1. To: judy356@msn.com
Subject: Re: website removal
From: mjwaxy@aol.com
CC: igormalenko@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:41:04 -0500
Judy:
Thanks for doing this. I shall discuss it with Igor. I can tell you that I am not willing to agree to alter my
law firm web site -- www.waxmanlaw.us in any substantial manner, and I shall not permit my client to
agree to that. We did not agree to that on the record yesterday, so that may have to be specifically
excepted.
And the more I think of it, the less I am convinced that this Court has any power over ME in any fashion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_
Pickering Investigations Pickering Investigations LLC
93 Beech Hill Road
Phone (207) 266-7297
stephenp2@myfairpoint.net
Blue Hill, ME 04614 Fax (207) 374-3687
Stephanie Anderson
Cumberland County District Attorney's Office
142 Federal Street
Portland, Maine 04101
Dear Ms. Anderson,
I feel compelled to bring information to your attention that may constitute the crime of Criminal
Contempt of Court. On January 31, 2012 at approximately 10:30am in the Portland Judicial
Center in Court Room 9 a hearing was being held. The presiding judge was the Honorable
Jeffrey Moskowitz. Attorneys for the defendant were Judy Potter and Ardith Keith. Attorney
for the plaintiff was Michael Waxman.
At the end of the proceeding, defendant's attorney Judy Potter asked Judge Moskowitz about the
defendant's right to have visitation with the minor child in question. Judge Moskowitz
responded that there is a court order in place that allows the defendant to see her child. The
attorney for the plaintiff, Michael Waxman, stated that his client will not honor that court order.
The judge responded that there was a court order in place and it was to be adhered to. Things got
out of hand at this point and attorney Waxman stood up, pointed his finger at the judge and
stated, "I'm telling you" that the court order will not be honored. I will defer to the recording and
or transcript as to the exact words and the tenor of the exchange. Waxman raised his voice to
the judge and some would describe it as yelling at the judge.
The proceeding was disrupted by attorney Waxman's willful disregard of Judge Moskowitz's
orders and his outburst made it impossible for attorney Potter to engage the judge so she could
give her opinion and information.

2. Judge Moskowitz quickly adjourned the hearing after refusing to give attorney Waxman legal
advice as to whether his client was committing civil contempt or criminal contempt by
disobeying the judge's court order. As the judge left the courtroom, attorney Waxman turned his
negative and insulting comments to attorney Potter and her client Lori Handrahan. He referred
to Handrahan as "that woman". Attorney Waxman unfortunately added you to the mix by
saying that he was going to file charges against you and sue you as well.
This is not an isolated incident. On June 21, 2011 Lori Handrahan attempted to pick-up her
daughter from Igor Malenko for visitation. Malenko refused contact between mother and
daughter and contacted attorney Waxman. Handrahan contacted South Portland police as did
Malenko or attorney Waxman. One of the responding officers, Patty Maynard, conferred with
attorney Waxman. After the conversation she can be clearly heard on a recording made by
Handrahan using phrases such as "best interest of the child" and "supervised visits". Handrahan
was told to contact two specific case workers at DHHS and to get an attorney. I contacted the
South Portland Police Dispatch. Officer Maynard would not talk to me directly but through the
dispatcher she stated that the paper work that she looked at was in fact a legal document. The
paper that attorney Waxman showed Officer Maynard was a letter dated April 29, 2011that
stated DHHS had unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against Igor Malenko. Attorney Waxman
used deception and lies to influence the police officer's actions to further aid his client in
disobeying the court order as it pertains to visitation.
On June 27, 2011 I spoke with DHHS Child Protective Supervisor Mark Dalton who was
specifically mentioned to South Portland Police as a contact person for Handrahan. He told me
that under no circumstances did he tell Michael Waxman or Igor Malenko that Handrahan would
be restricted to supervised visits. I spoke with DHHS Caseworker Rebecca Austin who stated
that she personally told Waxman that she felt his involvement in the situation was making
matters worse instead of better.
Attorney Waxman will tell anyone that will listen that Handrahan cannot see her daughter
without being supervised. There is no such order by the court or DHHS. Attorney Waxman's
client, Igor Malenko, recently told staff (Ellen Berg) at the Maiden Cove Daycare in Cape
Elizabeth that Handrahan cannot see her child unless the visit was supervised. It was the staff
worker's belief that Malenko was quoting a legal court document.
On August 12, 2011 I was in attorney Judy Potter's office as she was engaged in a conference
call with Michael Waxman and Judge Moskowitz. I was not part of the call but the conversation
was loud enough that I could hear it. The subject of visitation came up and attorney Waxman
stated that his client would not allow it. I heard Judge Moskowitz say, "I hope you know what
you are doing." I understood this to be a warning from the judge.
On February 1, 2012 attorney Waxman sent an e-mail to attorney Potter. I include a portion of
that e-mail here. "And the more I think of it, the less I am convinced that this Court
has any power over ME in any fashion."
Both Igor Malenko and Michael Waxman have threatened Handrahan in writing with arrest and
incarceration if she attempts to see her daughter. It would appear that attorney Waxman and Igor

3. Malenko are using threats of criminal prosecution to inhibit Handrahan from enforcing a civil
order.
I believe that both Michael Waxman and Igor Malenko are now and have been committing civil
contempt of court since May of 2011 and they both committed Criminal Contempt of Court on
January 31, 2012 by their willful disregard of the judge's order in his courtroom as the judge was
affirming the order.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Contact me anytime if you need more
information.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Pickering
From: Elizabeth Noyes [mailto:lizanoyes@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:44 PM
To: anderson@cumberlandcounty.org
Subject: HANDRAHAND MALENKO HEARING
Dear District Attorney Anderson,
I was amazed -- but not surprised -- to hear today that Michael Waxman has filed suit against
you, as he said he would immediately after the 1/31/12 hearing. I was in court to support my
friend, Lori Handrahan. The judge was to rule on Mila-related web activity. What ensued was a
bizarre display of Waxman's pathology. He's unwilling or unable to keep his arrogance,
malevolence and creepiness under wraps. It was studding to watch, and it was scary.
The hearing focused on a medical photograph showing an injury to Mila's groin. Although the
genitalia were blacked out in the photo Lori posted for several hours on the web, Waxman and
Malenko insisted the photo showed the child's "vagina and anus". Waxman repeated this phrase
many times. Once it was Judy Potter's turn to question Malenko, and after a fleeting and
mysterious appearance by Waxman's lawyer, Peter Rodway, Waxman had a laughing fit. Judy
Potter asked the judge to ask him stop. During a brief recess, Waxman tried to engage a man he
knew to be on the witness list for the federal law suit Waxman has filed against Lori.
And then, at the close of the hearing the judge said that the standing court order giving Lori
unsupervised visitation should be upheld pending the next hearing. Waxman said, "It will not
be!" He asked loudly if defying the order would be a civil or criminal offense. Moskowitz said
he would not give Waxman legal advice. "If it's not, it's not," the judge said, but repeated that
there was a standing court order. Waxman said, "I'm telling YOU," pointing his finger and very
aggressive, "that it's not going to happen." He was talking over the judge and moving toward
him, repeating that he would not obey the court order. Moskowitz told Waxman over and over to
"sit down, Mr. Waxman" and calm down. Waxman, who did not sit down, kept challenging the
judge and insisting that he would not obey, that his client would not obey. The judge adjourned
the court, and left hastily. Waxman went completely off the rails at this point, shouting and
insisting he would not let the police take Mila, he would not allow that woman get her hands on

4. that child, to have Mila's vagina and anus examined. He said something about charges against
you, Stephanie Anderson, and suing you. Then he flounced out the door, as I recall, repeating
vagina and anus, as if branding Mila with his words.
I wish you all the best with this. He's challenging everyone in power to stop him.
Elizabeth Noyes
Find attached a letter from Lori's immigration lawyer re: Malenko's status.
ICE ltr 012712.pdf
1053K View Download
From: Carrie Rockwell
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:13 PM
To: Anderson@cumberlandcounty.org
Subject: witness to Hearing on Tuesday, Jan 31,2012 concerning Michael Waxman's unprofessional and
threatening behavior
Dear Ms. Anderson:
I was a witness to the hearing that took place Jan 31, 2012
under Judge Moskowitz where Michael Waxman behaved
threateningly toward everyone present including the Judge.
Please view this as a formal complaint of Michael Waxman’s
unprofessional, and disturbing behavior.
I was present out of concern for Lori Handrahan and her
daughter Mila, neighbors and friends of mine in Sorrento, ME.
As an experienced RN with a background in substance abuse
and psychiatric nursing obtained at Jackson Brook Institute
back in the late 1980’s and in the last 14 years in Rehab nursing
at Sonogee Rehab and Living Estate in Bar Harbor, I am deeply
concerned that a man exhibiting such violent, obsessive,
contemptuous out of control behavior as Michael Waxman
displayed is the dominating figure in the life of 5 year old Mila,

5. obsessively clinging to the child while denying the rights of Mila
to have her loving mother care for her and be in her life.
The hearing began with Michael Waxman leading the court into
confusion over labeling the massive amounts of documents he
introduced, of such proportions that it was clear no one had
the time to ever read them. He then harangued his client, Igor
Malenko, for over an hour thrusting at him pictures of Igor’s
daughter’s anus and vagina, and reading aloud an email
Waxman himself wrote to a woman whom he met on Facebook
revealing his thoughts about what could be done to Mila’s
vagina with a coke bottle. All this was done to prove what 10
people in the room knew and could prove with certainty was a
lie.
During the recess that followed Waxman began taunting Mr.
Bob Gilman, also of Sorrento, who was sitting directly behind
me. He was behaving like a bully trying to pick a fight and only
stopped when it finally dawned on him that Mr. Gilman was not
going to take the bait.
When it became Judy Potter’s turn to cross examine, Waxman
could not control his snickering and disruptive heckling despite
a warning from the Judge. Judy asked maybe 5 questions in
order to bring the whole matter to a close as quickly as
possible. When the Judge announced he was upholding his
court order to allow for Lori’s visits with Mila, Mr. Waxman
burst into a rage, and ran at the bench driving his finger
towards the Judge, screaming he would never allow “that
woman to see that child.” The Judge did nothing other than ask

6. him repeatedly to sit down. Waxman wanted legal council
from the Judge to know whether ignoring the court order
would be a civil or criminal matter. The Judge declined to offer
advice. Waxman didn’t stop yelling threats at the court, at you
the DA, at Lori until he finally exited the hearing room while
screaming about Mila’s private parts; meanwhile, everyone sat
quietly stunned. Lori was unmoving like a stone, clearly in
shock. I was hoping the bailiff had a taser, just in case Mr.
Waxman stepped up the rhetoric to actual violence.
It’s been difficult even writing this as my instinct for self
preservation says to put it all behind and focus on something
more positive and life affirming. Were it not for Mila and Lori, I
could do that. I don’t care about Mr. Waxman. I only wish the
parties concerned would be given the opportunity for solving
their problems without the interference of an unprofessional
lawyer, and a clearly disturbed individual.
Respectfully,
Carrie Rockwell, RN

7. From: newbold noyes [mailto:newboldnoyes@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:42 AM
To: anderson@cumberlandcounty.org
Subject:
Ms Anderson,
I have taken a week or so to ponder the angry outburst in family court on by Michael Waxman
on January 31. I am at a loss to understand how this man is permitted to continue to "practice"
law in this state. Obviously I am not trained in the law; in my former life I was a film maker,
directing and producing independent documentary film and corporate communications. I am
now retired, and as I mentioned in an earlier email, I live in the same town as Dr Lori
Handrahan, she has been a friend of our family for more than ten years. I have been increasingly
concerned at the strange manner in which she has been treated by the Cumberland County
Family Court as run by Judge Moskowitz.
It appears to me, from the divorce decree onward, there has been a distinct animus toward her
from the bench. One only has to read the decree to see that. I was not in court for her divorce,
but whether the judgmental attitude expressed in the divorce decree is due to the Judge's apparent
dislike of her personally, or his pro father's rights stance, or the incompetence of her lawyer, or
the malign influence of Mr Waxman on the Judge's decisions, whereever this comes from this
was not a normal divorce decree. The unbalanced behaviors and decisions which have been
made in the subsequent hearings which I have attended are cause for my concern now, and I feel
should be cause for your concern as well.
My thoughts are these: the law and courts exist to arbitrate between parties in dispute, whether
the case civil, family or criminal. As the opposing parties are emotionally involved and anything
but objective, lawyers exist to present each parties position with reason and clarity, and one
assumes, without emotional outbursts, snickering, baiting witnesses, or otherwise acting
irrationally and demeaning to the court or to the opposing party. The judge is there to keep the
lawyers on track, to mediate points of law and argument, and maintain decorum in the court. In
juried cases, the judge really seems to have limited powers, basically deciding whether objection
can be over ruled or sustained, the witness is directed to answer the question, etc. In family
court, with no jury, the judge's power is more profound, in that the judge has is ultimate authority
in determining the outcome of custody disputes, divorce decrees, etc. And it seems there is no
avenue for appeal to a higher authority in family court,. nor a mechanism by which matters of a
criminal nature can become matters for a criminal court, rather than a family court.
The incidents I have seen and recorded in the hearings I have attended in the
Malenko/Handrahan case leading up to Mr Waxman's outburst on the 31st have deeply disturbed
me. The accounts of the two hearings which I forwarded to you are replete with instances in
which his contempt for his opposing lawyer, for Dr Handrahan, for the few witnesses Dr
Handrahan's lawyers have managed to get admitted, the evidence they have provided, and the
Judge himself are blatant and to me, far exceed the vigorous defense of his client the system
requires of a lawyer. The evidence which Dr Handrahan's lawyers have attempted to introduce
which the Judge, following Mr Waxman's lead, has denied, is compelling, professional and

8. sworn to, suggesting physical as well as sexual abuse of this child, yet custody inexplicably was
granted to the father. This simply makes no sense.
The only time I have ever seen the Judge stand up to Mr Waxman on any significant point was
when the question was asked by Ms Potter regarding whether or not the court ordered visitation
schedule should be enforced, to which the Judge answered that yes, it should, at which point Mr
Waxman began his esclating tirade. The Judge's response was not to quiet Mr Waxman down,
although he did request that Mr Waxman sit down and calm down, which Mr Waxman in his
tantrum, simply ignore or did not hear as he was shouting to loudly. The Judge did not attempt
to discuss the visitation schedule, nor to find out why his order had not been followed for nine
months, nor to find Mr Waxman in contempt for his uncontrolled outburst involving shouted
threats to deny the court ordered visitation. Rather, the Judge chose abruptly to adjourn the court
and flee the bench, leaving his court in chaos with Mr Waxman continuing to shout and threaten.
Judge Moskowitz has permitted Mr Waxman to act out in an increasingly troublesome manner
without cautioning this attorney in any meaningful way. That is bad enough, as all a Judge really
has the power to do, other than make decisions from the bench, is to keep control of his court.
Judge Moskowitz has been unable to do that and the result is a lawyer who expresses contempt
with impunity.
It is as if the Judge were afraid of Mr Waxman. What disturbs me more, is that if Mr Waxman's
outbursts and anger are typical when he is thwarted, waving his arms and shouting, out of
control, red in the face, literally spitting his contempt for the judicial process that for once ran
contrary to his wishes, if he can scare a Judge right off the bench, and literally stun the several
adults in a court room, what effect must this behavior have on a child like Mila? Mr Waxman
says he has considerable contact with her, has developed a deep attachment for her, an affection
so deep in fact that it is he who states that he refuses the court order the permit this child to even
see her mother, never mind spend any time with her, and wishes to erase any memory of her
mother from this child's mind. At what point does this behavior merit serious investigation and
possible criminal charges if not now?
It seems to me that this case, which should be about Mila and her right to be with her mother, as
the Judge ordered, has become all about Mr Waxman and what he will permit. His continuing
threats have scared off several lawyers from representing Dr Handrahan, witnesses have changed
their testimony after a having a conversation with Mr Waxman, and now he is requesting a
protection from abuse order to protect Mila and Igor Malenko and himself from Dr Handrahan
from the very Judge who fled his wrath in the court room at the last hearing. This is
preposterous and would be funny if it were not so serious. It is Dr Handrahan who should be
granted a protection order from this out of control lawyer. It is MIla who should be taken from a
threatening and documented dangerous environment in which the family court, Igor Malenko
and Michael Waxman have placed her, and Mr Waxman and Mr Malenko continue to keep her,
in violation of the court own orders.
To me, the entire judicial process has abused this child and her mother from the very beginning.
It is time for that to stop, and for Michael Waxman to be called to account for what amounts to

9. kidnapping, violating court orders, interfering with visitation rights granted by the court to that
mother and child, contempt of court, filing harassing and frivolous law suits, witness tampering,
just to name a few charges. So, I am filing a complaint to you as District Attorney of
Cumberland County to bring to this matter some shred of decency, civility, fairness, reason and
justice delivered rather that justice denied for that child and her mother. The manner in which
Mr Waxman has behaved and which the Court is, by its silence sanctioning, means that not only
is Mila in danger, we all are, for then there is no rule of law, and an outrageous lawyer can do
what he wishes without consequence. This is the negation of what I think you and other officers
of the court stand for and have sworn to uphold.
Respectfully,
Newbold Noyes
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:06 PM
To: Lori Handrahan; Stephen Pickering
Subject: my version
Waxman
TO: 1 recipient
Show Details
Dear Ms. Andersen,
Please accept this e-mail as official notice of complaint as to the behavior of
Michael Waxman
on the 31st of January, 2012, at the Cumberland County Courthouse. There are three
major areas
of concern, hopefully your office can address one if not all of them.
Beginning with the blatantly false testimony Mr. Waxman solicited from his
alleged client, there
are several phrases that come to mind, i.e. perjury, suborning perjury, falsifying
evidence, conspiracy
to commit a fraud upon the court, etc. I refer to his client as "alleged" because I believe
they have acted
together and therefore should be viewed as co-defendant's with their attorney-client
privilege severed.
Second, I am listed as a witness in Waxman's Federal lawsuit set to be heard this
coming July. He
knows full well he is not to contact me, yet on the morning of that Tuesday while the
Court was on a short
break he turned around in his chair and began questioning me as I sat in the back row
of the courtroom.
I did not respond to any of his slimy provocations but I and the other people there stared
at him in disbelief.
The questions kept coming for several minutes interspersed with commentary on what
an honest fellow he is.
This was nothing short of witness tampering and a violation of judicial and social ethics.

10. Finally, Mr. Waxman's bizarre screaming at the close of the hearing, just before
and after the judge left
the room, these were the rantings of a sociopath. I cannot understand why the judge let
this go on and then
hurried away from the bench leaving it going on, much akin to a court version of the
"Jerry Springer Show".
I don't know what, if anything, you can do with this information, but I do know
Michael Waxman is not acting
as an agent of the Court and should not be licensed by the State to perform even the
most mundane task.
If there is more you require of me I can be reached at this e-mail address or
(207)422-6898.
Robert F. Gilman
Sullivan, Maine