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

[debs]

I expect that everyone who has any say about it at court is agreed that she cannot be forced to give any answers if she chooses not to.

The thing that I am at a loss to understand is, I don't see why her having the right to remain silent, to avoid incriminating herself, to not give answers at court, if she so chooses would make it illegal and unjust for other people to file suits that might necessitate her to decide whether or not to exercise that right. I don't see what Kaine could file that would force her to speak and incriminate herself against her constitutional rights. At the most he can file civil suits that force her to make that choice that she has a right to. Her right to choose to remain closemouthed wouldn't be endangered.

No one is trying to make it illegal or unjust. The law is as it is, which states that no one should be forced to incriminate oneself (really badly abbreviated.) But Kaine filing does NOT mean Terri MUST respond. And even the suggestion that she should give a yay or nay is at the helm of this legal issue. To say she could incriminate herself is not to say she's guilty. It is to say that even an innocent person could say something which could incriminate them.

A divorce is not the venue to resolve this, and Kaine wants it to be so.

 

[debs]

We often hear people say (and certainly I have said) ..."If my child were missing I would do ANYTHING!

"I would go anywhere, try anything, submit to anything, I would turn the world upside down!"

Usually, most people applaud these sentiments. We understand. WE identify. Our hearts overflow for these families in pain.

But now here's Kaine.

And he is doing everything to get any bit of information from the wife that he believes is not cooperating to find his boy...the wife POLICE say tried to have him killed...the wife who told him she failed her Lie Detector test more than once.

He is perhaps planning to use the divorce proceedings to get info out of Terri.

Is he given the benefit of the doubt that he is just trying to help find his boy? That he is a desperate parent? Nope... everything is interpreted as just a terrible abuse of his wonderful sexting wife who police say tried to kill him.

Kaine's pain...his missing child...his need to protect Baby K...is second to... Terri's "rights."

So I guess the support given to parents of missing children, desperate to find them is...qualified. If we don't like them...they aren't getting either support or sympathy.

Kaine need not apply. He needs to consider Terri before Kyron because well, he might be "cheap". he might be "controlling"...or other things that upset us.

Information to find Kyron...must come second to Terri...or we hate Kaine. Kaine better not try "doing anything, anywhere" to find his son.

This is a teaching moment for sure.

Terri's rights are as equal as Kaine's, Kyron's, and baby K's. Her rights are as equal as yours or mine. We don't have to like it when it doesn't apply to us, but by gosh, we should hope someone is standing guard when it is OUR rights which measure against a determined thought for justice.

 

[cypress]

:boohoo:

For poor, poor dear Terri. That big, bad mean Kaine is just being sooo unfair! He actually thinks that silly MFH thing was for real?? Oh, please! LE probably just made that up! Terri and the LS were just messing around.....just like Terri and MC. Kaine is too uptight.

This divorce farce is Kaines way of getting back at Terri for spending HIS money, I bet. :innocent:

Kyron, Bless your heart, someday your stepmothers woes will take a backseat to finding out where you are.

Kyron is of the utmost importance, but in the process of finding him and finding out what happened to him, there's no need to create more victims. The end doesn't justify the means, IMHO.

We either act like civilized, rational human beings or we risk becoming what we hate.

 

[mmmagique]

No one is trying to make it illegal or unjust. The law is as it is, which states that no one should be forced to incriminate oneself (really badly abbreviated.) But Kaine filing does NOT mean Terri MUST respond. And even the suggestion that she should give a yay or nay is at the helm of this legal issue. To say she could incriminate herself is not to say she's guilty. It is to say that even an innocent person could say something which could incriminate them.

A divorce is not the venue to resolve this, and Kaine wants it to be so.

BBM

Has he stated this?

Perhaps he just wants to get off this messed up merry-go-round with the unusual person who attempted a mfh plot against him, (before Kyron went missing) and sexted hundreds of texts and naughty pictures just days after his son (her stepson who she "raised" and cared for) went missing.

I wouldn't blame him one bit to do everything he possibly could do to try to find out what she knows about his missing child though.

 

[debs]

BBM

Has he stated this?

Perhaps he just wants to get off this messed up merry-go-round with the (unusual person) who attempted a mfh plot against him, (before Kyron went missing) and sexted hundreds of texts and naughty pictures just days after his son (her stepson who she "raised" and cared for) went missing.

I wouldn't blame him one bit to do everything he possibly could do to try to find out what she knows about his missing child though.

This is a divorce proceeding. In a no-fault State. Please let me know where any of this is relevant.

 

[Dee10]

This to me said, Kaine's motions where valid in the court of law and both will have their day in Court:

Judge Keith Meisenheimer took only minutes to decide in favor of Rackner and said these issues should not be complicated for the defense to prepare for. http://www.koinlocal6.com/mostpopul...rules-in-favor-of/nViCK_TU30-UdrOlJmu3Fg.cspx

Terri has choices and a great lawyer.

 

[debs]

This to me said, Kaine's motions where valid in the court of law and both will have their day in Court:

Judge Keith Meisenheimer took only minutes to decide in favor of Rackner and said these issues should not be complicated for the defense to prepare for. http://www.koinlocal6.com/mostpopul...rules-in-favor-of/nViCK_TU30-UdrOlJmu3Fg.cspx

Terri has choices and a great lawyer.

Yes, Kaine's motions were valid. Terri's response was also valid. Neither was a part of a divorce proceeding. The problem lies in whether Kaine can force Terri to testify to something which doesn't involve divorce.

 

[grandmaj]

Isn't that why we have a court system? To decide on matters of law? Protecting the accused from unwarranted prosecution?

The way I see it the Court based on the Laws which protect our rights and freedoms, will make the decision what is and is not allowed under Law.

Kaine is exercising his rights to protection under the law. If he doesn't have any or all of those rights the judge will rule to exclude. If Terri acted recklessly and thus either has to testify or plead the 5th that isn't Kaine's fault. She chose her path.

 

[wondering1]

No one is trying to make it illegal or unjust. The law is as it is, which states that no one should be forced to incriminate oneself (really badly abbreviated.) But Kaine filing does NOT mean Terri MUST respond. And even the suggestion that she should give a yay or nay is at the helm of this legal issue. To say she could incriminate herself is not to say she's guilty. It is to say that even an innocent person could say something which could incriminate them.

A divorce is not the venue to resolve this, and Kaine wants it to be so.

The right against self-incrimination protects against criminal prosecution and is fully guarded by the 5th Amendment. She can plead the 5th in the civil case and in the criminal case, and neither can be used against her in the criminal case. There is no right against self-incrimination that can protect you against civil consequences in a divorce action. To bad, so sad. She can choose to lose the civil case to save her butt in a criminal case that hasn't even happened yet. Or she can waive her rights and see if she can win the civil case. Obviously, she and Mr. Houze have made that choice -- and I'm sure they have very sound reasons for doing so. Everything that's happening in this case is well within the letter of well-settled Constitutional law so far. If it weren't, I'm sure we'd be hearing about it from Houze. jmoo

 

[wondering1]

Yes, Kaine's motions were valid. Terri's response was also valid. Neither was a part of a divorce proceeding. The problem lies in whether Kaine can force Terri to testify to something which doesn't involve divorce.

He can't!!!! If it's not relevant to the divorce proceedings, a simple objection by Houze will either be sustained or overruled. And even if it is relevant, she doesn't have to testify. She can plead the 5th :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[wondering1]

This is a divorce proceeding. In a no-fault State. Please let me know where any of this is relevant.

the *equitable* distribution of marital assets and custody, obviously. That's why TH isn't objecting to the divorce itself, just to the related issue of custody and finances -- which she wants abated, and why her attorney cited the need for a custody eval. in his papers.

 

[debs]

The right against self-incrimination protects against criminal prosecution and is fully guarded by the 5th Amendment. She can plead the 5th in the civil case and in the criminal case, and neither can be used against her in the criminal case. There is no right against self-incrimination that can protect you against civil consequences in a divorce action. To bad, so sad. She can choose to lose the civil case to save her butt in a criminal case that hasn't even happened yet. Or she can waive her rights and see if she can win the civil case. Obviously, she and Mr. Houze have made that choice -- and I'm sure they have very sound reasons for doing so. Everything that's happening in this case is well within the letter of well-settled Constitutional law so far. If it weren't, I'm sure we'd be hearing about it from Houze. jmoo

You are respectfully wrong. Anything Terri says on the record, regardless of civil or criminal case, will be used against her. Not CAN be, but WILL be.

She would be a complete idiot (like, uh, texts) should she continue to comply with someone simply saying "hey, tell me...."

Terri has rights. She is not supposed to give up those rights (whether she is guilty or not...especially if she's not) in order to find out what happened to Kryon.

 

[debs]

He can't!!!! If it's not relevant to the divorce proceedings, a simple objection by Houze will either be sustained or overruled. And even if it is relevant, she doesn't have to testify. She can plead the 5th :banghead::banghead::banghead:[/quote

I'm sorry......Houze is her DEFENSE attorney; Bunch is her divorce attorney.

 

[tragco]

Yes, I'm sure you're right.

It seems her lawyers have so far been able to convince her to ignore that pressure because she chose not to contest the RO and not to apply for visitation or custody and they asked for the abatement of the custody issues up to two years.

Wonder what will happen if the abatement isn't granted.

IMO money has to be a pretty significant pressure factor for anybody with no available income and assets as well. Not because of greed or anything but just because a person's gotta live with something and if she considers any of the marital money rightfully hers it must be very stressful to be broke. But she asked for the money matters to be postponed as well.

Question BBM: Now THAT would indeed be interesting. We might learn a whole lot of things. It's possible that her divorce/criminal attorneys would decide that since there is no abatement, it's time to get everything out and let the pieces fall where they may.

They could decide to fight for custody rights, face the alleged Murder for Hire plot (I would LOVE to know the details. There was something sexual going on, of what nature we are not sure. If it was mutual, the two could have discussed lots of things. Maybe Terri said something in the heat of the moment- who knows?). If the abatement request is declined, we would learn a LOT.

That would be a hard position for Terri, to go ahead with the divorce and just plead the 5th on everything. Then she'd be facing the possibility of losing her daughter forever, and losing any rights to marital assets.

Even if she didn't talk, we could probably glean much from the lawyers' arguments.

 

[debs]

the *equitable* distribution of marital assets and custody, obviously. That's why TH isn't objecting to the divorce itself, just to the related issue of custody and finances -- which she wants abated, and why her attorney cited the need for a custody eval. in his papers.

She's not objecting to "equitable" distribution? I thought the divorce hadn't proceeded yet.

 

[wondering1]

You are respectfully wrong. Anything Terri says on the record, regardless of civil or criminal case, will be used against her. Not CAN be, but WILL be.

She would be a complete idiot (like, uh, texts) should she continue to comply with someone simply saying "hey, tell me...."

Terri has rights. She is not supposed to give up those rights (whether she is guilty or not...especially if she's not) in order to find out what happened to Kryon.

Equally respectfully, YOU are wrong. In a criminal case a fifth amendment plea CANNOT be used as evidence against her. The jury CANNOT use it as evidence of guilt and will be so instructed by the court. It's just that simple. If you truly believe that I am wrong about this, please let me know what you're relying on.

 

[wondering1]

She's not objecting to "equitable" distribution? I thought the divorce hadn't proceeded yet.

She's asked for an abatement of everything but the dissolution.

eta: you said objecting...I said asking for an abatement. There's a distinction. She doesn't want those issues heard NOW because she doesn't want to testify or plead the 5th about them.

 

[wondering1]

He can't!!!! If it's not relevant to the divorce proceedings, a simple objection by Houze will either be sustained or overruled. And even if it is relevant, she doesn't have to testify. She can plead the 5th :banghead::banghead::banghead:[/quote

I'm sorry......Houze is her DEFENSE attorney; Bunch is her divorce attorney.

Houze is appearing at the October hearing on abatement and attorneys fees, and he was present as counsel when she appeared this week. And if we're simply splitting hairs, then Bunch could object on the same basis...again, obviously.

 

[debs]

Equally respectfully, YOU are wrong. In a criminal case a fifth amendment plea CANNOT be used as evidence against her. The jury CANNOT use it as evidence of guilt and will be so instructed by the court. It's just that simple. If you truly believe that I am wrong about this, please let me know what you're relying on.

Yup, a jury can, as long as it's entered as testimony from.........anyone. She says she's not guilty to any LE, that's testimony. It will be used against her if any one other person says "uh, well, I think i saw her......."

Don't think it won't happen. It has, and will. Terri cannot say one word that will not be used against her in a court of law.....that is the essence of the Miranda Rights......it isn't about what she says is true; it is about what she says that they WILL use against her.

 

[debs]

She's asked for an abatement of everything but the dissolution.

eta: you said objecting...I said asking for an abatement. There's a distinction. She doesn't want those issues heard NOW because she doesn't want to testify or plead the 5th about them.

Would ANYONE want to address those issues in a domestic, civil court? I wouldn't.