Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #56

[Tink56]

Well, I’m kind of on a tear today; might have to “drop a dime” with the prosecutor’s office, just in case they don’t know about it. What is the prosecutor’s name? Colangelo is out; but I cannot recall who took over.

These are the names at the end of Schoenhorn's latest filing saying the Stamford District is prejudiced against MT:
THE DEFENDANT – MICHELLE TROCONIS By: Jon L. Schoenhorn, Her Attorney (#101793) Jon L. Schoenhorn & Associates, LLC 108 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106-1514 Tel.: (860) 278-3500 Fax: (860) 278-6393 Casemanagement@schoenhorn.com CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically transmitted on the date of this pleading to the following: Sean McGuinness, Asst. State’s Attorney sean.mcguinness@ct.gov Michelle Manning, Asst. State’s Attorney michelle.manning@ct.gov Stamford Superior Court - Part A 123 Hoyt Street Stamford, CT 06905 Fax: (203) 965-5791

From:

Full Memo: Michelle Troconis' attorney files new request to move trial to Hartford

Michelle Troconis and her legal team continue to make their case as to why her trial should be moved out of Stamford, and into Hartford. New court filings this week from Troconis’ attorney addressed this concern as Troconis awaits trial in connection with the disappearance and presumed death of...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

 

[Jmoose]

These are the names at the end of Schoenhorn's latest filing saying the Stamford District is prejudiced against MT:
THE DEFENDANT – MICHELLE TROCONIS By: Jon L. Schoenhorn, Her Attorney (#101793) Jon L. Schoenhorn & Associates, LLC 108 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106-1514 Tel.: (860) 278-3500 Fax: (860) 278-6393 Casemanagement@schoenhorn.com CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically transmitted on the date of this pleading to the following: Sean McGuinness, Asst. State’s Attorney sean.mcguinness@ct.gov Michelle Manning, Asst. State’s Attorney michelle.manning@ct.gov Stamford Superior Court - Part A 123 Hoyt Street Stamford, CT 06905 Fax: (203) 965-5791

From:

Full Memo: Michelle Troconis' attorney files new request to move trial to Hartford

Michelle Troconis and her legal team continue to make their case as to why her trial should be moved out of Stamford, and into Hartford. New court filings this week from Troconis’ attorney addressed this concern as Troconis awaits trial in connection with the disappearance and presumed death of...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

Thanks, Tink. I’m going to see if I can copy some of the tweets and send them out. That means I have to read them, though-ugh!

 

[Seattle1]

The State's attorney has to "shut down" this fiasco. Sharing SEALED court records on a public site must violate some rules of judicial conduct....I would hope.

I might add there's a very "self-serving" interpretation of the facts that should be saved for the opening or closing of a trial.

I think the first question that must be answered is whether or not the subject files are still sealed. It would not surprise me if Shoehorn petitioned for the docs released and/or not sealed from the public --citing the parties deceased.

I just read a Supreme Court decision today where the High Court ruled in favor of the defendant for dismissal of the case against him for ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy’ for publishing on the internet information from an investigative case file about the death of their son, because the case file was obtained legally and sharing the docs with the public is protected by the First Amendment!

I'm truly finding that sometimes the 1st Amendment can be a stab in the heart by a knife that continues turning!

Yes, find out if the files are sealed because I'm afraid if she obtained them legally, MT sharing them on Twitter is protected.

In a matter decided by the High Court, a victim's family requested the case file from the attorney general and was denied, citing the investigation was still open, but a short time later, another request for the case file was granted to a 3rd party, and the recipient proceeded to share the entire set of files with the public before the victim's family received the file or could be prepared for the content on the internet including the autopsy photos.

The Judge ruled that while it was unfortunate there was a timing delay in the release of the case file to the family when they were no longer restricted from public release (i.e., the grand jury did not indict), the documents obtained by the 3rd party were legally obtained and therefore Tweeting them, putting them on google docs, or Scribd is protected under the First Amendment.

 

[Tink56]

I think the first question that must be answered is whether or not the subject files are still sealed. It would not surprise me if Shoehorn petitioned for the docs released and/or not sealed from the public --citing the parties deceased.

I just read a Supreme Court decision today where the High Court ruled in favor of the defendant for dismissal of the case against him for ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy’ for publishing on the internet information from an investigative case file about the death of their son, because the case file was obtained legally and sharing the docs with the public is protected by the First Amendment!

I'm truly finding that sometimes the 1st Amendment can be a stab in the heart by a knife that continues turning!

Yes, find out if the files are sealed because I'm afraid if she obtained them legally, MT sharing them on Twitter is protected.

In a matter decided by the High Court, a victim's family requested the case file from the attorney general and was denied, citing the investigation was still open, but a short time later, another request for the case file was granted to a 3rd party, and the recipient proceeded to share the entire set of files with the public before the victim's family received the file or could be prepared for the content on the internet including the autopsy photos.

The Judge ruled that while it was unfortunate there was a timing delay in the release of the case file to the family when they were no longer restricted from public release (i.e., the grand jury did not indict), the documents obtained by the 3rd party were legally obtained and therefore Tweeting them, putting them on google docs, or Scribd is protected under the First Amendment.

Thanks for the explanations about the changing view of family/divorce information.

Here's the link to the Ct Court Case information for the the Dulos divorce. If I am reading the information correctly, one can read the file (if permitted) in a court house or judicial building. It does not mention that files can be copied and those copies being shared publicly.

Where would one find out if Schoenhorn has applied to use these publicly? I think that Schoenhorn was given permission to read the family study. And, again, from memory he was forbidden by oe off the judges to publicly share these documents.

Here's the link to the internet information about the divorce:

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTFA175016797S

 

[Jmoose]

I think the first question that must be answered is whether or not the subject files are still sealed. It would not surprise me if Shoehorn petitioned for the docs released and/or not sealed from the public --citing the parties deceased.

I just read a Supreme Court decision today where the High Court ruled in favor of the defendant for dismissal of the case against him for ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy’ for publishing on the internet information from an investigative case file about the death of their son, because the case file was obtained legally and sharing the docs with the public is protected by the First Amendment!

I'm truly finding that sometimes the 1st Amendment can be a stab in the heart by a knife that continues turning!

Yes, find out if the files are sealed because I'm afraid if she obtained them legally, MT sharing them on Twitter is protected.

In a matter decided by the High Court, a victim's family requested the case file from the attorney general and was denied, citing the investigation was still open, but a short time later, another request for the case file was granted to a 3rd party, and the recipient proceeded to share the entire set of files with the public before the victim's family received the file or could be prepared for the content on the internet including the autopsy photos.

The Judge ruled that while it was unfortunate there was a timing delay in the release of the case file to the family when they were no longer restricted from public release (i.e., the grand jury did not indict), the documents obtained by the 3rd party were legally obtained and therefore Tweeting them, putting them on google docs, or Scribd is protected under the First Amendment.

According to MT, or whoever is tweeting in her name, at least some of the documents are public, and obtained on the up & up. I don’t know if it’s true, but even if so, there might be reasons for her not to share them in her tweets (IMO). My greater concern, actually, is regarding her telling of “the real truth

Thanks for the explanations about the changing view of family/divorce information.

Here's the link to the Ct Court Case information for the the Dulos divorce. If I am reading the information correctly, one can read the file (if permitted) in a court house or judicial building. It does not mention that files can be copied and those copies being shared publicly.

Where would one find out if Schoenhorn has applied to use these publicly? I think that Schoenhorn was given permission to read the family study. And, again, from memory he was forbidden by oe off the judges to publicly share these documents.

Here's the link to the internet information about the divorce:

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTFA175016797S

This is what I recall, as well. This was never meant to be publicly distributed.

 

[Seattle1]

Thanks for the explanations about the changing view of family/divorce information.

Here's the link to the Ct Court Case information for the the Dulos divorce. If I am reading the information correctly, one can read the file (if permitted) in a court house or judicial building. It does not mention that files can be copied and those copies being shared publicly.

Where would one find out if Schoenhorn has applied to use these publicly? I think that Schoenhorn was given permission to read the family study. And, again, from memory he was forbidden by oe off the judges to publicly share these documents.

Here's the link to the internet information about the divorce:

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTFA175016797S

I can't necessarily speak to the public release of Family Court records, governed under the Civil Rules of Procedure, because by the very nature of civil matters, there are Statutory reasons long in place for why certain records are not accessible to the public. Nonetheless, I think we agree that Shoenhorn is most likely behind MT's barrage of Tweets with attachments, and not likely he's used her cover to disclose anything not covered by the first amendment. That doesn't mean we have to like it!

However, what you are saying about publicly accessible Civil records being available for viewing in person at the courthouse, court kiosk, etc., seems to me to be universal. I know printing the document is available at some Court desks for a king's ransom of $1-2 per page! But to be clear, under both Civil and Criminal procedures, there's a difference between a record being sealed by Court Order (disclosed by the court clerk to defense counsel, defendant, or prosecutor for limited purpose), and a record made inaccessible to the public.

In the matter of the third party, Family Investigation Report that was Ordered prepared by the Court, the Court sealed this record when the hearing on the matter involving the report was incomplete because the party left the hearing before the hearing was concluded. As to ever making this report public, I think the Court has been clear that this is not an option. (Also see this is consistent with CT Practice Book 25-60).

Unlike civil cases, Court records in criminal cases are presumed to be accessible to the public, except under limited situations including a statute, rule, regulation, or Chief Justice Directive. But even for records with an exception to public disclosure, it has to be in the form least restrictive such as redacting all or part of the record. Generally, to make criminal records inaccessible to the public, a Motion must be filed with the Court, served on the opposing party, and made public in the Public Register of Actions.

If after the Motions hearing, the Court grants the Motion, not making the record accessible can't be indefinite, and an expiration date for the Order is required. Any extension of the expiration date would also require a Motion filed, served on the opposition, and the hearing date made public. Since the Motion and hearing dates are required to be public records, information about specific court records ruled inaccessible to the public is generally available in the Register of Actions (ROA) for a case.

Court Records FAQs - CT Judicial Branch

Family Matters
Evaluation or Studies:

Closed, except to parties and counsel (unless otherwise ordered by court).
Practice Book 25-60

Files (Civil/Family)

Open, unless sealed by court order.

Civil file and documents are available to the public when the clerk receives them officially by time-stamping the documents.

Files (Criminal)

Open, unless sealed.

Available upon filing. In cases with a great degree of public interest where a high demand is expected, the clerk should make extra copies of the documents and have them available at the counter or make multiple copies for distribution upon payment of a fee.

 

[Seattle1]

Interesting results are pursuant to a 1996 law overhauling telecommunications. IMO, adding more fuel to the use of Twitter, YT, FB, etc. with impunity and obviously, one additional shield for warriors of the First Amendment.

What you should know about Section 230, the rule that shaped today's internet

Twenty-six words tucked into a 1996 law overhauling telecommunications have allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to grow into the giants they are today.

www.pbs.org

 

[Jmoose]

I can't necessarily speak to the public release of Family Court records, governed under the Civil Rules of Procedure, because by the very nature of civil matters, there are Statutory reasons long in place for why certain records are not accessible to the public. Nonetheless, I think we agree that Shoenhorn is most likely behind MT's barrage of Tweets with attachments, and not likely he's used her cover to disclose anything not covered by the first amendment. That doesn't mean we have to like it!

However, what you are saying about publicly accessible Civil records being available for viewing in person at the courthouse, court kiosk, etc., seems to me to be universal. I know printing the document is available at some Court desks for a king's ransom of $1-2 per page! But to be clear, under both Civil and Criminal procedures, there's a difference between a record being sealed by Court Order (disclosed by the court clerk to defense counsel, defendant, or prosecutor for limited purpose), and a record made inaccessible to the public.

In the matter of the third party, Family Investigation Report that was Ordered prepared by the Court, the Court sealed this record when the hearing on the matter involving the report was incomplete because the party left the hearing before the hearing was concluded. As to ever making this report public, I think the Court has been clear that this is not an option. (Also see this is consistent with CT Practice Book 25-60).

Unlike civil cases, Court records in criminal cases are presumed to be accessible to the public, except under limited situations including a statute, rule, regulation, or Chief Justice Directive. But even for records with an exception to public disclosure, it has to be in the form least restrictive such as redacting all or part of the record. Generally, to make criminal records inaccessible to the public, a Motion must be filed with the Court, served on the opposing party, and made public in the Public Register of Actions.

If after the Motions hearing, the Court grants the Motion, not making the record accessible can't be indefinite, and an expiration date for the Order is required. Any extension of the expiration date would also require a Motion filed, served on the opposition, and the hearing date made public. Since the Motion and hearing dates are required to be public records, information about specific court records ruled inaccessible to the public is generally available in the Register of Actions (ROA) for a case.

Court Records FAQs - CT Judicial Branch

Family Matters
Evaluation or Studies:

Closed, except to parties and counsel (unless otherwise ordered by court).
Practice Book 25-60

Files (Civil/Family)

Open, unless sealed by court order.

Civil file and documents are available to the public when the clerk receives them officially by time-stamping the documents.

Files (Criminal)

Open, unless sealed.

Available upon filing. In cases with a great degree of public interest where a high demand is expected, the clerk should make extra copies of the documents and have them available at the counter or make multiple copies for distribution upon payment of a fee.

Thank you-this is helpful information-and you are right; we don’t have to like what they are doing.

 

[Jmoose]

I just sent Michelle Manning an email regarding MT’s tweets. I’m pretty sure that she and the prosecutor’s office are already aware-and what Seattle says is likely true that they are not doing anything that is actionable, but we’ll see.

 

[Laughing]

I just sent Michelle Manning an email regarding MT’s tweets. I’m pretty sure that she and the prosecutor’s office are already aware-and what Seattle says is likely true that they are not doing anything that is actionable, but we’ll see.

You've focused their vision. If those prosecutors see MT as we do -- imho they will assign someone to watch & catch the first toe over the line.

Fingers crossed & all that!

 

[Jmoose]

I am actually surprised at the lack of interest that the State of CT has in the stuff MT is tweeting-and tagging high profile news people. She is giving her testimony, and mis-characterizing things that have been said to her in court, implying that it indicates she is innocent. I don’t think Judge White actually said her compliance was “stellar” did he? I know that in a prior hearing, he said something like “of course she is compliant-that’s the purpose of the ankle bracelet!”

 

[LosAngeles]

It appears MT's pre-trial is still scheduled on August 9th in Stamford @ 9 a.m. Okee Dokey!

 

[pernickety]

It appears MT's pre-trial is still scheduled on August 9th in Stamford @ 9 a.m. Okee Dokey!

AttorneyinJennifer Dulos case wants cellphone evidence and search of Farmington home thrown out

Aug. 1—Schoenhorn filed two more motions last week to have a judge prohibit prosecutors from using cellphone tower data from several towns on May 23 and 24, 2019. He contends the criteria was overly "broad" and the search warrant didn't develop probable cause that his client was involved in a...

news.yahoo.com

Aug. 1—Schoenhorn filed two more motions last week to have a judge prohibit prosecutors from using cellphone tower data from several towns on May 23 and 24, 2019. He contends the criteria was overly "broad" and the search warrant didn't develop probable cause that his client was involved in a crime.

In a separate motion filed Friday, Schoenhorn also wants evidence seized at 4 Jefferson Crossing, the Farmington home where Troconis was living with Fotis Dulos at the time of the disappearance, thrown out on the grounds police didn't establish the 15,000-square-foot house as a crime scene.

The motions could be discussed during Troconis' next appearance in state Superior Court in Stamford on Aug. 9.

 

[Seattle1]

AttorneyinJennifer Dulos case wants cellphone evidence and search of Farmington home thrown out

Aug. 1—Schoenhorn filed two more motions last week to have a judge prohibit prosecutors from using cellphone tower data from several towns on May 23 and 24, 2019. He contends the criteria was overly "broad" and the search warrant didn't develop probable cause that his client was involved in a...

news.yahoo.com

Aug. 1—Schoenhorn filed two more motions last week to have a judge prohibit prosecutors from using cellphone tower data from several towns on May 23 and 24, 2019. He contends the criteria was overly "broad" and the search warrant didn't develop probable cause that his client was involved in a crime.

In a separate motion filed Friday, Schoenhorn also wants evidence seized at 4 Jefferson Crossing, the Farmington home where Troconis was living with Fotis Dulos at the time of the disappearance, thrown out on the grounds police didn't establish the 15,000-square-foot house as a crime scene.

The motions could be discussed during Troconis' next appearance in state Superior Court in Stamford on Aug. 9.

Good luck with that! A no body homicide and Shoenhorn wants MT's cell phone location tracking evidence thrown out!

 

[Jmoose]

So re: Troconis’s recent tweets…she’s been tagging various people in media with her tweets, including a local reporter (Lisa Backus), who has now blocked her. And another who said that she wasn’t going to block her, but requested that MT (or whoever) stop tagging her in the tweets. Since that happened, all of the tweeting with the contents of the private documents, and her self-serving “testimony” has stopped. Someone somewhere else within social media said that the prosecution is aware that she is doing this. I don’t think it has had the desired effect with the media, but who knows?

 

[sds71]

The Connecticut Supreme Court Monday rebuffed an attempt by Michelle Troconis to obtain a sealed transcript from a child custody hearing that she had hoped would include evidence supporting her defense against charges that she conspired in the murder and disappearance of Jennifer Farber Dulos.


To allow such “collateral” attacks on judicial rulings would create chaos in the administration of justice, the court said.

“It would wreak havoc on the judicial system to allow a trial court in an administrative appeal to second-guess the judgment of another trial court in a separate proceeding involving different parties, and possibly to render an inconsistent ruling,” the court said.
Such reversals could also leave the interests of parties to the original litigation unprotected – such as the five Dulos children who were subjects of the custody hearing.

“Of particular concern to this court was the fact that the interests of all of the affected parties may not be adequately protected in a collateral proceeding,” the court said.
Schoenhorn, the court said, should have sought to unseal the transcript in the court where it was issued.

CT Supreme Court rebuffs Troconis’ attempt to gain transcript of secret custody fight in Dulos divorce

Troconis wanted access to the transcript of a two-day custody hearing in the bitter divorce of Jennifer and Fotis Dulos.

www.courant.com

 

[pernickety]

The Connecticut Supreme Court Monday rebuffed an attempt by Michelle Troconis to obtain a sealed transcript from a child custody hearing that she had hoped would include evidence supporting her defense against charges that she conspired in the murder and disappearance of Jennifer Farber Dulos.


To allow such “collateral” attacks on judicial rulings would create chaos in the administration of justice, the court said.

“It would wreak havoc on the judicial system to allow a trial court in an administrative appeal to second-guess the judgment of another trial court in a separate proceeding involving different parties, and possibly to render an inconsistent ruling,” the court said.
Such reversals could also leave the interests of parties to the original litigation unprotected – such as the five Dulos children who were subjects of the custody hearing.

“Of particular concern to this court was the fact that the interests of all of the affected parties may not be adequately protected in a collateral proceeding,” the court said.
Schoenhorn, the court said, should have sought to unseal the transcript in the court where it was issued.

CT Supreme Court rebuffs Troconis’ attempt to gain transcript of secret custody fight in Dulos divorce

Troconis wanted access to the transcript of a two-day custody hearing in the bitter divorce of Jennifer and Fotis Dulos.

www.courant.com

So now Atty JS can add another issue for writing the appeal if she's not acquitted. $$$...

 

[Tink56]

The Connecticut Supreme Court Monday rebuffed an attempt by Michelle Troconis to obtain a sealed transcript from a child custody hearing that she had hoped would include evidence supporting her defense against charges that she conspired in the murder and disappearance of Jennifer Farber Dulos.


To allow such “collateral” attacks on judicial rulings would create chaos in the administration of justice, the court said.

“It would wreak havoc on the judicial system to allow a trial court in an administrative appeal to second-guess the judgment of another trial court in a separate proceeding involving different parties, and possibly to render an inconsistent ruling,” the court said.
Such reversals could also leave the interests of parties to the original litigation unprotected – such as the five Dulos children who were subjects of the custody hearing.

“Of particular concern to this court was the fact that the interests of all of the affected parties may not be adequately protected in a collateral proceeding,” the court said.
Schoenhorn, the court said, should have sought to unseal the transcript in the court where it was issued.

CT Supreme Court rebuffs Troconis’ attempt to gain transcript of secret custody fight in Dulos divorce

Troconis wanted access to the transcript of a two-day custody hearing in the bitter divorce of Jennifer and Fotis Dulos.

www.courant.com

It appears that JS will try any tactic that might delay MT's trial.

If I recall preventing MT from being charged as an accessory and going to trial was Andrew Bowman's goal.

If JS keeps filling motions with different courts, MT might just make it to her daughter's HS graduation without her ankle bracelet. Am sure MT and her lawyer are cheering loudly. (On the positive side, this extended time has allowed the Dulos children time to grow and mature and come to terms with their new lives, as mentioned in an earlier article.)

However, I can't really tell if JS has finally started to go through all the evidence that was delivered to his office a couple of years ago. The judicial system is broken in many ways, IMO.

Is the hearing on Wednesday open to the public? reporters? It would be soothing to hear hints of of this case finally going to trial. If MT is so innocent, let a jury hear the information.

 

[sds71]

“While I do have other means available to get these transcripts if I need them, I still believe that the illegal withholding of court transcripts without a public hearing, a right to object, and a finding of good cause that outweighs the public’s right to attend court proceedings, is unconstitutional,” Schoenhorn said in a written statement to News 8. “I brought this civil action on my own behalf as a matter of principle. I guess the court is not as concerned as I remain about the secret proceedings held behind closed doors without a good cause finding. While I am disappointed in the ruling, it clarifies what remedy is not available. This ruling doesn’t hamper my representation of Michelle Troconis or any other client.”

Child custody records in Jennifer Farber Dulos case to remain sealed, state court rules

NEW CANAAN, Conn. (WTNH) — Michelle Tronocis’ legal team will not be able to access sealed documents in a custody case between Jennifer Farber Dulos and Fotis Dulos, a state appellate c…

www.wtnh.com

 

[Jmoose]

He just wants to make public, the agony that Jennifer was going through prior to her murder. How this exonerates his client is beyond me. It certainly does not make MT look innocent in any way-I believe he is just trying to make everyone look bad. This is not evidence of innocence. He is claiming to have other ways to obtain the information? Well, if he does, he will find a way to make it public, for all to see.