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

[wondering1]

(BBM),

In my opinion he won't. In this case which could easily and very successfully be argued that this is a highly unusual case, the abatement is WARRANTED. And actually I'm wondering if the successful argument couldn't be made that the abatement is ABSOLUTELY necessary given these circumstances.

Also I found great issue with the objection to the delay stating that it would be detrimental to the welfare of the children, (paraphrasing).

There's a big GMAB on that one. I'm to believe that a delay in this case would have a detrimental effect on an 18 month old child?



HOW ABOUT THIS???

What if Terri is found completely innocent and Kyron is found in the arms of a stranger and comes home to find his parent's divorced??? How detrimental will that be?

:behindbar

No matter what happens, divorce would seem to be in the best interest of all concerned, including the children. And the court is not going to base it's decision on whether it thinks children are *better off* in a family with two parents. The divorce is a given as far as the court is concerned.

 

[wondering1]

Now I'm just saying...

Kaine's own lawyer admits that the texts that were released in the media were REDACTED and that she has the unredacted texts. 'Sometimes'...a LOT can be left out.

Just saying...

there is no way no how a lawyer is going to deliberately mislead the court unless she is LOOKING for disciplinary action. In a high-profile case like this, it boggles to think that the lawyers are being misleading or deceptive. Case in point, the best the Houze can do is imply that it's a *witch hunt*. Why? Because he can't say anything more about the actual situation with his client without breaching his ethical obligations, imoo. When Houze comes out and says my client is innocent of any involvement in the disappearance of kyron horman, maybe I'll question her innocence. I'm not holding my breath for that.

 

[Calliope]

I have to disagree, Calliope. Rackner references Article I, Section 10, of the Oregon Constitution to support the argument that Kaine is entitled to "administration of justice without delay". This is separate from, and not intended as support of, the argument that his rights would suffer prejudice as a result of the abatement, and the examples of potential injuries laid out under (I)(A)(ii).

This is his response to the motion for abatement.

 

[Donjeta]

I think this is why Terri got a new phone. Because her original phone Kaine had access to the bill and account and could get records of texts and calls. I understand you can just call up your phone compnay and those records if it's your account.

I think Exhibit A is from Michael Cook's phone records, not Terri's, because it shows sent and received messages that way.

I also hope that Bunch demands to see the un-redacted copy.

Would his client not allow him to see her texts without involving the court?

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

Interesting.

I don't really understand the complaints about the redacting. At the same time it is alleged that this text exchange is TMI and just mudslinging to have it in public record, but in the next breath people want the rest of it to be unredacted, although it may be completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, and if so it might be just more TMI and mudslinging to release the redacted bits.

 

[Donjeta]

No matter what happens, divorce would seem to be in the best interest of all concerned, including the children. And the court is not going to base it's decision on whether it thinks children are *better off* in a family with two parents. The divorce is a given as far as the court is concerned.

I agree. It appears there are plenty of problems in the marital relationship even if Terri is found innocent and it doesn't seem like the children could live a harmonious life in a home with so much bad blood and mistrust between the parents. It might be a shock for Kyron to come home and find that his father and stepmother divorced but I doubt that it would be better to come home to a warzone.

 

[nurseratchett]

With all that came out late last week and over the weekend and --- as it was noted even on this forum --- people beginning to see that Terri's stated timeline is being verified and tightened, comments made that are starting to show some doubt that Terri was involved, I fully expected something to come out early this week from Kaine or Desiree or both designed to remind everyone just how evil and demented Terri really is. I am not in the least surprised to see these texts revealed to the media.

Except oddly enough, Rackner filed them Augist 11th, the same day as the last PC.
Looks almost like she was trying to avoid publicity, IMO.

 

[Donjeta]

Is there a readable link to the filing somewhere?

A google search found this: [ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/35982624/Kaine-Horman-Court-Papers-Objecting-to-Terri-Horman-s-Request-to-Delay-Divorce-Proceedings"]Kaine Horman Court Papers Objecting to Terri Horman's Request to Delay Divorce Proceedings[/ame]

An abatement or bifurcation \r'ould bc contrar-! to Oregon DolicY ... Jee uponapplication * * to theChicf l'anily Law Judge"): llatsan r lldtson

I knew legalese was supposed to be hard to read but this goes above and beyond duty.

 

[Calliope]

Would his client not allow him to see her texts without involving the court?

He needs to see what the opposing attorney is giving the Court.

I don't really understand the complaints about the redacting. At the same time it is alleged that this text exchange is TMI and just mudslinging to have it in public record, but in the next breath people want the rest of it to be unredacted, although it may be completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, and if so it might be just more TMI and mudslinging to release the redacted bits.

I don't have a problem not seeing the redacted parts of the record. I have a problem with his attorney giving the Court a redacted record.

 

[Calliope]

Except oddly enough, Rackner filed them Augist 11th, the same day as the last PC.
Looks almost like she was trying to avoid publicity, IMO.

Hmmm.

That actually makes my point. Thanks.

 

[Calliope]

there is no way no how a lawyer is going to deliberately mislead the court unless she is LOOKING for disciplinary action. In a high-profile case like this, it boggles to think that the lawyers are being misleading or deceptive. Case in point, the best the Houze can do is imply that it's a *witch hunt*. Why? Because he can't say anything more about the actual situation with his client without breaching his ethical obligations, imoo. When Houze comes out and says my client is innocent of any involvement in the disappearance of kyron horman, maybe I'll question her innocence. I'm not holding my breath for that.

Perhaps she's misleading the media.

 

[RubyRed]

He needs to see what the opposing attorney is giving the Court.

I don't have a problem not seeing the redacted parts of the record. I have a problem with his attorney giving the Court a redacted record.

They have the original without it being redacted and would have to make that available to the judge. It is very possible they did.

 

[Donjeta]

He needs to see what the opposing attorney is giving the Court.

I don't have a problem not seeing the redacted parts of the record. I have a problem with his attorney giving the Court a redacted record.

IMO, if she had given the court an unredacted record and the redacted parts turned out to have nothing to do with Houze's retainer but be a part of their sexting exchanges, a conversation about minors now or formerly in their care, or angry venting using bad words etc. some people would have a problem with that too. "Why didn't she redact those parts, they've got nothing to do with the petition, they just serve to make Terri look bad"

Rackner writes that the court can examine those parts if they want to so IMO it's likely that it's something irrelevant because I don't suppose that the judge would react favorably if he/she felt like Rackner was trying to fool the court with an out of context clipping after examining the redacted bits.

 

[Calliope]

They have the original without it being redacted and would have to make that available to the judge. It is very possible they did.

I'm a little fuzzy on whether she'd have to if she hadn't shown the judge yet.

 

[Calliope]

IMO, if she had given the court an unredacted record and the redacted parts turned out to have nothing to do with Houze's retainer but be a part of their sexting exchanges, a conversation about minors now or formerly in their care, or angry venting using bad words etc. some people would have a problem with that too. "Why didn't she redact those parts, they've got nothing to do with the petition, they just serve to make Terri look bad"

Rackner writes that the court can examine those parts if they want to so IMO it's likely that it's something irrelevant because I don't suppose that the judge would react favorably if he/she felt like Rackner was trying to fool the court with an out of context clipping after examining the redacted bits.

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation about Houze. Maybe it makes her look good.

 

[Donjeta]

Perhaps she's misleading the media.

What's her plan?

 

[Calliope]

What's her plan?

No idea what his plan is. But I can guess, and I did.

 

[Calliope]

It depends upon how the media outlet that "broke" the story obtained this information, either in hand or a *tip* to go to the courthouse, or simply by searching the court records on their own. Filed on 8/11 makes me think they were nudged in that direction.

 

[Donjeta]

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation about Houze. Maybe it makes her look good.

Yeah, maybe. I'm sure she writes touching and sweet text messages all the time quite naturally, and if not, MC demonstrates that there was some thought about what things would look like if anybody was reading.

I suppose I'm just afraid that if this was the same day the sexting relationship began some of the redacted messages might show more of her good looking side than I want to see.

Perhaps Bunch can object to the redaction and include the favorable parts in his response. It is not Rackner's job to make Terri look good, it's Bunch and Houze's.

 

[Calliope]

Yeah, maybe. I'm sure she writes touching and sweet text messages all the time quite naturally, and if not, MC demonstrates that there was some thought about what things would look like if anybody was reading.

I suppose I'm just afraid that if this was the same day the sexting relationship began some of the redacted messages might show more of her good looking side than I want to see.

Perhaps Bunch can object to the redaction and include the favorable parts in his response. It is not Rackner's job to make Terri look good, it's Bunch and Houze's.

How many times are they allowed to go back and forth with the motions? Is he allowed to answer Rackner's response? And so on?

 

[Donjeta]

How many times are they allowed to go back and forth with the motions? Is he allowed to answer Rackner's response? And so on?

I haven't got a clue but it already feels like watching a tennis game to me.