Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #50

[Chicago54]

I've thought that too. FBI for money laundering--particularly funds from Greece? Or even NYC? Any wire fraud there? And IRS for any income or corporate taxes due from Dulos for all those real estate deals? Then I've read that any "transfers" from an estate can be claimed by the IRS for taxes due. Wondered Hug's gift to NP waiving of around 1/2 NP's fee from FD would be considered a transfer? Don't think there'd be an estate tax due b/c estate's not worth that much.

They must have someone following the money on this. IMO , where exactly this money originated is key to answering your questions. I think ol’ FD was playing a little shell game with some previously hidden assets while he tested the waters with his little bond con. Maybe once he knew that game was blown, and he might need some $$, or the promise of it, to stay out of jail that fateful day in January, is when he realized a shell game was being played on him as well. It must have been a real shock to find out his “banker” was too busy with his new bff client to take his calls. And the other little minion “banker”, who was playing “cya” in the presence of the other side, was so busy and unaware of the time that he hadn’t even sent a driver for FD, or was actively scrambling for a new bond with him, must have given FD that blank stare long enough for FD to realize he had been had. It’s all about the $$$$$$$$$$MOO, this entire disaster.

 

[Chicago54]

I've thought that too. FBI for money laundering--particularly funds from Greece? Or even NYC? Any wire fraud there? And IRS for any income or corporate taxes due from Dulos for all those real estate deals? Then I've read that any "transfers" from an estate can be claimed by the IRS for taxes due. Wondered Hug's gift to NP waiving of around 1/2 NP's fee from FD would be considered a transfer? Don't think there'd be an estate tax due b/c estate's not worth that much.

They must have someone following the money on this. IMO , where exactly this money originated is key to answering your questions. I think ol’ FD was playing a little shell game with some previously hidden assets while he tested the waters with his little bond con. Maybe once he knew that game was blown, and he might need some $$, or the promise of it, to stay out of jail that fateful day in January, is when he realized a shell game was being played on him as well. It must have been a real shock to find out his “banker” was too busy with his new bff client to take his calls. And the other little minion “banker”, who was playing “cya” in the presence of the other side, was so busy and unaware of the time that he hadn’t even sent a driver for FD, or was actively scrambling for a new bond with him, must have given FD that blank stare long enough for FD to realize he had been had. It’s all about the $$$$$$$$$$MOO, this entire disaster.

 

[pernickety]

They must have someone following the money on this. IMO , where exactly this money originated is key to answering your questions. I think ol’ FD was playing a little shell game with some previously hidden assets while he tested the waters with his little bond con. Maybe once he knew that game was blown, and he might need some $$, or the promise of it, to stay out of jail that fateful day in January, is when he realized a shell game was being played on him as well. It must have been a real shock to find out his “banker” was too busy with his new bff client to take his calls. And the other little minion “banker”, who was playing “cya” in the presence of the other side, was so busy and unaware of the time that he hadn’t even sent a driver for FD, or was actively scrambling for a new bond with him, must have given FD that blank stare long enough for FD to realize he had been had. It’s all about the $$$$$$$$$$MOO, this entire disaster.

I read somewhere that a civil case is put on hold if a criminal case is opened. Maybe FBI would wait to see what evidence the civil cases will uncover? Remote hearing was scheduled for today in the Dean and Hug civil cases, which have been consolidated in Superior Court.

 

[sds71]

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE C. TROCONIS

Given the seriousness of the crimes charged, the weight of the evidence, and the petitioner's lack of ties to Connecticut, the remaining nonfinancial conditions of electronic monitoring and travel restrictions are reasonably related to ensuring her appearance in court and do not at all interfere with the petitioner's ability to assist in her defense.
The State of Connecticut respectfully asks that this Court deny the relief requested in the petition for review and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=0cvYIeL63GLafGG4RaCfqA==


ORDER
THE PETITION OF THE DEFENDANT, FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2020, FOR REVIEW OF NONFINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D REVIEW IS GRANTED, BUT THE RELIEF REQUESTED THEREIN IS DENIED.
HON. JOHN F. BLAWIE

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=YA23N7gWdl//XzFA1lwqrg==

 

[Tink56]

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE C. TROCONIS

Given the seriousness of the crimes charged, the weight of the evidence, and the petitioner's lack of ties to Connecticut, the remaining nonfinancial conditions of electronic monitoring and travel restrictions are reasonably related to ensuring her appearance in court and do not at all interfere with the petitioner's ability to assist in her defense.
The State of Connecticut respectfully asks that this Court deny the relief requested in the petition for review and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=0cvYIeL63GLafGG4RaCfqA==


ORDER
THE PETITION OF THE DEFENDANT, FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2020, FOR REVIEW OF NONFINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D REVIEW IS GRANTED, BUT THE RELIEF REQUESTED THEREIN IS DENIED.
HON. JOHN F. BLAWIE

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=YA23N7gWdl//XzFA1lwqrg==

This order is a little confusing to me. How can they grant a review, but deny relief?

Does this mean the Appellate Court will hear oral arguments at a later date?

 

[ivegotthemic]

I guess Norm wants us to believe he had already put in $170k in work and was going to handle the case through trial and appeal for only $80k? What a joke. Too bad he forgot to include payment for prior services in the contract. Oops.

Apologies for the delay and the confusion. To be totally honest, sometimes my dyslexic brain writes a sentence that makes perfect sense in my mind, but absolutely no sense to anyone reading the way the sentence came out on paper. I try to catch em beforehand but sometimes a weird one slips by so apologies if I confused you! Trust me, it was probably my writing and not you. I was only referring to NP. It should be very interesting to see how this plays out in court

 

[Cloudydiamond]

This order is a little confusing to me. How can they grant a review, but deny relief?

Does this mean the Appellate Court will hear oral arguments at a later date?

I thought it was just me. Glad to see someone else is confused.

 

[Niner]

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE C. TROCONIS

Given the seriousness of the crimes charged, the weight of the evidence, and the petitioner's lack of ties to Connecticut, the remaining nonfinancial conditions of electronic monitoring and travel restrictions are reasonably related to ensuring her appearance in court and do not at all interfere with the petitioner's ability to assist in her defense.
The State of Connecticut respectfully asks that this Court deny the relief requested in the petition for review and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=0cvYIeL63GLafGG4RaCfqA==


ORDER
THE PETITION OF THE DEFENDANT, FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2020, FOR REVIEW OF NONFINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D REVIEW IS GRANTED, BUT THE RELIEF REQUESTED THEREIN IS DENIED.
HON. JOHN F. BLAWIE

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=YA23N7gWdl//XzFA1lwqrg==

I can not access these links - is there a date for this Order? TIA!

 

[ivegotthemic]

This order is a little confusing to me. How can they grant a review, but deny relief?

Does this mean the Appellate Court will hear oral arguments at a later date?

I believe the Court was just saying they reviewed the motion, instead of just denying it, but will not be providing the relief requested in the motion

 

[Alice253]

I can not access these links - is there a date for this Order? TIA!

October 5 on both Niner.

 

[Seattle1]

This order is a little confusing to me. How can they grant a review, but deny relief?

Does this mean the Appellate Court will hear oral arguments at a later date?

I believe the court granted AS request to be heard but rejected the basis of his argument. There's nothing for AS to argue unless he wants to continue to hear himself talk as we know he's fond of his own voice.

 

[Seattle1]

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=19365123

p. 3, para 15 - Dean v. P&S & NP complaint

“…including payments made by and to third parties unrelated to any criminal case for which the Law Firm was representing Fotis Dulos…”

See also Hug’s case v. P&S— “paying unnecessary expenses unrelated to scope of representation, etc.” bottom pg 2

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=19411268

What does bbm mean?

Thanks for the docs!

^^bbm means quoted content was bolded by OP.

 

[Morgan10028]

I want to be clear, @ivegotthemic was not the problem. It was my processing of the information. Because I do not understand law stuff, I was actually concerned that GF was the "she" and I was worried that something she or her lawyer did was a mistake. Ivegotthemic has been and continues to be AMAZING at explaining the laws and how they work in a way that someone with no law experience can understand.

JMO

I never thought you were saying something critical, just giving you a possibility for the he/she confusion.

 

[Niner]

October 5 on both Niner.

Thank you Alice!

 

[pernickety]

This order is a little confusing to me. How can they grant a review, but deny relief?

Does this mean the Appellate Court will hear oral arguments at a later date?

I'd never heard of a petition to the AC in CT before this. Petitions are filed to the Supreme Court to review an AC court decision. If the SC does grant the petition (more often than not it doesn't), then the petitioner files the appeal, the adverse party files an objection, etc., and the SC eventually hands down its decision. Here, the AC granted review but didn't issue an opinion on its review or didn't then allow the petitioner (MT) to file an appeal (a time-consuming and expensive deal) and go thru' due process? The way I see it.

 

[pernickety]

I believe the Court was just saying they reviewed the motion, instead of just denying it, but will not be providing the relief requested in the motion

But why not let the public know which judges on the AC reviewed it and what their opinions were--in writing?

 

[pernickety]

They must have someone following the money on this. IMO , where exactly this money originated is key to answering your questions. I think ol’ FD was playing a little shell game with some previously hidden assets while he tested the waters with his little bond con. Maybe once he knew that game was blown, and he might need some $$, or the promise of it, to stay out of jail that fateful day in January, is when he realized a shell game was being played on him as well. It must have been a real shock to find out his “banker” was too busy with his new bff client to take his calls. And the other little minion “banker”, who was playing “cya” in the presence of the other side, was so busy and unaware of the time that he hadn’t even sent a driver for FD, or was actively scrambling for a new bond with him, must have given FD that blank stare long enough for FD to realize he had been had. It’s all about the $$$$$$$$$$MOO, this entire disaster.

Remote Superior Court hearing on consolidated cases of Dean v. Pattis and Hug v. Pattis postponed to 11/19/20. Yesterday's hearing marked off.

 

[sds71]

@MarissaAlter
·
The state appellate court denies Jon Schoenhorn’s petition to get Michelle Troconis’ GPS monitor removed & travel restrictions lifted. It comes after the superior court judge did scrap house arrest & curfew, but kept tracking & permission needed to leave state.

 

[Jmoose]

If Blawie declined to order the removal of the ankle monitor yesterday, any bets on hiw long it’ll take JS to once again petition for its removal?

 

[Seattle1]

But why not let the public know which judges on the AC reviewed it and what their opinions were--in writing?

If I recall correctly, this was the second time AS pulled this request for appellate court hearing both the lower court had the opportunity to respond. Seems to me AS wanted an oral argument even before he received Judge Blawie's decision. AS really makes me tired....