.

Embattled Former Official Faces Judge [Video]

Karen Guillet's case will be moved to Part A in Milford where the most serious cases are heard.

Updated at 1 p.m. Monday

Dressed in a two-piece gray suit, with a black blouse and matching designer glasses and patent leather shoes, Karen Guillet sat stoic behind her attorney during her first court appearance Monday morning.

Guillet, 61, did not enter a plea and did not say anything when Derby Superior Court Judge Burton Kaplan told her the case would be moved to Part A – where the most serious cases are heard – at Milford Superior Court. Guillet will appear in Milford on Monday morning.

The former tax collector in Oxford for 24 years, Guillet, who is accused of stealing more than $670,000 from the town's tax office, sat in the second row of the courthouse next to two reporters and in front of two others. She stared straight ahead and didn’t show much emotion. When she left the courthouse, her attorney, Dominick Thomas, told print and television reporters that his client had no comment.

Guillet quickly got into a Ford Sport Trac truck driven by an unidentified man, who quickly drove off.

Guillet, who resigned amid allegations that she stole money, was recently charged with seven felonies following a . The most serious charge, first-degree larceny, is a Class B felony punishable by between 1 and 20 years in prison or up to a $15,000 fine. She was also charged with six counts of first-degree forgery, a Class C felony punishable by between 1 and 10 years in prison or up to a $10,000 fine. She is currently free after posting 10 percent of a $100,000 bond.

The town has also filed a in which Oxford looks to recoup the money that is alleged to be stolen. That suit is pending.

It did not appear that Guillet had family members or friends in court with her.

With shoulder length and poker straight dirty blonde hair, the embattled former town official slowly walked into the courtroom and looked around at the audience while her attorney explained to her that news cameras are now allowed inside the courtroom. One camerawoman and another photographer took images of Guillet and her attorney (see the media pool photos attached). 

A woman who claimed to be a title searcher and said she knew Guillet through that business was in the courtroom and sat in the row behind Guillet. The woman did not want to comment or give her name for the record, but quipped that she showed up because she "wanted to see what (Guillet) was wearing." 

Another woman on the street outside of the courthouse was told who Guillet was and then yelled a profanity at her as she walked past reporters and got into the truck.

Original article:

Former Oxford tax collector did not enter a plea and her case was moved to Part A, where the more serious cases in Superior Court are heard, on Monday.

Flanked by her attorney, Guillet appeared briefly at Derby Superior Court on Monday. She did not say anything and Judge Burton Kaplan ordered the case moved to Part A at Milford Superior Court. She is scheduled to appear in Milford on Monday, Dec. 19.

Guillet, , has been chared with six counts of forgery and one count of first-degree larceny. She is release on a $100,000 bond.

She declined to comment to the press outside of the courthouse on Monday and has not spoken since the investigation into missing money from the tax office was made public in January 2010.

Oxford Patch will update this story soon. 

Ashleigh December 12, 2011 at 09:39 PM
I'd have to say it was more of a "I want to see if she dares wear Armani bought with our stolen money to her trial about stealing our money" rather than the E! red carpet report.
Pearl December 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM
There arent many of us pitchfork wielding hicks left in Oxford these days, And no its obvious that we arent in a third world country by the sheer amount of money she was able to steal for years without being detected.
J December 13, 2011 at 11:12 AM
This is not a town lynching. Let the courts decide. Think of how her family would feel if they read these comments and articles. I'm sorry if I said "Oxford hicks". I was angry at the article because I feel bad for her family who has to endure this.
Bonnie December 13, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Hey J don't get me wrong but her family didn't have a problem when the money was rolling in! They were spending it just as fast as she was, there's no was she spent almost a quarter million on herself, she was sharing the wealth! I think she really deserves what she gets, just like any other criminal. She is a criminal, she broke the law, she stole/embezzeled money from OUR TOWN! I do hope she realizes that they don't let you wear designer clothes in prison nor do they have spa treatments. Forget about painting your nails, they probably make you cut your nails!!! Does anyone know if she's facing a jury trial or hasn't that been determined yet?
Mary Beth Nelsen December 13, 2011 at 12:10 PM
This is just a sad situation all around. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
GEG December 13, 2011 at 01:52 PM
CT4Sanity: Go ahead and judge me. I have never, nor would I ever steal. This gives me and any others like me with similar morals the perfect right to judge thieves. Your biblical reference refers to hypocrisy which doesn't apply in this case.
Blake Denham December 13, 2011 at 01:54 PM
"you have to feel bad for her family"? REALLY? The fresh flowers. The baker she had making nice food for them. The great trips and all the other "perks" of having a mother who stole hundreds of thousands of OUR dollars! Do you feel bad for the hard working people who paid their taxes and could have used that money to buy clothes for their children, or put food on their plates? AGAIN, do you NOT care if that money could have been used to buy better school materials to give OUR children a better education to help them prepare for a better life? I hope she ROTS in prison! YES, ROTS! I'm surprised she didn't go to court in a limo! ARROGANT B...H!
Mary Beth Nelsen December 13, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Hey, GEG, they weren't MY words, I was quoting someone else. Sorry for confusing you. I checked Matthew 7 to see if Jesus mentioned your exception, but didn't find anything. It actually doesn't mention whether you've ever stolen anything, but it may allude to the likelihood that no human has ever not sinned at all, even you. Something about planks and eyes.
Thesaurus December 13, 2011 at 05:40 PM
A taxpayer comes in or sends in their taxes. A receipt is rendered. How did this not get caught up sooner. Everyone has to get a receipt - the missing money had to be detected sooner than this? i still cannot understand how this went on for so long. Didn't taxpayers respond if they received a past-due notice when they knew they had paid the bill? I just find this hard to understand. And, the good friend who was being paid $100/day for miscellaneous chores - did the IRS prosecute her for not reporting that money as income? This is a real puzzle - all of it.
Beth December 13, 2011 at 11:52 PM
I hope she gets what she deserves..I cannot understand why the judge ruled that her pension cannot be attached while it was stated in yesterday's news that those state workers, including state troopers who lied to get money from their "supposed" losses due to Hurrican Irene may have their pensions attached.
OxfordCitizen December 14, 2011 at 12:10 AM
@CT4Sanity - "Judge not, lest ye be judged" ? Really ??? I hope while you're spouting biblical pablum you're also volunteering to replace the missing tax revenue ? Please....
Mary Beth Nelsen December 14, 2011 at 08:25 PM
The internet has become the 21st century "public square", attracting the same ghouls who used to secure a front-row seat for a public hanging or burning. How people can get pleasure out of other people's pain is beyond me.
J December 14, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Well said, ct4sanity, well said.
Citizen X December 15, 2011 at 02:44 AM
Due to the lack of controls at Town Hall & what appears to be poor auditing, unfortunately I don't think we'll ever know exactly how much money the town has lost. But in addition to the $100,000, there will most likely be penalties, restitution, as well as the pending civil suit. My guess is the town will get a large chunk of cash back, & both the town & the unfortunate (naive? irresponsible?) people who paid in cash & didn't get a receipt will not fall for the same trick twice. I didn't realize there were so many morally superior people out there until I started reading some of these comments. Granted, not many people are alleged to have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars via a governmental position, but 'rot in jail, arrogant b***h'. Really? Why aren't people angrier that the town lacked the controls to ensure this couldn't happen? That lack of control allowed this to happen. Do you also think that the Oxford political machine would truly allow tax revenue benefit the common good? I'd be much more comfortable having any money awarded go into escrow until the town can prove that they understand how best track & use tax payer's money without politicizing things such as a new roof for a school.
OxfordCitizen December 19, 2011 at 04:12 PM
"Ghouls" ? I think most folks would rather be arguing about the weather or some other topic. The truth is she stole from the tax payers of Oxford and regardless of what happens in the criminal & civil trials the town will not be able to recover all of the funds that were stolen and we will be on the hook. Following the trials does not make me or anyone else a "ghoul"....if so, why are you here commenting ?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »