Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #49

[Tink56]

I am confused. I thought the court had ruled on this?

I was or maybe still am confused....but, I think this is the "way it is."
1. Schoenhorn holds a press conference and files his potion.
2. The state needed to respond and was granted an extension until Monday. Both motions are now in play.
3. The Appellate Court now has to rule as to whether or not they will hear Schoenhorn's complaints in a trial or move the motion should be dismissed. I think the 10 days started ticking on Monday.

From the Case Lookup:
MICHELLE C TROCONIS
Juris: 101507 ANDREW B BOWMAN
Juris: 101793 JON L SCHOENHORN
Defendant Petitioner/Movant
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Juris: 401810 STATE'S ATTORNEY-JD STAMFORD
Plaintiff Respondent
Case Activity
Activity Number Date filed Initiated By Description Action Action Date Notice Date
PRE APPEAL MOTION
AC 194348 6/17/2020 E-filed Petition for Review of Order Concerning Release on Bail (P.B. § 78a-1)
Filed
OTHER DOCUMENT
6/24/2020 E-filed Transcript
Filed
OTHER DOCUMENT
6/29/2020 E-filed Other Document
Returned
APPEARANCE
AC 194348 7/6/2020 E-filed Appearance Form
Filed
OPPOSITION, RESPONSE OR WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
AC 194348 7/6/2020 E-filed Opposition, Response or Withdrawal of Motion
Filed
OTHER DOCUMENT
7/6/2020 Clerk Uploaded Return of Filing Notice
Filed
Supreme/Appellate Case Look-up

 

[Tink56]

In my email this morning....I may need to help interpreting the "decision" from the Appellate Court....Any attorneys awake and able to help??

O R D E R THE EMERGENCY PETITION OF THE DEFENDANT, FILED JUNE 17, 2020, FOR REVIEW OF TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO SCHEDULE OR REMOVE NONFINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR REVIEW SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF RELEASE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN JUNE, 2019, SEPTEMBER, 2019, JANUARY, 2020, AND FEBRUARY, 2020, THE MOTIONS ARE DENIED AS UNTIMELY. SEE PRACTICE BOOK § 66-6. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR REVIEW SEEK AN ORDER FROM THIS COURT REQUIRING THE TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE HEARING ON HER MOTION TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTIONS FOR REVIEW BECAUSE (1) THE TRIAL COURT'S SCHEDULING OF THE MOTION TO MODIFY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN "ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT CONCERNING RELEASE"; SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 54-63g AND PRACTICE BOOK § 78a-1; AND (2) UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE MOTION TO MODIFY HAS NOT BEEN DENIED; cf. AHNEMAN v. AHNEMAN, 243 CONN. 471, 480, 706 A.2d 960 (1998)(COURT'S REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN MOTION CONSTITUTES ""FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT" OF A DENIAL).

FROM:
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=w0DQ6EeHw4ESvOvrEs35zw==

The motion is ordered and denied....

 

[Tink56]

In my email this morning....I may need to help interpreting the "decision" from the Appellate Court....Any attorneys awake and able to help??

O R D E R THE EMERGENCY PETITION OF THE DEFENDANT, FILED JUNE 17, 2020, FOR REVIEW OF TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO SCHEDULE OR REMOVE NONFINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR REVIEW SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF RELEASE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN JUNE, 2019, SEPTEMBER, 2019, JANUARY, 2020, AND FEBRUARY, 2020, THE MOTIONS ARE DENIED AS UNTIMELY. SEE PRACTICE BOOK § 66-6. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR REVIEW SEEK AN ORDER FROM THIS COURT REQUIRING THE TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE HEARING ON HER MOTION TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTIONS FOR REVIEW BECAUSE (1) THE TRIAL COURT'S SCHEDULING OF THE MOTION TO MODIFY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN "ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT CONCERNING RELEASE"; SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 54-63g AND PRACTICE BOOK § 78a-1; AND (2) UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE MOTION TO MODIFY HAS NOT BEEN DENIED; cf. AHNEMAN v. AHNEMAN, 243 CONN. 471, 480, 706 A.2d 960 (1998)(COURT'S REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN MOTION CONSTITUTES ""FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT" OF A DENIAL).

FROM:
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=w0DQ6EeHw4ESvOvrEs35zw==

The motion is ordered and denied....

Thank you Shannon Miller....She says it's denied:
Shannon Miller
@_ShannonMiller
·
26m

NEW: Appellete court says it denies motions to review #MichelleTroconis bond release. #nbcct

 

[sds71]

Mot AC 194348 FSTCR190148553T 06/17/2020 Decided - Other
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE C. TROCONIS

Mot AC 194349 FSTCR190167364T 06/17/2020 Decided - Other
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE C. TROCONIS

Mot AC 194350 FSTCR200241178T 06/17/2020 Decided - Other



STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE C. TROCONIS

Mot AC 194408 FSTCR200241178T 06/29/2020 Granted
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE C. TROCONIS

Mot AC 194409 FSTCR190148553T 06/29/2020 Granted
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE C. TROCONIS

Mot AC 194410 FSTCR190167364T 06/29/2020 Granted

Supreme/Appellate Case Look-up

 

[Jmoose]

Glad this ridiculous motion was denied, as I am sure JS expected. He isn’t stupid; he knew this would happen...this was solely for PR purposes, and trying to get this into the media. She is never going to testify, and so this is a way to make her relentlessly public statement that she is not only innocent of ALL charges, but unfairly treated in the bargain. If he keeps saying it, there are some people who will believe it-especially since Fd is dead and can no longer bring negative publicity down on her on a regular basis, with his stupid antics. I love the way S Mitchell implies that she was totally controlled by Fd; she could have gotten up and left him any day of the week, either before or after the murder-Jennifer left him, and was in far more danger from him that MT could have been in doing so. And to still contact him after the court order not to communicate (and after she was no longer living in that house) proves that she was fully invested, and not “stockholm syndromed”. Can you imaging what a gigantic headache she must have been for Atty Bowman? Lying all the time, flouting court orders, etc? Those are not the actions of an innocent person. Even guilty people tell the truth about the real perpetrator when they are merely peripherally involved in some criminal activity. There wasn’t ANY reason for her to lie so much.

 

[Tink56]

Glad this ridiculous motion was denied, as I am sure JS expected. He isn’t stupid; he knew this would happen...this was solely for PR purposes, and trying to get this into the media. She is never going to testify, and so this is a way to make her relentlessly public statement that she is not only innocent of ALL charges, but unfairly treated in the bargain. If he keeps saying it, there are some people who will believe it-especially since Fd is dead and can no longer bring negative publicity down on her on a regular basis, with his stupid antics. I love the way S Mitchell implies that she was totally controlled by Fd; she could have gotten up and left him any day of the week, either before or after the murder-Jennifer left him, and was in far more danger from him that MT could have been in doing so. And to still contact him after the court order not to communicate (and after she was no longer living in that house) proves that she was fully invested, and not “stockholm syndromed”. Can you imaging what a gigantic headache she must have been for Atty Bowman? Lying all the time, flouting court orders, etc? Those are not the actions of an innocent person. Even guilty people tell the truth about the real perpetrator when they are merely peripherally involved in some criminal activity. There wasn’t ANY reason for her to lie so much.

She's also putting forth a scenario that she was ready to leave FD....and pursue her athletic dreams. I'll see if I can find the article.

Here it is from her Instagram account:
michelle.troconis
(I use google translate) Last year I had two goals that I wanted to achieve: 1) I was ready to move back to my home in Colorado right after my daughter finished her school year, this decisión came up because I wanted to follow my daughters dream and 2) I wanted to be in the top 50 best US water skiers.
My life changed abruptly and I had no option but to change my perspective of goals.

 

[MsJosie]

She's also putting forth a scenario that she was ready to leave FD....and pursue her athletic dreams. I'll see if I can find the article.

Here it is from her Instagram account:
michelle.troconis
(I use google translate) Last year I had two goals that I wanted to achieve: 1) I was ready to move back to my home in Colorado right after my daughter finished her school year, this decisión came up because I wanted to follow my daughters dream and 2) I wanted to be in the top 50 best US water skiers.
My life changed abruptly and I had no option but to change my perspective of goals.

is MT not at the older end to be one of the top US water skiers? When does she practice? I would think it would be a sport where you constantly have to be in practicing to stay on top. Also, who are her coaches and do they speak Spanish too?

 

[sds71]

is MT not at the older end to be one of the top US water skiers? When does she practice? I would think it would be a sport where you constantly have to be in practicing to stay on top. Also, who are her coaches and do they speak Spanish too?

I don’t know if he was her coach but
She was scheduled to ski in a meet with Hutch in 2019.

 

[Jmoose]

I really miss Afitzy

 

[MsJosie]

I really miss Afitzy

me too.....

 

[Daisyeve]

She's also putting forth a scenario that she was ready to leave FD....and pursue her athletic dreams. I'll see if I can find the article.

Here it is from her Instagram account:
michelle.troconis
(I use google translate) Last year I had two goals that I wanted to achieve: 1) I was ready to move back to my home in Colorado right after my daughter finished her school year, this decisión came up because I wanted to follow my daughters dream and 2) I wanted to be in the top 50 best US water skiers.
My life changed abruptly and I had no option but to change my perspective of goals.

MOO MT was ready to move somewhere with FD and they planned to take Jennifer’s children and MT’s daughter with them. Except JD had to be eliminated so FD could claim money Jennifer’s children are entitled to. And FD planned all of this with his close partner MT . And this “home” in Colorado is now hers? Wasn’t this the house purchased with several other investors? How did Colorado suddenly become her home when she was living in Florida?

 

[Chicago54]

I really miss Afitzy

Me three. Anyone know where she is? Is she ok?

 

[Chicago54]

MOO MT was ready to move somewhere with FD and they planned to take Jennifer’s children and MT’s daughter with them. Except JD had to be eliminated so FD could claim money Jennifer’s children are entitled to. And FD planned all of this with his close partner MT . And this “home” in Colorado is now hers? Wasn’t this the house purchased with several other investors? How did Colorado suddenly become her home when she was living in Florida?

Wasn’t that condo purchased w her baby daddy?

 

[tmar]

She's also putting forth a scenario that she was ready to leave FD....and pursue her athletic dreams. I'll see if I can find the article.

Here it is from her Instagram account:
michelle.troconis
(I use google translate) Last year I had two goals that I wanted to achieve: 1) I was ready to move back to my home in Colorado right after my daughter finished her school year, this decisión came up because I wanted to follow my daughters dream and 2) I wanted to be in the top 50 best US water skiers.
My life changed abruptly and I had no option but to change my perspective of goals.

What a load of rubbish.

 

[Seattle1]

In my email this morning....I may need to help interpreting the "decision" from the Appellate Court....Any attorneys awake and able to help??

O R D E R THE EMERGENCY PETITION OF THE DEFENDANT, FILED JUNE 17, 2020, FOR REVIEW OF TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO SCHEDULE OR REMOVE NONFINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR REVIEW SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF RELEASE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN JUNE, 2019, SEPTEMBER, 2019, JANUARY, 2020, AND FEBRUARY, 2020, THE MOTIONS ARE DENIED AS UNTIMELY. SEE PRACTICE BOOK § 66-6. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR REVIEW SEEK AN ORDER FROM THIS COURT REQUIRING THE TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE HEARING ON HER MOTION TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTIONS FOR REVIEW BECAUSE (1) THE TRIAL COURT'S SCHEDULING OF THE MOTION TO MODIFY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN "ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT CONCERNING RELEASE"; SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 54-63g AND PRACTICE BOOK § 78a-1; AND (2) UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE MOTION TO MODIFY HAS NOT BEEN DENIED; cf. AHNEMAN v. AHNEMAN, 243 CONN. 471, 480, 706 A.2d 960 (1998)(COURT'S REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN MOTION CONSTITUTES ""FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT" OF A DENIAL).

FROM:
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=w0DQ6EeHw4ESvOvrEs35zw==

The motion is ordered and denied....

I'll give it a go @Tink56

The Motion for Emergency Petition was denied by the Court for pretty much the reasons the DA filed when he opposed the motion.

More specifically, MT filed a motion to modify her nonfinancial bond conditions of release on Feb 5, and Judge White modified the conditions. MT did NOT file a petition for review of that decision in the Appellate Court.

Then again on March 17, MT did it again (asked for another review of her bail conditions), but this time no hearing date was set due to virus suspension order.

In his denial quoted above in your post, the Judge cited the rule that you can't make an Emergency Petition in Appellate Court when a) there was never a hearing, and b) there was never a decision (in the non-existent hearing) to appeal.

The Judge also cited that MT filed the petition in the wrong court as the Appellate Court did not have jurisdiction.

For example, MT previously filed the Feb 5 and March 17 petitions for review of her bond review conditions in Stamford, or the proper venue for Superior Court.

Now had MT wanted to file an appeal on the Court's decision for her Feb 5 petition, she had only twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of the Administrator's predetermination hearing decision to file an appeal with the Appeals Division.

MT failed miserably here as the Emergency Petition was filed on June 17 which was long past twenty-one days!

Her attorney should be ashamed of himself.

ETA: There also would have been no reason for MT to file an appeal because Judge White granted all of her requests from the Feb 5 petition including to discontinue her routine drug testing and to allow her to leave her home for work purposes (i.e., fabric swatch meetings with clients). I can only imagine what she planned to ask for in her March 17 petition!

 

[Seattle1]

MOO MT was ready to move somewhere with FD and they planned to take Jennifer’s children and MT’s daughter with them. Except JD had to be eliminated so FD could claim money Jennifer’s children are entitled to. And FD planned all of this with his close partner MT . And this “home” in Colorado is now hers? Wasn’t this the house purchased with several other investors? How did Colorado suddenly become her home when she was living in Florida?

If this is the same property I'm thinking of, the last I checked I think the Colorado Condo was in MT's name. I believe it was transferred to her by way of a trust for her daughter where both MT and the child's father were co-trustees.

 

[Jmoose]

Wasn’t that condo purchased w her baby daddy?

I think it might have been purchased BY her baby daddy, essentially for the daughter, but with MT’s name on it-I might be wrong; but that is how I think it went

 

[sds71]

Michelle Troconis denied hearing to remove GPS tracking device

 

[Tink56]

What a load of rubbish.

Totally agree...MT is rewriting history!

Her daughter would have been following the usual summer plan of staying with her father in Venezuela.

MT would have been training for her water ski competitions, probably planned to go to Greece with FD.

MT may have been threatening FD that she would leave him if he didn't get the divorce finalized. That fact could have been one of many pushing FD to his final act of violence against JFD---that combined with the resistance to the financial disclosures being required by the divorce court...the upcoming restrictions on the holiday weekend...his general immature, low tolerance for anyone defying him, etc.

It is interesting that FD's family never seemed too interested in MT and her clan. They seemed to bond well with AC, however. If I remember correctly, there were some emails alluding to the fact that the Farmington community and area were critical of MT and FD for their very public relationship while FD was still married.

If I remember correctly, they were asked to leave the water ski picnic in May/June 2019 because there were members who did not think it was appropriate for them to be partying so close to JFD's disappearance.

MT sadly was/is a tone deaf about her romantic entanglements....IMO...MOO

 

[Jmoose]

Michelle Troconis denied hearing to remove GPS tracking device

I think MT wants that ankle monitor off so she can skip