Five witness statements to federal obstruction of justice waxman & malenko 2012
To: firstname.lastname@example.orgSubject: Re: website removalFrom: email@example.comCC: firstname.lastname@example.orgDate: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:41:04 -0500Judy:Thanks for doing this. I shall discuss it with Igor. I can tell you that I am not willing to agree to alter mylaw firm web site -- www.waxmanlaw.us in any substantial manner, and I shall not permit my client toagree to that. We did not agree to that on the record yesterday, so that may have to be specificallyexcepted.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 email@example.com Blue Hill, ME 04614 Fax (207) 374-3687Stephanie AndersonCumberland County District Attorneys Office142 Federal StreetPortland, Maine 04101Dear Ms. Anderson,I feel compelled to bring information to your attention that may constitute the crime of CriminalContempt of Court. On January 31, 2012 at approximately 10:30am in the Portland JudicialCenter in Court Room 9 a hearing was being held. The presiding judge was the HonorableJeffrey Moskowitz. Attorneys for the defendant were Judy Potter and Ardith Keith. Attorneyfor the plaintiff was Michael Waxman.At the end of the proceeding, defendants attorney Judy Potter asked Judge Moskowitz about thedefendants right to have visitation with the minor child in question. Judge Moskowitzresponded that there is a court order in place that allows the defendant to see her child. Theattorney 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 gotout of hand at this point and attorney Waxman stood up, pointed his finger at the judge andstated, "Im telling you" that the court order will not be honored. I will defer to the recording andor transcript as to the exact words and the tenor of the exchange. Waxman raised his voice tothe judge and some would describe it as yelling at the judge.The proceeding was disrupted by attorney Waxmans willful disregard of Judge Moskowitzsorders and his outburst made it impossible for attorney Potter to engage the judge so she couldgive her opinion and information.
Judge Moskowitz quickly adjourned the hearing after refusing to give attorney Waxman legaladvice as to whether his client was committing civil contempt or criminal contempt bydisobeying the judges court order. As the judge left the courtroom, attorney Waxman turned hisnegative and insulting comments to attorney Potter and her client Lori Handrahan. He referredto Handrahan as "that woman". Attorney Waxman unfortunately added you to the mix bysaying 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 herdaughter from Igor Malenko for visitation. Malenko refused contact between mother anddaughter and contacted attorney Waxman. Handrahan contacted South Portland police as didMalenko or attorney Waxman. One of the responding officers, Patty Maynard, conferred withattorney Waxman. After the conversation she can be clearly heard on a recording made byHandrahan using phrases such as "best interest of the child" and "supervised visits". Handrahanwas told to contact two specific case workers at DHHS and to get an attorney. I contacted theSouth Portland Police Dispatch. Officer Maynard would not talk to me directly but through thedispatcher she stated that the paper work that she looked at was in fact a legal document. Thepaper that attorney Waxman showed Officer Maynard was a letter dated April 29, 2011thatstated DHHS had unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against Igor Malenko. Attorney Waxmanused deception and lies to influence the police officers actions to further aid his client indisobeying the court order as it pertains to visitation.On June 27, 2011 I spoke with DHHS Child Protective Supervisor Mark Dalton who wasspecifically mentioned to South Portland Police as a contact person for Handrahan. He told methat under no circumstances did he tell Michael Waxman or Igor Malenko that Handrahan wouldbe restricted to supervised visits. I spoke with DHHS Caseworker Rebecca Austin who statedthat she personally told Waxman that she felt his involvement in the situation was makingmatters worse instead of better.Attorney Waxman will tell anyone that will listen that Handrahan cannot see her daughterwithout being supervised. There is no such order by the court or DHHS. Attorney Waxmansclient, Igor Malenko, recently told staff (Ellen Berg) at the Maiden Cove Daycare in CapeElizabeth that Handrahan cannot see her child unless the visit was supervised. It was the staffworkers belief that Malenko was quoting a legal court document.On August 12, 2011 I was in attorney Judy Potters office as she was engaged in a conferencecall with Michael Waxman and Judge Moskowitz. I was not part of the call but the conversationwas loud enough that I could hear it. The subject of visitation came up and attorney Waxmanstated that his client would not allow it. I heard Judge Moskowitz say, "I hope you know whatyou 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 ofthat e-mail here. "And the more I think of it, the less I am convinced that this Courthas any power over ME in any fashion."Both Igor Malenko and Michael Waxman have threatened Handrahan in writing with arrest andincarceration if she attempts to see her daughter. It would appear that attorney Waxman and Igor
Malenko are using threats of criminal prosecution to inhibit Handrahan from enforcing a civilorder.I believe that both Michael Waxman and Igor Malenko are now and have been committing civilcontempt of court since May of 2011 and they both committed Criminal Contempt of Court onJanuary 31, 2012 by their willful disregard of the judges order in his courtroom as the judge wasaffirming the order.Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Contact me anytime if you need moreinformation.Sincerely,Stephen J. PickeringFrom: Elizabeth Noyes [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:44 PMTo: email@example.comSubject: HANDRAHAND MALENKO HEARINGDear District Attorney Anderson,I was amazed -- but not surprised -- to hear today that Michael Waxman has filed suit againstyou, as he said he would immediately after the 1/31/12 hearing. I was in court to support myfriend, Lori Handrahan. The judge was to rule on Mila-related web activity. What ensued was abizarre display of Waxmans pathology. Hes 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 Milas groin. Although thegenitalia were blacked out in the photo Lori posted for several hours on the web, Waxman andMalenko insisted the photo showed the childs "vagina and anus". Waxman repeated this phrasemany times. Once it was Judy Potters turn to question Malenko, and after a fleeting andmysterious appearance by Waxmans lawyer, Peter Rodway, Waxman had a laughing fit. JudyPotter asked the judge to ask him stop. During a brief recess, Waxman tried to engage a man heknew 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 Loriunsupervised visitation should be upheld pending the next hearing. Waxman said, "It will notbe!" He asked loudly if defying the order would be a civil or criminal offense. Moskowitz saidhe would not give Waxman legal advice. "If its not, its not," the judge said, but repeated thatthere was a standing court order. Waxman said, "Im telling YOU," pointing his finger and veryaggressive, "that its not going to happen." He was talking over the judge and moving towardhim, 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 thejudge and insisting that he would not obey, that his client would not obey. The judge adjournedthe court, and left hastily. Waxman went completely off the rails at this point, shouting andinsisting he would not let the police take Mila, he would not allow that woman get her hands on
that child, to have Milas vagina and anus examined. He said something about charges againstyou, Stephanie Anderson, and suing you. Then he flounced out the door, as I recall, repeatingvagina and anus, as if branding Mila with his words.I wish you all the best with this. Hes challenging everyone in power to stop him.Elizabeth NoyesFind attached a letter from Loris immigration lawyer re: Malenkos status. ICE ltr 012712.pdf 1053K View DownloadFrom: Carrie RockwellSent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:13 PMTo: Anderson@cumberlandcounty.orgSubject: witness to Hearing on Tuesday, Jan 31,2012 concerning Michael Waxmans unprofessional andthreatening behaviorDear Ms. Anderson:I was a witness to the hearing that took place Jan 31, 2012under Judge Moskowitz where Michael Waxman behavedthreateningly toward everyone present including the Judge.Please view this as a formal complaint of Michael Waxman’sunprofessional, and disturbing behavior.I was present out of concern for Lori Handrahan and herdaughter Mila, neighbors and friends of mine in Sorrento, ME.As an experienced RN with a background in substance abuseand psychiatric nursing obtained at Jackson Brook Instituteback in the late 1980’s and in the last 14 years in Rehab nursingat Sonogee Rehab and Living Estate in Bar Harbor, I am deeplyconcerned that a man exhibiting such violent, obsessive,contemptuous out of control behavior as Michael Waxmandisplayed is the dominating figure in the life of 5 year old Mila,
obsessively clinging to the child while denying the rights of Milato have her loving mother care for her and be in her life.The hearing began with Michael Waxman leading the court intoconfusion over labeling the massive amounts of documents heintroduced, of such proportions that it was clear no one hadthe time to ever read them. He then harangued his client, IgorMalenko, for over an hour thrusting at him pictures of Igor’sdaughter’s anus and vagina, and reading aloud an emailWaxman himself wrote to a woman whom he met on Facebookrevealing his thoughts about what could be done to Mila’svagina with a coke bottle. All this was done to prove what 10people in the room knew and could prove with certainty was alie.During the recess that followed Waxman began taunting Mr.Bob Gilman, also of Sorrento, who was sitting directly behindme. He was behaving like a bully trying to pick a fight and onlystopped when it finally dawned on him that Mr. Gilman was notgoing to take the bait.When it became Judy Potter’s turn to cross examine, Waxmancould not control his snickering and disruptive heckling despitea warning from the Judge. Judy asked maybe 5 questions inorder to bring the whole matter to a close as quickly aspossible. When the Judge announced he was upholding hiscourt order to allow for Lori’s visits with Mila, Mr. Waxmanburst into a rage, and ran at the bench driving his fingertowards the Judge, screaming he would never allow “thatwoman to see that child.” The Judge did nothing other than ask
him repeatedly to sit down. Waxman wanted legal councilfrom the Judge to know whether ignoring the court orderwould be a civil or criminal matter. The Judge declined to offeradvice. Waxman didn’t stop yelling threats at the court, at youthe DA, at Lori until he finally exited the hearing room whilescreaming about Mila’s private parts; meanwhile, everyone satquietly stunned. Lori was unmoving like a stone, clearly inshock. 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 selfpreservation says to put it all behind and focus on somethingmore positive and life affirming. Were it not for Mila and Lori, Icould do that. I don’t care about Mr. Waxman. I only wish theparties concerned would be given the opportunity for solvingtheir problems without the interference of an unprofessionallawyer, and a clearly disturbed individual.Respectfully,Carrie Rockwell, RN
From: newbold noyes [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:42 AMTo: email@example.comSubject:Ms Anderson,I have taken a week or so to ponder the angry outburst in family court on by Michael Waxmanon 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 amnow retired, and as I mentioned in an earlier email, I live in the same town as Dr LoriHandrahan, she has been a friend of our family for more than ten years. I have been increasinglyconcerned at the strange manner in which she has been treated by the Cumberland CountyFamily Court as run by Judge Moskowitz.It appears to me, from the divorce decree onward, there has been a distinct animus toward herfrom 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 Judges apparentdislike of her personally, or his pro fathers rights stance, or the incompetence of her lawyer, orthe malign influence of Mr Waxman on the Judges decisions, whereever this comes from thiswas not a normal divorce decree. The unbalanced behaviors and decisions which have beenmade in the subsequent hearings which I have attended are cause for my concern now, and I feelshould be cause for your concern as well.My thoughts are these: the law and courts exist to arbitrate between parties in dispute, whetherthe case civil, family or criminal. As the opposing parties are emotionally involved and anythingbut objective, lawyers exist to present each parties position with reason and clarity, and oneassumes, without emotional outbursts, snickering, baiting witnesses, or otherwise actingirrationally and demeaning to the court or to the opposing party. The judge is there to keep thelawyers on track, to mediate points of law and argument, and maintain decorum in the court. Injuried cases, the judge really seems to have limited powers, basically deciding whether objectioncan be over ruled or sustained, the witness is directed to answer the question, etc. In familycourt, with no jury, the judges power is more profound, in that the judge has is ultimate authorityin determining the outcome of custody disputes, divorce decrees, etc. And it seems there is noavenue for appeal to a higher authority in family court,. nor a mechanism by which matters of acriminal 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 theMalenko/Handrahan case leading up to Mr Waxmans outburst on the 31st have deeply disturbedme. The accounts of the two hearings which I forwarded to you are replete with instances inwhich his contempt for his opposing lawyer, for Dr Handrahan, for the few witnesses DrHandrahans lawyers have managed to get admitted, the evidence they have provided, and theJudge himself are blatant and to me, far exceed the vigorous defense of his client the systemrequires of a lawyer. The evidence which Dr Handrahans lawyers have attempted to introducewhich the Judge, following Mr Waxmans lead, has denied, is compelling, professional and
sworn to, suggesting physical as well as sexual abuse of this child, yet custody inexplicably wasgranted 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 waswhen the question was asked by Ms Potter regarding whether or not the court ordered visitationschedule should be enforced, to which the Judge answered that yes, it should, at which point MrWaxman began his esclating tirade. The Judges response was not to quiet Mr Waxman down,although he did request that Mr Waxman sit down and calm down, which Mr Waxman in histantrum, simply ignore or did not hear as he was shouting to loudly. The Judge did not attemptto discuss the visitation schedule, nor to find out why his order had not been followed for ninemonths, nor to find Mr Waxman in contempt for his uncontrolled outburst involving shoutedthreats to deny the court ordered visitation. Rather, the Judge chose abruptly to adjourn the courtand 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 mannerwithout cautioning this attorney in any meaningful way. That is bad enough, as all a Judge reallyhas 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 contemptwith impunity.It is as if the Judge were afraid of Mr Waxman. What disturbs me more, is that if Mr Waxmansoutbursts and anger are typical when he is thwarted, waving his arms and shouting, out ofcontrol, red in the face, literally spitting his contempt for the judicial process that for once rancontrary to his wishes, if he can scare a Judge right off the bench, and literally stun the severaladults in a court room, what effect must this behavior have on a child like Mila? Mr Waxmansays he has considerable contact with her, has developed a deep attachment for her, an affectionso deep in fact that it is he who states that he refuses the court order the permit this child to evensee her mother, never mind spend any time with her, and wishes to erase any memory of hermother from this childs mind. At what point does this behavior merit serious investigation andpossible 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, asthe Judge ordered, has become all about Mr Waxman and what he will permit. His continuingthreats have scared off several lawyers from representing Dr Handrahan, witnesses have changedtheir testimony after a having a conversation with Mr Waxman, and now he is requesting aprotection from abuse order to protect Mila and Igor Malenko and himself from Dr Handrahanfrom the very Judge who fled his wrath in the court room at the last hearing. This ispreposterous and would be funny if it were not so serious. It is Dr Handrahan who should begranted a protection order from this out of control lawyer. It is MIla who should be taken from athreatening and documented dangerous environment in which the family court, Igor Malenkoand 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
kidnapping, violating court orders, interfering with visitation rights granted by the court to thatmother 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 ofCumberland County to bring to this matter some shred of decency, civility, fairness, reason andjustice delivered rather that justice denied for that child and her mother. The manner in whichMr Waxman has behaved and which the Court is, by its silence sanctioning, means that not onlyis Mila in danger, we all are, for then there is no rule of law, and an outrageous lawyer can dowhat he wishes without consequence. This is the negation of what I think you and other officersof the court stand for and have sworn to uphold.Respectfully,Newbold NoyesFrom:Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:06 PMTo: Lori Handrahan; Stephen PickeringSubject: my version WaxmanTO: 1 recipientShow DetailsDear Ms. Andersen, Please accept this e-mail as official notice of complaint as to the behavior ofMichael Waxmanon the 31st of January, 2012, at the Cumberland County Courthouse. There are threemajor areasof concern, hopefully your office can address one if not all of them. Beginning with the blatantly false testimony Mr. Waxman solicited from hisalleged client, thereare several phrases that come to mind, i.e. perjury, suborning perjury, falsifyingevidence, conspiracyto commit a fraud upon the court, etc. I refer to his client as "alleged" because I believethey have actedtogether and therefore should be viewed as co-defendants with their attorney-clientprivilege severed. Second, I am listed as a witness in Waxmans Federal lawsuit set to be heard thiscoming July. Heknows full well he is not to contact me, yet on the morning of that Tuesday while theCourt was on a shortbreak he turned around in his chair and began questioning me as I sat in the back rowof the courtroom.I did not respond to any of his slimy provocations but I and the other people there staredat him in disbelief.The questions kept coming for several minutes interspersed with commentary on whatan honest fellow he is.This was nothing short of witness tampering and a violation of judicial and social ethics.
Finally, Mr. Waxmans bizarre screaming at the close of the hearing, just beforeand after the judge leftthe room, these were the rantings of a sociopath. I cannot understand why the judge letthis go on and thenhurried away from the bench leaving it going on, much akin to a court version of the"Jerry Springer Show". I dont know what, if anything, you can do with this information, but I do knowMichael Waxman is not actingas an agent of the Court and should not be licensed by the State to perform even themost 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. GilmanSullivan, Maine