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

[Kimster]

Not in the esoteric world of trusts and estates... That is why trust funds are adminstered by an attorney, never by family memebers themselves...

I am connecting KH's mention of the $, and it's origins, with the last presser given by DY... DY said something to the effect of " if TH can have 350,000 for a defense lawyer,why can't I have the same amount of $ to look for Kyron ? " ( Not verbatim )...

Hypothetically,if TH was able to get $ from her family's trust, and this was made known, I believe the public's general reaction would be : Why has she never used any of her family's money to try to help find her stepson ? And if that was true,it would be a fair question, MOO.

All JMO

Watch out - my brother administers our family's trust fund. He has an attorney advise him, but he makes the final decisions. And my ex administered his family's trust with little attorney advisement. It isn't an easy task which is why I've set up my will and trust to be handled by someone other than my heirs.

 

[tlcya]

IMO the goal is to keep her from answering civil questions that could impact her potential criminal charges. I understand that and a good defense attorney will keep her fromhaving to answering questions. This works both ways i should add. A good prosecutor would not want his complaining witness giving sworn testimony in a civil case before the criminal trial imo.

nail on head

 

[nurseratchett]

RSBM

But I can deal with logic. And I can deal with reason. And in that vein, and in order to sort through things as best I can, I do so.

He's just not entitled to this money information in the manner in which he's demanding he should get it. The money went to Houze, not Terri. End of that story. I do understand what Kaine wants, though.

Ahhh.... although I can deal with logic, and reason, I freely admit I also listen to my instincts....(oddly though, I don't gamble)

I logically believe that it is reasonable for Kaine to know where that money came from.

I logically think he doesn't care about the money.

I reasonably believe it's all a chess game, for both parties IMO.

I reasonably believe that, logically, Kaines ultimate goal is to make TH say something incriminating. If the only way to do that currently is thru a civil process, well, that seems logical and reasonable to me.

I do find it fascinating how we (collectively, I mean) can see the same thing and arrive at such a variety of interpretations.
I suppose that is, logically, what makes the world so interesting.

Sign me SPOCK for this logic based post..

 

[JBean]

Oh, I so agree on the adversarial nature of the courtroom. That is normal procedure.

But what I find abnormal, and what I was trying to say, sleepy-eyed, is that the alliance between LE and Kaine, profiting both (they help with his divorce; he flanks TH by using a civil action as an investigative tool to gain what LE hasn't been able to do) is just plain...hinky. And something I've not seen before. All kinds of things that normally are separated are just being twisted up together in one great big snarled mess. JMO

Civil and criminal proceedings are often closely intertwined. But I will agree that this being a divorce proceeding does make it interesting!

 

[germaine]

In the memorandum, Bunch stated that Houze stipulated that the funds paid to him were from a third party and therefore not suit money, which Kaine would be entitled to know about.

It was paid to him, not Terri.

iirc, he *stipulated* in a meeting or letter to counsel. Not even close to stipulating on the record in court. Not enforceable, not admissible. I'm looking for where Houze told the court where the retainer did or did not come from.

 

[tlcya]

Not in the esoteric world of trusts and estates... That is why trust funds are adminstered by an attorney, never by family memebers themselves...

I am connecting KH's mention of the $, and it's origins, with the last presser given by DY... DY said something to the effect of " if TH can have 350,000 for a defense lawyer,why can't I have the same amount of $ to look for Kyron ? " ( Not verbatim )...

Hypothetically,if TH was able to get $ from her family's trust, and this was made known, I believe the public's general reaction would be : Why has she never used any of her family's money to try to help find her stepson ? And if that was true,it would be a fair question, MOO.

All JMO

BBM Completely off topic for a sec. I recently went full time and gained an attorney. The bulk of his work is elder care, estate planning, Gaurdianships and trusts. Wow, you aren't kidding. Its a whole nother world!

Okay back on topic

 

[JBean]

Not in the esoteric world of trusts and estates... That is why trust funds are adminstered by an attorney, never by family memebers themselves...

I am connecting KH's mention of the $, and it's origins, with the last presser given by DY... DY said something to the effect of " if TH can have 350,000 for a defense lawyer,why can't I have the same amount of $ to look for Kyron ? " ( Not verbatim )...

Hypothetically,if TH was able to get $ from her family's trust, and this was made known, I believe the public's general reaction would be : Why has she never used any of her family's money to try to help find her stepson ? And if that was true,it would be a fair question, MOO.

All JMO

what kind of Trust are you talking about? LOL I have 4 different kinds right now and none of them work the same. So I should probably determine what kind you mean. Maybe that is what I am not understanding.

 

[tlcya]

iirc, he *stipulated* in a meeting or letter to counsel. Not even close to stipulating on the record in court. Not enforceable, not admissible. I'm looking for where Houze told the court where the retainer did or did not come from.

I thought the matter was continued? The hearing today was about whether Bunch has to divulge that information. I understood no decision was made. To tell the court where the retainer came from would negate the whole need for the hearing in the first place.

KWIM?

 

[debs]

But Kaine has been told repeatedly where the money came from. Verbally and in written communication. It came from a third party. It was paid to Houze directly. After that, he has no RIGHT to the information.

He also shouldn't be allowed to run an end-game around Terri's rights. He says horrible things about her and it's easy to believe because there's a little boy lost, but it doesn't mean he should be allowed to just walk through her Constitutional rights to not incriminate herself, and further, her right to legal representation. (Bunch sited both the 5th and the 6th Amendments in his memorandum.)

I can see that a lot of people want it to be different, but it isn't.

Logically and reasonably, that's why we have a standard of law we all must follow (or should).

 

[grandmaj]

I think the judge is very on top of this case and understands that by a little delay many of these questions are going to come out in the wash.... there will be much bigger issues to attend to, than worrying about Terri's divorce.

Even Jose Baez had to eventually disclose the source of where funds came from. This is just a legal maneuvering and a stall technique IMO. And since that document was filed today Kaine's attorney has not had an opportunity to answer it yet.

 

[tlcya]

Debs, I agee with all you said except for one part. He has not told where the money came from but rather has told where it DID NOT come from. And he further argues that that should suffice barring anything Kaine can produce that would suggest otherwise.

 

[JBean]

But Kaine has been told repeatedly where the money came from. Verbally and in written communication. It came from a third party. It was paid to Houze directly. After that, he has no RIGHT to the information.

He also shouldn't be allowed to run an end-game around Terri's rights. He says horrible things about her and it's easy to believe because there's a little boy lost, but it doesn't mean he should be allowed to just walk through her Constitutional rights to not incriminate herself, and further, her right to legal representation. (Bunch sited both the 5th and the 6th Amendments in his memorandum.)

I can see that a lot of people want it to be different, but it isn't.

Logically and reasonably, that's why we have a standard of law we all must follow (or should).

But that is just it Debs, law is subject to interpretation and argument.Therein lies the rub and court proceedings. he may or may not have a right to the information, time will tell and a judge will decide.

 

[gitana1]

The "harm" comes to the precedent it might set that all attorneys would be forced to stipulate beyond a reasonable point to where their fees came from. Because a client has the privilege of their attorney keeping their transactions private. Because another party, as poignant as his cause might be, cannot through that emotional point, force the attorney or the other party to disclose information which has no bearing on the action in front of the court (in this case, the divorce).

Terri's attorneys filed a stipulation, and with the knowledge that any information therein being false could render a charge of perjury for the attorney, that the money came from a third party, was not a marital asset or gift, or that it fell into the area of marital property.

Asked, and answered. And Kaine pushes on anyway. That's on him. It can't always be blamed on Terri. Kaine is pushing past the information he got because he thought he could, and the court is saying no, he can't.

Here in CA, we have an Income and Expense Declaration which every divorcing party must fill out, file and submit to the other party. It has a space that asks how much they paid in attorney's fees and the source of the payment. That is the other party's right to know.
But this is not about TH's divorce attorney's fees. It's about her possible fees to a criminal attorney and I think I just figured out why they are fighting so hard not to divulge anything! If they are forced to publicize that TH paid a large sum to a criminal attorney, that may make her seem guilty of something to many people in the public. It's probably nothing nefarious.
And it is an interesting legal problem. In my professional opinion, TH must disclose to KH how she paid those fees, or what the source was, with specifics. Because it could have come from hidden marital assets. Or it could evidence that TH has access to funds that mitigate any attorney's fees award or support order.
However, usually, that info (meaning info re payment to a criminal attorney of a retainer) is privileged. The divorce makes it not so because a spouse in a disso has the right to all info regarding the other spouse's access to funds.
I do not think this info would lead directly to Kyron but I do think it is a pressure tactic. There has been discussion on here as to whether such tactics would cause TH to talk. I agree, probably not. But you never know (assuming she is guilty). I have seen cases where the suspect caves to pressure and makes a dumb move as a result, that move later helping to incriminate them. That's why LE sometimes uses media to address the suspect psychologically, for example.
Nevertheless, the court must now balance KH's right to try to work the system in any way he can to get answers and find Kyron, his legal right to certain info in the context of the divorce, and TH's delicate position of not wanting to prejudice herself in relation to a potential criminal case. Wow.
I read Houze's response. There were large flaws in his argument. I do not think what was submitted satisfies KH's legal right to info about TH's access to funds and TH's obligation to divulge that info.
But, I think I have the solution. In camera discovery of the source and amount of her payment to Houze, with the answer sealed from the public. Problem solved, I think.

 

[Kimster]

IMO the goal is to keep her from answering civil questions that could impact her potential criminal charges. I understand that and a good defense attorney will keep her fromhaving to answering questions. This works both ways i should add. A good prosecutor would not want his complaining witness giving sworn testimony in a civil case before the criminal trial either, imo.

...and someone was sitting in the courtroom today just in case TH's attorney didn't get the job done, too!

"A bevy of news reporters and Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Rod Underhill watched the proceedings from the courtroom audience." <snipped>

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=128648892311734600

 

[liz b.]

Watch out - my brother administers our family's trust fund. He has an attorney advise him, but he makes the final decisions. And my ex administered his family's trust with little attorney advisement. It isn't an easy task which is why I've set up my will and trust to be handled by someone other than my heirs.

" Watch out " -- OT, but just the sight of that weird little pic you use makes me watch out.... Yes, handling family money is hard. IMO Probably is wise to use a lawyer...MOO

 

[gitana1]

The "harm" comes to the precedent it might set that all attorneys would be forced to stipulate beyond a reasonable point to where their fees came from. Because a client has the privilege of their attorney keeping their transactions private. Because another party, as poignant as his cause might be, cannot through that emotional point, force the attorney or the other party to disclose information which has no bearing on the action in front of the court (in this case, the divorce).

Terri's attorneys filed a stipulation, and with the knowledge that any information therein being false could render a charge of perjury for the attorney, that the money came from a third party, was not a marital asset or gift, or that it fell into the area of marital property.

Asked, and answered. And Kaine pushes on anyway. That's on him. It can't always be blamed on Terri. Kaine is pushing past the information he got because he thought he could, and the court is saying no, he can't.

The court has not yet ruled on KH's request for more info.

 

[Kimster]

" Watch out " -- OT, but just the sight of that weird little pic you use makes me watch out.... Yes, handling family money is hard. IMO Probably is wise to use a lawyer...MOO

:floorlaugh: I needed voice fluctuation with the watch out! It was more of a "Dr.Phil" lilt to it.

And I totally agree with you. Using a lawyer or someone not named in the trust is definitely wise.

 

[germaine]

I thought he answered that pretty completely when he stated that he had provided Kaine with documentation that the retainer was paid by a third party and was not paid by Terri. It was not her money, Kaine's money, Marital asset and was not a loan that would qaulify as a marital debt. Did I misread?

depends on what the documentation is. That's what I've been asking about. I haven't seen anything from anyone with personal knowledge from TH's camp documenting where the money came from. For example, I Houze, on x date, personally reviewed certified documents from the recorders office showing that TH's parents obtained a mortgage on their home located at y. On z date, my retainer was paid from the proceeds of that transaction. Alternatively, I, Houze, received on z date an amount sufficient to satisfy my retainer in this case. The source of retainer was not a marital asset, and the retainer agreement is not a marital liability. My client did not pay the retainer from her own personal or marital assets and does not have sufficient assets to pay her attorneys fees in the matter of Horman v. Horman. Case closed. That's all it would take, imo.

 

[JBean]

here in ca, we have an income and expense declaration which every divorcing party must fill out, file and submit to the other party. It has a space that asks how much they paid in attorney's fees and the source of the payment. That is the other party's right to know.
But this is not about th's divorce attorney's fees. It's about her possible fees to a criminal attorney and i think i just figured out why they are fighting so hard not to divulge anything! If they are forced to publicize that th paid a large sum to a criminal attorney, that may make her seem guilty of something to many people in the public. it's probably nothing nefarious.
And it is an interesting legal problem. In my professional opinion, th must disclose to kh how she paid those fees, or what the source was, with specifics. Because it could have come from hidden marital assets. Or it could evidence that th has access to funds that mitigate any attorney's fees award or support order.
However, usually, that info (meaning info re payment to a criminal attorney of a retainer) is privileged. The divorce makes it not so because a spouse in a disso has the right to all info regarding the other spouse's access to funds.
I do not think this info would lead directly to kyron but i do think it is a pressure tactic. There has been discussion on here as to whether such tactics would cause th to talk. I agree, probably not. But you never know (assuming she is guilty). I have seen cases where the suspect caves to pressure and makes a dumb move as a result, that move later helping to incriminate them. That's why le sometimes uses media to address the suspect psychologically, for example.
Nevertheless, the court must now balance kh's right to try to work the system in any way he can to get answers and find kyron, his legal right to certain info in the context of the divorce, and th's delicate position of not wanting to prejudice herself in relation to a potential criminal case. Wow.
I read houze's response. There were large flaws in his argument. I do not think what was submitted satisfies kh's legal right to info about th's access to funds and th's obligation to divulge that info.
But, i think i have the solution. In camera discovery of the source and amount of her payment to houze, with the answer sealed from the public. Problem solved, i think.

genius

 

[debs]

I agree filling out a financial form is typical in divorces. Houze is not her divorce attorney, and Terri got him as an attorney after Kaine had filed for divorce, and her attorney states that at that point, since Houze was not paid with marital assets, 'suit money', marital property, gift, or anything else, that it is not relevant to Kaine's divorce from Terri. The money went to Houze, not Terri.