Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #53

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
pernickety said:
Rena probably wasn't happy to hear that Pattis took $250,000 from FD that could've gone toward his bond and saved him from his fate.

BTW, NP did a Chaz & AJ podcast 4/7 in which he claimed to know nothing about the 2 upcoming Lifetime movies. If not noticed here before, here's the link.

PODCAST - Wednesday, April 7: A Demonic Idol Found In The Connecticut Woods; Ashley's Sock-Selling Saga; Attorney Norm Pattis

NP is around 25:15. Does he refer to author of Gone Girl as "Joan Gillian?". Also says he's going to do stand-up comedy routine.
Click to expand...

Yep...Joan Gillian!

Most interesting was NP's reference to new information on which his lips were sealed. Wonder if JS is talking to NP.

Too bad I don't live in East Haven...I would go see how NP does at stand-up comedy...:eek:
 
Tink56 said:
Yep...Joan Gillian!

Most interesting was NP's reference to new information on which his lips were sealed. Wonder if JS is talking to NP.

Too bad I don't live in East Haven...I would go see how NP does at stand-up comedy...:eek:
Click to expand...
I wonder if it's hard for him to have the name "Norm"--when he tries so hard to be unusual.
 
Jmoose said:
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but $75 to cut the grass and lock the doors? Even in CT that seems excessive!
Click to expand...

I would like to know if this is his standard rate of $75.00 he charges ALL his customers....or does he charge different rates depending on how rich he thinks his customers are, judging their richness by their house, their cats etc.

My hairdresser, fired a lady working for her, because she charged her clients different prices for hair cuts and colors depending on how rich she thought they were. This other hairdresser kept two sets of books....my hairdresser, at that time was anew owner and knew that was wrong...fired her.

IMO $75.00 is high...even if he did what he said he had been doing.
 
While I have been 2000% Justice for Jennifer from the day I joined WS, I cannot and will not ignore all that I've learned along the way about the CT Family Court.

As we know, legislators in CT are still fighting hard for family court reform. Here's the latest I've received about striking the name Jennifer from the law....

Domestic Violence Survivors, Experts, and Children of Homicide Victim Oppose Attempts to Strike Bill Name

“This move to strike the name Jennifer from the law adds salt to the gaping wound felt by so many victims and shows the petty nature of any legislator who would go out of their way to make such a change. Having a name, such as Jennifer’s Law, associated with this legislation humanizes the needs of so many voiceless victims in a way that no random sequence of letters and numbers ever could,” added David Magnano, Jennifer Magnano’s son. “It shows the state’s ability to acknowledge its shortcomings, and its willingness to face and address its flaws. It symbolizes hope to do better in combating domestic violence so that we can try to avoid any more tragic losses like those of the one hundred women who the state has already failed in the past decade, four of them named Jennifer.”

[...]

“Coercive control correlates with femicide and familicide. The bill is pioneering and enshrines the definition of coercive control in law, making the abuse visible for the first time in Connecticut. But attempts to erase the names of the women the bill was conceived from are truly shocking,” said Laura Richards. “This bill is not just a number – it represents women and children’s voices and all victims of domestic abuse and coercive control who have been brutally murdered and silenced. The Jennifers’ legacy must be honored.”

I have been asking the question elsewhere for a few months now and still digging for answers today...how can the CT Family Court hold those responsible for 'coercive control', specifically? Can it come in the form of the parties atty's colluding with 'experts'?

Fotis Dulos' last hired divorce atty, Rich Rochlin, was served a civil suit in March 2021 regarding his representation and his hired 'experts'. If the hired guns can ultimately exert the 'coercive control' on behalf of their client, then how does a victim like Jennifer stand a chance? Does "Corrupt Mental Health Professional" ring any bells with this crew? Sure does with me! MOO

Ricketts v. Rochlin et al (3:21-cv-00419), Connecticut District Court
or here:
Ricketts v. Mallett et al

In part, the complaint reads:

"13. The defendant John Doe 1, is a corrupt mental health professional in defendant Rochlin's employ that is willing to say anything if paid handsomely.

[...]

34.On or about January 1, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin conspired with defendant John Doe to concoct a fictional account of events and fabricate a story about parental alienation in attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s parental rights in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.

35.On or about January 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant *advertiser censored* to make material misrepresentations to the State Court appointed guardian ad litem in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics

36.On or about March 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin again furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant [*advertiser censored*] to knowingly file false and untrue discovery affidavits with the State Court in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.

37.Defendant’s [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin have absolutely no evidence of the plaintiff doing anything to alienate defendant [*advertiser censored*] because no such evidence exists and all evidence points to the contrary. All such allegations are complete immoral fabrications to cover defendant [*advertiser censored*] malfeasance.

[...]

51.The conduct of the defendant, ROCHLIN, [*advertiser censored*], DOE, as outlined above, was extreme and outrageous conduct, which they should have realized involved an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff, MINOR PLAINTIFF INITIALED [XX] minor child, severe emotional distress that might result in illness or bodily harm."

ENOUGH ALREADY! Victims will continue being abused and murdered until the CT Family Court system is completely overhauled. MOO
 
Last edited:
Morgan10028 said:
While I have been 2000% Justice for Jennifer from the day I joined WS, I cannot and will not ignore all that I've learned along the way about the CT Family Court.

As we know, legislators in CT are still fighting hard for family court reform. Here's the latest I've received about striking the name Jennifer from the law....

Domestic Violence Survivors, Experts, and Children of Homicide Victim Oppose Attempts to Strike Bill Name

“This move to strike the name Jennifer from the law adds salt to the gaping wound felt by so many victims and shows the petty nature of any legislator who would go out of their way to make such a change. Having a name, such as Jennifer’s Law, associated with this legislation humanizes the needs of so many voiceless victims in a way that no random sequence of letters and numbers ever could,” added David Magnano, Jennifer Magnano’s son. “It shows the state’s ability to acknowledge its shortcomings, and its willingness to face and address its flaws. It symbolizes hope to do better in combating domestic violence so that we can try to avoid any more tragic losses like those of the one hundred women who the state has already failed in the past decade, four of them named Jennifer.”

[...]

“Coercive control correlates with femicide and familicide. The bill is pioneering and enshrines the definition of coercive control in law, making the abuse visible for the first time in Connecticut. But attempts to erase the names of the women the bill was conceived from are truly shocking,” said Laura Richards. “This bill is not just a number – it represents women and children’s voices and all victims of domestic abuse and coercive control who have been brutally murdered and silenced. The Jennifers’ legacy must be honored.”

I have been asking the question elsewhere for a few months now and still digging for answers today...how can the CT Family Court hold those responsible for 'coercive control', specifically? Can it come in the form of the parties atty's colluding with 'experts'?

Fotis Dulos' last hired divorce atty, Rich Rochlin, was served a civil suit in March 2021 regarding his representation and his hired 'experts'. If the hired guns can ultimately exert the 'coercive control' on behalf of their client, then how does a victim like Jennifer stand a chance? Does "Corrupt Mental Health Professional" ring any bells with this crew? Sure does with me! MOO

Ricketts v. Rochlin et al (3:21-cv-00419), Connecticut District Court
or here:
Ricketts v. Mallett et al

In part, the complaint reads:

"13. The defendant John Doe 1, is a corrupt mental health professional in defendant Rochlin's employ that is willing to say anything if paid handsomely.

[...]

34.On or about January 1, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin conspired with defendant John Doe to concoct a fictional account of events and fabricate a story about parental alienation in attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s parental rights in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.

35.On or about January 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant *advertiser censored* to make material misrepresentations to the State Court appointed guardian ad litem in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics

36.On or about March 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin again furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant [*advertiser censored*] to knowingly file false and untrue discovery affidavits with the State Court in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.

37.Defendant’s [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin have absolutely no evidence of the plaintiff doing anything to alienate defendant [*advertiser censored*] because no such evidence exists and all evidence points to the contrary. All such allegations are complete immoral fabrications to cover defendant [*advertiser censored*] malfeasance.

[...]

51.The conduct of the defendant, ROCHLIN, [*advertiser censored*], DOE, as outlined above, was extreme and outrageous conduct, which they should have realized involved an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff, MINOR PLAINTIFF INITIALED [XX] minor child, severe emotional distress that might result in illness or bodily harm."

ENOUGH ALREADY! Victims will continue being abused and murdered until the CT Family Court system is completely overhauled. MOO
Click to expand...

I really do wonder sometimes if proposed laws which are purported to protect people, are merely a part of a “Dog and Pony” show.
 
Morgan10028 said:
While I have been 2000% Justice for Jennifer from the day I joined WS, I cannot and will not ignore all that I've learned along the way about the CT Family Court.

As we know, legislators in CT are still fighting hard for family court reform. Here's the latest I've received about striking the name Jennifer from the law....

Domestic Violence Survivors, Experts, and Children of Homicide Victim Oppose Attempts to Strike Bill Name

“This move to strike the name Jennifer from the law adds salt to the gaping wound felt by so many victims and shows the petty nature of any legislator who would go out of their way to make such a change. Having a name, such as Jennifer’s Law, associated with this legislation humanizes the needs of so many voiceless victims in a way that no random sequence of letters and numbers ever could,” added David Magnano, Jennifer Magnano’s son. “It shows the state’s ability to acknowledge its shortcomings, and its willingness to face and address its flaws. It symbolizes hope to do better in combating domestic violence so that we can try to avoid any more tragic losses like those of the one hundred women who the state has already failed in the past decade, four of them named Jennifer.”

[...]

“Coercive control correlates with femicide and familicide. The bill is pioneering and enshrines the definition of coercive control in law, making the abuse visible for the first time in Connecticut. But attempts to erase the names of the women the bill was conceived from are truly shocking,” said Laura Richards. “This bill is not just a number – it represents women and children’s voices and all victims of domestic abuse and coercive control who have been brutally murdered and silenced. The Jennifers’ legacy must be honored.”

I have been asking the question elsewhere for a few months now and still digging for answers today...how can the CT Family Court hold those responsible for 'coercive control', specifically? Can it come in the form of the parties atty's colluding with 'experts'?

Fotis Dulos' last hired divorce atty, Rich Rochlin, was served a civil suit in March 2021 regarding his representation and his hired 'experts'. If the hired guns can ultimately exert the 'coercive control' on behalf of their client, then how does a victim like Jennifer stand a chance? Does "Corrupt Mental Health Professional" ring any bells with this crew? Sure does with me! MOO

Ricketts v. Rochlin et al (3:21-cv-00419), Connecticut District Court
or here:
Ricketts v. Mallett et al

In part, the complaint reads:

"13. The defendant John Doe 1, is a corrupt mental health professional in defendant Rochlin's employ that is willing to say anything if paid handsomely.

[...]

34.On or about January 1, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin conspired with defendant John Doe to concoct a fictional account of events and fabricate a story about parental alienation in attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s parental rights in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.

35.On or about January 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant *advertiser censored* to make material misrepresentations to the State Court appointed guardian ad litem in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics

36.On or about March 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin again furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant [*advertiser censored*] to knowingly file false and untrue discovery affidavits with the State Court in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.

37.Defendant’s [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin have absolutely no evidence of the plaintiff doing anything to alienate defendant [*advertiser censored*] because no such evidence exists and all evidence points to the contrary. All such allegations are complete immoral fabrications to cover defendant [*advertiser censored*] malfeasance.

[...]

51.The conduct of the defendant, ROCHLIN, [*advertiser censored*], DOE, as outlined above, was extreme and outrageous conduct, which they should have realized involved an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff, MINOR PLAINTIFF INITIALED [XX] minor child, severe emotional distress that might result in illness or bodily harm."

ENOUGH ALREADY! Victims will continue being abused and murdered until the CT Family Court system is completely overhauled. MOO
Click to expand...
I 100% completely agree. Ah yes, RR. He is slime. I recall the SM platform where a member of the group (said to be a close friend of JD?), was airing her business with her ex, whom RR represents in a contentious child custody case. He puts out a statement lol claiming to be a stellar attorney. (Statement in hand btw). They only care about the $$$. Best interests of the child are overlooked, and as I said before, and agree with you, a total overhaul of family court needs to happen. Not very optimistic.
 
Morgan10028 said:
While I have been 2000% Justice for Jennifer from the day I joined WS, I cannot and will not ignore all that I've learned along the way about the CT Family Court.

As we know, legislators in CT are still fighting hard for family court reform. Here's the latest I've received about striking the name Jennifer from the law....

Domestic Violence Survivors, Experts, and Children of Homicide Victim Oppose Attempts to Strike Bill Name

“This move to strike the name Jennifer from the law adds salt to the gaping wound felt by so many victims and shows the petty nature of any legislator who would go out of their way to make such a change. Having a name, such as Jennifer’s Law, associated with this legislation humanizes the needs of so many voiceless victims in a way that no random sequence of letters and numbers ever could,” added David Magnano, Jennifer Magnano’s son. “It shows the state’s ability to acknowledge its shortcomings, and its willingness to face and address its flaws. It symbolizes hope to do better in combating domestic violence so that we can try to avoid any more tragic losses like those of the one hundred women who the state has already failed in the past decade, four of them named Jennifer.”

[...]

“Coercive control correlates with femicide and familicide. The bill is pioneering and enshrines the definition of coercive control in law, making the abuse visible for the first time in Connecticut. But attempts to erase the names of the women the bill was conceived from are truly shocking,” said Laura Richards. “This bill is not just a number – it represents women and children’s voices and all victims of domestic abuse and coercive control who have been brutally murdered and silenced. The Jennifers’ legacy must be honored.”

I have been asking the question elsewhere for a few months now and still digging for answers today...how can the CT Family Court hold those responsible for 'coercive control', specifically? Can it come in the form of the parties atty's colluding with 'experts'?

Fotis Dulos' last hired divorce atty, Rich Rochlin, was served a civil suit in March 2021 regarding his representation and his hired 'experts'. If the hired guns can ultimately exert the 'coercive control' on behalf of their client, then how does a victim like Jennifer stand a chance? Does "Corrupt Mental Health Professional" ring any bells with this crew? Sure does with me! MOO

Ricketts v. Rochlin et al (3:21-cv-00419), Connecticut District Court
or here:
Ricketts v. Mallett et al

In part, the complaint reads:

"13. The defendant John Doe 1, is a corrupt mental health professional in defendant Rochlin's employ that is willing to say anything if paid handsomely.

[...]

34.On or about January 1, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin conspired with defendant John Doe to concoct a fictional account of events and fabricate a story about parental alienation in attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s parental rights in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.

35.On or about January 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant *advertiser censored* to make material misrepresentations to the State Court appointed guardian ad litem in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics

36.On or about March 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin again furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant [*advertiser censored*] to knowingly file false and untrue discovery affidavits with the State Court in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.

37.Defendant’s [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin have absolutely no evidence of the plaintiff doing anything to alienate defendant [*advertiser censored*] because no such evidence exists and all evidence points to the contrary. All such allegations are complete immoral fabrications to cover defendant [*advertiser censored*] malfeasance.

[...]

51.The conduct of the defendant, ROCHLIN, [*advertiser censored*], DOE, as outlined above, was extreme and outrageous conduct, which they should have realized involved an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff, MINOR PLAINTIFF INITIALED [XX] minor child, severe emotional distress that might result in illness or bodily harm."

ENOUGH ALREADY! Victims will continue being abused and murdered until the CT Family Court system is completely overhauled. MOO (BBM)
Click to expand...

Totally agree with your last sentence. IMO the GALs introduced in this case and others I've read, seem to lack the objectivity necessary for protection of the children involved in the cases.

Couple the above with exorbitant charges by GALs only makes further stress in an already stressful situation--the divorce itself. Somewhere the children's protection should be paramount.
 
In this case Dr. Mallett asked for a GAL to be appointed after her husband (Attorney Ricketts ) sent a new custody order to the school w/o her knowledge then filed a motion of contempt when she didn’t pick them up on a day she didn’t know she was scheduled to. Judge sided in her favor.

She hired R.R after Ricketts filed “abuse” charges against her.

MOO
 
Last edited:
sds71 said:
In this case Dr. Mallett asked for a GAL to be appointed after her husband (Attorney Ricketts ) sent a new custody order to the school w/o her knowledge then filed a motion of contempt when she didn’t pick them up on a day she didn’t know she was scheduled to. Judge sided in her favor.

She hired R.R after Ricketts filed “abuse” charges against her.

MOO
Click to expand...
As far as I read in the RR suit, the minor children are estranged from the mother by their choice. We shall see....

Have you read the complaint? Sounds a lot like the patterns that I've heard about with 'John Doe" and RR...MOO
 
FST-CV-19-6044836-S SAVINGS BANK OF DANBURY v. FORE GROUP. INC. Et Al

167.00 04/14/2021 C JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BY SALE
Notice Issued: 04/16/2021

CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK

Notice Issued: 04/16/2021
Docket Number: FST-CV-19-6044836-S
Case Caption: SAVINGS BANK OF DANBURY v. FORE GROUP. INC. Et Al
Notice Sequence #: 1

ORDER REGARDING:
02/10/2021 156.00 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BY SALE
The foregoing, having been heard by the Court, is hereby:
ORDER:
Notice of Judgment of Foreclosure by Sale
Property Address: 61 Sturbridge Road, New Canaan, CT 06840
The committee is ordered to upload pictures of the property to the Judicial Website.
Judgment of Foreclosure by Sale is hereby entered as follows:
Debt: $3,280,060.40
Attorney Fees: $48,500.00
Total: $3,328,560.40
Appraisal Fee: $650.00
Title Search Fee: $225.00
Fair Market Value: $3,650,000.00
Land: $975,000.00
Improvements: $2,675,000.00
The Sale Date is: Saturday, June 26, 2021
Terms of the Sale: 12:00 noon on the premises.
Deposit Amount: $365,000.00 Deposit to be paid by bank or certified check only.
Committee Appointed: BONNIE LEE MACDONALD, BONNIE LEE MACDONALD ESQ, 71A
RIVERSIDE AVENUE, NORWALK, CT 06850
Ordered in accordance with the Statewide Standing Orders(JD-CV-79) and Uniform Procedures for Foreclosure by Sale Matters(JD-CV-81).
Independent Appraiser: Rome Lillicraf, Rome Home Services, LLC., 10 Edgewood Ave, Trumbull, CT 06611
Return of Appraisal by: Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Deposit not required if Plaintiff, Ioannis aka Yannis Toutziaridis, or Gloria Farber are the successful bidder. The Plaintiff, Ioannis aka Yannis Toutziaridis, and Gloria Farber may submit a bid via fax.
No fees or expenses prior to: Wednesday, May 12, 2021
Sign to be posted no earlier than : Thursday, May 27, 2021
Sign to be posted no later than : Sunday, June 06, 2021
Ad to be posted on Judicial Website.
Plaintiff's Atty: STOKESBURY SHIPMAN & FINGOLD LLC, 10 WATERSIDE DRIVE, SUITE 204, FARMINGTON, CT 06032
Copies sent Friday, April 16, 2021 to: BONNIE LEE MACDONALD, BONNIE LEE MACDONALD ESQ, 71A RIVERSIDE AVENUE, NORWALK, CT 06850; Rome Lillicraf, Rome Home Services, LLC., 10 Edgewood Ave, Trumbull, CT 06611

438579
Judge: WALTER MICHAEL SPADER JR
Processed by: Matthew Dube
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/Notices/ViewJDNO.aspx?PSID=62083&eNID=6357439
 
Morgan10028 said:
As far as I read in the RR suit, the minor children are estranged from the mother by their choice. We shall see....

Have you read the complaint? Sounds a lot like the patterns that I've heard about with 'John Doe" and RR...MOO
Click to expand...
@sds71 Have you read the complaint against Rich Rochlin and have you noticed the "formula" he appears to use with his hired "experts"?
 
sds71 said:
FST-CV-19-6044836-S SAVINGS BANK OF DANBURY v. FORE GROUP. INC. Et Al

167.00 04/14/2021 C JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BY SALE
Notice Issued: 04/16/2021

CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK

Notice Issued: 04/16/2021
Docket Number: FST-CV-19-6044836-S
Case Caption: SAVINGS BANK OF DANBURY v. FORE GROUP. INC. Et Al
Notice Sequence #: 1

ORDER REGARDING:
02/10/2021 156.00 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BY SALE
The foregoing, having been heard by the Court, is hereby:
ORDER:
Notice of Judgment of Foreclosure by Sale
Property Address: 61 Sturbridge Road, New Canaan, CT 06840
The committee is ordered to upload pictures of the property to the Judicial Website.
Judgment of Foreclosure by Sale is hereby entered as follows:
Debt: $3,280,060.40
Attorney Fees: $48,500.00
Total: $3,328,560.40
Appraisal Fee: $650.00
Title Search Fee: $225.00
Fair Market Value: $3,650,000.00
Land: $975,000.00
Improvements: $2,675,000.00
The Sale Date is: Saturday, June 26, 2021
Terms of the Sale: 12:00 noon on the premises.
Deposit Amount: $365,000.00 Deposit to be paid by bank or certified check only.
Committee Appointed: BONNIE LEE MACDONALD, BONNIE LEE MACDONALD ESQ, 71A
RIVERSIDE AVENUE, NORWALK, CT 06850
Ordered in accordance with the Statewide Standing Orders(JD-CV-79) and Uniform Procedures for Foreclosure by Sale Matters(JD-CV-81).
Independent Appraiser: Rome Lillicraf, Rome Home Services, LLC., 10 Edgewood Ave, Trumbull, CT 06611
Return of Appraisal by: Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Deposit not required if Plaintiff, Ioannis aka Yannis Toutziaridis, or Gloria Farber are the successful bidder. The Plaintiff, Ioannis aka Yannis Toutziaridis, and Gloria Farber may submit a bid via fax.
No fees or expenses prior to: Wednesday, May 12, 2021
Sign to be posted no earlier than : Thursday, May 27, 2021
Sign to be posted no later than : Sunday, June 06, 2021
Ad to be posted on Judicial Website.
Plaintiff's Atty: STOKESBURY SHIPMAN & FINGOLD LLC, 10 WATERSIDE DRIVE, SUITE 204, FARMINGTON, CT 06032
Copies sent Friday, April 16, 2021 to: BONNIE LEE MACDONALD, BONNIE LEE MACDONALD ESQ, 71A RIVERSIDE AVENUE, NORWALK, CT 06850; Rome Lillicraf, Rome Home Services, LLC., 10 Edgewood Ave, Trumbull, CT 06611

438579
Judge: WALTER MICHAEL SPADER JR
Processed by: Matthew Dube
Error
Click to expand...

My goodness....Would either Toutziaridis or GF bid on this house? Does this mean that it will be sold in a type of auction?

Such a drawn out and painful process....Buying this property in such a public fashion might dissuade buyers, IMO...MOO.
 
Tink56 said:
My goodness....Would either Toutziaridis or GF bid on this house? Does this mean that it will be sold in a type of auction?

Such a drawn out and painful process....Buying this property in such a public fashion might dissuade buyers, IMO...MOO.
Click to expand...

I was wondering what happened to Henry. They forgot him and refiled.

*Deposit not required if Plaintiff, Ioannis aka Yannis Toutziaridis, or Harry Masiello are the successful bidder. The Plaintiff, Ioannis aka Yannis Toutziaridis, and Harry Masiello may submit a bid via fax.
 
sds71 said:
I was wondering what happened to Henry. They forgot him and refiled.

*Deposit not required if Plaintiff, Ioannis aka Yannis Toutziaridis, or Harry Masiello are the successful bidder. The Plaintiff, Ioannis aka Yannis Toutziaridis, and Harry Masiello may submit a bid via fax.
Click to expand...

:oops::p Henry IS rather forgettable....all of FD's buddies are of the same ilk...Moo...IMO
 
sds71 said:
In this case Dr. Mallett asked for a GAL to be appointed after her husband (Attorney Ricketts ) sent a new custody order to the school w/o her knowledge then filed a motion of contempt when she didn’t pick them up on a day she didn’t know she was scheduled to. Judge sided in her favor.

She hired R.R after Ricketts filed “abuse” charges against her.

MOO
Click to expand...

How sleazy—and how arrogant and not too smart of him to think he’d get away with doing that. My gosh. MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 131 more.
Total: 2,733 (members: 132, guests: 2,601)

Online statistics

Members online
132
Guests online
2,601
Total visitors
2,733
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,532
Messages
18,142,089
Members
231,428
Latest member
MartyTheSleuth
Back
Top