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

[pernickety]

I agree with you that the “judge doesn’t have the right to redraft the document”, a sloppy pleading. But when you characterize judges as “gods of the legal system,” or “guardians of the law”, those are ideals that aren’t always met. In 2011 then Chief Justice Chase Rogers, addressing a meeting of the Greenwich Retired Men’s Assoc., began her remarks by saying, “The CT Judicial Branch has a reputation for corruption…” That reputation hasn’t faded.

NP has represented indigent clients in criminal cases as a “special public defender” or “assigned counsel” over the years. See links from Pattisblog.com:

SPDs: Beware the New Con Job

Lawyers Can Choose; Can The Middle Class?

Norman Pattis Blog

For those services he was paid in public funds by the State of CT. But as he admits in one blog post, he does this with no contract. In my reading of the statutes, this is an unlawful relationship with the state. It’s the court—the judge—who is authorized to assign counsel, from a list, to an indigent criminal defendant (“on a contractual basis”), not someone from the Office of the Public Defender, as NP says he was casually assigned a case. (See comments to above NP blog post about the need for a contract—There’s also a statutory requirement for a contract between the Judicial Branch and hired outside counsel) Norm doesn’t have to fill out the questionnaire that other attorneys applying for assigned counsel positions have to fill out, which include questions on whether they’ve ever been “the subject of a legal proceeding, in any state or federal court, wherein the legal representation provided by you was at issue?” Or whether any disciplinary committee had ever found probable cause that he was guilty of misconduct? By his own admission, the Federal Grievance Committee did find probable cause of his misconduct. But no contracts, no questionnaires for Norm, though considerable public funds have been dispensed to him by the CT Judicial Branch over the years for SPD services. What’s the basis of this special relationship between NP and the hegemony in the CJB? Is it beholden to him for some reason?

A judge is also not authorized to rule on an issue not pleaded by the parties. IMO Judge Noble did that in his ruling granting NP’s motion to quash his subpoena in the Farber v. Dulos civil case. NP’s pleading was primarily about the attorney-client privilege, and Weinstein filed a very good objection to it, citing pertinent case law. But Judge Noble’s ruling declined to address “the issue of privilege and confidentiality”. Instead he granted the motion on an issue NP didn’t brief-- Sec. 13-2 of the Prac. Book rules: “The documents requested are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” IMO this deprived the plaintiffs (Gloria Farber and her late husband’s Trust) of their right to due process—as her counsel wasn’t given the opportunity to argue Sec. 13-2, which states in part, “It shall not be ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Who wouldn’t find it reasonable that if FD alleges he has no money to repay his debt to the Farbers, he should provide evidence of how he’s paying NP, the other lawyers and the high-profile PI? If the judge rules that the evidence sought from NP wouldn’t be admissible, is that going to be precedent if Weinstein tries to get it from FD? I’m wondering if Weinstein will file a motion for reconsideration.

It appears to me that Pattis is being protected, and if so, that means Dulos is being protected. What if NP is representing FD as assigned counsel, in which case there’d be no retainer agreement between NP and FD, because the State of CT would be paying NP from public funds. IF there are funds coming from Greece, that could be extra. A female reporter (off-camera) from a CT TV channel (WFSB?) interviewed NP earlier in the case. She asked him if he was afraid he wouldn’t get paid for representing Dulos. Pattis said he wasn’t afraid of that, but then added, “If he wants to pay us more, we’d be glad to accept it.” In CT a lawyer’s retainer agreement has to conform to the code of ethics. I don’t think a contract that said the lawyer would accept more if the client wanted to pay him more would pass ethical muster. (Can’t find that interview online anymore)

NP didn’t provide a “privilege log”, describing the documents for which he is asserting privilege, as to date of doc, author, intended recipient, subject matter, etc., So when the judge says in his ruling that “the documents requested are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”, how does he know the requested documents—e.g., a retainer agreement—even exist? IMO that’s a sloppy ruling. MOO.

 

[Southernsnooper]

Musing along here as I wait for my projects to complete themselves, I’m now thinking how useful it might have been if LE had been able to retrieve the clothes and shoes FD wore that day or even items in the vehicle or laundry (or trash, sure—yikes). I’m sure they did if they were there in time and it was legal because I just thought about how dirt, plants, burrs, leaves, and other items can vary over even a small area. For example, the soil in the farm fields looks very different (darker and finer) than the dirt by the side of the road or on a pathway like to the woods, etc. I can tell where my animals have been sometimes based on burrs, etc. I know you guys said poison ivy is everywhere there but is it in the yards by FD’s houses, for example? I imagine not in the yards so that’s something albeit not much. We can assume as one of many ideas that he did go somewhere with poison ivy, and we know it was on his arms. Given his worries about leaving DNA, it seems like he might have worn long-sleeved shirts and gloves so perhaps it was harder than usual to get it? Are there places around there where it’s rampant? Nothing new and exciting but maybe someone has a lightbulb moment as people here so often do! All MOO.

I wonder too! I’m thinking he wore sneakers if he ran through the woods from Waveny to Welles.

Otherwise, he wears the same short, black boots with his skinny jeans often and on the day of his first arrest, car wash expedition, sushi night, court appears and many other times.

The first AW states clothes were disposed during the trash odyssey but they're not specific of whose clothes but we gather from leaks, the details of VV tee and bra. Perhaps they have his clothes too. AW3!!!
Moo

 

[Alathea]

bbm

I question whether Atty P or FD reported the EOB that is described in the latest motion to LE in advance of filing the motion?

Would not disclosing the information about an alleged 7/19 visit to a doctor by JD to LE constitute 'hindering' yet again?

Sec. 53a-165. Hindering prosecution defined. As used in sections 53a-165aa, 53a-166 and 53a-167, a person “renders criminal assistance” when, with intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of, or the lodging of a criminal charge against, another person whom such person knows or believes has committed a felony or is being sought by law enforcement officials for the commission of a felony, or with intent to assist another person in profiting or benefiting from the commission of a felony, such person: (1) Harbors or conceals such other person; or (2) warns such other person of impending discovery or apprehension; or (3) provides such other person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; or (4) prevents or obstructs, by means of force, intimidation or deception, any person from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such other person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against such other person; or (5) suppresses, by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such other person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against such other person; or (6) aids such other person to protect or expeditiously profit from an advantage derived from such crime.

Chapter 952 - Penal Code: Offenses

Awww, looks like his 'creative' motion will get himself into trouble either way. That's too bad.

 

[afitzy]

I agree with you that the “judge doesn’t have the right to redraft the document”, a sloppy pleading. But when you characterize judges as “gods of the legal system,” or “guardians of the law”, those are ideals that aren’t always met. In 2011 then Chief Justice Chase Rogers, addressing a meeting of the Greenwich Retired Men’s Assoc., began her remarks by saying, “The CT Judicial Branch has a reputation for corruption…” That reputation hasn’t faded.

NP has represented indigent clients in criminal cases as a “special public defender” or “assigned counsel” over the years. See links from Pattisblog.com:

SPDs: Beware the New Con Job

Lawyers Can Choose; Can The Middle Class?

Norman Pattis Blog

For those services he was paid in public funds by the State of CT. But as he admits in one blog post, he does this with no contract. In my reading of the statutes, this is an unlawful relationship with the state. It’s the court—the judge—who is authorized to assign counsel, from a list, to an indigent criminal defendant (“on a contractual basis”), not someone from the Office of the Public Defender, as NP says he was casually assigned a case. (See comments to above NP blog post about the need for a contract—There’s also a statutory requirement for a contract between the Judicial Branch and hired outside counsel) Norm doesn’t have to fill out the questionnaire that other attorneys applying for assigned counsel positions have to fill out, which include questions on whether they’ve ever been “the subject of a legal proceeding, in any state or federal court, wherein the legal representation provided by you was at issue?” Or whether any disciplinary committee had ever found probable cause that he was guilty of misconduct? By his own admission, the Federal Grievance Committee did find probable cause of his misconduct. But no contracts, no questionnaires for Norm, though considerable public funds have been dispensed to him by the CT Judicial Branch over the years for SPD services. What’s the basis of this special relationship between NP and the hegemony in the CJB? Is it beholden to him for some reason?

A judge is also not authorized to rule on an issue not pleaded by the parties. IMO Judge Noble did that in his ruling granting NP’s motion to quash his subpoena in the Farber v. Dulos civil case. NP’s pleading was primarily about the attorney-client privilege, and Weinstein filed a very good objection to it, citing pertinent case law. But Judge Noble’s ruling declined to address “the issue of privilege and confidentiality”. Instead he granted the motion on an issue NP didn’t brief-- Sec. 13-2 of the Prac. Book rules: “The documents requested are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” IMO this deprived the plaintiffs (Gloria Farber and her late husband’s Trust) of their right to due process—as her counsel wasn’t given the opportunity to argue Sec. 13-2, which states in part, “It shall not be ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Who wouldn’t find it reasonable that if FD alleges he has no money to repay his debt to the Farbers, he should provide evidence of how he’s paying NP, the other lawyers and the high-profile PI? If the judge rules that the evidence sought from NP wouldn’t be admissible, is that going to be precedent if Weinstein tries to get it from FD? I’m wondering if Weinstein will file a motion for reconsideration.

It appears to me that Pattis is being protected, and if so, that means Dulos is being protected. What if NP is representing FD as assigned counsel, in which case there’d be no retainer agreement between NP and FD, because the State of CT would be paying NP from public funds. IF there are funds coming from Greece, that could be extra. A female reporter (off-camera) from a CT TV channel (WFSB?) interviewed NP earlier in the case. She asked him if he was afraid he wouldn’t get paid for representing Dulos. Pattis said he wasn’t afraid of that, but then added, “If he wants to pay us more, we’d be glad to accept it.” In CT a lawyer’s retainer agreement has to conform to the code of ethics. I don’t think a contract that said the lawyer would accept more if the client wanted to pay him more would pass ethical muster. (Can’t find that interview online anymore)

NP didn’t provide a “privilege log”, describing the documents for which he is asserting privilege, as to date of doc, author, intended recipient, subject matter, etc., So when the judge says in his ruling that “the documents requested are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”, how does he know the requested documents—e.g., a retainer agreement—even exist? IMO that’s a sloppy ruling. MOO.

I agree with your assessment of the situation with Atty P in Civil Court. IDK Judge Noble dispensed with Atty P so quickly given the substance of the very clear arguments made in the motion presented by Atty W. The Judge's Order IMO was not carefully or clearly written either IMO.

I do wonder if the Judge is simply trying to clear the decks in terms of motions such that the trial date of 12/3 can be maintained? Just a guess on my part but perhaps Judge Noble simply believed that Atty P would tie the court up in motions and delays for months on end and that the goal of all this 'smoke and mirrors' would be to delay the trial? IDK, pure speculation on my part but it has seemed in recent months that Judge Noble has been trying to bring this fiasco of a situation to some kind of closure.

IMO in the general scheme of things it would have been nice to know how FD is affording 4-6 attys. and paying Atty. P, but it was not absolutely necessary to wrap up the civil case and perhaps Atty. W signalled his approval of the decision to Judge Noble. IDK but not having Pattis involved in the Civil Case, even though he is directing the decisions of Atty M behind the scenes IMO, can only speed things along. Atty M smirked after one of the last court dates that there would be a delay to the 12/3 trial date and so I think this energised the Judge and Atty. W to do everything humanly possible to make sure the trial happens as scheduled. MOO

 

[HopeForTheBest]

bbm

Awww, looks like his 'creative' motion will get himself into trouble either way. That's too bad.

At least it SHOULD get him in trouble. MOO.

 

[Merzerie]

That is simply what we call a SLIMEBALL in my neck of the woods!

I agree. The way Jennifer’s parents had to loan him money at one point while they were together and he never had the intention of paying them back and still doesn’t. Then he comes out recently and wants to convince the media Jennifer was unstable and had mental issues. That’s such a slime ball thing.

I also think the way he shaved his beard and cut his hair real short before the murder shows he was prepping for it.

And the fact that MT was helping him clean up the evidence of Jennifer’s murder and won’t come forward with the truth makes her just as much of a slime ball.

 

[pernickety]

I agree with your assessment of the situation with Atty P in Civil Court. IDK Judge Noble dispensed with Atty P so quickly given the substance of the very clear arguments made in the motion presented by Atty W. The Judge's Order IMO was not carefully or clearly written either IMO.

I do wonder if the Judge is simply trying to clear the decks in terms of motions such that the trial date of 12/3 can be maintained? Just a guess on my part but perhaps Judge Noble simply believed that Atty P would tie the court up in motions and delays for months on end and that the goal of all this 'smoke and mirrors' would be to delay the trial? IDK, pure speculation on my part but it has seemed in recent months that Judge Noble has been trying to bring this fiasco of a situation to some kind of closure.

IMO in the general scheme of things it would have been nice to know how FD is affording 4-6 attys. and paying Atty. P, but it was not absolutely necessary to wrap up the civil case and perhaps Atty. W signalled his approval of the decision to Judge Noble. IDK but not having Pattis involved in the Civil Case, even though he is directing the decisions of Atty M behind the scenes IMO, can only speed things along. Atty M smirked after one of the last court dates that there would be a delay to the 12/3 trial date and so I think this energised the Judge and Atty. W to do everything humanly possible to make sure the trial happens as scheduled. MOO

I saw that you were perplexed by Judge Noble’s order, too. The purpose of the trial for plaintiffs is to win a judgment that would lead to a financial recovery. If they’re denied full discovery of FD’s financial assets, those assets can’t be attached. Full discovery should include evidence of where FD is getting the $$$ to pay his legal teams. There was a 2nd tv interview with NP that I can no longer find online. As I recall, he said something about FD being a party in 3 different actions—the criminal case, family court and the Farber civil case—and that he was “a full-time job.” (NP was looking a little “green around the gills” when he said it). So NP acknowledged he was involved in all 3 actions. Maybe he’s bitten off more than he can chew. Excuse the mixed metaphors. MOO

 

[afitzy]

I saw that you were perplexed by Judge Noble’s order, too. The purpose of the trial for plaintiffs is to win a judgment that would lead to a financial recovery. If they’re denied full discovery of FD’s financial assets, those assets can’t be attached. Full discovery should include evidence of where FD is getting the $$$ to pay his legal teams. There was a 2nd tv interview with NP that I can no longer find online. As I recall, he said something about FD being a party in 3 different actions—the criminal case, family court and the Farber civil case—and that he was “a full-time job.” (NP was looking a little “green around the gills” when he said it). So NP acknowledged he was involved in all 3 actions. Maybe he’s bitten off more than he can chew. Excuse the mixed metaphors. MOO

Yes, you called it correctly that the recent Judge Noble order confused me as to Atty. P. I thought the order was confusing and poorly written. I agree with you that the information would have been relevant. But I think the calculus was made that the value of the info from Atty. P wouldn't be worth the time, effort and energy to obtain it, which if true was something I found sad and pathetic and not in the interests of justice.

But I have also seen Judge Noble work hard to bring all the cases under a single judge and also take over the foreclosure action and I felt this was good news for justice for GF on a certain level.

We have just seen absolute misuse of the justice system by FD and Pattisville in these various civil cases and because they were all handled by different Judges previously. IMO this abuse of the the system could have gone one for many many years IMO and FD/Pattisville knew this. Just one example was FD was to have delivered the Quickbooks to Atty Weinstein in 3/18 AND THIS WAS NEVER DONE AND Atty. Weinstein's motion for default due to the situation I don't believe has ever been responded to by the Court so far as I can tell.

I recall the Atty. P interview that you referred to in your OP. I recall also being annoyed that he referenced the Family Court involvement as being part of his 'job' as Judge Heller 'excused him' from Family Court so he isn't 'technically' involved in that situation but we know that to be a lie.

Atty. P seems to be spread quite thin as he doesn't appear to have much in the way of backup staff to support him in his efforts to work for FD IMO. If FD doesn't understand this issue and its potential impact on him then all I can say is 'good luck and GOD bless'! We have seen the 'quality' of the motions or lack thereof from Pattis along with the wasting of time IMO on the appeal efforts on the 'gag order'. IMO all this very expensive 'time wasting' in the name of 'justice' and '1st amendment rights' will promptly end when the money runs out as they are being done not in the name of justice or defence of FD but rather for the ego and self promotion of Atty. P. FD is a 'fool' if he doesn't understand what is going on. But I guess the old phrase about a 'fool and his money are soon parted' might be the case here! If so, I hope FD and the "Greek Benefactor" have very deep pockets as Pattisville will take his nonsense to the Supreme Court (not that I think he is certified to be heard there in any case)!

I'm not sure what else to say other than its been painful to watch the CT Courts in action. Judge Heller and Family Court and the entire episode of Atty. P using a draft psych report that was sealed by the Court is something I don't think I will ever get over as its such an absolute breach of personal privacy of a missing victim and the Dulos children. So far as I can tell neither Judge Heller nor any of the JD or GF attys (Atty. Dranginis, Atty. Ephron etc. or their respective firms) filed a grievance against Atty P or his firm for the matter with the State Bar.

I guess CT is a 'go along to get along' kind of place but watching the absence of professional standards that seems par for the course is disappointing, particularly when you have what appears to be a chronic offender in the form of Atty. P.

I respect Judge Blawie but he IMO simply seems exhausted or powerless or unable or unwilling to impose order in his own courtroom in the Criminal action. I don't understand it all other than the concern is ongoing appeals etc. But watching the situation thus far has been quite disappointing as we have seen Judge Blawie not impose consequences for non compliance with the gag order or the ankle bracelet monitoring. Further, he has tolerated rudeness and disrespect continuously from Atty P in court both to himself and Atty Colangelo. I feel the pain of Judge Blawie in terms of managing 'toddler like behaviour' from Atty. P, but at some point order is needed.

Not sure what to make of what we have been seeing in all these court actions. But, IMO its all been quite disappointing in the name of justice as the system just seems to go through the motions of action but little if anything ever gets done.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

I saw that you were perplexed by Judge Noble’s order, too. The purpose of the trial for plaintiffs is to win a judgment that would lead to a financial recovery. If they’re denied full discovery of FD’s financial assets, those assets can’t be attached. Full discovery should include evidence of where FD is getting the $$$ to pay his legal teams. There was a 2nd tv interview with NP that I can no longer find online. As I recall, he said something about FD being a party in 3 different actions—the criminal case, family court and the Farber civil case—and that he was “a full-time job.” (NP was looking a little “green around the gills” when he said it). So NP acknowledged he was involved in all 3 actions. Maybe he’s bitten off more than he can chew. Excuse the mixed metaphors. MOO

Just a quick follow up on this question. Atty. W final judgment when/if he prevails on behalf of GF will be in the range of $2.5 million I would think for the 2 civil cases. My guess is that Atty. W has assets in mind to cover the judgment. This issue though is that FD has stacked up the 'friend loans/mortgages' and trade against Atty. W. Atty W is fighting to get more info on the 'Friend loans' from FD and Atty. Markowitz IMO to prove them to be fraudulent and simply tools to obstruct the process of GF collecting.

My point in bringing this up is that perhaps the calculation was made that whatever info was to be gained from Atty. P wasn't worth the expense and time? IDK, just a guess in a chess game that has many moving pieces!

MOO

 

[Tink56]

In case anyone has time and perhaps an extra backhoe to loan @afitzy, there's another opportunity to view a stellar property:

Open houses
61 Sturbridge Hill Road

Sun, Oct 13 · 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM

Can't imagine buying this house, no matter how "well-built" with a possibility that there could be a body in the yard...IMO...MOO

 

[pernickety]

Yes, you called it correctly that the recent Judge Noble order confused me as to Atty. P. I thought the order was confusing and poorly written. I agree with you that the information would have been relevant. But I think the calculus was made that the value of the info from Atty. P wouldn't be worth the time, effort and energy to obtain it, which if true was something I found sad and pathetic and not in the interests of justice.

But I have also seen Judge Noble work hard to bring all the cases under a single judge and also take over the foreclosure action and I felt this was good news for justice for GF on a certain level.

We have just seen absolute misuse of the justice system by FD and Pattisville in these various civil cases and because they were all handled by different Judges previously. IMO this abuse of the the system could have gone one for many many years IMO and FD/Pattisville knew this. Just one example was FD was to have delivered the Quickbooks to Atty Weinstein in 3/18 AND THIS WAS NEVER DONE AND Atty. Weinstein's motion for default due to the situation I don't believe has ever been responded to by the Court so far as I can tell.

I recall the Atty. P interview that you referred to in your OP. I recall also being annoyed that he referenced the Family Court involvement as being part of his 'job' as Judge Heller 'excused him' from Family Court so he isn't 'technically' involved in that situation but we know that to be a lie.

Atty. P seems to be spread quite thin as he doesn't appear to have much in the way of backup staff to support him in his efforts to work for FD IMO. If FD doesn't understand this issue and its potential impact on him then all I can say is 'good luck and GOD bless'! We have seen the 'quality' of the motions or lack thereof from Pattis along with the wasting of time IMO on the appeal efforts on the 'gag order'. IMO all this very expensive 'time wasting' in the name of 'justice' and '1st amendment rights' will promptly end when the money runs out as they are being done not in the name of justice or defence of FD but rather for the ego and self promotion of Atty. P. FD is a 'fool' if he doesn't understand what is going on. But I guess the old phrase about a 'fool and his money are soon parted' might be the case here! If so, I hope FD and the "Greek Benefactor" have very deep pockets as Pattisville will take his nonsense to the Supreme Court (not that I think he is certified to be heard there in any case)!

I'm not sure what else to say other than its been painful to watch the CT Courts in action. Judge Heller and Family Court and the entire episode of Atty. P using a draft psych report that was sealed by the Court is something I don't think I will ever get over as its such an absolute breach of personal privacy of a missing victim and the Dulos children. So far as I can tell neither Judge Heller nor any of the JD or GF attys (Atty. Dranginis, Atty. Ephron etc. or their respective firms) filed a grievance against Atty P or his firm for the matter with the State Bar.

I guess CT is a 'go along to get along' kind of place but watching the absence of professional standards that seems par for the course is disappointing, particularly when you have what appears to be a chronic offender in the form of Atty. P.

I respect Judge Blawie but he IMO simply seems exhausted or powerless or unable or unwilling to impose order in his own courtroom in the Criminal action. I don't understand it all other than the concern is ongoing appeals etc. But watching the situation thus far has been quite disappointing as we have seen Judge Blawie not impose consequences for non compliance with the gag order or the ankle bracelet monitoring. Further, he has tolerated rudeness and disrespect continuously from Atty P in court both to himself and Atty Colangelo. I feel the pain of Judge Blawie in terms of managing 'toddler like behaviour' from Atty. P, but at some point order is needed.

Not sure what to make of what we have been seeing in all these court actions. But, IMO its all been quite disappointing in the name of justice as the system just seems to go through the motions of action but little if anything ever gets done.

MOO

Clever of the members who picked up on the extra info in the HC report. Where can I find the motion itself? But HC is silent on reporting on NP’s grievance hearing before the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the SGC re the false affidavit in the Jones case—even though several of the ethics rules he’s charged with violating relate to criminal offenses. IMO these are felonies—See Sec. 51a-155 (2) of Ct Gen’l Statutes – “makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public servant who is…engaged in such…official proceeding…” Class D felony. Then conspiring in forgery, another felony. Felonies mandate a suspension of license. And the SGC is required by statute to refer any criminal charges to the Chief State’s Attorney for investigation. Will be interesting to see how this goes. Would Atty Smith take over Dulos’ representation?

Another ethical rule NP hasn’t been charged with is RPC 4.2. Communication with Person Represented by Counsel. IMO NP did that when he sent FD’s PI Patrick McKenna to try to communicate directly with Atty Lindy Urso’s client, the ex-employee (but Urso prevented that plan when he heard of it) Hey, but didn’t NP know EE was probably going to be a state’s witness? What was the plan—witness tampering? IDK MOO

 

[Tink56]

Norms motion for medical

For @pernickety
Here's the post by sds71...WS's amazing motion finder and diligent reporter!

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I don't think there is a geographic boundary placed on the 'gag order' as it refers to 'any speech'. Judge Blawie stated that in his opinion Atty P and FD DID violate the 'gag order' with the Greek interviews.

It was a sarcastic comment. We all know FD NP and crew will do anything to keep smearing JD. Including foreign correspondents, filing motions to reveal more info and involving hecklers from Fathers Have Rights, too.
I’m sorry if you missed my deliberate twisting. FD is no more willing to answer the question than WS request an interview. Although both would be nice.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

There is SO MUCH in the undercurrent of the CT judicial system. Maybe they should hire a special prosecutor from another state to investigate all of it. Is EVERYONE in on this scam? GF’s two lawyers and EE’s lawyer are the only 3 that appear ethical. Maybe I should include MT attorney as well. Everyone else? Disgusting when CT judge addresses retired Greenwich men’s club with that statement.

 

[Laughing]

Privacy.Office@anthem.com says:

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MAILBOX IS NOT INTENDED FOR URGENT SITUATIONS AND IS ONLY MONITORED MONDAY TO FRIDAY BETWEEN NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.


Thank you for your inquiry. We will respond to your email as quickly as possible, but no later than 2 business days.


Thank you,


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or may otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachment thereto.


I might let you know if there is a further response. As the Confidentiality Notice states, any response if for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and that's not Mr. Pattis!

I cc: our dear Mr. Colangelo, just to keep him in our loop.

Justice for Jennifer!

 

[Southernsnooper]

Privacy.Office@anthem.com says:

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MAILBOX IS NOT INTENDED FOR URGENT SITUATIONS AND IS ONLY MONITORED MONDAY TO FRIDAY BETWEEN NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.


Thank you for your inquiry. We will respond to your email as quickly as possible, but no later than 2 business days.


Thank you,


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or may otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachment thereto.


I might let you know if there is a further response. As the Confidentiality Notice states, any response if for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and that's not Mr. Pattis!

I cc: our dear Mr. Colangelo, just to keep him in our loop.

Justice for Jennifer!

Thank you so much!!!

 

[afitzy]

It was a sarcastic comment. We all know FD NP and crew will do anything to keep smearing JD. Including foreign correspondents, filing motions to reveal more info and involving hecklers from Fathers Have Rights, too.
I’m sorry if you missed my deliberate twisting. FD is no more willing to answer the question than WS request an interview. Although both would be nice.

@midwestermom2019, sorry! I've lost a 'bit' of my usual humour on the topic of the 'gag order' and its abuses! So disappointing to see a so called 'officer of the court' behave in the way that we continue to see Atty. P behave. Never thought it would all impact my sense of humour but it sadly has.....

 

[Laughing]

@afitzy , here you go! A bit of Good Humor for us all. Believe it or not, when I was a child in New Canaan, the Good Humor truck looked like this:



Justice for Jennifer & Good Humor all around!

 

[afitzy]

In case anyone has time and perhaps an extra backhoe to loan @afitzy, there's another opportunity to view a stellar property:

Open houses
61 Sturbridge Hill Road

Sun, Oct 13 · 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM

Can't imagine buying this house, no matter how "well-built" with a possibility that there could be a body in the yard...IMO...MOO

@Tink56! Haha!

I have a new digger on my Birthday list but I'm not sure it will be greeted with much enthusiasm by the family as they don't understand the need for a new and improved personal digger but I feel that the portable digger simply doesn't have the 'power' necessary for larger jobs! I guess I can still dream about it though!

The Sturbridge and 80 MS houses figure prominently in my 'digging dreams' and I truly wish that LE would bring in the heavy equipment and excavate the full yards out to the perimeters of the various FORE properties including Deer Cliff.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

@afitzy , here you go! A bit of Good Humor for us all. Believe it or not, when I was a child in New Canaan, the Good Humor truck looked like this:

View attachment 208866

Justice for Jennifer & Good Humor all around!

So wonderful! Thank you! Much appreciated.

My "Good Humor" has RETURNED along with my old fav Almond Crunch and Strawberry Shortcake. Yum! Yum!

Someone local has been refurbishing these vintage beautiful trucks so you do see them around every once and awhile in/around NC.