I'm really tired of AS's requests. Here are a few of his arguments presented in his petition to the Appellate Court....I keep SMH....Hope MT isn't paying for this nonsense:
…”Despite the burden these nonfinancial conditions place on her liberty, life, family, relationships and defense preparation, the defendant never violated them. Her adolescent daughter who lived with her but was away at boarding school was forced to leave last winter and move to Argentina with the child’s father, because she was on house arrest in a small apartment for eight months, and could not attend to the child’s needs.” (This is a misrepresentation of MT’s living conditions the prior 8 months. It was a 1400 sq. ft. condo/a 3-bedroom unit. MT’s mother was living with her and could have driven MT’s child to and from school. In fact, she could have requested a waiver for that daily activity, and I’ll wager it would have been granted.)
…”She has a business and has lived and worked in the Hartford area since 2017. Prior to that time, she lived in Miami, Florida, where her father, mother and sister maintain residences, and where she maintained employment.” (This is another “Really?” moment. MT has claimed no employment in CT before her February 2020 hearing. She has never acknowledged working for the FORE group. The only employment ever publicly known from the Miami area was the Seal Shoe Covers.
She only mentions on her Instagram page her “horse therapy” in the Middle East from early 2000’s. She talks about her short gig as a “hostess” on a South American television ski report in early 2000’s until she moved to Miami. (This "Position" has been her basis for lecturing new personnel in the U.S. on the proper way in which reporters should report????)
She also worked at Cerro Castro (SP?) ski resort sometime.
She did receive a generous child support and one-time housing bonus from her daughter’s father, although they never married. She was married to someone else before she moved to CT. In fact, it appears she was still married when she began traveling with FD in 2015.
Her main employment seems to be having affairs with financially well-heeled men and marrying one. I would love to see her employment history.
…”The only reason that her daughter no longer lives with her is due to the nonfinancial conditions.” This is the same as the first response. Her mother, who is living with MT could have driven her daughter to and from school. MT’s free to do this now. The court will allow travel out-of-state, with prior approval, so she can take her daughter to ski competitions.
…”The court should bear in mind that aside from the necessity of spending between two and three hours a day recharging the batteries, the device cannot be submerged in water. For 15 months the defendant has not been allowed to swim.” Eh….this reeks of entitlement. Is MT really concerned about going swimming? This does not appear to be a hardship. Perhaps, it’s her tan or lying on the beach in Miami she misses. Or, does she desire to be waterskiing again?
Carry on AS...carry on, but you're sounding more and more ridiculous, IMO...MOO.
FST -CR20-0241179-T