Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #54

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did he forget where and why he was there for a minute? This is funny. Kinda odd. His attorneys should be speaking. That's almost like an insult to them, but I can be wrong.

He just repped himself in Federal Court maybe he thought he was still there
But speaking of insulting attorneys
remember this message

Fotis your attorney was arrested for selling drugs

Which one?
This one

05/18/2021
This email is to inform you that MICHAEL HABIB, with docket number U04WCR190487056S, has an upcoming court event.
A/An Hearing has been scheduled for 08/17/2021. This will take place in GA 04 Waterbury Courthouse located at the following address: 400 Grand Street, Waterbury, CT.
Please be aware that there is often more than one case scheduled for a particular date in this court. Please visit www.jud.ct.gov to check for any updates that may be available on this case.
For more information, contact the Office of Victim Services at 1-800-822-8428. For updates about this case or for driving directions to the courthouse, you can visit www.jud.ct.gov.
 
Did he forget where and why he was there for a minute? This is funny. Kinda odd. His attorneys should be speaking. That's almost like an insult to them, but I can be wrong.
His attorney, Lee Gold, even looks a bit surprised. Very odd that he didn’t defer to his council. I’m gonna guess that’s the first and last time we’ll see that behavior.
 
He just repped himself in Federal Court maybe he thought he was still there
But speaking of insulting attorneys
remember this message

Fotis your attorney was arrested for selling drugs

Which one?
This one

05/18/2021
This email is to inform you that MICHAEL HABIB, with docket number U04WCR190487056S, has an upcoming court event.
A/An Hearing has been scheduled for 08/17/2021. This will take place in GA 04 Waterbury Courthouse located at the following address: 400 Grand Street, Waterbury, CT.
Please be aware that there is often more than one case scheduled for a particular date in this court. Please visit www.jud.ct.gov to check for any updates that may be available on this case.
For more information, contact the Office of Victim Services at 1-800-822-8428. For updates about this case or for driving directions to the courthouse, you can visit www.jud.ct.gov.
Oh, yes. I remember. Even FD didn't know he had been arrested.
 
I feel sure that this kind of action is nothing new to bond companies and pretty sure the bonding firm generally comes out on top. MOO.
It's really a no-brainer. Equivalent to finding out that your neighbor paid less in premiums for his auto coverage last year and calling your insurer a year later and demanding your money back (citing you never had an accident or made a claim)! AC is asking for the $147k bond premium refunded. Not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Kent Mawhinney hearing underway. His attorneys are seeking changes to his bond release. Currently on GPS ankle monitoring and cannot leave the state without permission.
Attorneys say there have been no issues since he was released on bond 7 months ago. They’re asking for his GPS ankle monitor to be removed.
Attorneys say he has no income since his arrest. But now has the chance to referee adult hockey games. The problem is the ankle bracelet doesn’t allow him to wear skates.
Attorneys estimate he could make up to $1000 a week if he can referee hockey. Willing to provide pay stubs to prove this.
Attorney brings up that the judge denied the same request from co-defendant Michelle Troconis. Says this is different bec of Mawhinney’s strong ties to CT and there’s no economic need.
Mawhinney’s attorney says due to his client’s notoriety, he can’t just get any job. Only reason he can get a hockey referee job is because of his longtime rships with the hockey community in Hartford.
Judge Blawie says he’s reluctant to remove the anklet but doesn’t want to prevent him from making a living. Asks if there’s any way to modify skate to allow it to happen.
Mawhinney motion to remove GPS ankle monitor is denied.
As we end—Mawhinney speaks saying he has not received the list if possible witnesses and other discovery in the case.
Next status conference set for 7/27.

https://twitter.com/MarissaAlter/status/1394660866168066052?s=20


Not true. MT was denied her defense request to remove the requirement for GPS monitoring.

As for MT's ski boot not fitting over her ankle monitor, Judge said he'd consider an arm monitor if the technology already in place but not if this was an additional expense to the state.

Seems to me KM and his defense were not listening....
 
If he really want to ref hockey, he can learn to skate on speed skates. There is no ankle support. BTW, I would imagine people going to the rink just to mock him anyway.
View attachment 297571

Good no GREAT idea!!!! If you found this, I am sure KM knew about it.

edit to add, Still he should be denied more freedom or no GPS
 
I wonder what the rationale for voting against it was?

But Sampson, from Wolcott, said he was surprised to see a new version of the bill that had additional sections that he said were not in the original bill. He was concerned that landlords would be required under the bill to change the locks within 48 hours of a request by a tenant who was being protected by a restraining order in a domestic violence case. The charge for the locks could be deducted from the tenant’s security deposit, but Sampson said that would often not leave enough money in the security account.

“In the real world, it’s difficult to get something like that done in 48 hours,” said Sampson, who has worked as a landlord. “Some landlords live out of state. ... It might be problematic to get someone out [to the home] within 48 hours. ... Maybe change the 48 hours to a week. Something like that.”

Connecticut Senate expands domestic violence law to include nonviolent ‘coercive control’; measure prompted by Jennifer Farber Dulos case
 
I wonder what the rationale for voting against it was?
He didn't agree with the part about locks being able to be changed within 6 hours IIRC.

ETA: I'm confused. I watched it and I heard 6 hours. Because after a restraining order is issued is the most dangerous time for a partner to retaliate. I'm ok being wrong, though 48 hours seems WAY too long for a partner to still have access. MOO
 
Looking forward to more images like this:

View attachment 297620
image from lawandcrime.com

Can anyone read these certificates? Are they all in English?

View attachment 297621
image from stamfordadvocate.com

jmho ymmv lrr
They sure were in English! I remember seeing them in the very beginning before they (EE's), were all removed from the website. No one, I mean no one on a jury with all this evidence of her speaking English prior to her charade, will ever believe it. She is bilingual. Completely understands English, or would have never been able to hold that position with FG. I can't wait for this trial to start!!
 
Not true. MT was denied her defense request to remove the requirement for GPS monitoring.

As for MT's ski boot not fitting over her ankle monitor, Judge said he'd consider an arm monitor if the technology already in place but not if this was an additional expense to the state.

Seems to me KM and his defense were not listening....
The arm GPS is not available in CT. That is my understanding.
 
His attorney, Lee Gold, even looks a bit surprised. Very odd that he didn’t defer to his council. I’m gonna guess that’s the first and last time we’ll see that behavior.
Yeah, first that startled glance from Gold then the sideways tap as KM continued. Yikes on KM's part. How could that testy ask possibly help him?! I agree.
IMO MOO
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
3,120
Total visitors
3,199

Forum statistics

Threads
604,177
Messages
18,168,649
Members
232,108
Latest member
extremevertigo
Back
Top