a0 uu 12 3 1 a 16 a 1 29 20 a 2a 2a 2a 25 COURT: And the issue here before the Court is harassment as it'e defined under the statute. So, we need to focus on what the purpose of this proceeding is versus any other type of form WITNESS: I think the best way T could answer that and describe it is it’s as if he was the party on the other side instead of the attorney. It’s--it's involvement, it’s an ion, it is--it is simply such a preoccupation of his obsess Life. Tt goes to such extreme in terms of time, in terms of energy, in terms of vehenence, and--and hostility in the e- mails. It's just a total extreme involvement, an enersion, and presentation in--in how Attorney Waxnan is advocating his position, or his client's position. I think--I'm not even sure if there's a distinction between the two. MR. WAXMAN: Okay. Your Honor, T move to strike all of that testimony because it has nothing to do with what is required under the harassment statute. Even if we take as true his assumption that I have becone merged with my client and I’ve become an incredibly passionate advocate, as if 1 were my client, how does that get us to what T'n doing is made with the intention of causing fear, intimidation, or damage to property? Tt doesn’t get us anywhere close to that. MS, HANDRAHAN: No, COURT: ‘The motion to strike is denied. It’s a question of weight 10010 Pay 2 3 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 22 2 2 24 25 MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, I/11 ask then directly, becaus2 Mr. Altehuler- COURT: T've just denied- MS. HANDRAHAN: Oh. COURT: --the motion to strike MS. HANDRAHAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So, I go on with my next question? court: ves. MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN © So, Mr. Altshuler, three--have there been, in your opinion, three or more acts of intimidation-- MG. WAXMAN: Objection. COURT: Sustained, MS, HANDRAAN: I can't ask that. Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN © The last is, you mentioned that you're not even sure anymore whether he's advocating for his client or advocating for himsel£ MS. HANDRAHAN: And there’s a series of e-mails that have never been seen by the Court before, so this was not part of the disqualification hearing, they have not been adjudicated where Mc. Altshuler continually is saying, *Let’s get this MR. WAXMAN: Excuse me. Excuse me. If she’s gonna talk 101about exhibits that have not been admitted into evidence, I’ve got a problem. they need to be marked, shown to Mr COURT: They need Waxman. We need to have thom identified, and we need to know what the question is. MS. HANDRAHAN; Okay. ‘The question is: couRT: They--we need to have them marked if you're going to be offering them. and it’s going to be one packet, is that right? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes, Your Honor. (Pause) Your Honor, do I give these to mr. Altshuler now, or do I proffer them to the court? The-- cout: You going to ask Mr. Altshuler a question about them? You've seen what these are? MR. WAXMAN: I've seen them just now. curr: Al1 right DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Mr, Altshuler, these are a series of e-mails made at various times when you were still representing me. MR. WAXMAN: Wait a minute. They have not yet been admitted into evidence, correct? sare you going to ask him a question about court: she che e-mails? MS. HANDRAHAN: I am, yes. YR, ALTSHULER: Okay. 10210 u a2 a a4 a5 16 uv 18 19 20 an 22 23 24 2s COURT: what is the question? MS. HANDRAHAN: The question is DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN how much effort did you put how many times, in general fcrward in trying to get Mr. Waxman to settle this out of MR. WAXMAN: I object on a number of grounds. settlement @iscussions are certainly not relevant or not admissible in evidence. So, I don’t think that should be something she should de pernitted to ask. And I--absolute privilege once again, Your Honor: COURT: Your--your question is whether there were numerous efforts to settle the case? MS. HANDRAHAN: To not continue the Litigation. ‘The thing is that the litigation itself constitutes harassment, and I want to offer to the Court there’s been a new case recently in Canada where the court has said they refused to be a pawn in a divorce case and have refused to allow abuse of process. And Mr. Wasman is conducting abuse of process in Litigation--the refusal to end litigation is (Indiscernible) damaging to me and my child, is intention infliction of emotional. [sic] And what t was hoping was that Maine courts would fcllow suit with Canada and refuse to be a pawn in allowing ongoing Litigation. and Mr. Altshuler--what T need to prove to you, Your Honor, is that T would have done 103anything not to be in this courtroom teday. I would have done anything not to be in this courtroom ever, T just want to get on with my life. I want to take care of my child, 1 want her to Live— MR, WAXUAN: Objection, MS. HANDRAHAN: --and there have been so many efforts made to end this case. And it’s not Mr. Malenko who won't fend, it’s Mr. Waxman who won’t end the case, Your Honor. COURT: Okay HANDRAHAN: And that’s what some of these e-mails attest to MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, she’s just put her finger on why this Court should rule right now that absolute privilege. She's told you that this Litigation equals harassment. she wants this Litigation to stop. I shouldn't have to be here Your Hoxor. This shouldn't be before this Court. My special motion :o dismiss under the anti-slapp statute absolutely is appropriate. This is petitioning activity on behalf of mr. Malenko, which the constitution protects. ‘That‘s what I’m doing. Tf she wants to fight that, that’s her choice. 1 shouldn't: be drawn into this MS. HANDRAHAN: 1 don't want to fight anything, T want to just take care of my child, Your Honor. May I offer a piece of evidence on. COURT: Just hang on, we're--we're still dealing with Loa10 a 2 13 uu 35 16 uv 18 a9 20 a 2 23 24 25 this potential question here, and that’s whether there--the settlenent efforts in the case. the Link MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, if I might add, th is where Mr. Waxman--it‘s become personal for him, And Mr see the boundaries anymore, Altshuler attested that he can’ that it's not about Mr. Malenko, it's about mr. Waxman, which means it’s harassment and it’s not this anti-slapping thing, because it has nothing to do with Malenko anymore, it's Mr Waxman's own obsession that's driving this case forward, and that’s what some of those e-mails attest to. MB. WAXMAN: Are you picking up the--is the Court picking vp her narrative? CcuRP: Mr. Waxman, the clerk is very sensitive to the issue of making sure that the record is preserved, so MR. WAXMAN: I appreciate that. court: --1 don’t think we have any problem here if there hasn't deen an indication from the clerks that they can’t hear anyone who is speaking, Now, back to--the issue is whether or not this question is allowed as to efforts at settlement. All right. I'm going to overrule the objection. You may answer the question, which as I understand it, were there efforts to settle the case. MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. court: All right. The answer UISIESS: Let me make it clear. After the divorce was 10510 n 2 3 14 15 16 7 1B 9 20 a 22 23 24 25 over--the divorce hearing, up to, I believe, the time I filed my motion to disqualify Mr. Waxman, I did nothing except try I thought it to make efforts to settle this case, because T was spiraling downward even worse than it had before DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Q Mz, Altshuler, you--you were aware and you made Me. Waxman aware in these e-mails that I would lose my job if T didn't relocate to Washington by June and that it wouldn't be in my child's best interest for me not to ave an income, You were arguing, *Please, we'll give you an expansive visitation-- COURT: Excuse me, you're giving testinony-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Oh, I’m sorry. T just-- COURT: --in this question MS, HANDRAKAN: --didn’t understand the difference. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor--Your Honor, we are WS, HANDRAHAN: Shall T reframe the question? MR. WAXMAN: Excuse me. T need to have my chance to make a record. Okay? Your Honor, what Ms. Handrahan-- COURT: Excuse me. Where--there’s no question pending ‘The plaintiff was starting to give testimony in the course of asking a question. T cannot allow that and 1 stopped that So, T need to have a question. Tf theres a question to which you object, you'll have the opportunity to make your objection 10810 u 22 3 a 15 16 ar aa 1 20 a 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Q tas it clear that T would lose my job if we didn’t settle out of court? MR. WAQIN: Objection, Your Honor, I don’t understand why we're getting involved in all these mini trials. We're gonna te here all week if we do this. What--we had discussions with regard to settlement. What relevance does that have to this harassment claim today? CoURT: I think we're getting into questions that were addressed in the family matter case, is that not correct? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes, Your Honor, but the--the trouble is that-- court: well, that-- MS. HANDRAHAN: --the--what T need--the burden of proof on me is quite complicated. It’s that I need to, I believe, prove that this has become personal. Mr. Waxman is driving forward the litigation. The litigation itself-- couRT: But the issue of MS. HANDRAHAN: --is harassment. cout: --relo--relocation was something that was addressed in the family matter: MS, HANDRAHAN: Tt was overturned though by the Supreme court, yes. COURT: But it--whatever it was--whatever the outcome, it has already been addressed in the family matter proceeding, 10710 a 2 a3 14 15 16 uv 18 19 20 a 23 28 25 correct? Ms. HANDRAHAN: courr: Well, ~ WITNESS: No, the divoree COURT: But St Wae--it was eliminated as an issue for--in the Law Court decision, is that-- wrmmess: At the-- ccuRT: I--1 understand. MG, WAXMAN: Excuse me, Your Honor, if T may? COURT: The Law Court decision speaks for itself. MR. WAXMAN: Tt does. COURT: So, we're not here on the family matter proceed- ing, and 1 think we are getting off into the specific issues in that case, and I'm concerned about relitigating or enbarkiag on Litigation in something that really belongs in the family matter proceeding. MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay, we can--I can remove that question, and let‘s get to the intentional infliction of emotional distress comRT: I’m going to sustain any objection with respect to the relocation issue. MS, HANDRAHAN: Okay, And the employment issue, may T ask that? COURT: Is that the relocation issu.10 a 2 3 4 15 16 w 18 19 20 2 2 23 25 MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes, it is, Your Honor Court: 1'm going to sustain an objection to- MS, HANDRAHAN: Okay. couRT: --to that MS. HANDRAHAN: And may T ask about mediation efforts then? The media--the--it’s that we--Mr. Waxman will never settle this case. There's (Indiscernible) to the harassment. and intimidation of me, but there's no way out for me, Your Honor. [sic] MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, ~~ MS. HANDRAHAN: He continues to litigate against everyboly begging him to stop, which Mr, Altshuler just attested to. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, once again she’s testifying. She talks about settlement as if it's a personal injury case. We have to determine what's in the best interest of a child ‘That’s vhat this case is about COURT: Well, we're not going to get into the issues that are at the heart of the family matter case here, So, T’m going to sustain any objection on inguiry into that-~ MS. HANDRAKAN: Okay. cour: --arena MS. HANDRAHAN: May T put forward to the--the Court--this is the last--this is a case in Canada where the court has said-~ 109io a 1a a a 15 a6 w a8 1 20 2 2 23 2a COURT: That's a matter for argument. If youre arguing that the--the— MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes, of course: COURT: --this Court should consider-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. COURD: --whatever the ruling is in that case, that’s not ~-do yeu have a question about it with respect to- MS. HANDRAHAN: T have a question, yes ccuR?: —-r, Altshuler? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. COUR: what is the question? MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, the--the question is, ie the ongoing litigation itself harassment. couRr: All right. MR. WAXYAN: Objection. Tt's-- cour?: sustained. MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAW Q Mr. Altshuler, how many times have you testified against another attorney? MR. WAXMAN: Objection, Objection. what possible relevance does that have to today’s proceeding? NS, HANDRAHAN: T would say that it’s fairly extraordinary for another menber of the legal community to come forward against their oum-— 11010 rr 2 23 uM a5 16 uw »® 19 20 a 22 24 25 courr: i'm going-— MS. HANDRAHAN: ~~ (Indiscernible) COURT: --1'm going to sustain the ebjection. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN © Mr, Altshuler, why did you come to testify today? MR. WAXMAN: Objection. 1 don’t care why he has. nis motivation to testify has nothing to do with me. COURT: What is the purpose of this question? MS. HANDRAHAN: The purpose is to prove how extrene and outrageous the behavior is and the extent of the harassment and the--and the erotional danage intentionally on me. Tt-- it's tremendous. I want to show the Court the extent. this isn’t your run-of-the-mill, emall thing, a few e-mails have been seat and T’n making a mountain out of a mole hill, Your Honor. This is unprecedented couRT: I'm going to sus MR, WAXMAN: You know, I/L1--okay. COURT: Axe you withdrawing the objection? MR. WAXMAN: No. No, I/11 maintain the objection. COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Altshuler for your time. WIOESS: Well, there's an exhibit here. COURT: Mr. Waxman, are you going to cross examine Mr Altshuler?10 a 12 3 14 as 1s uv 18 19 20 a 23 26 25 MR. WAXMAN: Briefly. COURT: We've been--we need to take probably a break, MR. WAXMAN: I won't be more than five or ten minutes with Ken. And I'm mindful of his time courr: All right, If that’s the case, then we can proceeé with your cross examination. ME. WAXMAN: All right, Morning, xen. WITNESS: Good morning CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR, WAXMAN Q This is a rather unusual case, isn't it? A don't know what you--can you explain what you mean? Q ‘This is an extraordinarily acrimonious case, is it not? AT would agree. Q Have you ever had a case in which your e-mails and letters and pleadings have been scrutinized by a Court? A Actually, T have. Q Ever in a PPH situation? A No. Q Okay. Let me ask you, if in a divorce case your e-mails “which, by the way, you--you're pretty good at responding to e-mails, correct? AT Like to think so. © okay. TE you knew at the outset that all of your e mails, all of your letters, all of your pleadings could be considered harassment by the opposing party in a10 n 22 3 4 a 16 uv 18 19 20 a 22 23 2 25 divorce case, would that have any impact on your willing- ness to be a divorce lawyer? AT assume everything 1 write in a case could be seen by a judge. And I keep that in mind every tine I write sonething okay. So, you don't have any problem with that? A I think people have to be--I think lawyers have to be very careful about what they write in e-mails, and letters, and pleadings. I think it’s possible to does not aévocate a position in a manner that is not exacerbate the conflict between the parties. Although 1 have been criticized before for saying things in pleadings that were perceived by the Court to be a tad over the top. tm August--1'm sorry, in June and July of 2009 your client said some things to you that she felt were concerning about sexual abuse possibly of her daughter, HS, HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, relevancy objection, please This isn't about that. This is about Mr. Waxman’s behavior ‘This has nothing to do with- MR, WAXMAN: Well, I-- MS, HANDRAHAN: -—the sex abuse case MR. WAXMAN: I think I’m entitled to get into the bias this particular witness has10 a 12 B 15 16 Ww 18 19 20 2 22 23 26 25 MS. HANDRAHAN: t's irrelevant unless we can enter Dr Ricei‘s report, It's irrelevant. couRT; Excuse me. If you have an objection, you need to stand vp. MS. MANDRAHAN: Oh, I'm sorry. CouRr: What is the purpose of the question? MR. WARAN: Okay. The evidence will be and was at this Gisqualification hearing that this plaintif® brought to him some cencerns she had about her child being sexually abused, that he apparently then said to her-- NE. HANDRAHAN: Ob--objection. COURT: dust--just one moment, please, Ms. Handrahan, 1 need to hear from Mr. Waxman as to what his MR. WAXMAN: Apparently he said-~ coun: --purpose is. MR. WAG: --to her, *You can't make these accusations, you mus: have a third party." And then shortly thereafter a third party in the person of Polly Campbell cane into the scene and filed a referral with the Child Protective Services. okay? t think that shows that this particular witness has a bias in favor of the plaintifé, chat he’s been inappropriate with regard to his own advice and counsel to her. And 1 think it’s relevant to his credibilicy. COURT: That he advised that there was a need for an expert or a third opinion? Is that what your question is?10 a 2 3 1“ 15 16 uv 18 ct 20 24 25 MR. WAXMAN: ‘That he told her that in order to have a credible claim of sexual abuse that she needed to find a third party to make that report to DHS. And that, in fact, she followed his advice to the letter MS. HANDRAHAN: Your obje-- court: But-- MS. HANDRAHAN: --this is hearsay. CouRT: --how does this--you're saying it’s a credibility issue with respect to this witness? MS. WAXMAN: Yeah. COURT: I'm not sure I understand the: WR. WAXMAN: Well, I believe he has already-- COURT: --the connection here. MR, WAXMAN: --denied such things. He's denied that he gave her the blueprint co file a sexual abuse claim COURT: But this is not-- MR, WAKMAN: And I’m going co cestify-- COURT: We're here--that was something that was already Litigated? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes, Your Honor. MR WAXMAN: By DHHS, yes. And they found no substantiation cour: ALL right. But that’s not--the--we/re not here Litigating the- MR. WAXMAN: ALL rightia Fry a aa a5 16 a as 19 20 a 22 23 24 out what's--whether I can COURT: --sexual abuse issue WR. WAXMAN: 1/11 withdraw the question courr: All right. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAKIAN Ken, let me just go through this case, because I think the Court needs to understand, and certainly the Court stould take judicial notice of 2009-ME-96, the Appeals court decision in the case. But it’s true, is it not, that--and you know this from being involved in the @ivorce--that when the divorce began Ms. Handrahan was claiming that Igor Malenko suffered from mental illness, correct? MS. HANDRAHAN: Your--Your Honor, this is all irrelevant BR, WAXMAN: ‘That—~ ¥ need to know what the question is, please cour: MS. HANDRAHAN: And it’s hearsay. COURT: I need to know what the question is before you enter your objection, t's very difficult for me to figure the way T should rule on it if T haven’t heard it. What is the question? MR. WAXMAN: The question is-~ CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN “isn't it true this case began--the divorce case that is--with Ms. Handrahan claiming that ay client, tgor Malenko, was mentally disturbed? True? 116uu 12 a3 4 15 16 uv 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 Aone XS, HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, this is hearsay. court: Right. And-- MS. HANDRAHAN: And I don’t see how it’s relevant. He's offering testimony MR, WAXMAN: Let me tell you why it’s relevant COUR: What is--all right, what is the puzpose of this? MR. WAXYAN: Okay. We've had him; that is, Mr. Altshuler, and the plaintiff talk about how extraordinary this case is and how my efforts have gone beyond zealous advocacy. Okay? So, T want the Court to understand just what has been involved in this horrendously acrimonious divorce case so that the--the Court understands that 1 didn’t simply becone a zealous advocate out of thin air, court: All right. Ts the--well, first of all, there-— there are two things going on here. One is not whether there’s zealous advocacy but whether there's harassment. But is there an issue--or are these the subject of decisions-~ court decisions that are already-- MR. WAXMAN: ‘The Law Court decision-- court: --publishea? MR. WAXMAN: takes us up to the divorce, which was a Little over a year ago. Since that period of time there have been several things that have taken place that have required my involvement, aay10 1 a 23 1 a5 16 uv 18 a9 20 an 2a a 2a 2s COURT: Since--all right MR. WAXMAN: 1 don’t know what else to say to this court, Your Honor. I have been acting as a lawyer at all times for a client and doing what I think is appropriate-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, he’¢ YR. WAXVAN: --under the circumstances, and in response to things that have been done by this particular petitioner That's what T have done MS. HANRAHAN: He's offering testimony. MR. WAXMAN: And I want to simply-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, this is testimony. COURT: No, it’s-—it’s not. I'm trying to explain what-~ MR. WAXMAN: And 1 Court: --undergtand what his position is in asking this questicn. Go ahead. MB, WAXWAN: I simply want this attorney--and I--you know what, I could do it myself as well, but 1 want this Court to understand just how acrimonious this case has been COURT: My concern here is if--if these issues are already reduced to some opinion or decision or judgment that has bees reduced--is available for judicial notice, then T think we ought to address it that way as opposed to through testimony, because I don’t want to relitigate other cages in the context of this one. MR. WAXMAN: I'm mindful of that. I’m mindful of that 11810 u 12 3 14 15 16 a 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 cour: so, YR. WAXMAN: However, the Law Court decision--may I, Your Honor? The Law Court decision, which is, I think, Septenber Ist, 2009, relates back of course to events that took place up to and including the date of the divorce judgment, which was Decenber 29, 2009. MS. HANDRAEAN: Your--Your-~ MR. WAXMAN: Since that time there have been a nunber NS. HANDRAHAN: |Your Honor, -~ couRT: Just please--please, T need to hear what his position is before T can hear from you. Hang on, MR. WAXMAN: Since that time there have been a nunber of events that have required me to act in my client's case. and r--r'm having-- couRT: But T--as I understand it, you are asking him about the commencement of-~ MR, WAXMAN: That’s correct. And I'm mindful of your-~ court: --of the-- MR, WAXVAN: --statement cour: --the divorce, and that's--that’s something-- MR, WAXMAN: Okay. COURT: --that's historical at this point with a decision having been issued--or a number of decisions. Ig that right? MR, WAXMAN: ‘That's correct, Your Honor. couRT: 0, what is--what is it now that you are askingFT) u aa 3 u 15 16 uv 18 » 20 a 2 24 25 2 Okay. this witness? CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN @ Hen, isn’t it true that there have been a number of Legal actions taken, including appeals, motions to disqualify, tais motion--or--or there are other--this action for a FH against me, and a PFA filed against Mr. Malenko-- there have been a number of actions since the date of the @:vorce that, as Mr, Malenko’s counsel, I've had an obligation to respond to, true? A Well, the actions I’ve been involved with is the divorce, the appeal, and the motion to disqualify. If you're asking me if I think that there’s been extraneous motions and pleadings filed that were not necessarily necessary, I would say yes, 1 think this case is out of control, and has been since I got out of it 9 Your client's out of control, too, right? Ms.--Ms Handrahan? ‘Tell me your office's perception of her when you were representing her, please. A Do I--1 believe that my office's perception of her was that she was highly enotional, highly enotionally charged, high maintenance to a certain extent, but I--r wouldn’t say her behavior--if I'm comparing your behavior with her behavior, 1 would say your behavior is more over the top than hers |. by the way, it’s your belief, ie it not, that 12010 an 2 3 Ey 1s 16 w 18 19 20 a she does not suffer from any mental disorder, correct? MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, this is irrelevant. WITNESS: It's my belief that she-- MS. HANDRAHAN: This is not about me. WITNESS: --does not suffer-- MS. HANDRAMAN: This is about mr. Waxman NESS: --from a mental illness MS. HANDRAHAN: He tried to do this before. court: Hang on-~hang on one second wimess: T do not believe she suffers from a mental iliness. ME. WAXMAN: Okay. ccuRT; All right. There--there was an objection to that question before the answer came, through WITWESS: Oh, sorry. CORT: and what is your objection? MS, HANDRAHAN: This is about Mr. waxman’s behavior not me. ‘This is what he tried to do in the last case, turn it all around about me, This is about whether Mr. Waxnan’s behavior constitutes harassment--intentional infliction of emotional distress. And--and the mo--any motions that have been filed have been Mr. Waxman‘. I--you have that admitted as evidence, where Mr. Harwood is saying nine emergency motions in sever, weeks: courr: All right. With respect to the objection to the20 ua 12 2B aa 35 a5 W a8 ct) 20 a 23 24 25 question as to whether or not--as T understand, you were asking whether or not he believed that she was--there was a mental illness, is that-— MR. WAMMAN: Yes, I'11 need to explain why I’m asking that question, if I may, Tt bears on credibility. there is a “thers was an expert, Dr. Carol Lynn Kabacoff, who testified at the divorce hearing. She's got a psy--she’s got a doctorate in--in psychology and she did a battery of tests on both parties, and she concluded, under oath, in court, that she suffers from a mental disorder and yet this attorney contimes to tell me that she does not COURT: But that was the issue of another proceeding, correct? MR. WaKIN: Yes couRr; wasn’t that done in the context of another proceeding? was there-- YR. WAXMAN: Yes, but, Your Honor, can I~ cour; --there a judicial finding in that regara? MR. WAXMAN: Yes. She was ordered to undergo some therapy, MS. HANDRAHAN: And T was cleared from the therapy. 1 have the documents for the Court that were already-- COURT: Well, when-— MS. HANDRAHAN: --proffered to the Court, Your Honor. COURT: Hang--hang on. We're not 12210 nu 2 3 aa 1s 16 a7 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 we're not there yer YR. WAIN: --credibility. This bears on credibility, Your Honor, This man comes before you and apparently claine that he's more qualified than a doctorate level forensic Psychologist to tell us about whether this woman has a mental illness. And he's also prepared to tell you about how bad my conduct is. 1 think it bears on credibility. MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, this is--this is what Mr, Waxman tried to do in the temporary hearing, turn it all back about se and not on his behavior. He doesn’t want his behavier looked at, he doesn’t want his e-mails looked at, he doesn't want his motions looked at, and he wants to prove that I am somehow enotionally disturbed. This is irrelevant. rt's about Me. Waxman’s conduct and Mr. Waxman’s behavior alone. Even if r had a personality disorder, it would not be Justification for the crime of harassment and intimidation, and the intentional tort of emotional infliction of harm It's irrelevant to the proceeding. This is about Mr. Waxnan‘s behavior, Your Honor. covRr: And the purpose of this witness answering the question about Dr. Kabacofe’s-— MR, WAXMAN: Yeah. The purpose for that-— COURT: --assessment is what? MR, WAXMAN: ——is credibility. He’s been asked to and 42310 n aa 13 a 15 16 ” 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 pee provided his-- COURT; ‘This witness’ credibility? WR. WANHAN: This witness’ credibility. e's been asked to and he has provided opinions in this court. sven never having been designated as an expert witness you permitted him to give opinions about Michael waxman's conduct, and he's compared that just now to the plaintiff's conduct. I think the Court needs to understand that he has a very biased view of the individuals involved in this case that is not borne out by the evidence which I can happily show Your Honor CouR: Well, are we talking about his opinion as to ‘whether or not there's a mental illness? Is that-- MR. WROON: Yes CouRT: --what you're asking this witness-- MR. WAXMAN: Yes comr: --to answer? MR, WAXMAN: Yes COURT: OF are you asking him whether or not someone has-- MR, WAXIAN: No, mo, I’m asking him whether- coun: --made that assessment? MR, WAXMAN: --he believes his client has a mental illness, because he stated to me numerous times that she does not. He's now stated that my conduct is worse then hers, ‘whatever that means. I think the Court is entitled to aaa 2 3 cry a5 16 a7 18 9 20 understand what his prejudice is couRT: My con--my conceza is it's--I understand where you're going with this, in part. My concer is T don’t want to turn this into something without the necessary experts. T mean that's--and I'm not sure where you're going with this, just-- YR, WAQUN: ‘That‘s where I’m going with it, that there is only one expert who's ever-- court: 1s that expert here? ie. wauwan: Your Honor, I have the trial testimony, and 1 have--f have the-~ cou: Ts there a~~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Your-~ court; --r'm sorry, is there a judicial finding about which the Court can take Judicial notice? Mg. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, this-~ court: dust hang on, please. I'm asking this-- ME, WAXMAN: Yes, the divorce judgment itself talks about the concerns that Dr, Kebacoff had regarding the--the plaintiff in this case’s mental health and her perceptual distortion, court; Is that a court finding or is that just reference in the-- MR, WAXMAN: It’s a finding. MS. HANDRAHAN: It was--it--Your Honor?10 u 2 3 uu a5 16 an 18 29 20 22 23 24 25 cour: and where-- question, and I’m done with this witness. to that, because-~ been withdrawn, Any redirect? is. HANDRAHAN: Ah, redirect? Well, T mean: couRT: Any further questions of Mr.-- MS. HANDRAHAN: | Sure. court: --Altshuler? depth--depth legally, by my concern, Your Honor, coURT: Werre~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Oh, okay: courr: we're not here for arg- MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay: REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HANDRAHAN to the Court as a result of reference to it. 126 MR, WAQEN: In the divorce judgment. In case FM-08-510 5 didn‘: bring a copy of it, but T assume the Court can get copy of that. You know what, Your Honor, T will withdraw the Ms. HANDRANAN: Your Honor, I--if I’m allowed to respond COURT: We're not--there’s no need to, the question has Ms. HANDRAHAN: I'm sorry, I'ma little bit out of my is this is what Me. Waxman has done before. te (Indiscernible) -- MS. HANDRAHAN: So, I can ask (Indiscernible)-~ couRT: De you have a question for the witness? Mr. Altshuler, you have seen--this was already proffered Have you Lo10 u 12 3 a 15 16 u 18 2 20 2 22 23 24 25 seen that before? MR, WAXMAN: Well. court: i'm sorry, is this an exhibit that’s already in the record? MS. HANDRAHAN: No, it’s not. I’m sorry COURT: We need to have it marked, please COURT OFFICER: Be twenty-one [sic], Your Honor couRP: ah, no. Ab, -~ CURT OFFICER: Twenty-two. curr: okay. ‘Cause I already have a twenty-one here. count OFFICER: Yes ccuR?: Could you please mark the dates on these stickers when you-- CURT OFFICER: She has. I don’t think Jen did. ccuRT: ALL right. Thank you. Are you asking a question about this document? REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 0 Mr. Altshuler, did you--have you seen this document? Did you cubmit it to the Court as required by the Court? A ves Q ard it's already been submitted to the Court MR, WOMAN: Objection. Mg. HANDRAHAN: And, -— Mm, WAXMAN: Objection. It's a~ Mg. HANDRAHAN: --Mr, Altshuler,10 a 2 B uu 35 16 vv 18 Er 20 at 22 24 25 MR. WAMIAN; --docunent--excuse me. I need to make my objection for the record. I believe this document is the nedical notes from sone individuals that the plaintiff saw pursuant to court order in the divorce judgment. I withdrew my question with regard to this particular issue, so, therefore, among other objections, it’s not relevant MS, HAVDRAHAN: This was--Hr. Altshuler was required to submit this to the Court, and he did, and I asked him if he aia, and he said yes. So, T wanted it to be seen by the Court again. COURT: But how--what bearing does it have on this issue? MS, HANDRAHAN; ‘The bearing is that Mr. Waxman has continually tried to get people to believe that I'm not credible, that I'm mentally unstable, that 1 suffer from severe mental illness. ‘That's part of the harassment, that’s part of the intentional infliction. You have many, many e- nails--ev--almost every e-mail that Mr. Waxman has sent, and he sends two or three a day, say that I’m like Charles Manson, i’m severely mentally i11, I should have a--and this is-—the court ordered me to do DBT therapy. I was cleared from it Mr. Altshuler had already submitted that to the Court, It's unfair and prejudicial to me to give you the impression, Your Honor, that I suffer from sone severe mental iliness, therefore Mr. Waxman is justified and Mr. Altshuler is not credible, without seeing that the DS? clearance said that I 12810 u 12 3 a a5 16 a 18 1 20 a 23 24 25 was absolutely fine and that that therepy was not needed, because, although I’m in trauma fron Mr. Waman's threats and intimidation, I do not suffer mental illness. So, T think it's really important that the Court know that this wae already proffered to the Court, and it's on record, and Mr. ‘Altshuler has reason for saying what he did because he has submitted it to the Court, Your Honor. MR. WAXMAN: In addition to the other objections, Your Honor, it's clearly hearsay. MS. HANDRAHAN: It’s--it's been admitted. Tt was required by the Court and admitted to the Court, Your Honor,-— couRT: Well, it-- MS. HANDRAHAN: © ~-by Mr. Altebull MR, WAXMAN: No, that's incorrect. It was filed with the court parsuant to court order. I have never had the chance to cross examine the people that authored that report. We are having a hearing on March 25th, at which time experts will be available to testify about such natters. ccuRT; All right. I'm sustaining the objection to that docunent at this tine Mg, HANDRAHAW: Thank you very much, Your Honor. That's all T have. $0, that would go in as~ court: Te would not go in. MS. HANDRAKAN: Et won’ t go-~ court: f’m sustaining the objection. T will hold st and a9a0 a 2 a uM 13 16 " 18 Fey 20 a 2a 23 24 25 indicate that it’s not admitted. MS, HANDRAHAN: Am I allowed to ask Mr. Altshuler a question about that, ox-~ comm: The document itself is mot-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. coun: --admitted into the record. You can ask him another question and we'll see whether or not there's an objection. MS. HANDRARAN: Okay. REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Q Your-the Court had required me to do DBT therapy, is that correct, Mr. Altshuler? MR. WAKWAN: Objection. Relevance MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, T wanted to-~ court: Well, the--the question is whether or not it was required? How is that-~ yS. HANDRAHAN: Well, 1 don’t know Legally how, but this jet say none of this is relevant, but Mr. Waxman has just given you the impression that this may be relevant. He spoke for twenty or thirty minutes about my supposed mental illness then he withdraws. So, T wanted something on the other side to show that this is absolutely-~ to sustain the courr: ALL right. I’m gonna~-I'm goin: objection at this tine. Tf mental illness becomes an issue raised in another context in this proceeding, we can addressa0 a a a 14 1 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 2 25 it again MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. and that's the--the--part of the harassment is his constant claiming of false clains, courT: Well, T--again, you're getting into argument now, Do you aave another question for Mr. Altshuler? hs. HANDRAHAN: No, I don’t, Thank you very much, Mr Altshuler court: anything further of this witness? MR, WAXMAN: He may be finally excused. court: Thank you. wrwess: Thank you, Your Honor, MR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, T--I have held back, out of respect for Attorney Altshuler, doing my cross examination of the plaintifé. cour: Right bm, WAXMAN: I'd Like to have an understanding, if T could, about what other witnesses are going to be called and how lengthy this hearing is going to get. I do have other obligations court: Well, T know. This was set for @ full day today and I believe we have tomorrow set aside as well. So, MR, WAXMAN: I understand that's what the Court has done, court: Right. MR. WAXMAN: 1 think my motion--I will-- court: I think St is helpful to know how many other po10 n 2 13 1 8 16 an 18 1 20 a 2 23 24 25 witnesses you plan to present MS, HANDRAKAN: have, Your Honor, Lois Reckitt, and Lesley Devoe, Margo Fyes, and Polly Campbell, and perhaps a police officer. COURT: what--and the purpose of their testimony-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, it’s incredibly important, particularly if a lot of those e-mails will end up not being admitted, because then T'm not allowed to provide evidence of the harassment, so it’s a fait accompli, Witnesses can attest to the harassment, to the three or more acts of intimidation with intentional infliction to cause severe-~ court: $0, they’xe--they're here to testify about other: Mg. HANDRAHAN: Yeah. couRT: --episodes or events-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes ccURD: =-that you believe constitute MS. HANDRAHAN: absolutely. CURR: --harassment, I’m sorry, who are those individuals again, please. MS. HANDRAHAN: The next witness T was going to call was Lois Reckitt. she's a menber of the community in Portland and she runs Family Crisis. And she can talk to her own onal infliction of credentials, but this goes to inte emotional distress, a community menber testifying that the 43210 a 2 B 4 35 16 uv 1a ce 20 a 22 23 2a 25 behavior is outrageous constituting harassment because there's been a witness of three or more acts of intimidation with the intention to cause fear and emotional distress, COURT: So, she's going to be testifying with respect to specifi; MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. court: --events? MS. HANDRAHAN: | (Indiscernible) MR. WAMIAN; ALL right. Your Honor, T'm gonna have to-~ one at a time--indicate to the Court that I object to these witnesses, and I'd like to have a voir dire if you will not grant my motion to strike their appearance. This particular witness, it sounds like, is going to tell you, upon reading my e-mails, which were absolutely privileged, what impact it had on this particular individual, That is cumlative. Tt is absolutely privileged, and--end, to the extent that she wants to offer them as expert witnesses, I’ve never received any designation of an expert witness. MS. HANDRAHAN: She's not an expert witness, she's a member of the community, Your Honor, and she knows me, and she knows the effect it’s had on me court: 15 it--I thought you were testify--asking for her testimony based on particular events, or is it an assessment of e-mails and then--there are two different pictures being drawn here 23a0 a 2 a a 15 16 uw 8 Fey 20 a 2a 23 MS, HANDRAHAN: Well, there’s--it's been going on for over a year and a half court: But 1 thought you said that there was going to be testimony about particular events? Mg HANDRAHAN: Yes, but they’re--the events are, Your Honor, the Litigation, the emergency notions, the e-mails, the threats, the intimidation, and that’s what she can attest to as a menber of the conmunity. As T said, this sta--this case has become extrenely well known and-- MR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, T've never met Lois Reckitt in my life I wouldn't know her if T bunped into her. T can’t imagine how she has anything that’s renarkably or tangentially helpful or relevant to this Court, And I have other cases to deal with cour: and who are the other witnesses? Mg, HANDRAWAN: ‘The other witness is Polly Campbell, who is the sexual assault forensic examiner program for the Attorney General, who Mir, Waman--what he’s done is not only go after me but anybody who cones in contact with me he goes after, and Polly Campbell will attest to what he’s done to her. He's attempted to get her fired. And--and then there’s Lesley Devoe, who is an expert who's been involved in the case from the beginning, and she is going to attest to the intentional infliction of emotional distress~ MR, WAXMAN: And I object to Lesley Devoe-- 14aa 15 16 a 18 as 20 23 2a 25 MS, HANDRAHAN: © --and prove harassment. MR. WAMIAN: --testifying as an expert. ‘There's been no designation. she's not an expert on Michael Waxman, she’s not a lawyer. she has no idea why T would have sent e-mails ALL she's going to do is tell this court that she’s reviewed the e-mails and has an opinion about what they mean. the obeessive MS. MANDRAIAN: Your Honor, this was. the Litigation is--1 don't know if this is--if 1'm making an argument or not, but the Supreme Court--the Troxel case talks about excessive litigation is not in the best interest of the child. Excessive litigation is harassment and intimidation and abuse. and Lesley Devoe is going to speak to the fact that Mr, Waxnan has crossed so many boundaries, he’s become so personally involved that he’s become the abuser in this case, and he’s using the law to abuse me in ways that my ex-husband never could have. and she is a recognized expert in the state of Maine on that. And we are talking about abuse of process here because Mr. Waxman is not just a menber of the community who has no ability to damage me, as an attorney he is in a privileged position, and as my former husband’s attorney he can make sure I lose my job, make sure ali my friends leave me, make sure my child is taken frome, And Lesley Devoe’s testimoay is critical for the Court to understand the abuse of process is the harassment and intimidation, COUR: ALL right. So, those are the other wit-~10 n 2 a Pe a5 16 uv 18 29 20 a 2 23 2 25 MS, HANDRAAN: And--and Margo Pyes, who's my--ny oldest and--and best friend, who has seen on a daily basis what this has done to me, And--and she’s crit-- comer: 1'm sorry, who--who is that again? Ms, HANDRAHAN: Margo Pyes is my oldest and dearest friend of over twenty years. And she is a very inportant witness to be able to tell the Court what this excessive Litigation, harassment, intimidation and threats have done to ne, the stalking on a daily basis. and she’s witnessed what has happened to me wa, Wann: Your Honor, can I help short circuit this proceeding? T am willing to stipulate that the plaintiff suffers from severe emotional distress. I will so stipulate. 1 won't stipulate about causation, but I will stipulate that she has lots of enotional distress. That should obviate the need for Margo Pyes to testify at all, because she certainly is not an expert to testify about what has caused that enotional distress. ‘This has been one of the most bitter custody battles T have ever seen. us. HANDRAHAN: Your Yonor, Mr. Waxnan is the cause of that, and 1 need witnesses-- ME. WAXMAN: That's for the Court to decide: MS. HANDRAHAN: --I need witnesses to testify to what his pehavicr has done to me, because intentional infliction of emotioral distress--what I need to proffer to the Court is 13610 a 2 a 4 15 16 wv 18 a9 20 a 2 24 25 that menbers of the community have seen what's happened and can testify in Court to the cutrageousness, the atrociousness of Mr. Waxman's behavior. mR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, with all due respect, these witnesses have never met me. ‘They never talked to ne MS. HANDRAHAN: They--they are my-~ MR. WAMIAN: How can they possibly have any foundation upon which to conclude that I intended anything? couRT: All right. we need to take a break, but we are nearing the lunch hour, which would be the normal break time, way don’t we do this, we haven't gotten to the other--are you presenting other witnesses, Mr. Waxman? bm, waxMAN: I hadn’t intended to. T suppose we'll see how it goes. Besides myself court: All right. 1 think what we could do is to use the renaining time before a lunch break to start the cross examination of the plaintiff. Let's see if we can accomplish some of that before we begin with any other witnesses. I’m not goma confuse the record by proceeding to some of those $0, why don’t we have Ns. Handrahan resune the witness stand, and you renain under oath, You may have a seat. So, we can at this time address--proceed with cross examination CROSS EXAMINATION BY HR, WAXMAN Q Ms, Handrahan, it was your testimony earlier that this acrimony is all caused by Michael Waxman, correct? wwa0 n 2 3 14 as 16 uv Fe 20 a 22 23 2 25 You're an exceedingly large part of it, Mr. Warman, yes: okay. Certainly not your fault? wr, Waxman, I--an I allowed to present evidence at this point? How is that rule-— court: You just need to answer the question. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN Not your fault, correct? vour behavior is not my fault. Absolutely not. pur the reason the case is acrimonious has nothing to do with anything you've done or not done, right? rm not claiming to be totally innocent. There were marital problens. ‘There was abuse that was documented and sustained, There was an arrest and a guilty pleading of domestic violence, So, there were difficulties. But 1 know that Mr, Malenko cares about his daughter and he would have settled out of court because he would have done what's in his daughter's best interest had it not heen for you. And you have sent numerous e-mails saying that ‘Igor will do what x tell Bim, *-- okay, --and you have been driving this-- you've anawered our question, ‘Thank you. You've taken Litigation, right? numerous actions which have brought no, Mr. Waxnan, the emergency motions are ali yours. T don't believe 13810 u 2 3 a4 a5 16 uv 18 19 20 2 2 23 2a 25 ALL right <-we've ever filed an energency-~ Q taat’s fine. You've answered my question. Thank you ‘ms day you received the divorce sunnions you filed a protection from abuse case against your husband, correct? A 1 don't see how this is relevant, Your Honor, well, you just testified: I have to also be my own attorney. This is not the original custody case. I don’t believe this is relevant. corn: ‘The purpose of the question is? MR. WAN: Purpose of the question is to demonstrate this wisness’ inability to recognize her role in the proceedings here, and why things are so acrimonious. she’s telling the Court and wants you to, believe that Michael Waxnan ig the season this is an acrimonious case comr: So, the question is whether or not a protection from abuse case-- MR. WAXMAN: Did you file-- cour: --was filed? (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN Q ~-on May 23rd, 2008 a PFA against Igor Nalenko? comer: All right. You may answer the question, wmiwess: 1 aia. MR. WAXMAN: Okay, CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 13910 n 12 a3 14 15 16 a 18 rr 20 22 23 24 ‘And you clained, by the way, that he suffered from mental illness at the time, right? don’t know where I claimed that well, let me tell you where you claimed it. In the PFA my that you filed you put in block capital letters, husband suffers from PISD,* correct? and Miles Simmons [sic] did diagnose him with PTSD. My question is quite small, did you or did you aot put that in the document? well, I don’t have the document in front of me, so can't answer it with absolute certainty, and I don’t want to be accused of mischaracterizing or lying to the Court, s0--I have said that he has suffered from PTSD because he was @iagnosed with it, He did get a psychiatric Gischarge from the Yugoslav National Army, which was concerning to me, yes. I have said that. I have been very open about that, Your Honor. I can’t testify to-~ MR, WAXMAN: Can you please stop. wrmess: --specific documents ‘cause I don’t have-- MR, WAXMAN: Can you please stop. urmess: --those in front of me, CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN pid you accuse him in the PFA case of having--suffering from PTSD? 1 think I’ve answered that question, Your Honor, 14010 Ft 2 B u“ 45 16 ” 18 19 20 a 22 23 2a is that a yes or no? Did you? 1 don’t have the document in front of me and have not this is what Me. asman did last time COURT: ‘The question is, has she ever accused him of MR. WAXMAN: No, no, no: court: --or in the document CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAKA Q In the FFA AT don’t have the document in front of me, Me. Waxman, 0 Zs it your memory that you don't have any recollection of chie? A Me. Waxman, I’m not going to be tricked into you telling the Court that I’m lying, as you did in the last hearing where I didn/t specifically state the exact words, word- for-word, on a testimony that was a year ago. So, unless you can proffer the document, T can't answer that question. I have said that I-~ Q No, please stop. couRr: gust a minute. Just answer the question before you move into another area MR. WAXMAN: And let me just try to take this in small bites, okay? (CROSS EXAMINATION CONDINUED BY MR. WAKKAN Q can we agree that at the outset of the divorce case it was your contention that Mr. Malenko suffered from mental a120 a a2 a aa 15 16 18 rt 20 at 2 23 24 25 oy oy iliness? wasn’t my contention. ‘The Yugoslav Amy gave him a psychiatric discharge. lias it your contention--did you tell Tam not a mental health expert bid you tell the Court--did you tell your lawyer that he suffered from mental illness? I said that the Yugoslav Army had given him @ psychiatric Gischarge, and I said that miles Simmons had diagnosed him with PTSD, and x said he'd been arrested for domestic violence for throwing a jar at my head. Yes, T said all of those things. okay. and as a result of your belief that he suffered from mental illness, a psychologist named Carol Lynn Kabacoff was asked to do parental capacity evaluations of both parties, correct? correct. And she's under investigation with the Attorney General right now for potential fraud in the case, as T understand are you referring to the grievance that you filed against her? by the way, you filed grievances against me, true? against Carol Lynn Kabacoff, correct? saauv 18 a9 20 24 22 23 2a 8 » oro Co me you slandered and spoke negatively about the guardian-ad- Litem in the case, Elizabeth stout, at a legislative hearing in April? that is not true. that is false, hat is false? ‘hat is false. I never mentioned the guardian's name, was asked to nane the judge and I did nane the judge, but 1 didn’t name the guardian. okay And the testimony-~ that's fine. was about legislation that we were trying to pass to make sure that what had happened to me doesn’t happen to other mothers no you understand that the guardian filed a motion to withdraw from this case citing as the reason she needed te withdraw, that you had spoken negatively about her at a hearing on or about--wait for my question--on ox about april 16, 2009 concerning LD 11437 Ste did file that motion, yes okay, And, by the way, you've written an article that wes published in the Bangor Daily News speaking negatively about the divorce judgment and--and Judge Moskowitz in particular, true?an 2 a aa 15 16 7 18 Fry 20 a 23 2a 25 A true okay. So, then Ka--Dr. Kabacofé did a parental capacity evaluation, and during this entire time, by the way. my client wasn't having much access to your daughter, was he? A Your Honor, I'm not quite sure where to go, ‘cause this ig what--he's trying to turn it all back onto me, and iva not about his behavior and his (sic]--he’s trying to relitigate the original custody case, and then if I’m not given the sane opportunity to do so, he's going to prejudice the Court against me. court: what--what is the purpose of the question? Ym, WAKAN; I want this Court to understand a little bit about how this case has progressed-~ wrmess: Then T need to be-- MR. WAXMAN; --and why-~excuse me-- wimess: --able to-~ cour: Hang on, please ws, WAXMAN: --and why it’s been so acrimonious. e's been her contention that it was my fault completely. And T want the Court to understand a Little bit of what be had to deat with covrr; Is there--is there any dispute that this was severely acrimonious? we, WAXWAN: Ah, no. ‘There's no dispute about that T 1410 u 2 3 a 15 16 u 18 a 20 a 2a 24 25 don't think, Well, let me--let me find out ‘CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXIAN do you agree this has been a remarkably acrimonious case? well, 1'm not an attorney. Tt’s the first time I’ve ever had to be in court. But from what I understand about hats happening in Maine and across the country, there is a national crisis going on where family courts are allowing attorneys 1ike you, Mr. Waxman, to use abuse of process to severely danage the primazy parent who gains primary residence, usually the mother, So, compared to what the Christian Science Monitor has said, there’s some sixty thousand other cases out there like this. T pelieve, unfortunately, that this is all too conmon that attorneys Like you are allowed to get away with this type of behavior, YR. WOMAN: Move to strike. Nonresponsive. court: The question-- urmess: I answered the question. curt: --was whether you believe this was an acrimonious proceeding, amass: Could you re--could you restate the question? (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN @ Well, are you claiming to be suffering some avere--severe emotional distress from this case? A Lam, Mr. Waxman. as.okay a Yes okay. And you believe--and you told the Court--that it’s ecause Michael Yasman has been @ harassing lawyer, right? A Me, Waxnan, we have just heard testimony you have crossed Please answer my question. Do you or do you not-— A Yes Q ~-believe that this case is acrimonious largely because of my harassment of you? A Nmuse of process and harassment a Okay. A and stalking, and intimidation with the intent: Q Yeur Honor, I need to give the Court a taste of what T’ve on a weekly basis been dealing with on a A Your Honor, if I'm not allowed to respond-— coum’: All right. 1 don’t think this-—just ask your questicn MR, WAXMAN: Okay, COUR? It's not appropriate to comment-— Mm. WAXMAN: Okay. Fair enough court: --on the testimony wR, WAXMAN: Fair enough. Ah, goodness CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN a6a0 a a2 a Fry as 16 a 18 cry 20 a 22 23 24 25 © Mr. Malenko has shared rights and responsibilities with you, correct? A Correct. You've made unilateral decisions about medical care, correct? A Your Honor, this is all irrelevant, He’s trying to turn it's about this into the custody case when it’s not a his behavior. court: How is this relevant to this proceeding, as to what the allocation of parental rights has been? ym, waaN: I'11 get right to the actions, okay, 1/11 get right to the actions (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN First, you would 1ike--you believe that, Mr. Malenko was mentally i11 and Dr. Kabacoff did an evaluation of both parties, A Now, you're offering testimony. ‘This isn’t a question. x'm asking you a question, tsn’t that right? A Wa curt: I'm sorry, what is the question again? (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 0 First you believed that Mr. Malenko suffered a mental {lines and br. Kabacoff did a parental capacity evaluation, right? A. Your Honor, T already answered this question, That was at10 a 2 a3 a4 a5 16 ra 18 1 20 a 22 23 28 25 the first question he asked. cour; I'm sorry, I'm not sure T even understand the question. I'm sorry, repeat it please. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WARMAN @ First you believed that Mr. Malenko suffered from mental Aiiness and a--a psychologist did a parental capacity evaluation on both you and Mr. Malenko, right? cour: All right. So, the question is whether or not a psychological evaluation was done-- MR. WAXMAN: Yes courr: --on both parties in the case? MR, WAKMAN: Yes. couet; and what is the purpose of this question for purposes of this proceeding? ym. WAXMAN: Okay, I want to show this Court that that was the first argument she made, and that when that didn’t go in her favor that it then morphed into, ‘No, Mr. Malenko was abusive,* then it morphed into, “He's actually @ pedophile,” and she filed many, many actions with regard to these various things, and I had to respond to these things count; 1s it just your focus that you had to respond to various responses in the context of the litigation? zs that we, WAXMAN: Yes, Your Honor, that is what T’m trying co show you, and that is why this Court--f want to bug you once again to rule now on my motion to--both motions, quite 14810 nu 12 B ry 45 16 ww a8 w 20 a 22 23 2a 25 frankly, court: Well, t’m not going to change my initial approach ko this, which is T am going to reserve ruling on the privilece issue-- Mm, WAXMAN: Okay: court: --that’s been raised. My concern is I don’t want to get back into the substantive issues that were litigated in the divorce proceeding. So, the question, as I understand it, is just that these issues arose and were litigated, is that the question? YR, WAXMAN: I’m going to withdraw the question. Okay? and I would advocate that the Court read the appeals decision and the divorce judgment and take judicial notice. coumr: Right. So, you'ze asking for judicial notice of- MR. WAXMAN: Yes. wimiess: Your Honor, -- court: --take judicial notice of the family matter~ MR. WAXMAN: Okay! court: ~-decisions, which the Court can do. MR, WAXMAN: Okay. wimess: May 1 ask for judicial notice of the amicus that was filed? court: That--that is a brief--what I can take judicial notice of is the decision of the Law Court. I don’t know-— 14910 uu 2 3 1 as 16 wv 18 Fey 20 a 22 23 2 2 WINNESS: There was an amicus filed by all of the top national organizations and the Law Court accepted that amicus. court: r'm-1'm only going to take judicial notice of the Law Court opinion- MR, WAXMAN: ALL right. court: --and, as I understand it, the divorce judgment 1 can take judicial notice of that \R. WAWUAN: Okay. Let’e move forward from the divorce judgment CROSS EXAMTNATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN oI ESled several motions in the fanily matter case to seek to get @ hearing on our motions to modify back in April and May, correct? A Your Konor, this is a--you know, it’s all--he's trying to go back into the custody case. This is not about his behavior Q it's all of my behavior curt: I’m sorry, the question is whether or not there were motions to modify filed? ME, WAXMAN: Motions filed in april and May seeking C0 change primary residence COURT: You can--you can answer that question. wimwess: 1 don’t--the trouble is, what--T had Listed in the birder all of the motions that Mr, Waxman has filed in the case, end--actually only from Bill Harwood on ‘cause Bill had 15010 a 2 B aa 45 16 7 1 9 20 a 2 23 2a 25 kept a very good record, we don't even know how many things Mr. Waxnan's filed, Sverybody's lost track. that blur cour: I think the question is not whether-- wimwess: I don't know. courr: --how many, the question is whether there were-- wrmwess: T don’t-- comr: --motions filed after the divorce judgment, is the question? MR, WAXMAN: Yes com: ALL right WITNESS: There were so many motions filed, they're all a to me now. I hardly read them anymore, MR, WAXMAN: Okay. (CROSS, EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN mut the question is a much smaller one. These had to ao with trying to get a hearing on a custody situation, right? 1 don’t know what you're referring to, Mr. Waxman, because, as T said, you have filed so many motions we've lest track. We--we can’t count them anymore. Is it true or is it not true that on guly Teh, 2009 the court issued a notice of hearing on many of the motions to modify that T ea? need the docunent in front of me. I can't comment on something: 152a0 u 2 3 4 16 v Fa a 20 23 24 25 Za St your testimony you have no memory of such a notice? A As T said, Mr. Waxman, you filed so many we've lost count, I'd love to be able to say to the Court you filed a hundred motions. I don’t even know how many tines you x don’t know how many contempts of court you've theeatened, T don't know how many motions you filed because we're all so overwhelmed with your prodigious filings © Thank you. ‘That's enough. Did you--was there a report from your friend Polly Campbell to the Child Protective services on July 12, 20097 AT don't have any documents in front of me. I don’t know the dates. $0, I don’t want to get tricked into you tricking me saying that I’m saying something that’s false on the stand. So, unless you have a document in front of ne, T can’t answer that question © tr early to mid July was there not a report to DHE claiming that your ex-husband had been sexually abusing nis daughter? wrmess: Relevancy. and this is about Me. Waxman’s behavicr, He's trying to turn it back into the sex abuse, and unless T can offer the tools that I need to defend myself, it’s unfair, It's prejudicial to my case, Your Honor cour: mr. Waxman, are we getting into the merits of whether or not there was sexual abuse? 15210 ir 2 a uu a5 a6 " 18 13 20 22 23 24 25 MR. WAXVAN: No, We're not getting anywhere close to the merits couRT: So, what is the purpose of the question? MR. WAXMAN: The purpose of the question, as I've indicated before, is to denonstrate that this has been an incredibly acrimonious case not to my doing. I'm trying to now rebut the insinuation left in Your Honor's head--left in the Court, and 1--I simply want the Court to understand a Little bit about what I've been dealing with as the lawyer for Igor Malenko trying to protect his relationship with his two- year-old, and now three-year-old daughter. court: $0, the question is whether or not there had been MR. WAXMAN: Mo, now the question--excuse me, Your Honor courr: --or an allegation of sexual abuse? MR. WAXMAN: Let me back into it (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN There was, in July, a DHHS investigation in allegations that Igor Malenko sexually abused your daughter, right? A Is this testimony or is this a question, because I-- COURT: the question is to whether or not there was an investigation WITNESS: Well, 1 don’t believe T can answer unless I can proffer the spurwink report, hecause otherwise he’s trying to prejudise you against--this is irrelevant unless I'm allowed 1532 3 14 15 16 uv rr 20 a 2 23 28 25 to give the tools in response. corr: Just-~ wrmess: And if Mr.-~ couxr: --Just answer the question. Was there an investigation? yO ro wrmess: there was courr: al1 right (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN mat was begun by your friend Polly Campbell, right? No i'n sorry? she was not the--the first person to cali in, T believe there was another nurse who called in first, But T don’t have the docunent-~ wnat is that belief based on? there were two people who made reports to HHS, as T understand. But, again, I don’t have the documents in fxont of me $0 I don’t want to be caught lying ebout something on the stand when it's just im volume-- welt, you just made a statement--excuse me, you just made ‘a statement that Polly Campbell was not the first person. 1 don’t know who the first--two people called almost: at tte sane time, Mr. Waxman. 1'@ have to see the HHS records to be able to answer the question accurately oray. 15415 16 uv 18 as 20 AT don’t want to be tricked into giving a false statenent to the Court, Your Honor 0 tet me move forward. Okay? That investigation went on for about a month, right? AT don't know how long it went on for okay, You earned at some point that~- A Yoar Honor, this is zeally irrelevant. He’s trying to prejudice me and I'm not going to be able to proffer the sparwink report in return. Tt's--it's really-- COURT: I don’t know whether or not we'xe getting into the merits of the--or the results of this. So, what is--what (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN toads the end of that investigation you then moved up i'm sorry, Sorento, Maine, and filed a PFA ve Ellsworth against Me. Malenko down there--up there, right? A Year Honor, again this is all--this is not about Mr. Weman’a behavior, He's trying to get into the custody cose. He's trying to relitigate the whole thing, and then 1 won't be--he’s prejudicing you against me and T won't be able to proffer evidence couRT; Well, I--I'm not sure that this question is getting to the substance. 1s the question just designed to find out whether or not there have been actions or proceedings filed that were not initiated by you? 155MR. WMON: Yes wimess: Can I offer judicial--what is it called, Judicial notice? If you could look at the record in the court, there’s a record of all the motions that have been fied since the beginning of this case, and I believe we've only filed, I think, less than five. I haven’t seen them. 1 mean and then if you look at what Mr. waxnan has filed, -- comet: But the--the question is whether or not there was some filing that was made by this witness as opposed-- MR. WAXMAN: Yes cout: --t0 you. MR, WAKWAN: Yes. coum’: $0, that’s the question, All right. You can answer the question. Ms, HANDRAAN: Yes MR. WAXMAN: | Okay. (CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXHAN and, by the way, the result of that--of filing that ‘PFA in pLisworth, Yaine was that my client didn’t see his deughter for another month or two, correct? A Your Honor, this isn't about his client, this is about his behavior bm. WAXMAN: Te is absolutely—— mess: This is about Mr. Waxman‘ harassment MR, WAXMAN: --about my client, Absolutely about ny 15610 a 2 13 14 18 16 ra 18 1 20 2 22 23 2 25 client. MACHINE OFF - TAPE CHANGED - MACHINE ON corr: Well, we/re back on the record. But, I'm sorry, 1 lost track whether or not there was a pending question, YR WAOMN: I asked a question about whether the PFA resulted in my client not seeing his daughter for a long period of time, and I think she lodged an objection saying it’s not about his--my client comr: Right. And I did not rule on that because we went off the tape: MR. WAXMAN: That's right. comr: so--and, again, the purpose of asking the question is what, Mr. Waxman? MR. WAXMAN: T want this Court to understand the stakes that have been in play. Okay? T want the Court to understand that this is not some game I’m playing, She wants the Court to believe that I have intentionally harmed her. Believe it or not, this has nothing to do with her, it has to do with my client and his relationship with his daughter. And I want to simply have her agree that because she’s filed several things, the relationship between the child and my client has been @anaged. That's the reason. couRT: are you talking about the relationship between-~ MR, WAXMAN: Igor Malenko and Mila Malenko, couRT: But that's not the subject of this preceeding.a0 a a2 a aa a5 16 uw 18 as 20 a MB, WAXMAN: Yes, it is, because I have filed motion after motion COURT; Well, whether or not there are motions filed does not get into the substance of whether there’s a danaged relationship. that’s what I’m saying is not the subject of this proceeding, MR. WMAN: T disagree, COURT: The question is-- UR. WAXMAN: Can 1 explain why? Cour: What is your response? MR. WAKMAN: Okay. You've had Ken Altshuler characterize and Ms. Handrahan characterize my behavior as outrageous and beyond the pale. T think this Court would understand a lot better ao my behavior was reasonable and logical in response to a horrendous campaign to alienate the affections between father and daughter. cout: okay. 1 don’t think that that is the subject of this proceeding, MR. WAXMAN: with all due respect, every single e-nail that I filed, every single motion that I filed has been with that purpose in mind, to protect and promote the relationship between father and daughter. very single one. And yet this Court is now scrutinizing each one of those: COURT; Well, the issue as to the relationship between Me. Malenko and his child is not the issue before the court: 15e10 un 2 3B uu 15 as uw ry » 20 a 2 ‘ho issie is whether there has been harassment of--as is defined under the statute--of this plaintiff. and so if that’s the purpose of the question that we're getting at this time, then I’m going to sustain the objection. MR. WAXMAN: Do you want to take a break now? count: Yeah, I think it’s appropriate to take a break hefore ve proceed with any other question. You may step down. and we will resume at one. MR. WAMMAN: Thank you, Your Honor COURT: and we will be staying in this courtroom, so it's my understanding that the courtroom can be locked so that people’s belongings can be left here. MACHINE OFF - MACHINE ON COUR? OFFICER: , Please be seated courr: We're back on the record and we can resume the cross examination of the plaintiff, Ms. Handrahan. MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, T have two witnesses who do have tine constraints and I'm wondering if 1 might be able to put then up before I continue the cross, because one has flown up from Baltimore and had to take off two days of work, and her husband did, too, to take care of her children. She has to leave tonight. And Lois Reckitt also has to go. She has a doctor's appointment she can‘t miss court: Any objection to taking witnesses out of order? MR, WAXMAN: Yes. 15910 a 2 a 15 a6 rt 18 Fr 20 a curt: what is the objection? MR. WAXMAN; The objection is that I’m prepared now to do my cross examination, I’m giving up my day, as well as tomorrow, I don’t understand why I should be forced--T agreed to do this for Mr. Altshuler, but I don't understand why 1 should be delayed to do what I want to do in terms of the examination, ccurr; Any other basis for the objection? MR. WAXMAN: No. coURT: All right, I‘11 allew the witnesses to be taken out of order: Ms, HANDRAHAN: Thank you very much, Your Honor. I call Lois Reckitt to the stand, please ME. WAXMAN: Your Honor, before this witness begins to testify I would like to voir dire the witness to understand what the nature of her testimony is going to be, or at least have the plaintiff make an offer of proof, because I doubt that it is adnissible court: okay. Can you explain what the purpose of this witness’ testimony is? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes, Your Honor. Again, as I understand the prcof that I have to provide the Court, T need to provide witnesses who are menbers of the community, who know me, who have interacted with me, and who have witnessed the effect of Mr. Waxnan's harassment and intimidation on me and the knock- 16010 a 2 B uM 8 16 7 18 1» 20 a 22 23 24 ae on effect that it’s had on intimidation and harassment of other people who have been pulled away from me who otherwise would heve been there to help me and my child. It's @ double sword in a way, and Lois Reckitt is somebody who's witnessed this, and she can testify to not only the fear and intimidation and harassment of me, but of her potentially and her staff. ym. waguadl: Your Honor, I've never met this woman in my Life. and she nay be able to testify as a friend of the plaintiff that this Litigation has produced sone anxiety in her, That doesn’t get us anywhere close to a protection from harassment claim, she would have to have knowledge that T ‘as opposed to merely intended to cause this result as: intending to protect my client's relationship with his daughter, 1 don't see how it’s even tangentially relevant MS. HANDRAHAN; It--Your Honor, again--and T could be wrong, but, as T understand, it’s a member of the community would tave to describe the behavior as outrageous under the intentional infliction of harassment. And we don’t know what vis. Reckitt will say until she’s allowed to testify. And 7 think her testimony is critical because it also goes beyond my case, as 1 was saying, the abuse of pracess--the abuse of regal process has been horrific and it’s far more than mere WR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, the plaintiff continues to refer 161a 2 B 14 1s 1s uw 18 Fey 20 a 22 23 24 ko a tort--civil tort called “Intentional infliction of emotional distress," as if that’s one and the sane with a protection from harassment proceeding. 1t is not. They are aigferent proceedings. this is a quasi-criminal proceeding it's very different from a tort. Ms, HANDRAHAN: It go--sorry, it goes in thr--three oF more acts of intimidation, which Lois Reckitt, T believe, can testify to. Three or more acts made with the intent to deter the free exercise and enjoyment of federal or state constitutional rights, which T believe she can testify to. And then a course of conduct that constitutes stalking. So, there--there is some very inportant testimony here, Your Honor, that I hope the Court would be able to at least Listen court: well, I will--1/11 allow the testimony to see what--we can proceed. and if it appears that it’s not related to thig--1--T understand what you're saying about the intent factor, but this also has another prong here with--under the harassrent statute under Title 5, that st's not only with the intention but there’s also a need for proof that it, in fact, causes the fear, intimidation, or danage to property. So, if this testimony is related to that, then it would have some bearing on this case. MR, WAXMAN: So, any person who knows Ms. Handrahan can cone ix here and testify that in the last year and a half 16210 a 12 3 16 15 as 7 a8 » 20 2 23 2a 25 she’s been anxious? Is that what you're ruling? court: well, no, because--no, no, no. You're not listening, I said there's not just one prong here there's two prongs. ‘There has to be an intent, which you pointed out is that’s part of the elenent, but also which, in fact, causes the language under subsection A, $0,-- ue, WAXMAN: Once again though, Your Honor, this particular witness-~ court: 1 don’ t-— me, WAMMAN: --may be able to testify that the woman has experienced emotional antiety, but she certainly has no basis upon which to testify that what T did caused it coun: I understand that. But the question~ understand that. Tt may have some bearing on one prong of this. 50, I’m going to allow the witness to proceed, Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testinony you'ze about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? wmwess: T do. COURT: Thank you. be seated, please MS, HANDRAHAN: Thank you very much Lots RECKITT, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HANDRAKAN dois Reckitt, could you explain who you are and your involvement in this case? 163Fry n 2 3 14 45 16 17 18 a9 20 a 2 23 2a 25 A Ila the executive director of the Family Crisis Services y nave been for the last thirty years. And T am the national president of the National Coalition against ponestic Vielence. My involvement in the case has been that, frankly, I was endeavoring to buffer my staff by taking on interaction with you myself. We deal with four thousand victins a year, and T could not spare the level of commitment that staff would have had to have in order to take on your case. In addition to which I didn’t want them to be subjected to the surroundings of the case, nich I discovered after sitting for two days through the ccurt-through a couple of your different processes den't remember which two cases they were. Probably one of them was custody, but I don’t even remember. But T set through the courtroom a couple of days. 0 and your concern for your staff--your involvement versus your staff's involvement was? A Well, it is unusual for- BR, WALOEAN: 1 urmess: --me to be involved MR, WAXMAN: --1 object. T object. T don’t understand how her concern for her staff has anything marginally relevant to do with the protection from harassment against M5. Handrahan. [sic] zt’s relevance grounds: us, HANDRAHAN: She's describing her involvement, Your 16410 a 2 3 ul 16 an Fey Fey 20 a 22 Honor, in this case, which T understood I needed to set at the outset. why is she here today? Js that--what is she testifying to? comr: Right. WHINESS: Basically, we are MR. WAKIAN: Ah, excuse me. COURT: I--T need some clarification as te what you are-- r'm not sure I understand what-— Ms, HANDRAHAN: My question was-- court: --the-- MS, HANDRAHAN: --why--why is she involved in the case how does she know me,-~ Me, HANDRAHAN: --how could she testify ag a witness cours: All right. Aas I understand it, you--your direct contact with this plaintiff in this case as opposed to--you're speaking on behalf of others in your office, is that what you said? wiTwess: ves. Yeah. courr: okay. le to meet with Ms. Handrahan wrmess: And 1 did 2: myself in lien of staff. and so we met for an hour, an hour and a half at the very beginning of one of the proceedings fed together subsequently on some And basically have wor 16520 a a2 a ray 3 16 a rf Fey 20 a 22 23 24 legislasive isdues, because I work on--very little on direct assistance to victims but more on public policy issues court: Okay. All right. To that--I'1l allow the testimony to stand. Go ahead. DIRECD EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN So, the--the statute is--which--the acts which do, in fact, cause fear and intimidation. Have Mr, Waxnan’s acts, behaviors, motions caused fear and intimidation that you're aware of? uR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, T object, The question--she just testified that the entire foundation for her testimony here is a one-and-a-half-hour meeting some months ago and con--centact with Ms. Handrahan in terms of legislative Assues. ‘That is not sufficient-- Mg. WANDRAHAN: But that’s not-~ vs. wan: to offer any kind of testimony, opinion or otherwise curr: well, then why don't you~ Me. HANDRAIAN: T believe that‘s-—she-— cour: --explain what the foundation is here for this witness’ contact. MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. wmess: The contact began at that time but has continued since then to the tune of in excess of 2 hundred e- mail centacts, and also--also some personal phone contacts 166a 18 19 20 a 22 2B 24 25 with the--with the plaintiff MR, WAXMAN: Okay. Can I just lodge-~ cour: 1'm sorry, with--with Ms,--with Ms. Handrahan? wrmmss: with Ms. Handrahan, yes wR. WOON; Yeah. And T just wanted to ask for clarification, The witness just said about a hundred e-mail contacts, T assume she does mean with me wrmmess: the e-mail con--I couldn't tell you what--who ox what the e-mail contacts are from. I know that T have saved them all in one folder, and there are more than a jmundred of them, Sone of then came from Ms. Handrahan, some of then were copies of things, some of them were copies of information from Mr. Harwood, some of them were other things that had relevance to Lori's case, in my view. um. waman: Your Honor, again, 2/21 renew my objection to this witness’ foundational capacity to testify here, she’s not even apparently a friend of Ms. Handrahan’s, and she's apparently viewed a hundred or so cherry picked e-nails that ws. tantrahan has decided to send her. And, based on that, apparently she can offer us testimony and opinions? court: 1 don’t know what is being asked of this witness yet. md 1 think if you have an objection, you may make ic! kf there's another question that gives rise to that DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN you have been involved for over 0 My--my question is, Lo 16720 a 2 13 14 Fa a6 7 a8 » 20 a 2a a year now on a regular basis, and T have forwarded you e-mails that Mr. Waxman has sent, so you've seen the ongoing issues in the case (Indisceraible} A Mine. @ ave you seen the result of the acts are causing fear-~ have you seen fear be produced as a result of Me. Warman's behavior? MR. WAXMAN: Objection. 1 don’t understand that. The question's incredibly vague. she sends e-nails--forvards © mails to her and now she wants her to testify--the witness that is--about the observation she’s made about the reaction in Ms, fandrahan? She wasn’t even present for the e-mails to reach Ws. Handrahan, These are e-mails she received one point in time and then forwarded to the witness. So, T don’t understand how she has any-~ ys. HANDRAHAN: Your--it’s hard to get across because T qocthe interruptions are sort of destabilizing. But Lois has peen involved. She's seen almost every aspect of the case for ‘a year and a half, and I wanted her to able to attest to what's happened to me because of the int--the intention, but are these things, in fact, causing fear what is the tiv cout: I think the objection though what is the ys. HANDRAHAN: The time frame court: --time frame and--between any actions ox 168 po10 un 2 a ry 15 16 w 18 » 20 aa 2 24 25 correspendence. So, 1 think you need to clarify what you're asking this witness to testify about MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. ‘The difficulty is that it's so overshelming. There’s been so much generated by Mr. Waxnan over the course of the year, and I've called Lois, talked to her by phone, so she's quite aware of what's been going on the case and--and my reaction to it. and I’m asking her is there fear--has fear been caused. MR. WRIA: Your Honor, —~ COURT: And what-- think we need to focus on what time frane you're referring to, and what episodes or what incidences as opposed to a broad generalization here, because MR. WAXMAN; Okay. My objection is even more fundamental, Your Honor. ‘The witness herself can testify thet she suffered fear. And apparently she did, This is cumalative and redundant and unnecessary, in addition to three or four other objections couw?: 1/11 allow the answer, but only--only to a question that is specific--more specific than what you are positing here. MS. HANDRAHAN: | Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN bois, when I had gent you an e-mail about the bond that Mz, waxxan was feeling with my chilé, what was your10 a 12 2B ae 15 1s uv 18 » 20 a1 22 23 24 25 reaction to that e-mail? MR. WAXHAN: Objection. hat relevance does this witness’ reaction to anything have to this proceeding? cooRT: You're asking this witness what her reaction is? What-- MS, HANDRAHAN: Well, I'm actually changing the question to ask about--/cause the other thing is I understand I have to provide the Court community menbers who when witnessing this action would describe it as outrageous and that it is intended vo cause fear court: It--is it correct that you're addressing the provisions of the Mg. MANDRAHAN: The tort court: --the tort? The--we're here under a particular-- Mc. HANDRAIAN: | (Tndiscernible) courr: --statute which defines harassment. MS, HANDRAHAN: Right coURT: $0, that’s what we are addressing here, not the tort, Ms. HANDRAHAN: Okay. So, leave the tort language alone? COURT: We're not--what I'm trying to determine here is uinether or not there's sufficient evidence to find harassment on 4651 as it’s defined under Title 5, Sect Ms. HANDRAHAN: So, I'11 refrain DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRANIAN 170ao a 2 3 ry 15 16 v 18 9 20 2 23 2a 25 Have there been three or more acts of intimidation? YR. WAXMAN: Objection. That‘s the ultimate question, That’s for this Court court; All right, that--that is the question that’s left for the Court to determine ms, HANDRAHAN: Okay. courr: ‘This witness can testify as to her observations Af she has specific observations—- MS, HANDRAHAN: Okay. cosar: --to relate regarding particular episodes, oF instances, or events here, Ms. HANDRAHAN: Okay. Can I just ask her to testify to her observations? And the--the digficulty-- court; In relation to what? That’s--that’s the-- vs, ¥ONDRAHAN: Well, T would need to bring the whole binder in again because Lois has received, as she said, over @ jundred e-nails because when T get these e-mails from tr. waxman, £ have been sending them to people saying, “This is outrageous, I need help, T need help,” you know. “iho is going to stop this? This is being allowed. This is intimidation, harassment. He's destroying my life. He's destroying ay daughter's Life." And so Lois has seen those e- maite, and Lois is involved, And when I came to her office and said, *I need help," she can testify to then what resulted from that relationship and--and--but she hasn’t been allowed im10 n 2 3 14 a5 16 a 18 rr 20 a 2 23 24 to--to speak yet, so-~ court: well, wR. WAXWAN: Let me speak to that, Your Honor. $0, apparently her--the basis for her testimony seems to be that vis. Handrahan sent her e-nails with a transmittal e-mail saying, *I’m really upset, I'm really disturbed, this is ridiculous, help me." That’s not--excuse me, that’s not the foundation for her personal observations of Ms. Handrehan. qe's her telling her--it's tis. Handrahan telling this particular witness how she feels. count: well, -~ wumess: Tf I could get a word in edgewise? MR. WON: No. count: Unfortunately, we have to get the question-- wnmMess: Yeah. court: --posed in an appropriate manner for you to have ‘an opportunity to--to respond here MS, MANDRAHAN: Shall I re--try to reframe it? I’m sorry, I'm not a lawyer. T’m just trying to-- court; I understand that, but are you trying to find out what her observation from this witness what her reaction was~ was of you-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, it's two-~ court: --in response to a particular~ MS, HANDRAHAN: | T 1m20 u 2 a uu a5 a6 ut aa cry 20 aa 2 23 28 court: --incident? MS. HANDRAHAN: --as T understand, it’s twofold, so she would need to testify about the harassment that she’s observed, the legal abuse of process and harassment and intimidation of me by Mr. Waxnan, and then also talk about the effect that that has had on-—~ COURT: She doesn’ t--each witness does not have to address every part of this MS, HANDRAHAN: Okay court: so, if there’s some particular aspect of your case that you would like to have Ms. Reckitt testify to, that-- MS. HANDRANAN: 1/11--I'11 try to--I'm so sorry. 1/12 try to refrane. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 9 teis, you got involved with legislation that I wrote. A Yes @ Could you talk about that incident? That's a very specific incident; we worked together quite closely. MR. WAXMAN: Objection. court: what does this have to do with-- MR. WAXMAN: Relevance. count: I’m not sure how that has to do with this case MS. HANDRAHAN: The legislation is a direct result of Mr wasman’s behavior. 173ao Er 2 3 a4 as 16 w 18 Fry 20 couRT: I'm--T'm not going to allow that DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 9 ois, you worked with me in the very beginning of this case when we met in your office A Yes. MS. HANDRAHAN: Could--could she talk about the meeting that she had with me? COURT: Is there going to be some testimony regarding observations? Ms. HANDRAHAN: Yes. COURT: Go ahead, Ms. Reckitt. WIIMESS: Ms. Handrahan and T have mat several times over the course of this--whatever we call this entire mess of stuff. and, basically, from that beginning my advice to Ms. Mandrahan was that she was going to need to be calm. and T think taat-- MR. WAXMAN: To be what? I’m sorry. wrrwess: calm, c-a-1-m MR. WAXMAN: Thank you. wrmess: calm, And I hoped that T would be a calming influence on her because I intended to help her see the--see the forest for the trees, and the forest being her daughter and the trees being whatever else was happening around her servation has been that the actions of--of when--ny personal ot Mr. Waxman, when I observed them in court, the actions that 7un 2 B u 15 16 uv 18 3 20 a 22 23 28 25 saw--sone of them in result--as a result of the e-mails, they weren't all that way--they weren't all from Lori, they werent ali about the case, but they were relevant to it in my view, which isn’t lawer--Lawyer Like, And so consequently, as a result of that, I became distressed personally as to whether or not this could proceed in a way that would be helpful to all the parties concerned. wR. wuOIAN: Objection, and move to strike. I don’t see how any of that is relevant to this proceeding. counr: overruled. Proceed. Tt’s a question of weight. wrrvess: so--s0, for me, I had to make a decision about whether or not I personally was going to be involved in this case, and I have held back @ lot, in part because of my concern about my agency. And T have kept my staff away from the case on the same grounds. I’m their supervisor and T am required to look out for their best interest. 0, I have done that. and I--it has kept me away from this case, I have been nervous about being involved with it, I kept my head low a long tine because I dida’t wish to personally be involved because I didn’t want to be personally at risk, frankly. And I felt at risk enotionally from the case and from the parties that were involved DIREC EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS, HANDRAHAN In what way? A well a510 u 22 3 14 15 16 a aa 29 20 aa 22 23 24 25 MR. WAXWAN: Your Honor, this--T object. This is so far from relevant. I’ve never had a discussion or communication with this woman in my life. How she feels about reviewing e- nails that are forwarded to her has no relevance of any kind to this protection from harassment case. MS. HANDRAFAN: Your Honor, it’s not just the e-mails, it’s-cthis is what he--it's hard to just--to put my case forward, It's the motions, it’s the e-mails, it’s the courtroom behavior, it’s the--what's going on outside of the courtroom, what Mr. Waxman is doing to intimidate and scare everybody away from me, And it’s a knock-on effect. People are scared to get involved and help me because they're scared Mr. Wasman will go after them. MR, WAXMAN: Objection. ‘That's hearsay. It's argument. MS. MANDRAHAN: Well, I'm--T have a witness that would be --is trying to say this. wires: Tt's-- Court: Just--just one monent, please wrTNEss: Mrhan. (eausey MR. WAXMAN: The other grounds for moving to strike this testimoay, Your Honor, is that she says things that don’t help. she says, “Because of Mr. Waxman’s behavior in court." ‘That's so conclusory and general. This Court does not know what to make of that, Did T get naked? Did T screama Fry B Fry 15 16 W 18 13 20 a 22 23 24 25 obscenities? what did T do? That's just not helpful. COUR: What I’m unclear about is whether or not there has been direct contact between Mr. Waxman and--and Ms Reckitt, Are you tes--is there testimony that would be addressing that issue? MS. HANDRAHAN: I don't--T can’t say, only Ms. Reckitt can say, I don’t believe there has been. t's the climate of fear that Mr. Wamnan has generated across the Portland conmunity, and that’s what Lois was just starting to testify. She can‘t--normally her staff would help me--support me in this-what’s going on, and she doesn’t even want her staff involved because of the fear, And I have a couple of other witnesses. Mr, Waxman has gone after everybody. So, that’s what I’m trying to prove. ‘The extent of this is so huge. It’s not just a few e-mails, Your Honor. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, this argument about a climate of fear is clearly based on hearsay. It is a moving target that I cannot respond to. It’s inappropriate. it’s irrelevant. 1t's not helpful to this Court. T object COURT: Ms. Reckitt, is there any contact that you have had directly with the defendant in this matter? WITNESS: Not--except for today, not--not--I was in the same room, but he did not contact me, no. couRT: So, is your testimony that you--related to--based on--on what you've heard from others? um10 ia a2 a u 15 16 uv » 20 aa 22 23 24 25 wimps: Tt’s based on my personal observation of him in court, and also my personal observation based on the--ny conversations with Lori, and my observation of the pleadings and the--and the e-mails that have flown around WR. WAWAN: Your Honor, this gets at the heart of my absolute privilege objection, and--and we have--it's impossible for me to respond te that kind of accusation. T don’t know how I'm supposed to defend against that. "It’s his behavior in court.* You can make your own decisions about my behavior in court, Your Honor. So can Judge Moskowitz COURT: i'm concerned about the--the issue of the foundation here. Is there any other Line of questioning that you have for this witness? MS. HANDRAHAN: T can--T can--yes. I mean T have one more Line of questioning. I mean I--what 1 understand is that these acts--when I read the statute--would cause any reasonable person to--to feel fearful. And what’s very hard to the Court, Your Honor, and 1 think for me to get across to: ois’ testimony is critical, is that it’s not just excessive e-mails, it’s not just motion after motion, it’s not just threats, it’s that he’s gone out into the community, shown up at the day care provider’s house, threatened to sue people, is now suing people, and everybody knows--and the fear that this has generated, so I’m being targeted and persecuted. The harassment is extreme. And then because wr, Waxman hasn'ta0 a a2 3 a 15 16 a 18 20 a 22 24 25 Limited that only to me, the knock-on effect is when T need support the most, Your Honor. Everybody pulls away from me because they're scared he’s going to go after them, because he is going after other people. ccuRT: But you're offering this witness’ testimony as to maybe what happened with a day care provider or other third parties who are not here testifying? ME. HANDRAHAN: No. No, mo, not to--about her, ‘cause she's been personally involved on and off. She's observed. And she's a very distinguished credible menber of the community and I wanted her to talk about the result of her involvenent in this case to the Court court: But, as I understand your--your proposal here for having, this witness testify is based on other information outside--that’s not being presented firsthand in this court, correct? MS. HANDRAHAN: Witnessed a lot of the e-mails that~-some you have admitted, some you may not admit. The incidences of intimidation come through the e-mails. Lois has seen these. ‘They cone through the motions. tois has seen those. CouRT: Well, are you going to ask her specific questions about emails that are already in the record? M5, HANDRAHAN: I--I could do that, but it--it cones through the motions that she's {sic} filed, it comes--it comes through-— 17910 a 2 3 aa 15 16 7 a8 a9 20 a 22 23 2a 25 COURT: Motions who has filed? MS. HANDRAHAN: Mr. Waxman has filed. Motions that he’s filed. It's the entire body of what's happening, Your Honor It's--Lois wouldn’t be involved if this was just a run-of-the- mill--I mean the point is the abuse of process. The extreme harassment and intimidation that Mr. saxman is waging has caused distinguished menbers of the community to be extremely concerned, and even fearful. And Lois just was saying she’s even fearful for herself, she--she doesn’t want her staff involved, she's fearful for her staff. And her involvement has prempted her on to other actions which I think are important for the Court to hear, because Mr. Waxman has been saying that this is acrimonious because of me. And I have one of the most distinguished menbers of the Maine community talking --who wants to talk about actually what is seen outside of this case, how this case is being perceived in the community, the knock-on effect that this is had, but she can’t get her testimony in because he-- court: But you understand that the Court's duty here is to determine a very specific issue, and that is whether there is harassment as is defined under the statute, not whether there aze community impressions. It’s really very specific. So, 1'm trying to discern from what you're presenting here as to whether or not this witness’ testimony relates to the issue in this particular proceeding and not in-- 18010 a 12 3 u 15 16 av 18 a9 20 aa 22 23 24 25 Ms, HANDRAHAN: Right. So, it’s three or more acts of intimidation, And there’s been--the trouble is, again, Sf it were only five or ten, we could nail it down, There's been 50 many acts of intimidation. and it’s--which are intended to cause fear, which, in fact, do cause fear, with the intent to --to deter exercise of constitutional rights MS. WAXMAN; And, Your Honor, before we hear this again, and again, and again 1 would submit that the burden is on the plaintif£, and she bas alzeady submitted the e-mails that she contends show this Court a very good flavor for what I have gone. So, this witness does not add anything to say, “I have seen those e-mails, too.” That doesn’t add anything. since she hasn't had any contact with me ever, she has no basis upon which to conclude that T intended to harm this witness There's simply nothing helpful about what she has to say that Tive heard so far MS. HANDRAHAN: I think, Your Honor, if somebody testifies that they've watched me be persecuted over @ year and that they’re scared that they would be persecuted because of the extreme nature of Mr. vaxman's behavior, 1 think that that testimony is incredibly important for the Court to hear particularly if it’s somebody Like Lois Reckitt who is saying she's scared that the gun will turn on her and she'll be persecuted by Ur, Waxman if she stands up and testifies, oF her staff get involved, rt--it gives she gets involved, set1| you the scope of the persecution. It’s generated fear not 2| onty for me, it's generated fear for anybody that I cone in contact with. And she’s a very important person to talk to that--to that, to provide evidence to the Court about that COURT: There may be more specific witnesses to address the point that I understand you are trying to make. I’m not sure this is the witness through whom that gets presented. Because, as I understand it, we're not talking about Ms 9| Reckitt who has had any contact or effort by Mr.--allegedly by 10 | me, wazman to stay away from you, or to--unless you're-—is 11] there anything that you-- 12 MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, maybe she could-~ 43 COURT: --are presenting in that regard? 4 MS. HANDRAHAN: I--I’m not quite sure, We didn’t--it's a is| fixed witness. I haven't rehearsed with her ahead of time, so as| x/m not quite sure what she’s going to say, But I know that 27| she thought it was very important that she stand up and 1s | testify in court today. 13 COURT: Is there some relationship between the question T 20| just posed ané--and your-. a MR. WAXMAN: Hold on. COURT: --the--the--whether or not there is--as T under 23 | stand the theory--the plaintiff's theory here is that the 24| intimidation takes the form of, in addition to being directly 25| directea--and this is the allegation--directed against her, 18210 12 a 1 a5 16 uw 18 19 20 22 a 24 25 but directed against others go that they also have an impact on her. That’s--as I understand that theory. MR. WAXMAN: Okay. That—— COURT: and my question is, does this witness have specific testimony that would even support that theory, or are we talking about something far more-- MS, HANDRAHAN: No, that’s exactly the testimony that T believe she could proffer to support that theory, Your Honor. curt: With respect to this witness and her contact with you? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, T don't know how many ways to say this to try to get you to understand what I'm trying to say. Ihave had no direct contact with the plaintiff. None whatsoever. My contact has been through her attorneys. understand that. coorr: 1 un- MR, WAXMMAN: And apparently this person is going to tell us that she reviewed some of those attorney-to-attorney contacts and that she apparently didn’t want to get involved in this case because of the acrimony she saw in those e-mails. ch, I don’t know whether that’s the testimony. coure $0, the question is whether or not there’s something here that addresses a specific communication or course of conmunication between Mr, Waxman and the witness, or the witness’ agency. WITNESS: There really has been no contact between Mr, 18310 an 12 13 rr 15 16 w 18 9 20 a 23 24 25 waxnan and either myself or the agency. What T will say is that I thought very long and very hard about whether or not te show up in this courtroom today. And it’s very unusual for me to be that fearful of any kind of experience with the judiciery system, and so to the extent that I personally have been intimidated from participation based on my observation of the court proceedings in the past, and my observations of the impact on Lori, and my observations of the--of the pleadings ‘and literally cartons full of stuff that have gone before my eyes, nade me question whether or not I wanted to put myself in that spot. And so that’s the decision that I finally said, srive got to live with myself, T’m gonna show up today." 89, that's really all I have to offer on that particular piece: DIREC? EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN uny--wny did you show up, tois, today to testify? A Well, because I think it's my duty as a--as an advocate for--for women and children to do that, and because 1 believe in your--in your case. But, you know, other than that--I mean I've really got very little to lose, Has this case changed the way you do your work? MR. WAXIAN: Objection. Relevance TNBSS; Not particularly. couRr: 1/11 sus--well--sustain the objection, but it was too late, the answer came out us. HANDRAHAN; T believe that’s all, ‘Thank you very aeda 12 3 14 15 1s a7 a8 rt 20 a 22 23 24 25 much. this > Or oe Ov OBO COURT: Okay. Mr, Waxman, do you have any questions for witness? MR. URIOAN: Just briefly. (HOSS EXAMTNATTON BY MR. WAXKAN Me. Reckitt, you and I have never met before as far as T know, is that correct? Well, it depends on what you mean by met, but, no, probably not. okay. 1 wouldn’t have known you today if Ia bumped into you, Do you have any reason to suspect I would have? tio. Found me dead in my lunch box is how T would phrase it. [siel Otay. But Heve you ever reviewed the divorce judgment in this case? Yes, T've read it Ard have you read the appeals decision as well? ves, T have. Neve you read Dr. Kabacoff’s trial testimony? ves, 1 aid you aid. Did you Although I have to say T was curious as to who Dr. Kebacoftt was--or is, I mean I’ve never heard her name before in my life. 19510 n 2 B ry 35 16 uv ry ry 20 a 2 23 24 25 And you--you disagree with her conclusion that Ms Hanrahan suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder, correct? T'q not in a position to make that judgment. okay, You said you're here because you think it’s important on her behalf and on behalf of her child? Ts that what I heard you say? Nc, on behalf of wonen similarly situated okay. Your involvenent in this case though has only been through Ms. Handrahan, correct? Net totally but close to totally, yes Well, you've talked to Lesley Devoe as well, right? Lesley and ‘Actually, T don’t know that Lesley and 1 kxow each other, but 1 don’t know that we've ever talked about this case in particular, But there are other nenbers of the community that T have talked with. MG. WAXMAN; Thats all T have. Thanks. court: Anything further of this witness? MS. HANDRAHAN: The only thing I--and I don’t know if be allowed to ask it, but 1/1L--I/11 try REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HANDRABAN the amicus brief tois Reckitt, did you sign the amicus that was presented to the Court? Did you sign it~ MR. WAXMAN: Objection. MS. HANDRAHAN; --or did the entire board of Fanily 186crisis sign it? YR, WAKWAN: Objection, MS. HANDRAIAN: Am T allowed to proffer this? MR, WAXMAN: It’s not relevant. court: You're offering a brief of-- MS. HANDRAHAN: An amicus of--an amicus brief-- courr: Right. MS. HANDRAAN: --that was filed that Lois signed. And there’s a statement in here from her MR. WAXMAN; That is lots of hearsay, and it's not vant. corr: don’t think it’s appropriate for this proceeding, MS, HANDRAHAN: Okay court: 1 would not allow that, I€ you want to mark it and have it as part of the record for any future purposes, that’s MS, HANDRAHAN: Okay. If I'm allowed to do that court: --up to you since you're offering it, but. MS, HANDRAHAN: Tf T'm allowed to do that-— court; --it’s not being admitted and 1 would not consider it Ms, HANDRAHAN: Okay. I£ I’m allowed to, I would proffer chat. couRT: Any other questions of this witness? 18710 a 2 3 aa 15 16 re 18 19 20 a MS. HANDRAHAN: No. court: All right, thank you MR. WAXMAN: No, Your Honor court: You may step down. wimwess: Thank you. COURT: bid you have another witness that needed-~ Ms, HANDRAHAN: © did, Your Honor. CouRT; =-had some time constraints? MS, HANDRAHAN: Margo Pyes ‘COURT: Twenty-three? COURT OFFICER; Remain standing, face the Judge and raise your right hand. courr: and do you want to correct that nunber on the--my penis not working. Do you solemly swear the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? witwess: do. COURT: Thank you. Be seated, please. WR, WAMMAN: Once again, Your Honor, T have an objection to this witness testifying on foundational grounds. she’s not even a menber of this community as far as I’m aware. she Lives in Baltimore, I believe, and has never met me, apart from when I walked in this courtroom this morning, as far as r’m aware, I can’t imagine she has any relevant testimony to I object to her testifying. give to this cou 188a 14 a5 16 uv 19 20 a aa 24 25 COURT: could I have your nane just so that we know who is it that we're referring to WIMNESS: Margo eyes. couRT: How do you spell that? WINES: M-a-r-g-o P-y-e-s cour: and do you wish to respond to the objection? MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, T guess it would be the same response, Your Honor, that in order to prove T need evidence to show that harassment has taken place and that it has, in fact, csused fear and suffering. So, Margo is my closest friend, I'm on the phone with her almost every day. she, more than anybody, is--she’s almost part of my life and my child's life. she’s a family menber to me and my daughter, and she's almost as if she’s in the household with me court: $0, the purpose of her testimony is to testify as to her observations of your reaction? MS, HANDRAHAN: ‘The--well, the--to show that there's been --are mre than three acts of intimidation. Far more than three acts of intimidation have occurred and she can testify to that, and she can testify to the intent of--that they do, in fact, cause fear and intimidation MR. WAXMAN: Okay. Let me just object and be heard on that particular piece. We just~-the--the plaintifé just merged two things. she can’t testify as to intent because she’s never met me.2 a3 a 8 16 a 18 19 20 aa 23 24 25 courr; r--1'm going to allow the testimony, but I think you--we need to make it very clear as to what she can testify to and what she cannot testify to, So, we'll take it a step at a tine here. MS. HANDRAHAN: | May I-- ccURT: If there’s some bearing on the observations of whether or not it has caused fear, that may be fine. whether or not it goes to the other acts of intimidation, 1'm not sure we're--that this is a competent witness for that particular MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. court: --testimony. Ms. HANDRAHAN: May T ask @ point of procedure, Your wonor? Some of the e-nails where he has said, “I--x have an intention to stay on this case, 1 will bury you with notions, *--I mean he's made his intentions quite clear in many, many e-mails. Would I show those to her, because then-- COURT: To--to deter--as evidence of whether she has MS. HANDRAHAN: She has witnessed this act of intimidation? courr: and you're asking her whether those constitute intimidation. MS, HANDRAHAN: And do-~ couR?: --and for her opinion on this issue? MS. HANDRANAN; --and do~-do they indeed cause fear and 19012 a aa a5 16 uv 8 9 20 aa 22 24 25 intimidation, court: 1 will--do you wish to be heard on that-- MR. wNQN: Yeah, T do wish to be heard on that. that’s not for her to decide, it’s for this Court to decide ccurP: All right, That is a legal conclusion for the Court to make, Mg, HANDRAHAN: Okay. curr; --but if she wishes--or is in a position to give testimeny based on her observations of you and your reaction, she may-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: She may do it. Okay. couRT: --do that if it’s otherwise admissible. MS, HANDRAHAN: Okay MARGO PYES, -HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY iS. HANDRAHAN Margo, how--how do we know each other? A You've been one of my closest friends for the past twenty years. My children are very close to you. My family, many of my Exiends know you. 1 feel very close to Mila. you've just been almost a daily presence in our lives, especially during this whole ordeal. But, you know, we've been very, very close for--for twenty years. And how do you know me as my--ny role as a mother and = friena? uy history. MR. WAXMAN: Objection. I don’t know how that's relevant10 a 2 3 14 1 16 7 18 2 20 a 22 23 2a 25 either couRr: I'm going to sustain the objection, DIRECT BKAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS, HANDRAHAN © You've been in almost daily phone contact with me, and = used to live in your community before this all happened. You know me extrenely well? A Yes Q— And--and you know the effect of this case, this constant Litigation, the e-mails that I--I forwarded. x think I forwarded you every single e-nail that’s ever been sent~ A probably. (Indiscernible) motions MS, HANDRAHAN: And when I--should T give @ specific e- mail ani then--that’s what (Indiscernible) procedure. -do cout: T can’t tell you how to present your case. you have a question that you're going to be asking this DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN the effect that~-how would you describe So, what is the: mx, Waxnan's behavior? You've almost lived this case with me, Out o£ anybody you've been there almost physically with me. YR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, —~ couR: You're asking her to describe Mr. vaxnan's behavior? 192.20 u 2 3 aa a5 16 7 18 1 20 a 22 23 24 25 Ms, HANDRAHAN: Yes WITNESS: Or the effect on court: gu--just- nmwess: ALL right. MR. WAXMAN: I have a problem with that because we've never net, because she’s apparently being asked to opine on the impact of litigation, which I would say, by the way, is very difficult. How do you--how do you parse what’s Litigation and what’s Michael Waxman? and that’s the real probler, COUR: well, a11 right. I’m going to sustain the objection to this particular question as it was phrased. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN © what has been the effect of Mr. Waxnan’s behavior on--on mne--on you? courr: Well, the issue is not on this witness. ‘The issue is whether she’s observed its effect on you. MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. Tt’s--again, it’s a two-prong thing, Your Honor. Because it’s been so horrific there's actually been a-- cour: the question is whether or not this witness is competent to testify about those--the first prong that you're talking about MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 19320 rey 2 a 15 16 a 18 19 20 a 2 23 2a 25 Would you describe the effect that this behavior has had wR. WANVAN: Well, T object on a form basis that it's vague and ambiguous. “This behavior’ is not defined. she’s been involved in a bitter custody battle for alnost two years now. It wouldn't matter whether it were me or some other lawyer, it's a very anxiety producing process Ms. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, during--1 do have for the court, to proffer, all of the motions that have been filed 1-1 haven't been able to count, so I don’t think this is exactly accurate, but there have been very few filed by me, and there's just been motion after motion after motion filed by Me. ifaxman, unjustifiably, with the intent to intimidate and cause--and I wanted Margo to speak to some of these. I can proffer this for the Court as well as evidence. court: 1m not sure how this witness would have any insight into those motions MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, if--if nobody's allowed to testify to what--the destruction that this has caused for me-- COURT: T--I didn’t say she couldn’t testify as to its impact 2n you, but- MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. COURT: ~-what--I'm not sure what you're asking her at this monent. Are you asking her what effect this has- HANDRAHAN: | Yes 19410 an a2 a a a5 16 Fa 18 a9 20 2 2 23 2a 25 COURT: --the Litigation has had on you? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes MR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, that's not relevant. courr: re that’s a question you can cross examine on, Mr. Waman, She can ask that question WITWESS: The impact, from what T have seen, has been absolutely devastating. I feel that you are a shadow of the person that you used to be. You are someone who's always been extrenely well respected, admired, well thought of, never had an issue with credibility. The constant onslaught of motions, hasty emails, threats to take away your child have been absolutely horrifying and devastating to watch. 7t’s been traumatic for me. T's been traumatic for my family. So, 7 can only imagine the extent of the trauma that you must suffer on a daily basis. Tr’s been horrifying. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, T move to strike that as being somewhat nonresponsive and also articulating evidence that has not been provided to this Court. When she characterizes, for instance, my threat to--to rip the child from her, or words to that effect, I/d Like to see the e-mail that says that, because there is not ene on the face of the earth cou: I'm going to deny the motion to strike. You may proceed, It’s a question of weight that’s accorded to it MS. HANDRAHAN: You may continue, MR, WAXMAN: No. 195,12 3 aa 15 16 7 18 9 20 a 2 23 24 25 court; 1 think she completed her answer. You have another question? DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY NS. HANDRAHAN were you interrupted? No. va, © thought you were just pausing when he got up. I can ack another question. MS, HANDRAHAN: But T thought she wasn’t finished, I'm sorry, Your Honor ccoRT: don't think Mr. Waxman-- wImWess: 1 mean T had-- corr: --interrupted the statement winwess: Right. So, the gist of--yeah, gust--T mean it’s just been devastating. I feel you are being destroyed on --on all fronts. MS. HANDRAHAN: May I ask-- may--I'11 try to ask this question. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN ‘You are supporting me financially, are you not? A Yes, Tam what effect has that had on you and--and me and our relationship? MR, WAXMAN: Objection, Relevance MS. HANDRAHAN: Relevance is, Your Honor, that part of their s:rategy is total financial destruction of me, And 196a 2 a Pry 15 16 wv 18 a9 20 a 22 23 2a 25 that's part of the act of intimidation and harassment, And vargo is now supporting me financially because T have not been able to--to be employed cour: So, the question is whether--first of all, whether she's supporting you, and the answer to that question WITNESS: Yes court: ves. wrmwess: To sone extent, yes ccuRT; and then you have another question? MS. HANDRAHAN: and the effect that that has had on her and on me. WITNESS: A ripple effect. coURT: Well, ME. HANDRAKAN: On me. Sorry. MR. WAXMAN: T--1 don't-~ DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN What is the effect that that has had on me, Margo? couRT: I'm ME. WARN: | T--T-- couRT: --1'm going to--I'11 allow her to answer the questica of the effect on-- wimess: Well, 1 think it’s been very humiliating for you. You're someone who has always worked very hard, hasn't taken a handout from anyone. You got scholarships. You 1a28 25 waitressed for many years to pay off some student loans. In the course of our friendship, up until the past year or so, T Gon’t think T had ever loaned you any money. ‘There was never any need to, You were in a pretty secure financial situation this is--you've been enbarrassed and shaned, and it’s been painful to--painful to see. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 0 How many times recently have I had to ask you for--for financial support? A It's been quite a few times MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, T object to relevance, Tt does not matter how many times. This is litigation and unfortmately it costs money sometimes MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, it points to the--the abuse, because, as Mr. Wa--ah, Altshuler testified earlier,-~ COURT: It’s @ll--it's a matter of argument. You may ask the question. Go ahead MS. HANDRAHAN: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Go ahead hat was the question? How many times? yeah. Recently x don't know exactly. It’s been quite a few times, and-— oro Po ‘and Go you recall our conversations when I was getting my monthly legal bills from Mr. Altshuler? 19810 n 2 B 4 35 16 ra 18 9 20 an 2 23 24 25 A Yes. To some extent, yes cen you tell me the nature of those conversations? aust you were-- ME. WAXMAN: Excuse me. Your Honor, I don’t know how far afield you wish to take this case, but this is so far afield and so irrelevant to these proceedings I find myself scratching my head. Objection. Relevance, coUR?: What--what is-- MS. HANDRAHAN; Your Honor, I don’t--T mean I’m not-~ COURT: --the relation: MS. HANDRAHAN; --I'm not clear--for the closing argunerts, one of the key things that the Suprene Court case of Troxel made very, very clear is that the Court needs to consider the effect of Litigation on the best interest of the child. ‘The Court awarded me primary residence and then I have not been allowed to even support my child through this incessant Litigation that has not yet been stopped, and it has a very damaging effect. It's part of the effect of the fear and harassment and intimidation. Financial destruction has heen herrific. it's a very important part of my emotional distress if 1 can't even provide for my om daughter. And T'm sonebo¢y who has always paid my own way and I'm begging my friends for money on a constant basis couR?: But T--ae I understand it, there's already been testimeny that--that you are receiving financial assistance 199