10 a 2 3 14 a5 16 re 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 23 94 MR, ALTSHULER: Your Honor, I'm gonna object to the leading question. I mean, he's his witness, even if I called aim, and he's not permitted to just do cross just because I called him as @ witness, so I'm objecting to this question as leading ComRP: Okay, it's overruled. We--we need to move on. Go ahead, MR, RODWAY: Okay. (CRDSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED Q Uh, what, uh-—does the fact that the Bradens wouldn't tell tgor anything about themselves, even though they had been providing childcare for his daughter: that have anything to do with anything in thi post judge [sic]--post divorce motions? A Not really TE it were determined, through Igor's conversation with the Bradens, that Mise Handrahan had told hin-—and--and ‘told them not to tell him anything, would that have anything to do with post judgment motions? A That would, yes COURT: Ask that question again? MR. RODWAY: Would the fact that, uh-~ (PAUSE) remenber what I asked MR. WAXMAN: I do.10 aa a2 a3 aa 15 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 95 MR. RODWAY: Yeah, could you~ MR. ALTSHULER: No. MR. RODWAY: could you ask the question and-~ MR. ALTSHULER: Objection MR. RODWAY: ~-anewer it, please? “1 don't think we have the ability to read it back--to play it back, T'm just curious as to what the question was MR, WAXMAN: Can T COURT: I heard the answer "That might", but- MR, WAXMAN: I'd be happy to give my memory of what you just asked me. MR, ALTSHULER: | I-- MR, RODWAY: The fact that--that they wouldn't tell him anything—— MR, WAXMAN: No, ~ court: You're talkin’ about-— MR. WAXMAN; == was answering a question about, whether-— MR, ALTSHULER: Yuh, I'm gonna object. cout: Well, wait a minute, before we go--are you talking about, un, Miss Biscaglia? Was that the question? Was it--was it the fact that Miss Bisceglia wouldn't answer questions? MR, RODWAY: Oh, for Mr. Waxman [sic]as 16 uw 18 a9 20 aa 22 23 24 25 96 COURT: Okay. Right, and the answer was "That might” have something to do [sic]~ MB, ALTSHULER: The question was whether or not~~if Igor cen get that in on his testimony [sic], That was the questica, ME, RODWAY: I didn't ask that. ME, WAXMAN: No. MS, ALTSHULER: Oh, well, then I--Z don't know what he asked, then MR, WAXMAN: This is ridiculous. T can tell you what T responded to, if you ask me that question COURT: Let's--let's move on to ancther question. MR. WAXYAN: My--my concern was that if: MR. ALTSHULER: Uh, the way [#ie]--I thought he said move on to another question. MR. RODWAY: | Just—~ (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED Q --Juet Let me ask you this, Could Igor testify, uh, in a post judgment motion, that even though he has shared parental rights and responsibilities, that the Bradens wouldn't give him information, and that the Bradens told him that his wife-his--his ex-wife told them not to? A Yes Q "That would have some relevance?10 a 2 a3 uM 45 16 uv 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 28 7 A That would Q ALL right COURT: Although how he'd-— MR, RODWAY: So, the fact that— COURT: --how he'd gat to the--how he'd get to the nis ex-wife telling them that is information about his: suspect [sic], of course, but--okay, go ahead. (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED Q Would the fact that the Bradens didn't give you Anformation, um, have anything to do with post judgment motions? No. Um, ae a lawyer, do you interview witnesses? ALL the time o> oy and, do you--do you Like having somebody present in case the witness doesn't give you an answer on direct oF cross examination—— A Gererally. Q ~-do you like to have somebody else present, Like & private investigator? Generally, yes. ALL eight. can you always do that? oe» o> um did you have——have Igor present when you were asking the Bradens questions?10 un 1 a3 14 15 16 a 18 19 20 aa 22 23 26 25 A raia @ Wh, would you--would you, un--if the Bradens wound 1s against you, would you, uh--um, [sic] up witne: would you plan to ask them about this encounter that you had with then? A Certainty. And, if--if--uh, for instance, you said to the Bradens, “t asked you a bunch of questions and you wouldn't answer those questions", and if the Bradens said, “well, 1 [sie] did, I answered all your questions", and Lf that wasn't true, what would you do? AE would call Igor as a witness to rebut that, ALL right. Uh, Mr. Altshuler has claimed thet, by having a conversation with people who might be witnesses in your—-in this case, you've made yourself @ witness, Do you agree with that? MR, ALTSHULER: Objection, that is not what T have said. MR. RODWAY; T's what-- think that's what the pleadings say, is that Mr. Waxnan~ MR. ALTSHULER: That he has witnessed exchanges, he! made allegations of my client's inability to co-parent, that my client does not provide information to anyone, and that he has intimidated the people who would be witnesses to those events and--end issues, That's what I've said.20 a 2 13 u“ a5 16 re 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 99 COURT: Well, you've also--you've also indicated that ‘the encounter is cause for disqualification under the specific bar rule, 3.4(g) (1) (4) [sic], which does not allow a lawyer to continue representation in pending Litigation— MR. ALTSHULER: That he's a witness~ COURT: --i€ the lawyer's Likely to be called as a witness. MR. ALISHULER: Exactly right. He's a witness to events, That’ coms: ALL right. MR, ALISHULER: -~exactiy right COUP; I think that's what the question was, right? MR, ALTSHULER; Well, but he misparephrased [sic] what 1 said cour: ALL right. Okay: MR, ALISHULER: Well, T--your Honor, you know, ~ couRT: Wet, —— MR, ALISHULER; --if--you're letting him testity, by his dir [sic]--his leading questions. He is misstating what rtm saying. COoRT; Actually, Mr. Altshuler, I'm not alet [sicl~ tim not allowing him to testify at all. He's asking questions. I'm listening to the answers of the questions tm not allowing him to testify MA. ALISHULER; Your Honor, with all due respect, those10 an a2 13 a4 15 16 a7 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25. 100 are all leading questions, the last 10 minutes. count: Well, that--r understand that, but we need to move on here, and--and we need to get to the point, and--so, go ahead MR. RODWAY: Could T just clarify? Is the issue of Mr. Waxman becoming a witness in the case, is that--is that being withdrawn? MR, ALTSHULER; No, that is the point, that he is a witness in the case MR. RODWAY: ALL right, and-- COURT: Okay, fine. Go ahead MR, RODWAY; ==Z've asked him about that. cour: Right. (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED @ EM ask you agatn- MR, ALTSHULER: Asked and answered. OORT: Well, he hasn’t asked the question yet. MR. ALTSHULER: He said, "I'11 ask him (sic) again", your Honor COURT: Well, ask the question, let's see if it's been asked MR, WAXMAN: Oh, my goodness: (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED 2 You've told us that, um, if you were to cross examine the Bradens or——or have them on direct and they gave20 rt 22 13 14 as 16 a 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 101 you an answer different than they gave you that day, which by the way was no answor--is that right? ves Um, you would simply cali Igor-~ MR. ALTSHULER: Objection, asked and answored. COURT: okay, that's sustained. The--he did ask that question, and it was answered. Next question. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED 2 Sogo, do you view yourself, um, as a witness by virtue of having a five-minute conversation with the Bradens? A No. 2 Why noe? A Because I have Igor available to testify. Tf he can’t testify to rebut whatever the Bradens say, then the words that come out of their mouth are undisputed. Q Te there anything relevant about that conversation that you had with the Bradens to your post divorce motions? A No. (pause) Q Lot me ask you about this letter from Neil Jamieson, about Stephanie Weight. Um, did you feel that you were bound by this letter from Neil Jamieson, telling you that you could get information through this office, um, that--that that was the only way you could information,10 an 2 43 14 a5 36 uw 18 29 20 a 2 23 24 25 02 tun, about the daycare? Z did believe that at the tine, yes AlL right, And, ub, tell the Court what time did you believe that? okay. In February, I received this letter. He promised to give me information about the daycare if T could provide to him a copy of the divorce judgment, showing that igor actually enjoyed shared rights and responsibilities. I did that. He still didn't convey to me any information about this daycare, and the reason I went there was because I had already sent Neil tvo of three emails saying, "There has been a change in tke contact schedule, Igor's going to have to drop the child off and pick her up fron the daycare now and then", because prior to then, he didn't have to do that. Prior to then, he met at the South Portland Cenmunity Center at 4:00, and he never had any exposure te the daycare facility. So, when things changed, T put--uh, Z tried to put the lewyer on notice with three nails, I believe, saying, “Listen, it's changed, he's gonna have to drop off the child, T wanna make sure things go as snoothly--r'm trying to, wh--to obey your earlier conmand of him never going onto the premises, but that's gotta change. Please confirm you got this email, please confirm that it's okay that we show up on10 a a2 a3 14 as 16 a 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 103 [sie] 9:00" on such and such a day. "I'm gonna go with him to make sure things go smoothly." All right. Did you, uh--uh, back to the Bradens for a minute, Uh, do you agree with Miss Bisceglia's, um, characterization of your demeanor that day as being Eeiendly? ves De you agree that, uh, you were slick? I don't know--no, I don't agree with that. don't understand how telling her that I've got four kids and It understand what's going on, and we'ze trying to make matters friendlier, I don't understand how it makes me slick. Did you, uh, feel that you were intimidating to the Bradens? Not in the least bit Did they give you any, uh, feedback to let you--uh, to meke you believe that they were intimidated? No feedback of any kind Like that, no. And, uh, did they spear to you to be in--intelligent, strong people? Competent pecple? Absolutely, and Trevor's about twice my size. There wasn't any feeling on my part that they were being the least bie intimidated, ALL right. Did--did you, uh--or, was there an10 a 2 13 14 as 16 uv 18 1s 20 a 22 23 24 25 toa o> 0» allegation at some point that—-that Mr. Braden was--was doctor who was treating Mila? ves, there was And, did you ask him about that? x dia. And, did it turned [eic]--did it turn out that he was a doctor treating Mila? zim still very confused as to whether he did or didn't ever treat her. I sent a request for records to his office, after I received an email conveyed [sic] to me by my client from Dr. Handrahan, saying that he was her primary care physician. His office claimed that he had never treated her, and they were not the primary care physicians. After that time, Dr. Braden sent another email or letter saying that in fact he was hor physician, 1 don't know, as I sit here today, whether he is or ig not her physician. And, did you try to clear that up with him? ves And, if he was her treating physician, was it po——was there the potential that he could be a witness in any post divorce motions? Tid--T'd-- wasn't thinking of it in those terms. I simply wanted my client to know who his child's doctors10 a 12 13 aa a5 16 rt 18 19 20 a 22 23 28 25 os (eause) MR, RODWAY: I have no further questions COURT: Okay, thank you. Any redirect? MR, ALTSHULER: Yes, your Honor. MR, RODAAY: Wait a minute--wait a minute, I'm sorry, T do have ancther question. (eause) (anaudible conversation) (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RODWAY CONTINUED Q Tim gonna show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's 1, ard ask Af you can, uh, tell us what that is? This--on the bottom here is an email from Ken-- > Q Gust, first, tell us what the document is an email exchange betwaen you and Ken? A Sc St appears, yes. AIL eight. And, uh, what are you asking in the email? ° uh, I'm asking for--uh, that a private coordinator [sic] be, uh—-be--be designated. @ AIL right. why are you asking for that? MA, ALTSHULER: Your Honor, I'm gonna object. Can I see this again? I think this is COURT: OF course MR. ALTSHULER: --settlenent negotiations, but I need | co look at it, 1 believe that was when we were negotiating some stuff.10 Fey a2 a3 a4 as 16 ay ae a9 20 aa 22 23 24 25 106 MR, RODWAY: Well, that's not--that's not what it's being offered for. MR, ALTSHULER: Well, it doesn't matter. If it has negoatiating-~settlenent (inaudible) -~ (PAUSE) —~ (inaudible) —— I'd be curious, as a foundation, what the appropriateness of this email is before it's read in [sic], because I don't understand the relevancy. MR. RODRAY: Uh, what T wanna-— MR, ALTSHULER; (Inaudible) — (CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR, RODKAY CONTINUED @ ask you about is the, uh--um, you are--you are, uh-~ uh, reaching out to Ken to try to get a parental coordinator appointed because the parties don't trust each other, is that--is that right? A That is correct. @ All right. How does he respond to you? MR. ALTSHULER: Objection, relevancy, your Honor, if we're discussing getting a P.C, in the case MR. RODWAY: We're MR. ALTSHULER: Uh, T don't understand what the relevance is COURT: Okay, what is the relevance? wR. RODWAY: We're talking ebout--well, uh, they've clained that Mr. Waxman, by sending emails that are derogatory and so forth, is trying to intimidate people. 110 an a2 a3 a4 15 16 rey ae 19 20 an 22 23 24 25 107 would like to give the Court an example of an email that Mr Altshuler sent to Mr. Waxman that sounds a lot like what Mr Waxman is sending to Mr. Altshuler, MR, ALTSHULER: Well, first of all, T have probably 500 emails I could provide you of conversations between me and Me, Waxman, Uh, I've never threatened Me. Waxman with Prosecution or disbarment, and I don't think that email suggests that. Uh, I don't really care if you see the 1 don't think emails, but T don't think that's what it: that's what it says, but I'm fine with you reading it and~ MR, RODWAY: Well, — MR. ALTSHULER: --deciding what you think it says. couRT: okay MR, ALTSHULER: Just put it into evidence, I'm fine with te, MR. WAXMAN: Tt says, "Michael, below is the latest email Igor sent to Lori, with of course a copy to Liz. Please tell Igor to quit posturing to Liz. With all due respect to Liz, she is already in Igor's camp, and I really don't taink he needs to, one, whine; two, lie; and three, posture, to continue to portray Lori as the villain.” COURT: Okay, it’s admitted MR, RODWAY: I have no further questions, COURT: Okay. Mr. Altshuler? YR, ALTSHULER: I'11 be brief, your Honor10 a 2 43 a4 15 16 uw 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 108 op em REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER Mz. Waxman, your first motion that is pending in the court says that Lori has failed to co-parent with Mr Malenke, correct? I don't know if it's the first one, but I've certainly nid that in one of my motions, yes okay. And, part of that co-parenting is not providing Mz, Malenko with information? correct, And having people transfer Mila to Mr. Malenko that he doesn't know who that--those people are,— correct, yes. --and not providing any information, ~ correct c-correct? okay. So, the following here [sic]. In a post divorce hearing, you have Mr. Malenko on the stand, and you say to Mr. Malenko, "Mr, Malenko, these people have exchanged Mila for you. Um, are they good people or bad people?” He says, "Ch, they're very, very bad people. They were mean to me, they were geouchy", and so forth. Won't you be a witness~— woaldn't I eall you, if £ was the attorney, as a witness, to contradict your client's testimony? Whether they're good or bad people is tangentially relevant.10 n 2 a3 14 15 16 a 18 19 20 2a 22 23 24 25 109 Q Whatever, I£--i€ your client testifies to an exchenge of Mila at a tine you were prasent, A wa Q~-and he testifies, and it's contrary to the evidence, aron't you a witness to that? A How can I put this to you? No. Well, couldn't T call you as a witness? Wouldn't Loei--for example, A Why would you call me as a witness to say something hurtful to your client? COURT: Well,—- REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER CONTINUED Q Well, let me give you an example, This is important Let me give you an example. The incident with Lisa and travor--okay--where Mr. Malenko was up on a balcony and Mila is erying—okay? So, let's suppose-~ A That's--that's a misstatement of the facts, Counselor, Exactly my point, Lisa takes the stand and says, "Mr Waxman and Igor were--were may [sic]--talking in loud voices, and Mila was crying." Okay? You now are & wisness that that's not true A Are you gonna call me for that proposition? Yes. Or, let me-~ A You're gonna call me to testify that your--that she was cxying, when in fact your-~ pod