2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

cluciano63 said:

I kind of thought that too, but he did not seem overly thrilled back when he stated what an unusual case it was, how unique, etc...maybe he decided he did not want to "go out" on a case like this one...

Click to expand...

Maybe because of the "discovery nightmare" that was about to develop.

The one thing that all judges have in common is that they hate to be reversed on appeal.

He was probably playing with the idea of retiring sometime in the next 12-18 months, then realized this case would have him chained to the bench for the next 3-5 years and said "Forget it. I'm retiring now!" Can't say that I blame him.

cluciano63 said:

I kind of thought that too, but he did not seem overly thrilled back when he stated what an unusual case it was, how unique, etc...maybe he decided he did not want to "go out" on a case like this one...

Click to expand...

There's an old saying that notorious cases make for bad case law.

This one is too messy, way too many intersecting issues.

I think of it like the Montgomery bus situation during the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks was actually not the first black person nor the first black woman to refuse to move to the back of the bus. The first black person to do so in Montgomery was a teenage girl named Claudette Colvin. But the NAACP refused to use Ms Colvin's case as the test case on the grounds of her age (15), her poverty, her out of wedlock pregnancy, doubts about her emotional fortitude and the allegations of resisting arrest that were made at the time (she didn't).

Rosa Parks was chosen to make the historic stand because she had led a spotless life (general public more likely to sympathise with her), she was middle class, educated, plus she'd been an activist for some time, which meant she knew what sort of brouhaha she was putting herself into.

There were no other issues to complicate the particular point that civil rights leaders wanted to make.

I think Horman v Horman has so many issues and so many twists and turns that it would be difficult to draw any clear decision out of it.

I'm not quite sure how this case can be compared to the Montgomery bus situation and Rosa Parks. Terri Horman is a far cry from Rosa Parks. Maybe had Terri studied her history lessons in school, she could have learned a thing or two from Rosa Parks. I don't even see this case as setting any sort of legal precedence because it's pretty black and white (not throwing race in) from the beginning. Child goes missing, she was the last person to be seen with him. She tries to hire someone to murder her husband, he gets wind of it and boots her out of the house while keeping toddler daughter safe and away from her. She hires high-priced lawyer who tells her to keep her mouth shut although she didn't necessarily keep her mouth shut. Husband files for divorce, hearing postponed but all the while she is intent on not opening her mouth whether it costs her custody of her daughter. Judge apparently decides to retire pushing hearing back. Meanwhile Kyron is still missing but baby is safe and sound thankfully. Like I said, I'm sure she could have learned a few things from Rosa Parks and that is to tell the truth!!


~JMO~

Adrienne, I think GrainneDhu was trying to make exactly that point. That a judge would not want to try to set a precedent with a case this messy. I brought up the precedent-setting scenario because at least one of the lawyers in our forum said previously that this is an interesting case because it will go into an area of the law with few precedents--where a defendant may have to testify against herself without being able to invoke the 5th amendment. Apparently if she invokes the 5th amendment in a civil trial, that can be held against her by the judge and jury.

Sorry if I confused you..

Even the judge said this was a case unlike any other, whether one likes or hates TH or her lawyer is completely beside the point.

GrainneDhu said:

There's an old saying that notorious cases make for bad case law.

This one is too messy, way too many intersecting issues.

I think of it like the Montgomery bus situation during the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks was actually not the first black person nor the first black woman to refuse to move to the back of the bus. The first black person to do so in Montgomery was a teenage girl named Claudette Colvin. But the NAACP refused to use Ms Colvin's case as the test case on the grounds of her age (15), her poverty, her out of wedlock pregnancy, doubts about her emotional fortitude and the allegations of resisting arrest that were made at the time (she didn't).

Rosa Parks was chosen to make the historic stand because she had led a spotless life (general public more likely to sympathise with her), she was middle class, educated, plus she'd been an activist for some time, which meant she knew what sort of brouhaha she was putting herself into.

There were no other issues to complicate the particular point that civil rights leaders wanted to make.

I think Horman v Horman has so many issues and so many twists and turns that it would be difficult to draw any clear decision out of it.

Click to expand...

? I am very confused here. Are you saying TH is taking a historic stand, but she's not right the person to do it because of her bad choices that have tarnished her image considerably? She wasn't chosen in this case, the evidence led to her, and if anyone made a choice, it was her to keep quiet and not reveal her dark secrets. That is a far cry from the Rosa Parks case, which happened in a time where image was everything. Nowadays, it's be what you want to be and do what you want to do. Two different time periods, two vastly different mindsets. There just isn't a comparison here. It's like comparing Lindsay Lohan to Mother Theresa.

I guess it could be relevant in that important case law could come out of this case, but because of the bad defendant, it might not come out the way it should? Maybe that's the meaning here? I don't know. I am still baffled as to how Rosa Parks in any way compares to Terri Horman.

Getting back on topic, I wonder if we'll find out when the hearing is going to happen at some point? Or is there a way to check for that online somewhere, like the court docket?

Adrienne37 said:

I'm not quite sure how this case can be compared to the Montgomery bus situation and Rosa Parks. Terri Horman is a far cry from Rosa Parks. Maybe had Terri studied her history lessons in school, she could have learned a thing or two from Rosa Parks. I don't even see this case as setting any sort of legal precedence because it's pretty black and white (not throwing race in) from the beginning. Child goes missing, she was the last person to be seen with him. She tries to hire someone to murder her husband, he gets wind of it and boots her out of the house while keeping toddler daughter safe and away from her. She hires high-priced lawyer who tells her to keep her mouth shut although she didn't necessarily keep her mouth shut. Husband files for divorce, hearing postponed but all the while she is intent on not opening her mouth whether it costs her custody of her daughter. Judge apparently decides to retire pushing hearing back. Meanwhile Kyron is still missing but baby is safe and sound thankfully. Like I said, I'm sure she could have learned a few things from Rosa Parks and that is to tell the truth!!


~JMO~

Click to expand...

Well, at least three attorneys here on WS have said that this case has some interesting issues concerning the intersection of civil and criminal law. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm taking their word for it that there are indeed some legal issues involved in this case which do not have obvious right or wrong answers.

Cases which do not have obvious answers in the law are the ones that tend to set precedent. So, it may turn out to be a precedent setting case or it may not.

In the Montgomery bus case, civil rights leaders wanted to create a precedent: that black people could not be arrested for exercising their constitutional right to equal access.

The city of Montgomery was far from the only city that had Jim Crow laws involving public transportation. There were a number of people who were arrested in the three years or so before Rosa Parks made her stand for essentially the same reason Rosa Parks was arrested.

Here's where the comparison comes in.

Rosa Parks was chosen ahead of time by civil rights leaders to be the test case in Montgomery because there were no other issues in her background that could distract attention from the precedent they wanted to set. The only issue would be the question of whether Rosa Parks had to move to the back of the bus or not. There would not be any other questions/issues involved.

Claudette Colvin made a considered decision, independent of the civil rights movement, to exercise her constitutional right to equal access. She was a 15 year old high school student who was learning about the US constitution in class and she realised that the Jim Crow law involving city busses was unconstitutional (bright kid!).

So why didn't civil rights leaders choose to use Claudette Colvin's case as their test case? Because Ms Colvin had other issues that could be used to distract attention from the constitutional issue. Those other issues could be used by detractors to distract attention from the real question of equal access.

In the case of Horman v Horman, there are clearly some issues that will have to be settled which have never been addressed before. Unfortunately, the case is so messy, has so many intersecting issues, that it probably won't make a good case for setting any precedents.

The issues will have to be decided but it's questionable as to whether that decision will be applied to other cases because there are so many twists, turns, exceptions and unanswered questions around Horman v Horman. I simply can't imagine another divorce that would involve anything like the same elements this one has (and I'm really glad that is so--one case like this is too many!).

I can't remember who it was in this thread who mentioned that Judge Mesenheimer may have been giving up the chance to make a precedent setting decision; the point of my response is that I doubt that he is. The case will have to be decided but that decision is unlikely to create a precedent.

Aedrys said:

? I am very confused here. Are you saying TH is taking a historic stand, but she's not right the person to do it because of her bad choices that have tarnished her image considerably? She wasn't chosen in this case, the evidence led to her, and if anyone made a choice, it was her to keep quiet and not reveal her dark secrets. That is a far cry from the Rosa Parks case, which happened in a time where image was everything. Nowadays, it's be what you want to be and do what you want to do. Two different time periods, two vastly different mindsets. There just isn't a comparison here. It's like comparing Lindsay Lohan to Mother Theresa.

I guess it could be relevant in that important case law could come out of this case, but because of the bad defendant, it might not come out the way it should? Maybe that's the meaning here? I don't know. I am still baffled as to how Rosa Parks in any way compares to Terri Horman.

Getting back on topic, I wonder if we'll find out when the hearing is going to happen at some point? Or is there a way to check for that online somewhere, like the court docket?

Click to expand...

To carry the analogy further, I think a better case would be one where the defendant was clearly innocent, but had to testify against themselves in the civil trial or invoke the 5th against her own interests. I do not think TH is clearly innocent. The other things that makes this messy is that LE has not actually charged her with anything...so she would be invoking the 5th amendment against her own interests when she has not even been charged with a crime. A clearer-cut case would be one where LE has charged someone and allowed their attorney discovery of the evidence.

But maybe I am wrong--maybe what makes the case unprecedented is that LE has NOT charged her with anything and she is afraid to testify.

citigirl said:

But maybe I am wrong--maybe what makes the case unprecedented is that LE has NOT charged her with anything and she is afraid to testify.

Click to expand...

Well-said, citigirl. Why is she so afraid if she is truly innocent?

Personally I don't see Terri standing up for anything except herself. :cow: To me, she's not the "Lady Liberty" type, unless we are talking about her own personal liberty to stay out of jail.

"PORTLAND, Ore. -- A motions hearing has been scheduled for March 31 as part of restraining order and divorce proceedings between Kaine and Terri Horman."

http://www.kptv.com/news/26408010/detail.html

Yep, 3 months out. They wanted to prolong it as long as possible. Poor Kaine!

Aw man, I KNEW that was going to happen. I can't believe TH is just going to sit and wait without a word for three more months. Wow. She must have something to hide. Maybe she'll mess up or maybe they'll finally arrest her. The best thing would be for Kyron to be found. I can hope for something, right? I guess this is great for OSCO. I just hate more waiting!

I thought that both attorneys had to bring their schedules and agree on a date; I did not think that one side or the other had priority as to when the rescheduled date would be?

cluciano63 said:

I thought that both attorneys had to bring their schedules and agree on a date; I did not think that one side or the other had priority as to when the rescheduled date would be?

Click to expand...

All TH's lawyers had to do is say they have prior scheduling conflicts on the first two dates the court gave them. Vioila! They get 3 more months.

gwenabob said:

All TH's lawyers had to do is say they have prior scheduling conflicts on the first two dates the court gave them. Vioila! They get 3 more months.

Click to expand...

Do we know this is what happened? I am not arguing, just wondering. If so, you would think Kaine's lawyer would be speaking out in protest.

No, we don't know this is what happened. But I work in a law firm and deal with these kinds of scheduling episodes all the time. The court gave them three dates. The attorneys each say which of those dates will work. I think Kaine would like to get this over with. I think Terri has reason to put it off. I am making the assumption that Terri's attorneys would be the ones dragging their feet because they are the ones who wanted it put off for up to two years in the first place. Kaine has nothing to gain by putting it off until the end of March. Only Terri does. JMO.

In a case with these complexities, is it possible the judge was for the later date as well, to be well-prepared?

The judge gave 3 dates that would work for her schedule. If she wanted only the latest date, she wouldn't have given the other options.

gwenabob said:

The judge gave 3 dates that would work for her schedule. If she wanted only the latest date, she wouldn't have given the other options.

Click to expand...

Gwen.. thanks so much for what you do here. You are the BEST... However, is there a link that says/shows the judge giving 3 dates that would work for TH...I guess I may have missed that...My cable connections has been crazy for the past 34-48 hours..