February 20, 2012

Stamford, Connecticut – If you have been charged with driving under the influence in Stamford, Greenwich, Darien, New Canaan, Wilton, Westport or Fairfield, then one of the first things you should do is to contact an experienced Connecticut DUI attorney.  The Connecticut DUI (driving under the influence) and DWI (driving while intoxicated) laws are established by the state legislature and include a variety of charges and penalty ranges.  Case law and administrative rulings further complicate the issue. These proceedings can be very complex and many involve strict timelines.  Because of this, the attorney you choose should have extensive experience in this field.

Many people who receive a DUI are under the impression there is nothing that can be done to defend against the charge or to help mitigate the damages.  “This is simply not true,” states Mark Sherman, an experienced Stamford criminal lawyer who has successfully represented numerous clients in DUI / DWI cases.  “There are a number of things that can go wrong in the administering of field sobriety tests, collection of breath and urine samples, or even with witness statements.”  An attorney will examine every aspect of the case to make certain that your rights are protected.

Like many states, Connecticut has an implied consent law, which means that everyone who gets a driver’s license in this State is granting consent to submit to a sobriety test when requested by a law enforcement officer.  Refusal to take the test results in an immediate suspension of driving privileges.  “We have seen some cases where law enforcement has stated that a driver has refused a sobriety test and the driver has a different story,” Mark explains.  For instance, a driver may not speak English clearly and not understand the request that is being made.  Because perceptions of the event may differ, Connecticut law does allow a defendant a hearing to determine if they have truly refused the test, but the hearing request must be made within a specified seven day period; another reason seeking an attorney immediately is essential.     A DUI or DWI can have a significant impact on your life.  A loss of driving privileges, fines and jail time are all potential consequences.  In some instances, drivers are required to install interlock devices on their vehicles once their driver’s license has been reinstated.  Other areas of your life, including employment, professional licensing and insurance costs are impacted as well.  “At our practice,” Mark Sherman continues, “our goal is first and foremost to get all charges dropped.  If that is not possible than we strive to obtain the most lenient sentence.”

If you are facing DUI / DWI charges, then the best thing you can do for yourself is to retain an experienced Connecticut DUI attorney.  The state’s attorneys prosecuting you are well-versed in the law, understand the system, and are not responsible for assisting you in any way.  You need your own trained advocate to secure your rights and assist you in navigating through these difficult circumstances.  Mark describes his approach in this manner: “People are human and will make mistakes at some point in their lives.  In most cases, these are good people who deserve second chances.  At our firm we work to give them that opportunity.”

About Mark Sherman

Mark Sherman, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Fordham University of Law, has been a member of the Connecticut, New York and Florida state bar associations since 1998.  He is based out of Stamford, Connecticut and practices in both Connecticut and New York.  He has been honored as a “Super Lawyer” in criminal defense by the peer-reviewed New England and Connecticut Super Lawyers Programs for 2011 and 2012.

A Norwalk woman is suing a funeral home for cremating her husband, who died suddenly while she was out of the country, without properly notifying her or obtaining her permission.

In the suit, Helen Hyland claims the director of Maloney Funeral Home, 55 Walnut St. in Winsted, Conn., hoodwinked her by faxing a death certificate specifying cremation, which she signed while she was trying to secure a flight home.

According to court documents, Hyland, a native of Poland, was visiting relatives there when her husband, Thomas Hyland, died of natural causes in his sleep on May 22, 2005, at the couple’s Winsted home. Jerry Hamilton, president, director and sole owner of the funeral home, had the body cremated based on an order signed one day later by Hyland’s mother, 85-year-old Margaret Hyland, who lived with the couple and was legally blind.

The suit, filed more than two and a half years ago on Helen Hyland’s behalf by her attorney, Mark Sherman, claims negligence on the part of the funeral home for not properly consulting his client or notifying her of the cremation.

The suit claims that, when they came to the home to remove the body, Maloney Funeral Home director Jerry Hamilton and his assistant Heidi Mertz pressured the grieving, elderly mother into making a decision as to what to do with the body to avoid losing the account because the funeral home had no cold storage facility for long-term keeping.

Hyland she needed to make a decision “in a hurry.” She then told the director she wanted to consult her other children, but no one from the funeral home ever attempted to contact the deceased’s surviving relatives, including his siblings and his children, about the matter. No one from the funeral home called Helen Hyland in Poland to ask her what her wishes were in spite of her having left a list of phone numbers for places she would be staying in Poland on the family’s refrigerator door.

Presumably, Sherman wrote, directors did not want the body to go to a competing funeral home capable of storing the body until the widow returned to Connecticut to give burial instructions.

The suit cites state statute 45a-318, which outlines a chain of custody for deceased people and specifies that only the custodian has the right to make decision as to its disposal. The statute dictates that spouses have automatic custody unless they have abandoned their marriage, in which case living children assume the legal rights followed by surviving parents.

“The funeral home tried to leap frog over the statute in order to close a quick cremation sale,” Sherman said.

According to the suit, Helen Hyland is seeking in excess of $15,000 in damages. A judge recently denied the defense’s motion to dismiss the case, and it is scheduled to go to trial in early April in Stamford Superior Court.

The suit also states that Maloney Funeral Home was in violation of Connecticut’s Unfair . . .

Trade Practices Act, which allows for plaintiffs to collect up to three times the amount of damages awarded by a jury that finds in their favor.

In an interview, Sherman declined to specify the amount of damages his client would probably receive if the suit were decided in her favor, saying it was for a jury to decide.

However, because he had invoked CUTPA legislation, the funeral home’s “exposure,” meaning the amount of money a plaintiff is likely to receive, would be “very great,” he said.

Hamilton declined to comment for this story when contacted by phone Tuesday.

As a licensed funeral director, the suit claims, Hamilton should have been aware of Connecticut statutes governing the custody and disposition of remains and obligating him to contact his client.

“In total defiance of Connecticut law, the Defendant never inquired about the decedent’s wishes, never sought meaningful contact with the decedent’s surviving spouse … never broached the possibility of transferring the account to a funeral home that could actually provide cold storage, and never sought guidance from the Probate Court as to which family member ought to granted disposition rights,” Sherman wrote in the suit.

The suit claims negligent infliction of emotional distress. Helen Hyland “suffered horribly” in the days after learning of her husband’s cremation, Sherman wrote, and at times “she wanted to die.”

For a few days upon her return, the suit states, “she was confined to her bed, never wanting to leave her husband’s ashes … As she put it, her ‘soul was ill.’ Helen says thinking about the way her husband was treated ‘like a dog,’ continues to be a daily source of pain and upset.”

Over the past two years, Helen Hyland has been receiving treatment and taking Prozac for “depression” and “an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety.” Her psychotherapist testified that “90 percent” of the woman’s psychological problems is a result of her husband’s “wrongful cremation.”

Under oath, Hamilton and Mertz claimed that “bad blood” existed between Margaret Hyland and her daughter-in-law during depositions, so the elderly woman misled them about her daughter-in-law’s imminent return to Winsted.

Hamilton testified they had no choice but to cremate because the body would deteriorate “like a piece of meat sitting on a counter.” Hamilton claimed he was under the impression that Helen Hyland had “abandoned” her husband and that, therefore, the funeral home was only bound to comply with the mother’s wishes.

Helen Hyland learned of her husband’s death on May 23, 2005. She requested that the death certificate be faxed to her so that she could obtain a bereavement ticket through her travel agency because, according to Sherman, she could not afford to purchase another ticket immediately without the discount. Hamilton sent the death certificate, on which cremation had already been checked off as means of disposal, and the widow signed the form in Poland and faxed it back the same day.

“(B)ecause she was upset and had a hard time understanding what it said, she was unaware that ‘cremation’ was marked as the chosen method of disposition,” Sherman wrote. “As far as Helen knew, her husband’s body was in the funeral home, awaiting her decision about its disposition.”

Helen Hyland obtained the ticket and flew home May 25, 2005. Prior to that, she sent word to her mother-in-law that she was returning “to organize everything and to say goodbye” to her husband.

According to court documents, Hamilton testified that Margaret Hyland told him that “she did not know” if her daughter-in-law was coming back to the country.

However, in a sworn deposition, Margaret Hyland said, “At no time did I ever tell Maloney that Helen would not be returning to the United States, and that Helen was not going to be involved in the funeral process.”

Sherman wrote that the funeral home knew his client had not abandoned her husband because an employee faxed the death certificate to her in order for her to obtain an earlier return flight than the one she had originally booked.

In depositions, Hamilton at first testified that he “had no idea” what the purpose of sending the document was. Later, he contradicted himself and offered the signed certificate as proof that he had complied with the law dictating chain of custody.

Hamilton also said in a deposition that he did not know “how Probate runs” and thought cremation was the most expedient option, according to court documents.

“The mother was going for cremation. I would have gone for cremation also. I don’t understand what the purpose is of me going to the Judge of Probate, getting custody of the body, when I am going to cremate, the same as the (what the) mother is going to do,” Hamilton said in a deposition.

Sherman said that cremation is against his client’s religious beliefs because she is a Roman Catholic. Also, she had planned on being buried by her husband’s side and was deprived of a last opportunity to see his body, Sherman said.

“There have been many, many lawsuits in this state where people have had their loved ones buried in the wrong plot and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Sherman said. “This case is even worse than that because we can’t get the body back. Also, they are Catholic. It flies in the face of their religious beliefs.”

Pequot Capital Management — a pioneering and well-connected hedge fund that gained fame for racking up years of strong returns — is shutting its doors amid a revived insider-trading probe

As recently as 2001, Pequot Capital Management Inc. managed about $15 billion, making it one of the largest hedge funds in the world. But in recent years, investors have shunned it, partly because of an off-again, on-again insider-trading investigation, including allegations that founder Arthur Samberg may have engaged in insider trading in Microsoft Corp. stock with the help of one of his then employees, who joined Pequot from the software giant.

Mr. Samberg, 68 years old, has strenuously denied any impropriety.

Late Wednesday, he threw in the towel. In a letter to investors, Mr. Samberg wrote: “Public disclosures about the continuing investigation have cast a cloud over the firm and have become a source of personal distraction.” Calling the situation “increasingly untenable for the firm and for me,” he said, “I have concluded that Pequot can no longer stay in business.”

The closure caps a half-decade of legal and public-relations headaches at Pequot, including the insider-trading probe, which eventually spawned Senate hearings that excoriated the Securities and Exchange Commission’s handling of the matter. In addition, a former SEC staff member told Congress he suspected John Mack, then a top executive at Credit Suisse, had tipped off Mr. Samberg about a merger deal.

The hearings proved among the most aggressive public airings of the internal workings of the SEC in recent years and helped set the stage for further congressional scrutiny of the agency, which recently came under fire for missing the massive Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff.

The SEC has never brought charges against Pequot, Mr. Samberg or Mr. Mack. Mr. Mack, currently chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley, also served briefly as chairman of Pequot.

The Pequot investigation was reopened late last year, according to Mr. Samberg’s letter, amid new questions about a $2.1 million sum that Pequot in 2007 agreed to pay to David Zilkha, the former Microsoft employee. That payment came to light last year as part of Mr. Zilkha’s divorce proceedings. Mr. Zilkha left Pequot in September 2001. A Pequot spokesman earlier this year said the payment was related to a civil claim regarding Mr. Zilkha’s employment. A lawyer for Mr. Zilkha didn’t return a call seeking comment.

More recently, Pequot was among several investment firms mentioned in court documents regarding a “pay to play” investigation of a New York state pension fund, in which several firms are alleged to have made payments to a middleman in order to secure investments from the pension fund. Pequot hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing in the case. A person familiar with the matter said that investigation didn’t spur Mr. Samberg’s decision to close the firm.

There is no indication that charges in the insider-trading case are imminent.

Mr. Samberg, along with George Soros, Michael Steinhardt and Julian Robertson, ranks among hedge-fund pioneers. Over his 22 years as a stock-picker, Mr. Samberg racked up annualized gains of 16.8% after investor fees were deducted, compared with 8.5% for the S&P 500, according to his letter to investors.

Despite returns like these, investors have been reluctant to sign up, partly due to concerns about the investigation. It also became harder for Mr. Samberg to recruit top talent to join the firm’s staff.

Currently, Mr. Samberg manages about $3 billion. Earlier this decade, Mr. Samberg and Pequot’s co-founder, Daniel Benton, split the firm, with each continuing to oversee roughly half the assets under management.

Mr. Samberg has told associates that he now plans to retire. Jonathan Gasthalter, a spokesman for Mr. Samberg, said he wasn’t available for comment.

The news comes at a precarious time for the hedge-fund industry. Just a year or so ago, investors flocked to investments like these. The managers of hedge funds — who operate with relatively little oversight and earn outsize performance fees — were the envy of Wall Street.

While hedge funds generally have held up better than investment banks and mutual funds, many irked their investors last year with disappointing returns. Others didn’t let their investors pull money out, citing difficult trading conditions.

The current insider-trading investigation concerns whether Pequot used information provided by Mr. Zilkha in trades that helped yield Pequot more than $2 million, according to an SEC report.

Earlier, the SEC and the Justice Department had investigated emails sent by Mr. Zilkha as he was in the process of joining the hedge fund. After a two-year probe, including interviews and a review of emails, the SEC concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring a case, the agency report said.

The investigation has generated controversy not only for Pequot but also for the SEC. A former SEC enforcement attorney, Gary Aguirre, said he was fired for trying to seek Mr. Mack’s testimony. SEC officials said they fired Mr. Aguirre because his behavior became erratic and he couldn’t get along with his colleagues. SEC officials also said they never called in Mr. Mack because there was never enough evidence to warrant his testimony.

STAMFORD ­– A Michigan woman, deemed the “head slave” of a Greenwich investor’s online fantasy world, rejected a plea deal Tuesday in an extortion case and is planning to fight the charges.

Patricia Miller, 45, of Cassopolis, Mich., appeared in state Superior Court, where she told a judge she would not accept a plea agreement on felony charges that would have allowed her to avoid jail time.

Miller is charged with first-degree conspiracy to commit larceny, first-degree criminal attempt at larceny and second-degree larceny for allegedly using various Internet personas to blackmail DuPont heir and Riverside resident Stephen Dent.

Assistant State’s Attorney David Applegate told Judge Richard Comerford the sides have been unable to reach an agreement to resolve the case Tuesday.

Comerford asked Miller if she understood that by not accepting the plea deal she could be facing nearly 50 years in jail if convicted.

“I take it you are not intending to avail yourself of the state’s offer,” Comerford said.

Miller said she understood her decision, and the case was put on the trial list.

After her hearing, Miller said she was taking the case to trial because she wanted justice and felt her side of the story had yet to be told.

“Basically, I am trying to clear my name,” said Miller, who is married and has one daughter and two grandchildren. “I feel this is a selective prosecution. I think it’s very unfair.”

Dent, who viewed himself a “slave master,” had a network of women he chatted with on the “sugar daddy” dating site SeekingArrangement.com. Miller is the fourth person charged by Greenwich police with attempting or successfully extorting the millionaire as a result of these online relationships.

The Michigan woman is described in police reports as the “harem mother” who would call Dent’s “slaves” to make sure they were fulfilling their end of the arrangement, which entailed getting breast implants and sending the investor sexually explicit pictures and chats.

Miller said she felt her actions were not illegal and that she had nothing to do with an Ohio couple, Dawn and Christopher Jessop, who pleaded guilty in May to an extortion scheme that swindled Dent out of more than $100,000.

Miller’s attorney, Mark Sherman, said while police feel Miller committed a crime, he disagrees because Miller and Dent had a consensual relationship in which money was being transferred voluntarily.

“It’s never easy turning down a court offer that doesn’t involve jail time,” Sherman said. “However, Patricia does not want to be branded a felon for the rest of her life based on cyberchatting that may or may not have spun out of control.”

Sherman said he will spend the next few months reviewing evidence on the case taken from Miller’s computers and cell phones.

According to the warrant, Dent came to police on March 1, 2009, to report that two women were attempting to extort him. At that time Dent provided a sworn statement that said, “I had been having a cybersex relationship with two other women, known to me at the time as including Sara Laste and Meghan Allen.” Dent went on to describe how these women — in reality all Miller — would send him text messages demanding money and threatening to come to Greenwich and expose him to all his co-workers.

After police looked into the claims, they found that Miller was allegedly behind all the personas and schemes. Three weeks later, on March 18, the Jessops were busted in Greenwich when they came to try and confront Dent face-to-face and ask for more money.

Miller was arrested soon after the Jessops’ bust, on March 30, but she fought extradition from Michigan until June when she was formally charged in Stamford.

The Jessops’ extortion case garnered national headlines after Greenwich Time exposed Dent’s history of soliciting sex and previous extortion incidents outlined in police reports dating back three years.

In 2007, Dent was extorted by a Queens, N.Y., man, who threatened to release information about Dent’s encounter with a woman and the sex acts they engaged in, which the man’s attorney at the time called “vile” and “vulgar.” A woman also extorted Dent for $9,000, but that incident was never reported to police.

Through those investigations, Dent admitted to spending up to $200,000 on sex at a local hotel in 2007. Police also released a standard form letter Dent would send out to various women offering monthly stipends for time at the hotel.

Dent has not been charged with a crime. Police said they declined to charge Dent in 2007 with patronizing a prostitute because they were going after the more serious crime of extortion and said it would have been difficult to prosecute him based only on statements.

Dent’s attorney, Steven Frederick, of Stamford, did not return a call seeking comment on Tuesday’s developments.

Sherman said when the case goes to trial, Dent will likely be called to testify.

An extensive “sugar daddy” extortion plot that targeted a Greenwich millionaire’s secret online world in which women were his slaves and he was their master all started after an Ohio couple watched an episode of television’s “Dr. Phil,” according to newly released police reports.

The reports also detail the requirements investor Stephen Dent would impose on women he viewed as his online sex slaves, including getting breast implants, visiting fetish Web sites and sending frequent sexually explicit e-mails and pictures.

In an interview with police, Christopher Jessop, 30, of Mansfield, Ohio, called himself the mastermind of the scheme that successfully bilked 54-year-old Dent out of more than $200,000. Jessop said he came up with the idea after watching a segment on “Dr. Phil” that detailed the sugar daddy dating site SeekingArrangement.com.

“I was like, baby, you know, get on the computer and see what this is about,” said Jessop, detailing a conversation he had with his wife, Dawn Jessop, to Greenwich detectives in a March 19 jailhouse interview. “The next thing I know, I mean, these rich guys are just sending us money for nothing “¦ just conversations over e-mail.”

Although the Jessops obtained money from other wealthy men on the Web site, the Jessops told police they only blackmailed Dent.

“We came across Stephen Dent, and he was into some pretty weird stuff,” Christopher Jessop said to detectives. “He turned out just to be a gold mine to us.”

The Jessops’ police reports, released following a Freedom of Information Act request by Greenwich Time, also identify Patricia Miller, 45, of Michigan as the “harem mother,” or head slave, who would help Dent ensure the other women were real and held up their end of the arrangement.

Ironically, police said, Miller was posing as at least four different younger women and used those aliases in an alleged attempt to deceive Dent and later to extort him herself.

The Jessops were arrested in March 2009 after police unraveled their scheme.

Christopher Jessop received 18 months in jail and Dawn Jessop received a suspended sentence with probation after pleading guilty in May. Miller was extradited from Michigan in May on larceny charges. She has not entered a plea.

Dent also was the victim of an extortion attempt in 2007 by a Queens man, Roy Sipel, who threatened to expose Dent, claiming he engaged in “vile and vulgar” acts with his girlfriend in a Greenwich hotel.

In a May 2009 story, Greenwich Time exposed Dent’s history of troublesome online relationships and his role in paying women nearly $200,000 for sex in 2007.

In a statement to police, Dawn Jessop said once she began chatting with Dent, he sent her an e-mail detailing his demands and agreed to send $10,000 a month if she complied.

“Stephen e-mailed me and it stated that he wanted me to learn the values of slavement,” wrote Dawn Jessop in a statement to police. The Jessops told police that Dawn always sent fake pictures of other people and often times it was Christopher engaging Dent in the more sexually explicit conversations, according to police reports.

When Dawn Jessop failed to meet Dent in person, Dent cut her off financially and that led Christopher Jessop to start threatening him, according to police reports.

Christopher Jessop said he needed a way to keep up his now lavish lifestyle. The Jessops told police they spent about $200,000 on jewelry, fine dining and a Range Rover sport utility vehicle between November 2008 and February 2009­ — all money obtained from Dent both legally and illegally.

When Christopher Jessop first threatened Dent, the pair was successful in obtaining $100,000 in hush money, police said, and Dent agreed not to call police.

“I will have no reason to contact the authorities so long as your keep your end of the agreement,” Dent wrote in an e-mail to the Jessops. “I am trusting you to keep your word and delete everything from your computer related to me. The fact that you view this money as compensation, not blackmail, is a good sign. I agree that you earned it, and I am willing therefore to pay for it.”

Christopher Jessop told police he decided to take it one step further after he realized he had one last damaging e-mail, which led him and Dawn to drive to Greenwich, where they confronted Dent.

By this time, however, the FBI and Greenwich Police noticed that Dent was transferring large sums of money by wire and had asked him to come in and tell them what was going on, according to police reports. Dent wore a wire during a meeting with Christopher Jessop and minutes later police arrested him and his wife at a local hotel in March 2009.

Christopher Jessop told police he never imagined things would end up the way they did.

“I just thought it was sickening, the stuff that he was doing and saying to these girls “¦ I guess I tried to take justice into my own hands,” said Jessop. “I did not, honestly, ever in 100 million years even begin to fathom that I could be sitting here in this kind of trouble.”

Dent’s lawyer, Steven Frederick, of Stamford, did not return a call for comment Wednesday for this story.

Mark Sherman, who represented Christopher Jessop and is now representing Miller, said that while one of his clients has taken the fall for a crime, he believes Miller is innocent.

At Miller’s last court hearing, prosecutors offered her a plea deal with a suspended jail sentence and probation. Miller indicated she did not want to accept the offer.

Sherman said Wednesday he hoped to resolve the case prior to a trial, but expected Dent to testify if the case does go to trial.

“It is very likely Mr. Dent would have to testify,” Sherman said.

Miller is due back in court Sept. 1.

STAMFORD — A Stamford mother who says her then-13-year-old son was taken to a bus driver’s home instead of being dropped off at his own house has filed a lawsuit in state Superior Court in Stamford.

The suit, filed last week, says 29-year-old Antonio Wright, a former driver for a company that contracts to operate with Stamford Public Schools to operate the buses, took the Rippowam Middle School student with him to the bus depot in late April 2009 after he completed the bus route, and then took him on an employee shuttle bus and to Wright’s home.

At Wright’s home, the boy and two other children played video games, all without the permission of the boy’s mother, Arva Hylton, the suit says.

Afterward, Wright and the boy exchanged telephone text messages and had at least one telephone call that lasted 27 minutes, the suit states.

“I’m pretty sure they were not talking about student grouping or the bus schedule,” said Hylton’s attorney, Mark Sherman. “Parents need to know how this happened and be assured this is never going to happen again.”

Hylton reported Wright to Stamford police in May, and police applied for an arrest warrant but were rejected, police have said.

The suit, against the bus company, First Student Inc., the Board of Education and the city, claims those entities are responsible for what it says is Wright’s negligent and careless conduct. It also says they were negligent in their supervision of Wright.

Sherman notified the city about the possible suit in September.

Wright was fired at the end of last school year after an investigation by the company that operates buses for the Stamford school system, a company spokeswoman has said.

STAMFORD — A Norwalk psychic charged with lying to police about an assault outside her Greenwich Avenue office took steps to enter a court diversionary program Monday in state Superior Court.

Janet Lee, 35, of 143 Wolfpit Ave., submitted an application for accelerated rehabilitation during a brief court appearance. If granted, the program could wipe away the charges against her that include making false statements and interfering with an officer.

Lee, a psychic who boasts a large, elite clientele, said someone attacked her outside her store at 16 Greenwich Ave. on July 11 and left her with a black eye and a cut on her face. However, investigators said they found several inconsistencies with her story in the weeks following the report.

In Lee’s arrest warrant, Detective Robert Brown Jr. wrote that Lee told her father while at the hospital that her husband had assaulted her in their Norwalk home earlier in the evening. However, Brown said her father changed his story when he questioned him about it, according to the warrant.

Lee said after her court arraignment that she was telling the truth and felt police were treating her unfairly.

“It all came to me as a big surprise,” Lee said in October. “I was brutally beaten, and at the E.R., I never thought I would get arrested.”

Lee’s attorney, Mark Sherman, of Stamford, said despite entering into the program, Lee maintains she did not lie to police.

“This is not an admission of guilt by any means,” Sherman said. “In light of the impact a trial of this case would have on Janet and her family, applying for this program made the most sense.”

In Lee’s arrest warrant, police said they also became suspicious about why Lee did not drive herself to Greenwich Hospital after supposedly suffering a brutal attack, or call police from her cell phone.

Lee told police she believed someone — possibly a group of rival psychics — was targeting her to drive her out of business. She also told Norwalk police she received threatening voice messages over the summer.

Sherman said the court will review her application to the program in the next few weeks. At her next court hearing, a judge will hear from prosecutors to see if they have any objections to granting the program before he makes a final decision. Police also will be notified about the program to see if they have any objections.

The accelerated rehabilitation program is available to first-time offenders who are charged with a nonviolent crime. Once the program is granted, the offender cannot dispute the charges. If the offender violates the terms of the probation, the case is brought back to court, according to the court’s Web site.

Lee is due back in court Dec. 7.

STAMFORD — City police and several federal law enforcement agencies, arrested 43 alleged drug dealers on state and federal narcotics charges this week, toppling three suspected drug rings operating out of the Bronx, N.Y., and Stamford, authorities said.

Three were already in custody and six are still at large, officials said.

In a series of raids Thursday morning, Stamford police worked with local and federal law enforcement agencies to arrest 22 people on federal charges in Stamford and nearby cities. Five more were arrested in New York Wednesday. The arrests come after an investigation that began in August with a wire-tap on an alleged crack cocaine dealer, federal prosecutor Robert Spector said Thursday at U.S. District Court in Bridgeport.

Police in Stamford also arrested 13 individuals on state narcotics offenses, bringing the total number of individuals charged in the operation to 49, including the six still at large. Stamford police’s Narcotics and Organized Crime unit worked with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in addition to neighboring police departments.

Prosecutors said the investigation began with a tap on the phone of Lut Muhammad, a 23-year-old Stamford resident charged with conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine.

The U.S. attorney’s office said wiretaps helped bring down three alleged drug trafficking

organizations. Two operated out of the Bronx and supplied Stamford dealers with large amounts of crack and powder cocaine. In Thursday’s busts, authorities seized two kilograms of crack, more than one kilogram of powder cocaine, two firearms, several vehicles and about $164,000, the U.S. attorney’s office said.

Stamford Police Chief Brent Larrabee said the joint investigation was one of most significant operations his police department had ever accomplished.

“Today’s arrests represent the culmination of many hours of work by a number of law enforcement agencies,” Larrabee said in a statement from the U.S. attorney’s office. “This sweep, which is the largest in the City of Stamford Police Department‘s history, we believe, will have a profound, long-term effect on drug trafficking and associated crime in the city.”

Thirty-six individuals were arrested on five indictments from federal grand juries in New Haven and Bridgeport, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, Nora Dannehy, said in a statement. They were charged with narcotics and firearms offenses and accused of participating in the large-scale distribution of cocaine and crack cocaine in Stamford and surrounding areas.

More than 20 of the federal defendants appeared in the Bridgeport courthouse after being arrested in the wide-ranging drug sweep. Several were accused of conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine.

They appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge William Garfinkel in handcuffs and in three different groups as a pool of waiting defense attorneys took their cases. Friends and relatives of the defendants watched Thursday afternoon’s proceedings from the galley.

When the prosecutors read aloud defendants’ charges and maximum prison terms, audience members gasped at the severity of the possible punishment for some offenses.

“Right now we are focused on getting as much information as we can about these arrests,” said defense attorney Mark Sherman, who represents Okeiba Sadio, a Stamford resident charged with conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. “After the dust settles from this morning’s raid, we will begin parsing through the allegations and distinguishing each defendant’s case from the others.”

Stamford police spokesman Lt. Sean Cooney said officers executed a number of search and arrest warrants Thursday morning and that the operation went smoothly, with no officers injured.

Details about the raids were unavailable because police referred most questions to the U.S. attorney’s office. Top investigators at the police department said they could not comment about the raids.

It’s not just people like John Stamos and David Letterman. Even noncelebrities are increasingly being targeted in alleged blackmail plots, say security and law-enforcement experts.

Some private security experts say a growing number of clients are calling on them for protection from extortion threats. The severe recession and high unemployment rates, as well as general turmoil following last year’s economic meltdown, appear to be swelling the ranks of blackmailers, they say.

“The economy is at low ebb, and people are looking for a mark,” said security consultant Michael Guidry, chief executive of the Guidry Group, in Montgomery, Texas.

Paul Viollis, CEO of the security and investigations firm Risk Control Strategies Inc. in New York, says he’s seen a surge in blackmail cases among high-net-worth clients over the past year. He used to handle about eight a year, he says. Now he has 40 active cases, and is adding two to five more each month.

The surge started last November with the attempted blackmail of one of Mr. Viollis’s clients by a former business partner who had fallen on hard times. The ex-partner said he had knowledge of past Securities and Exchange Commission violations committed by the client. Mr. Viollis says he helped end the blackmail by meeting the extortionist and telling him he would report him to authorities unless he ceased. Mr. Viollis says the allegations were false and the extortionist knew it. Mr. Viollis’s account couldn’t be independently verified.

Sometimes it’s risky personal conduct that exposes individuals to extortion. Earlier this year, Stephen Dent, 55 years old, of Old Greenwich, Conn., complained to police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that women he met through a Web dating site catering to wealthy men demanded money in return for keeping his online activities secret from his wife and others. Mr. Dent already had paid hush money in connection with a similar plot in 2007, according to police reports and court documents.

The alleged extortionists were arrested and charged last March, after a probe by the FBI and local police. A male defendant who was indicted in the case—the husband of one of the women—is now serving 18 months in connection with the plot, and his wife received a suspended sentence of five years, according to their attorney, Mark Sherman. A third woman has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. Mr. Dent hasn’t been charged with any crime. His attorney, Steven Frederick of Stamford, Conn., didn’t return repeated phone calls for comment.

National statistics on blackmail are hard to get because extortion can be a federal or state crime and is charged under a number of different statutes, including larceny, wire fraud and mail fraud. The number of defendants in such federal cases has averaged about 145 per year since 1994, except in 2002, when they suddenly spiked to 205 during the last recession.

Party Photos

The most-publicized recent extortion cases have involved alleged attempts to obtain huge sums of money from well-known entertainers. Just this week, Mr. Stamos, a well-known TV actor, said he went to the FBI after a pair of Michigan residents allegedly demanded $680,000 in exchange for photos taken at a 2004 party in Florida.

According to an FBI affidavit, Mr. Stamos, 46, met the accused at the party and received a number of emails in November threatening to release the pictures to the media. “At the conclusion of the investigation and hearing, the photos will be available and the public will be able to see that the photos are simply John posing with fans,” says a spokesman for Mr. Stamos. The defendants were released on bond pending a hearing, according to court records.

Last month, federal officials said supermodel Cindy Crawford and her husband, Rande Gerber, were victims of an alleged plot by a former nanny’s boyfriend to extort $100,000 in return for a photo taken by the nanny of their young daughter tied up and gagged.

The boyfriend was deported to Germany but allegedly continued to make demands by phone and email. In mid-November, he turned himself in to German authorities and has been charged with extortion in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The U.S. hasn’t made any extradition request with Germany, and the nanny hasn’t been charged, according to federal prosecutors.

Ms. Crawford and Mr. Gerber said they didn’t know of the existence of the photo until they were contacted by the alleged blackmailer in July. They eventually reported the threat to the police, and the FBI began a criminal investigation, the couple said.

“Rande Gerber and Cindy Crawford intend to pursue any and all available legal action against anyone who aids the perpetrator in the distribution or sale of the photograph of their daughter,” their spokeswoman said in a statement.

In October, a television news producer was accused by Manhattan prosecutors of attempting to extort $2 million from Mr. Letterman, 62, in return for silence about the talk-show host’s affair with a female subordinate and other staff members. The defendant’s attorney contends that he was merely offering Mr. Letterman the chance to buy a screenplay based on his affair with the woman, who was also the producer’s ex-girlfriend. The producer says he is innocent, and his attorney has asked the New York state judge to dismiss the charges.

Earlier this year, film stars John Travolta, 55, and wife, Kelly Preston, 47, said they were targets of attempted extortion by a Bahamian paramedic and lawmaker after the sudden death of their son, Jett, 16, there in January. The alleged conspirators threatened to imply that Mr. Travolta was culpable in his son’s death by releasing a medical document unless they were paid $25 million dollars in cash, according to Mr. Travolta’s attorneys. A criminal trial in the Bahamas ended in a mistrial in October. The defendants contend they are innocent.

Security experts say that a growing number of incidents are more about punishing or humiliating the victim than getting money. Often, blackmailers are angry about the success of an associate that they believe is undeserved, say crime experts and academic researchers.

“More than 90% of our cases were opportunistic greed along the lines of [the allegations] in the Travolta case,” says Mr. Viollis, the private investigator. “But since October, it has been more anger, resentment and retribution. It is vengeance. Some involve money, and some are just outright, ‘I want to see you suffer. Resign your position, admit to the board you are a blank blank blank, and I will go away.’ “

In one recent high-profile extortion case, difficult family relationships appeared to play a role. Stuart Ross, 73, of Aventura, Fla., and Stuart Jackson, 80, of Manhasset, N.Y., are accused on felony charges of grand larceny for attempting to extort as much an $11 million in 2008 from David Blitzer, a London-based senior managing director of the Blackstone Group LP, a private-equity fund. Mr. Ross, an entrepreneur who is credited with first importing the popular Smurfs dolls to the U.S. from Belgium in the 1970s, is Mr. Blitzer’s father-in-law. The defendants, who are scheduled to go to trial soon in New York, face up to seven years in prison if convicted.

Escalating Demands

Mr. Ross had initially approached Mr. Blitzer for money to start a new business, but his demands continued to escalate after his son-in-law paid him tens of thousands of dollars. Mr. Ross was also upset because Mr. Blitzer didn’t send him a family photo at Christmas or invite him to Mr. Blitzer’s villa in Italy, among other perceived slights, according to statements he made to investigators in the district attorney’s office.

Mr. Ross couldn’t be reached for comment, but at a court appearance in August 2008, he told Dow Jones Newswires that “we believe this [prosecution] is totally unlawful and totally malicious.” Mr. Jackson, an attorney, also contends he is innocent. “The case is about an effort by Ross, who was my client, to visit his grandchildren,” he said in a recent telephone interview.

A spokeswoman for the Blackstone Group said the company and Mr. Blitzer had no comment.

Security experts are advising clients to be guarded in their personal activities and communications—especially electronic communications—and to beef up their defenses. They suggest conducting periodic background checks on key advisers and household employees, because they and their associates are often the perpetrators of such crimes.

They also say victims of attempted extortion should immediately seek help, because payoffs seldom end the threats. But they also warn that if police or federal investigators are notified, the matter will become public.

A case against Darien-based not-for-profit Friends of Animals continues with accusations of a corporate culture of fear, mishandling of funds and mistreatment of ill employees.

Last summer, a judge dismissed part of a claim by a former Friends of Animals accountant Sharon Konspore against the Darien-based not-for-profit as redundant but denied the request to dismiss claims of whistle-blower retaliation and disability discrimination.

Konspore, who worked for the animal rights charity from May 2008 until she was fired in November 2009, stated in papers filed with the Stamford State Superior Court at the end of 2009 that the firing was in retaliation for reporting “illegal and unethical behavior” by Friends of Animals.

Konspore also alleges that she was fired after missing work due to a legitimate illness.

Konspore was an accountant at Friends of Animals when she claims she what she believed to be a “misuse of donated funds” occurred.

The money was related to Primarily Primates in Texas as well as excessive spending while the charity, she said, was losing money.

Konspore took her concerns to the other charity staff, according to court papers, as well as the state attorney general’s office, both of which resulted in her termination, she claims.

In a court document filed last month, Konspore describes Friends of Animals’ president Priscilla Feral’s “iron fist of fear.”

“There was also a palpable feeling of fear amongst FoA’s employees when it came to disagreeing with Feral’s dictates,” according to court documents.

Regarding Primarily Primates in Texas, Konspore alleges that Friends of Animals contributed more than $3 million toward lawsuits involving the sanctuary.

The documents say People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, was on the other side of the lawsuit, and said Feral testified that “FoA and PETA don’t like each other” and said PETA has “no integrity.”

Konspore said she was concerned that most of the donors to Friends of Animals “were largely unaware that the most significant portion of the money donated to FoA was going to Primarily Primates, and specifically, its litigation battles.”

Konspore also testified she was in a meeting where Feral “specifically cited two employees’ health conditions as reasons for discharging them.”

Konspore also testified she was met with an angry tirade when she questioned cuts to employee benefits while Feral was driving a company BMW.

In response to Konspore’s filing, Friends of Animals management said Konspore’s health was accommodated and she had a poor attitude and was regularly making negative comments about the non-profit going out of business due to financial problems.

Regarding Feral’s BMW, e-mails released by Friends of Animals show her car and its insurance were part of Feral’s compensation package “as well as an asset and benefit to FoA.”

The document also cites Konspore as difficult to work with, and talking about Feral behind her back.

As far as being fired due to her medical condition, Friends of Animals employees testified they made as many accommodations as they could, but the company could not function without a full-time accountant.

After making several accommodations, and confirming with the Department of Labor and their insurance broker, Friends of Animals employees gave Konspore a date by which she would need to return to work — Nov. 3, 2009 — or call to let them know if she could not.

Instead of returning to work, Konspore’s attorney sent a letter to Friends of Animals on that date threatening litigation and asking for an extension until Nov. 20.

“Based on plaintiff’s inability to return to work or supply a timetable for a return, and consistent with its organizational needs, FoA responded that it could no longer hold the position open for plaintiff,” the court documents say.

Feral told The Darien Times in December 2009 that the termination was because Konspore being unwilling to return to work after going on disability.

Feral also told The Times when the lawsuit was filed that the court papers the charity was served with regarding the lawsuit were the first indication that Konspore had reported Friends of Animals for misusing its donations.

“We had no knowledge whatsoever of this,” she said. Feral said that the primate sanctuary in Texas was a proper use of an animal-friendly charity’s donations.

“She’s alleging something wrong in investing in the future of a sanctuary. It is a crazy idea. Whatever she alleges is to torment us into paying her a whopping sum of money. This is a harassment lawsuit,” Feral said at the time.

Friends of Animals declined comment this week.

Konspore’s attorney, Mark Sherman said: “The legal papers speak for themselves and we look forward to presenting Sharon’s case at trial.”

The criminal case against a Darien High School teacher charged with a public indecency misdemeanor, who returned to work last September, is now approaching two years without being resolved.

English department head Douglas Paulsen was cited Nov. 24, 2009, after a 28-year-old man, Eric Soria, accused him of masturbating in a shower while watching Soria at an LA Fitness gym in Norwalk.

He was reinstated to his former position last September after serving a paid suspension last semester following the arrest.

Paulsen’s next court date is Friday, Oct. 28.

In April 2009, Westcott told The Darien Times that Soria had asked for a $55,000 payment from Paulsen due to suffering social awkwardness and emotional trauma since the alleged event.

Court records show Soria filed a civil suit against Paulsen in Dec. 2010.

Soria’s attorney, Nicholas Adamucci, told The Darien Times the civil case is on hold until the resolution of the criminal case.

Once the criminal case is resolved, Adamucci said a deposition of Paulsen is planned.

Adamucci also said he believes Paulsen will be applying for accelerated rehabilitation at the next court date, which he and his client will object to, and added as a former swim coach, Soria finds it “worrisome” that Paulsen was returned to his job at Darien High School before the case was resolved.

Paulsen’s attorney, William Westcott, said his client has continued to appear “in court to defend against the allegations that have been pending for nearly two years now.”

“People who are familiar with the court system know that it is easy to resolve a case quickly for a defendant who wishes to enter a guilty plea,” he said.

“Mr. Paulsen, however, continues to strenuously claim his innocence in thisa case. He has repeatedly declined opportunities to resolve his case through a plea bargain. He remains patient and confident as the process moves forward,” Westcott said.

Schools Superintendent Stephen Falcone declined comment.