 2 23 24 25 53 © coURT: Well, I gue: “maybe T don't understand, Me. Altshuler, what purpose you--you asked the question. Do you wart him to publish [sic] that for the Court, or do you wish MB, ALTSHULER: Okay, let me--r can say it a different way. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Q Te de true that you said, in this email, "Z want you and Lori to understand that I have every intention of staying in this case as long as it takes. Further, I have no compunction iavesting not only my time, but my resources, and the very substantial resources of my family if nece: sary"? A I did write that, yee Okay, And, is that true? You are committed to using tthe resources of the wealth of your family to see this case to the end? MR, RODWAY: Ob--objection. Vague. For what purpose would he invest his resources? Costs? the--the statement speak cour: well, I guess the~ [sic}--you know, is--is a-is a statement in a vacuum. The question is, is it true that the state [sic]--that he--he means the statenent. That's the question, MR, WAXMAN: No. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER CONTINUEDaa a 13 14 15 16 Fa 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 2s 54 2 — Would you agree with me that that email, the words you used, by saying that, you are guaranteeing financial assistance to your client? AT didn't say that, Counselor. Mz. Waxman, that's a yes or no question. Would you agree that that language is guaranteeing financial assistance to your client? A No, it's advancing the cost of Litigation. Q rai MR, ALTSHULER: --nay that second half be (indiscern— able)? it's the answer to the question couRT: No, it’s & MR, ALTSHULER: The answer's "No", not the qualifica tion. I didn't ask him-- cour: well,—~ MR. ALTSHULER: -—what it meant. the qualification is helpful for ny cour: determination of this issue, so the answer will not be stricken. Next question. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED So, you're promising to advance cost [sic]? ver, —- ‘That's all you're promising? yo» © --some [sie], suze And you expect Mr. Malenko to pay you back some day?10 a 2 3 4 a5 16 ry ae Fry 20 aa 22 23 24 25 55 A ves. What does Mr. Malenko make a year in his salary? A Right now? About twenty-five thousand dollars, but he's going to school and he's doing very well, and--and maintained a job for well over a year, so I expect that, at some point, he will pay me back for my costs, and: And, you wii nvand my fees. --ineist on that? You will ineist on him paying you back, is that correct? A Mill T insist on that? I may or may not. @ Well, if he doesn’t, then you're providing financial astistance, aren't you? T'n advancing the cost of litigation. If he never pays you back, you will never pursue payment, isn't-~ MR RODWAY: Judge, — MR ALTSHULER: --that true MR. RODWAY: relevance. People in-~ COURT: Sustained. Let's move on, please MR. ALTSHULER: Your Honor, I think this is a critical point. I submit this as Exhibit 2 COURT: Any objection to Exhibit 2 being admitted into evidence?20 na 12 13 14 15 16 wv 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 23 56 o> o> MR. RODWAY: No sir. COURT: It's admitted. Next question DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 3 This is a letter you wrote to the Court on May 19th, 2609. correct? Cerrect, yes Whore you say you, uh--with regard to the funds necessary to get your [sic] G.A.L., "Z will personally pay that"? T did say that, yes. That is advancing cost? That's what your intent~ MR. ALTSHULER: Exhibit 3, your Honor court: Any objection? MR. RODWAY: No six. COURT: t's admitted DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Do you know who Polly Campbell [sic] is? oh yuh Polly Campbell is an individual that’s been involve in, uh, a report to 0.H.H.S. about Mila and your client, is that correct? T con't know that, because the report was confidential10 an a2 13 14 as 16 a7 a8 as 20 2 22 23 24 25 57 » 0 > o> Om chi Well, then, tell me who--I'd asked you if you knew Polly Campbell, you said, "Yes." Who is Polly Campbell? I learned subsequent to the referral-- My question is,-- n-from you~ w-who is Polly Campbell? She--who ig she? Um, she apparently is a good friend of Lori Handrahan's, She is the director of Sexual Assault, Forensic Examiners [sic]. she's @ (sic] R.N. I'm gonna show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 4. Ie this an email you sent: MR, RODWAY: Before he asks questions, I need to read cour: Has counsel seen 47 MR ALTSHULER: (Indiscernible)-— MR, RODWAY: T've never seen this. court: okay (exse) MR, RODWAY: No objection. court: okay DISECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED This is an email you wrote to Polly Campbel on July10 a 2 a3 14 15 16 a 18 a9 20 a 22 23 2a 25 38 15en, 20097 And, in that email, you tell her you want to meet with her? And, I'm gonna quote from it, about halfway through the "rf you do not agree, then when T finally do have the opportunity to examine you under oath in court, I shall make clear to the judge that you were unwilling to speak with me beforehand, and I shall euggest to the judge that he might infer from that fact that your report was not made in good faith and/or that you do--have something to hide." rs that correct, what you said? ‘That--that's part of the note, y. wunshine is the best and then you finish with, disinfectant, Miss Campbell. I invite you to tell me your story and answer questions about your decisions. Please reconsider." Is that correct? That's another segment of the note, yes Did you weite this email to Miss Campbell to intimidate her? No. Did you write this email to Miss Campbell to have her retract the report she made to D-H.#.S.720 Ftd a2 a3 14 15 16 re 38 29 20 aa 22 23 2a 28 59 » oy 0» T wrote this note for the reason: T asked you, did you: indicated here. do it for that purpos I wanted to talk to her MR, ALTSHULER: Your Honor, unresponse [sic]-~ CURT: Is the answer yes or no, Mr. Waxman? I think Me. Rodway can cro—can cross examine you and clarity if he-- MR. WAXMAN: What was the question? COURT: --thinks it's appropriate. The question is, did you write it to, uh-—to intimidate, uh, Miss Campbell? MR. WAXMAN: Wo. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED And to have her retract her report to D.#H.H.S.? okay. MR, ALTSHULER: Defendant's Exhibit 4, your Honor: comrn: Any objection? 1 No sir. couRT: Tt's admitted. (pause) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED I show you Defendant's Exhibit 5. As soon as your attorney says that I can ask you questions, I will20 uu a2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 60 (ravse) MR. RODWAY: I've read it DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Q Mr. Waxman, is this an email you wrote to Michael Kearney [sic], and a host of other individuals about Polly Campbell? A Te is, Tim-the reason I hesitate is because I don't wanna be in violation of any D.H..8.-~ Q I think you'ze well-protected under the proceeding [sic]. Is this an email you wrote to Michael Kearney? A Uh, yes I'm gonna--I'm gonna call your attention to the fourth, ub, full paragraph, you're talking about Polly Campbell being involved in the report to D.H.H.S. prior to that, correct? A Ub, fourth paragraph, @ [sic] Well, before that--the purpose of this email, you're discussing Polly Campbell's report to D.H.H.S., correct? A Tht is correct. ° And on [sic] Paragraph 4, is st correct that you and I'11 quote-~"Are"—— MR. RODWAY: Objection, your Honor, What's the relevance? well, I guess I don't know COUT: Basis? What i be20 nh 2 13 a4 as 16 a7 18 a3 20 a 2 23 2a 25 6 what Paragraph 4 is. MR, RODWAY: Well, —- COURT: What--what—— MR, RODUAY: Judge, this~ count: --a8 a proffer. T guess, as a-~ a. RODWAY: --thii COURT: --(indiscernibie) —— MR. RODWAY: I'm sorry, this purports to be an email that Me, Waxman wrote to D.H.#.S., child protective workers Te's not to Miss Campbell, it's not, un-it--it wasn't-— COURT: Well, it was addressed to Mike Kearney and others, according to the question. MR, ALTSHULER: It-—it's written to Polly Campbell's: employer about her being fired, and it sugge [sic]—-I mean, suggesting that she should be fired, and they're [sic] threatening lawsuits (indiscernible) —- COURT: Who's it addressed to? MR, RODWAY: Michael Kearney-— COURT: Michael Kearney is an Assistant attorney General, who does MR. ALTSHULER: No, there's 2 whole bunch of- COURT: --child protective cases MR, ALTSHULER: --there's--there’s 10 people in [sic] this email, your Honor MR. RODWAY: There is a [sic}]--um, in order for this to10 a a2 33 a4 15 16 wv 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 62 be relevant to thie claim that Mr. Waxman is somehow a witness in the case, um/—~ MR. ALTSHULER: That's not what this is about. It about intimiding [sic]-~ MR, RODWAY: Tt'a——the— MR. ALTSHULER: --Miss Campbell's gonna testify to the effect of this email on her willingness to be a witness in the D.H.H.S. case and this case. She's gonna testify that she's been intimidated because of this. That's why I'm introducing it. COURT: Okay. MR, ALTSHULER: Polly Campbell's here to testify, COURT: All right, go ahead. MR. ALTSHULER: --if I can get to it. Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER CONTINUED @ —T'n gonna quote this paragraph. "Are employees of the Attorney General's office authorized to make such statements? Is it your position that she is protected because she was acting within the scope of her employment when she said this? If and when we decide to file suit against Miss Campbell for defamation and Antentional infliction of emotional distress, will the State of Maine be defending this conduct? Will you accept service of process for the lawsuit that T am going to begin drafting?” Did you say that?10 aa 12 43 4 1s 16 v7 ae 19 20 2 22 2a 24 25 63 MR. RODWAY: The rule of completeness, Judge. MR. WAXMAN: Thank you. MR. RODWAY: Uh, he's: MR. ALTSHULER: Z'11 give it to you to read the entire thing COURT: Well, let--whoa, let's let Mr, Rodway—- MR. RODWAY: Oh, well-—well, hold on a second. COURT: --raise his objection. Go ahead, Mr. Rodway. MR. RODWAY: The, uh, rule of completeness requires, at the time that the statement comes in, that the rest of the statement, that puts it in context and makes it clear, comes in. So, T would 1ike to, at this tine, put the rest of the statement in. MR, ALTSHULER: absolutely. COURT: okay MR, RODWAY: UR, he said--he-- couRT: Well, 1/12 tell you what MR ALTSHULER: Let me just give it to him. that!s-— MR, RODMAY: No, no, no, no, no, no COURT: --1et's--let--why don't we do this. Just read the entire letter. If that's-—that's probably the best course cf action. t's probably the most efficient course of action as well, MR. RODWAY; ALL right, Michael and [sic]-- couRT: or--or, if you Just give it to me, Tt can read es |10 a 12 3 14 15 16 Fa 18 as 20 a 2 23 24 25 64 MR. ALTSHULER: I'm-—I'm introducing it as an-. MR. RODWAY: WelL, -- MR. ALTSHULER: --exhibit, Let me just give it to him, he can read it. COURT: Is there an ob--well, first of all, is there an objection to—cbjection to it being ex--introduced-— MR. RODWAY: There is no ebjection, but I~ cCURT: Admitted. MR. RODWAY: ~-but I want to make clear for the record what Mr. Altshuler left out, and I'd like to- COURT: And--and you can~- MR. RODWAY: --do that at this time courT: --and~-and you can do that-—just let me read the--the thing first, please MR, ALTSHULER: I (indiscernible)--r'm tryin’ to get done by 3:30, your Honor, I--you can read the whole thing, your Honor, I don't--I think it's fine. COURT: Thank you. 1/11 just--let me read it, and then we can—-we can discuss it further. (eavse) (Znaudible conversation) COURT: Okay. ='ve read it, thank you DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Q Mr. Waxman, wasn't it your intention, by weiting this10 a 2 13 14 1s 16 uv 18 19 20 aa 2 23 24 25 65 email, to intimidate Polly Campbell in being a witness on behalf of Mila? A ND Q Was it your intention to have her employer intimidate her or induce her to not testify-~ A No. (PAUSE) =r show you what's been @ ~-(indiscernible) - marked as Defendant's Exhibit--(PAUSE)--did you send this email to Jamie Wagner [sic] on August 14th, 20097 MR. RODWAY: Objection, -~ ME, WAXMAN: It's part of a string. MR. RODWAY: relevance. Objection, relevance. MR. ALTSHULER: Well, (indiscernible) -~ MR. RODWAY: Objection, relevance. This is— COURT: Right. No, I understand~ MR. ALTSHULER: =~ (indiscernible) -- COURT: --the objection. 1 understand the objection, Me. Rodvay. What--first of all, what is the relevance of this email from Mr. Waxnan to Mies Jamie Wag (sic]--or Me. Jamie—-whoev [sic]--as the case may MR. ALTSHULER: Mr. Wagner was an attorney, your Honor, who was considering taking Miss Handrahan's case, Part of my motion is that, uh, Mr. Waxman interfered with the edninistration of justice by trying to talk lawyers into not representing her. This is one of those emails. bea a2 43 14 15 16 7 28 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 66 couRT: Uh, well, it-— MR, ALTSHULER: If you look--your Honor, i¢ you (indisceenibie} COURT: I don't--I'm not sure if T saw that portion of your motion. ME, ALISHULER: Well, no, because this happened actually subsequent to the motion, —- CURT: Oh, okay. nd, clearly, MR, ALTSHULER: ~-but my count [sic] was 3 did raise in this motion (indiscernible) get it--uh, and actually on Page 2, um, it's prejudicial to the administration of justice, and this goes into that gamut because what we allege Mr. Waxnan done [sic]--did is to interfered with her ability to get (inaudible)-~ COURT: Oh--okay, T understand the allegation. un, maybe there's a pro [sic]--maybe--there might be aa, um-— um, due process issue here, uh, on notice, I don't know, Me. Rodvay, your comments? MR. RODWAY: Un, I don't think that we need to have a whole lot of preparation on this issue, If--if a lawyer could be charged with, uh, interference with the administration of justice every time he told another lawyer that he didn't 1ike the lawyer's client or said something bad about the lawyer's client, uh, you wouldn't have anybody with Levers10 a a2 13 14 as 16 re 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 67 MR, ALTSHULER: That goes to weight, your Honor, MR. RODWAY: I mean, this--this is— MR, ALTSHULER: --that doesn't go with [sic] the relevance. couRT: okay. I understand the--the objection, 1 ong as you're--there's no claim understand the--and--and a of, uh, surprise or prejudice because you can't—-uh, you can't meet the--the defense of this particular Exhibit #6, then r/11--r'11 introdu [sic]--1'11 allow Mr., uh, Altshuler to continue with it, Hie MR. RODWAY: We can meat it, couR?: ckay. Go ahead, MR, RODWAY: =-no problem. COURT: --Me. Altshuler, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Yos sent an email to Jamie Wagner, is that correct? I've sent several to him 2 Okay. T've only got two I'm gonna ask you about, and Lf you wanna put in the rest, it's fine with me, Um, you knew Mr. Wagner was considering representing De Handrahan, correct? A He told me that Q Okay. And, T'm gonna read-nis this what you said to hin? "She"--you're referring to Dr. Handrahan, when you said "ehe10 an a2 13 aa 15 16 a7 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 68 vee. 1s a despicable human being and this move is transparent and shameless, She does not care at all about her child. That is who your potential client is, and she has already gone through two lawyers, Dori Chadbourne and Ken Altshuler." That's what you said to him, is that correct? Yuh, that's among other-— and=— s-things, yes MR. ALTSHULER: Uh, Exhibit 6, your Honor COURT: Okay, any objection? MR. RODWAY: No cour: t's admitted, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Was your intention to discourage, uh, Me. Wagner from xepresenting Dr. Handrahan? No, as the pre [sic]--other emails that you have in your possession show very clearly Show you Exhibit 7 (ravse) (inaudibie conversation) Did you write this letter to Me. Wagner on August 14th, 20092 This email, yes.10 aa 12 43 a4 15 16 7 ae 1s 20 aa 22 23 24 25 69 Q And, it says, "Word to the wise, get a large retainer, this case is horribly acrimonious. she has--and she has stiffed the last attorney, Ken Altshuler, the G.A.u., Liz Stout, and the forensic psychologist, Carol lynn Rabacoff. Would love to deal with an attorney instead of a pro se. I hope you enter an appearance, but lewyer to lawyer, get paid first." You said that to him? A raid. MR. ALTSHULER: Uh, Exhibit 7, your Honor. couR?: Any objection? MR. RODWAY: No. COURT: It's admitted. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED @ And, your intention was--was your intention to discourage him from representing Dr. Handrahan? A Not even a little bit Exhibit @. (pause) (inaudible conversation) Q You wrote this email to me on July 13th, 20097 MR. RODWAY: I object, MR, WAXMAN: 1 did. MR RODWAY: ~-relevance. MR, ALTSHULER: (Indiscerntble) —~10 a 2 3 14 as 16 uw 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 70 COURT: Okay, what is Exhibit 8? MR. ALTSHULER: This ds an exhibit--this is an email Me. Waxnan sent to me, your Honor, in which he threatened to have me disbarred, sued, and prosecuted. COURT: Okay, how's it-- MR, RODWAY: It's--it's not relevant. It doesn't make Me. Maxnan a witness in the case, it doesn’t intimidate any witness in the case, Tt is, uh, telling Mr. Altshuler that Af he--if he coached hie client into making false allega~ tions of sexual abuse, he told him what he was gonna do that's it. 1 don't see how this is relevant to anything going on in this case MR, ALTSHULER: Firat of all, the threat of a prosecution, I think is violation of the bar rules, no matter who you make it to. Second of all, the fact that he he's saying that I would manufacture sexual threat [sic] abuse allegations, I think is inappropriate. Third of all, it--in ay opinion, this was another attempt by him to intimidate me to not participate in this suit [sic], and the D.H.H.S. case and the P.F.A. cage that followed the sex abuse allegations MR. RODWAY: It's only @ bar rule if you are threatening criminal prosecution to gain advantage in civil case. ‘That's not at all what this is about | MR, ALTSHULER: We'll let the bar [sic}~ Lo10 a 2 33 14 a5 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 n MR. RODWAY: There: ‘there isn't any YR. ALTSHULER: ~~ (inaudible) MR. RODWAY: --there isn’t any reason that Me. Waxman fe. As T understand it, would want Mr. Altshuler off the ce Me. Waxman, uh, won this cage hands down in the District Court against Mr. Altshuler, so they-~it--it doesn't make any sense, this claim that he wanted Mr. Altshuler off the MR. ALTSHULER: So, it's because I'm such a bad lawyer, he wanted me ME, RODWAY: No, MR. AUTSHULER: --to stay on? court: Actually, 1°11 take MR. RODWAY: --say that at all [sic] COURT: --1'11 take judicial notice that Mr. Altshuler's a very good lawyer MR, ALTSHULER: Thank you, T appreciate that MR. RODWAY: And I would—~ MR, ALTSHULER: Thank you MR. RODWAY: --stipulate to that. COURT: I'll be happy to do that MR. ALTSHULER: Thank you, your Honor. cout: um, -— MR. RODWAY: T would stipulate to that MR. ALTSHULER: I wasn’t taking it personally. ce30 n wz 3 14 a5 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 2a 2s 2 COURT: And, as you shouldn't, but let me just--let me Look at the--the rule MR. ALTSHULER: And, just so you know, your Honor, this also goes to the prejudicial and [#ic] the administration of Justice-- (indiscernible) motion COURT: Okay. Let me--let me take just a moment and find the rule and refaniliarize myself with it (pause) (Inaudible conversation) COURT: The--the rule is 3.6, sub C [sic], and it's very short, It says, "A lawyer shall not present or threaten to present criminal, administrative, oF disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.” ‘That's--that's the rule MR. AUTSHULER: Uh, correct. I believe it's-~1 believe that that was the purpose, but I have to ask him if that was the purpose. courr: I suspect--1 guess you could--you could read the rule in the context of this particular case to say that, lun--well, go--go ahead. We'll--we'll allow you to proceed MR, ALTSHULER: Thank you, your Honor. Uh, this is ay last oxhibit for this witness, your Honor, couRP: ALL right MR. AUTSHULER: -— (inaudible) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER CONTINUED, Cb10 a 12 a3 aa a5 16 a7 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 2B o> D> You sent me this email on July 13th, 2009, correct? Yes And, I'11 read the whole thing, so there's no accusation that I, uh, have only picked out pieces. ‘wen, if it turns out that Ricci [sic] and others determine that Lori has coached Mila to make up sexual and if you abuse claims, as I suspect will be the c were involved in any way in encouraging or turning a blind eye to that scheme, then I shall make it my ission to have you disbarred, sued, and prosecuted." You said that, correct? Would you continue? Yeah, T will--you said that much so far, correct? I said that, yuh. At that point, when you said that, did you believe T coached or involved [sic] Dr. Handrahan into making these allegations? “this is evidenced [ic] on a level I've never seen, and hope never to see again, a little girl is having her innocence stripped from her, and she is being traumatized, I think the evidence will show, because her mother must have control." So far-~ You read:10 n 2 a3 14 1s 16 7 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 aA 4 it well, yee. IAL the very least, you gave her the recipe, the plan for how to do this." Quote, "You can't make the complaint, a third party must", close quote, correct? COURT: A third party, excuse me? MR, ALTSHULER: "Third party must’ cOuRF: (Indiscernible) okay, MR, ALTSHULER: Your Honor, I'11--I'11 give you the ‘emails, let you read along, I don't mean to-~ just, 2 > o> coun: Well, t¢ it~ MR. WAXMAN: Yeah, it's not in evidence yet count: --hasn't been adaitted yet, T'11 just~-but I wanted--okay DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED ‘that came from a conversation you had, in which indicated that Mila had made allegations to Lori solely, but that without independent collab [sic] corroboration, I would never advise her to make any claims, wh, of sexual abuse, correct? That was a conversation we had? That's not exactly what you told ne. as that a fair paraphrase of it? Well, when you said, "At the very least, you gave her the recipe, the plan for how to do this", you ere10 u 2 a3 4 as 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 26 25 78 saying that T manufactured and created these allegations, are you not? and if it te, I'm suggesting that might be the case, then T will pursue you But, you believe it--you believed, when you wrote that, that this was the case? ves You were accusing me of participating in fraud, And you were threatening to have me disbarred, sued, and prosecuted, correct? 3 stain wian Okay, and you want me--you wanted me to either withdraw from the case or have her retract the allegations, or do something to stop those allegations, didn't you? Tant justice, Ken My question was, you wanted me to withdraw or stop Or Handrahan from making allegations against Mr. Malenko, is that correct? T wanted you not to be involved in a scheme of parental alienation that was harming a child. That's what 2 wanted, And you were assuming I was, and you were threatening me with prosecution, is that correct?10 aa 2 33 14 as 16 a 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 76 o> o> » op oy There's a couple of ifs in there, Ken. okay, But, you just said you believed I was part and parcel of fraud. You were accusing me—— rf de turns out. --of fraud a-that you are, I will seek to have you disbarred. But, Mr. Maxnan, you just said you believe--you believe that I manufactured these allegations. I coached her, -~ ‘ve coached her, I gave her the recipe and the plan okay how to do this. ‘That's a misleading question. I said that you gave her the recipe, the plan for how to do this 50, you'ze--you were accusing me of manufacturing an allegation of sexual abuse against a child? Kea, you told me, in our conversation—~ That's a yes or nom at day, —~ c-anwer, Me. Maxnan, You told me that she had some concerns, and that you then said to your client, "Well, you can't make these allegations ‘cause you'll be torn to shreds. You've10 an a2 a3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 n got to have a third party do that." That's what you told ne. And, Tim not--I'm not a witness, so I'm not gonna Gispute that, because that's not accurate, but my question to you is this-— MR, RODWAY: Ob--objection to his characterization~ MR. ALTSHULER: No, he- MR. RODWAY: --of that not being accurate—~ MR. ALTSHULER: I can't be a witness in this action. 1 can represent to the Court-~ MR. RODWAY; Judge--Judge, he can be @ witness into [ete] this action, -~ MR. AUTSHULER: (Indiscernibie) ~ MR. RODWAY: --and he's just made himself a witness. COURT: All right, Let's--let's just move on, pleas MR. RODWAY: I would just ask that--that—— COURT: T--I think MR, RODWAY: --that we strike his conments ‘cour: Well, okay. MR. ALTSHULER: Well, then, I'11 clo [sic]--cross examine him and '11 tell him what (sic}—~ MR. RODWAY: And have the Court disregard that A£--if you'ze going to--are COURT: Folks--folks, I'v you going to introduce this letter? MR, ALTSHULER: Yes.10 a 2 a3 14 a5 16 uw 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 78 COURT: Is it objected to? MR. RODWAY: Wo court: It's admitted. the letter, probably improperly ‘cause it wasn't admitted 1 read the letter. It speaks for itself. yet: MR, ALTSHULER: Fine, Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED ts--do you consider Me. Malenko a friend of yours? 1 do. And, do you socialize with him? x do. or Deo have you provided him with financial assistance in his personal life? in his personal life? » Yeah. MR. RODWAY: Objection, ~ MR, ALTSHULER: Have you given hin~ MR, RODWAY: --relevance. Relevance, your Honor. MR. ALTSHULER: It's--it ig--it is the financial assistance strand, your Honor, ‘That--that it's clearly in my allegations that it's (inaudible) — MR. RODWAY: Judge, in Litigation, if COURT; I'm reading the--the rule (pause) MR. AUTSHULER: xt's Rule 7 [sic] |10 ra 12 43 a4 a5 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 79 court: D [sic]. MR. ALTSHULER: --uh, 3.7(d) [sic], your Honor COURT: Yuh, I'm reading. (PAUSE) A1L right. what's the question? MR. ALTSHULER: Have you provided financial assistance--personal financial assistance to your client? MR, RODWAY: Objection, relevance couRT: overruled. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Have you given him money? No. @ Have you given him property, furniture? MR, RODKAY: Objection, relevance MR. ALTSHULER: That'a £i--that's financial assistance Tf he's buying furniture for him, your Honor, that's financial assistance. ‘but it--but--but the rule says comer: Well, ye [sic]~ that it has to be in connection with a contemplated or pending litigation MR. ALISHULER: Well, your Honor, I--I'm not sure that's mean, I understand it says, "while representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending Litigation” COURT: Mh. MR, ALTSHULER: But, it doesn't say the financial10 ry a2 a3 a4 as 16 uv a8 as 20 a 22 23 24 2s 80 assistance has to be related to that-~ CCURT: No, but dt--ie-- MB, ALTSHULER: --Litigation COURT: --the--no, but the assistance has to be somehow--there has to be some nexus there, or otherwise it just becomes meaningless. There has to be some nexus to the Litigation MR. ALTSHULER: Uh, I believe, your Honor, that. providing financial assistance to a client is a violation of the bar rules, if you cepresent that client CURT: Well, I'm not so eure that's true, MR. ALTSHULER: I may not--I may be wrong, but at least [aie]— COURT: And I might be wrong too, but-~ MR, ALTSHULER: But I'd at least like to preserve it for the record in case-~ couRT: Okay, go- MR, ALTSHULER: --I'm right couRr: --go right ahead MR, ALTSHULER: Fair enough? COURT: Go right ahead. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED @ Have you given Me furniture? AT gave him some child furniture that I no longer20 a 2 13 14 15 16 a7 18 a9 20 a 2 23 24 25 a1 needed. Q — Heve you ever taken him out to dinner and paid for a neal with hin? MB. RODWAY: Objection, relevance MB. ALISHULER: (Indiscernible)--I'm just laying the fou [sic]-- court: Okay, ~ MS, ALTSHULER: --r've got two more questions, and (indiscernible) —— ccuRT: --overzuled. MR. WAXMAN; I bought him, and we shared some mushroom quesadillas and a beer at Shay's [sic], and X bought him a dinner of, uh, pulled pork at Beale Street [sic], with and I've given him beer in my house, on occasion. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER CONTINUED Q Uh, he comes over to your house frequently? A He's been there two or three times with my children, yes: MR, AMISHULER: I have nothing further, your Honor, CouRT: okay, thank you. Any, wh--I guess we'll call At ceose examination. MR. RODWAY: Yes couRT: Go ahead. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY Tanna ask you about this, uh, email that you sent to10 a 2 3 14 1s 16 uv a8 a9 20 aa 22 23 24 25 22 Me, Altshuler, um, on July 13th, 2003, in which you say that i£--££ you find out that he's involved in these false allegations of sexual ebuse, that you'll have hin, uh, disbarred, sued, and prosecuted, —~ ves. ssn, you were talking earlier about--about how you had @ conversation with Mr. Altshuler and he said, uh--he-~ he told you about his client's concerns of sexual abuse, is that right? correct. And, uh, he told you that he told his client that she would need a third party in order to make any sort of a claim of sexual abuse, is that right? correct, A third party witness? Is that what you're talkin’ about? Yee, that's what my understanding was. ALL eight, what's the next thing that happened in, uh, the context of these allegations of sexual abuse? Well, there apparently was a referral made on July 11 by--by somebody, um, which was three days after the court finally noticed some hearings in this case. Um, this, I assumed, had to have been subsequent to Mr. Altshuler's advice to his client that she couldn't make these allegations, she had to have a third party do it a10 n a2 13 14 1s 16 re a8 as 20 aa 22 23 24 25 83 Q Did a third party show up in the context of the sexual abuse allegations? MR. ALTSHULER: Objection, foundation (pxvse) COURT: Uh, sustained. (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED © Did you, um, speak to your client about, uh, these sexual abuse allegations? A raid. @ And, um, did you speak to anybody else about the sexual abase allegations? A Tive spoken to a number of people about these. Q All Fight. Did--did any person that you talked to tell you about a third party showing up? A Well, that sane day, on July 13th, MR, ALTSHULER: Objection, if he's gonna say what @ third party said to him, your Honor MR, WAXMAN: I'm gonna say what you said to me MR, RODWAY: Judge, it's--it's to explain this, uh, email MR ALISHULER: It's still hearsay, your Honor. I-- MR. RODWAY: Well, it's not hearsay if it's not used for the truth of the matter asserted. Well, (indiscernible) -~ MR, ALTSHULEE10 a 2 a3 a4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 MR. RODWAY: I'm laying the foundation, which was Mr. Altshuler's objection to, uh, Mr. Waxman explaining this-— this, uh--this email, why he thought that Mr. Altshuler might have something to do, at least in terms of providing a recipe, which 4s the language in the email ME, ALTSHULER: Well, first of all, your Honor, the: the--whether a third party was present, that is the truth of the matter asserted. ‘That's what he's asking the question [sic], and it's going toward whether a third party was present, so that is actually going to the truth of the matter asserted. It's absolutely hearsay. That's-—that's what the question's COURT: What was the exact question again, Mr. Rodway? king MR. RODWAY: 1 can’t remeber: MR, ALTSHULER: And, Lf it helps the Court, your Honor, Polly Campbell, who's here to testify, was a third party Present. I'm happy to stipulate that allegations were made to her, and she was a third party, and she reported this TE that's what they're getting at, T'm just gonna-—that's—— K/L. stipulate to that MR. RODWAY: t's exactly (inaudible) COURT: Okay, if-— MR, ALTSHULER: I'm fine with that. couRT: Okay. MR ALTSHULER: And--and she's gonna testify, so he10 a a2 a3 14 as 16 7 a8 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 2s could ask her that anyway. COURT: Okay, go ahead, (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED Q T's true, isn't it, that--that after having this conversation with Mr. Altshuler, which he told you about the communications that he had with his client, uh, during which he told her, "You need a third pazt; MR. ALTSHULER; I'm gonna cbject to--that's not what. ‘even he said I said, that you need a third party. That's not whet I said, and that's not even what he said I said ME, WAXMAN: Tt's precisely what you said. MR. ALTSHULER: It is not, and it's not what you said said. MR. WAXMAN: Are you a witness? (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED @ Well, Let me ask you, what--what did Ken Altshuler tell you that his cli--that——that he said to his client about these allegations of sexual abuse? What did he tell you? | A He told me that, for a few weeks, his client had had sone concerns and—-about some kind of, uh, behavior, or the child may have been, um, abused, and that, uh, he told his client, "You can't make any complaints yourself because you will get thrashed and torn to20 a a a3 Fry 45 16 ro 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 Fieces, you need to have a third party do that." And, later on in the day, you told me, Ken, that third party was Polly Campbell Q@ All Fight. So--so, you learned from Ken Altshuler that, lo and behold, uh, after-— MR. ALTSHULER: This doesn't sound like a question to me. "so and behold” has never been part of a question that. Iive ever known [sic] MR. RODWAY: Can I finish my question? MR. AUTSHULER: Wo, T object to it—— courr: well, —~ MB. ALTSHULER: --as argunentative, CORT: --well, why don't you rephrase the--the question, Mr. Rodway (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED @ Um, after having this (indiscernible) — COURT: Unless "lo and behold" was part of the actual language MR. RODWAY: I added the “lo and behol. MR, ALTSHULER: No, really? CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED Q tm, after having this conversation with Mr, Altshuler, during which he told you that he told his client that thet she would need a third party, Polly Campbell shows vp ase third party? Is that correct, Me. Waxman?10 a 2 a3 a4 1s 16 uw 18 19 20 aa 2 23 24 25 a7 A That's how it happened. And, that precipitated this enail, did it not? It did indeed. (enuse And that's why you thought and--and hoped that it wasn't true, but thought that perhaps Mr. Altshuler could have had something to do with that? A x And, at least he could've given her the message that. this is how you go about making 2 claim of sexual abuse that will stick? A That was my thought Q Ard, was, uh, an investigation performed, um, into these allegations of sexual abu MR. ALTSHULER: Objection, irrelevant, — MR. RODWAY: =-by D.H.H.S.? MR, ALTSHULER: --your Honor. They're way beyond my. email, That's--2 mean, that's--where are we going here? court: Welz, MR. RODWAY: I'11 tell you where we're going, Judge MR. ALTSHULER: Yuh, I can't wait to hear this MR, RODWAY: Um, there's an email in evidence where Mr Waxman writes to Michael Kearney and talks about Polly-— COURT: That's #57 MR. RODWAY: Correct, yes. Talks about Polly Campbell,10 an 2 13 “4 as 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 ee uh--wh, saying--let me see. PAUSE) COURT: I have it right here, if you need it MR, RODWAY: Talks about Polly Campbell, saying, uh, —~ \audible conversation) MG, RODWAY: —-and, uh, she's the referent—-does not have ary evidence about this, just her sixth sense. This is the--is the third party reporter of the sexual abuse COURT: Mh, MR. RODWAY: Uh, MR. ALTSHULER: What does that have to do with an Anvest ization? MR. RODWAY: Me. Waxman will testify that this email came after the investigation was complete, and that the Department did not substantiat: MR ALTSHULER: Oh, I cbje [sic]--the—— MR. RODWAY: -~abuse-— MR, ALTSHULER: --the investigation is not comp [sic]-~ T object. The investigation is not complete, the Department has not issued any report, and that should be stricken from the record because that is not true COURT: Okay, well, MR. WAXMAN: I'm sorry, it's not true? MR. ALTSHULER: That's correct, -— MR, RODWAY: (Indiscernibie) ~ PoFr) an 2 13 14 as 16 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 a3 YR, ALTSHULER: -~the investigation is not complete MR. RODWAY: Judge, the investigation is complete, the Departnent has taken an official position that they have-- MR. ALTSHULER: Your Honor, —- MR. RODWAY: ~~unsubstantiated— COURT: Okay, wait a minute here. MR. RODWAY: Llegations of abuse. court: ALL right ME, ALTSHULER: First of all, all of that is hearsay. My hears [sic]—-my understanding is very different, we don't have the COURT: Wait—-wait a minute. ve opportunity or the, uh, time right now to litigate any potential child protective case MR. ALTSHULER: Correct, COURT: We don't have the time to litigate a lot of the underlying accusations that are being made in some of these documents and sone of the testimony, So, I guess, Mr. Rodway, what's the relevance of whether or not there has been en investigation and what the results, if any, are? MR, RODWAY: Because Mr, Waxnan's intent in having this communication with Mr.—-Mr. Kearney in particular, and the other communication with Mr. Altshuler, and the communication with Mr. Wagner has been called into question His intext is to stop the false allegations of sexual abuse in this case. fle, uh, is rightly incensed by it, and he is PSa a2 a3 a4 35 16 7 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 90 taking an aggressive posture towards those who couRT: okay, MR. RODWAY: ~-make false allegations (indiscernible) -- COURT: No, I--okay, no, wait--no, no, atop. I understand that. T understand that--that assertion. Now, whether or not the Department of Health and Human Services conducts an investigation, and irrespective of their finding, this can be a--a——this can be a legitimate and, un, sincere belief on the part of Mr. Waxman, doesn't matter whether the Department substantiates or not. Isn't that right? T mean, his--Mr. Waxman! =~ MR. RODWAY: Yes, it is right COURT: ~~sincerity in--in--in the thoughts expressed in some of these documents can be--um, can be genuine and Sincere, irrespective of whether he's right oz wrong, correct, ultimately on the issue? MR. RODWAY: They can be unreasonable, though, if he's wrong. court: Welt, —— MR. ALTSHULER: Can be unreasonable if he's right MR. RODWAY: It goes to the--it goes to the reasonableness of his, um, attitudes and his actions in this COURT: The--I--I'm--r'm looking at the evidence in-—in this particular hearing and--and, frankly, in this whole10 aa 2 3 14 45 16 uw 18 a 20 a 22 23 24 25 a case in the context of what is probably the most contentious and the most, um, difficult case I can imagine, and so, T guess rather than waste some time as to whether the Department has a--has an ongoing investigation or not, whether they've made a determination or not, I--that's not gonna help me much in determining, uh, the motion to Gisqualicy, frankly, Un, whether or not Me, Waxman's sincere and whether or not he’s wrong in-~in——in the statements that he's made in these documents really doesn't turn to me [sic] on whether the Department finds substanti— substantiates the, uh--the allegations or not, MB. RODWAY: Let me just ask this question. CURT: Okay. MR. ALTSHULER: Well, I wanna add one thing, based on what he said, for the record. T think exactly what Mr. Rodman [sic] said, which is Me. Waxman—— MR, RODWAY: It's Rodway. MR. ALTSHULER: Mr. Rodvay. What did I say? MR. RODWAY: Rodman. COURT: He's not--he's not the former—~ MR ALTSHULER: Somehow they com [sic]~- COURT: --N.B.A. player, MR. ALTSHULER: --r don't know why it came to ay mind, Me. Rodkay--that Mr. Waxman will do anything to derail the Anvestigation, and that's my point, and Z think Mr. Rodwayrr az 3 14 as 16 uw 18 19 20 aa 2 23 24 2s 92 is saying exactly that. COURT: Okay. MR. RODWAY: Let me just ask this question—— COURT: Can we--do we mR, RODWAY: 5 to the timing—— COURT: --okay, go ahead. MR, RODWAY: --of the, uh——of the email to Mr Kearney, —— courr: 457 MR. RODWAY: uh, in relation to the D.#.S., uh-—um, investigation. (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED @ Mas it compiete at the time you sent that email? There had been a letter of unsubstantiation that had been sent out before this took place. Q Al Fight. (PAUSE) I wanna ask you about: (Inaudible conversation) Q ~-making yourself a witness in this case, Un, first of all, Judge Moskowits probably knows this better than me, but--but let me ask you, What are the issues in these post divorce motions? A The issues are who should be the primary residential Parent, wh, whether or not, uh, Mise Handrahan should have the right to relocate, um, that kind of thing Q ALD right10 a Fry a3 1a 1s 16 a 18 a3 20 2a 2 23 24 25 93 MR. ALTSHULER: Uh--okay, go ahead (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODKAY CONTINUED Q Are there any other issues? Apparently, Mr. Altshuler thinks there are other issues. MR. ALTSHULER: I'11--r'11 recro [sie]--r'11 recross [sic], okay. MR, WAXMAN: Uh, those are the--the gravamen of the (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR, RODWAY CONTINUED @ All Fight, So—so, primary residence is an issue? A ves @ Where the child should live is an issue? A ye @ What do, uh, the Bradens have to do with that, in your mind? A Nothing. 2 Um, what does your conversation with the Bradens, uh, have to do with that? A Nothing. Q What does the Brade (sic]--well, just let me ask you this question. Does the fact that the Bradens wouldn't tell, uh, Tgor anything about where the child had been thet day, even though Igor had, uh, shared parental rights and responsibilities, and where--where they Live, and what they do, and ell that--um, does——