Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #33

[afitzy]

I hope they don’t lift that gag order...but if they do, I wonder if it’ll quickly be followed by a murder charge?

One of the justices (or possibly 2) talked today about the possibility of sealing warrants/arrest affidavit's and this was discussed in the context of tools available to lower court Judges to deal with the issue of adverse pretrial publicity. Thought this point was interesting as I'm curious how Atty. P. might have responded to this happening? In a way I wish it had played out this way as it might have eliminated material for Atty. P. to talk about to the Press which would have been interesting to see have happen IMO. If Judge Blawie had done this and Atty. P. then still continued on with with Press antics and false statements then the clear case for the 'gag order' would have been indisputable IMO.

I wonder if the State Supreme Court Justices might have thought that the sealing route should have been tried in advance of imposing the 'Gag Order' along with direct citation of Atty. P. for violation of 3.6a or b?

I do wonder though if the reason we saw passivity on the issue of citing Pattis under 3.6b by Atty Colangelo and then bringing this issue to the Judge was to prevent later discussion down the line of arguments for appeal based on quality of representation? There had to be a reason Atty Colangelo didn't go this route as it seems fairly clear that they believe Atty. P. was colouring outside the lines of 3.6b in particular via his comments?

I do very much wonder why nobody in this process seems to want to call Atty. P. on his non compliance with 3.6a and/or b? The State sorta/kinda went in this direction in its comments and the Judges were aware of the issue but there was only the vague reference to lower court options available to pursue Atty. P. non compliance.

I wonder if we will ever see accountability for Professional Standards in CT? We haven't seen it required by Judge Heller, Judge Noble or Judge Blawie IMO. But I guess if we don't see it from the Supreme CT then it will never happen? IDK. Sad state of affairs IMO.

There was ongoing discussion about waiving right to free trial along with insuring that a fair trial does happen for Fd at some point. Its quite cynical to say, but I do wonder if Atty. P. goal all along wasn't to absolutely ensure that a fair trial couldn't occur ever and that this then would allow his client to never see the inside of a prison possibly in his lifetime due to the necessary ongoing appeals? I think the Justices today were on this path of seeing this possibility with Atty. P. and it also seemed that they knew they would be seeing him again soon on this case IMO.

I'm curious where the line gets drawn for abuse of process by Fd and Atty. P.? Will we see more ongoing trips to Hartford by Atty. P.? I do see the Supreme CTs POV that neither Atty. P. nor Atty Colangelo addressed any of their issues at the lower court before Atty. P. chose to run to Hartford and Supreme Court. Why Atty. P. wasn't called out on this has me baffled. But I guess Supreme Court could have chosen to not hear the Atty. P. motion too and could have kicked the issue back to Judge Blawie.

Very curious how this will be ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

PS. Not one of the Justices today asked Atty. P. if his license were still active today. So, maybe that means there hasn't been a decision in the disciplinary hearing yet?

MOO

 

[kimch33kim]

FD's choice of attire today. Doesn't look bad if I should say so myself.

 

[Tink56]

One of the justices (or possibly 2) talked today about the possibility of sealing warrants/arrest affidavit's and this was discussed in the context of tools available to lower court Judges to deal with the issue of adverse pretrial publicity. Thought this point was interesting as I'm curious how Atty. P. might have responded to this happening? In a way I wish it had played out this way as it might have eliminated material for Atty. P. to talk about to the Press which would have been interesting to see have happen IMO. If Judge Blawie had done this and Atty. P. then still continued on with with Press antics and false statements then the clear case for the 'gag order' would have been indisputable IMO.

I wonder if the State Supreme Court Justices might have thought that the sealing route should have been tried in advance of imposing the 'Gag Order' along with direct citation of Atty. P. for violation of 3.6a or b?

I do wonder though if the reason we saw passivity on the issue of citing Pattis under 3.6b by Atty Colangelo and then bringing this issue to the Judge was to prevent later discussion down the line of arguments for appeal based on quality of representation? There had to be a reason Atty Colangelo didn't go this route as it seems fairly clear that they believe Atty. P. was colouring outside the lines of 3.6b in particular via his comments?

I do very much wonder why nobody in this process seems to want to call Atty. P. on his non compliance with 3.6a and/or b? The State sorta/kinda went in this direction in its comments and the Judges were aware of the issue but there was only the vague reference to lower court options available to pursue Atty. P. non compliance.

I wonder if we will ever seen accountability for Professional Standards in CT? But I guess if we don't see it from the Supreme CT then it will never happen? IDK.

Very curious how this will be ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

MOO

BBM and brought down here:
I do very much wonder why nobody in this process seems to want to call Atty. P. on his non compliance with 3.6a and/or b? The State sorta/kinda went in this direction in its comments and the Judges were aware of the issue but there was only the vague reference to lower court options available to pursue Atty. P. non compliance.

It certainly seemed that the State's Attorney and Supreme Court Justices did not want to address specifics that were cited in the State's briefing. No one wants to argue with Norm?????

This will be interesting...from viewing it looks like a split decision, but not sure which way it will split.

 

[afitzy]

Strange times in Hartford today IMO.

In CT Supreme CT today, I estimated that Atty. P. lost nearly 24 min of his allocated 30 min time to present his argument as the Justices immediately jumped in with questions to try to understand precisely what the Atty. P. argument might be.

I think Atty. P. might have been talking for all of 2 min before he was peppered with his first question by a Justice and then it was the runaway train. It was entertaining to watch as it seemed the Justices had no time or interest in Atty. P. 1st amendment word salad commentary and so they jumped with both feet to figure out the answer to the question of:

"So Atty. P., WHY ARE YOU HERE TODAY BEFORE THE COURT"!

I guess the Justices had no better luck than most here understanding the Atty. P. motions on this issue.

At times, IMO the Justices looked actively confused as to what Atty. P. was asking the Court to do and why but I think they eventually figured it out. Sadly I do wish the Atty. P. arguments were more fully formed and actionable but I don't believe Atty. P. wanted anything much done other than to simply allow for his appearance in Hartford before the Court and so substance wasn't really too important. This, if true, was good because substance appeared in short supply today from Atty. P. IMO.

I've not seen anything close to such a performance as we saw in Hartford today. So, I'm curious in particular how its covered by our 'esteemed' Press in the form of Dave Altimari and the Hartford Courant. I wonder if it will be trumpeted as 'A GREAT DAY FOR FREE SPEECH IN HARTFORD'!

Atty. P. did call the Hearst Publications and the SA in particular "hostile" to his client and their reporting "horrendous", which IMO means that both entities deserve a standing ovation from the public for their hard work bird dogging Atty. P. and this case. Kudos SA!

MOO

 

[Jmoose]

View attachment 219972
View attachment 219973
FD's choice of attire today. Doesn't look bad if I should say so myself.

Jennifer paid for it (IMO)

 

[sds71]

Attorney Pattis said that if the state Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the gag order they will “not hesitate” to go to
@Scotus
the highest court in the land. Whether or not they would take the case is very much in question.
@FOX61News
Matt Caron on Twitter

 

[afitzy]

Attorney Pattis said that if the state Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the gag order they will “not hesitate” to go to
@Scotus
the highest court in the land. Whether or not they would take the case is very much in question.
@FOX61News
Matt Caron on Twitter

DOES THIS SURPRISE ANYONE? IMO it was the end goal all along.

The only thing that will save Atty. P. from himself in this regard is that the SC will not hesitate to return his motion for 'redrafting' and simply refuse to hear the motion as their level of scrutiny is at a different level from what we saw in Hartford today IMO! The reality is though that Atty. P. won't have access to the SC for a very long time due to the long winding road to get there from where he is right now IMO. So, the SC in DC has no worries in the near term!
MOO

 

[afitzy]

Fd comments about, "not stopping his fight for his rights to be a family with his children" seemed to be the theme today. Apparently Fd 'sister' attempted to see the 5 Dulos children and was not allowed to do so. Atty. P. put his arm around the 'sad' looking Rena today when it was disclosed she wasn't able to see the children. So, it appears that Rena was brought from Greece specifically for the continuance of this ongoing charade by Pattisville.

Guess this might put the ball back into the court of Atty Dranginis if more motions are filed? IDK.

We never heard about Fd appeal of the GF custody order so this might be pending.

But this also could simply be a ploy to possibly put pressure on the State to expedite filing of additional charges. IDK.

If so, I think Fd and Pattisville should be careful about what they wish for.

PS. Did anyone else maybe/kinda/sorta see a few violations of the 'gag order' today by Fd and Pattisville?

MOO

 

[Tink56]

DOES THIS SURPRISE ANYONE? IMO it was the end goal all along.

The only thing that will save Atty. P. from himself in this regard is that the SC will not hesitate to return his motion for 'redrafting' and simply refuse to hear the motion as their level of scrutiny is at a different level from what we saw in Hartford today IMO!
MOO

Not sure of the procedure, but wouldn't such a trip to U.S. Supreme Court demand a trip through Federal District Court? Would the criminal case continue to move on while good, ole NP champions his cause in life? Who's paying for these types of appeals? What a waste of time and money...IMO...MOO!

 

[afitzy]

Not sure of the procedure, but wouldn't such a trip to U.S. Supreme Court demand a trip through Federal District Court? Would the criminal case continue to move on while good, ole NP champions his cause in life? Who's paying for these types of appeals? What a waste of time and money...IMO...MOO!

IMO its a hollow threat to the CT Supreme Court Justices.

Think about it. You are serious about an argument you make in Court and you want your case to get serious consideration from the CT Supreme Court.

Would your next move be to go stand on the very same steps of the Court where you just argued and say effectively, "I don't really care what you have to say but PS if you disagree with me I am just going to go on and on and appeal your ruling"?

IMO Atty. P. actions were per usual counterproductive to his 'goals' to say nothing of highly unprofessional and absolutely bush league IMO.

I do wonder who is paying for these appeals? But I do wonder if its part of a larger legal strategy to make sure that the Fd Gucci loafers never set foot inside a CT Prison? I'm starting to think that this could be the case unfortunately as the CT system weaknesses are exploited to Fd advantage over a long period of time.

If true, the State needs to act aggressively to shut down the Pattisville show on these issues such that these games are not tolerated. It appears that laxness in the overall Judiciary system allows such ongoing abuse and that aggressive practitioners such as Atty. P. exploit these areas of weakness.

Where is the HAMMER of the law in CT? We certainly haven't seen it anywhere having to do with Fd and I very much wonder why?

MOO

 

[Jmoose]

Fd comments about, "not stopping his fight for his rights to be a family with his children" seemed to be the theme today. Apparently Fd 'sister' attempted to see the 5 Dulos children and was not allowed to do so. Atty. P. put his arm around the 'sad' looking Rena today when it was disclosed she wasn't able to see the children. So, it appears that Rena was brought from Greece specifically for the continuance of this ongoing charade by Pattisville.

Guess this might put the ball back into the court of Atty Dranginis if more motions are filed? IDK.

We never heard about Fd appeal of the GF custody order so this might be pending.

But this also could simply be a ploy to possibly put pressure on the State to expedite filing of additional charges. IDK.

If so, I think Fd and Pattisville should be careful about what they wish for.

PS. Did anyone else maybe/kinda/sorta see a few violations of the 'gag order' today by Fd and Pattisville?

MOO

This right here is what I was talking about before...and yes, I did see some sort of gag order violations. This is Fd using his children as tools again.

 

[afitzy]

DBM

 

[afitzy]

Just to put in perspective where precisely Atty. P. might be on compliance with any regulation, here is a picture of the Courtroom today. Notice the VERY LARGE and VERY CLEAR sign about cell phones.
MMMMmmmm.

AP's cell phone went off in his pocket when he was about 1 min into his prepared remarks.

Unbelievable. Rules are made for others, ALWAYS!

Atty. P. didn't skip a beat when the cell phone went off either as there was no doubt a perfectly acceptable reason why he shouldn't be subject to Courtroom Rules.

I was honestly waiting for his actually to take the call and say, "Not NOW Alex, can't talk to you as I'm in Court".....

There is not even any pretence made about rule compliance and that is IMO what makes this charade simply so unacceptable that the State of CT can't even stand up and be counted on enforcing no cellphone rules in its courtrooms! If the State can't enforce such a basic rule then how in the world IMO can it have standing to enforce other rules, regulations and laws?

Stunning times IMO.

MOO

 

[Tink56]

View attachment 219981 Just to put in perspective where precisely Atty. P. might be on compliance with any regulation, here is a picture of the Courtroom today. Notice the VERY LARGE and VERY CLEAR sign about cell phones.
MMMMmmmm.

AP's cell phone went off in his pocket when he was about 1 min into his prepared remarks.

Unbelievable. Rules are made for others, ALWAYS!

Atty. P. didn't skip a beat when the cell phone went off either as there was no doubt a perfectly acceptable reason why he shouldn't be subject to Courtroom Rules.

There is not even any pretence made about rule compliance and that is IMO what makes this charade simply so unacceptable that the State of CT can't even stand up and be counted on enforcing no cellphone rules in its courtrooms! If the State can't enforce such a basic rule then how in the world IMO can it have standing to enforce other rules, regulations and laws?

Stunning times IMO.

MOO

LOL...What a great find and picture. Roadrunner at work!

 

[afitzy]

This right here is what I was talking about before...and yes, I did see some sort of gag order violations. This is Fd using his children as tools again.

Yes, I sadly see it too and what is so sad was that Fd seems to be dragging his 'sister' into the brawl with the implication being that 'she has right to access the children too'.

Its an interesting question on what 'rights' Rena/'sister' might and might not have to the 5 Dulos children. IDK the answer. Might they be gearing up for a 'custody' battle with Rena front and centre? Do non citizens of the US have rights in the US on matters of custody of US citizen children? We don't know Rena citizenship status and I wonder if as she has allegedly been working for FORE since 2004, whether FD facilitated any citizenship actions on her behalf?

Lots of questions on these issues in my mind.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

BEEP BEEP Buddy!

LOL...What a great find and picture. Roadrunner at work!

 

[dlharris2712]

View attachment 219972
View attachment 219973
FD's choice of attire today. Doesn't look bad if I should say so myself.

He is wearing a $698 dollar coat. That is more money than I have spent on clothes in three years...MORE proof - that he was living the good life; until he killed his cash cow! I hate this guy! And - is his sister wearing a fur coat??? Where are the PETA protesters when you need them...? moo

 

[afitzy]

Atty. P. Comments on the steps this afternoon:
Marissa Alter (@MarissaAlter) | Twitter

Marissa video captures both Atty. P. and Fd comments.

 

[dlharris2712]

Yes, I sadly see it too and what is so sad was that Fd seems to be dragging his 'sister' into the brawl with the implication being that 'she has right to access the children too'.

Its an interesting question on what 'rights' Rena/'sister' might and might not have to the 5 Dulos children. IDK the answer. Might they be gearing up for a 'custody' battle with Rena front and centre? Do non citizens of the US have rights in the US on matters of custody of US citizen children? We don't know Rena citizenship status and I wonder if as she has allegedly been working for FORE since 2004, whether FD facilitated any citizenship actions on her behalf?

Lots of questions on these issues in my mind.

MOO

Yeah...like those five kids - whose mother was killed by Rena's brother would in any way/shape/form want to go and live with that old, animal wearing hag! Gawd!!! The (shREDACTEDit) these imbeciles dream up is beyond my imagination. Throw the (assREDACTEDhole) in jail for murder already!!! What in the heck are they waiting for???????????? I'm about to have a stroke I am so (piREDACTEDssed off)!!! moo!

 

[Jmoose]

View attachment 219981 Just to put in perspective where precisely Atty. P. might be on compliance with any regulation, here is a picture of the Courtroom today. Notice the VERY LARGE and VERY CLEAR sign about cell phones.
MMMMmmmm.

AP's cell phone went off in his pocket when he was about 1 min into his prepared remarks.

Unbelievable. Rules are made for others, ALWAYS!

Atty. P. didn't skip a beat when the cell phone went off either as there was no doubt a perfectly acceptable reason why he shouldn't be subject to Courtroom Rules.

There is not even any pretence made about rule compliance and that is IMO what makes this charade simply so unacceptable that the State of CT can't even stand up and be counted on enforcing no cellphone rules in its courtrooms! If the State can't enforce such a basic rule then how in the world IMO can it have standing to enforce other rules, regulations and laws?

Stunning times IMO.

MOO

Oh, they didn’t mean Pattis-they meant that for all of the poor slobs who are afraid to buck the system