Perhaps someone smarter than me can explain the "main point" of the contempt thing... But here's my take on it's importance and why the "abduct" thing was brought up today too. I think that what is important about the contempt (+ previous notes of inquiry about when Kaine is at gym with the baby) and the timing of the RO is this... (although someone can correct me here)
Document today:
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/horman-affair.pdf
That RO was sealed... It was NOT unsealed until July 8th. It was not to be shown to ANYONE except:
(page 8)
1. Oregon courts and court staff
2. any governmental agency
3. the parties (Kaine and Terri)
4. respondent's attorney
5. petitioner's attorney
AFTER Terri received it, on the day she received it mind you -- she permitted MC to see it (received: June 28th; page 9 beginning at line 21 onward in the above linked document.) According to the document, MC photographed it and then, later, provided information about that document to 2 other individuals! I don't know "when" he showed it to others, but we "might" assume that it was in a time frame that was out of order with the seal. EITHER way, this was an RO, was Terri trying to let others (3rd parties) try to contact or interfere with Kaine's life? TERRI broke the seal... Apparently she broke the RO.
Could we presume that Terri knew that MC let the other 2 individuals know -- or asked him to show it to others for some purpose? Not necessarily, but they wouldn't have known anything about the RO if she had adhered to the sealing of the document (during its sealing). Additionally, regardless of the timing, if she was to be restrained from Kaine, why is she letting others know where he is? She is to LEAVE HIM ALONE!
page 10 beginning at line 3 onward.
"Further, Respondent allowed Mr. Cook to take cell phone camera photographs of the sealed restraining order. Of particular concern to the petitioner was the fact that a cell phone camera photograph was taken of the Petitioner's listed address. In fact, the search of Mr. Cook's cell phone also revealed that a Google Maps search of the address was later performed by Mr. Cook." (it goes on to say that Cook told LE that he didn't go to the Petitioner's address.)
Later he searched? For whom did he search? To whom did he provide search information?
Did he provide Terri with that Google map or a detailed description of how to get to Kaine's residence?
IF she showed MC the documents, asked him to google a map for her, then lie that she was never there ... it sounds like she was trying to cover her tracks so that the map search would not be located on her phone or computer. WHY would MC agree to that? Could it be that he was another possible hit man?
SCAAAAAAAAAAAAARY! Particularly in light of a few things...
Also in the court document (starting at line 21, page 10):
"While Respondent, at times, references that she misses both children, K[] and K[], the significant majority of the material deals with social and personal matters between Mr. Cook and Respondent and belies that assertion.
Respondent asked Mr. Cook to lie to her attorney and others about the fact that she had gone to Mr. Cook's home."
Lie? Did Mr. Cook print out a photo of that Google map? Why would Terri want Mr. Cook to lie about Terri being at his home?
Page 11, line 8 discusses the gym thing... Terri asked the gym clerk to let her know if Kaine came to the gym with the baby.
"... on or about June 28th, 2010, and prior to the service of the legal documents, Respondent came to that location looking to 'abduct' her daughter, K[], from the gym daycare center while Petitioner worked out at the gym."
"Prior being the word here ... if the RO had not been issued or served was TMH told she was to stay away from the baby? I mean, when a mother takes her child it is called parenting rather than kidnapping ... unless the RO said otherwise?
The word "abduct" -- to carry off by force.
I wonder if there is a thing at the gym that "if you sign your child in, it is you who must sign your child out." I think there is a reason that the word "abduct" was used in that document.
At our gym, the daycare issues a bracelet w/ a number on it to match the child to parent(s). You must have that bracelet to check your child out.
Additionally...is it possible that on June 26th, after the 9-1-1 calls that a) Terri knew that it was a sting, and why the sting AND b) that she was told that Kaine had taken custody of the child and now she would have to go to court to get custody back?
BOTTOMLINE:
a.
Terri was thought to be trying to "abduct" the baby on the 28th (for whatever reason), I suppose that could be argued in the court, but that was the word used in the document. EVEN IF the RO papers hadn't been served yet, there was probably certain legal precedent set at that time. Perhaps the police had told Terri something to keep her at a distance from Kaine and the baby AND that was known by the person who wrote the word "abduct."
Again, TMH was baby k's biological primary care giver prior to Kaine leaving. How could it be considered an "abduction" unless her custody rights had already been terminated or temporarily interrupted? BTW, I get it, I understand why people are looking at it as an attempted abduction ... I am just wondering how that would hold up under the law if the RO had not already been served?
b. Terri broke a "sealed" RO. Further, I think it is likely she "used" someone to Google a map for her.
In having someone else google the map she hoped it would not be linked back to her. I am curious if she was looking to abduct the baby or direct another hit man?
c. Terri didn't want anyone to know that she had been at the home of the person with the Google map, why?
