9 july 2011 bar filling against waxman includes all the cummings emails and marco
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
9 July 2011
Scott DavisPresidentOverseers of the BarManchester 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. Weshall not cooperate in any manner from here forward. Please let meknow if you are going to file a Title 22 action, for I shall immediately filepleadings 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
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
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
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.207-812-019152 Waukeag AveSorrento Maine 04677
4
Attachments
(1) Emails from and Around the 21 June 2011 Event______________________________________________________________________________From: Dalton, Mark R. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:42 PMTo: [email protected]: UpdateImportance: 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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:12 PMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]: RE: summer vacation schedule I will pick Mila up today around 4 at your home or Scratch BakeryImportance: High
Lori, 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
5
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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:11 AMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: summer vacation schedule I will pick Mila up today around 4 at your home or Scratch BakeryImportance: 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: [email protected]: [email protected]: FW: summer vacation schedule I will pick Mila up today around 4 at your home or Scratch BakeryDate: 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. 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.
6
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 DaltonLori: And who is he?Officer Maynard: I'll write it down.Lori: And where do I contact him?Officer Maynard: I don't know. I guess he leaves you messages…. And…
7
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
(2) Emails from The Cummings Case
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:32 AMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]: 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 LegalSwiss Re America Holding Corporation | 5200 Metcalf Ave KS, Overland Park 66201, USADirect: +1 913 676 5467 Fax: +1 913 676 5221 Mobile: +1 913 749 6935 E-mail: [email protected]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Thaler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:45 PMTo: Lori HandrahanSubject: 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 Shur100 Middle StreetPO Box 9729Portland, ME 04104-5029
From: Jeff Thaler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:56 AM
9
To: Lori HandrahanSubject: 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 Shur100 Middle StreetPO Box 9729Portland, ME 04104-5029
_______________________________________________________________________
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:02 PMTo: Lori HandrahanSubject: 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:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 11:40 AMTo: [email protected]: James R. MarshSubject: FW: who was the judge that signed that 1.25 million?
10
James/Deb, Do you know the answer to this?
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:33 PMTo: Lori HandrahanSubject: 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:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:14 PMTo: Lori HandrahanSubject: 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. 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
11
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 AMTo: [email protected] 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:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 8:49 PMTo: James R. Marsh; Lori HandrahanSubject: 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
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:52 PMTo: Lori HandrahanSubject: Boxes from Attorney Silin
12
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:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:55 PMTo: Lori HandrahanSubject: 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 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
13
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:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:10 PMTo: James R. Marsh; Lori HandrahanSubject: 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:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:22 PMTo: '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.
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:15 PMTo: Lori HandrahanSubject: Re: Requested boxes calling Silan office to get the leter that Waxman outlined his intention to commit insurance fraud
14
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:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:07 PMTo: Lori HandrahanSubject: 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. 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
15
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: Debbi Cummings [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:24 PMTo: Lori Handrahan; Jeffery A ThalerSubject: 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 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,
16
James & Deborah Cummings
###
17