Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Waxman emails naming dan despard as a supporter


Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Waxman emails naming dan despard as a supporter

  1. 1. From: []Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:33 PMTo:; john.virginio@maine.govCc:;; Harwood, William; Carlos.Diaz@maine.govSubject: Fwd: Child Support MotionJanelle and John:The ball is back in your court. I need to know the person I should be speaking with to get to the bottom ofthis annoyance. Who would that be? Please advise ASAP.In particular, I need to know a) how to correct the Departments misimpression that Mr. Malenko has a"debt" of $7,770, b) how to get DHHS to back away from any enforcement actions, including serving aWithholding Order on IDEXX while this case meanders through the court system, c) whatinformation/misinformation Ms. Handrahan has given the Department about Mr. Malenkos payments andd) what your arrangement with Ms. Handrahan is in terms of whether she is paying the Dept a fee and ifso what that is. Under normal circumstances, when other parties take action that has no real basis infact, I ask the Court to award me attorney fees, for causing the problem. In this case it is DHHS who iscausing -- not solving -- a problem. Please feel free to inquire of Daniel Despard regarding Ms.Handrahans motivation for, and skill at, causing problems. He is very familiar with this case.As you can see, I have spent a substantial amount of my day dealing with this, instead of billing mypaying clients $225 per hour, all because this Dept JUMPS when Ms. Handrahan asks it to, without doingsufficient due diligence or investigation of its own beforehand. This is quite frustrating. I am sure wecould ALL be doing more productive things today.Please put me in touch with the proper authorities immediately. Thank you.Michael J. Waxman, Esq.One Monument Way, Ste. 206P.O. Box 375Portland, Maine 04112-0375(207) 772-9558 phone(207) 772-9567 Message-----From: Diaz, Carlos <>To: mjwaxy@aol.comCc: Dunn, Janelle <>; wharwood@verrilldana.comSent: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 2:18 pmSubject: RE: Child Support MotionMichael:Either party may request the assistance of DHHS, but if there is no public assistance and both parties arerepresented by private counsel, then the AG’s Office will not become involved. In any event, I would notbecome involved unless I received a legal referral from my client, DHHS. If you disagree with DHHS’sactions then your recourse is to pursue that issue with DHHS or to take it up with the court, as you havedone.
  2. 2. For what it’s worth, it is my understanding that the filing of a motion to modify child support does notordinarily cause income withholding to cease, although it does ordinarily stop some other “hardenforcement” measures such as license revocation, execution of liens, etc.. I wonder whether AgentVierra was referring to those enforcement measures rather than income withholding?Finally, please be aware that I am not in a position to tell DHHS to “back off.” First, I represent DHHS incourt and provide legal advice, but I do not tell DHHS what to do. Second, even if I had that authority, Ido not see any legal basis for DHHS to stop income withholding until the court has so ordered. Third,even if there were some legal basis for DHHS to disregard the court order requiring income withholding,DHHS would not be in a position to do so based on your client’s unilateral assertion that the supportobligation should be lower. Again, your client needs to have the court decide this issue and modify theexisting child support order.Carlos DiazAssistant Attorney GeneralMaine Office of Attorney General44 Oak Street, 4th FloorPortland, ME 04101(207) 822-0498carlos.diaz@maine.govCarlosFrom: []Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:53 PMTo: Diaz, CarlosCc:;; Dunn, Janelle; wharwood@verrilldana.comSubject: Re: Child Support MotionCarlos:These are better cites, yet none of them requires the Dept to take the enforcement action it has justtaken, as far as I can tell. That is probably why Ms. Viera told me that the Dept. would NOT take anyenforcement action since there are so many motions pending before the Court. This is the kind of thingthat makes people think that DHHS is a feckless bureaucracy that cant seem to get many things right,Carlos, I am sorry to say. One person says to me, "dont worry, we are not going to enforce anythingnow, until the Court makes a decision on the pending motions," and then another arm of the SAMEagency sends my client notices that are absolutely wrong factually (one letter from Augusta says he is inarrears to the tune of $7,770!!), and completely ignore the previous asseverations. Is there someplausible explanation for this, besides incompetence and unprofessionalism???And, I am curious in any event, about whether the Dept. has entered into a fee agreement with Ms.Handrahan and if so, what the terms of that agreement are. For instance, has the Dept agreed to waiveany fee and if so, why? Mr. Malenko is forced to hope that he can find a pro bono attorney or spendmoney that he would otherwise use to pay his heating bill or his rent to defend this action, even though hehas been paying child support all along, while Ms. Handrahan gets to use this bureaucracy to maketrouble at little or no cost to her? That is fair in your view of the world?
  3. 3. As I have tried to communicate to DHHS through the emails I have shared with you, this is simply anunnecessary annoyance that is not helping this family in any way, shape or form. Can you just, PLEASE,back off? Lets agree on the right child support number and move forward on that basis. Lets haveDHHS correct the misrepresentation that my client has a debt of $7,770 immediately, ok? And if the lawdoes not REQUIRE DHHS to perform actual enforcement actions, then please do not do that. Is thatsomething you can engineer?You know that I like and respect you, Carlos, so I am hopeful that you can inject some reason and logicinto this silliness. Thanks.Michael-----Original Message-----From: Diaz, Carlos <>To: mjwaxy@aol.comCc:; Dunn, Janelle <>Sent: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:21 amSubject: RE: Child Support MotionMichael:Pursuant to 19-A MRSA Sec. 2108, DHHS is required to provide child support enforcement services. (Seealso 19-A MRSA Secs. 2102 and 2103(2), which state that DHHS may enforce the right of support againstthe obligor on behalf of the obligee.) The fact that Judge Moskowitz found the obligor to be morecredible than the obligee (as noted by the Law Court in its recent decision on this case) does not meanthat the obligee cannot enforce the child support order. Your client may have reasons for disagreeingwith DHHS’s enforcement in this case, but the bottom line is that the child support order is enforceable.Furthermore, because the court determined the child support, only the court has the authority tochange that obligation. Even if the parties agreed to a different amount, that agreement would notchange the obligation until the court issued an order to that effect. See, e.g. Wood v. Wood, 407 A.2d282, 287-288 (Me. 1979); Fisco v. DHS, 659 A.2d 274, 275 (Me. 1995); Beck v. Beck, 1999 ME 110, Para.7. As long as the current order remains in effect, DHHS has no authority to disregard it. Therefore, Ithink that your request to have the court recalculate the child support obligation on an expedited basisis the right approach.Carlos DiazAssistant Attorney GeneralMaine Office of Attorney General44 Oak Street, 4th FloorPortland, ME 04101(207) 822-0498carlos.diaz@maine.govFrom: []Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:37 AMTo: Diaz, Carlos;; Dunn, Janelle
  4. 4. Cc:; Igor-Malenko@idexx.comSubject: Child Support MotionSince I cannot seem to get any assistance in correcting the Child Support Order by agreement from eitherDHHS or Ms. Handrahan, we shall let the Court take the appropriate action.Michael J. Waxman, Esq.One Monument Way, Ste. 206P.O. Box 375Portland, Maine 04112-0375(207) 772-9558 phone(207) 772-9567 faxwww.waxmanlaw.usTreasury Regulations require us to notify