The point was not to defend or stick up for MT in any way. It was (for me IMO) the wild speculation that comes from either silence in the case, or new information. My examples, taking her pleading the fifth in the civil case and letting that suddenly mean she is the mastermind killer. Taking her looks and launching into drug habits off of that. Respectfully, IMO, these are assumptions with no basis in fact.
As you point out we do not know precisely why MT chose to invoke her 5th Amendment right in her deposition in Civil Court. As it now appears even the questions asked of MT will be sealed, it doesn't appear that there will be much in the way of public information as it relates to MT and FORE.
BUT. Just because we don't know why what happened did happen with MT taking the 5th in Civil Court, doesn't mean that it isn't possible to make a few educated guesses based on things we do know based on info that is part of the court record in Family Court and Civil Court.
The information gleaned from most recent Atty. W. memo in Civil Court was that MT involved her 5th Amendment right on ALL QUESTIONS. IMO for MT to invoke the 5th on such basic questions such as her name, her address, her dates of employment etc. has me at least questioning quite a bit about what is going on the MT Legal Camp, or not. Invoking on all questions will simply prolong the situation for MT as the court will not accept blanket provision.
Is MT afraid of retaliation by FD? If so, she should speak up to LE. But, I don't think MT is afraid of FD because by all accounts it seems like their strategy is to remain quiet and stick together to the end. Their end might be 2 people in orange jump suits in Federal Prison but perhaps in their minds they will feel like they went down fighting! IDK but its hard to see any strong argument here for MT cooperating with anyone other than those people that show her a picture of herself and ask her to ID herself! Its actually pretty stunning when you think about it and the fact that this has been going on now for 4 months. But, back to Civil Court.
My question is, did Atty B. advise MT to do what she did and not answer anything? No, my guess is he most likely did not. My personal estimation of Atty B. has diminished quite a bit watching this whole situation play out with MT, but my suspicion is that he has a difficult client who is constitutionally is unable to tell the truth and this makes her virtually impossible to work with as a client. I do not doubt in the least that Atty B. is fighting hard to protect his clients rights both in Civil and Criminal Court, but so far he has looked ineffective and in civil court as someone who is operating in bad faith - neither situations bode well for him or MT IMO. But, for whatever reason MT and IMO Mama A. just aren't ready, willing and able to play ball so far as we can tell from AW2 and what just played out in Civil Court. Frankly, IDK why Atty B. doesn't drop MT like a hot potato and enjoy the rest of the nice Indian Summer weather in CT is beyond me as she simply seems like a client that cannot be helped!
My guess is that MT was fully briefed by Atty. B for Civil Court and given a range of possible answers and instead of doing as she was briefed to do, MT did not comply. Why?
This raises the question of why MT might not have complied with atty instructions. Did Mama A. not agree with the Atty B. strategy and so told MT to keep her mouth shut even it meant risking court sanctions or some other punishment? Does Mama A. have another atty in the wings advising her and this person is calling the shots for MT and for whatever reason this other person disagreed with the advice of Atty. B? Had MT continued to lie to her atty such that Atty B. at the time he was negotiating in good faith with Atty. W about the substance of the depo that he had no idea that further criminal charges might result from answering the deposition questions proposed by Atty W?
IMO there is no way around the basic thought that Atty. B is not in control of his client and he really isn't positioned to negotiate on her behalf. My guess is that this might be true because MT is still unable to tell the truth about anything relating to FORE, FD and by extension to the criminal case JD. Again, you have to ask the very simply question of WHY?
Further MT doing what she did came after Atty. W carved back the substance of the depo to simply relate to MT time at FORE and financial matters. Atty. B. responded twice to civil court about the MT deposition and it appeared that he had a working relationship in place with Atty. W. as it related to the depo of MT. Criminal court weighed in on the situation and put FD outside the room and listening on camera. Everything seemed 'good to go' and smooth sailing and then what happened? MT didn't step up to do what she was supposed to do in the depo.
The extent of MT involvement in FD hiding money during the Family Court matter has been an obvious fact from the beginning as FD gave MT $75,000 which was used as a loan to purchase real estate (there is a lot more related to this transaction). This transaction also allegedly involved Sue Morin, Loan Officer from Farmington Bank (now Peoples) who invoked her 5th amendment right when deposed on this transaction in Family Court. What hasn't been so obvious is just how much MT knew about other shady dealings at FORE and how FD was hiding money in the divorce and how money left FORE for places unknown.
Did MT know that what she was doing was wrong when she took the money from FD and on lent it to a FD 'friend' for their shady house deal? My answer to this would be yes she did. MT had purchased real estate before in her life and knew what was permitted and what was not permitted to be used for down payment funds. My guess is that they all sat around the marble island at 4Jx and laughed about how they were going to pull the wool over the eyes of JD and her crack legal team while drinking expensive red wine paid for by JD.
OK. So this gets MT into the ballpark of possible mortgage fraud/bank fraud at the most basic level and this is a federal crime. This also gets her into the cross hairs of other fraud related to assisting FD hide money from the Family Court and also taking money from FORE coffers that had zero to do with FORE operations. Was MT involved with preparing financial statements of FORE and providing them as part of a loan package to the bank? Was MT party to any other similar deals involving situations where FD gave her money from FORE to invest or purchase real estate, either in the US or outside the US? My guess is a very strong yes and no doubt MT had connections from her time in Miami and outside the US on how to do all of this IMO.
Not a good situation for MT and clearly other criminal charges may be brought to say nothing of tax fraud both by the State and US Federal Govt. Do we know if FD invested FORE funds in MT Patagonia Styles rug business or any other MT or family enterprises? The Troconis clan broadly defined seemed to embrace FD and all things FORE and his relationship with MT, so I do wonder also if business transactions occurred between the 2 families? Knowing what we know of Mama A. creative grasp of US legal system, marketing skills and her personal experience with divorce, did she or anyone from the family assist FD to hide funds from JD in the Divorce? IDK but it seems possible! Do we know if FD invested FORE funds to purchase MT condo in Vail or FL or Argentina or Greece?
Do we know where MT got the funds to purchase real estate with $4,000/month support from baby daddy and her salary from FORE? No, we do not. My guess is that MT took the 5th on all the deposition questions because she didn't explain any of this to Atty B. My guess also is that MT can't talk about any of this ever as it will put her into the cross hairs of Federal crimes which will end her up in prison for a very long time as well. Its possible that she might just have to fall on her sword and go to prison rather than incriminating herself in much more serious crimes.
I do wonder though if with Atty B's federal contacts whether he might be able to negotiate a deal of some sort for MT? Again, IDK and I'm not sure if MT or Mama A are playing ball with Atty B or the State at all at this point.
The other thing that I find curious about MT and Mama A. not playing ball in civil court is that it seems like it might have been easier to cooperate now with GF efforts rather than risk the wrath of her legal team down the road with a potential civil suit possibly involving wrongful death that has the potential to financially ruin MT life and that of her family. My guess is that if MT involvement in the disappearance and murder of JD continues to evolve along the lines of what was alluded to in AW2 that there will be no place on earth that MT or the Arreza/Troconic clan will be able to hide to protect themselves from the legal wrath of GF. MOO. Perhaps the 2 issues of MT non cooperation with Civil Court and GF eventual wrongful death lawsuit cannot be tied together. IDK, but it makes sense on some very basic levels IMO.
But I do think its a safe assumption to think that MT taking the 5th in civil court confirms to me at least that the financial shenanigans at FORE were most likely illegal and involved both State and Federal Crimes. I don't think this at all is a 'wild speculation' as you posed in your OP as Atty B says as much himself based on what Atty W wrote in his followup motion to the Court.
I just hope the States Atty Colangelo is watching this all quite carefully and that the proper authorities at both the State and Federal levels are involved as well as I would hate for this all to be sealed up and justice not brought to bear on someone that clearly is STILL challenged to know the difference between 'right and wrong'.
MOO
