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

[pufnstuf]

Do we know this filing was "handed out to the press," or did reporters (on the court house beat assigned to the Kyron disappearance) just note the filing and request a copy? To me, that makes a difference. But I don't see why they would risk a backlash just releasing it when all they had to do was load the document up with stuff that made TH look bad and wait for reporters to get copies from the court and then release them.

The filing has the court's fax number, time, date on it, so most likely the media requested copies, and the court faxed it to the outlets which requested it.

 

[pufnstuf]

He who? Kaine?

Motion for abatement, btw.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/terri+horman+abate+divorce.pdf

That brings up an interesting legal question. Can she be forced to respond in a civil case that is so obviously tangled up with a potential criminal case? Anything she says can certainly be used to prosecute and potentially convict her, so even if she's innocent she has the absolute right not to make statements that could incriminate herself.

If you read the filing, that question is answered there.

 

[Calliope]

If you read the filing, that question is answered there.

Which question? I asked more than one in my post.

 

[wondering1]

I hope not. Although including irrelevant information in her motions is skating close to the edge, IMO.

Wonder if she attended Taft too?




I keed, I keed.

I don't see her skating at all, but I'm off to review the pleading that someone was kind enough to link me to. The Taft reference is lost on me, and I'm curious

 

[Calliope]

I don't see her skating at all, but I'm off to review the pleading that someone was kind enough to link me to. The Taft reference is lost on me, and I'm curious

Orly Taitz. Probably the most extreme example when it comes to filing irrelevant information with her motions to the court.

Like I said, I kid. NO one even comes close to her level of legal "practice"

 

[wondering1]

Orly Taitz. Probably the most extreme example when it comes to filing irrelevant information with her motions to the court.

Like I said, I kid. NO one even comes close to her level of legal "practice"

thank you I just read the pleading filed by KH's attorney. He wins, hands down, imo. And as back up for my humble opinion, I'll agree to get on the fence if the abatement is granted and/or if it is shown that TT wasn't known to LE before last week

 

[Calliope]

thank you I just read the pleading filed by KH's attorney. He wins, hands down, imo. And as back up for my humble opinion, I'll agree to get on the fence if the abatement is granted and/or if it is shown that TT wasn't known to LE before last week

Would you post the link to the actual papers filed?

 

[JBean]

He who? Kaine?

Motion for abatement, btw.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/terri+horman+abate+divorce.pdf

That brings up an interesting legal question. Can she be forced to respond in a civil case that is so obviously tangled up with a potential criminal case? Anything she says can certainly be used to prosecute and potentially convict her, so even if she's innocent she has the absolute right not to make statements that could incriminate herself.

IMO, this is the main reason for wanting to put off any civil action and is the main focus. The more she says the more chance there is for impeachment which is the name of the game. Imagine everything she says under oath as in a civl deposition could be used to impeach her now or later. No criminal defense attorney would want their client making statements that were intertwined with their criminal defense especially under oath.
IMpeachment can come in the form of any inconsistent statement she may make. Even an innocent person could impeach themself easily just by stating information differently. It is suicide.

 

[Emma Peel]

I don't know how the press obtained these filings, but in any case the irrelevant details included are clearly intended for public consumption as desquire pointed out.

I'll have to read the filing - haven't yet. But here's what I expect: the filing should address and define the attached Exhibit A (or it wouldn't be labeled, Exhibit A).

Even if Exhibit A is some sort of follow-up documentation to the previous filing on the same matter, I'm expecting there is a stated reason for it.

Kaine has retained one of the most (if not the most) highly respected family lawyers in Portland. I'm sure she knows what she's doing and she's working vigorously on her client's behalf, as well she should.

 

[pufnstuf]

The press would obtain the filings by walking into the courthouse and paying for copies. Just the same as any Joe Blow off the street could obtain them.

Indeed. And the clerk would redact exempt information before providing the filing to the requesting entity.

The CLERK redacts the filing. The filing attorney does NOT redact the filing.

 

[wondering1]

Would you post the link to the actual papers filed?

it's in post 270 of this thread. I couldn't copy and paste the full link. Sorry, I'm tech. challenged

 

[debs]

Indeed. And the clerk would redact exempt information before providing the filing to the requesting entity.

The CLERK redacts the filing. The filing attorney does NOT redact the filing.

Why would the clerk redact anything? If one thing is part of the public record, it all is part of the public record.

 

[Calliope]

IMO, this is the main reason for wanting to put off any civil action and is the main focus. The more she says the more chance there is for impeachment which is the name of the game. Imagine everything she says under oath as in a civl deposition could be used to impeach her now or later. No criminal defense attorney would want their client making statements that were intertwined with their criminal defense especially under oath.
IMpeachment can come in the form of any inconsistent statement she may make. Even an innocent person could impeach themself easily just by stating information differently. It is suicide.

Which is why I think the judge should rule in favor of the abatement. Kaine's due process rights in a civil case do not trump Terri's due process rights in a criminal trial. IMO.

 

[gwenabob]

Which is why I think the judge should rule in favor of the abatement. Kaine's due process rights in a civil case do not trump Terri's due process rights in a criminal trial. IMO.

I guess that will be the judge's decision, not ours.

 

[Emma Peel]

Indeed. And the clerk would redact exempt information before providing the filing to the requesting entity.

The CLERK redacts the filing. The filing attorney does NOT redact the filing.

I was just thinking - on this exhibit - I'm not so sure who redacted what. Possibly, the redactions are text evidence Terri's side does NOT have, if it's from MC's phone bills. And possibly, Kaine's source (the DA?, the investigators?) redacted all but the passages Kaine required for his filing.

My attorneys redact our stuff all the time before submitting the exhibits with the filings. We only need to provide what's relevant in the documents, to the other party - the rest can be redacted.

 

[Emma Peel]

Why would the clerk redact anything? If one thing is part of the public record, it all is part of the public record.

I've seen the court redact for minors names and witness phone numbers - things like that. Privacy issues.

 

[Calliope]

To add to my post above, I'd say I disagree with his attorney that an abatement interferes with Kaine's due process rights with reference to this section of the Oregon Constitution.

Section 10. Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation.

I fail to see where, if an abatement is granted, Kaine will suffer injury to his person, property or reputation.

Per the abatement motion, she agrees to an immediate divorce; she does NOT ask for property, alimony or custody. Kaine retains all marital property and custody of baby. The abatement asks that the status quo be maintained regarding those issues (which is clearly in Kaine's favor) until such time that her attorney can provide her with appropriate and unbiased representation.

IMO, the abatement is reasonable and justified.

 

[Emma Peel]

They most certainly might provoke one to an exuberant description requiring replacement by polite terms enclosed in brackets. :ziplip:

oops. :censored: The coffee was talking. Too much caffeine & sugar.

 

[grandmaj]

I think in this case it was redacted by Kaine's attorney.

Several of their text message exchanges June 30, obtained by Kaine's lawyer from law enforcement, were redacted in Exhibit A filed in court, but Kaine's lawyer alerts the court that she has the complete, unredacted copy that could be made available for the judge's examination.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/kaine_hormans_lawyer_files_tex.html

sorry forgot the link. ETA

 

[Calliope]

I guess that will be the judge's decision, not ours.

Wonder if Houze will step in if the judge rules against her?