Board of pyschologsist second kabacoff complaint november 4 2010

of 3

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
3 pages
0 downs
1. November 4, 2010Dear Board of Psychologists;This is my second request for an investigation into Carol Lynn Kabacoffs practice. The attachedemails from Michael Waxman…
  • 1. November 4, 2010Dear Board of Psychologists;This is my second request for an investigation into Carol Lynn Kabacoffs practice. The attachedemails from Michael Waxman demonstrate that Carol Kabacoff continues to grossly misuse herprofessional license. Her willingness to testify for Mr. Waxman in the Bars suit for his conductagainst me and my daughter should be concerning.As I have explained to the Board, Carol Kabacoff never diagnosed me with anything. Heroriginal report, submitted to the court in 2008, finds no diagnosis. Months later, in court, shesuddenly claims I have a narcissistic personality disorder. Based on her false testimony the courtordered me to a course of DBT therapy from which I was dismissed in 6 sessions.That should have been the end of Carol Kabacoffs involvement. Yet, Carol Kabacoff persists.Over a year after seeing me for only two hours and reporting no diagnosis, she conducts a privatedeposition, only Michael Waxman present, where she now declares I am severely mental ill andmy daughter should be taken from me. Michael Waxman, as the Board knows, vowed in writingto use his vast family fortune to take my daughter from me. Mr. Waxman has vowed under oathto "stop at nothing" and Mr. Waxman, in his own words, is "nurturing a bond [with my] beautifuldaughter." My daughter is three years old. Mr. Waxman is taking her on overnights to hishome. By all appearances, Carol Kabacoff seems to be a bought and paid for political weaponfor Mr. Waxmans agenda.I have asked Maines Attorney General to review the Board of Psychologists refusal toinvestigate Kabacoffs conduct and have yet to receive a response. Subsequently, I have turnedmy entire case over to US Attorney General Eric Holder as part of a national call for US AGinvestigations into state-level oversight boards that are complicit with family court fraud.Senator Collins staff have also been very helpful.It is my hope that Governor Elect LePage will take a much difference approach (than GovernorBaldacci) to fraud, corruption and neglect by Maine State oversight staff, who serve at hispleasure, and whose salaries are paid by state tax payers. Therefore, I am copying his office onthis second request for an investigation into Carol Kabacoffs practice. Given that a childs lifeand future is at stake, I ask the Board place an emergency hold on Carol Kabacoffs license topractice until a full investigation is complete.Sincerely,Lori Handrahan, Ph.D.Sorrento Maine 207-812-0191CC: Governor Elect Paul LePageMaine AG Janet MillsUS Senator Susan CollinsUS AG Eric Holder
  • 2. From: mjwaxy@aol.comDate: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:00:15 +0000To: Jo Southard<>ReplyTo: mjwaxy@aol.comSubject: Re: Possible Story/Case/Injustice to report onGrow a backbone, will ya? I thought some still cared about journalism. Disappointing.From: "Jo Southard" <>Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:55:43 -0400To: Mjwaxy<>Cc: Deborah Firestone<>Subject: RE: Possible Story/Case/Injustice to report onObviously I intended the message below for my editor, not you. We’ve decided not to cover the story.From: Mjwaxy []Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:19 PMTo:; jos@mainelawyersreview.comSubject: Possible Story/Case/Injustice to report onDeborah and Jo Lynn:This is a very interesting story/case I think. This is one of the many offshoots of Malenko v. Handrahan,2009 ME 96. For reasons that are not clear to me, the Board of Overseers has decided toprosecute/persecute me on Ms. Handrahans behalf, even though she was found by the trial court and theappeals court to suffer from mental illness, perceptual distortion, was not credible and was engaged in a"sustained yet unjustified effort to have Mr. Malenko labeled as psychologically unfit." Malenko, par. 40.Handrahan has filed in excess of 6 grievances against me, after filing and losing a Motion to DisqualifyWaxman, as well as a Protection from Harassment case against me (which took three full days to getdismissed). She slandered the GAL, Liz Stout, who withdrew because of that. She filed a grievanceagainst Dr. Carol Lynn Kabacoff (dismissed) who testified at the divorce trial that Handrahan suffers frommental illness, and she has published articles and written letters and emails slandering Judge Moskowitz,DHHS, and the Maine Family Court. She also filed a PFA against Malenko, after her friend began aDHHS investigation into Malenko, claiming disclosure that he was sexually abusing his daughter. DHHS"unsubstantiated" this claim, and Handrahan immediately relocated with the child 4 hours north and filed abogus PFA in Ellsworth District Court, specifically to avoid Judge Moskowitz in Portland. That causedanother 2 months of separation between daughter and father, and she did not even bother showing up atthe final hearing. Judge Moskowitz dismissed the PFA.Now, the Board has the unmitigated temerity to come after me, claiming that I have been "overzealous."Keep in mind that when my representation began, Mr. Malenko has NO contact with his child, and now hehas her every single weekend, Thursday through Sunday or Friday through Sunday. The Board hasnever bothered to even contact Mr. Malenko, or anyone who understands his perspective, to determinewhether I was acting as a zealous advocate under difficult circumstances, and has seen fit to claim that Iwas "overzealous" and brands me as exhibiting conduct unworth of an attorney. The trial, before JudgeAlexander, is scheduled for November 18 and 19.Last week, I entered my appearance as co-counsel with Peter Rodway. Yesterday the Board objected,claiming that it would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, pursuant to 3.7 for me tooccupy the roles of witness and lawyer. Attached is my response as well as the attachments to the letter.I would LOVE you to run a story about this persecution!! This is no longer confidential, having been filedin Court. How are the Boards actions consistent with its charge to protect the public from unethicallawyering???
  • 3. Feel free to call and discuss this with me anytime.Michael J. Waxman, Esq.One Monument Way, Ste. 206P.O. Box 375Portland, Maine 04112-0375(207) 772-9558 phone(207) 772-9567 Message-----From: Mjwaxy <>To:; jscottdavis@mebaroverseers.orgCc: rodlaw@maine.rr.comSent: Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:01 amSubject: Response to Objection and Kabacoff issueAttorneys Eee and Davis:Attached is my Response to your Objection. I have not scanned in your exhibits, which I havereferenced. If you would like me to do that, please let me know and I shall honor your request.Additionally, attorney Rodways secretary indicated to me that attorney Eee left a message on Petersanswering machine indicating that the Board objects to the admission of Dr. Kabacoffs depositiontestimony as "irrelevant." Allow me to explain the relevance in the hope that you may reconsider yourposition. As I understand it, you claim that although attorneys are certainly expected to be zealousadvocates when necessary, that somehow I stepped over the ethical line by being too zealous. I thinkyou will claim that by saying things in emails and letters such as "Lori Handrahan is severely mentally ill"you believe I crossed that line. Dr. Kabacoffs testimony at that deposition was that Handrahan is themost severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder she has ever seen, and that such a person cannot possiblycoparent because she cannot even consider her childs needs above her own. My opinions of theclaimant were based on the conclusions of a mental health expert who met with and evaluated Ms.Handrahan extensively. My opinions did not arise out of thin air. So . . . Kabacoffs deposition isadmissible because it goes to my state of mind and explains why I said what I said. It is absolutelyrelevant. The more obvious objection would have been hearsay, but again, that fails because we are notoffering it for the truth of the matters asserted.Should you require more explanation of this position, or of the legal concepts discussed, feel free tocontact me or attorney Rodway. I urge you to reconsider your objection.Michael J. Waxman, Esq.One Monument Way, Ste. 206P.O. Box 375Portland, Maine 04112-0375(207) 772-9558 phone(207) 772-9567
  • Related Search
    We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks