Thanks, I was wondering....Not anymore. Her old IG was English, this one is usually in Spanish. Twitter- Spanish too. Her family is usually Spanish, unless they really really want everyone to read a post, (I guess), then it is in English. Moo
Thanks, I was wondering....Not anymore. Her old IG was English, this one is usually in Spanish. Twitter- Spanish too. Her family is usually Spanish, unless they really really want everyone to read a post, (I guess), then it is in English. Moo
I think he over overestimated his ability to evaluate where the spinning wheel would land on his attempt to employ reverse psychology.
moooooo
Fotis: No one will think it’s me, cuz I would be the first place they looked and that would be stupid of me.
Anyone else’s brain: Yeah, but they would know you would try that so they would look at you anyway.
Fotis: Yeah, but they know I would know they would think that, so they wouldn’t look at me. And I’ll go on a national news show and tell the I know 90/95% of the time it is the husband, so then they’ll REALLY think it wasn’t me cuz Id have to be even stupider to do it and I’m so amazingly smart.
Anyone else’s brain: Yeah but they would know why you would do that and they would look at you more.
Fotis: Yeah, but I’ ll do the math to show how smart I am. I’m in the 5-10%
Anyone else’s brain: Do you know who’s on first?
Speaking of the first promoter of the idea that the report could have something to do with JFD's death, i.e., NP, see this new report from the CT Law Trib on a CT attorney who was suspended for a year for using a client's funds in escrow to pay his own biz bills. You can bet (IMO from reading Weinstein's civil complaint for Dean, Trustee) that NP did similar with the much larger "retainer fee" he got from FD shortly before the suicide attempt. Yes, NP is due to go on trial in Superior Court for refusing to give it back to FD's probate estate, but did the CT Statewide Grievance Committee investigate NP for possible misuse of IOLTA funds? Did the Chief Disciplinary Counsel look into the matter? If not, why not?One thing I find really interesting is the family's obsession with the psychological Dulos family study although it was never officially entered into the family court record. And, I might add, FD had a stolen copy of that report in his possession. What could be in that report that would help MT's case?
Honestly, MT had very little contact with Farber-Dulos children. The times she spent with the kids in Florida and CT were "fun" times with FD, not the day-to-day grind of the tasks JFD faced tending to the needs of 5 children, including getting them dressed, feed, taking them to school and activities, supervising them on a daily basis. However, these visits were all prior to February 2018. In fact the children were denied access to MT during the year prior to the family study. How could any reputable psychologist suggest that the kids' perception of MT was realistic or had any basis for the custody disagreements?
It's obvious to me that MT has seen and may have a copy of the report. Somehow she thinks that the kids "liking" her and thinking she is fun makes some kind of excuse for what happened to JFD. I really don't get it. In fact, the concept disgusts and speaks to the character of MT and her family. People that hear about the family study and believe that it has anything to do with the death of JFD are seriously misguided....IMO, MOO.
At least MT has acquired new lucrative skills like, detailing cars "inside and out" and creating alibi's. Her unique style of buffing automobile doors should transfer into something? IMO
Speaking of the first promoter of the idea that the report could have something to do with JFD's death, i.e., NP, see this new report from the CT Law Trib on a CT attorney who was suspended for a year for using a client's funds in escrow to pay his own biz bills. You can bet (IMO from reading Weinstein's civil complaint for Dean, Trustee) that NP did similar with the much larger "retainer fee" he got from FD shortly before the suicide attempt. Yes, NP is due to go on trial in Superior Court for refusing to give it back to FD's probate estate, but did the CT Statewide Grievance Committee investigate NP for possible misuse of IOLTA funds? Did the Chief Disciplinary Counsel look into the matter? If not, why not?
'I Guess It Blew Up in My Face': 1-Year Suspension for Connecticut Lawyer Over IOLTA | Connecticut Law Tribune
Don't think it's on CLT Twitter yet. Try Outline if you can't link to it.
'Ole Teflon' NP may eventually have to face his version of the practice of law.
Although I think there is another, early article about that $250K retainer, but Attorney Hug's initial suit brought as part of the estate was reported as follows:
Attorney Christopher Hug, the administrator of the estate, filed to intervene in the lawsuit and then filed his own complaint on Aug. 25, also claiming the money should go to the estate. Hug has since negotiated with Pattis and his attorney to determine how much of the $250,000 should be reimbursed.
Fotis Dulos paid Pattis and Smith $50,000 after he was first arrested in June 2019, according to Hug’s lawsuit. Fotis Dulos also paid the attorneys $155,000 prior to his second arrest on a tampering with evidence charge in September 2019, Hug said.
In his lawsuit, Hug claims Pattis and Smith broke their June 2019 agreement with Fotis Dulos by failing to reimburse unused portions of the $50,000 and by spending exorbitant amounts on items that were not connected with his defense.
Speaking of the first promoter of the idea that the report could have something to do with JFD's death, i.e., NP, see this new report from the CT Law Trib on a CT attorney who was suspended for a year for using a client's funds in escrow to pay his own biz bills. You can bet (IMO from reading Weinstein's civil complaint for Dean, Trustee) that NP did similar with the much larger "retainer fee" he got from FD shortly before the suicide attempt. Yes, NP is due to go on trial in Superior Court for refusing to give it back to FD's probate estate, but did the CT Statewide Grievance Committee investigate NP for possible misuse of IOLTA funds? Did the Chief Disciplinary Counsel look into the matter? If not, why not?One thing I find really interesting is the family's obsession with the psychological Dulos family study although it was never officially entered into the family court record. And, I might add, FD had a stolen copy of that report in his possession. What could be in that report that would help MT's case?
Honestly, MT had very little contact with Farber-Dulos children. The times she spent with the kids in Florida and CT were "fun" times with FD, not the day-to-day grind of the tasks JFD faced tending to the needs of 5 children, including getting them dressed, feed, taking them to school and activities, supervising them on a daily basis. However, these visits were all prior to February 2018. In fact the children were denied access to MT during the year prior to the family study. How could any reputable psychologist suggest that the kids' perception of MT was realistic or had any basis for the custody disagreements?
It's obvious to me that MT has seen and may have a copy of the report. Somehow she thinks that the kids "liking" her and thinking she is fun makes some kind of excuse for what happened to JFD. I really don't get it. In fact, the concept disgusts and speaks to the character of MT and her family. People that hear about the family study and believe that it has anything to do with the death of JFD are seriously misguided....IMO, MOO.
And here's the paragraph from Weinstein's complaint for the Farber trustee:'Ole Teflon' NP may eventually have to face his version of the practice of law.
Although I think there is another, early article about that $250K retainer, but Attorney Hug's initial suit brought as part of the estate was reported as follows:
Attorney Christopher Hug, the administrator of the estate, filed to intervene in the lawsuit and then filed his own complaint on Aug. 25, also claiming the money should go to the estate. Hug has since negotiated with Pattis and his attorney to determine how much of the $250,000 should be reimbursed.
Fotis Dulos paid Pattis and Smith $50,000 after he was first arrested in June 2019, according to Hug’s lawsuit. Fotis Dulos also paid the attorneys $155,000 prior to his second arrest on a tampering with evidence charge in September 2019, Hug said.
In his lawsuit, Hug claims Pattis and Smith broke their June 2019 agreement with Fotis Dulos by failing to reimburse unused portions of the $50,000 and by spending exorbitant amounts on items that were not connected with his defense.
Speaking of the first promoter of the idea that the report could have something to do with JFD's death, i.e., NP, see this new report from the CT Law Trib on a CT attorney who was suspended for a year for using a client's funds in escrow to pay his own biz bills. You can bet (IMO from reading Weinstein's civil complaint for Dean, Trustee) that NP did similar with the much larger "retainer fee" he got from FD shortly before the suicide attempt. Yes, NP is due to go on trial in Superior Court for refusing to give it back to FD's probate estate, but did the CT Statewide Grievance Committee investigate NP for possible misuse of IOLTA funds? Did the Chief Disciplinary Counsel look into the matter? If not, why not?
'I Guess It Blew Up in My Face': 1-Year Suspension for Connecticut Lawyer Over IOLTA | Connecticut Law Tribune
Don't think it's on CLT Twitter yet. Try Outline if you can't link to it.
And here's the paragraph from Weinstein's complaint for the Farber trustee:
“15. In addition to the $250,000 retainer, there were substantial payments made directly and indirectly by Fotis Dulos to the Law Firm during the subject time period, by and to third parties unrelated to any criminal case for which the Law Firm was representing Fotis Dulos.”
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=19365123
I don't think this will be a jury trial, and if it's held remotely, I seriously wonder how much the public will know about the facts.
bbm.
what the heck does that mean?
Why aren’t the other “substantial amounts” quantified? And why aren’t the other parties named. There are no exhibits attached as far as I can see. Isn’t this a little bit vague for a motion? Yes, it does demand a full accounting from NP, but if they’re making this allegation, you would think they’d have some solid information.
@Tink56 - just wondering if Ragaglia's plea hearing is still on for 3/18?
TIA!
but why would they have it - if he died... case dismissed? or?
Can't find a thing on this....there is one case on going but it is Ragaglia vs Ragaglia. (Civil)
Scheduled Court Dates as of 03/15/2021
HHB-CV21-6063504-S - RAGAGLIA, BRAD v. BAKAJ, DOMINICK Et Al
# Date Time Event Description Status
No Events Scheduled
AND:
Search By: Defendant = RAGAGLIA,First Initial = B (Criminal)
Record Count: 0
* No Records Found
NP has refused to cooperate. That's why it's going to trial. But I see Judge Cesar Noble is still in the case, and you might remember from the Farber civil case against FD, that Noble let NP get away with not revealing how he was being paid in FD's criminal caseMaybe they do have the solid information and it’s a shot across NP’s bow so he gives it up? Maybe the sources of those funds don’t need to be named until he (NP) refuses to cooperate
It was from the complaint, not a motion, and a complaint doesn't have to plead precise facts, the way a motion does (IMO). BUT since Weinstein's complaint hints that those facts were discovered somehow/somewhere, my only guess is that it was through the FD probate case. That file should be open to the public, should anyone want to go to Farmington PC to look at it. Does make one wonder why we don't have more curious journalists in CT.bbm.
what the heck does that mean?
Why aren’t the other “substantial amounts” quantified? And why aren’t the other parties named. There are no exhibits attached as far as I can see. Isn’t this a little bit vague for a motion? Yes, it does demand a full accounting from NP, but if they’re making this allegation, you would think they’d have some solid information.
Here's the case # Farmington #H14C-CR20-0180107-S Maybe they dismissed it already since he did died, as I said up thread.
Still nothing....you'd think there would be a dismissal notice. When I tried to copy/paste, the docket number does not copy. Beats me, but it does say the number is not in the data base.
Information is accurate as of March 16, 2021 04:50 AM
Docket Number: *
- Docket Number is Not in the Data Base
NP has refused to cooperate. That's why it's going to trial. But I see Judge Cesar Noble is still in the case, and you might remember from the Farber civil case against FD, that Noble let NP get away with not revealing how he was being paid in FD's criminal case
It was from the complaint, not a motion, and a complaint doesn't have to plead precise facts, the way a motion does (IMO). BUT since Weinstein's complaint hints that those facts were discovered somehow/somewhere, my only guess is that it was through the FD probate case. That file should be open to the public, should anyone want to go to Farmington PC to look at it. Does make one wonder why we don't have more curious journalists in CT.