Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #34

[NCmom99]

Bringing this over from another post I made:
» Connecticut General Statutes 45a-478 – Appointment of trustee when person has disappeared. Trustee’s rights and duties. Procedure if person reappearsLawServer
2018 CT Statutes regarding a missing person:
(a) When any person having property has disappeared so that after diligent search his whereabouts cannot be ascertained, the court of probate in the district in which he resided or had his domicile at the time of his disappearance or, if such person resided outside of this state, then in the district in which any of his property is situated, upon the application of the spouse, or a relative, creditor or other person interested in the property of such person, or the selectmen of the town where such person last resided, or in which such property is situated, shall, after public notice and a hearing thereon, appoint a trustee of the property of such person.

(c) Such trustee, upon giving a probate bond, shall have charge of such property, and he shall have the same powers, duties and obligations as a conservator of the estate of an incapable person. With the approval of the court of probate, such trustee may use any portion of the income or principal of such property for the support of the spouse and minor children of such person.

GF is trustee for JD. I don't know what legal action can be brought as far as motions to freeze assets, etc. I am sure Weinstein would be doing this if permissible. Weinstein, having seen everything he could find in the civil suit and looking at how underwater the houses most likely are, may have come to the conclusion that there is nothing there that is discoverable or worth anything.

Hitting on your points:
1. Understand your concern about the other missing people and safeguarding their interests. People of lesser means are not even going to be able to afford the atty costs. My default divorce, which only had a single court date and no discovery, cost close to $5000. CT nor any state is not going to do anything to help people. It's sad but a person either has to hire an atty or figure out how to do pro se. Pro Se only goes so far. You get to a point where it gets very complex and you HAVE to hire an atty.

2. LE is not going to do anything about the ransacking of assets. It is a civil matter. The courts are not going to do anything unless asked. Even then, there might not be alot that can be done.

3. Perjury is taken lightly overall. FD said under oath that he has no income. Courts have rendered oaths meaningless for the most part because they don't vigorously prosecute. I also believe, I could be wrong, that courts have already ruled that the source of FD payments to lawyers is protected info. Yes, there is plenty of hidden money. He lied to JD for years about money that was coming in/not coming in. Don't ask me how I know.

4. Heller was not going to protect or freeze any assets. It has to be asked for. AGAIN, Midler! What did he do? He is supposed to be a premier divorce atty? Sorry, I wouldn't hire him for free! What about the houses besides 4JC? Even if they are owned by FORE, they are still marital property. Why no liens asked for by Midler to protect JD interest? At the very beginning.

All IMO.

***
I must agree that perjury is taken lightly in civil/family cases in CT. In my own experience with divorce mediation my judgment goes on for pages about how my ex's testimony was not credible but at the end of the day the judge just ruled based on what she could ascertain as actually documented - and that was it.

 

[pernickety]

RSBM: Good point about spending the 11 days in jail unnecessarily. A previous poster had stated it was a Fidelity account and that in her experience, it was an easy process. NP did ask to have control of the 401K but was denied on 6/11. That very day, FD bonded out. NP has also referred to the 401K as an IRA but maybe that was just misspoken. NP wanted permission to take control of the account and then be the guarantor of the bond. I am sure FD wanted to avoid the penalties and also the fee for a $500K bond is $35,150 and that money is gone forever. And there are 2 separate bonds so HUGE loss of money no matter how it was paid. By NP getting control of the account, he could have been the guarantor of the bond and not had to have dealt with the bail bondsman, fees or withdrawal penalties. So maybe the 401K story is true. That money had probably already been documented in the divorce. I really don't think he wanted to expose any money that wasn't already known of. Somebody would have to have a legal basis for subpoena of the bondsman. IIRC, there has already been a ruling that how his lawyers are being paid is protected info? All JMO.

The civil court (Judge Noble) ruled that FD DID have to disclose how NP (and. I think, PI McKenna) were being paid--that it was NOT protected info. See link:

Judge: Fotis Dulos must reveal how Norm Pattis is being paid

Noble subsequently ruled that NP did not have to respond to the subpoena to be deposed on same subject. As I recall, Weinstein requested (from FD) a copy of the retainer agreement between NP and FD. I hope he got it and that it will be publicly revealed. It might be quite telling. IMO.

 

[Jmoose]

The civil court (Judge Noble) ruled that FD DID have to disclose how NP (and. I think, PI McKenna) were being paid--that it was NOT protected info. See link:

Judge: Fotis Dulos must reveal how Norm Pattis is being paid

Noble subsequently ruled that NP did not have to respond to the subpoena to be deposed on same subject. As I recall, Weinstein requested (from FD) a copy of the retainer agreement between NP and FD. I hope he got it and that it will be publicly revealed. It might be quite telling. IMO.

I do wonder if, in fact, Weinstein got that retainer agreement? It occurred to me that the consequence of not turning it over would be a potential charge of contempt of court, but judging from the lack of consequences at other times, he may risk it just to drag things along slowly.

 

[pernickety]

RSBM: Good point about spending the 11 days in jail unnecessarily. A previous poster had stated it was a Fidelity account and that in her experience, it was an easy process. NP did ask to have control of the 401K but was denied on 6/11. That very day, FD bonded out. NP has also referred to the 401K as an IRA but maybe that was just misspoken. NP wanted permission to take control of the account and then be the guarantor of the bond. I am sure FD wanted to avoid the penalties and also the fee for a $500K bond is $35,150 and that money is gone forever. And there are 2 separate bonds so HUGE loss of money no matter how it was paid. By NP getting control of the account, he could have been the guarantor of the bond and not had to have dealt with the bail bondsman, fees or withdrawal penalties. So maybe the 401K story is true. That money had probably already been documented in the divorce. I really don't think he wanted to expose any money that wasn't already known of. Somebody would have to have a legal basis for subpoena of the bondsman. IIRC, there has already been a ruling that how his lawyers are being paid is protected info? All JMO.

The civil court (Judge Noble) ruled that FD DID have to disclose how NP (and. I think, PI McKenna) were being paid--that it was NOT protected info. See link:

Judge: Fotis Dulos must reveal how Norm Pattis is being paid

Noble subsequently ruled that NP did not have to respond to the subpoena to be deposed on same subject. As I recall, Weinstein requested (from FD) a copy of the retainer agreement between NP and FD. I hope he got it and that it will be publicly revealed. It might be quite telling. IMO.

» Connecticut General Statutes 45a-187 – Time of taking appealsLawServer
(a) An appeal by persons of the age of majority who are present or who have legal notice to be present, or who have been given notice of their right to request a hearing or have filed a written waiver of their right to a hearing, shall be taken within the time provided in section 45a-186, except as otherwise provided in this section. If such persons have no notice to be present and are not present, or have not been given notice of their right to request a hearing, such appeal shall be taken within twelve months, except for appeals by such persons from an order of termination of parental rights, other than an order of termination of parental rights based on consent, or a decree of adoption, in which case appeal shall be taken within ninety days. An appeal from an order of termination of parental rights based on consent, which order is issued on or after October 1, 2004, shall be taken within twenty days.

As long as a written waiver was submitted, FD is covered. IMO. He wouldn't have needed to attend.

I tried to reply to your other post, but it was tacked on here. The statute is sloppily written. They should have put in the words "at a hearing" after the words, "who have legal notice to be present." I think that phrase may save him. Since a hearing did take place, and presumably he got a notice of it, he wouldn't have to file a written waiver of his right to a hearing. In any case, I can't see how the juvenile court can overrule both the Probate Court and the criminal court's no-contact with the children order as a bail condition.

 

[BellaVita]

The civil court (Judge Noble) ruled that FD DID have to disclose how NP (and. I think, PI McKenna) were being paid--that it was NOT protected info. See link:

Judge: Fotis Dulos must reveal how Norm Pattis is being paid

Noble subsequently ruled that NP did not have to respond to the subpoena to be deposed on same subject. As I recall, Weinstein requested (from FD) a copy of the retainer agreement between NP and FD. I hope he got it and that it will be publicly revealed. It might be quite telling. IMO.


I tried to reply to your other post, but it was tacked on here. The statute is sloppily written. They should have put in the words "at a hearing" after the words, "who have legal notice to be present." I think that phrase may save him. Since a hearing did take place, and presumably he got a notice of it, he wouldn't have to file a written waiver of his right to a hearing. In any case, I can't see how the juvenile court can overrule both the Probate Court and the criminal court's no-contact with the children order as a bail condition.

Thanks for the great info about the rulings regarding how FD is paying/retainer agreement. If FD did answer, it would most likely be word salad and not reliable. Retainer Agreement is just that though. It would specify the services contracted for and the deposit amount required. I don't think it would necessarily spell out the source of funds. None of the retainer agreements I've ever signed specified that. Though in FD case, he may have signed over some assets. Knowing FD legal situation, if NP is smart, that would not be in the retainer agreement. I can also see a back-dated document being produced which is not truthful.

IMO, the juvenile court can certainly over-rule the probate court according to statute. They are not going to. I'm not worried about it. If it happened, I don't know how that conflict with the criminal court could be resolved. JMO.

 

[BellaVita]

I do wonder if, in fact, Weinstein got that retainer agreement? It occurred to me that the consequence of not turning it over would be a potential charge of contempt of court, but judging from the lack of consequences at other times, he may risk it just to drag things along slowly.

I wish someone (like a journalist, lol) would go to the courthouse and look at all this stuff. Isn't civil court documents open for public inspection? Also, civil case is essentially over now. If FD/NP didn't provide the requested info and Weinstein really wanted it, there would have to be a motion to compel, possibly 2nd motion to compel and then motion for contempt. So yes, dragging things out. JMO.
ETA: Found this link
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHDCV186088970S

 

[sds71]

Pattis doesn’t have to reveal how he is being paid unless Dulos gives him permission to do so
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=17725544
Judge: Norm Pattis does not have to say how Fotis Dulos is paying him

 

[sds71]

I wish someone (like a journalist, lol) would go to the courthouse and look at all this stuff. Isn't civil court documents open for public inspection? Also, civil case is essentially over now. If FD/NP didn't provide the requested info and Weinstein really wanted it, there would have to be a motion to compel, possibly 2nd motion to compel and then motion for contempt. So yes, dragging things out. JMO.
ETA: Found this link
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHDCV186088970S

Noble denied Weinsteins motion to compel and I think the motion to reargue

 

[pernickety]

Pattis doesn’t have to reveal how he is being paid unless Dulos gives him permission to do so
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=17725544
Judge: Norm Pattis does not have to say how Fotis Dulos is paying him

NP doesn't have to (he's not a party). But FD does have to--as the court previously ruled.

 

[pernickety]

Noble denied Weinsteins motion to compel and I think the motion to reargue

Cn you give a link to W's motion to compel in the case detail? I cd only find one re MT. And another was a Def's motion to compel.

 

[pernickety]

I wish someone (like a journalist, lol) would go to the courthouse and look at all this stuff. Isn't civil court documents open for public inspection? Also, civil case is essentially over now. If FD/NP didn't provide the requested info and Weinstein really wanted it, there would have to be a motion to compel, possibly 2nd motion to compel and then motion for contempt. So yes, dragging things out. JMO.
ETA: Found this link
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHDCV186088970S

Possibly discovery wouldn't be put in the file unless it was presented as evidence. And possibly it wasn't relevant to present at the trial and would only be relevant if there was a judgment for the plaintiff and it related to the FD's assets and ability to pay up?

 

[sds71]

NP doesn't have to (he's not a party). But FD does have to--as the court previously ruled.

I thought he didn’t have to since he claims “ he doesn’t know”.

 

[BellaVita]

Possibly discovery wouldn't be put in the file unless it was presented as evidence. And possibly it wasn't relevant to present at the trial and would only be relevant if there was a judgment for the plaintiff and it related to the FD's assets and ability to pay up?

Correct in that documents produced in Request to Produce motions are not filed with the court unless used as an exhibit, IMO. Interrogatories and answers in a deposition would be recorded and filed. Any answer FD would give under oath, Weinstein would also ask for corroborating docs in Request to Produce in order to verify the answer. I do see what Weinstein was doing. It really can't hurt to ask the questions. The worst that can happen is to be shot down. I do think many questions asked of MT especially were not very relevant to the civil case and therefore the judge did not compel answers. JMO.

 

[sds71]

Cn you give a link to W's motion to compel in the case detail? I cd only find one re MT. And another was a Def's motion to compel.

After I read this I assumed Weinstein filed that motion
I guess he didn’t
“But Noble later denied Weinstein’s motion asking the judge to compel Pattis to attend a deposition and provide information on how he is being paid. Weinstein submitted a second request on Oct. 16, asking Noble to reconsider his decision to quash a subpoena requiring Pattis to be deposed.”
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Judge-Jennifer-Dulos-mother-does-not-need-to-14817155.ph

 

[BellaVita]

Cn you give a link to W's motion to compel in the case detail? I cd only find one re MT. And another was a Def's motion to compel.

This is FD objection to Request for Production and the judge's ruling. I couldn't find a motion to compel.
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=17571799
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=17765090

This is entire record of proceedings.
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHDCV186088970S

 

[CTGrammy]

Correct me if I am wrong, I did not think the Information itself was denied, it was just denied that NP had to be the one providing it, since it Could come from Fd.

IMO.

 

[CTGrammy]

NP doesn't have to (he's not a party). But FD does have to--as the court previously ruled.

Oops, did not see your reply before replying myself.

 

[sds71]

Correct me if I am wrong, I did not think the Information itself was denied, it was just denied that NP had to be the one providing it, since it Could come from Fd.
IMO.

Since FD is pretending he doesn’t know where the money is coming from
Can the Judge really force FD to reveal the source
Also IDK if you know the answer but
does a divorce attorney have to reveal things to the Court the way a Criminal attorney would

 

[BellaVita]

Since FD is pretending he doesn’t know where the money is coming from
Can the Judge really force FD to reveal the source
Also IDK if you know the answer but
does a divorce attorney have to reveal things to the Court the way a Criminal attorney would

Pretending not to know where the money is coming from is a creative work-around. All Request to Produce and Interrogatories are fishing expeditions and rely on the truthfulness of the witness to a great extent. No judge can force anybody to give an answer. Yes, there is contempt possibly, but hasn't happened yet in any venue in any way that actually has real consequences. The party looking for answers has to be creative also and by doing so may find clues that lead to more info.

I try to be very objective about these motions because of my own personal experience. MOO is that the source of the money for paying the attys is not relevant to the civil case which is primarily about whether the money from HF was a gift or a loan(IT WAS A LOAN!!!!!). The source of funds is likely to be relevant when GF tries to collect the judgment. JMO.

 

[sds71]

Pretending not to know where the money is coming from is a creative work-around. All Request to Produce and Interrogatories are fishing expeditions and rely on the truthfulness of the witness to a great extent. No judge can force anybody to give an answer. Yes, there is contempt possibly, but hasn't happened yet in any venue in any way that actually has real consequences. The party looking for answers has to be creative also and by doing so may find clues that lead to more info.
I .

I was thinking about the bail hold up
Pattis said the bail package was ready but they couldn’t find his passport( in the safe).
I was wondering if FD could’ve had something to pay the deposit to the attorneys in the safe but was waiting to hire Rochlin to get it because Pattis is a Criminal attorney and might have to tell the court what was in the safe or because Pattis is a criminal attorney and he didn’t trust him.
He probably has an a Anonymous GREEK Benefactors LLC to write checks on so no one is actually lying to the Court