Ex-Oxford Tax Collector Case Continued Until March 15
Case is ongoing at Milord Superior Court.
Photos
The court case against a former Oxford tax collector accused of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the tax office is ongoing.
Karen Guillet, 62, of 2 Douglas Lane, appeared briefly at Milford Superior Court on Tuesday with her husband, Nil, to learn that her case had been continued until March 15, according to court clerks. Discussions between prosecutors and Guillet's defense attorney, Dominick Thomas, are ongoing. Thomas told the Valley Independent Sentinel that it's premature to define the discussions between the two sides as plea bargain discussions at this point.
Guillet was arrested after police said she stole $243,902, although town officials say she took at least $670,000 and probably more. Former First Selectman Mary Ann Drayton-Rogers says town officials have reason to believe the thefts went back to at least the year 2000, although the criminal investigation only went back to 2006 because police said they discovered enough theft in that time to charge Guillet to the full extent of the law.
Guillet has been charged with seven felonies, including six counts of first-degree forgery and one count of first-degree larceny.
First-degree larceny, the most serious charge, is a Class B felony punishable by between 1 and 20 years in prison and/or up to a $15,000 fine. First-degree forgery is a Class C felony punishable by between 1 and 10 years in prison and/or up to a $10,000 fine. Guillet is currently free after posting 10 percent of a $100,000 bond.
Guillet has entered a "pro-forma" not guilty plea. "Pro forma" is a Latin term for "as a matter of form." In court, it is a ruling made as a formality in order to move matters along, according to Nolo's plain-English law dictionary.
Dan Dombal
4:01 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
This amazing that the Town audit did not identify this issues for so many years - I sure hope our current leades have implemented some sound buisness systems to prevent this type of abuse
Beth
5:09 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
cannot believe that the courts are pushing her date forward again until March 15th. She has not served in one day in jail in over 2+ yrs while admitting that she stole over $3,000 to our ex-selectman.
Lynn F.
9:48 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Nice hairdo, nice formal jacket, at taxpayers expense!!! Sickening....
Murf
12:31 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
It is amazing the selfishness of people,..more tax payer dollars being wasted. How can someone continue to enjoy $600k of someone else's money and still not see one day in jail?
Jean
5:32 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Looks as if she will only get an ankle bracelet with house arrest and a little (not too hard) slap on the hand. Why are the town officials not crying out? This is sickening!!!!
Citizen X
1:25 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Now that it's come out that the town is short $10.2 million (which it is not, but I like big figures) it should certainly have an effect on both the prosecution & defense (good for the prosecution, not so good for the defense). If any deal is in the works, having these figures come out now could be helpful. If it goes to trial, it will be hard for anyone to have missed the news & the figure of $10.2 million. Even if the town isn't short that amount, & it's not, the underlying message is that former tax collector took some of this & the balance exists because she was so bad at her job. Interesting timing on the publishing of the public document, which I am 100% in favor of.
Beth
5:18 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
it seems to me that she deliberately left it this way to make it more confusing as to who paid and who did not pay so we may never know the amount she has taken...what a mess...I hope she goes to jail for many years...I still cannot understand why we cannot put a lien on her husbands half of the house, he had to know...
Murf
8:08 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Absolutely agree with you Beth, they have a nice little fortress going on over there. I wonder how much of that is our money?
Beth
8:16 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Murf...more than we will ever know I am sure...What I cannot understand is why, and again I am repeating here...why we cannot attach her husband property since CT is a Community Property State...The judge also ruled that the town cannot attach her pension which she has two of them...not fair!! The laws need to be changed to protect us...
John M. Joy
8:33 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Actually, Connecticut is a common law state - the community property states are Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.
Beth
8:56 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I stand corrected...Yes, Oxford is a "common law state"...you can also add to your wikipedia list above Puerto Rico. =)
John M. Joy
8:57 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wikipedia isn't the only source of that list. And Puerto Rico isn't a state.
Beth
9:15 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
but that is where you read it, right.??? LOL! GOODNITE!