LUTHMANN NOTE: Patrick Feeney’s swagger needs an audit. Michelle says he showed off a million-dollar portfolio; Patrick didn’t deny it. His filing says the screenshot “did not originate” from him. Put those accounts under oath. Then examine his request to reduce financial production because she allegedly talks to reporters. He attacks her proof while seeking restrictions on the records that could test it. Meanwhile, Patrick is the Connecticut Crypto-Nanny. A November childcare scheduling request becomes a September postponement. Blog All-Star Judge Joseph Vizcarrondo III has a chance at redemption: an opportunity to impose order on this thirteen-year disaster. Clear dates. Relevant records. Witness testimony. Reasoned findings. Patrick can explain the school run and the money. Stamford should insist on both. This piece is “Connecticut’s Crypto-Nanny,” first available on The Family Court Circus.
(STAMFORD, CONN.) – Patrick Feeney wants credit for being a sophisticated cryptocurrency operator and accommodations because the “school run” complicates his court appearances. In his post-judgment divorce that has bled for thirteen years without dying, he wants his ex-wife Michelle’s fraud-on-the-court motion under * Billington v. Billington* rejected for insufficient evidence while asking the court to reduce financial production because she gives material to journalists.
And the million-dollar portfolio Michelle says he showed her and others while boasting about his finances? His latest filing doesn’t dispute the money. It says the screenshot isn’t “authenticated.”
That is Patrick’s credibility problem, written into his own litigation strategy. The boasts invite scrutiny. The financial claims require records. His response includes demands to restrict the records and punish the person talking to the press.
Now Judge Joseph Vizcarrondo III has entered the picture. Judge Kowalski’s name is off the latest substantive scheduling order, and he’s off the case.
Judge Vizcarrondo is in, and for Connecticut’s family-court leadership, including Judge Leo Diana, it is a litmus test. The question is whether this judge, given his own history, can finally control an infamous case whose supposed ending occurred thirteen years ago.
Patrick’s September 8 caseflow request identifies a November 10 hearing and explains his childcare responsibilities. He requests a later start and says Wednesdays work for an entire day. The next day, Judge Vizcarrondo, fresh on the case, called the request “unclear,” treated it as a motion to continue September’s hearing, and moved all substantive motions to November.
A November scheduling problem became a September postponement. Patrick supplied an available weekday. The order supplies no explanation for why that alternative failed.
Judge Vizcarrondo brings his own troubling publicity. In May 2024, Frank Parlato reported, citing unnamed court sources, that marshals escorted Vizcarrondo from his courtroom amid a reassignment to civil court. Parlato described a confrontation over an attempted contempt incarceration and reported the nicknames “Raging Robe,” “Judge Tantrum,” and “Justice Vizcarraige.” That account informs his boomerang back to family court from the civil term.
It nevertheless makes this assignment a test of temperament as well as competence. If Judge Leo Diana and the family-court administration believe Judge Vizcarrondo can handle the Feeney case, the judge has an opportunity to demonstrate why.
Courtesy. Clear rulings. Professionalism. Respect. Judicial temperament. A calendar that holds.
We’ll see.
Patrick presents the immediate challenge: financial boasting disputed in court, demands to constrain discovery, proposed punishment tied to press disclosures, and a scheduling request that produced a broader postponement than its stated November problem.
It’s not off to the best start. Where was the inquiry into Patrick’s other arrangements? His request contains no babysitter search, cost estimate, or explanation of why temporary coverage would not work. Patrick does not claim he cannot afford childcare. Yet the man marketing financial sophistication has handed the court a transportation schedule that somehow produces another delay for Michelle.
Welcome to the Connecticut Crypto-Nanny economy. Patrick’s calendar becomes everyone’s problem.
A separate notice issued the same day schedules his contempt motion for October 22, creating another question against the November directive. Even the calendar now needs an interpreter.
Our prior coverage traced the emergency applications, custody disputes, contempt proceedings, and professional interventions following the February 19, 2013 divorce judgment. Connecticut dissolved the marriage and kept the conflict on subscription. Thirteen years later, this “Judicial Hotel California” is still taking reservations.
Patrick’s financial history deserves more than promotional swagger followed by courtroom qualification.
His 2014 papers described a pre-revenue virtual-currency startup and zero income. His fee-waiver application disclosed IRA-funded expenses. The support-modification motion was dismissed. Those filings establish what he represented then and leave an obvious investigative task: trace what he acquired, earned, sold, transferred, and disclosed afterward.
Our “Million Dollar Mystery” report examined the portfolio image displaying approximately $1.01 million alongside support-income figures and Patrick’s public identity as an experienced hedge-fund and cryptocurrency professional. Michelle’s pending Billington motion seeks to reopen financial orders based on claimed fraud-on-the-court.
Patrick’s latest opposition says the screenshot “did not originate from him” and that he did not provide it to Michelle. He declines to concede its authenticity, ownership, dates, or values. Michelle says he showed it to her and other people while boasting about his finances.
That is a direct conflict about Patrick’s conduct. Did he display that portfolio as his financial scorecard? What did he tell the people looking at it? Was he showing actual holdings, somebody else’s money, or a fantasy?
If he presented wealth he did not own as proof of his success, the bragging was dishonest. If the holdings were his, he must account for them and establish whether they appeared in the disclosures required at the relevant times. Any knowing, material omission from a sworn financial submission presents a separate truthfulness problem.
Neither conclusion follows merely from the screen’s existence. Both become testable through witnesses and records. Patrick’s refusal to concede authentication does not erase Michelle’s firsthand account.
Which representations were accurate, Patrick? Show the records.
Patrick argues that Michelle lacks sufficient evidence to justify a thirteen-year financial investigation. Alternatively, he requests a preliminary fraud hearing. Good. Put the competing accounts under oath and decide what discovery the evidence supports. Then examine the relief he requests elsewhere.
His three-count contempt and protective-order motion raises life-insurance compliance, invokes the non-disparagement agreement, and targets financial disclosures to journalists. He says he will provide material the court properly requires. We guess it’s coming? So is Kwanza.
But his requested relief also asks for reduced production because Michelle “hands material to the press.” He wants fines and reduced parenting time if the court finds relevant disparagement.
There is the contradiction: attack her proof, then ask to reduce the material she receives because she talks to reporters.
Confidentiality safeguards can protect account numbers and legitimately private information. They do not automatically justify shrinking relevant production. Patrick needs a substantive reason for withholding evidence. Disliking public scrutiny or a potential audience is a poor substitute.
His August gag motion already proposed $2,500 penalties for articles violating the requested order. Our “Mark Fuhrman Box” coverage examined his earlier denial of a disputed racial-slur email and refusal then to answer the financial questions. He has now answered with a provenance denial and an evidentiary challenge.
Judge Vizcarrondo should require evidence, hear the witnesses, and explain his decisions. Michelle must show Patrick’s fraud on the court. Patrick will be cross-examined under oath, and his sworn representations must withstand the same scrutiny.
The crypto expert can explain the money. The Crypto-Nanny can arrange a court appearance. After thirteen years, Stamford should finally insist on both.
