Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
top of page 12 on the document filed by Engels in the docs: "this release is not intended to apply to any claim Respondent may have against Petitioner related to the pending Criminal Charges against him."
I guess kaine has some criminal charges against him? Humm.. Who knew?
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/...
I'm actually surprised terri's attorneys didn't suggest fabricating some kind of charge before this, since they don't have any good defensive strategy in place. It seems like her attorneys have been getting more confident that evidence won't be found in the Kyron investigation and have been getting bolder. Maybe they've decided that if they could trump up some charges to muddy the custody waters, they might create enough confusion for Terri to have a chance at visitation. This isn't uncommon in custody cases.
So, I guess this conversation has taken place between Kaine and Terris lawyers already, since Kaines lawyer is aware of "pending criminal chargeS" and Terris lawyer signed off on it...
Why even bother writing the statement anyway? It is Terri signing off that she won't sue Kaine? What the heck does it even mean?
top of page 12 on the document filed by Engels in the docs: "this release is not intended to apply to any claim Respondent may have against Petitioner related to the pending Criminal Charges against him."
I guess kaine has some criminal charges against him? Humm.. Who knew?
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/...
I get a "forbidden" message from this link. Is there another?
ami, your guess is incorrect. It says criminal charges, not civil charges. If Terri were to bring suit, it would not be a criminal suit. It would appear that Kaine is going to be prosecuted for a legal infraction by law enforcement, as that is the only entity who can bring criminal charges. The coming days will clarify this, I am sure. This appears to have been settled quickly for good reasons. My guess is that LE had a new expert come in and shed some new light on prior erroneous assumptions. Also, because Kaine is the petitioner, this clause was forced by Terri's attorney to be put in there and unlikely to be an erroneous statement because it is addressing Terri's right to possible future action. This would have to be one huge error if missed by both sides and their attorneys. Anything is possible, but I pray this means that Kyron's case has had some sort of major break.
One way to puzzle this out is to consider what claims TH could make against KH that would result in pending (under investigation, but no indictment formally filed) criminal charges. Here’s a list of potential criminal offenses:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/view-all-criminal-charges.html
My guess is a claim of domestic violence, which is not unusual in rancorous divorce cases. Maybe possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia. Maybe criminal harassment:
“Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/harassment.html#sthash.X5VCkObu.dpuf”
IMO, it’s doubtful the pending criminal charges have anything to do with Ky’s disappearance. It’s more likely a “counter charge” brought as leverage for TH in the upcoming custody battle.
ami, your guess is incorrect. It says criminal charges, not civil charges. If Terri were to bring suit, it would not be a criminal suit. It would appear that Kaine is going to be prosecuted for a legal infraction by law enforcement, as that is the only entity who can bring criminal charges. The coming days will clarify this, I am sure. This appears to have been settled quickly for good reasons. My guess is that LE had a new expert come in and shed some new light on prior erroneous assumptions. Also, because Kaine is the petitioner, this clause was forced by Terri's attorney to be put in there and unlikely to be an erroneous statement because it is addressing Terri's right to possible future action. This would have to be one huge error if missed by both sides and their attorneys. Anything is possible, but I pray this means that Kyron's case has had some sort of major break.
Another hearing is scheduled for Jan. 12.
This thread's been open for 16 days and we haven't gotten to page 2... :sigh:
Where are you, Kyron?