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

[Tink56]

Other Odds and Ends....since I'm grabbing time out of the day while I can...FYI:
The People's Bank and other creditors have filed a Joint-Motion for Judgment of Strict Foreclosure:
JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF STRICT FORECLOSURE PURSUANT TO STIPULATION TO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF STRICT FORECLOSURE
The plaintiff, People’s United Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Farmington Bank (People’s United), and the defendants, Fore Group, Inc. (“Fore Group”), Gloria Farber, Executrix of the Estate of Hilliard Farber (“Ms. Farber”), All Current Electric, LLC (“All Current”), Glasco Hearing & Air Conditioning, Inc. (“Glasco”), William J. Sobota (“Mr. Sobota”), 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC (“24/7”), and Christopher J. Hug, Administrator of the Estate of Fotis Dulos (“Mr. Hug,” and collectively with People’s United, Fore Group, Ms. Farber, All Current, Glasco, Mr. Sobota, and 24/7, the “Parties”), respectfully move the Court to enter a judgment of strict foreclosure in accordance with the terms of the accompanying Stipulation to Entry of Judgment of Strict Foreclosure (“Stipulation”). 1 All parties to this foreclosure have appeared and executed this stipulation.
Continued at:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=19400771

Things are moving on.

 

[Tink56]

And, it appears that MT's next pre-trial hearing (remote) will be October 2nd:

Pre-Trial Next Court Date: 10/2/2020 10:00 AM
Current Charges
Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
53a-155 TAMPERING-PHYSICAL EVIDENCE D Felony 1 5/26/2019 Not Guilty
53a-155 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TAMPERING-PHYSICAL EVIDENCE D Felony 1 5/29/2019

And, when I replayed the press conference, Attorney Schoenhorn stated he would be filing with the Appellate Court in the next 10-14 days. Wonder if he is going to wait for Judge Blawie to rule???

 

[Seattle1]

**I am still not fully convinced that Fd's intention was to Actually commit suicide. My thought is that Fd fully expected to be Found 'in time' by AC. She was sent on an errand and then came back to the house before heading to Court in Stamford.

^^rsbm

I somewhat agree about not intending to die on that attempt but I do believe FD would commit suicide before ever sentenced to prison (if he thought he was going to be convicted rather than go to prison). I think he believed he still had a bit more time before trial.

I agree that FD did not want to attend his hearing because he needed more time to figure out how to correct his insufficient bail collateral. Had FD attended the emergency bond hearing as scheduled, he was not passing go, collecting $200 BUT HEADING STRAIGHT TO JAIL AS SOON AS HEARING OVER.

Perhaps his "attempted at suicide" would buy him a week of "medical leave/delay" to pony up some fresh collateral.

MOO

 

[HopeForTheBest]

Wow. What a team we have here. You all are stars—shining light.

 

[Jmoose]

I have always thought that Fd never meant to “check out” permanently. In the dictionary next to “manipulative”, it’s got his picture, IMO. I think he was extremely manipulative with everybody around him, especially Jennifer and the children-unlike MT, they couldn’t easily get away from him. However, I do believe that he would kill himself before going to prison for life (that is, if he couldn’t beat it out of town first...). It is my opinion that he expected AC to find him before permanent damage was done; he would spend a little time in the hospital charming nurses and doctors, having a little breathing room to finagle some financing for his bond. I am still wondering why Pattis & Smith left him alone like they did-by January, they must have known that he needed (and wanted) major hand-holding. I can see why Smith wouldn’t do it; it is my opinion that he disliked Dulos. But this guy was going to be their meal ticket out of CT obscurity-more so than even Alex Jones. They knew he was starting to lose his you-know-what, after tearing down the JFD memorial near 4JC. Why did they leave him to his own devices when they knew he was likely to get locked up that very day?

 

[Cloudydiamond]

Would this couple by any chance be the Mitchells?

It is 110% absolutely them.

 

[pernickety]

I have always thought that Fd never meant to “check out” permanently. In the dictionary next to “manipulative”, it’s got his picture, IMO. I think he was extremely manipulative with everybody around him, especially Jennifer and the children-unlike MT, they couldn’t easily get away from him. However, I do believe that he would kill himself before going to prison for life (that is, if he couldn’t beat it out of town first...). It is my opinion that he expected AC to find him before permanent damage was done; he would spend a little time in the hospital charming nurses and doctors, having a little breathing room to finagle some financing for his bond. I am still wondering why Pattis & Smith left him alone like they did-by January, they must have known that he needed (and wanted) major hand-holding. I can see why Smith wouldn’t do it; it is my opinion that he disliked Dulos. But this guy was going to be their meal ticket out of CT obscurity-more so than even Alex Jones. They knew he was starting to lose his you-know-what, after tearing down the JFD memorial near 4JC. Why did they leave him to his own devices when they knew he was likely to get locked up that very day?

I think Smith was afraid of the nasty threats against particularly Smith coming in from the guy who's now been charged with the threats. Maybe he didn't want to be a target, walking beside FD. As to Pattis, off chasing another claim to fame & $$$, he had his $250,000 and that contract that wouldn't pass ethical muster, and had no interest in guiding his client "through the valley of the shadow of death", as he so poignantly claimed, with his long striped scarf wrapped around his neck like a fashionable poet. MOO

 

[ivegotthemic]

Good insight pernickety. I think we need a lawyer here!

Your research and comments are so valuable to these discussions, Hopefully one of the forum attorneys can also help us make sense of Schoenhorn's meanderings.

My mind always goes back to the person driving a getaway car in a holdup in which someone is killed. The driver is just a culpable as the person pulling the trigger in most cases. I don't know about the charging documents, however.

Just in case anyone was confused about conspiracy vs accomplice liability (there both pretty similar sounding)

Conn. Statute § 53a-48. Conspiracy. Renunciation - (a) A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy.

For conspiracy charges neither party ever has to explicitly state they agree to commit this crime. Its enough if the parties make it clear by their actions that their working towards the common objective. The prosecution may prove agreement by mere circumstantial evidence. That is, the prosecution can show that the parties committed acts in circumstances strongly suggesting that there must have been a common plan. The overt act, where required, may be any act which is taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. It does not have to be an act that is criminal in itself. Thus acts of mere preparation will be sufficient. So literally anything MT did to help with disposing of JDs body would be enough.

Conn. Statute § 53a-8. Criminal liability for acts of another (a) A person, acting with the mental state required for commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable for such conduct and may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.

For aiding and abetting applies to one who aids, abets, encourages or assists another to perform a crime, will himself be liable for that crime. Words, by themselves, may be enough to constitute the requisite link between accomplice and principal — if the words constituted encouragement and approval of the crime, and thereby assisted commission of the crime, then the speaker is liable even if he did not take any physical acts. The person must intend for that specific crime to be committed (if they intend to help a robbery, but a murder occurs instead they can avoid liability). The most important thing here is that the person knows that his conduct will encourage or assist another person in committing a crime.

Finally an accessory after the fact is: One who knowingly gives assistance to felon, for the purpose of helping him avoid apprehension following his crime, is an accessory after the fact. Under modern law, the accessory after the fact is not liable for the felony itself, as an accomplice would be. Instead, he has committed a distinct crime based upon obstruction of justice, and his punishment does not depend on the punishment for the underlying felony

Hopefully that helps clear up the difference, if not let me know. There all so similar it can be tricky

 

[pernickety]

Just in case anyone was confused about conspiracy vs accomplice liability (there both pretty similar sounding)

Conn. Statute § 53a-48. Conspiracy. Renunciation - (a) A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy.

For conspiracy charges neither party ever has to explicitly state they agree to commit this crime. Its enough if the parties make it clear by their actions that their working towards the common objective. The prosecution may prove agreement by mere circumstantial evidence. That is, the prosecution can show that the parties committed acts in circumstances strongly suggesting that there must have been a common plan. The overt act, where required, may be any act which is taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. It does not have to be an act that is criminal in itself. Thus acts of mere preparation will be sufficient. So literally anything MT did to help with disposing of JDs body would be enough.

Conn. Statute § 53a-8. Criminal liability for acts of another (a) A person, acting with the mental state required for commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable for such conduct and may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.

For aiding and abetting applies to one who aids, abets, encourages or assists another to perform a crime, will himself be liable for that crime. Words, by themselves, may be enough to constitute the requisite link between accomplice and principal — if the words constituted encouragement and approval of the crime, and thereby assisted commission of the crime, then the speaker is liable even if he did not take any physical acts. The person must intend for that specific crime to be committed (if they intend to help a robbery, but a murder occurs instead they can avoid liability). The most important thing here is that the person knows that his conduct will encourage or assist another person in committing a crime.

Finally an accessory after the fact is: One who knowingly gives assistance to felon, for the purpose of helping him avoid apprehension following his crime, is an accessory after the fact. Under modern law, the accessory after the fact is not liable for the felony itself, as an accomplice would be. Instead, he has committed a distinct crime based upon obstruction of justice, and his punishment does not depend on the punishment for the underlying felony

Hopefully that helps clear up the difference, if not let me know. There all so similar it can be tricky

The state's case is that FD committed the murder in New Canaan--that was the covert act that resulted in the conspiracy charges against MT and KM, who were charged in the Stamford/Norwalk District, where the murder is alleged to have taken place. For the conspiracy to commit murder charges against MT and KM to stick, would the fact that FD wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit murder (but only the murder) be a problem--as that would be the covert act? If the conspiracy to commit murder charges relate only to a conspiracy between KM and MT, as MT's lawyer told the court, then were they indicted in the wrong court b/c their actions in the conspiracy took place in either the Avon or Hartford District? Would the state's cases against MT and KM be stronger with aiding and abetting charges, which wouldn't depend on a conspiracy that involved FD?

 

[Seattle1]

The state's case is that FD committed the murder in New Canaan--that was the covert act that resulted in the conspiracy charges against MT and KM, who were charged in the Stamford/Norwalk District, where the murder is alleged to have taken place. For the conspiracy to commit murder charges against MT and KM to stick, would the fact that FD wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit murder (but only the murder) be a problem--as that would be the covert act? If the conspiracy to commit murder charges relate only to a conspiracy between KM and MT, as MT's lawyer told the court, then were they indicted in the wrong court b/c their actions in the conspiracy took place in either the Avon or Hartford District? Would the state's cases against MT and KM be stronger with aiding and abetting charges, which wouldn't depend on a conspiracy that involved FD?

^^bbm
I understood that conspiracy to commit murder did not apply to FD because the State believes that the act was completed.

The act of murder completed by FD, and he was charged with murder.

MOO

 

[ivegotthemic]

The state's case is that FD committed the murder in New Canaan--that was the covert act that resulted in the conspiracy charges against MT and KM, who were charged in the Stamford/Norwalk District, where the murder is alleged to have taken place. For the conspiracy to commit murder charges against MT and KM to stick, would the fact that FD wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit murder (but only the murder) be a problem--as that would be the covert act? If the conspiracy to commit murder charges relate only to a conspiracy between KM and MT, as MT's lawyer told the court, then were they indicted in the wrong court b/c their actions in the conspiracy took place in either the Avon or Hartford District? Would the state's cases against MT and KM be stronger with aiding and abetting charges, which wouldn't depend on a conspiracy that involved FD?

1. No the fact that FD wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit murder (but only the murder) be a problem. Connecticut follows something called Wharton's rule. Under Wharton's rule (which is not followed by all states) someone cant be charged with the substantive crime (homicide) AND conspiracy to commit that crime (here conspiracy to commit murder). This is because law makers don't want the charge of conspiracy to be used to pile up more punishment on the conduct that is already punished by the offense. States that follow Wharton's rule basic feel like its getting punished twice for the same act, which is not allowed. So in these states the conspiracy charge merges with the substantive charge. FD not having the charge of conspiracy listed against would make no difference to KM and MT's conspiracy charges

2. The crime of conspiracy is deemed to have been committed in any jurisdiction (location) in which any member of the conspiracy committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. So the fact that they were charged in the "wrong jurisdiction" would not impact the charges. Crimes often cross city and county lines so that doesn't limit how the case is charged. If the defendant feels they are not being tried in the right court they can make a motion stating that court does not have the "personal jurisdiction" to hear the case which is a civil procedure issue and when filed the person is basically say "this court does not have the authority to hear or rule of these charges against this person. If the court agreed the prosecutor would simply just have to refile in the "right" court, however this is really unlikely in criminal cases. Usually there's a hearing where the judge agrees or disagrees that the charges across jurisdictional boundaries should be bound over to one court

3. It depends, which I know is the most lawyer answer ever (sorry). I haven't read the case file so I cant say for sure. So for conspiracy, its not necessary all parties be involved from the beginning, someone could after the murder was committed and still be found a conspirator. Both conspiracies and accomplice liability can be proven using circumstantial evidence, so depending on what the prosecutor has it may be easier for them to prove conspiracy then accomplice liability or vice versa.

Hopefully this was clear, let me know if I can translate any further lawyer speak or if you have any more questions! This was actually a fun review for me

 

[CTGrammy]

1. No the fact that FD wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit murder (but only the murder) be a problem. Connecticut follows something called Wharton's rule. Under Wharton's rule (which is not followed by all states) someone cant be charged with the substantive crime (homicide) AND conspiracy to commit that crime (here conspiracy to commit murder). This is because law makers don't want the charge of conspiracy to be used to pile up more punishment on the conduct that is already punished by the offense. States that follow Wharton's rule basic feel like its getting punished twice for the same act, which is not allowed. So in these states the conspiracy charge merges with the substantive charge. FD not having the charge of conspiracy listed against would make no difference to KM and MT's conspiracy charges

2. The crime of conspiracy is deemed to have been committed in any jurisdiction (location) in which any member of the conspiracy committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. So the fact that they were charged in the "wrong jurisdiction" would not impact the charges. Crimes often cross city and county lines so that doesn't limit how the case is charged. If the defendant feels they are not being tried in the right court they can make a motion stating that court does not have the "personal jurisdiction" to hear the case which is a civil procedure issue and when filed the person is basically say "this court does not have the authority to hear or rule of these charges against this person. If the court agreed the prosecutor would simply just have to refile in the "right" court, however this is really unlikely in criminal cases. Usually there's a hearing where the judge agrees or disagrees that the charges across jurisdictional boundaries should be bound over to one court

3. It depends, which I know is the most lawyer answer ever (sorry). I haven't read the case file so I cant say for sure. So for conspiracy, its not necessary all parties be involved from the beginning, someone could after the murder was committed and still be found a conspirator. Both conspiracies and accomplice liability can be proven using circumstantial evidence, so depending on what the prosecutor has it may be easier for them to prove conspiracy then accomplice liability or vice versa.

Hopefully this was clear, let me know if I can translate any further lawyer speak or if you have any more questions! This was actually a fun review for me

The mere fact that the conspiracy to commit murder Resulted in the Actual Murder IN New Canaan, puts the case in the correct jurisdiction of Stamford/Norwalk.

Had the conspiracy not resulted in the murder in this case, then yes, the case would fall within the Hartford jurisdiction.

Perhaps MT should have thought about that when she conspired, aided, abeited, encouraged, and assisted Fd before, during, and after the fact.

Surely a UCONN educated attorney would Know this, right?

JS is grasping at straws and I think he is taking MT for a ride.

Can everyone say 'billable hours'?

IMO.

 

[ivegotthemic]

The mere fact that the conspiracy to commit murder Resulted in the Actual Murder IN New Canaan, puts the case in the correct jurisdiction of Stamford/Norwalk.

Had the conspiracy not resulted in the murder in this case, then yes, the case would fall within the Hartford jurisdiction.

Perhaps MT should have thought about that when she conspired, aided, abeited, encouraged, and assisted Fd before, during, and after the fact.

Surely a UCONN educated attorney would Know this, right?

JS is grasping at straws and I think he is taking MT for a ride.

Can everyone say 'billable hours'?

IMO.

apologies not super familiar with Connecticut geography so ill trust your guidance on this. And i absolutely agree about the attorney. The amount of pre-trial motions filed in this case is ridiculous. The attorney has to know they will all likely be denied which makes me wonder why hes continued to do so when its clearly just pissing off the judge

 

[Tink56]

THANK YOU to ivegotthemic, CtGrammy, and Seattle1! You all deserve more than a like. This helps a great deal.

I can't get a handle on what Attorney Schoenhorn is "up to." He's all over the place, makes excuses, and obviously hates driving to Stamford. Hope the Troconis Clan received a one time billing quote, because AS looks like he is appealing, writing memos, and seeking evidentiary hearings. He's off the map, IMO...JMO.

 

[ivegotthemic]

THANK YOU to ivegotthemic, CtGrammy, and Seattle1! You all deserve more than a like. This helps a great deal.

I can't get a handle on what Attorney Schoenhorn is "up to." He's all over the place, makes excuses, and obviously hates driving to Stamford. Hope the Troconis Clan received a one time billing quote, because AS looks like he is appealing, writing memos, and seeking evidentiary hearings. He's off the map, IMO...JMO.

No problem, and honestly you can inbox me anytime. The law is usually not written in a way/style that makes it easy digestible for the public so im happy to translate legal speak into plain english when I can. Plus it feels good to know that going through the torture that is law school, hasn't been for nothing lol

 

[MsJosie]

THANK YOU to ivegotthemic, CtGrammy, and Seattle1! You all deserve more than a like. This helps a great deal.

I can't get a handle on what Attorney Schoenhorn is "up to." He's all over the place, makes excuses, and obviously hates driving to Stamford. Hope the Troconis Clan received a one time billing quote, because AS looks like he is appealing, writing memos, and seeking evidentiary hearings. He's off the map, IMO...JMO.

I have wondered if MT has a lot of in put to appeals, hearings etc. way back in the beginning of the FD case when info came out about Marisela Arreaza trouble with the law and her medical practice it was mentioned she basically was trying to ‘run’ her defense. MA has gone to many if not all of MT defense meetings....if she is the money paying for MT defense (I think so) I would not be surprised if these strange filings etc are from her.....other felons have done the same thing. It does not work well.

defense lawyers take cases thinking it will be a big payout but forget about family dynamics that go along with the money. JMOO

The only thing I can say is I doubt that MT will represent herself....ever. Moo

 

[CTGrammy]

apologies not super familiar with Connecticut geography so ill trust your guidance on this. And i absolutely agree about the attorney. The amount of pre-trial motions filed in this case is ridiculous. The attorney has to know they will all likely be denied which makes me wonder why hes continued to do so when its clearly just pissing off the judge

Yes, 4JC is in Farmington which falls within the Hartford district.

 

[ivegotthemic]

I have wondered if MT has a lot of in put to appeals, hearings etc. way back in the beginning of the FD case when info came out about Marisela Arreaza trouble with the law and her medical practice it was mentioned she basically was trying to ‘run’ her defense. MA has gone to many if not all of MT defense meetings....if she is the money paying for MT defense (I think so) I would not be surprised if these strange filings etc are from her.....other felons have done the same thing. It does not work well.

defense lawyers take cases thinking it will be a big payout but forget about family dynamics that go along with the money. JMOO

The only thing I can say is I doubt that MT will represent herself....ever. Moo

IMO the attorney is doing his client an injustice by filing so many motions, especially when the argue the same issues the courts already ruled on. Its a waste of the courts time and resources, and is just going to frustrate the judge. It in no way indears his client to the court. Even if the client or their family is pushing for certain filings, its the attorneys job to be realistic with their client and tell them its likely a waste of time or theres no merit to their request. The attorney is putting himself is a position where he could potentially receive monetary sanctions from the judge, and it could seriously hurt their reputation in the legal community. So Im having trouble understanding why the attorney would think this is worth it. The trial is still a ways a way and the judge is already done with the games so theres probably going to be a tighter leash than normal
during trial

 

[pernickety]

1. No the fact that FD wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit murder (but only the murder) be a problem. Connecticut follows something called Wharton's rule. Under Wharton's rule (which is not followed by all states) someone cant be charged with the substantive crime (homicide) AND conspiracy to commit that crime (here conspiracy to commit murder). This is because law makers don't want the charge of conspiracy to be used to pile up more punishment on the conduct that is already punished by the offense. States that follow Wharton's rule basic feel like its getting punished twice for the same act, which is not allowed. So in these states the conspiracy charge merges with the substantive charge. FD not having the charge of conspiracy listed against would make no difference to KM and MT's conspiracy charges

2. The crime of conspiracy is deemed to have been committed in any jurisdiction (location) in which any member of the conspiracy committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. So the fact that they were charged in the "wrong jurisdiction" would not impact the charges. Crimes often cross city and county lines so that doesn't limit how the case is charged. If the defendant feels they are not being tried in the right court they can make a motion stating that court does not have the "personal jurisdiction" to hear the case which is a civil procedure issue and when filed the person is basically say "this court does not have the authority to hear or rule of these charges against this person. If the court agreed the prosecutor would simply just have to refile in the "right" court, however this is really unlikely in criminal cases. Usually there's a hearing where the judge agrees or disagrees that the charges across jurisdictional boundaries should be bound over to one court

3. It depends, which I know is the most lawyer answer ever (sorry). I haven't read the case file so I cant say for sure. So for conspiracy, its not necessary all parties be involved from the beginning, someone could after the murder was committed and still be found a conspirator. Both conspiracies and accomplice liability can be proven using circumstantial evidence, so depending on what the prosecutor has it may be easier for them to prove conspiracy then accomplice liability or vice versa.

Hopefully this was clear, let me know if I can translate any further lawyer speak or if you have any more questions! This was actually a fun review for me

Thanks for introducing us to Wharton’s Rule, though I’ve found several online sources that disagree with your interpretation of it. Here’s one:
What is the WHARTON'S RULE? Law Dictionary | LexRoll.com

“Wharton’s Rule prevents a conspiracy conviction when an underlying substantive offense requires more than one actor, such as adultery or dueling, and in which the immediate consequences of the crime rest on the parties themselves rather than on society.”

Unlike adultery or dueling, the act of murder--or hindering prosecution-- doesn’t take more than one person to accomplish.

Note that the state has recently charged MT with both tampering with physical evidence and conspiracy to tamper with it. Sentencing is up to the court. Two different 20-yr sentences can be served simultaneously rather than consecutively, if the court rules that way.

Can you cite the CT statute that deals with Wharton's Rule?

 

[Tink56]

I have wondered if MT has a lot of in put to appeals, hearings etc. way back in the beginning of the FD case when info came out about Marisela Arreaza trouble with the law and her medical practice it was mentioned she basically was trying to ‘run’ her defense. MA has gone to many if not all of MT defense meetings....if she is the money paying for MT defense (I think so) I would not be surprised if these strange filings etc are from her.....other felons have done the same thing. It does not work well.

defense lawyers take cases thinking it will be a big payout but forget about family dynamics that go along with the money. JMOO

The only thing I can say is I doubt that MT will represent herself....ever. Moo

Yes, MT's mother has been front and center and Andrew Bowman was quickly fired after MT was indicted for conspiracy to commit murder.

The Stamford Advocate ran and article on June 7, 2019, that summarized MT's mother creative work on her defense in Miami. It was part of an article about MT's arrest and the first interviews with police. Not sure it will work in this case.
It's also available on the Press Reader:
PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines.

Jennifer Dulos case: Michelle Troconis’ mother faced her own legal trouble

Arreaza and another woman were indicted on federal Medicaid fraud charges. Arreaza was accused of paying at least one person to become a Medicaid patient in her behavioral health practice, D & D Psych. The practice provided behavioral health counseling to children and adults in Miami-Dade County.

According to federal documents, Arreaza and the co-defendant paid the person more than $19,000 in 2012 and 2013 so the practice could receive Medicaid payments. Court filings indicate that federal agents believed the practice was offering rides to "counseling" sessions to potential clients with the drivers providing a kickback to anyone who agreed to receive Medicaid benefits.

Arreaza closed the practice after being indicted and turned the office into a space for her "legal team" working on her defense, court papers said. Federal authorities accused Arreaza of paying D & D employees to work on her defense so they couldn't be interviewed by federal agents. Arreaza's attorney then sought to suppress evidence later gathered at the space since it was then considered a "law office," dedicated to her defense, court papers said.

Arreaza, who lives in Miami Beach, Fla., and the co-defendant agreed to plead guilty in 2017 to offering health care kickbacks.

The case was dismissed last December after Arreaza and the co-defendant were approved for a pretrial diversion program.