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

[Kat010]

Well stated, JBean.

I also wonder if Bunch/Houze do not want either of TMH's parents put on the stand to answer questions about the money (assuming that is where she got the money, which seems like a fairly high probability chance to me), which could lead into other areas of questioning, which might lead to something that could be used to incriminate TMH should she ever be charged in a criminal case.

(am I in the running for longest run-on sentence?)

(You sure are! But I think BeanE is in the lead. I thought I'd scored second place, until yours! LOL)

 

[SurfieTX]

StMarysMead posted--highlighted mine:

LE came to him with a probability, a maybe, a more likely than not. Not an assertion of truth, not a claim of evidence, not a significant demonstration of fact.

And Kaine made a decision to protect (although his attorney made the statement yesterday that "timely resolution was his focus for his daughter's well-being, not protection) his daughter with that, stripping her from her mother based on a maybe.

WHAT IF THEY'RE WRONG screams out at me when I see this.

An independent judge signed the restraining order brought forth by Kaine with supporting documentation by LE. There's one layer of reassurance right there that there was a preponderance of evidence.

 

[BeanE]

An independent judge signed the restraining order brought forth by Kaine with supporting documentation by LE. There's one layer of reassurance right there that there was a preponderance of evidence.

What supporting documentation are you referring to, Surfie?

ETA: Here's the restraining order. I don't see any supporting documentation included, or referred to in it:
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/e/1/2/e12f2287-ce0b-48e0-8d85-e3955216ae1b/FULLORDER.pdf

 

[Kat010]

The memorandum addresses Kaine's assertion to the court that he is owed an answer to where Terri got the funds. Bunch states that Houze received funds from a third party and those funds are placed in trust.

I don't recall seeing anywhere where those funds were given by that third party for Terri particularly. I wonder (obviously aloud) whether those funds were given to Houze and placed in a trust, for Houze to defend clients with constitutional issues.

Hmmmm. So then Houze would have no reason to reveal who that third party is, since the funds didn't even come in for Terri, per se, but for any client that might come along needing help.

Of course, all this is speculation on my part, adding one more puzzle to the pile.

Debs, that's a darned good point. Constitutional issues affect us all, so maybe there are donors out there who do that kind of thing. I dunno, but I could see it happening.

 

[gardeness]

That is always possible. But...BBM...we do not know what evidence they shared. We heard yesterday that Kaine's attorney has "reams" of evidence about this case that Terri's attorney wants to see.

If there is THAT much to see, maybe LE has even MORE held back. Sounds like they have a great deal. We simplydo not know what LE knows or Kaine knows.

If they are wrong and Teri is innocent , that is sad. If however, they are RIGHT, and Terri still gets Baby K...that could be a potential tragedy.

The two things are not equal IMO. They should err on the side of a helpless child's safety.

If I'm getting on a trans Atlantic flight, I don't want to hear that the mechanics think maybe the engines are safe enough to leave. It's sad if I'm delayed and miss a day of my trip but it's could be tragic if they take chances.

And I'm speaking of one who was stuck for 10 days in London under the Ash Cloud. I did not want to be on the first flight out testing if the Cloud thing was over rated.

bbm

Hmmm...what I thought I heard and read was the word "information", not "evidence"--I'll have to re-read...

 

[gwenabob]

Most of the points Bunch made were backed up with 'case' law, Constitutional rights, and Oregon law. Bunch states emphatically that Houze took the money as a retainer and put it into his trust and that being forced to expose an anonymous donor would be a poor precedent in Oregon law. moo mho

Notice that Bunch, toward the end of his argument, states that the defense for such frivolous (his word not mine) requests is expensive and asks the court for reimbursement from Kaine for his legal fees. Bunch doesn't seem like someone to mess around with. moo mho

This is how I read the document and is my interpretation. Hopefully, this is not construed as bashing or as an indictment of Kaine. moo mho hoo and all that stuff

bbm

They always say that. It is pretty much standard language in this type of matter. His brief was really pretty ordinary, and could have been written by a junior staff member. Gitana said she even saw flaws in his argument. It really wasn't anything special.

 

[SurfieTX]

What supporting documentation are you referring to, Surfie?

I cannot release that information as it is part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

 

[debs]

That is always possible. But...BBM...we do not know what evidence they shared. We heard yesterday that Kaine's attorney has "reams" of evidence about this case that Terri's attorney wants to see.

But her rights as a parent and in fact a civilian are being attacked based on this ream of evidence that no one wants to bring forward and still take away her rights. That's a huge problem for a lot of people.

If there is THAT much to see, maybe LE has even MORE held back. Sounds like they have a great deal. We simplydo not know what LE knows or Kaine knows.

What we do know is that Terri's attorney has claimed a constitutional right to see the evidence against his client and has so far been thwarted in his attempts to see it. If this evidence is enough to move one side into taking away Terri's rights as a parent and move her from her home, then she is within the law to ask what evidence they have to do so. Stating over and over that "we do not know what LE has" is a null argument, given that by the same token "we do not know what LE has" can be used to demonstrate Terri's position.

If they are wrong and Teri is innocent , that is sad. If however, they are RIGHT, and Terri still gets Baby K...that could be a potential tragedy.

The two things are not equal IMO. They should err on the side of a helpless child's safety.

But the law is written for a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around.

If I'm getting on a trans Atlantic flight, I don't want to hear that the mechanics think maybe the engines are safe enough to leave. It's sad if I'm delayed and miss a day of my trip but it's could be tragic if they take chances.

And I'm speaking of one who was stuck for 10 days in London under the Ash Cloud. I did not want to be on the first flight out testing if the Cloud thing was over rated.

I guess I can't quite do the equation between being accused of horrendous crimes with no evidence shown me to support it and having my rights trampled on constantly, and having to be in an ash cloud. Sorry!

 

[SacreBleu]

WHAT IF THEY'RE WRONG screams out at me when I see this.

With all due respect, WHAT IF THEY'RE RIGHT!" screams a whole bunch louder. I cannot blame Kaine for being a bit over-protective of Baby K at this point in time - heck, maybe forever - given the fact that his son is missing. Honestly, if it were you, would you really take the chance with your child? I would not.

If it turns out that Terri is completely innocent and has been unjustly treated, she's a big girl and will get over it. She may even profit from it (books, lawsuits, etc.) Likewise, her separation from her daughter for this period of time will mend itself. I think of all the parents serving overseas who are separated from their children. If they can suffer through it, Terri can. JMO.

 

[gardeness]

11:17 a.m.: Peter Bunch: says Kaine’s lawyer has mounds of information from the investigation: “It is fundamentally unfair for Kitty and for Miss Horman for me to be hamstrung in the divorce case for the information I have compared to what they have.”

http://www.katu.com/news/local/104507829.html

 

[debs]

An independent judge signed the restraining order brought forth by Kaine with supporting documentation by LE. There's one layer of reassurance right there that there was a preponderance of evidence.

There's supporting documentation? I thought Kaine "was led to believe"

 

[tragco]

In the interest of justice, even in a civil divorce trial, does anyone think that Terri's attorney should have the right to see what Kaine's attorney has?

Since this is SO closely and undeniably tied to a possible criminal matter, I think Houze does have the right to see what Kaine's attorney has. If they don't have the landscaper's testimony and the 911 tapes, or if they do, so be it. If Kaine's divorce attorney has talked to or has a copy of the deposition of the landscaper, then Terri's attorney should also.

I'm not looking at this from a deep legal aspect, just looking at it from a level playing field perspective, and am interested in everyone's thoughts.

 

[gardeness]

This question for any legal eagles out there--Can the judge ask to see the source of the funds given to Houze without disclosing the third party to Kaine's lawyers in order to determine whether the funds need to be disclosed or not?

I believe that is called "ex parte" and is not allowed...but IANAL...

 

[loves2bmom]

An independent judge signed the restraining order brought forth by Kaine with supporting documentation by LE. There's one layer of reassurance right there that there was a preponderance of evidence.

It was the same judge though right? Judge Meisenheimer?

 

[SacreBleu]

bbm

They always say that. It is pretty much standard language in this type of matter. His brief was really pretty ordinary, and could have been written by a junior staff member. Gitana said she even saw flaws in his argument. It really wasn't anything special.

My opinion was that some legal aide in his office wrote it.

 

[nursebeeme]

bbm

BINGO! She not only hasn't been arrested or charged, she's not even named as a suspect (although, as Houze points out, she's being treated like one.).Yet, according to KH & DY, and tons of onlookers, TH is guilty, guilty, guilty.

So, someone needs to saddle up and ride and prove that. Until then, it's all just gossip, rumor, and, in some cases, darned close to libel and defamation of character. If she's not guilty, boy howdy, I see some lawsuits a'comin'.

I do not believe that LE needs to saddle up and ride and prove the parents' opinions they have stated to the media. That is just my opinion.

It, however, is evident to me that they are actively working the case and that they believe it can and will be prosecuted in the future (from the mouth of the DA... links in the forum)


This is about Kyron. This is about prosecuting the person or persons that had anything to do with what happened to him. So, in my opinion that is not up to the public the schedule, the timing or the method in which the professionals do it.

Speculation and opinions in the media are separate from LE and what they are doing to work on Kyron's case. Trust me that I too want a resolution like yesterday. But some things take time. LE will move when they are ready. LE will make an arrest when they are ready.

Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning in your post but I do not see any burden on LE to move quicker to back up the parental statements in the media.

MOO

 

[BeanE]

In the interest of justice, even in a civil divorce trial, does anyone think that Terri's attorney should have the right to see what Kaine's attorney has?

Since this is SO closely and undeniably tied to a possible criminal matter, I think Houze does have the right to see what Kaine's attorney has. If they don't have the landscaper's testimony and the 911 tapes, or if they do, so be it. If Kaine's divorce attorney has talked to or has a copy of the deposition of the landscaper, then Terri's attorney should also.

I'm not looking at this from a deep legal aspect, just looking at it from a level playing field perspective, and am interested in everyone's thoughts.

IANAL, but it seems to me that Terri's attorneys don't have the right to everything Kaine has, but do have the right to everything Kaine has that pertains to any allegations Kaine has made in legal documents or legal arguments etc. Otherwise it leaves things in a position where Kaine can simply say "LE told me such and such", with nothing to back it up, and decisions against Terri could be made based on... thin air.

I'm sure I didn't articulate that very well.

 

[eyes4crime]

This question for any legal eagles out there--Can the judge ask to see the source of the funds given to Houze without disclosing the third party to Kaine's lawyers in order to determine whether the funds need to be disclosed or not?

Certainly not an attorney, but I do think this: I would be shocked if Houze would risk losing his license to practice law by purjuring himself regarding source of funds for Terri. According to the argument by Bunch, Houze treated this anonymous donation as a retainer fee and put it in his trust fund. Also Bunch argues that it would be a poor precedent in Oregon law to mandate the revelation of anonymous donations for a person's defense. Not sure if he used Constitutional law but he did use case law and Oregon law to make his point. moo mhoo

Once in the courthouse and under the auspice of the law, our Constitutional rights, case law, and Oregon law prevails.

I think your question is a good one, I don't know how much power a judge has. How about putting your question on the 'verified' lawyer thread...good question. moo mho

 

[stmarysmead]

But her rights as a parent and in fact a civilian are being attacked based on this ream of evidence that no one wants to bring forward and still take away her rights. That's a huge problem for a lot of people.



What we do know is that Terri's attorney has claimed a constitutional right to see the evidence against his client and has so far been thwarted in his attempts to see it. If this evidence is enough to move one side into taking away Terri's rights as a parent and move her from her home, then she is within the law to ask what evidence they have to do so. Stating over and over that "we do not know what LE has" is a null argument, given that by the same token "we do not know what LE has" can be used to demonstrate Terri's position.



But the law is written for a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around.



I guess I can't quite do the equation between being accused of horrendous crimes with no evidence shown me to support it and having my rights trampled on constantly, and having to be in an ash cloud. Sorry!

Re: the ash cloud: International travel was shut down for weeks in April due to the volcano activity in Iceland and the ensuing massive ash cloud that covered Europe. Opinions were divided on whether it was safe to fly an airliner into the cloud or if it would cause a catastrophic engine shut down. Airlines and European governments differed. It was a massive news story,

I see a correlation between the inconvenience of Terri not seeing her child and the possibility of a tragedy if she is capable of hiring murderers and disappearing children.

In air travel and in the care of the helpless, I like to err on the side extreme caution. Baby K is not a statistic. But...just my opinion.

 

[SacreBleu]

gardeness, please edit post 351 for minor's name.