Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #32

[afitzy]

Marissa Alter‏Verified account @MarissaAlter 1m1 minute ago
Dulos just said “that was the agreement” when Weinstein asked if Farber should gift him money this year when Jennifer is missing and Dulos charged in connection. @News12CT


FD is 'expecting' a 'gift' from GF this year too? Mmmmm. Might be time to call up and make another request for a psych exam as this expectation from FD IMO is bordering on delusional??? MOO

 

[sds71]

AishaMbTV

Tense moments. Weinstein to Fotis: why would Gloria Farber, mother to Jennifer agree to continue to give you this 14k “gifts” through 2019 even after Jennifer filed for divorce in 2017, and now after Jennifer’s disappearance and your charges

 

[afitzy]

Thanks .
What’s the outcome if FD is impeached?

I think there are a range of possible outcomes but we aren't there yet so will have to wait to see where the FD cross goes with Atty Weinstein. I'm curious though if Atty Weinstein will be able to prove perjury. Atty Weinstein already introduced the idea from Judge Heller of FD having no issue not telling the truth while under oath and on the stand. I think this all needs to play out on cross examination. Wonder if we will see the Judge intervene at any point? MOO

 

[oviedo]

So is his testimony that the monies from her Dad were gifts even though there are loan documents? Is everything now a gift based on his testimony that this is what her dad wanted??? Unbelievable but then it is FD after all....

 

[afitzy]

Marissa Alter‏Verified account @MarissaAlter 10m10 minutes ago
Dulos just said “that was the agreement” when Weinstein asked if Farber should gift him money this year when Jennifer is missing and Dulos charged in connection. @News12CT

Wonder if we will hear more about this 'agreement' that FD believes to exist. Its unfortunate that GF was not deposed for this case to possibly clarify this issue. I am sure there were other reasons for not having this happen but I am not sure how the Judge will handle these statements made by FD where there is nothing other than his 'word' to support them? Tricky situation IMO as not surprisingly there is zero in writing. MOO

 

[Jmoose]

What you describe is precisely what LA said in her deposition. She submitted email to FD/FORE with a breakdown of her time via FORE bookkeeping and babysitting. JD then was to cut a personal check to FD or FORE (this wasn't entirely clear IMO that LA knew the answer to this issue in the deposition) for the babysitting portion of LA time.

I got this from the deposition, but it looks like FD is disputing it...my money is on the nanny because he is the only one with a reason to lie. I suppose that our collective outrage over the fact that Jennifer reimbursed FORE Group for the nanny’s services might need to be checked in the sense that when we think about Jennifer paid, it could have actually come out of the collective “house money”, to which he could say he contributed-but I don’t believe he contributed much or even any of his “salary” to the household income.

 

[afitzy]

So is his testimony that the monies from her Dad were gifts even though there are loan documents? Is everything now a gift based on his testimony that this is what her dad wanted??? Unbelievable but then it is FD after all....

Yes, FD waved a magic wand over the FORE books/records and deemed the prior loans to be gifts. The honourable CPA of course disagreed with this wand waving and so was fired and a new accountant found that blessed the wand waving move and converted the prior FIL loans to equity. We heard from CPA Urbanski about this situation yesterday a bit but the tweets weren't detailed enough to sort it all out. CPA Urbanski was the fired accountant who did the books for 10 years and was deposed in Family Court as well. MOO

 

[afitzy]

I got this from the deposition, but it looks like FD is disputing it...my money is on the nanny because he is the only one with a reason to lie. I suppose that our collective outrage over the fact that Jennifer reimbursed FORE Group for the nanny’s services might need to be checked in the sense that when we think about Jennifer paid, it could have actually come out of the collective “house money”, to which he could say he contributed-but I don’t believe he contributed much or even any of his “salary” to the household income.

Agree. I wish Atty Weinstein would ask precisely how much FD contributed to such family expenses (my guess is little as she had the greater income) but its not relevant to this particular case so it probably won't be asked unfortunately.

 

[kimch33kim]

Yes, FD waved a magic wand over the FORE books/records and deemed the prior loans to be gifts. The honourable CPA of course disagreed with this wand waving and so was fired and a new accountant found that blessed the wand waving move and converted the prior FIL loans to equity. We heard from CPA Urbanski about this situation yesterday a bit but the tweets weren't detailed enough to sort it all out. CPA Urbanski was the fired accountant who did the books for 10 years and was deposed in Family Court as well. MOO

Yup and hired the crooked accountant who is the crooked attorney's paralegal's ex husband. Imagine that

 

[Jmoose]

So is his testimony that the monies from her Dad were gifts even though there are loan documents? Is everything now a gift based on his testimony that this is what her dad wanted??? Unbelievable but then it is FD after all....

I think FD’s plan all along was to wait until HF died, (which he knew was imminent since he was ill for a while) so he could call the loan a “gift”. He didn’t think Jennifer or her mother were any kind of a match for him, and didn’t think they could outlast him in the financial battle. I think he was hoping GF would die before the civil case got to court, and that he would be the last man standing, and that would be the end of it. I think he always planned to stop paying as soon as his father-in-law died.

 

[oviedo]

Agree. I wish Atty Weinstein would ask precisely how much FD contributed to such family expenses (my guess is little as she had the greater income) but its not relevant to this particular case so it probably won't be asked unfortunately.

hmm how could he correlate FD's income from FG to the family budget? and without stealing from the Farbers, he had no income??? wouldn't it be nice if he could somehow weave this in???
JMO

 

[afitzy]

I think FD’s plan all along was to wait until HF died, (which he knew was imminent since he was ill for a while) so he could call the loan a “gift”. He didn’t think Jennifer or her mother were any kind of a match for him, and didn’t think they could outlast him in the financial battle. I think he was hoping GF would die before the civil case got to court, and that he would be the last man standing, and that would be the end of it. I think he always planned to stop paying as soon as his father-in-law died.

I simply hope that the Judge has sufficient skill and wisdom to sort through the FD testimony as it doesn't sound that any documented proof exists to support the 'gift' claim by FD.

 

[CTGrammy]

Maybe plaintiff realized he has better evidence, and can use the credit card info to expose FD, as attempting to deceive the court?
In general, could judge be “lengthening the leash” in order to decrease reasons for appeal?

DITTO.

IMO, that is exactly what the Judge is doing. Let it All in and then FD has absolutely no reason for an appeal when Dr. GF wins this case.

I am sure that Weinstein has found something in these credit card documents to use against FD, therefore removing his objection.

It is All going to backfire for FD.

IMO.

 

[afitzy]

hmm how could he correlate FD's income from FG to the family budget? and without stealing from the Farbers, he had no income??? wouldn't it be nice if he could somehow weave this in???
JMO

I wish there was a camera in the courtroom as the tweets aren't frequent or detailed enough to capture the nuances being argued. Very frustrating but will hang with it to see what come out on cross!

 

[afitzy]

1. Dave Altimari‏ @davealtimari 46m46 minutes ago
   Weinstein asking Dulos if we had ever filed a false bank statement or testified falsely. Dulos says to “best of my knowledge” always filed true financial statements. He said he “respectfully disagreed with judge” in family court.
   
   
   
2. 
   Dave Altimari‏ @davealtimari 53m53 minutes ago
   Weinstein begins his cross examination asking Dulos if he has always testified truthfully in court. Brings up fact that Judge Heller rules that Dulos provided false testimony during divorce trial.
   
   
   FD is now using the 'best of my knowledge standard' for filing true financial statements! IMO this is a YES or NO question. Not sure why Judge isn't intervening here. IMO the statement about FD "respectfully disagreeing with Judge Heller" is a whopper as well, given that Judge Heller was a corporate litigator prior to being a Judge and so IMO was well versed in these matters and certainly well positioned to opine on the quality (or lack thereof) of FD financial disclosure which appeared in Family Court. I'm a bit shocked that this is being allowed as it seems to be a bit of a farce now and certainly almost where we saw similar discussions on the exact same issues with Judge Heller in Family Court. I have to admit to being baffled here! I do hope the Quickbooks enter the discussion as LA in her deposition testified that the Quickbooks DO EXIST! MOO

 

[Morgan10028]

Huh interesting, thank you for explaining this. I was just under the false impression that it was simple and no bank would say no when someone wants to send them a half of a million dollars.

One small detail, it turns out I was mistaken when I said the bank was Greek. The person is Greek but the bank is in Dubai. Just wanted to correct myself in case that changes anything!

No, ha, it doesn't change anything. Interesting that you mention Dubai because Citibank specifically mentioned Dubai when calling out the names of banks in the central banking system (I just don't remember the name of the Dubai bank). Basically, it was explained as one bank in each country (ie. in my case with China it was Bank of China who is the central bank who wires to the US). He suggested that I open up an account in the US branch of Bank of China, which would allow other banks in China to wire to the US as long as the money was transferred through the central bank in China. Does that make any sense?

 

[Myvice]

We need a Sam Kraemer on this case. The work he did on the Frazer case was phenomenal.

 

[Nanobody]

No, ha, it doesn't change anything. Interesting that you mention Dubai because Citibank specifically mentioned Dubai when calling out the names of banks in the central banking system (I just don't remember the name of the Dubai bank). Basically, it was explained as one bank in each country (ie. in my case with China it was Bank of China who is the central bank who wires to the US). He suggested that I open up an account in the US branch of Bank of China, which would allow other banks in China to wire to the US as long as the money was transferred through the central bank in China. Does that make any sense?

I think so! We're getting above my pay grade here. Sorry if I am misunderstanding. Does that mean that the banks don't want to pay the fees involved with an international wire transfer, but can avoid paying those fees if they have a branch/do business in the country the money is going to?

 

[CTGrammy]

Sorry but I believe you are wrong. Gift taxes are paid by the donor not the receiver .....

Not necessarily.

If the donor did not pay the taxes on a gift, then the receiver is responsible, in CT.

Regardless, WE ALL KNOW they were NOT Gifts.

We can assume that since they were Loans, that HF did not pay a gift tax and if FD wants to now claim the loans as gifts, then FD is Responsible for the taxes owed.

FD Cannot Win here. It does not matter what he wants to call the Loans, FD is the one responsible.

1. Loans - FD owes the HF Estate
2. Gifts - FD owes Tax and = Fraud on Tax Documents
3. Equity = FD owes Tax and = Fraud on Tax Documents
4. Forgiveness of Debt = FD owes Tax
5. Investment by HF = FD owes Tax on income produced by said Investment

FD has Dug Himself a Hole.

IMO.

 

[Outforjustice]

Not necessarily.

If the donor did not pay the taxes on a gift, then the receiver is responsible, in CT.

Regardless, WE ALL KNOW they were NOT Gifts.

We can assume that since they were Loans, that HF did not pay a gift tax and if FD wants to now claim the loans as gifts, then FD is Responsible for the taxes owed.

FD Cannot Win here. It does not matter what he wants to call the Loans, FD is the one responsible.

1. Loans - FD owes the HF Estate
2. Gifts - FD owes Tax and = Fraud on Tax Documents
3. Equity = FD owes Tax and = Fraud on Tax Documents
4. Forgiveness of Debt = FD owes Tax
5. Investment by HF = FD owes Tax on income produced by said Investment

FD has Dug Himself a Hole.

IMO.

If we “pretend” the money was a gift , can anyone estimate /calculate what his taxes would be ?