Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #29

[afitzy]

Did atty David Markowitz request additional time to retrieve documents related to Dulos’ real estate transactions as required by Monday? Nobody thought he would actually produce them, but since my week’s been ultra busy, I thought I may have missed something.

This is the last order I could find and it references the delivery date for the discovery documents to be 10/7. Nothing else that I can see has been filed with the Court to say that the documents weren't delivered and the Judges order (see below) was in response to Atty. Markowitz's request for additional time to comply.

ORDER

ORDER 435707

ORDER REGARDING:
08/30/2019 201.00 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PB 13-5

The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby: ORDER:

The motion to quash is denied in part and granted in part. Although the record is not clear as to the date the deponent, Atty. David J. Markowitz, was served with the subpoena duces tecum from which he seeks protection, the subpoena itself is dated August 12, 2019. The date of the present motion for protective order is August 30, 2019. The deponent thus has had between 37 and 19 days within which to assemble the documentation requested. Taking into consideration the time elapsed in conjunction with the representations of counsel regarding the changes in the deponent’s professional life, the court orders that the compliance with the subpoena duces tecum must be made no later than October 7, 2019 unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The plaintiff has represented that he is willing to limit the production of records requested to the 2017, 2018 and 2019 years. The court adopts this limitation on the subpoena duces tecum.

The deponent’s request for costs pursuant to Prac. Book § 13-28(g)(2) is denied. The deponent failed to provide, as required by § 13-28(b)(2), an affidavit setting forth the estimated or actual costs of compliance. The standard pursuant to which costs may be awarded is that of “undue or unreasonable burden or expense.” The deponent has not established any basis upon which the court may conclude that this standard has been met.

Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order. 435707

Judge: CESAR A NOBLE

 

[Morgan10028]

Looks like the judge GRANTED Pattis’s motion to quash (eliminate) the subpoena as to him. So Pattis won his round as I read it and does not have to respond. Not good.

Exactly right. Hence the reason the word GRANTED, in bold caps is in my original post. What am I missing?

 

[Morgan10028]

If he doesn't respond then Atty. Weinstein can immediately file for judgment. FD will no doubt come up with something IMO.

Except the bold/underlined statements in the definition of Prac. Book 13-19 says a JUDGEMENT can be filed when the motion is heard. The option for a judgement, IMO, is what separates this from the motions that we've seen. FD could (possibly?) file an appeal to the judgement, but on what possible grounds? "If the defendant fails to disclose a defense within ten days of the filing of such demand in any action to foreclose a mortgage or lien or to quiet title, or in any action upon any written contract, the plaintiff may file a written motion that a default be entered against the defendant by reason of the failure of the defendant to disclose a defense. If no disclosure of defense has been filed, the judicial authority may order judgment upon default to be entered for the plaintiff at the time the motion is heard or thereafter, provided that in either event a separate motion for such judgment has been filed. The motions for default and for judgment upon default may be served and filed simultaneously but shall be separate motions.

 

[Jmoose]

This is the last order I could find and it references the delivery date for the discovery documents to be 10/7. Nothing else that I can see has been filed with the Court to say that the documents weren't delivered and the Judges order (see below) was in response to Atty. Markowitz's request for additional time to comply.

ORDER

ORDER 435707

ORDER REGARDING:
08/30/2019 201.00 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PB 13-5

The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby: ORDER:

The motion to quash is denied in part and granted in part. Although the record is not clear as to the date the deponent, Atty. David J. Markowitz, was served with the subpoena duces tecum from which he seeks protection, the subpoena itself is dated August 12, 2019. The date of the present motion for protective order is August 30, 2019. The deponent thus has had between 37 and 19 days within which to assemble the documentation requested. Taking into consideration the time elapsed in conjunction with the representations of counsel regarding the changes in the deponent’s professional life, the court orders that the compliance with the subpoena duces tecum must be made no later than October 7, 2019 unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The plaintiff has represented that he is willing to limit the production of records requested to the 2017, 2018 and 2019 years. The court adopts this limitation on the subpoena duces tecum.

The deponent’s request for costs pursuant to Prac. Book § 13-28(g)(2) is denied. The deponent failed to provide, as required by § 13-28(b)(2), an affidavit setting forth the estimated or actual costs of compliance. The standard pursuant to which costs may be awarded is that of “undue or unreasonable burden or expense.” The deponent has not established any basis upon which the court may conclude that this standard has been met.

Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order. 435707

Judge: CESAR A NOBLE

Thank you!

 

[MollyDDD]

I thought the same thing .

Everyone in that town should paint a rock and line the sidewalk of any court MT or FD has to frequent, the street that FD lives on,
the Motel MT lives at .

Picket and scream when either of them appears at Court . If this was happening in another other locale I think there would be an outcry and more public rage .

No one can be bothered ,
too busy ,
too much effort,
too time consuming,
too tiring,
too, too, too , too .

Yep, and NP couldn’t be happier.

 

[CuriousCat9]

DBM just ramblings...

 

[sds71]

Farber v. Dulos

228.00 10/10/2019 D MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE – PB SEC 13-14 (INTERR/PROD – 13-6/13-9)

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=17916402

 

[MollyDDD]

Does this order mean that Pattis does not have to show how he’s being paid?

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=17905913

What is this??? Did everybody have a hand in JF murder?? Geez, give her a break!

 

[Bulldogs2]

Yep, and NP couldn’t be happier.

This happens everywhere

 

[citygirl]

Farber v. Dulos

MT wants her depo sealed
226.00 10/10/2019 O MOTION TO SEAL FILE PB 11-20A OR 25-59A

Lodged Record

Why would they want this sealed?

 

[Twistinginthewind]

The Atty who is allegedly fronting (or maybe even is) the Greek Benefactor is Atty. John Michael Phufas of NYC. Atty Phufas (the Ph supposedly is pronounced like an F....<modsnip>

Atty Phufas is a very interesting character and appears to be a real estate developer with an interest in alternative energy. I was searching Bloomberg this morning and ran into one of the companies that he is involved with: Prescient Energy Corporation

MOO

Well, thanks as always, afitzy, for your diligence. And for adding another name to the Fotis Fray, as it were... drumroll please... Mr. Phufas!!

 

[Alathea]

Farber v. Dulos

228.00 10/10/2019 D MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE – PB SEC 13-14 (INTERR/PROD – 13-6/13-9)

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=17916402

So - if I read this correctly - FD demanded years of tax returns from the Farbers, meanwhile he won't show his and he's the one who owes the money.

"The plaintiff also seeks to pierce the corporate veil to assert that liability against Defendant Dulos, personally." - pretty amusing, when FD has 'pierced his own corporate veil' rather effectively, given his previous depositions.

 

[Tink56]

Farber v. Dulos

228.00 10/10/2019 D MOTION FOR ORDER OF COMPLIANCE – PB SEC 13-14 (INTERR/PROD – 13-6/13-9)

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=17916402

Wouldn't FD LOVE to get his hands on the HF to JD trust documents.

 

[CuriousCat9]

Wouldn't FD LOVE to get his hands on the HF to JD trust documents.

Yes, not to mention any info regarding trusts set up for the grandchildren. I think this was maybe the whole point of the document and the other requests were just a distraction.

ETA: MOO

 

[SkylarSid]

Wouldn't FD LOVE to get his hands on the HF to JD trust documents.

Most likely his goal all along. MOTIVE.

 

[afitzy]

Why would they want this sealed?

MT wants to retain her 'privacy' and protect access to the file where it proves that she invoked the 5th on ALL questions asked of her, including most likely HER NAME! She and her atty are already on record that the reason she invoked the 5th was because of concern/fear/terror about her possibly incriminating herself in other criminal acts. Seems like this 'ship has sailed' but MT Atty still wants to seal the file.

The press has already covered the substance of the deposition and its known that MT answered no questions. If at some future date another party involved in litigation wants to access the file they will have to petition the court for access.

MOO

 

[citygirl]

Been following during this lull, though not easily.
Thoroughly disgusted that JD is lost in all of this.
It's all about FD and MT and their attorneys and their rights.
Sadly, this is how our system works .
The victim and her 5 children are side issues.
Disheartening.
Blessings to the children, JD's mother and sister and friends.
May they have the strength to carry the children through the most trying of times.
MOO.

 

[Alathea]

Yes, not to mention any info regarding trusts set up for the grandchildren. I think this was maybe the whole point of the document and the other requests were just a distraction.
ETA: MOO

Most likely his goal all along. MOTIVE.

Yes, definitely that (the trusts), and possibly any life insurance for JD, that he probably intended to get his hands on while they were still legally married.

 

[Megnut]

I'm trying to keep up with the legalese -- is it possible MT wants everything she says sealed because, in the event she actually tells A truth, she might not be altogether eager for FD to know she did?

MOO

 

[Megnut]

I think we should dedicate a couple pages here to Jennifer...unclouded by mentions of the others.

The courage it took to leave... the bravery of it.... getting her children to a safe place, and keeping them active and busy, in healthy pursuits, despite the turmoil of divorce filings.

There are heroes in this story. Jennifer. And her mother.

The courts need to let a semblance of justice triumph.

MOO