STATE OF MAINE pIsrRIcr cour CUMBERLAND, 3S DISTRICT 1X Civil Retion DIVISION OF SOUTHERN CUMBERLAND Docket No. PORDC-PA-2010-00114 LORI. HANDRAHAN MICHAEL WAXMAN (vou 12) BEFORE: ‘The Honorable Jane S. Bradley, Judge of the District Court, in Portland, Maine, on'Friday, March 5, 2010. APPEARANCES: Leri Handrahan, Plaintiff appearing Pro Se Michael Waxnan, Defendant Dppearing Pro Se COPY OFFICIAL. TRANSCRIPT Prepared bythe Elestoni Revnding DivisionINDEX OF UTTNESSES wumvesses DIRECT CEOSS REDIRECT —RECROSS. Lelsey Devoe (by Ms. Handrahan) 4 - - (voir dire by Mr. Waxman) 3 = = Michael Waxman (by MS. -Handrahan) 67 — — ~ carol Anoxoso (by Mr. Waxman} ao ~ ~ ~ Igor Malenko (by Mfr. Waxman) 158 -- 226 (by Ms. Handrahan) = 203 = INDEX OF _ EXHIBITS ex MARKED OFFERED ADMITTED Plaintife’s No. 26 (e-mails) 53 33 53 Plaintiff's No. 27 (e-mail) 86 88 . Plaintiff's no. 28 (e-mails) 38 98 - Plaintiff's No. 29 (tape) oo 100 ~ Plaintifé’s No. 30 (e-nails) iod 104 ~ Plaintifé's Nos, 31 © 32 {e-nails) 07107 108 Plaintiff's Nol. 33 (e-mails) 12 a2 * Plaintitt's No. 34 (docket) aa a4 1s. Plaintiff's No. 35 (etter) ut 17 ~ Plaintiff's No. 36 (e-mails) a9 129 — Plaintiff's No. 37 (e-mails) 205-205 209 Plaintiff's No. 38 (e-mails) aio 20 a2 Plaintiff's No. 39 (e-mail) 212 aad a4 swot verbally admitted on the record.10 uu 12 13 1a 15 16 an 18 a 20 a 22 2 2a 25 (CoNPENUED FROM VOLUME I) MACHINE ON - HEARING RESUMED MARCH 5, 2010 court: Good morning. We're back on the record in the natter of Lori Handrahan versus Michael Waxman. And T believe luhen we concluded yesterday, Mr. Waxman, you had concluded your cross examination of Ms. Handrahan, is that correct? WR. WAXMAN: ‘That's correct, Your Honor coURT: And, Ms. Handrahan, did you wish to give further direct testimony in this matter? MS. HANDRAKAN: Mo, T did not. court: All right. So, do you have another witness to present? MS. HANDRAHAN: do, T have Lesley Devoe and I have potentially Kelly Waters, but it’s not clear whether she'll be here or not, so we could proceed, And Mr. Waxman of course I'd like to call as a witness. COURT: So, we'll proceed then with Lesley Devoe? MS. HANDRAKAN: | Sure. COURT OFFICER: Please remain standing, face the Judge and raise your right hand couRT: Do you solennly swear the testimony you're about to give in thie proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? witness: 1 do. COURT: ‘Thank you, Be seated, please10 a 2 3 1 15 16 v 18 19 20 a 2 2 En 25 WITNESS: Could T have some water, please. CouRT OFICER: Yeah, T'11 get you some. LESLEY DEVOR, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HANDRAHAN Q Ms. Devoe, could you please describe your credentials? court: Excuse me. Just--could we have the witness state her nane for the record, please. MS. HANDRAHAN: On, DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Q could you state your nane, please. A Okay. I'd also like to spell it since it’s often misspelled. My first nane is Lesley, L-e-s-l-e-y, And my last name is Devoe, D-e small v-o-e MB. WAXMAN: Your Honor, at this point I'd Like to ask for the plaintiff to proffer an offer of proof as to what this witness would say that would help this Court, or what capacity she’s testifying in, Ms, HANDRAHAN: And Lesley Devoe is an expert and she- she is an expert witness. She has--well, I wanted her to speak to her own credentials, but she served on the Maine Homicide Review Panel, she served on the Maine Domestic violence Commission. she’s widely known in the State of Maine for her work within the courts on domestic violence abuse, abuse of process, and she’s been involved in this case from the beginning, although many of her reports weren’t allowed to10 a a 3 a a5 6 a 18 29 20 a 22 24 25 be entered. And she was going to testify to the fact, in sun, that ur. Waxman has done what many lawyers end up doing in these kinds of cases, become the abusers. I mean she was going to testify to the boundary crossing, the ethics violations, the outrageous nature, and what Mr. Waxman's pattern and conduct of behavior has been in the case and the effect that this has had on me and my daughter. she’s a mental health expert. She's a licensed £¢SW, and she has been in this case from the very start, way back when Mary Gay Kennedy was handling the case. MR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, if this wonan is being proffered ‘as an expert to give opinion testimony, I don't understand how there's any scientific reliability for whatever she’s going to say about me, because, as T understand it, the foundation for her testimony would be reading through my e-mails and pleadings in this court, and T have not heard that there's any methodology that's accepted--generally accepted in the scientific community for looking at a lawer’s e-mails and pleadings and coming to conclusions about whether he’s an abusive person. I don’t think there’s--that there's any scientific reliability for that, and, therefore, I think it violates Rule 702. I think it violates the holdings in In re Sarah, And I'd be happy to expound on that because I’m making a record now. COURT: what--ie it your representation that this is10 u a2 a3 a4 a5 16 uv 18 19 20 2 2 24 25 Devoe is an expert in assessing attorneys? Is that what you said? MS. HANDRAHAN: Ms. Devoe is an expert in abuse, and this is @ protection from harassment, and harassnent is a key element of abuse. Stalking is a key elenent of abuse. Stalking is a key element of harassment, and this is a protection from harassment, which is a key elenent of abuse. and Ms. Devoe is an abuse expert widely knom, with very good credentials in the State of Maine. and that--you know, on the e-mails, this is what T was sort of saying yesterday, Mr. Waxman‘s asking that some of his own e-mails be admitted as evidence, but he’s picking and choosing. S0, he wants some of his e-nails to be admitted but not the ones that I choose to have acnitted. so that sort of confused me. I understood that--you know, one or the other. And 7 also understood under Rules cf Evidence admission by a party opponent, even in the representational capacity, is admissible. So, Ms. Devoe has seen these e-mails. They've been forwarded to her. she’s been otserving the case. She's been witnessing enotions, she's teen witnessing behavior. she is an expert in abuse. And this is a protection from harassment case which is an abuse case, so I think it’s entirely appropriate curt: Is--is this witness going to give an opinion about Mr. Waxman? MS, HANDRAHAN: and his harassment10 a aa 3 14 15 a6 a 18 cry 20 a 22 23 aa 25 COURT: Ig--ie that correct? 1 think we need to-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: She's going to give an opin--an expert opinion about harassment and why this case constitutes-- couRT; About harassment in general or about Mr. Waxman? MS. HANDRAKAN: Yes, because harassment is a--is an element of abuse. And some of Me.-- courr: All right. 1 think Ms, HANDRAHAN: --Wiaxman’s behaviors--she is going to testify couRT: Well, I think we need to make sure we're clear here. Is it generally about harassing conduct, or is it about Me. Waman? MS. HANDRAHAN: Specifically about Mr. Waxman, yes. I mean I COURT: Is that correct, you're giving an opinion: WITNESS: That's correct COURT: --about Mr. Waxman? MS, HANDRAHAN: Yes wrmwes: My observations MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, I think, therefore, this witness is being asked to do what is your job. She's being asked to determine whether or not my conduct rises to the level of harasenent, and I--that’s not appropriate, And let me just-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: 1 MR. WAXMAN: I’m making a record, so let me please10 u 12 3 1a a5 16 uv 18 19 20 a 22 2 24 25 continue. Okay? “the proponent of expert testimony mst satisfy two requirenents.” I’m reading now from In re Sarah C. “First, the testimony must be relevant pursuant to MR evidence four oh one, And, second, the testimony must assist the jury in understanding’--now the fact finder--rin understanding the evidence or determining the existence of a fact in issue. The often--the easiest way this burden can be net is to show the acceptance of a theory met that (Indis- cenrible) by the expert community to which it relates." [sic] I challenge this witness to explain to this Court how there's any scientific community that puts its imprimatur on Looking at a selected portion of an attorney's e-mails and pleadings and reaching the conclusion thereby that the attorney is an abuser, or a stalker, or has violated the State's harassment. Jaws. No such evidence exists and this witness should not be permitted to give opinion testimony in this case. MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, I'm confused. He first asked the witness to provide this type of testimony and then he said she can't do it so she shouldn't be admitted, And this is exactly the type of testinony that she’s going to provide There is scientific basis. There is theory, There's a huge body of expert knowledge about this and ¥s. Devoe is about to testify to that YR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, this gets at the very basis of my objection of absolute privilege. There is no body of-10 rr 2 3 a 15 16 an a8 1 20 a 2 23 aa 25 there's no scientific community that says you can look at attorney's e-mails and pleadings and reach conclusions about the attorney's intent or about what kind of attorney he is Te does not exist MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, that's not factually true There is a scientific body and Ms. Devoe is very well informed and part of that community, and she’s going to testify that there's a large anount of social science research now being generated precisely about these types of cases MR. WAXMAN: ‘Then why don’t T voir dire this witness and find that out? MS, HANDRAHAN: And Ms. Devoe is ready to testify to this right now. You court: Well, 1'11 aliow voir dire right can Go that: and we’l1 see where we go. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY HR. WAXMAN @ Ms. Devoe, T heard you testify at the divorce trial and z understand that you believe you're an expert in domestic violence, correct? correct. You're an 1CSH, correct? correct. You're not a lawyer, right? correct oF o> o> And there is no generally accepted scientific theory that10 a a2 2 a4 as 16 v 18 Fe) 20 2a 22 2 Ey 25 oy oe oe says that a licensed clinical social worker with experience in donestic violence can look at attorney's e- rails, letters and pleadings and reach conclusions, is there? you've asked the question in a very limited way, 1/11- That's right, T have. My testimony was going to be broader than that Would you please answer my question? Would you please repeat it? can you tell this Court that there’s any well-accepted peer reviewed article that says it is reliable for a Licensed clinical social worker with expertise in domestic violence to peruse a lawyer's pleadings and nissives and reach conclusions about whether he’s an abuser or a stalker or harasser? Name the article, name the book. No, there’s no--there’s no article or research that’s that narrow. Okay. There’s no research at all in this field, is there, Ms. Devoe? Actually, there are articles that are now talking about lawyers and how they behave in court and how--Jean Yorza’s article is particularly important. Lundy Bancroft talks about how lawyers behave in terns of extending the abuse to-- 1010 a 2 a3 aa a5 16 uv a8 3 20 a1 2 24 25 a Are there any articles that talk about looking at a selected anount of lawyer's filings, lawyer's missives and reaching conclusions about whether that lawyer has harassed, or abused, or stalked a litigant? Joan Zorza looks at the nunbers of motions--the abuse of the process particularly by that--by lawyers and how that impacts survivors. tundy Bancroft-- I'm sorry, survivors? Survivors. Okay. We're talking about litigants here ‘are you claiming that she’s a survivor because I’ve tried to kill her? No Okay. Can we just use the terminology in this courtroom I resent the insinuation that I've done because T semething reprehensible, Are you--are you claiming that I've done something to harm this woman physically? Not physically, no. Okay. And so you're claiming that you can determine, based on the number of pleadings that I filed, that I've been an abuser, correct? ‘That's one factor among many others Okay. ‘Tell me what article--what treatise stands for the proposition that you and any licensed clinical social worker can look merely at the number of pleadings in a au10 a 12 3 4 15 16 w 18 a9 20 a 23 24 25 case and make determinations about whether the lawyer is aousing the process AT think the Joan Zorza article cones closest to talking about pleadings Court: gust--just one moment, please. There's a problem with the. MACHINE OFF - TAPE CHANGED - MACHINE on VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN @ Okay, You just mentioned these Joan Zorza articles. Can you please spell the last name of Zorza Ro deo-r-z-a olay. And what's the article entitled? I'l have to look that up. “Batterer Manipulation and Retaliation in the Courts" in donestic violence. It's in the donestic violence report. @ Okay. And what do you--what do you claim that article stands for? what proposition do you claim that article stands for? MS, HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, may T ask a question? I believe he asked--ttr, Waxnan originally said there is no scientific body or article that you can point to. she’s now pointed to it, Does he now get to continue to court: Yes, he can question, Go ahead. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR, WAXMAN 9 What proposition do you contend that article stands for 210 a Fry a 14 as 16 uv 18 19 20 a 2 23 2a 25 relating to this case? that article talks about the way lawyers abuse the systen by having lots of motions in retaliatory fashion, and the impact on litigants. can you state the title for that article once again, Diease. Mrim. *Batterer Manipulation and Retaliation in the courts." Okay. Now, you're aware, because you've read the divorce judgment, are you not, that the divorce trial judge aid not find itr, Malenko to be a batterer, correct? correct. Okay. That article talks about how a batterer nenipulates the system, right? Through his lawyer, Okay. We don’t have a batterer here according to the ccurt, right? According to that judgment, that’s correct, Okay. 18 there any other article or treatise, or--or notation by anybody on a bathroom wall, that says that you have--there’s some kind of scientific reliability for you to sit there, look through my e-mails and my pleadings and tell the Judge that based on that review I am an abuser, or a harasser, ora stalker? What docunent?A That would be that specific in terms of e-mails, T don't kaow of any. Thank you. YR. WAXMAN: ‘That’s all I have for this witness. and T renew my motion to--to strike her testimony completely. MS. HANDRAHAN: Am T allowed to-- COURT; Well, you're not allowed to go forward with che testimony. MS. HANDRAHAN: Oh, cour: ‘The issue is whether or not this witness should be allowed to testify. MS. HANDRAHAN: Am T allowed to add to this--it's believe it’s called voyeur [sic]. am I allowed to bring up a question about that? couRT: Are you asking about her credentials or the--the issues that were-- €s, HANDRAHAN: Yes. court: --just raised by Me. Waxman? MS, HANDRAHAN: Yes. courr: 1/11 allow that MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Lesley Devoe, you're familiar with Lundy Bancroft's work? A Yes © can r read a quote and you can tell me if this is true u10 un Fey a au 1s a6 wv 18 as 20 a 2 23 24 25 about--regarding what Mr. Waxnan was saying, MR. WON: Ah, MS. HANDRAKAN; I'm not allowed to do that? MR. WAXMAN: I don't think it’s-- COURT: I'm not sure what you're-- RECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Are you familiar with Lundy Bancroft’s work? yes could you describe his work, please, for the court. po» eo Oh, he’s worked out of a merge in Quincy, Massachusetts with thousands of batterers. He’s done a lot of writing and a lot of research. @ — And--and what does he talk about in terms of the attorney? MR. WAKIAN: Excuse me, T have to lodge an objection because the--obviously the basis for the testinony and for this particular article is batterers. We don’t have a batterer in this case. MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, he was arrested for donestic violence, and there's a police record to that court: There--let me just--since I wasn’t privy to this, were--vas there a protection from abuse~ MS. HANDRAHAN: There was. comet: --proceeding in this natter? MR. WAXMAN: There was, and it was dismissed at the 1510 a a B 4 as 16 uv 18 19 20 a 22 a3 24 Givorce trial after the two days of testimony. COURT: $0, was it-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Your-~ courT: --1'm sorry, was it part of the divorce proceeding? WR. WAXMAN: Yes. MS, HANDRAKAN: Your Honor, this is--this is what happened yesterday and this is what's happened before. Mr. Waxman is fond of manipulating the truth and he gets to establish the record as if it’s true. ‘There was a protection Erom--there was a domestic violence arrest which my ex-husband pled guilty and he got @ filing for a year. and 1 have those records ME. WAXMAN: That is not accurate. . Me. MANDRAAN: Tt is, and T‘21 give you the record. MR. WAXVAN: There was a-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Do you want to see the record? MR. WAXMAN: There was a filing. Tt was not a plea of guilty, MS. HANDRANAN: And that was long before the impending divorce. MR. WRAYAN: And it was dismissed. MS. HANDRAWAN: and 1 paid four thousand dollars for an attorney to represent him so that he wouldn't be arrested so he wouldn't be deported, because at that point T was trying to 1610 a rt a3 a4 1 16 v 18 19 20 a 2 2 24 hold the marriage together. So, there was--originally he threw a jar at my head. There's a police record which states that he does. court: But was there a trial on that issue? MR. WAXMAN: There was a trial, Your Honor, on all these issues MS. HANDRAHAN: There was-- ‘court: Hang on. Hang on, Mr. Wayman, Was there a trial fon the issue-- MS. HANDRAHAN: There was a hearing on the domestic violence assault charge, and he got a filing because I hired-~ 1 hires-- court: After a trial he got a filing? MS. HANDRAHAN: ‘There--ne didn’t go--we didn’t go to that because I was @ non-cooperative witness cour: So, it was just a filing? MG. HANDRAAN: It was a filing, because t paid four thousand dollars for MittelAsen te represent hin, court: So, there was no conviction? MS. HANDRAHAN: No, there was--it was a filing, No conviction. coRT: Okay. MS, HANDRAHAN: But that’s because T paid that money for him, I paid four thousand dollars for him to be represented because I believed, at that point, Your Honor, that he wasthis very good person who had been tortured in the war and he YR. WAXMAN: T object to this narrative. courr: I’m sorry, we don’t need to get into the facts i'm just trying to find out procedurally what-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. ‘Then-~ court: --do we have here? MS. HANDRAHAN: That's what we have. We have a police record and a filing record which I can produce to the Court ‘Then there was a protection from abuse, and I agreed to a consented order. He also agreed to a consented order, because, once again, if he was found guilty he would have been deported, and I didn’t want him to be deported, 1 didn’t want my daughter co have no contact with him. MR, WAXMAN: Okay. Objection. We have that document. We have the docunent: court: Just--just--no, 1 don't need to get into the merits of it, I'm just trying to find out procedurally what cases there were Mg. HANDRAHAN: Okay. court: --and what the outcomes were Me. HANDRAHAN: Okay. DUE there--so, that was consented. ccuRT: What--was that--was that an or-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: That was the second-~ courr; --a protection order that was issued out of this 1810 a 22 2 1 15 16 wv 18 19 20 an 22 23 24 25 court? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. Judge Mary Gay Kennedy. MR, WAXMAN: We discussed this yesterday. It was filed on May 23rd, 2008, the same day the divorce was received by Me. Hanrahan, And 1 have a copy-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: I believe a lot of couRT: gust ME. WAXMAN: Excuse me. T think T have a right to make @ record, COURT: What~-what was the disposition on the PA that was filed in YS. WAXMAN; ‘The PA was--there was a consent--consented to order with no finding of abuse, 1 have it right here if you'd like to see it, It’s a matter of judicial record, ccuRT: what is the docket nunber on that, please? MR. WAXMAN: Docket number is PORDC-PA-2008-00605. MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, my concern is he gets to add in his Little context of this without-- cour: r'm--1/m just asking for the procedural status, i'm not asking for what the allegations were or what was proven 9 not proven. MS. HANDRAHAN: All right. But he gets in it was filed on the same day as the divorce making it-~ CouRT: 'm--I’m not concerned about that MR. WAXMAN; Would the Court like to receive a copy and 19a0 u 12 Fey a 15 16 a 1 19 20 a 2a 2a 25 take judicial notice of it? CoURT: T--T will take judicial notice of the order. MS, HANDRAHAN: And the police record, Your Honor? COURT; 1 don’t need--r will take the court's filings-- WR. WAXMAN: Oh, okay. court: --specifically, as opposed to the parties’ copies of any documents. MS. MANDRAHAN: Would you like the police records? YR, WAXWAN: Ab court: I don’t need a police record. Is there a docket number on the filing--the filed assault? MS, HANDRAHAN: I have the filing here. MR. WAXMAN: T--with al1 due respect, Your Honor, a filing and a later dismissal-- COURT: Well, I--I don’t need to hear argument. I just want to know what the--what the court action was. If you're going to argue what the merits-- MR, WAXMAN: I thought we were gonna-— COURT: --of the case were-- MR, WAXMAN: --get around this, and this is what you wanted to do yesterday, was not get into the substance of whatever was determined in the divorce judgment COURT: That’s correct. I’m not going te have this--the divorce judgment issues relitigated in this proceeding. I'm Just trying to find what cases were associated with this 2010 a 2 a aa a5 16 7 ae a9 20 aa 2 23 24 25 proceeding and what issues were decided or were not decided MR. WROUN: T appreciate that, But let me just simply say whet T want to say here, which ie the witness is being proffered to testify that she can determine that Michael Waxman is an abuser, or a stalker, or a harasser based merely ‘on perusing my e-mails and pleadings, has already said the only articles she can look to for guidance on this is an article regarding batterers. And she's already testified that the divorce judgment indicated that this--this man was not a batterer. This Court does not need anything else, quite frankly, in my view of the world. she is not properly-—does not have the proper credentials or the background to raise opinions about Michael waxman, and she should not be permitted ko testify courr: can you just tell me the docket nunber, that’s all r'm asking for MS. HANDRAIAN: Oh, I don't--this is the police-~ court: I’m not asking for police reports, T just need a docket aunber if there was a criminal action. MS. HANDRANAN: For the filing. That was already--this wae already admitted as evidence many times to the court comRr: In this proceeding? MS. HANDRAHAN: It was admitted in the divorce judament procesé:ng, couRP: I’m not a10 a 2 2 aa a5 16 uv 18 » 20 a 22 23 24 5 MS. HANDRAHAN: --not in this proceeding. couR?: De you have a doc--I don’t need to see—~ (COURT OFFICER: Oh, okay. court; Just tell me a docket number: COURT OFFICER: You just want the docket number? cour: Please. COURT OFFICER: Okay. Oh seven dash twenty-seven sixty- courr; And that’s District Court? Superior Court? COURT OPPICER: That was-—that was--I believe that was District Court. courr: Okay. COURT OFFICER: Yeah, it was. It was District courr; AlL right. and then we have a family matter docket number. ME. HANDRAHAN: T don’t have--I don’t seem to have a copy of the filing--1 thought that I did--with me (eauss) COURT; $0, has--are we talking about the only matters that have been brought before the court, which is the--there was a criminal matter in 07-2761, a protection from abuse, PA- 08-605, and then we have the divorce judgment, is that right? Any other docket nunbers? MS, HANDRAIAN: Well, I--I recently learned that there’s been a theft by unauthorized taking served. 22a aa a5 16 wv 18 9 20 a 2 23 28 25 COURT: Well, we're talking about whether or not there’s a finding of domestic violence here, because I think that's-- MS. HANDRAHAN: There was a £1-- court: --where-~ MS, HANDRAHAN: --theve was a finding. ‘That’s the filing, T mean there was consent MR. WANIAN: That‘s a migstatenent of the facts and the Jaw, as Your Honor can--can tell herself. MS. HANDRAHAN: How--how is arrest for domestic violence, adnitting the police record of domestic violence, the police officer testifying on the stand that this was true ina consented order a misrepresentation of the facts? MS. URIMAN: Because the consent order does not contain a finding of abuse, that’s why. MS. HANDRAHAN: So, this hae been the problem all along. There’s been @ whitewash here, and there's been a lot of Lies that have been told about me. 1 don’t understand how you have ava record of donestic abuse, a police record, an arrest, and T consented so that he wouldn't be deported. We have a filing based on that consented order. And if he was innocent, why did he consent? and now we're saying he was never an abuser, he was never arrested for doneatic violence, it’s just gone? It/a just invisible now? Tt never happened, that arrest? the Jar never got throw at my head? And there was perjury committed in court, and we have all the testimony there. He aa0 n 2 a3 aa 15 16 uw 18 a9 20 a 2 23 28 25 never conmitted this crime, yet we have the police record saying that he did, Yet we have the consented order saying that he did. t's amazing to me. T just don’t understand how that can happen in a courtroom in America. YR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, just for-- MS. HANDRANAN: There was a record--there was an arrest for donestic violence, pled guilty. There was a consented order because T hired-- MR. WAXMAN: Excuse me, That is a misstatement of the facts yet again. court: 1s--is that--is that in the case that we talked about as the assault--um, domestic violence assault, docket CR-07-2761, or is there another one that you're referring to? MS. HANDRAHAN: There was one arrest for domestic violence. couRT: okay. So, that’s the one with the 07-2761 docket nunber, is that correct? MS. HANDRAHAN: | T don‘ t-~ MR. WAOIAN: Yes. MS. HANDRAIAN: --I have the letter--let’s see, docket 07-2761, yes. ‘COURT: Okay. So, that’s the only one that we're talking about. MS. HANRAHAN: And then there was @ consented order for 2 pro--then the second protec--yeah, that was the only arrest. 2aa0 u 22 3 4 1s 16 a 18 9 20 a 2 2 24 25 That's right: ‘couR?; And then the protection from abuse is the docket A-08-6052 MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes court: ‘Then we have the family matter, Is there any other protection order that was involved here? MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, they--they filed two protection orders against me which were thrown out, one because T put my house up for sale, and they filed @ protection order because T put my house for sale claiming it was abuse. ‘The second because I was in Sorento, and they claimed that was abuse. And both of these were disnissed out of hand. cout: ‘These are PA-- MS. HANDRAHAN: They were PA‘, -~ court: --orders? MS. HANDRAHAN: --yes. And, actually, what I did, Your Honor--what I had tried to do--and I apologize it’s incomplete, T tried to-~ ME, WAXMAN: Your Honor, can T please have a moment here? MS. HANDRAHAN: This ig the--this is the docket of all the things that have happened in the case, which T was trying to produce yesterday, CCURT: Well, hang on. I'm just trying to get the docket numbers of various cases that may be involved here. Was there another protection from abuse case in this matter? 2510 u 2 a a4 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HANDRAHAN: They filed two protection from abuse cases against me (Indiscernibie) MR, WAXMAN: Your Honor, is the question is there another protection from abuse case involving Igor Malenko? Ts that your question? couRT: No, involving these parties MR, WAXMAN: There has not been another protection from abuse crder granted, no. MS. HANDRAHAN: There were fi--he filed two protections fron atuse against me, one because 1 put my house up for sale, fone because I was in Sorento, so-- Me. WAXHAW: Your Honor, 1 thought the inguiry right now, when I was voir diring this witness, - ccuRT: I’m just trying to get through the morass here and make sure I'm not being-— MR, WAXMAN: We're getting deeper into the morass. COURT; Well, T need the docket numbers to see what the morass con--is constituted of MR, WAXHAW: Can I help Your Honor? Tf you look at the divorce judgment, on page twelve, provision ten, ‘outstanding protective order is dismissed in view of this judgnent.* Thats what this Court needs to know, and that’s what this witness just testified to. COURT: Is that the one in which there was a consent-- MS, HANDRAHAN: Yes. 2610 n aa 3 14 15 16 0 18 i 20 an 22 23 24 25 courr: --order? Ms. HANDRAHAN: The consented order, which was under Mary Gay Kennedy, T was strongly advised, and t agreed to consent because I didn’t want him to be deported. WR, WAXMAN: Excuse me. MS. HANDRAHAN: The docket-- MR, WOMAN: Excuse me court: I sounds as though there's--there are two Gifterent protection-- MR, WAXMAN: This is the consent order is that in the case that court: --orders here, Ts that was then dismissed-- Mm, WAKIAN: Yes CURT: --by the--the divorce judgment? ME. WAXMAN: Yes. Yes COURT: And is that--let me see the docket on that and the status of this. So, is the outstanding—- MS. HANDRAHAN: So, Your Honor, what's happened is twice Ie-again, 1 tried to compromise, I tried to be reasonable, t tried to be cooperative, and I was literally horrified, because, one, T aidn't push forward on the arrest, two, t didn’t gush forward on the protection from abuse-- court: Sut you understand we're not relitigating those cases here? MS, HANDRAHAN: But there was @ consent, and there was 210 a 2 a3 aa 35 16 w 18 a9 20 a 22 3 24 evidence--there is evidence of domestic violence. So, the point is Mr. Waman's trying to say Lesley Devoe can’t testify because Mr. Malenko has no record of domestic assault, and there is a record, there’s a police record of donestic assault. gust because Judge Moskowitz dismissed it, even though the police officer testified to his true record, that’s a different issue. Whether or not Mr. Malenko has a history of abuse is absolutely clear. ‘That cannot be erased. And Mr: Waxman is trying to say Ms. Devoe can’t testify because there's no evidence that Mr. Malenko is an abuser. It’s patently false MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, T have asked this Court to make a decision with regard to whether this witness can testify. okay? and at this point it's-~ court: Yes. we're in that process, Mr. Waxman. MR, WOON: Excuse me? CcURT: we are in the process of considering that. MR. WAXMAN: With all due respect, it seems to me as if you've lost control of this particular hearing. courT: excuse me. T think you are losing control of your behavior in this proceeding. And I think we better take a recess so that enotions can be taken under control MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, T am fine court: we'll take a recess COURT OFFICER: All rise. 28a a2 a Fry a5 16 uw ae a 20 a 22 23 28 MACHINE OFF - MACHINE ON court: any further argunent on the issue of this witness’ testimony? Mr. Waxman? MR, WAXMAN: No, Your Honor. court: 1 am going to allow the witness to testify de bene, subject to the ruling which T will reserve. MS. HANDRAHAN: Thank you, Your Honor. cour: The witness has been sworn in, We can proceed. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN, 9 tesley Devoe, could you please state for the record your credentials as an expert witness. A Tima Licensed clinical social worker in private practice ix Rockland with a specialty in childhood trauma and denestic abuse. T've done--T've specialized in identification of child sex abuse over the years, domestic abuse, and trauna--impacts of trauma on people I've done trainings. T've given trainings to guardians- ad-Litem, judges, CO's, victim witness advocates, case workers. dust over the years I’ve Gone a lot of training, certainly gone to every training I could on those topics. I've published, as a co-author, on two chapters on abuse. I--T trained as far--t actually presented a case to psychiatrists in New York City when T worked with a child who had witnessed the murder of her mother by her father, I worked at the prison for two 29u a2 a 1a a5 16 7 18 a9 20 a 22 23 2a years doing--as a co-therapist with child molesters for two hours a week for those years. Let’s see, I’ve been oa the Domestic Abuse Conmission, on the Homicide Review for two years Panel. developed and taught a two-year: --a course to MSW students at the University of Maine at ozono on the topic of abuse and trauma, I've also re re--T've developed some training tools that have been useful in the state, I’ve rewritten the power and control wheel and developed training tools, particularly fon the topic of professionals and how they re-traunatize survivors in the process of doing their treatwent and their interventions. T'm currently writing a book on how betterers manipulate mental health and legal professionals. And I think that just about covers it asd you've been following this case? ves, I have been following this case since 1 did the first intake with you. T believe it was in September of 08. Yeah. Q And did you interview Mr. Waxman or Tgor Malenko for this? A No, T offered. T asked, actually, Mr. Waxnan if I could meet with Mr. Malenko and have a release of information signed to--to have a-- MR. uRIOBN: 1 object to any further testimony on that question. She‘s answered the question, No, she did not. 302 a 4 15 16 Ft 18 9 20 a 2 2B 24 25 ‘There doesn’t need to be any further response. t's non- responsive. cour: Is thie relating to Mr. Malenko or Mr. Wasman? MS, HANDRAHAN: I gaid did she interview Mr, Yalenko or Mr. Wasman, and she’s just-- courr: Or Mr. Waxman? MS. HANDRAAN: Yes, Because she just interviewed me, COURT: And the--and the ques--the answer was no? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. cour?: and then there was additional information being given about--1'm not sure who MS, HANDRAHAN: Oh, Me. Malenko. I think she went into the waiver issue. COURT; I/1L sustain the objection beyond that DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 2 what are your observations on this case so far since you've been involved? UR, WAXMAN: Let me just lodge my objection to that question. 1/m gonna continue to make objections to make a record. this woran’s observations on the case--first of all T object on form grounds. t's vague and ambiguous. 1 don’t know what that means. So, T object on that basis DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN © Ms. Devoe, could you cite a specific incident in your opinion that constitutes a concern for you on this case? a10 un 2 3 a 15 16 a 1a 29 20 2 2a 2B 2a 25 MR. WAXMAN: Objection. ‘The concern of this witness is irrelevant to the determination the Court has to make. MS. HANDRAHAN: Well, she's an expert witness. she’s actually writing a book on the topic, as she just testified. couRT: ALL right. So, we need to find out exactly what the question is without having it too broadly drawn. MS. HANDRANAN: Okay. cour: what is it that you're asking this witness? MS, HANDRAHAN: What her concerns were about Me. Waxman‘s behavicr on the case. And then if that’s too broad-~ couRT: and based on what? MS, HANDRAHAN: Based on her observations of reading the e-mails, of talking with me, of talking with other professionals involved in this case CURT: $0, you need to--you need to lay that foundation, as to what-- MS. HANDRANAN: Okay. cour: --she has observed or-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Okay. court: --participated in. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Ms. Devoe, could you please explain in detail what you've observed or participated in in this case A T’ve been co’d on e-mails for a year anda half. r've spoken to the attorneys who have been involved in this 3210 u aa 2 15 16 uv 18 9 20 a 22 23 24 25 case. I've spoken to the mandated reporter on this case, Live certainly spoken to you a nunber of--I've met with you in court mainly after the intake, but I’ve spoken to you on a munber of occasions and have--have certainly observed the impact of a lot of these e-mails and the notions, and so on. Q and could you describe your concerns from your professional standpoint as an expert witness? Why are you here to testify today? YR, WAXMAN: Objection. That’s way too vague a question, 1 don't care what her motivation is, quite frankly. SECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN @ Could you describe--you said that you've talked to the attorneys on the case. You've talked with Ken Altshuler, you talked with Bill Harwood. Could you describe sone of those conversations as related to concerns about-- MR, WAXMAN: Objection. Hearsay. CouR?: The basis for the opinion that’s being offered here? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes, for the opinion. t's her opinion. court: Do we have an opinion that’s being offered here? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, I am so upset at how far afield this case has gone and that I am being made to sit here and Listen to a scrutiny of my professional work on this case. 3310 a 2 3 1 15 a6 uv 18 19 20 2 22 23 2a 25 Even though the law is clear, as I had indicated in my briet—- cour; I understand. We don't need to go back and argue the--the--the-— MR, WAKIAN: I’m going to do COURT: Excuse MR. WAXMAN: --what I have to to make-~ COURT: Excuse MR. WAXMAN: --a record, Your Honor, -~ couRT: Excuse me. MR. WROEN: --with all due respect COURT: You will have an opportunity to argue the case when it's appropriate time to argue. This is not a time to argue the privilege issue that you have raised at a different point in the proceeding. So, ME. WROIAN: It’s hard for me, unfortunately, Your Honor, when there’s a privilege, as there is in a qualified inmnity case, that bars generally the target from having to testify and go to trial. that’s generally what the qualified inmunity privilege is supposed to do. Same thing with the absolute privilege here, and yet you have permitted this litigant to continually scrutinize my professional conduct. 1 find that abhorrent court: well, I understand that you're not pleased with that, bit we are going forward with this hearing as I decided to do, And I'LL make the rulings at the appropriate time on 3a10 a 12 3 4 15 16 wv 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 the issues you have raised. Now, the question is, what is this--what is-- MS. HANDRAHAN: Her--her opinion. court: Her opinion. MS. HANDRAIAN: She's also monitored the courtroom behavior which is something that professionals in this field tend to do, so she could even testify, for instance, to Mr. Wwasman's court: But you--you can’t testify, she needs to testify. MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. MR, WAQON: I/m--T'm sorry, but, once again, I'm going to lodge objection to hearsay now because apparently the opinion she’s about to give us is based on conversations with two lawers. ‘That is based on hearsay. It’s not admissible. ‘There’s no scientific reliability that she can cite to us for relying on one side’s lawyers in reaching decisions about whether I have done something reprehensible or not MS. HANDRAHAN: Your Honor, it was part of the foundation. she’s done interviews, she’s reviewed e-mails, she's reviewed motions, and she's court--watched and court Stored, {sic} she’s done interviews with me substantially. It's the body of--in any kind of social science research you look at a body of evidence. And there is fa substantial body of evidence on this exact subject. and 1 could ask Ms, Devoe to expand on that perhaps to begin with if 3510 u Pe 3 14 is 16 uv 18 29 20 a 22 23 Py 25 you'd like couRr: As to what her other research has been? MS. HANDRAHAN: Yes. And then research within the field. ‘There’s an entire conference that goes on called the Batterers Mothers Custody Conference [sic] every year where social scientists, and lawyers, and-~ ‘court: I think we need to confine this testimony to what is before the Court in this case. So, I will allow her to give her testimony. MS. HANDRAHAN: ‘Thank you. womess: Un, I'm not sure what the question is. NS. HANDRAAN: Your observations WITNESS: okay. I've observed what I would consider acts of intimidation through e-mails and letters, and I have also looked at--in the law--the intention of causing fear, of intimication, and 1’ve analyzed that in terms of actual words used, which are use--use the word intimida--or intention are very clear in terms of Mr. Waxnan’s intention. [sic] The second way I've locked at that--at the intention area is to look at what reasonable people would--how they would assess an Intention and how they would understand the meaning of words. And then on the third area in that particular category I’ve-- I’ve assessed, in terms of my expertise as a--a trauma and abuse specialist who has dealt with intimidation and threats ‘overall area I’ve looked at is for years, and the third area 35a0 a 2 B u 15 16 w 1B a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 impact of intimidating acts on you and sone surmised impacts on your daughter DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY HS. HANDRAHAN @ and what were your findings? mR. WAXHAW I’m sorry, I--I'm going to have to lodge objection to "surmised impacts." That sounds Like conjecture to me court: All right. 1 am going to sustain that objection. WMESS: In terms of the first part of the statute, three or more acts of intimidation, what I--r saw probably six, nine--eleven areas that were observations. The first would he intimidating you in terms of threats to remove Mila that you would be stripped of your rights to her as your child, and there were--r found four of those in that category I can cive the dates on that if you'd like, one 7/15/09, 8/26/08, 9/16/09 and 12/09. 1 saw threats to use Mr. Waxnan’s family financial fortune to accomplish the above, MR. WAXMAN: Objection. Your Honor, we have had a @isqualification hearing on this very issue. It's the law of the case, and Judge Moskowitz denied the motion. Yet T have to be subjected to this again? I think it's collateral estoppel and I think you should prevent her from testifying about that. cco: Overruled. Proceed WITNESS: I observed threats to use Mr. Waxnan’s legal 3720 a 2 a3 u 15 16 uv 18 19 20 a 22 23 yy 25 powers in a way that T had never seen in terms of thirty years working and testifying in court, working with lawyers. “I will be asking the Court for draconian sanctions." That was on 2/4/10 to Ms. Spurr and Mr. Harwood. *Let’s have a field day" on 4/29/09 to Mr. Altshuler. “I promise t will file motion after motion,* 9/8/09 to Mr. Harwood. A threat was implied in Mr. waxman’s move from professional to personal interest in terms of your two-year-old and now three-year-old daughter Mila. And 1 found that significant given his threats to remove you from this child's life, 1 particularly wes concerned about that and the intimidation because it said to me that this was a deceitful relationship that he was developing with Mila because she had no idea what his intentions were in terms of you. and it appeared--I saw no way in any of the e-mails any concern about the impact on Mila if you were removed fron her life. And unfortunately, because she’s two, she can’t say, "Oh, T don’t want to be with a man who is trying to renove my mother so T think i'd rather stay home with you.” [sic] I saw intimidation of a day care provider to the point where she quit, and-- MR. WAXMAN; Your Honor, I’m gonna have to object to that fas well because there's never been any testimony on that. it's an absolute misstatenent of facts that are in evidence, and I’m really having a hard tine with this, CORP: I'm going to sustain that objection. 3810 a 2 a 4 a5 16 a 18 a 20 a 2 23 2a 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN Go ahead A There‘s intimidation of a mandated reporter, Ms. Polly campbell. 1 have seen the e-mail that was sent to the Department of Human Services to every level of decision- making in that case. That, to me, was one of the most significant boundary crossings and abuse of power I’ve ever seen in my years of work. MR. WRIMAN: Objection. This is a long narrative, I don't now what the heck “boundary crossing” means. It’s the vaguest term I can imagine being used here, court: Well, you'll allow--you'll be allowed cross examination WITNESS: I consider that intimidation not only of Folly campbell but of everybody who read that e-mail. there is intimidation of Jamie wagner to the a point that he quit as lawyer. ME. WAXMAN: Your Honor, she's testifying again about hearsay, ccuRT: Well, is it not--this is an opinion that’s based on other information, is that correct? MR, WAXMAN: I don't know what it's-— court: outside information? YR. WAQAN: --based on. danie Wagner was never her lawyer in the first place. He was thinking about becoming her a920 rr 2 B Fry 15 16 uv 18 19 20 a 2 24 25 and that~-r believe that that was not allowed MR. WAXMAN: He's not here to testify, It's hearsay, ‘This is the problem with all of her testimony, Your Honor None of it is helpful. and it’s quite harmful-- couRT: Well, is that the-- MR. waooMaN COURT: Well, that’s a matter for argunent, Proceed. INESS: I'm not sure if that was allowed or not, the-~ the Janie Wagner comment, because that does have an impact on other conmente I make whether it was allowed or not ig that something that Jamie COURT: and the testimony: Wagner said to you? No, was what I witnessed that was told in e- wrmes: mails, ‘That was the ‘Despicable hunan being" e-mail, And then-- MS, HANDRAHAN: We--we proffered that with the Court yesterday wees: He then— COURT: Is that in this record? WrMESS: --removed hinself as lawyer. COURT: Was that admitted as one of the-- MS, HANDRAHAN: Yes, it was proffered-— couRT: --docunents? MS. HANDRAHAN: --that day, "Despicable human being, 4010 n 12 2 14 15 16 wv 18 a 20 a 22 23 2a 25 yes WITNESS: ‘There was intimidation of Trevor Bre--Bradin-~ Braden {sic}, the doctor, to the point where he resigned. MR. WAXMAN: I'm sorry, I’m going to continue to ledge objections, we had a hearing on this on the disqualification motion, Trevor Braden was present, as was his wife, Lisa Resiglia (Phonetic). she testified. The testimony was--and 1 have the document here--that T was friendly. Friendly, Your Honor. In fact, her grievance against me was dismissed for that very reason. courr: All right. We're not here on a disqualification hearing, however. his is a different inquiry. So, I under- stand you're saying this is collaterally estopped, x’m not going to preclude thi testinony on the basis of a collateral estoppel argument WINES: I also observed intimidation in terms of the relentless quality and quantity of Mr. Waxman’s motions, emergency motions, dropped PFA’s and contempt motions. And T felt that that gave that behavior a stalking quality and increased its threatening nature. And that would also include the letters. 1 saw some of the letters copied that went to Judge Woskowitz on a daily basis. 1 also saw for acts of intimidation a combination of poor professional boundaries, plus threat of his fanily fortune, plus his legal power. And 1 saw that as a major and realistic threat to Ms. Handrahan. “a10 u a 3 a 15 16 wv 18 29 20 2 2a 23 2a 25 In tems of my assessment of his intention of causing fear or intimidation, as I said, I--1 measured that in three ways. one was his actual words, and there were no ways to get around what his intentions were MR. WAXVAN: Your Honor, I’m gonna lodge one more objection, And, actually, not one more, there'll be a relentless stream of then, quite frankly, to this ridiculous testimeny. This right now is talking about my intentions, choosirg words in e-mails that T sent to her lawyers, pleadirgs that I filed with the court. 1 have no idea whether and how they get to the particular plaintiff in this case. I’m just dunb struck that T've got to sit here and listen to this. T object. ccurT: 1 understand your objection. Proceed. and, again, I said that 1’m taking the testimony de bene. 1/11 make a decision as to whether or not it is admissible, or, if admissible, what weight MR, WAKIAN: And what about the harm that occurs to me having to sit here and listen to this, because the absolute privilege motien hasn’t been ruled on, There’s harn to me court: T understand that’s your position in this matter. Go forward. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 9 Go ahead. A For part two of the statute T looked at, as I said, how a2ra ae 19 20 a 2a Mr. waxman’s words clearly stated his intentions. But then I then looked at the reasonable person standard that explores how a reasonable person would react toa Language and accepted meaning of the language, and 7 YR. WANNA: Once again, this is now putting herself in the place of the factfinder, deciding the ultimate question for the Court. Inappropriate. I object, ccur?: If you are giving the ultimate conclusion here as ko whether or not there is harassment, we have an issue, as pointed out by Mr. Waxman, NS, HANDRAHAN: No, we're not giving-- court; --regarding the role of the factfinder and the Judge in this case versus this individual giving expert epinion about-- MS. HANDRAHAN: And that‘s--that's what she’s doing. she Looked at all of the material. court: Well, she--she-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: She's giving an expert opinion about intimidation court: But not as~-not as an attorney or a judge. wrmvess: Tr un-- court: You are testifying based on your experience-- wrrwess: Right. cour: --ag an LesW, is that right? 43n 2 a 4 1s 1 rc 18 a9 a 22 23 24 That's correct couRT: With your particular area of specialty? Womess: Right. coURT: So, what is your opinion in that regard as opposed to-~ mENESS: Yes, I’m sorry if I misstated it. court: --a legal analysis here? 1 saw patterns of intimidation and threat. MESS: I saw attempts to intimidate people, to control the flow of infornetion, and to control the behavior of others. T saw an intention, that was pretty clear, that--for Mr. Waxman to--to remove Mila from her mother and to destroy Ms. Handrahan financially. and 1 then saw an escalation in that in terns of an intention by Mr. Waxman te develop a deep personal velaticnship with her daughter. T--some examples of-~ ym. WAKIAN: I'm going to lodge an objection to that statement and move to strike it as well, This witness, I do not believe, has any personal knowledge of my relationship with Mila Malenko. the only basis for her testimony on this issue would be what she’s told by tori Handrahan. It’s hearsay, couRr: What is the basie for that statement that you Just made regarding the deep-~ WIINESS: I’ve seen the e-mails where he's-- curr: e's--that is the basis? vy10 an 12 a 14 a5 a6 uv a8 Fry 20 a 22 23 24 25 INES: Yes, and I’m actually about to--to list those T/11 go right to the list. ‘we are done screwing around with Lori Hendrahan, let's have a field day.* His intention is clear here. *I promise you I will file motion after motion and you will epend a prodigious anount of money on this case." MR, WIM: Objection, How is this relevant to the inquiry with regard to my relationship with the child? wnINESs: Oh, T was: court: She--T thought you-~ WITNESS: --Z was back--I'm sorry, T was back on what was saying earlier DIRECT EXAMINATION CONPINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 2 You were--you were starting to go through some of the intentional Language before and then I believe that you stopped, and you said one of the things was the language tat he used in e-mails after the temporary protection order was put in place? WR. WAXMAN: My objection, and which the Court has not yet ruled upon, and ay motion to strike, had specifically, at this point, to do with her allegation that T was developing a very deep relationship with a child. MS. HANDRAHAN: 1 believe she said-- MR. WAKWAN: And T objected to the foundation for that particular testimony because she doesn't have any, And then the witaess was going to testify, I thought, about what her 452 a 14 as a6 "7 18 19 20 a1 2 23 24 25 foundation for that opinion was COURT: T believe the response was the e-mail, is that MS. HANDRAKAN: ‘The--the--Mr. Waxman has self described MR. WAXMAN: No, no, no, no. Excuse me. Court: 1 thought the witness said the e-mail MS, HANDRAHAN: Yes. court: Is that right? MR, WAXMAN: Yeah. And the e-mail she cited had nothing to do with my relationship with the child wrnwess: I’m sorry, 1 misunderstood that that was what I was supposed to speak to next. courr: All right. What is the response? WINESS: Okay, In terms of e-mails that Mr. Waxman has ‘expressed his--his connection and his intention of a connection with Mila. He refers to her as a beautiful girl--a beautiful Little gizl, a delightful child, and--vwhom he cares about, 4/29/09. He said he cares about her and has a bond with her, 2/4/10. *T miss spending time with Mila Malenko,* 2/4/10, He said at the la--at the energency PFH hearing that he even knows better what’s in Mila’s best interest than his moth--her mother does. And he admits that this has become personal and no longer professional in an e-mail, 4/29/09 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY HS. HANDRAHAN © Ana, Ms. Devoe, you've been working in the courts in 45a0 uu 12 13 a4 15 16 a7 18 1 20 a 2a 24 25 what Yaine for how many years now? ob, thirty years Fave you ever witnessed an attorney developing a deep bond with a toddler of the opposing counsel--opposing chient? never have, and what T find is so concerning in this is that if you take the negative characterizations of you, that are alarming to me actually, and you pair those with the positive characterizations of your daughter with no connection--no appreciation whatsoever of how you were that’s a the one who raised this child predominantly: netter of record--his--his description of wanting to take her away from you is so clear. There's just no doubt, fcr a reasonable person or even an expert, that that was the intention, That pairing is very alarming and it sets up for me a concern that--again, T mentioned earlier, that Mila has no idea that he has a hidden agenda. He has--she has no idea what hie relationship is to you And T personally believe--I--T know, for me, as a Uerapist, if I ever, ever had clients overnight and their chiléren—— MR. WAXMAN: Objection. I don’t see the relevance of she would do or fee! court: sustained. MR, WAXMAN: --as a therapist10 a 2 a a4 15 16 18 19 20 n 22 23 2a 25 court: Sustained. NESS: So, your question was about in my--in ay thirty years i've never seen that kind of--kind of boundary crossing, and 1/11 leave it at that. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN © And how would you describe that type of contact? MR. WAXMAN: Objection. Vague MS. HANDRAHAN: The type of--how would she describe the type of contact that Mr. Naxnan is developing? COURT: Wwhat~-you--what type of contact-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: What type of contact? court: --are you referring to? MS. HANDRAHAN: Oh, Me, Vaxman’s contact with Mila—with --with Mile, MB. WAXMAN; Once again, foundational objection. The only basis for her testimony is reading some e-mails. She has no idea how I relate to Mila ccurT: 1 think there’s-- MS, HANDRARAN: It’s not how he-- CURT; --what type of contact-- MS. HANDRAIAN: It’s not how he relates to her, it’s how would she describe the contact--the fact that he is self adnittedly developing @ bond, that he is overnighting with her, that he has this kind of contact. hat would be her description for this kind of contact? 4810 n 2 3 aa 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 MR. WAXMAN: Okay. I want to be clear with this MS. HANDRAHAN: the--is the--ie-~ YR. WANN: Excuse me. T'm lodging an objection, making a record, ‘This litigant says things Like ‘this kind of contact,” okay? She insinuates, by doing so, that T have inappropriate contact with this child. I did this at the last hearing with Judge Beaudoin. 1 challenge anybody in this courtroom to put on the table that he or she thinks I’ve been molesting this child. Go ahead and say it and let's talk about the basis for that opinion. cour: Is there sone indication here? Is that being-- MS. HANDRAHAN: No, it’s interesting though, whenever 1 bring w the fact that just the simple contact I find inappropriate, Mr. Waxman immediately goes to sex abuse COURT: Well, I think you need to-- MS. HANDRAHAN: That's something that (Indiscernible). CCURP: --specify what contact you're asking this person £0 give an opinion-~ MS. HANDRAHAN: Any contact cor: --this witness t0 give-- MS. HANDRAHAN: The fact that he~ courr: --an opinion about DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN @ The fact that he is opposing counsel, Ms. Devoe, developing contact and then demanding this contact after a910 a 2 B 4 15 16 7 18 a9 20 a 22 23 24 25 the temporary order was put in place, with a two-year-old girl of the opposing client-- MR. WAXMAN: Objection. Leading. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. HANDRAHAN 0 ~-how would you describe this? COUR: I’m going to allow the question. wimess: what 1 was trying to say and didn’t say earlier very well in terns of boundaries is that the reason there are boundaries for professionals to keep their work professional is that their personal involvement and their needs don’t get put in the equation, MR. WAXMAN: Objection. Move to strike. I have no idea what “roundaries" means, I'd like to--1'd like to know what. boundary I'm crossing. court: I'll allow the witness to proceed. overruled. Wimwess: AL this point Mr. Waxman has admitted that this is personal, it’s not professional MR. WAXMAN: Objection. Move to strike. That is an incorrect recitation. The testimony, as you know, is that it's both, MS, HANDRAMAN: Your Honor, there's an e-mail he sent to Mr, Altshuler saying “This is personal for me at this point 1 have no intention of getting off of this case. This isn't a game for me. You see, I care about Mila Malenko.* [sic] Words to that effect. I believe it was proffered yesterday: 5010 a 2 3 aa 35 16 uv 18 » 20 a 22 23 24 25 1£ it was not, 1 have a copy here today. COURT: The question is exactly what? MS. HANDRAHAN: Tt wag--the original question was how ‘would you describe the fact that opposing attorney has con--is demanding contact with a two-year-old girl of the opposing party? ME, WAXMAN: Objection, MS. HANDRAHAN: She was trying to-- ME. WAXMAN: Mischaracterizes and misstates the evidence. Nowhere in the world is there a document in which I demand contact with this child MS. HANDRAHAN: Let me provide the e-mails, if I might, Your Honor? Let's see, where are these? ME, WAXAN: I do not believe this Litigant has a good- faith basis for posing that question. ME, HANDRAIAN: These--Judge Beaudoin wouldn't allow the e-mails that had happened once the temporary order was put in place because we had to litigate the temporary order first. ‘There was the thought that these would be important in the final hearing because once the-~ courr: T don’t need to know what ruling was made in another proceeding. What is--what document are you attempting MS, HANDRAHAN: wr, Waxman is again stating mistruth, saying that there's no e-mail where he’s demanding contact 51