The letter provides a complaint against attorney Michael Waxman for allegedly abusing his power and using his law license to destroy the complainant, Lori Handrahan, and her daughter over the past three years. The letter alleges that Waxman is currently holding Handrahan's daughter hostage despite a court order granting joint custody. The letter also alleges that Waxman falsified a public document claiming Handrahan was under supervised visits and lied to police. The letter requests the Overseers of the Bar investigate Waxman's actions.
1. The document reviews issues around joint custody of a child named Mila between Dr. Handrahan and Mr. Malenko from 2009-2010.
2. It describes disputes over the original divorce custody schedule, visitation compliance, stressful transitions between parents due to threats and accusations, and Mr. Malenko failing to pay child support and oppose Dr. Handrahan's relocation for work.
3. The review covers other issues like lost childcare, disputes over extracurricular activities, threats of contempt from Mr. Malenko/his lawyer Mr. Waxman, and allegations of attempted influence and confidential information access by Mr. Waxman.
Forensic Psychiatric Mental Evaluation - Mark Vance Halburn 07c-198Putnam Reporter
An exhibit included in a Motion to Dismiss in the case of Dolores Halburn and Mark Halburn v. The City of Hurricane, Ben Newhouse, Cleveland Construction, and Kanawha Stone Co.
This is not a protected medical record.
It is a report from a court ordered examination.
It is part of the public record in Putnam County WV case #07c-198
Final Divorce Order Halburn v. Halburn 11d-516 1/23/2013Putnam Reporter
This document is a final divorce order from the Family Court of Putnam County, West Virginia regarding the divorce of Dolores Jean Halburn and Mark Vance Halburn. It details the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached by the court. The court granted the divorce based on irreconcilable differences and allocated primary custody of the minor child to Dolores, with every other weekend visitation to Mark. The court considered forensic psychological evaluations of both parties and found Mark has a personality disorder and tendency to generate interpersonal conflicts, posing a risk of harm to the child. Dolores expressed concerns about Mark's volatile behavior escalating conflicts and potentially endangering the child. The court credited Dolores' testimony in restricting Mark's
This document is a lawsuit filed by Mark Halburn against multiple individuals and organizations. It alleges conspiracy, defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, deception of the court, and violation of civil rights related to a domestic violence protection order filed against Halburn in 2017. The document makes numerous allegations of lies and false statements in the protection order and related hearings. It requests injunctive relief including expungement of the protection order, makeup parenting time, damages exceeding $100 trillion, transfer of custody of Halburn's son to him, and other remedies.
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order - Halb...Putnam Reporter
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order in the appeal of the Final Divorce Order in the case of Dolores Jean Halburn v. Mark Vance Halburn. Case #11d-516 in Putnam County Circuit Court.
Intervention Order - Response and Adjournment for 10Nov2011Anne Agius
The letter provides a detailed response to the claims made in the intervention order application, asserting that the accusations of threats, aggression, abuse of her children, and mental health issues are false. Gelicrisio contests being deemed a danger and requests to adjourn the current court date to adequately defend herself against the false allegations, noting she is currently involuntarily hospitalized and seeking a second psychiatric opinion.
Judy potter's letter to gov le page final july 2011DocumentsforMila
Judy Potter, an attorney, writes to Governor LePage with concerns about the Maine DHHS's handling of the case of Mila Malenko. Potter questions why the conclusions of a psychological evaluation from Spurwink were dismissed by DHHS. Potter also raises issues with inconsistent statements from DHHS officials about the reasons for rejecting the Spurwink report and allegations of coaching. Potter believes DHHS notified parties of its conclusions at different times inappropriately and questions the basis for closing the case without a full investigation.
This order addresses a child custody dispute between divorced parents, Igor Malenko and Lori Handrahan, regarding their 4-year-old daughter Mila. It finds that while both parents love Mila, they are unable to effectively co-parent due to ongoing conflict. As a result, the order changes Mila's primary residence to her father and sets a visitation schedule for her mother, including regular weekends and extended summer visits. It also establishes child support obligations and maintains other terms of prior orders not inconsistent with the new arrangements.
1. The document reviews issues around joint custody of a child named Mila between Dr. Handrahan and Mr. Malenko from 2009-2010.
2. It describes disputes over the original divorce custody schedule, visitation compliance, stressful transitions between parents due to threats and accusations, and Mr. Malenko failing to pay child support and oppose Dr. Handrahan's relocation for work.
3. The review covers other issues like lost childcare, disputes over extracurricular activities, threats of contempt from Mr. Malenko/his lawyer Mr. Waxman, and allegations of attempted influence and confidential information access by Mr. Waxman.
Forensic Psychiatric Mental Evaluation - Mark Vance Halburn 07c-198Putnam Reporter
An exhibit included in a Motion to Dismiss in the case of Dolores Halburn and Mark Halburn v. The City of Hurricane, Ben Newhouse, Cleveland Construction, and Kanawha Stone Co.
This is not a protected medical record.
It is a report from a court ordered examination.
It is part of the public record in Putnam County WV case #07c-198
Final Divorce Order Halburn v. Halburn 11d-516 1/23/2013Putnam Reporter
This document is a final divorce order from the Family Court of Putnam County, West Virginia regarding the divorce of Dolores Jean Halburn and Mark Vance Halburn. It details the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached by the court. The court granted the divorce based on irreconcilable differences and allocated primary custody of the minor child to Dolores, with every other weekend visitation to Mark. The court considered forensic psychological evaluations of both parties and found Mark has a personality disorder and tendency to generate interpersonal conflicts, posing a risk of harm to the child. Dolores expressed concerns about Mark's volatile behavior escalating conflicts and potentially endangering the child. The court credited Dolores' testimony in restricting Mark's
This document is a lawsuit filed by Mark Halburn against multiple individuals and organizations. It alleges conspiracy, defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, deception of the court, and violation of civil rights related to a domestic violence protection order filed against Halburn in 2017. The document makes numerous allegations of lies and false statements in the protection order and related hearings. It requests injunctive relief including expungement of the protection order, makeup parenting time, damages exceeding $100 trillion, transfer of custody of Halburn's son to him, and other remedies.
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order - Halb...Putnam Reporter
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order in the appeal of the Final Divorce Order in the case of Dolores Jean Halburn v. Mark Vance Halburn. Case #11d-516 in Putnam County Circuit Court.
Intervention Order - Response and Adjournment for 10Nov2011Anne Agius
The letter provides a detailed response to the claims made in the intervention order application, asserting that the accusations of threats, aggression, abuse of her children, and mental health issues are false. Gelicrisio contests being deemed a danger and requests to adjourn the current court date to adequately defend herself against the false allegations, noting she is currently involuntarily hospitalized and seeking a second psychiatric opinion.
Judy potter's letter to gov le page final july 2011DocumentsforMila
Judy Potter, an attorney, writes to Governor LePage with concerns about the Maine DHHS's handling of the case of Mila Malenko. Potter questions why the conclusions of a psychological evaluation from Spurwink were dismissed by DHHS. Potter also raises issues with inconsistent statements from DHHS officials about the reasons for rejecting the Spurwink report and allegations of coaching. Potter believes DHHS notified parties of its conclusions at different times inappropriately and questions the basis for closing the case without a full investigation.
This order addresses a child custody dispute between divorced parents, Igor Malenko and Lori Handrahan, regarding their 4-year-old daughter Mila. It finds that while both parents love Mila, they are unable to effectively co-parent due to ongoing conflict. As a result, the order changes Mila's primary residence to her father and sets a visitation schedule for her mother, including regular weekends and extended summer visits. It also establishes child support obligations and maintains other terms of prior orders not inconsistent with the new arrangements.
This document is an appeal filed by Deborah Young regarding a June 15, 2009 order by Judge Ida K. Chen of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County Family Division. Deborah Young provides evidence that Judge Chen's order denies protection, due process, and ignores evidence of abuse inflicted on Deborah Young and her children by Vincent Lang over many years. Deborah Young argues that Judge Chen's order exacerbates and prolongs the physical and mental abuse against her and her children, and that the family court has failed to protect them from Vincent Lang's abuse dating back to 1997. Deborah Young requests that the Superior Court scrutinize her evidence and rescue her and her children from the prolonged abuse.
This document summarizes issues related to domestic restraining orders. It discusses how restraining orders are obtained through a two-step process and are often issued on an emergency basis without the respondent being present. It estimates that around 60% of the millions of restraining orders issued annually are unnecessary or false. The document also discusses how restraining orders can negatively impact families and violate due process, as well as problems with gender bias in their issuance and victims sometimes being wrongly accused of abuse.
This document discusses the author's legal issues related to possession of a stun gun in Pennsylvania. It provides background on the author's 1994 plea agreement for a misdemeanor domestic violence charge and subsequent charges in 2012 for public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and possession of a stun gun. The author argues that under Pennsylvania and federal law, their 1994 plea prevents them from legally possessing a firearm or stun gun for life. They were charged in 2012 with possession of a stun gun, despite a police officer previously telling them possession was legal, and they believe the police targeted them to ensure they were charged and unable to possess weapons in the future.
Young v Dubow Ambrose DHS Saafir Methodist Kinship 10Roxanne Grinage
1. The document appeals a Post-Adjudication Hearing and Order from August 3, 2009 that prolonged abuse of the appellant's children by their father.
2. The order is alleged to be the result of misadministration by the Department of Human Services and Family Court, which enabled the abuse despite extensive documented evidence.
3. The appellant claims the order violates her constitutional rights and denies her due process to defend herself and her children against false accusations. She seeks scrutiny of DHS's role in prolonging the abuse.
081419 UIE Letter For Micheal Anthony Miller-EL with CONFIRMATIONSVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This is the August 14, 2019 Letter sent out demanding the FREEDOM of Michael Anthony Miller-EL to support our GOOD-FAITH action to obtain his FREEDOM. Information as this is being used to SUPPORT our "FAILURE TO ACT" Defense and other Claims to be brought before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals to EXPOSE the United States of America's CORRUPT Judicial System/Government System that is CONTROLLED & RUN by Nazis/Zionists and the 13th Amendment Scams that VIOLATE the Human/Civil Rights, Sovereignty, Privileges, Immunity, etc. of their VICTIMS, etc.
This document may also be found at the following LINKS:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Bqv_tCXWE5p-t9Ku2V4LIyc_yPSw971T
https://issuu.com/vogeldenise/docs/081419_uie_letter_for_micheal_anthony_miller-el_ma
Nick Fenney_Application to oppose_or_revoke restraining order 10 06 16.Nick Fenney
This document is Nick Fenney's application to oppose and/or revoke a two-year restraining order imposed on him after he was acquitted of harassment charges at his appeal hearing. Fenney argues that the restraining order is unnecessary since he has shown self-restraint over the past two years and has not contacted the prosecution witness. He also provides fresh evidence from a data request that he believes corroborates his version of events and casts doubt on the witness's testimony. Fenney requests that the restraining order be revoked or varied based on the changed circumstances since it was imposed without allowing him to make representations.
This document is a motion filed by Thomas J. Eoannou, the attorney for defendant Shelby Garigen, to delay her voluntary surrender date to a federal detention center from February 2, 2021. The motion provides background on the case and raises several issues with the statements made by the victims' parents during sentencing, arguing they were prejudicial and improper. It also contends the appeal has merit and could result in a reduced sentence. Specifically, it asserts the parents lacked standing to speak on behalf of their 19-year-old son, referenced unproven claims, and implied they had undue influence over the prosecution.
121609 Appellant Motion Summary Judgment Alternative Motion Consolidate Pa Su...Roxanne Grinage
The document is an Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment or alternatively to consolidate appeals in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. It argues that the Appellee Vincent Lang and his attorney have failed to respond to the Appellant's brief by the due date of December 4, 2009. As such, the Appellant requests summary judgment due to the Appellee's non-responsiveness and non-compliance. Alternatively, the Appellant requests that the three related appeals be consolidated. The motion provides statements of uncontroverted facts regarding the Appellant being a victim of corruption in government and violations of her constitutional rights.
The document summarizes several developments regarding same-sex families and marriage rights in Israel:
1) A Jerusalem family court ruled that a man can adopt the child of his male spouse, recognizing same-sex families.
2) New Family helped a same-sex couple obtain a marriage license after their two-year struggle for legal recognition of their marriage.
3) A new law was passed allowing a "Partnership Covenant" for non-religious couples, but it provides no solution for the hundreds of thousands who cannot legally marry in Israel. New Family continues advocating for full marriage equality and civil marriage.
For this IJ, it appears that she ordered children removed in absentia despite knowing there was a substantial likelihood that notices of hearing were sent out less than 10 days before the first scheduled hearing. In fact, the IJ intentionally chose to ignore the dates that hearing notices were sent out to children who she ordered removed in absentia. IJ improperly gave legal advice to children. IJ appears to have failed to advise unaccompanied children that USCIS has initial jurisdiction over 589 applications.
The document is a letter from Vogel Denise Newsome, Interim Prime Minister of the Utica International Embassy, to Judge Denise Owens requesting the unsealing of court records related to a case involving Vogel Denise Newsome. The letter provides background on the case and alleges a conspiracy involving Baker Donelson law firm to silence, kidnap, and murder Vogel. It claims Baker Donelson controls the US legal system and was involved in efforts to undermine investigations in Afghanistan and Venezuela. It requests the records be unsealed due to public interest and alleges the recent death of Vogel's mother was part of the conspiracy.
1. The document is a court filing that includes exhibits providing evidence of domestic violence committed by Vincent Lang against Deborah Young and her children.
2. The exhibits include a 7-page Philadelphia police 911 call log showing over 70 calls made regarding assaults and threats by Lang at two addresses.
3. Another exhibit is a Philadelphia police complaint report from June 25, 2006 regarding Lang assaulting Young's 8-year-old daughter Briana Detwiler, part of a pattern of assaults, verbal violence, threats and prolonged child abuse.
Dna daddy a quest for legitimacy in indian lawIndianScholars
- Rohit Shekhar filed a paternity suit against N.D. Tiwari in 2007 claiming he was his biological father. After years of legal battles, the Supreme Court ordered a DNA test in 2012.
- The DNA test results confirmed that N.D. Tiwari was the biological father of Rohit Shekhar. This case highlighted issues with Section 112 of Indian evidence law regarding legitimacy of children and raised questions about recognizing both social and biological fathers.
- It also sparked debates around guidelines for DNA testing in India, incorporating DNA evidence into law, and implications of recognizing live-in relationships and biological parents on legal rights like inheritance. The case underscored the need for DNA legislation in India
This order addresses a motion to modify parenting arrangements due to the mother's relocation for a new job in Washington D.C. The judge denies the mother's request, finding her testimony not credible. The judge finds the father's testimony credible and corroborated by evidence. The judge also finds that an effective co-parenting relationship has never developed and the mother refuses or is unable to co-parent with the father, as demonstrated by her past unilateral actions in violation of the divorce judgment. The best interests of the child require abating parental conflict and ensuring her continued meaningful engagement with both parents individually.
This letter from the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office informs Ms. Handrahan that the case of State of Maine vs. Igor Malenko has been finalized. It provides the docket number of the case and notes that it is from the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office located in Portland, Maine. The letter serves to notify Ms. Handrahan of the outcome or resolution of the legal case involving Igor Malenko.
Meth lab result 56ng of meth in mila's urine nms lab april 2010DocumentsforMila
This toxicology report provides the following key information in 3 sentences:
The report found methamphetamine at 66 ng/mL and theobromine in Mila Malenko's urine sample. It also detected methamphetamine in her hair through ELISA testing. The methamphetamine ratio indicated it was the result of using the Schedule II stimulant d-methamphetamine.
Michael Waxman, an attorney, is being complained about for the third time to the Board of Overseers of the Bar for openly violating a court order and engaging in criminal contempt of court. During a custody hearing, Waxman screamed at the judge that he would not uphold a joint custody order and would not let law enforcement take the child from him. He also threatened to sue the DA to prevent criminal charges against him for contempt of court. The complainant requests that the Board remove Waxman's law license and call the FBI due to his criminal behavior and abuse of his law license.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help boost feelings of calmness, happiness and focus.
Lori Handrahan wrote a letter to Deb Rand responding to Rand's claim that Handrahan did not provide an original signature on her check or evidence that she ordered a transcript from the court. Handrahan resends a copy of the bank check mailed before the deadline and encloses a copy of her signature from her passport and an original signature signed before a notary. She also informs Rand that she has requested the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice investigate Judge Moskowitz and the clerks for their apparent role in corruption at the court.
This document summarizes communications between Dr. Carl Baum, a pediatric toxicologist, and individuals involved in a child protection case regarding a girl named Mila Malenko. Dr. Baum provided an affidavit stating that methamphetamines were found in Mila's urine in an amount that should not occur and has not been explained. Despite this, the child protection investigation was closed without action. Dr. Baum confirms that he stands by his original assessment and has not changed his opinion. Concerns are raised that the investigation was inadequate and misrepresented Dr. Baum's statements, putting the child at risk of harm.
This document is an appeal filed by Deborah Young regarding a June 15, 2009 order by Judge Ida K. Chen of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County Family Division. Deborah Young provides evidence that Judge Chen's order denies protection, due process, and ignores evidence of abuse inflicted on Deborah Young and her children by Vincent Lang over many years. Deborah Young argues that Judge Chen's order exacerbates and prolongs the physical and mental abuse against her and her children, and that the family court has failed to protect them from Vincent Lang's abuse dating back to 1997. Deborah Young requests that the Superior Court scrutinize her evidence and rescue her and her children from the prolonged abuse.
This document summarizes issues related to domestic restraining orders. It discusses how restraining orders are obtained through a two-step process and are often issued on an emergency basis without the respondent being present. It estimates that around 60% of the millions of restraining orders issued annually are unnecessary or false. The document also discusses how restraining orders can negatively impact families and violate due process, as well as problems with gender bias in their issuance and victims sometimes being wrongly accused of abuse.
This document discusses the author's legal issues related to possession of a stun gun in Pennsylvania. It provides background on the author's 1994 plea agreement for a misdemeanor domestic violence charge and subsequent charges in 2012 for public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and possession of a stun gun. The author argues that under Pennsylvania and federal law, their 1994 plea prevents them from legally possessing a firearm or stun gun for life. They were charged in 2012 with possession of a stun gun, despite a police officer previously telling them possession was legal, and they believe the police targeted them to ensure they were charged and unable to possess weapons in the future.
Young v Dubow Ambrose DHS Saafir Methodist Kinship 10Roxanne Grinage
1. The document appeals a Post-Adjudication Hearing and Order from August 3, 2009 that prolonged abuse of the appellant's children by their father.
2. The order is alleged to be the result of misadministration by the Department of Human Services and Family Court, which enabled the abuse despite extensive documented evidence.
3. The appellant claims the order violates her constitutional rights and denies her due process to defend herself and her children against false accusations. She seeks scrutiny of DHS's role in prolonging the abuse.
081419 UIE Letter For Micheal Anthony Miller-EL with CONFIRMATIONSVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This is the August 14, 2019 Letter sent out demanding the FREEDOM of Michael Anthony Miller-EL to support our GOOD-FAITH action to obtain his FREEDOM. Information as this is being used to SUPPORT our "FAILURE TO ACT" Defense and other Claims to be brought before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals to EXPOSE the United States of America's CORRUPT Judicial System/Government System that is CONTROLLED & RUN by Nazis/Zionists and the 13th Amendment Scams that VIOLATE the Human/Civil Rights, Sovereignty, Privileges, Immunity, etc. of their VICTIMS, etc.
This document may also be found at the following LINKS:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Bqv_tCXWE5p-t9Ku2V4LIyc_yPSw971T
https://issuu.com/vogeldenise/docs/081419_uie_letter_for_micheal_anthony_miller-el_ma
Nick Fenney_Application to oppose_or_revoke restraining order 10 06 16.Nick Fenney
This document is Nick Fenney's application to oppose and/or revoke a two-year restraining order imposed on him after he was acquitted of harassment charges at his appeal hearing. Fenney argues that the restraining order is unnecessary since he has shown self-restraint over the past two years and has not contacted the prosecution witness. He also provides fresh evidence from a data request that he believes corroborates his version of events and casts doubt on the witness's testimony. Fenney requests that the restraining order be revoked or varied based on the changed circumstances since it was imposed without allowing him to make representations.
This document is a motion filed by Thomas J. Eoannou, the attorney for defendant Shelby Garigen, to delay her voluntary surrender date to a federal detention center from February 2, 2021. The motion provides background on the case and raises several issues with the statements made by the victims' parents during sentencing, arguing they were prejudicial and improper. It also contends the appeal has merit and could result in a reduced sentence. Specifically, it asserts the parents lacked standing to speak on behalf of their 19-year-old son, referenced unproven claims, and implied they had undue influence over the prosecution.
121609 Appellant Motion Summary Judgment Alternative Motion Consolidate Pa Su...Roxanne Grinage
The document is an Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment or alternatively to consolidate appeals in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. It argues that the Appellee Vincent Lang and his attorney have failed to respond to the Appellant's brief by the due date of December 4, 2009. As such, the Appellant requests summary judgment due to the Appellee's non-responsiveness and non-compliance. Alternatively, the Appellant requests that the three related appeals be consolidated. The motion provides statements of uncontroverted facts regarding the Appellant being a victim of corruption in government and violations of her constitutional rights.
The document summarizes several developments regarding same-sex families and marriage rights in Israel:
1) A Jerusalem family court ruled that a man can adopt the child of his male spouse, recognizing same-sex families.
2) New Family helped a same-sex couple obtain a marriage license after their two-year struggle for legal recognition of their marriage.
3) A new law was passed allowing a "Partnership Covenant" for non-religious couples, but it provides no solution for the hundreds of thousands who cannot legally marry in Israel. New Family continues advocating for full marriage equality and civil marriage.
For this IJ, it appears that she ordered children removed in absentia despite knowing there was a substantial likelihood that notices of hearing were sent out less than 10 days before the first scheduled hearing. In fact, the IJ intentionally chose to ignore the dates that hearing notices were sent out to children who she ordered removed in absentia. IJ improperly gave legal advice to children. IJ appears to have failed to advise unaccompanied children that USCIS has initial jurisdiction over 589 applications.
The document is a letter from Vogel Denise Newsome, Interim Prime Minister of the Utica International Embassy, to Judge Denise Owens requesting the unsealing of court records related to a case involving Vogel Denise Newsome. The letter provides background on the case and alleges a conspiracy involving Baker Donelson law firm to silence, kidnap, and murder Vogel. It claims Baker Donelson controls the US legal system and was involved in efforts to undermine investigations in Afghanistan and Venezuela. It requests the records be unsealed due to public interest and alleges the recent death of Vogel's mother was part of the conspiracy.
1. The document is a court filing that includes exhibits providing evidence of domestic violence committed by Vincent Lang against Deborah Young and her children.
2. The exhibits include a 7-page Philadelphia police 911 call log showing over 70 calls made regarding assaults and threats by Lang at two addresses.
3. Another exhibit is a Philadelphia police complaint report from June 25, 2006 regarding Lang assaulting Young's 8-year-old daughter Briana Detwiler, part of a pattern of assaults, verbal violence, threats and prolonged child abuse.
Dna daddy a quest for legitimacy in indian lawIndianScholars
- Rohit Shekhar filed a paternity suit against N.D. Tiwari in 2007 claiming he was his biological father. After years of legal battles, the Supreme Court ordered a DNA test in 2012.
- The DNA test results confirmed that N.D. Tiwari was the biological father of Rohit Shekhar. This case highlighted issues with Section 112 of Indian evidence law regarding legitimacy of children and raised questions about recognizing both social and biological fathers.
- It also sparked debates around guidelines for DNA testing in India, incorporating DNA evidence into law, and implications of recognizing live-in relationships and biological parents on legal rights like inheritance. The case underscored the need for DNA legislation in India
This order addresses a motion to modify parenting arrangements due to the mother's relocation for a new job in Washington D.C. The judge denies the mother's request, finding her testimony not credible. The judge finds the father's testimony credible and corroborated by evidence. The judge also finds that an effective co-parenting relationship has never developed and the mother refuses or is unable to co-parent with the father, as demonstrated by her past unilateral actions in violation of the divorce judgment. The best interests of the child require abating parental conflict and ensuring her continued meaningful engagement with both parents individually.
This letter from the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office informs Ms. Handrahan that the case of State of Maine vs. Igor Malenko has been finalized. It provides the docket number of the case and notes that it is from the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office located in Portland, Maine. The letter serves to notify Ms. Handrahan of the outcome or resolution of the legal case involving Igor Malenko.
Meth lab result 56ng of meth in mila's urine nms lab april 2010DocumentsforMila
This toxicology report provides the following key information in 3 sentences:
The report found methamphetamine at 66 ng/mL and theobromine in Mila Malenko's urine sample. It also detected methamphetamine in her hair through ELISA testing. The methamphetamine ratio indicated it was the result of using the Schedule II stimulant d-methamphetamine.
Michael Waxman, an attorney, is being complained about for the third time to the Board of Overseers of the Bar for openly violating a court order and engaging in criminal contempt of court. During a custody hearing, Waxman screamed at the judge that he would not uphold a joint custody order and would not let law enforcement take the child from him. He also threatened to sue the DA to prevent criminal charges against him for contempt of court. The complainant requests that the Board remove Waxman's law license and call the FBI due to his criminal behavior and abuse of his law license.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help boost feelings of calmness, happiness and focus.
Lori Handrahan wrote a letter to Deb Rand responding to Rand's claim that Handrahan did not provide an original signature on her check or evidence that she ordered a transcript from the court. Handrahan resends a copy of the bank check mailed before the deadline and encloses a copy of her signature from her passport and an original signature signed before a notary. She also informs Rand that she has requested the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice investigate Judge Moskowitz and the clerks for their apparent role in corruption at the court.
This document summarizes communications between Dr. Carl Baum, a pediatric toxicologist, and individuals involved in a child protection case regarding a girl named Mila Malenko. Dr. Baum provided an affidavit stating that methamphetamines were found in Mila's urine in an amount that should not occur and has not been explained. Despite this, the child protection investigation was closed without action. Dr. Baum confirms that he stands by his original assessment and has not changed his opinion. Concerns are raised that the investigation was inadequate and misrepresented Dr. Baum's statements, putting the child at risk of harm.
The letter requests that the Chief Judge reconsider investigating the conduct of GAL Liz Stout. It cites several sections of Maine GAL law that indicate the Chief Judge has authority to conduct reviews and regulate or remove Guardians from cases. Specifically, the law allows for ongoing oversight of Guardians, reviews in response to complaints whether a case is pending or not, and emergency removal of a Guardian if in the best interests of the judicial branch. The letter argues that Ms. Stout's conduct, including acknowledging risk of abuse but recommending joint custody resulting in the child's abuse, merits investigation and potential removal under the law.
A 3-year-old girl disclosed to her nurse practitioner that her father sexually abuses her on weekends when she is in his custody. During an exam, no physical signs of abuse were found but the child became distressed when discussing the abuse. The nurse practitioner reported the allegation to child protective services and arranged for the child to be evaluated before returning to her father's custody that weekend.
The document discusses the results of a study on the effects of exercise on memory and thinking abilities in older adults. The study found that regular exercise can help reduce the decline in thinking abilities that often occurs with age. Specifically, older adults who exercised regularly performed better on memory and thinking tests compared to those who did not exercise regularly.
Devoe notes on harassment of lori handrahan by michael waxmanDocumentsforMila
Mr. Waxman engaged in a pattern of intimidating behavior directed at Lori Handrahan and others involved in her legal case, intended to cause fear and control the situation. This included threats, relentless legal actions, attempts to damage reputations, and inappropriate personal interest in Handrahan's daughter. As a result, Handrahan experienced extreme fear, anxiety, and felt unsafe and without protection. Several attorneys and supporters withdrew from the case due to intimidation by Waxman, leaving Handrahan without resources.
9 july 2011 bar filling against waxman includes all the cummings emails and m...DocumentsforMila
An attorney, Michael Waxman, is accused of multiple ethical violations and possible criminal acts in his representation of a client, Igor Malenko, during a child custody dispute. Waxman is accused of fabricating an official document from DHHS to deny the mother, Lori Handrahan, unsupervised visits with her daughter and influencing a judge. Handrahan files an official complaint with the Overseers of the Bar, providing a transcript and recordings from an encounter with police as evidence of Waxman's misrepresentations. She requests the Bar investigate and hold Waxman accountable for his actions.
This document is an order for protection from abuse filed in the Portland District Court of Maine. It grants a protection order to Lori Handrahan against Igor Malenko. The order prohibits Malenko from contacting or abusing Handrahan and their minor child Mila Malenko. It also awards Handrahan temporary custody of Mila and excludes Malenko from the family residence. The order is effective immediately and remains in force until further notice of the court.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms for those who already suffer from conditions like anxiety and depression.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms for those who already suffer from conditions like anxiety and depression.
Mr. Waxman, the lawyer of Lori Handrahan's ex-husband, has systematically threatened to sue, prosecute, or investigate Lori, her daughter's caregivers, doctors, lawyers, and anyone else involved in her life. As a result, Lori has lost reliable childcare and her daughter's doctor, costing her employment. She has also incurred over $200,000 in legal fees and been isolated. Lori believes Mr. Waxman's actions constitute legal stalking under Maine law, as he has engaged in a course of conduct directed at her and others that would cause serious emotional distress or inconvenience to a reasonable person. She is requesting the District Attorney investigate Mr. Wax
Five witness statements to federal obstruction of justice waxman & malenko 2012DocumentsforMila
Michael Waxman, an attorney, is accused of criminal contempt of court for his behavior at a January 31st hearing regarding visitation rights. According to multiple witnesses, Waxman yelled at and pointed his finger at the presiding judge, refusing to obey a court order regarding visitation and threatening to not allow the child's mother to see her. Waxman is also accused of making threatening comments towards the child's mother and her attorney after the hearing adjourned. Previous incidents are described where Waxman misled police and told others the mother's visits had to be supervised, contrary to court orders. Concerns are raised about Waxman and his client disregarding visitation orders and threatening criminal charges against
The letter provides evidence of Mr. Waxman driving a campaign of character defamation against the author and her daughter. It includes emails showing Mr. Waxman instructing his client to reject reasonable changes to custody arrangements and instead continue legal proceedings. The author argues Mr. Waxman has lied extensively in legal documents and proceedings. She believes she has become a target for Mr. Waxman's negative feelings about women following three divorces. The letter asks the Board to intervene in Mr. Waxman's behavior, which has financially and emotionally destroyed the author's life.
Lori Handrahan is requesting an investigation into opposing counsel Michael Waxman's behavior in her child custody case for several reasons: [1] His personal involvement and apparent vendetta against her; [2] His threats to use improper influence and the "substantial resources" of his family against her; [3] His constant improper legal actions intended to harass and maliciously injure her and her daughter. [4] His systematic harassment and intimidation of her caregivers to render her unable to work. She provides examples of threatening emails from Waxman and describes incidents where he harassed caregivers in front of her daughter, leaving the child traumatized.
The letter requests that the Chief Judge investigate the conduct of a guardian ad litem, Liz Stout, in a child custody case involving the writer's daughter. The writer alleges that Ms. Stout made recommendations against the child's best interests and in violation of family law, which negatively impacted the writer financially and professionally. Despite previous requests, the office has refused to investigate until the case was closed. The writer believes Ms. Stout should be removed from the guardian ad litem roster to prevent similar situations in the future. Having lost faith in the legal system, the writer is considering working with media to produce a piece on the guardian ad litem system in Maine.
The document requests a restraining order against Michael Waxman and his family due to concerns over their contact with the author's 3-year-old daughter, Mila. It provides statements from Mila that she spent time at Waxman's house and likes him, as well as numerous emails from Waxman vowing to take custody of Mila and calling the author mentally ill. The author believes Waxman's actions constitute stalking and are damaging her ability to care for her daughter by causing her to lose childcare and legal representation.
Lori Handrahan wrote to Chief Judge Ann Murray requesting an investigation into the guardian ad litem Liz Stout and the resulting custody judgment in the case of Lori's daughter Mila Malenko. The judge's ruling followed all of Liz Stout's recommendations and disregarded evidence contradicting her findings, including testimony from domestic violence experts. Lori believes both the GAL and court-appointed psychologist failed to properly investigate and exhibited bias towards the known abuser, placing Lori, Mila, and other survivors of abuse at risk. She is requesting the office obtain justice and a fair hearing in line with Maine laws regarding GAL practice and the safety of children.
1) The affiant, John M. O'Quinn, states that he hired Don Clark, a former highly trained FBI agent, to investigate the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel.
2) Clark conducted extensive daily investigations and informed O'Quinn of his findings, including that Howard Stern was criminally responsible for their deaths by providing inappropriate amounts of prescription drugs.
3) O'Quinn relied on Clark's findings and his own courtroom observations in making public statements about Stern, and believes the statements to be true.
Poisoned by my neighbor from hell presents Good Old Boy Network suppressed ev...Melody Boatner
This shows the degree on corruption in Montrose, Lee County Ia, The use of chemicals with intent to cause serious injury worked well. The rest of the corrupt local officials all played an important part including committing criminal offenses on behalf of this one man that has to be considered a psychopath. Nobody takes actions this brutal to acquire their property. Had the law been followed accordingly the building official would have never issued permits for the oversized buildings on this legally non conforming property. He could not have committed terrorists acts that nearly cost me my life without the assistance of those whose duty it is to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens.
Request for Settlement Milwaukee Fire Chief ImpersonatorAurorasa Coaching
This letter is a formal demand for settlement of $1,250,000 by July 5th, 2023 regarding an incident of impersonating the Milwaukee Fire Department Chief Aaron Lipski. The letter alleges the impersonator was involved in an international conspiracy to murder the author, made threatening phone calls, and partnered with stalking companies responsible for stalking people to death. The author claims this caused tremendous stress and bodily harm. The settlement is demanded to avoid a criminal case and lawsuit regarding stalking and impersonation.
Lori Handrahan submitted a letter to the Board of Overseers of the Bar regarding her lawyer Rodway's behavior. She states that emails from another lawyer, Mr. Waxman, that she previously submitted show he continues to malign her and threaten other lawyers. Despite a warning from the Grievance Panel about his behavior, Waxman sent more emails doing the same. Handrahan does not want Waxman near her daughter and finds his stated desire to spend time with her daughter disturbing. She notes that three Grievance Panels have found cause to sanction Waxman but he has ignored their findings. Handrahan concludes Waxman must believe he is above the rules or will face
Intervention Order - Response and Adjournment for 10Nov2011 - Letter to DinoTRENTESTA
This document is a response letter from Anne Agius to the court contesting an intervention order filed by her parents regarding contact with her children. She provides rebuttals to each of the claims made in the intervention order application. She denies ever physically abusing or neglecting her children. She questions the impartiality of the Department of Human Services (DHS) and claims her mother, who has worked with DHS, has a conflict of interest. She asserts the claims against her are false and aims to have an impartial evaluation done through the Children's Court Council Clinic.
11/02/19 REMINDER OF 110419 PRETRIAL HEARING REMINDER (Michael Miller EL)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
REMINDER: PRETRIAL HEARING – MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2019 – 10:00 A.M.
11/01/19 Pretrial and Subsequent Matters Notice Of Lack Of Jurisdiction/Notice To Cease and Desist/Motion For Production of Evidence/Motion Of Arrest Of Judgment/Authorization Of Utica International Embassy’s Use Before International Tribunals…
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (OHIO) – CRIMINAL CASE NO. 641058
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT REFERENCE:
OTP-CR-367/18
APPELLANTS_DEC IN SUPPORT OF_REPLY_BRIEF_AND_EXCERPT_OF.ver1abby ovitsky
This document is a declaration by Abby Jo Ovitsky in support of her reply brief in an appeal regarding her lawsuit against Commonwealth Real Estate Services and the Washington County Sheriff's Department. Ovitsky summarizes the key issues in the case, including that the Sheriff's Department maintained a false and retaliatory mental health report about her and failed to properly accommodate her disability as a deaf person. She argues the defendants have not provided valid legal arguments or new evidence to support their positions. Ovitsky believes the case is important to establish proper policies regarding communication with deaf individuals and to prevent retaliation through false reports.
Allegations against various public bodies for complicity in covering up misconduct in public office including Humberside Police, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Judicial office holders, North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC), Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
This order grants default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Igor Malenko, in a lawsuit against Lori Handrahan. The court found that Handrahan made repeated false allegations against Malenko, including claims of abuse, mental illness, and sexual abuse of their child. These false claims interfered with Malenko's parental rights and caused emotional harm to their child. The court awarded Malenko $450,000 in damages for his individual claims and $300,000 for claims brought on behalf of his minor child.
An unusual jury verdict in Hillsborough Circuit Court may set a precedent for undue influence cases challenging trusts. Adrian Thomas and Daniel McGowan won a jury verdict on behalf of their client Katherine Willis, claiming her father was incapacitated by Alzheimer's disease when he changed his will and accounts to make his girlfriend his sole beneficiary. This was one of the first times an undue influence case went to a jury trial rather than being decided by a probate judge. The jury agreed Willis was taken advantage of in his weakened state. Experts say this verdict could influence how future undue influence claims are handled and give exploited seniors new options.
An unusual jury verdict in Hillsborough Circuit Court may set a precedent for undue influence cases challenging trusts. Adrian Thomas and Daniel McGowan won a jury verdict on behalf of their client Katherine Willis, claiming her father was incapacitated by Alzheimer's disease when he changed his will and accounts to make his girlfriend his sole beneficiary. This was one of the first times an undue influence case went to a jury trial rather than being decided by a probate judge. The jury agreed Willis was taken advantage of in his declining mental state. Experts say this verdict could influence how future undue influence claims are handled and give exploited seniors new legal options.
An unusual jury verdict in Hillsborough Circuit Court may set a precedent for undue influence cases challenging trusts. Adrian Thomas and Daniel McGowan won a jury verdict on behalf of their client Katherine Willis, claiming her father was incapacitated by Alzheimer's disease when he changed his will and accounts to make his girlfriend his sole beneficiary. This was one of the first times an undue influence case went to a jury trial rather than being decided by a probate judge. The jury agreed Willis was taken advantage of in his weakened state. Experts say this verdict could influence how future undue influence claims are handled and give exploited seniors new options.
An unusual jury verdict in Hillsborough Circuit Court may set a precedent for undue influence cases challenging trusts. Adrian Thomas and Daniel McGowan won a jury verdict on behalf of their client Katherine Willis, claiming her father was incapacitated by Alzheimer's disease when he changed his will and accounts to make his girlfriend his sole beneficiary. This was one of the first times an undue influence case went to a jury trial rather than being decided by a probate judge. The jury agreed Willis was taken advantage of in his weakened state. Experts say this verdict could influence how future undue influence claims are handled and give exploited seniors new options.
This document is a series of emails between Dr. Carl Baum, Eileen King, and various officials in Maine's DHHS regarding an investigation into a child named Mila Malenko. Dr. Baum confirms that he has not retracted or softened his previous assessment that no child should have methamphetamines in their system and the levels found in Mila's case have not been adequately explained. Eileen King expresses concern that DHHS has closed the investigation without resolution and urges them to reopen it, as the child remains at risk.
ORane M Cornish affidavit statement for New Britain court proving Wentworth'...Oranecornish
This affidavit contained a copy of Case# 3:23-cv-01612, all inks to all video disproving officer Calvin Wentworths falsified report , Consent to the preliminary Junction to 54 Helen Drive, New Britain CT, 06010, given by Erina Ponzini and a demand to return the bond for the false warrant . It was delivered by ORane M. Cornish Jr on 5/13/2024 to New Britain superor courts clerks office and was said by the clerk to be put in the folder for this case on 5/13/2024
Similar to 9 july 2011 bar filling against waxman (20)
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
The document summarizes a letter from the Board of Overseers of the Bar regarding a grievance complaint against attorney Michael J. Waxman. A Grievance Commission panel found probable cause that Waxman engaged in misconduct subject to sanction. The office of Bar Counsel will now prepare a formal petition for disciplinary proceedings against Waxman before a different Grievance Commission panel. Both the complainant, Lori Handrahan, and Waxman will receive notice of the disciplinary hearing date.
Overseers of the bar grievance panel waxman bar nov 5 2009DocumentsforMila
The Board of Overseers of the Bar is established by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to regulate attorney conduct. The Board has several members and staff, including an Executive Director and Bar Counsel. In this letter, the Bar Counsel notifies Lori Handrahan and attorney Michael J. Waxman that a Grievance Commission panel found probable cause that Waxman engaged in misconduct subject to sanction. As a result, Bar Counsel will prepare a formal petition for disciplinary proceedings before a new Grievance Commission panel regarding grievance complaint 09-204.
The document is a letter from the Board of Overseers of the Bar notifying Lori Handrahan and Peter Rodway, Esq. that a Grievance Commission panel reviewed a complaint regarding attorney Michael Waxman and dismissed it with a warning. The panel found that Waxman became personally involved in a client's case, maligned Handrahan, and threatened another attorney, but that the misconduct was minor. As a result, the complaint was dismissed and Waxman was warned to refrain from such behavior in the future. The letter notes that a dismissal with warning is confidential and not a formal discipline.
This letter requests that Judge Bradley take judicial notice of recent police reports when considering the credibility determinations made in a prior divorce judgment. The letter references a police report where the ex-husband, Mr. Malenko, is shown shoplifting on video with his three-year-old daughter but continues to lie to the police about it. The letter asks Judge Bradley to weigh this new evidence of Mr. Malenko lying against the prior finding that he was credible and the ex-wife was not credible.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise stimulates the production of endorphins in the brain which elevate mood and reduce stress levels.
Lesley devoe reply to dean crocker maine children's allianceDocumentsforMila
The document is a letter from Lesley Devoe, LCSW to Dean Crocker, MSW regarding the case of Lori Handrahan and Igor Malenko. It summarizes in great detail discrepancies in Igor Malenko's statements to various professionals involved in the case regarding his history of violence, parenting abilities, and truthfulness. It raises concerns that Mr. Malenko has provided misinformation that has influenced the case's momentum against Ms. Handrahan and that professionals have overlooked serious red flags in Mr. Malenko's background and behavior.
The document discusses the authority of a governor to intervene in a child protective services case. It provides opinions from legal experts that a governor, as the head of the executive branch, has the power to direct actions by executive agencies and appoint/remove agency heads. The document also examines Maine's constitution and case law, finding that governors have a duty to ensure laws are faithfully executed and oversee the executive branch. It concludes that the Maine governor has the authority to order the DHHS to substantiate abuse findings and follow an expert organization's recommendations in the child's case.
The expert witness, Dr. Jacquelyn C. Campbell, provides a 3-paragraph summary of her expert opinion in the case of Malenko vs. Handrahan (Docket No. FM-08-510). She administered a validated danger assessment to the defendant, Lori Handrahan, and scored her at an "extreme danger" level of 22. Based on research, Dr. Campbell can predict with 92% accuracy that Ms. Handrahan is at extreme risk of being killed or almost killed by the plaintiff, Igor Malenko. Furthermore, any custody arrangement that allows unsupervised access puts the child, Mila, at risk of harm or trauma. Therefore, Dr. Campbell strongly
This document is a letter from attorney Michael J. Waxman to Michelle at the Maine District Court regarding the case Malenko v. Handrahan. The letter encloses documents showing the disposition of Mr. Malenko's criminal shoplifting case. Mr. Waxman requests that these documents be brought to Judge Moskowitz's attention so that a hearing on pending motions to modify and regarding relocation can be rescheduled as soon as possible.
1. 9 July 2011
Scott Davis
President
Overseers of the Bar
Manchester Maine
Dear Mr. Davis;
Please accept this letter as another official complaint filed against attorney Michael Waxman.
That Mr. Waxman has been allowed such abuse of power and process, that, to date, there has
been no oversight for his action, is shocking.
Mr. Waxman is, and has been for 3 years, on an obsessive mission to destroy me and my small
child, Mila, now four years old using his law license and transparent abuse of process and power
to accomplish this. Mr. Waxman is now holding Mila, my daughter, hostage.
I have not seen Mila since 10 May, despite retaining joint custody, and extensive visitation. As
the Bar well knows, Mr. Waxman vowed to take her from me and to use the substantial resources
of his family to do so, very early on, as the Overseers is aware and has evidence of, and that is
exactly what the State of Maine and The Overseers of the Bar have, so far, allowed Mr. Waxman
to do.
Will this be stopped? Or will the State of Maine and the Overseers of the Bar allow this out of
control, abusive, obsessed attorney to continue to destroy lives?
Mr. Waxman Providing Public Evidence of his Close Relationship with Judge Moskowitz
1. Judge Moskowitz has been unwilling to hold Igor Malenko in contempt of court for such
gross violation of a court order which includes keeping my daughter from me for
essentially the last four months despite a court order for joint custody.
2. Mr. Waxman, as usual, has been publically proclaiming his close relationship with Judge
Moskowitz. Mr. Waxman issued a letter to DHHS [attached] where he says he and his
client: "do not trust DHHS to act in the best interests of this little girl. We
shall not cooperate in any manner from here forward. Please let me
know if you are going to file a Title 22 action, for I shall immediately file
pleadings to bring the case before Judge Moskowitz for a full determination."
3. Mr. Waxman had his client, Igor Malenko, bring a false PFH against me when I
attempted to pick up Mila for her court ordered summer vacation with me on 21 June
2011. By law, one cannot be charged with a PFH when there is court ordered joint
custody and visitation. See: Wiley v. Wiley, 896 A.2d 363 (Me. 2006).
4. After filing this false PFH Mr. Waxman then request that Judge Moskowitz be specially
assigned the case. See attached.
1
2. Mr. Waxman's Action on 21 June 2011
1. On 21 June 2011 Mr. Waxman committed, what I believe to be, are several serious
crimes against the State of Maine under Maine Criminal Code 17-A: (1) §456. Tampering
with Public Records or Information, (2) §453. Unsworn falsification, (3) §455. Falsifying
physical evidence and (4) §751. Obstructing government administration.
2. On 21 June, after not seeing my four year old daughter, Mila, for some 45 days or more,
although I have joint legal custody, I went to the home of my daughter’s father. At this
point, Mila, age 4, had not been in school for over a month and I had not been told why.
Nor had I been told why her father was in contempt of court refusing to allow the court
order visitation schedule to occur. Nor had Judge Moskowitz taken any action to stop this
gross contempt of court. Governor LePage, himself, called Mila’s school to ask why she
had been removed from school. It is important to note, all of this occurred after blunt
force trauma by Igor Malenko to Mila’s head with a metal pan and expert opinion on
56ng of meth in my daughter’s urine.
3. Prior to 21 June 2011 Mr. Waxman had continued to send emails to me, although I had
told him I had blocked his emails. These emails went into my junk folder. When I finally
retrieved these from my junk folder I found many emails where Mr. Waxman, himself,
has declared himself judge and jury and Mr. Waxman has placed me on supervised visits
with Mila, inviting me to contact Connection for Kids if I want to my daughter.
4. Mr. Waxman then apparently wrote an email on 17 June 2011, sent by Igor Malenko but
clearly written by Mr. Waxman, informing me that DHHS had placed me on supervised
visits. I was then informed on 20 June 2011 by Mark Dalton, DHHS Program
Administrator for York County, that this was a false statement made by Igor Malenko.
Please see the following emails listed at the end of this email.
5. On 21 June 2011 I arrived at my daughter’s father’s home, I recorded the interaction and
attach it here. My daughter, who has not seen her mother for more than 45 days,
screamed Mama! through closed doors and windows when she heard my voice. This is
clear on the recording, although the recorder was under my clothing and Mila was
screaming for her mother behind closed doors and windows.
6. Igor Malenko and his lawyer Michael Waxman then proceed to lie to the Police Officer
who arrived. Mr. Malenko and Mr. Waxman showed the Police Officer an official piece
of paper, supposedly from DHHS, saying I was on supervised visits. You can hear the
recording of the officer explaining to me that she saw this piece of paper and that I was to
call Mark Dalton at DHHS if I wanted to see my daughter. The Officer even wrote Mark
Dalton DHHS on a piece of paper and gave it to me. See attached transcript and audio
recordings.
2
3. 7. Retired Sgt. State Trooper Steve Pickering also called South Portland Police and I believe
he was also informed that the reporting officer had been shown an “official” piece of
paper by Igor Malenko and Mr. Waxman which purported to claim that DHHS had
placed me on supervised visits.
8. On 22 June 2011 in a meeting with DHHS Commissioner Mary Mayhew and Mark
Dalton, Mr. Dalton again informed me that DHHS had never placed me on supervised
visits and there was no such paper issued by DHHS. Mark Dalton said he had questioned
Mr. Waxman about this and, I was told by Mark Dalton on 22 June 2011, that Mr.
Waxman had denied to Mark Dalton producing any such paper or ever saying anything
like this to the police officer.
9. I believe that Michael Waxman’s actions clearly constitute: (1) §456. Tampering with
public records or information, (2) §453. Unsworn falsification, (3) §455. Falsifying
physical evidence, (4) §751. Obstructing government administration.
The Cummings Case
1. The Cummings told me and Retired Sgt. Steve Pickering as well that Mr. Waxman had
sent them a letter detailing how he and Rodway could commit insurance fraud and saying
at the end of the letter that they Cummings must destroy the letter. They told me they did
not destroy it but gave it to Attorney Silan and that it should be in their file at his office.
The email chain from the Cummings documents what happened when they tried to get
that letter and also what happened when Mr. Waxman discovered I was in contact with
the Cummings, which gives every appearance of witness tampering in the extreme.
2. All 10 Cummings emails are attached. They speak for themselves. Mr. Waxman,
apparently, reached the Cummings sometime after the last hearing when someone had
informed Waxman that I was in discussions with the Cummings. The Cummings last
email is clearly extremely suspect and gives every appearance of gross witness
tampering.
3. My understanding is there is a judgment [see attached] saying Westport has no liability
because Mr. Waxman signed up for insurance after he had Peter Rodway filed this
apparently false claim for malpractice against Mr. Waxman. Jeff Thayer Westport
lawyer still, and the one who handled the case, says Westport never insured Mr.
Waxman. See email.
4. But then, after Mr. Waxman learns about all this, suddenly a Vice President at Swiss Re
(now owns Westport) says Westport and Mr. Waxman did work together [see attached].
5. It is unclear exactly what happened with Mr. Waxman, the Cummings and Westport but
it is very clear that something concerning is occurring, with radically different accounts
being told by all the players and a $1.2 million settlement at the center of the case
[granted by which judge?] of very questionable insurance issues and concerning legal
practices.
3
4. I sincerely hope the Overseers of the Bar and the State of Maine will take these actions very
seriously. As Aria Eee knows, Michael Waxman has a long history of abuse of process and
history of grossly misusing his law license.
As many people and other lawyers told Ms. Eee, Mr. Waxman has literally done what he is doing
to me to many other people in Maine. In my case, Mr. Waxman is literally holding my daughter
hostage so I cannot walk away and put Mr. Waxman's abuse behind me, as other have had the
luxury of doing.
Due to the Overseer of the Bar inability to hold Mr. Waxman accountable so far to the most
basic provision of the Bar, Mr. Waxman now believes he can do anything he likes, even
misrepresenting a government agency and lying to law enforcement.
Will Mr. Waxman be held accountable or will he be allowed to continue to use his Maine law
license as a weapon and a menace to society and continue his obsessive destruction of me and
my daughter and our lives and the lives of countless others?
Sincerely,
Lori Handrahan, Ph.D.
207-812-0191
52 Waukeag Ave
Sorrento Maine 04677
4
5. Attachments
(1) Emails from and Around the 21 June 2011 Event
_____________________________________________________________________________
_
From: Dalton, Mark R. [mailto:Mark.R.Dalton@maine.gov]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:42 PM
To: lorihandrahan5@gmail.com
Subject: Update
Importance: High
Dear Lori-
I would like the opportunity to clarify a few things. My goal in calling you last Friday was
simply an attempt to start a dialogue between the parents in supporting your daughter and to see
if in any way I could help navigate contact. In no way was I intending for you or anyone else to
believe that you were obligated to DHHS visitation supervised or otherwise. I would still like
the opportunity to meet with you in person. I realize under the circumstances they may prove to
be difficult, however I want you to know this is an option and would be happy to accommodate
your schedule.
I would also like you to be aware that a formal letter will be sent to you surrounding our current
involvement and the results of this most recent assessment. Ms. Austin will be sending this letter
in the next few days.
Thank you for listening to me and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Mark Dalton
Child Welfare Program Administrator-York County
207-286-2529
_____________________________________________________________________________
_
From: igor malenko [mailto:igormalenko@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:12 PM
To: lorihandrahan5@gmail.com
Cc: mjwaxy@aol.com
Subject: RE: summer vacation schedule I will pick Mila up today around 4 at your home or
Scratch Bakery
Importance: High
Lori,
5
6. Michael has spoken with Mark Dalton from DHHS (Rebecca Austin's boss) and he has learned
that DHHS is unsubstantiating your latest, false claims about me, and that DHHS supports me
using my decision-making authority to deny you any unsupervised visitation. Mr. Dalton called
you but you have refused to speak with him or call him back. At our suggestion, he will be
reaching out to you to offer visitation with Mila over the weekend, supervised by DHHS. It is
very sad that Mila has not seen you or heard your voice or had any communication with you in
over a month. I don't understand why you aren't making an effort to let her know you love her
and are thinking about her. In any case, no one here supports you and your efforts to drag Mila
away from me. No one. If you want to see her, then please call Mark Dalton back and arrange
it. I am sure she would love to see you. I am also sure she is very happy for not having to go
trough more of your abusive practices.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_
From: igor malenko [mailto:igormalenko@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:11 AM
To: lorihandrahan5@gmail.com
Cc: mjwaxy@aol.com; rebecca.austin@maine.gov; mark.r.dalton@maine.gov;
alicia.cumming@maine.gov; dean.staffieri@maine.gov
Subject: RE: summer vacation schedule I will pick Mila up today around 4 at your home or
Scratch Bakery
Importance: High
You are not welcome here and if you show up, the following will occur: -- the police will arrive
and you will be served, finally, with the Motion to Modify and the Motion for Contempt, and
you will then be removed from my property with a summons for criminal trespass.
No unsupervised visits will occur with Mila until the court addresses this issue-I have been very
clear about this. You need to accept service and show up in court.
Stop e-mailing me directly and send anything further to my attorney - Michael Waxman.
From: lorihandrahan5@gmail.com
To: igormalenko@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: summer vacation schedule I will pick Mila up today around 4 at your home or
Scratch Bakery
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:35:08 -0400
Igor,
As you know Mila’s summer vacation time with me starting last Friday on 10 June. You have
been refusing to abide by the schedule.
“Friday 10 June I would like Mila to stay with me for a two week period starting 10 June Friday
until 26 June Sunday. Then on July 8 Friday I would Mila to stay with me again until Sunday
July 24th.” This was a month’s notice, as I am required to do by the latest court order.
6
7. I have 21 make-up days now from the time you have been withholding her which puts us at 2
August which is when I will return Mila to you. Mila and I plan to spend her summer vacation
in Sorrento.
I will pick Mila up today, around 4:00pm, at your house or at Scratch Bakery, as you prefer.
Please indicate if you plan to allow this visit to occur.
(2) Partial Transcript 21 June 2011-At Igor Malenko's House with
Michael Waxman Present with the Police.
10:03
Officer Maynard: I just saw the paper work.
Lori: Yep.
Officer Maynard: And your daughter can be here. It's in her best interest. It's all documented.
My advice to you. Get an attorney. Start that route.
Lori: ah-hum. Ok.
Officer Maynard: And uh, um, call Mark Dalton. And I guess you can see your daughter but
it has to be um supervised visitation.
Lori: Oh really? It has to be supervised visitations?
Steve Pickering: No that is wrong. That is wrong.
Lori: No wait that is interesting Steve. Who told you it has to be supervised visitation?
Officer Maynard: Well his attorney just said.
Lori: Oh Michael, Michael Waxman said that?
Officer Maynard: But I…
Lori: Oh Michael Waxman just said that? Oh and who is giving the supervised visits? Mark
Dalton at DHHS?
Steve Pickering: Lori, Lori… Let me talk to Police Officer..
Lori: Yeah ok. Go ahead. Here you go.
Officer Maynard: No.. no.. Sir, let me deal with this Please. If you don’t… Hang that up or he
can listen.
Lori: Ok. Please Steve stop talking.
Officer Maynard: Um. Take my advice. Get an attorney.
Lori: Ok.
Officer Maynard: And get some good, good advice. This is a civil issue and we don't want it to
go criminal.
Lori: Ok.
Officer Maynard: Alright.
Lori: But I am curious to know who, who… allegedly who am I suppose to contact for my
supervised visits because….
Officer Maynard: Mark Dalton
Lori: And who is he?
Officer Maynard: I'll write it down.
7
8. Lori: And where do I contact him?
Officer Maynard: I don't know. I guess he leaves you messages…. And…
Lori: And so he is supposed to be… I am supposed to be on supervised visits Michael Waxman
says?
Officer Maynard: Talk.. talk to Mark Dalton from DHHS.
Lori: Oh from DHHS? Ok. He's going to let me see my daughter on supervised visit. Thank you
very much.
Officer Maynard rips off piece of paper from her notebook with the words Mark Dalton DHHS
on it and hands it to me.
Officer Maynard: You're welcome. Alright. Good luck.
Lori: Thank you.
8
9. (2) Emails from The Cummings Case
From: David_Newkirk@swissre.com [mailto:David_Newkirk@swissre.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:32 AM
To: lorihandrahan5@gmail.com
Cc: Carlos_Ramos@swissre.com; Francesca_Savona@swissre.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Cummings non-discloure Statement
Dear Ms. Handrahan:
Thank you for your note to Carlos Ramos and Francesca Savona in our Life Insurance Department. Mr.
Ramos and Ms. Savona are not involved in the liability insurance portion of the business or in Westport
matters.
I have reviewed the documentation and can assure you that the settlement you referenced is one that
Westport was aware, participated in, and signed, and that the underlying matter is closed and has been
for some time. Westport's only interest in this matter would be as respects claims made against
Westport's policy when it was in effect. I cannot discuss further due to confidentiality.
If you are aware of any evidence of fraud by plaintiffs in the Cummings v. Waxman matter, as opposed to
other activities of Mr. Waxman, please forward them to my attention.
I would stress again the claim you reference has been closed for some time, and that Mr. Ramos and Ms.
Savona are my counterparts in the life portion of the business and are the incorrect people to contact.
While I wish you luck with any other proceedings that you are involved in, Westport's involvement is quite
limited and relates solely to any issues on claims made on Westport's former policy.
Best regards -
David Newkirk | Senior Vice President | Corporate Solutions Legal
Swiss Re America Holding Corporation | 5200 Metcalf Ave KS, Overland Park 66201, USA
Direct: +1 913 676 5467 Fax: +1 913 676 5221 Mobile: +1 913 749 6935 E-mail: David_Newkirk@swissre.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Thaler [mailto:jthaler@bernsteinshur.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:45 PM
To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: RE: Waxman and Westport Insurance
Lori, thanks for the email, but I really cannot get involved on one side or the other of your issues with
Waxman, given that I still do work for Westport/Swissre, even though they do not insure him. Sorry. Jeff
Jeffrey A. Thaler
Bernstein Shur
100 Middle Street
PO Box 9729
Portland, ME 04104-5029
From: Jeff Thaler [mailto:jthaler@bernsteinshur.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:56 AM
9
10. To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: RE: Waxman
Ms. Handrahan—Westport/Swiss re does not insure Mr. Waxman, and has not since 2005. It has not
done anything with Mr. Waxman since then, and has no plans to do so in the future.
Jeffrey A. Thaler
Bernstein Shur
100 Middle Street
PO Box 9729
Portland, ME 04104-5029
_______________________________________________________________________
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:02 PM
To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: Re: Waxman and Westport Insurance
Dear Lori,
The e-mail from Jeff Thaler is interesting. If they haven't represented Michael Waxman since
2005, who in the world paid us? We didn't settle this thing until Oct. 2006 and received our
check in Nov. 2006. OMG this is really getting spooky. I think I will have Jim call Silan's office
tomorrow morning and tell them we want to be present when those boxes are unsealed. Do
you think my questions were valid points? Our understanding was we were paid by Westport
and the attorneys that were there from Chicago were representatives of Westport Insurance
Company. I wonder if Jeff Thaler ever saw the check that was supposed to be issued to us from
Westport, since he was at the mediation? I can see plainly now, I need to do some
investigation work also. Thank you Lori, maybe we will end up helping each other in a very
positive way.
Debbi
From: Lori Handrahan [mailto:lorihandrahan5@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 11:40 AM
To: jcummings96522@roadrunner.com
10
11. Cc: James R. Marsh
Subject: FW: who was the judge that signed that 1.25 million?
James/Deb, Do you know the answer to this?
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:33 PM
To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: Re: who was the judge that signed that 1.25 million?
Dear Lori,
The only attorneys that we ever met with were Michael Waxman first, then Barry Schklair, the
bankruptcy attorney, who steered us to Steven Silin. The bankruptcy occurred in 2006, so Silin did come
into all of this either the end of 2005, or beginning of 2006. I know we went to court about the
malpractice against Waxman in July and had to appear before a judge, and he is the one who awarded
us the 1.25. I'm looking at the summary judgment and it says the U. S. Magistrate Jude was Margaret J.
Kravchuk and this case was assigned to Judge Gene Carter, and that name does ring a bell in our
heads. You can see this entire transcript on line, District of Maine, Cummings v. Westport Insurance
Company Civil No. 05-206-P-C. Hopes this helps. It's only about 12 pages long, and I just printed it out
for my own records. Look it over and see what you think.
Deb
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:14 PM
To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: Re: and is Waxman still liable for the 1.25 if Cummings settled? I think not--right?
Dear Lori,
I found the paperwork of when we received our settlement check from Berman & Simmons.
The copy of the check only shows our net settlement of $72, 963.07. The gross amount was
$150,000.00, and I have the breakdown of how it was allocated. When we picked up the check
in their Lewiston office, Attorney Silin was not "available", his secretary met us in the waiting
area and we both had to sign for the funds. We did sign a release at that time and I have a copy
of those documents. (not sure what exactly that release was for, I.e. just for the check or other
reasons). We never saw the check that was issued to Berman & Simmons, supposedly from
Westport Insurance Co. Is it possible that the original check that went to Berman & Simmons
was a substantially larger amount? Good question, right? One palm greases the other, so to
speak. I have a call into my friend, the attorney, and hopefully he will call me back. I need to
know what my rights are to obtain those 2 boxes of material that went to Silin's office, which
includes that letter from Michael Waxman that told us to sue him for malpractice. I do not
have that letter in my possession now.
11
12. On a confidential note, my friend's name is Ricky L. Brunette, maybe your lawyer friend knows
him. I think he's an upstanding guy, but I only know him on a friend to friend basis. He did
represent me in an auto accident claim back in the 80's. At that time, I signed the check that he
got from the women's insurance company that rear-ended me, which was made out to Ricky's
firm and myself. After signing, he then issued me a check after his fee, but I at least got a copy
of the original check. Why not from Silin? Really makes me question Silin's practices now.
Let me know what you think. Maybe your friend also would have some input, and I will let you
know if I hear anything from my friend.
God Speed and keep plugging along, Lori. You have friends who are praying for you!
Debbi and Jim Cummings
From: Lori Handrahan
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 11:38 AM
To: jcummings96522@roadrunner.com
Subject: FW: and is Waxman still liable for the 1.25 if Cummings settled? I think not--right?
Deb/James, Did you sign a release?
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 8:49 PM
To: James R. Marsh; Lori Handrahan
Subject: Re: who was the judge that signed that 1.25 million?
Dear Lori,
I am going to try to attach a pdf file of the District Court document that says Gene Carter was the
assigned judge. We never went into the courtroom again after that award. The next thing that
happened was a mediation with Attorney Silin, the mediator, 2 attorneys from Chicago (or at least one
was from Chicago) and the local attorney from Berstein, Shur, and Sawyer. The mediator's reaction to
Westport's proposed amount was shock to say the least. He told us after that mediation, that he was
expecting no less than $600,000. to $650,000. After a couple of hours the entire mediation went down
the tubes. The day of the award, our trial was interrupted for over an hour, because the Judge was also
the Judge for the Srey murder trial about the Gorham boy who was killed at Denny's in Portland. This
may confirm Gene Carter or at least give the name of the Judge that presided over our case. I hope the
attached documents may give you a clue. I am not a legalese, by any stretch of the imagination, so
maybe your friend can interpret. I'm still waiting for my friend to call back, but, I do think he has retired,
so may be in a warmer climate for the winter months. I called his Scarborough number, since that is all I
have.
Let me know if you get this attached pdf file.
Debbi
12
13. From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:52 PM
To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: Boxes from Attorney Silin
Dear Lori,
Please accept my apology for not getting back to you sooner, I had a family emergency regarding my
sister. Jim called Silin's office today and played it very cool by telling the secretary we were in the
process of getting medical records and legal records for a possible move in the near future. The boxes
are stored off site, as I suspected, but she is going to call us tomorrow and we are going to do our very
best to get them on Thursday if they have been gotten from the off site storage facility. Of course, as
you know, our main concern is getting our hands on that letter from Waxman that tells us to sue him
and he then sent us to Peter Rodway for representation. Rodway, did, however, back out and that is
why there was such a lapse in our lawsuit. I'm sure we will also find out the name of the judge that
ordered the 1.25. I am praying that we can get it on Thursday. I will go through every piece of paper to
find that letter, and hopefully it will be of help to you.
I'm not sure whether we would be able to be at the courthouse on Friday, but, if I find that letter, I will
scan it and send it to you to give to your attorney. It should, at very least, show how fraudulent this SOB
is. I am still having a hard time fathoming how this idiot is getting away with all this crap. I guess the old
adage that money talks, and bullshit walks is true. His money seems to speak volumes.
When Jim talked with that young lady at Silin's office today, she did remember working on this case for
him, but gave Jim the impression that Silin doesn't need to know we are requesting our boxes, since she
told Jim that we have every right to take them, since they belong to us. Let's hope that nothing has
been tampered with in any way.
I will send you off an email as soon as we hear from her tomorrow and hopefully it will all be good news!
I'm praying for you and Mila, Lori. God Bless you and please keep the faith.
Debbi
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:55 PM
To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: Just between you and me
Dear Lori,
I continue to be so baffled by a judicial system that seemingly just don't care about the welfare of an
innocent little girl. I have to tell you, and it's hard putting into words, how much I admire your tenacity
and all the leg work you have done. I personally think that I would have shot those two SOB's by now, or
at very least, been looking into where I could flee to get that sweet baby away from them. Your friend is
so right, this is like a true life made for TV movie! I don't know your age, dear, but surmise you must be
in the same age bracket as one of my girls, who both have 2 children, and I have to tell you, I would be
13
14. honored to call you my daughter. I can picture both of my girls fighting for their children, just as you are
doing for your sweet little Mila.
You must have incredible strength and you are obviously very intelligent and I for one, certainly applaud
you. You go girl! I hope they find a way to lock those two up for the rest of their miserable lives, so that
you can give Mila her ballet, singing lessons and she gets to play soccer, anything she wants. She is
certainly entitled to be free from all that crap and should be allowed to live like any other little girl of her
age. She deserves to be happy and healthy and not endure what those men are putting her through.
I will certainly inform you when we get those boxes, and pray we find that letter. Please do let us know
how things go in court on Friday, and my prayers are with you and Mila everyday and night!
God Bless and you keep that strength going!
Debbi
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:10 PM
To: James R. Marsh; Lori Handrahan
Subject: Re: Requested boxes
I have a suspicion that those boxes have already been tampered with, long before they were sealed
after our case was settled. I will have Jim request that we be there when they are "logged". The more
we delve into this, it seems, the more discrepancies we are finding. Supposedly, Mr. Waxman has not
been represented by Westport Insurance since 2005, per Jeff Thaler, we never settled until October of
2006 and received the check in November of 2006. I definitely have a feeling that Waxman and Silan
did, in fact, know each other and made some sort of deal. They both knew we were in dire straits, I.e.
our bankruptcy was on the verge of going forward. I hope we can untangle this web of lies and perjuries
that Waxman has created.
Keep in touch Lori, and I will do the same. Good luck in court tomorrow, our prayers are with you and
Mila.
Debbi & Jim
From: Lori Handrahan [mailto:lorihandrahan5@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:22 PM
To: 'Debbi Cummings'
Cc: James R. Marsh; 'Sherwood, Roxanna Z.'
Subject: RE: Requested boxes
Smells rotten to me. Do you mind if I forward to the AG office? I copy my lawyer
James Marsh here. I’m also copying a wonderful producer from Nightline who is
interested.
14
15. From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:15 PM
To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: Re: Requested boxes calling Silan office to get the leter that Waxman outlined his intention to
commit insurance fraud
Dear Lori,
Steve Silan is part of the law firm of Berman & Simmons. They have offices in Lewiston and Portland.
There is an 800 number and then the Portland number. 1-800-244-3576 and Portland is 774-5277.
Should we tip them off or just see what is presented to us? Maybe Attorney Marsh could guide us. I
pray to God that letter hasn't already been destroyed! Let me know.
Good luck tomorrow Lori and know that Jim and I are praying for you and Mila.
Debbi
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:07 PM
To: Lori Handrahan
Subject: Requested boxes
Dear Lori,
The young lady (she is a paralegal) just called back from Attorney Silin's office in reference to the boxes
of materials we requested. Now she gave the impression that we could pick them up today and there
wasn't much of a need to seek Silin's approval. When I just spoke to her, she said that she had not been
able to sit with Silin and "log" everything out that we would be getting back. She said she would have to
contact us on Monday of next week and set up a day, probably Tuesday or Wednesday for us to pick
them up. This makes me a bit uncomfortable as to why everything needs to be "logged". Why would
they have to log out everything when they put most of it in there? Hmmmm? The first thing that
popped into my mind is this: When Silin first got those boxes, I'm sure everything had to be logged in as
to what was in those boxes. Once the case was settled my impression would be that those boxes were
sealed, labeled and sent to the off site storage facility. If that be the case, why, if the seal has not been
broken, would the seal have to be broken to "log" out those materials? Why also, did this woman not
identify herself as Silin's paralegal on Monday, but she identified herself as so today? And why was Jim
told that it was all our personal property on Monday, not have to be gone through by Silin and the
paralegal, but today the entire scenario has changed? Something is rotten in Denmark, so to speak.
The more we delve into this case, the more rotten it smells. I'm thinking there should be at least 3
boxes now, since Silin's materials should be included with the 2 previous boxes. It will be very
interesting to see how this material ends up being condensed. I certainly don't have the funds for an
attorney, and as we know, which one would we be able to pick in this state that might not be connected
to Michael Waxman. He has certainly woven a very tangled web indeed.
15
16. I hope I'm not rambling Lori, however, it certainly looks like they were connected and possibly "on the
take" along with some judges. I would love to hear what your take is on all this. You have much more
legalese than I do, definitely not my line of expertise, since I was an accountant all my working career.
My prayers are with you and Mila. Stay strong and know that we are with you everyday.
Debbi
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:JCummings96522@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:24 PM
To: Lori Handrahan; Jeffery A Thaler
Subject: Your case against Michael Waxman
Lori,
As you probably surmised very early on, I'm a very emphatic person. When you told me your plight with
your daughter, especially since I have 2 daughters and 2 granddaughters, I was sorry to hear all that was
going on. Friday, I came down with a flu that made me very sick. Something you did not know about
me is that I had a gastric by-pass surgery many years ago, and have an extremely sensitive stomach.
Due to this condition, when I'm sick, I'm not able to take my pain meds, and the meds that the doctor
has me on are very powerful and make me groggy and I have a tendency to ramble on, along with
nostalgia. Today, with a clear head, I re-read emails from you and my responses back to you and I was
horrified! I seemed to have given you the wrong impression about Michael Waxman. The man never
mistreated Jim and I in any way, nor do we feel that we were not represented properly to the best of his
abilities. You also did not know that we are in the process of re-located to a warmer climate, therefore,
we were already requested personal legal and medical records.
I feel like you are on a mission to destroy Michael Waxman's career and anyone else that gets in your
way, and Jim and I have no intention, nor did we ever, to excoriate anyone for your purposes. We were
represented by Attorney Silan in a very professional and courtesy manner also, and have no intention of
alienating people that tried their best on our behalf.
As you may, or may not know, Jim had a very large spinal surgery in November and we have both been
on potent pain medications, and quite frankly, our focus is on his healing. I am a breast cancer survivor,
but have more medical tests to be done before I have any sort of diagnosis on my own medical issues
that I'm being treated for now.
I wish you luck in your endeavors, but please do not contact us via email or telephone again. Jim and I
both feel you found 2 people who were nice and you took advantage of us, sensing we were totally lay
people in reference to anything legal and you played that card to snooker us into your personal
problems. After re-reading those emails, I can see how you maneuvered things your way and we want
no part of any of it, and firmly includes your phone message statement of "If I were you, I would call the
Governor and AG's office", you must be kidding! Had I not been taking those maintenance drugs that
I'm required to take, I would not have talked to a total stranger about anything personal, especially
something of a legal nature. Jim and I are private people, we mind our business, pay our dues, and stay
16
17. to ourselves and are not in the habit of talking about anyone. You have a way of manipulating and
drawing information out of people, especially when they are at a disadvantage. Well, it stops now!
I have forwarded a copy of this letter to Mr. Thaler, so there will be no misunderstanding of our
intentions and you will not be able to misconstrue what I'm saying to you.
Again, please, we do not want any more communication from you, nor will you ever hear from us again.
Respectfully,
James & Deborah Cummings
###
17