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

[mmmagique]

FR: But how many high profile criminal attorneys bother to go to a (very mundane, everyday) divorce proceding?

As much as I'd love to bring Houze with me were I ever to get a divorce :croc:, I have a feeling I couldn't afford him, nor could I interest him in the tawdry boring details of my life. (Unless I was a key person in one of this country's biggest non-fiction whodunits of the year.)

 

[Sherbie]

If there are criminal charges to be brought, for the MFH or the disappearance of Kyron, it has NO reason to be in a civil matter the likes of the divorce of Kaine Horman from Terri Horman. To attempt to force Terri to answer criminal questions regarding either matter, is a criminal issue, and Houze is there to make certain that those are separate from a civil divorce proceeding.

None of this (any of it) has any notion regarding my own personal beliefs of Terri or Kaine Horman.

I have to disagree a little, Debs. If there is actual evidence of a MFH plot, it is relevant to the RO, which itself is relevant to the divorce proceedings (both dissolution and child custody). I think there's every reason for that to be brought up by KH.

In a civil case, the judge doesn't have to make a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to make a ruling. He can just look at the evidence and, if he finds it compelling, take it into consideration in making his rulings.

This is all JMO, by the way.

 

[gardeness]

Houze has said that this is a witch hunt for Terri (and, IMO, those words are a better indicator of what he knows about Terri than just showing up in court). IMO, he's in court to protect his client from the witch hunt.

 

[Sherbie]

Agreed.

Okay, so Houze is there to listen. But. Was there an indication he'd be not listening, but actively representing at a future civil proceeding? I have to wonder why.

And it continues to trouble me that Terri's divorce attorney hasn't said "either prove these MFH allegations, or take them out of this matter now".

:bedtime:

Forgive me if I'm not making sense at this late hour. If that's the case, then even I'll have to argue with myself in the AM.

LOL, Emma. You are making perfect sense. I understand what you're saying.

I don't think he can demand the accusation be removed from the proceeding until that matter is heard before the court. Maybe he or the civil atty could make a motion to have a hearing on that specific issue? It sounds like, though, the judge doesn't want to address issues separately -- at least for now.

I definitely look for some motions prior to any hearings on the MFH plot or suspicion regarding Kyron's disappearance. I think Houze will collaborate with her civil attorney in the pleadings they file to do all they can to avoid her having to answer those accusations.

 

[debs]

I have to disagree a little, Debs. If there is actual evidence of a MFH plot, it is relevant to the RO, which itself is relevant to the divorce proceedings (both dissolution and child custody). I think there's every reason for that to be brought up by KH.

In a civil case, the judge doesn't have to make a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to make a ruling. He can just look at the evidence and, if he finds it compelling, take it into consideration in making his rulings.

This is all JMO, by the way.

have you seen actual evidence of a MFH plot? I haven't. As far as I know, Kaine has only been told that LE has reason to believe (which he stated as "probable cause") to believe there was ever a MFH plot. Sure it's relevant to the RO, but once Kaine brings that to a divorce proceeding, it isn't about what someone has "probable cause" or "reason to believe" .... it's about what they have evidence of. And so far, there has been no presentation OF.

And any judge, civil or criminal, who looks at anything without evidence which, I must reiterate, nothing outside of hearsay and speculation (granted LE-endorsed) and who still finds it compelling, should lose his/her seat on the bench immediately.

 

[Emma Peel]

If there are criminal charges to be brought, for the MFH or the disappearance of Kyron, it has NO reason to be in a civil matter the likes of the divorce of Kaine Horman from Terri Horman. To attempt to force Terri to answer criminal questions regarding either matter, is a criminal issue, and Houze is there to make certain that those are separate from a civil divorce proceeding.

None of this (any of it) has any notion regarding my own personal beliefs of Terri or Kaine Horman.

Agreed.

So, this is why I would expect, if there are no criminal charges MFH to be brought, that Terri's civil defense would be arguing this point and asking that these MFH allegations in this divorce filing be ruled upon as irrelevant to the plaintiff's filing.

However Terri's response to the divorce action is, instead, to seek delays to portions of the divorce proceeding. Delays until the Kyron matter is completed.

Not sure what we can glean from Terri's divorce proceedings strategy...but...they're just not fighting the MFH thing as I expected they might. IMO.

 

[debs]

Agreed.

So, this is why I would expect, if there are no criminal charges MFH to be brought, that Terri's civil defense would be arguing this point and asking that these MFH allegations in this divorce filing be ruled upon as irrelevant to the plaintiff's filing.

However Terri's response to the divorce action is, instead, to seek delays to portions of the divorce proceeding. Delays until the Kyron matter is completed.

Not sure what we can glean from Terri's divorce proceedings strategy...but...they're just not fighting the MFH thing as I expected they might. IMO.

How would you resolve one issue when you're a "de facto suspect" in yet another issue, without abating a civil issue until you can be cleared of the criminal one? It is the criminal case which weighs more heavily. It is that which should be resolved first. Kaine is trying to get the criminal handled in civil court. It is a problem for me, and should be for every citizen.

 

[Sherbie]

You've got me all wrong. I've said a bunch of times I wouldn't convict her based on what we know. Notwithstanding, imo she is not being unfairly railroaded IN THE COURTS. Maybe in public opinion, but not in the system. Her rights are being very well protected. This is not personal to me. Not subjective, not emotional. Quite the opposite. She can't avoid testifying or pleading the 5th in a civil case because that's what the law says. The law also says that what Kaine is doing is well within his right to do as well.

I agree that unless her attorneys somehow manage to do away with those accusations prior to a hearing, Terri will be called to testify and will be put under oath. She will then either have to answer or plead the 5th. Any answers she gives under oath could be used against her in a criminal case, as I understand it.

Like you, I believe Kaine's pleadings have been within the letter of the law. I think being shown evidence by LE that your spouse wanted to kill you is certainly relevant in a divorce/custody hearing!

Do you think if there haven't been charges filed by the time this rolls around for hearing that the judge will want to proceed? From TH's point of view, I could see why she wouldn't want that. But from the standpoint of the law, if she hasn't been charged with anything, would there be a legal reason in civil court to postpone the proceedings?

 

[eyes4crime]

Agreed.

So, this is why I would expect, if there are no criminal charges MFH to be brought, that Terri's civil defense would be arguing this point and asking that these MFH allegations in this divorce filing be ruled upon as irrelevant to the plaintiff's filing.

However Terri's response to the divorce action is, instead, to seek delays to portions of the divorce proceeding. Delays until the Kyron matter is completed.

Not sure what we can glean from Terri's divorce proceedings strategy...but...they're just not fighting the MFH thing as I expected they might. IMO.

Is Kaine's divorce filing and custody of baby K based only on the MFH allegation? I'm not sure I will ever understand how an accusation of MFH can be used against Terri...help!

 

[wondering1]

Houze has said that this is a witch hunt for Terri (and, IMO, those words are a better indicator of what he knows about Terri than just showing up in court). IMO, he's in court to protect his client from the witch hunt.

He's calling it a witch hunt as a predicate for his motion to say she can't get a fair trial. Notice that he hasn't said anything about innocence. jmoo

 

[Sherbie]

have you seen actual evidence of a MFH plot? I haven't. As far as I know, Kaine has only been told that LE has reason to believe (which he stated as "probable cause") to believe there was ever a MFH plot. Sure it's relevant to the RO, but once Kaine brings that to a divorce proceeding, it isn't about what someone has "probable cause" or "reason to believe" .... it's about what they have evidence of. And so far, there has been no presentation OF.

And any judge, civil or criminal, who looks at anything without evidence which, I must reiterate, nothing outside of hearsay and speculation (granted LE-endorsed) and who still finds it compelling, should lose his/her seat on the bench immediately.

Because we haven't seen what evidence LE has about the MFH plot doesn't mean there isn't any. They may call LEOs and the LS to testify about it.

The threshold is different in civil court. The judge doesn't have to make a ruling on the truth of the accusations, but the parties are certainly free to present testimony and other evidence. It's then up to the judge how much weight to give it as it relates to the issues he's deciding.

 

[Sherbie]

He's calling it a witch hunt as a predicate for his motion to say she can't get a fair trial. Notice that he hasn't said anything about innocence. jmoo

Yeah, that's pretty typical for a defense atty to say. Witch hunt, rush to judgment, etc.

On another note, but one that might apply here, wasn't there an issue in the Scott Peterson trial about his giving testimony in the civil case brought by Sharon Rocha? Was it postponed til after his trial or did they go ahead with it?

 

[wondering1]

I agree that unless her attorneys somehow manage to do away with those accusations prior to a hearing, Terri will be called to testify and will be put under oath. She will then either have to answer or plead the 5th. Any answers she gives under oath could be used against her in a criminal case, as I understand it.

Like you, I believe Kaine's pleadings have been within the letter of the law. I think being shown evidence by LE that your spouse wanted to kill you is certainly relevant in a divorce/custody hearing!

Do you think if there haven't been charges filed by the time this rolls around for hearing that the judge will want to proceed? From TH's point of view, I could see why she wouldn't want that. But from the standpoint of the law, if she hasn't been charged with anything, would there be a legal reason in civil court to postpone the proceedings?

I think the family court judge will proceed and assume innocence unless and until a charge has been made and she is found guilty. In the meantime, the family court judge will hear evidence and testimony just like s/he does everday, and it terri pleads the 5th in family court, it will be considered by the judge in his/her ruling. But that doesn't mean it can be considered as evidence against her in a criminal proceeding. But it can be construed against her in the divorce proceeding. jmoo

 

[debs]

Because we haven't seen what evidence LE has about the MFH plot doesn't mean there isn't any. They may call LEOs and the LS to testify about it.

The threshold is different in civil court. The judge doesn't have to make a ruling on the truth of the accusations, but the parties are certainly free to present testimony and other evidence. It's then up to the judge how much weight to give it as it relates to the issues he's deciding.

Oh but it isn't; accusing Terri of a MFH and never offering any substantive proof is hearsay. LE becomes a hearsay witness. What there has to be is solid proof of a MFH. Receipts. Audio tapes. Pictures of money transferring hands. Witnesses. Then the defense gets to counter it. But that all falls into a discovery process, which seems to be something people want to avoid, also, just to get to "justice". A judge better damn well make a ruling on the truth of the accusations. Or that judge needs to lose his/her seat.

 

[debs]

I think the family court judge will proceed and assume innocence unless and until a charge has been made and she is found guilty. In the meantime, the family court judge will hear evidence and testimony just like s/he does everday, and it terri pleads the 5th in family court, it will be considered by the judge in his/her ruling. But that doesn't mean it can be considered as evidence against her in a criminal proceeding. But it can be construed against her in the divorce proceeding. jmoo

If you were Terri Horman, would you really REALLY buy into this?

 

[JBean]

She is between a rock and a hard place.

The name of the game is to keep TH from talking about anything associated with a crime she may be charged with in a future criminal proceeding. This is especially true with regards to giving sworn testimony at a civil case related to the same events.

But, it is easier to get a civil win if criminal charges have been proven which is why civil cases are often fought after the criminal charges.

The divorce proceedings are tied very closely to a crime (MFH) and in order to refute them TH must testify. But no way would it be wise to give sworn testimony about an event that you may be charged with. But by not testifying it could imply guilt in a civil trial. But OTOH her civil testimony could also be used to impeach her in a criminal trial.



rock meet the hard place.

 

[wondering1]

If you were Terri Horman, would you really REALLY buy into this?

if you're questioning the whole judicial process, then that's another can of worms. Is it a fiction that pleading the 5th won't be considered by the jury as proof of guilt? Does the 5th amendment give undue protection to the guilty? Maybe WS should start a Constitutional law board

 

[Emma Peel]

How would you resolve one issue when you're a "de facto suspect" in yet another issue, without abating a civil issue until you can be cleared of the criminal one? It is the criminal case which weighs more heavily. It is that which should be resolved first. Kaine is trying to get the criminal handled in civil court. It is a problem for me, and should be for every citizen.

I admit I'm confused about this.

If my husband tried to kill me and I found out about it, I would likely use that info as grounds for divorce, RO, custody, etc..

In fact, if my husband had physically beat me himself. - I would likely use that info as grounds for divorce, RO, custody, etc..

In either case - if he beat me or MFH'd me, I would divorce him AND press criminal charges.


In the case of my husband beating me:

Should I not allege in my divorce filing that I wanted a divorce because my husband beat me? Would that be considered my attempt to try my husband for a criminal charge in civil court?

Do I really have to wait for criminal court proceeding on my beating to get divorced from this horrible man and get permanent custody of my children?

Maybe this MFH divorce allegation is similar to a spousal abuse divorce allegation - and the answer is simply the same as would be in a typical spousal abuse divorce proceeding?

Anyone know how that works? Because, thank goodness, I do not.

 

[Sherbie]

How would you resolve one issue when you're a "de facto suspect" in yet another issue, without abating a civil issue until you can be cleared of the criminal one? It is the criminal case which weighs more heavily. It is that which should be resolved first. Kaine is trying to get the criminal handled in civil court. It is a problem for me, and should be for every citizen.

I understand what you mean, Debs...but unless and until she's charged, there really is no criminal case. But for a civil judge, there doesn't have to be a criminal case or conviction in order to consider evidence of any behavior or actions that might be central to a party seeking a divorce.

I have no clue how a judge in a civil case might feel about "possible" criminal charges looming for one of the parties, and I think that's the real consideration you're talking about in your posts. It's a very difficult situation since no charges have been filed.

I understand and appreciate your passion!

 

[gardeness]

He's calling it a witch hunt as a predicate for his motion to say she can't get a fair trial. Notice that he hasn't said anything about innocence. jmoo

The term "witch hunt" is a result of innocent people being accused of being witches. IMO, by saying this, Houze is talking about Terri's innocence.