1. Notes on Harassment of Lori Handrahan by Michael Waxman
1. Three or more acts of intimidation would include:
• Intimidation of Ms. Handrahan to point she moved to Sorrento
• Intimidation of Ms. Handrahan re threats to remove Mila (stripped of
her rights to her child 7/15/09,8/26/09, 9/16/09, 12/09).
• Threats to use his family’s financial fortune to accomplish the above
(4/29/09).
• Threats to use his legal powers in an abusive way. “I will be asking
the court for Draconian sanctions.” (2/4/10/to Ms. Spur and Mr.
Harwood) “Let’s have a field day.” (4/29/09 to Mr. Altshuler), “I
promise I will file motion after motion” (9/8/09 to Mr. Harwood).
• Threat to implied in Mr. Waxman’s move from professional to
personal interest in three year old Mila given the above threats to
remove Ms. Handrahan from her life.
• Intimidation of daycare provider to point she quit.(Breached
boundaries at home and threatened her lawyer that DHHS should get
involved).
• Intimidation of renter to point she moved out (PI to her job twice
looking for information on Ms. Handrahan).
• Intimidation of mandated reporter Ms. Polly Campbell.
• Intimidation of Jaime Wagner to point he quit as lawyer (Multiple
calls to his home and emails and “despicable human being”
statement).
• Intimidation of Trevor Braden, MD to point he resigned as Mila’s
physician (two letters and encounter at visit).
• The relentless quality and quantity of Mr. Waxman’s motions,
emergency motions, dropped PFAs, and contempt motions give his
behavior a stalking quality that increases its threatening nature.
• His poor professional boundaries+family fortune+legal power= major
and realistic threat to Ms. Handrahan.

2. 2. Intention of causing fear or intimidation: This is measured in this case in
three ways; first, there are Mr. Waxman’s words which clearly state his
intentions. Second, there is “the reasonable person standard” that
explores how any reasonable person would react to the language and to
the accepted meaning of this language. This speaks particularly to the
general acceptance of threats as forms of intimidation. The third area of
response would be from my perspective as an abuse expert who deals
regularly with patterns of intimidation and threat. From that paradigm,
threats are examined in terms of their patterns and are accepted as a
way to intimidate, and to, thereby, control the flow of information, the
behavior of others, and the outcome. Mr. Waxman has made his
intention clear that he will do whatever it takes to remove Mila from her
mother. Mr. Waxman’s threats to take Mila and to destroy Ms.
Handrahan financially parallel and extend his client’s threats to do the
same. Mr. Waxman is now adding his intention to develop a deeply
personal relationship with Ms. Handrahan’s daughter in spite of ethical
rules to the contrary. Mr. Waxman has even used the images of violence
to back up his threats on at least two occasions which mirrors the actual
use of violence by his client against Ms. Handrahan and others.
• “We are done screwing around with Lori…let’s have a field day.
(4/29/09 to Mr. Altshuler). His intention is clear here.
• “I promise you I will file motion after motion and you will spend a
prodigious amount of time on this case” (9/8/09 to Mr. Harwood).His
intention is clear here.
• I have every intention of staying in this case as long as it takes.
Further I have no compunction investing not only my time but my
resources and the very substantial resources of my family if
necessary…I have never felt so strongly about a case…this is
personal.” (4/29/09 to Mr. Altshuler). He even uses the word
intention here.
• He regularly threatens all of her lawyers with complaints to the
Overseers of the Bar which raises the specter of no defense for Ms.
Handrahan. (10/21/09, 1/7/10, and 1/26/10 and more). His intention
to sideline all of her attorneys is clear.
• Mr. Waxman warned her lawyers to call their malpractice companies
in a particularly threatening manner when he used the image of a

3. gun to threaten that “my finger is on the trigger and I shall point it.”
The intention to make the lawyers afraid, to back off, and to leave
Ms. Handrahan unprotected would be clear to any reasonable
person. Ms. Spur is the most recent lawyer to back off as a result.
• “I will use all the legal and ethical weapons in my arsenal” (12/21/09
to Mr. Harwood and Ms. Spur). This is an intentional statement with
threatening undertones.
• Mr. Waxman sent an email to all levels of people making a decision
on CSA allegation at DHHS that the mandated reporter should be
fired. This was intended to intimidate anyone reading it, to control
the decision makers and to influence the outcome.
• Mr. Waxman threatened the witness Ms. Campbell. Any reasonable
person would read this email as an intent to have Ms. Campbell fired
and incapacitated as a witness. As an expert on abuse, I read into it
an intention to isolate Ms. Handrahan and intimidate all the decision-
makers, particularly Ms. Campbell as a witness.
• His intention in threatening a lawsuit while screaming at Ms.
Campbell on the witness stand could be construed no other way than
to intimidate the witness and Ms. Handrahan who was watching.
• Yelling in rage in the lobby of Verrill-Dana re. delivery of a subpoena
also reflects Mr. Waxman’s intention to get his way no matter what.
A reasonable person would believe that yelling is used to threaten or
intimidate. As an expert, I see it as part of a pattern to establish a
climate of fear in an attempt to control people by threat in every
aspect of this case.

4. 3. Does in fact cause fear and intimidation in Ms. Handrahan and others she
relies on in the following ways:
• Ms. Handrahan feels there is no place to be safe, even in Sorrento.
I have seen emails to that effect and she has told me that by
phone.
• Ms. Handrahan feels increasingly unsafe as attorneys and
important support people for Mila and her are scared off her case
by Mr. Waxman.
• Ms. Handrahan lives in a hypervigilant state, she is in fight mode re
trauma responses, is unable to sleep, and experiences nausea
after reading these emails. Her fear and anxiety are extreme and
reasonable as is her constant, debilitating fear.
• Ms. Handrahan has a visceral response to Mr. Waxman’s crossing
of professional boundaries in terms of his affection for and
overnights with her three year old daughter. This results from his
glorification of Mila as “beautiful” (8/31/09, “a beautiful little girl”
(6/8/09), a “delightful child” (2/4/10) whom he says he “cares
about” (4/29/09) and has a “bond” with (2/4/10 to Bill and
Sophie). “I miss spending time with Mila Milenko” (2/4/10 to Bill
and Sophie). He even said he knows better what’s in Mila’s best
interest than her mother (Emergency PFH hearing on 2/12/10). He
admits this has become personal and no longer professional
(4/29/09 to Mr. Altshuler).
• Ms. Handrahan also has a body reaction to the profoundly
negative and inaccurate characterizations made of her by Mr
Waxman: malicious (11/24/09), “although you may hate her and
see her as the worst person in the world” (11/24/09 to Mr.
Malenko), likened to Charles Manson (8/31/09), despicable human
being (8/20/09 to Mr. Wagner), need for an exorcist re the way
“Lori pulls people into the black world that she inhabits and
persuades them to perform otherwise unthinkable acts” (1/26/10
to Ms. Spur), the need to have “court security present” when
cross-examines her and “skill at causing problems “ (11/24/09 to
Child Support Enforcement). He references her lack of truthfulness
and malice (2/4/10 to Mr. Harwood and Ms. Spur) when his client
was caught in 21 serious lies. He refers to her regularly as
“mentally ill” (8/31/09 to Mr. Harwood), with “diminished mental

5. capacity” also to Mr. Harwood, a “very, very, very sick individual”
(8/26/09). This is interesting given his client is the one with a
psychiatric history, not Ms. Handrahan. He says Ms. Handrahan is
out of control but then says he is “so sick of her disgusting
shenanigans that he could scream”. (12/21/09 to Mr. Harwood
and Ms. Spur). He also poses as her mind reader when he says she
has “no empathy for her daughter”. (8/31/09) and “does not care
at all about her child”. (8/09 to Mr. Wagner) Given his extremely
negative characterization of Ms. Handrahan, his interest in a close
personal relationship with her daughter would be terrifying to any
reasonable person/parent.
• Financial fear is profound given $100,000 spent already by Ms.
Handrahan on legal fees (while Mr. Malenko has spent nothing)
and given Mr. Waxman’s threat to use his considerable family
resources on this case. These threats must be viewed against the
backdrop of Ms. Handrahan’s loss of her job because of her
inability to move to DC.
• Boundary violations by Mr. Waxman increase Ms. Handrahan’s
terror when he says “I have never felt so strongly about a case in
my life. This is personal.” (4/29/09). H even admitted in testimony
at the Emergency PFH that he had become a factor in the case.
Wanting a personal relationship with her daughter involving
overnights, invading the child care provider’s space, sending a PI
to her open house all imply there are no limits to what he will do
and Ms. Handrahan feels personally and regularly intimidated
which I believe is reasonable.
• The effects on Ms. Handrahan are potentiated because of their
similarity to the demeaning name-calling, threats of violence, and
actual violence that characterized Mr. Malenko’s treatment of Ms.
Handrahan and others in his life. Mr. Waxman’s attempts to scare
her and those around her resonate with Mr. Malenko’s admitted
attempt to scare his 16 year old friend which resulted in a coma
and paralysis. Attempts to intimidate by Mr. Waxman need to be
seen in the context of Mr. Milenko’s attempts to intimidate Ms.
Handrahan if her reaction is to be fully understood.

6. The actions by Mr. Waxman are continuous, threatening, and intentional and the
effects on Ms. Handrahan are negative, extreme, and cumulative.
While talking to her lawyers is expected professional activity, the discourse of
threat is not, as the Overseers are signaling. He knows Ms. Handrahan’s lawyers
are required to pass these messages on to her.
Lundy Bancroft has discussed the way abusers choose attorneys who become co-
abusers in terms of “a ruthless orientation that is in keeping with their own.” He
believes that women “are sometimes traumatized by their ex-partner’s attorney
as they were by him.” Bancroft draws a sharp line between “giving a man a
proper chance to have his side heard in court, which is his legal right, and acting
as a weapon in the man’s abuse, allowing him to cause financial and psychological
damage that would have been impossible for him without the lawyer’s
assistance.” P.286 Why Does He Do That? 2002 Berkley Publ.