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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Merzerie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome Newbie. :):)
Many hope these 2 Slimeballs slitter around in Prison for years.:D
Still waiting for the wonderful arrest for Murder, which must be round the corner.o_Oo_O
MOO.
 
Thankfully, there are Defense Attorney's out there calling out the motion on Jennifer's medical info for what it is...RED HERRING

“I guess anything is possible. But the more reasonable viewpoint is that the defense has presented the media with yet another red herring, trying to tip public view in their favor and sow doubt in what many if not most believe is the reality: that Jennifer Dulos is dead and that Fotis Dulos is behind it.” -defense lawyer and Law&Crime host Julie Rendelman

(A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion).-wikipedia.org
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/red-herring-fotis-dulos-defense-makes-striking-claim-about-jennifer-dulos-medical-bill/
 
Morgan10028 said:
Thankfully, there are Defense Attorney's out there calling out the motion on Jennifer's medical info for what it is...RED HERRING

“I guess anything is possible. But the more reasonable viewpoint is that the defense has presented the media with yet another red herring, trying to tip public view in their favor and sow doubt in what many if not most believe is the reality: that Jennifer Dulos is dead and that Fotis Dulos is behind it.” -defense lawyer and Law&Crime host Julie Rendelman

(A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion).-wikipedia.org
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/red-herring-fotis-dulos-defense-makes-striking-claim-about-jennifer-dulos-medical-bill/
Click to expand...
Yes, Red Herring is technically correct so its fantastic that other defence attorneys are calling them like they see them!

My issue though is that the creation of these 'red herrings' is simply a waste of the courts time AND if the same information were released to the press outside of a court motion would IMO BE A VIOLATION OF THE GAG ORDER! So, these motions could taint the jury pool as based on the one we have seen they continue to victim shame JD who is not present to defend herself. These Red Herrings also contain inflammatory material about the missing victim and are essentially doing in a backhand way what the 'gag order' was designed to stop. We predicted this would happen and sadly the prediction has played out in this latest "Red Herring" filing.

This is a big issue IMO for Judge Blawie as he is the one that will be flooded with such useless and time wasting RED HERRINGS from Pattisville!

Hate to say it but the time has come IMO for document seals to hit Atty P and FD in Criminal Court as NO isn't a word that they readily understand but it does IMO represent a clear enough boundary that they might just get with having NO documents in the case available to the press and the public EVER!

Its sad that an officer of the court not honour the spirit of the 'gag order'. But, again we are simply seeing a 'toddler time' moment from Pattisville.

I think Atty S. had the correct idea when he made the "ZIP IT" motion outside of court at the last hearing. IMO its time for Judge Blawie to "ZIP UP" the files in Criminal Court to make this ongoing mockery of the 'gag order' via use of court motions END!

IMO we need to STOP THE INSANITY and simply seal everything up tight as its the only language that Atty. P sadly understands. My guess is that this move would stop the "Red Herrings" immediately.

MOO
 
CTGrammy said:
Something Smells Fishy Here.

Why is NP Requesting records from Anthem Blue Cross and Not the Medical Provider?

You would think that NP would want the Medical Provider records and the ability to question the Medical Provider.

The Insurance Company was NOT at the Medical Provider's facility and cannot say whether it was actually JF that received services.

The Insurance Company does NOT have the Complete Medical Records.

The Insurance Company Only has the Billing CODES, unless they contact a provider for more information to determine eligibility.

This just does not make sense, for the person who has No Case.

Filing This Motion is part of NP's GAME.

He Knows that the Motion will go No Where.

Even IF, and that is a Big IF, NP were to be granted the motion, What Exactly does NP expect to receive from the Insurance Company? More Codes?

He also Knows that by filing the motion, he gets Another Jab at JF/Dr. GF and Another Opportunity to Taint the Jury Pool.

There is Absolutely No Substance to this Motion.

IMO.
Click to expand...
NP is not very competent. He has no idea what to request or why. JMO.
 
Unfortunately NP is a master of "the stall", making motions that "might" have a modicum of sense is his modus operandi. He'll be "schooled" by the Judge that this motion is weak, i.e. there is no first party information to be gained and then he'll "whine" (my interpretation) that he needs her complete medical record from the provider in question, HIPAA be damned when NP gets the judicial ok!
Have had the "pleasure" in court with NP, not fun!
 
i agree, NP is not very competent. i've been thinking of all the things he does for his clients maybe the most important is giving them a shot at an appeal that claims ineffective counsel. one of the tangents of discussion today has been questions about if NP should have turned this new info about a JD doctor visit over to LE. i stand with those that suggest he should have and may just be hindering the investigation again. for sure FD is as i think he should have also given to LE. another angle is if this case is in a discovery phase now and if it is then NP should give it to the prosecutor. i think the prosecution has given NP stuff so can not understand why NP shouldn't hand it over. MOO.
 
Laughing said:
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!

920x920.jpg
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for doing this and for sharing with us! :)
 
bbm
pernickety said:
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.
Click to expand...

These are such important questions; I hope all attorneys on here read your post at least once.

Isn't it CT taxpayers' right to know whether they are helping to pay for FD's counsel (which it seems possible they are doing - with NP) and, if so, whether he has other funds that should be paying for it? And if so, what about a contract w/NP?

As for the rest, I hope Weinstein has someone following this forum.

Edited to fix possessive on taxpayers'
 
Last edited:
Alathea said:
bbm

These are such important questions; I hope all attorneys on here read your post at least once.

Isn't it the taxpayers of CT's right to know whether they are helping to pay for FD's counsel and, if so, whether he has other funds that should be paying for it?

As for the rest, I hope Weinstein has someone following this forum.
Click to expand...

FD has private counsel. Not a public defender.
So you can’t get to the source that way.
It’s privileged unless source ties to a crime. Have mentioned this several times.
Now, to get to the answer, we need to pick a source that is crime related. The only one that comes to mind is the $75000 deal with MT, FORE and the bank. Trace that money. Someone had to put up some money, probably. Title company probably has some more information. If commingled into an account, post closing, then those funds POTENTIALLY can lead to more tainted money. Guessing it’s crime related doesn’t count. SOME evidence it’s crime related or you can’t get past the privilege.
Or FD tells us.
Other than that $75000 deal, where else did he use financials that were false? Other real estate deals? Did he borrow money based on false financials to run his cars from Greece? Did he ask for and obtain money from others under false pretenses? And are those that were conned willing to come forward?
Crime. Tied to a crime.
 
Tink56 said:
He needs to access Anthem Blue Cross information to get to the providers....Pat McKenna is probably not successful in finding out who JD was seeing....IMO...MOO
Click to expand...

Any EOB I’ve ever seen details dates, charges, deductible applied, how much is patient’s portion, how much until annual deductible met, blah, blah, blah.
Have we seen the document or just NP pleadings?
He knows who the provider is but he’s trying to get Anthem info for more providers, records, charges. Hoping to receive a detailed annual printout of all providers, pharmacies, labs whether accidentally or deliberately.
Fishing for more red herrings.
 
afitzy said:
Brilliant and absolutely correct.

I agree with you that this is nonsense motion for all the reasons you outlined, but I also wonder if the Atty P tactic will be to simply appeal any motion where he is ruled against by Judge Blawie?

I wonder at what point the charade we are beginning to see emerge becomes abuse of process and where does a Judge draw the line and impose sanctions etc.?

MOO
Click to expand...

NP Will Absolutely Appeal, for All The Reasons I Stated in my Post above.

IMO.
 
Last edited:
Tink56 said:
For @pernickety
Here's the post by sds71...WS's amazing motion finder and diligent reporter!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. Couldn't open the post to find the motion, but it's not necessary--I'll rely on hearsay here. B/c motions in criminal cases apparently don't appear on the online docket, I was wondering how the forum was getting them. You answered my question. My thanks also to sds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 4,069 (members: 150, guests: 3,919)

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
3,919
Total visitors
4,069
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,587
Messages
18,143,149
Members
231,446
Latest member
VAres67
Back
Top