Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*

[AZlawyer]

According to the following article, TH's defense team spent about 2 hours in the Horman home after TH moved and before KH and Baby K returned.

http://www.kptv.com/news/24301734/detail.html

Why would the defense team do this? Prevent planting of evidence? Other?

Thanks!

The story is a little vague about whether or not Terri was still in the house while the defense team was there. I doubt they were there to prevent the planting of evidence--what would be the point when "the enemy" (in their minds) was about to get full control of the house anyway?

If the defense team was really there after Terri left and before Kaine arrived, it was probably pre-arranged for them to be there to ensure an uneventful transfer of the home (i.e., no opportunity for Kaine and Terri to bump into each other, and no opportunity for the media to swarm the empty house lol).

 

[Calliope]

Could you explain the reasoning behind this:

Kaine Horman has filed a motion in court this morning, asking a judge to order his estranged wife, Terri Moulton Horman, to disclose the source of the reportedly $350,000 she has paid to retain criminal defense attorney Stephen Houze.

"If Respondent has provided funds to her attorneys for her legal representation and considers them to be marital liability, these funds are marital property and Respondent should be required to pay one-half of these funds to Peitioner to use for his attorney fees and costs," wrote Laura Rackner, Kaine's attorney.

I may be misunderstanding the point here (probably am, LOL).

But what business is it of Kaine's --- particularly in his civil action --- how his estranged wife pays for her criminal attorney? I've seen divorce proceedings where the petitioner asks the respondent to pay legal fees, but this is different. Why would she bring up an attorney not representing Terri in the divorce case?

This sentence has me confused: "If Respondent has provided funds to her attorneys for her legal representation and considers them to be marital liability"

What does that mean ?

This is probably legal (I'm sure it is) but it doesn't feel right to me. IMO this blurs the line between the civil and potential criminal proceedings. Kaine seems to be fishing for information that can be used in the criminal investigation --- looking for a possible accomplice, evidence that Terri had a 'job' on the side, whatever. Is it likely the judge will view it as crossing the line into the criminal proceeding?

I guess the gist of my question here is ... can a judge in a civil action force a person to disclose information that could possibly be used to incriminate them in a criminal proceeding? To my untrained eye, it appears this could be the case here; if so, in your opinion, how should Houze handle this? Can he argue a 5th Amendment privilege, even though this is a civil case?

I am soooo confused lol

 

[AZlawyer]

Could you explain the reasoning behind this:

Kaine Horman has filed a motion in court this morning, asking a judge to order his estranged wife, Terri Moulton Horman, to disclose the source of the reportedly $350,000 she has paid to retain criminal defense attorney Stephen Houze.

"If Respondent has provided funds to her attorneys for her legal representation and considers them to be marital liability, these funds are marital property and Respondent should be required to pay one-half of these funds to Peitioner to use for his attorney fees and costs," wrote Laura Rackner, Kaine's attorney.

I may be misunderstanding the point here (probably am, LOL).

But what business is it of Kaine's --- particularly in his civil action --- how his estranged wife pays for her criminal attorney? I've seen divorce proceedings where the petitioner asks the respondent to pay legal fees, but this is different. Why would she bring up an attorney not representing Terri in the divorce case?

This sentence has me confused: "If Respondent has provided funds to her attorneys for her legal representation and considers them to be marital liability"

What does that mean ?

This is probably legal (I'm sure it is) but it doesn't feel right to me. IMO this blurs the line between the civil and potential criminal proceedings. Kaine seems to be fishing for information that can be used in the criminal investigation --- looking for a possible accomplice, evidence that Terri had a 'job' on the side, whatever. Is it likely the judge will view it as crossing the line into the criminal proceeding?

I guess the gist of my question here is ... can a judge in a civil action force a person to disclose information that could possibly be used to incriminate them in a criminal proceeding? To my untrained eye, it appears this could be the case here; if so, in your opinion, how should Houze handle this? Can he argue a 5th Amendment privilege, even though this is a civil case?

I am soooo confused lol

I know we have a family law attorney on here who might be able to explain further, but from what I know of that area it would be completely appropriate to ask for the source of ANY large amount of money your estranged spouse suddenly seems to have after a divorce petition is filed. KH has a right to know if that money is marital property and therefore half his.

It is a poorly-constructed sentence, but I believe the "marital liability" reference relates to the fact that payment of attorneys' fees in a divorce case is a marital liability, so it is assumed that any funds being used to pay for such fees are marital property.

I suppose TH could say, "I refuse to disclose the source of the funds on the grounds I might incriminate myself by doing so." But I doubt Houze wants to imply that he's being paid through the profits of criminal activity! If that's truly the only answer she can give, I would expect to see him withdraw and return the funds.

 

[citigirl]

I have a question for an attorney in Oregon...if a person in Terri's position is found to be trying to send a message in an anonymous way (such as a forum) to someone not to cooperate with police in this investigation, can she be charged with obstruction of justice or some other type of interference?

 

[freefallzzzz]

What is the difference between...

Testifying in front of a Grand Jury as part of a criminal investigation

vs
Testifying in front of a Grand Jury for the reason to solicit information?

video is here where atty talks for DeDe..
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/DeDe-Spicher-testifies-before-grand-jury-99252004.html#kyron

 

[Calliope]

I know we have a family law attorney on here who might be able to explain further, but from what I know of that area it would be completely appropriate to ask for the source of ANY large amount of money your estranged spouse suddenly seems to have after a divorce petition is filed. KH has a right to know if that money is marital property and therefore half his.

It is a poorly-constructed sentence, but I believe the "marital liability" reference relates to the fact that payment of attorneys' fees in a divorce case is a marital liability, so it is assumed that any funds being used to pay for such fees are marital property.

I suppose TH could say, "I refuse to disclose the source of the funds on the grounds I might incriminate myself by doing so." But I doubt Houze wants to imply that he's being paid through the profits of criminal activity! If that's truly the only answer she can give, I would expect to see him withdraw and return the funds.

Well not that she profited from criminal activity, but that this disclosure would necessarily cause him to bring in elements from a possible criminal defense.


Did that make sense? (seems I ask that a lot lately =\ )

 

[AZlawyer]

What is the difference between...

Testifying in front of a Grand Jury as part of a criminal investigation

vs
Testifying in front of a Grand Jury for the reason to solicit information?

video is here where atty talks for DeDe..
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/DeDe-Spicher-testifies-before-grand-jury-99252004.html#kyron

I can't watch the video at the moment, so I'm not sure what you mean by asking for the "difference" between those things--they seem the same to me. AFAIK the only reason to testify before a grand jury is to provide information so the jury can decide whether specific criminal charges should be brought against a specific person.

 

[Calliope]

I can't watch the video at the moment, so I'm not sure what you mean by asking for the "difference" between those things--they seem the same to me. AFAIK the only reason to testify before a grand jury is to provide information so the jury can decide whether specific criminal charges should be brought against a specific person.

That is what the reporter asked Dede's attorney, if that helps at all. He replied "My understanding is just to solicit information"

 

[Calliope]

I can't watch the video at the moment, so I'm not sure what you mean by asking for the "difference" between those things--they seem the same to me. AFAIK the only reason to testify before a grand jury is to provide information so the jury can decide whether specific criminal charges should be brought against a specific person.

another question (are you regretting this yet? lol)

That was my understanding of the purpose for a GJ.

I wonder though... considering all the debate on Dede over the past few days, if someone isn't willing to "cooperate" with LE (read: talk freely, without an attorney, take a LDT, etc.), can a DA convene a GJ to force them to talk? Seems a bit icky to me if they can but if so, can someone refuse to answer to a GJ on the grounds it could incriminate them?

I wonder about this because the report said she was only in there for 30 minutes.

 

[AZlawyer]

Well not that she profited from criminal activity, but that this disclosure would necessarily cause him to bring in elements from a possible criminal defense.


Did that make sense? (seems I ask that a lot lately =\ )

I'm not sure what you mean by bringing in "elements from a possible criminal defense." Maybe if you give a hypothetical situation it would be easier? E.g., "Suppose that TH got this money from _____, and the reason the money was given to her was _______________. Would she have to disclose that in the divorce case?"

Example: "Suppose that TH got this money from dealing drugs. Would she have to disclose that in the divorce case?" Answer: No, she could take the 5th. But her lawyer might have to withdraw if that $$$ was used to pay him, and the money would likely be treated as marital property since she will not be offering any alternative explanation. (You can argue the 5th in a civil case just like in a criminal case, but UNLIKE in a criminal case, the judge/jury can make adverse findings against you if you refuse to testify.)

Example 2: "Suppose that TH got this money from Mr. X, and the reason the money was given to her was because Mr. X bought Kyron from her. Would she have to disclose that in the divorce case?" Same answer as above.

 

[Calliope]

I'm not sure what you mean by bringing in "elements from a possible criminal defense." Maybe if you give a hypothetical situation it would be easier?

I'll work on this... between sleep deprivation and this case making my head spin, my brain isn't working too well at the moment. I know the point I'm trying to make, just gotta figure out how to make it clearer...

 

[BeanE]

It just means LE is giving you info; they call it a "briefing" when they call you in for a meeting to give you information (rather than to get information from you). You certainly can't tell from the use of that word whether or not it was a very informative briefing.

I think, if KH and DY were lying about getting info at a briefing, then either (1) LE asked them to spread misinformation for some strategic reason, or (2) LE would privately tell KH and DY to correct their statements, and if KH and DY did not do so, then LE would do it for them.

BBM. In light of that, how do you interpret this?


Multnomah County Sheriff's Office has no comments regarding the July 8, 2010 Young/Horman press conferences - 07/08/10
There will be no comment from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office regarding the information reported during the Horman/Young July 8, 2010 press conferences. The information released in during these conferences did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. This is an ongoing investigation.

http://www.flashalert.net/news.html?id=1276

Thanks AZ!!!! :blowkiss:

 

[desquire]

I have a question for an attorney in Oregon...if a person in Terri's position is found to be trying to send a message in an anonymous way (such as a forum) to someone not to cooperate with police in this investigation, can she be charged with obstruction of justice or some other type of interference?

Not likely. Normally an act of intimidation,force, or physical or economic interference is necessary for a charge of obstructing the administration of justice or of hindering prosecution in Oregon. Merely asking someone to withhold cooperation is not enough.

What you describe might justify a charge of tampering with a witness but only if an official proceeding (e.g., a grand jury inquiry) had been instituted and the tamperor believes the tamperee is likely to be called as a witness.

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM. In light of that, how do you interpret this?


Multnomah County Sheriff's Office has no comments regarding the July 8, 2010 Young/Horman press conferences - 07/08/10
There will be no comment from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office regarding the information reported during the Horman/Young July 8, 2010 press conferences. The information released in during these conferences did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. This is an ongoing investigation.

http://www.flashalert.net/news.html?id=1276

Thanks AZ!!!! :blowkiss:

Did KH/DY say at the 7/8/10 press conference that the information they were releasing came from the MCSO? The original question was whether KH/DY could "lie" about the source of the info.

 

[BeanE]

Did KH/DY say at the 7/8/10 press conference that the information they were releasing came from the MCSO? The original question was whether KH/DY could "lie" about the source of the info.

First, let me state, as I have posted a number of times, that I do not think of Kaine/Desiree/Tony as "lying". I really don't like using that word. I believe they are speaking and acting through a filter of great pain, desperation, and trauma, and that, without intention or malice, do not always say to the media information that is accurate.

Now that's out of the way. In answer to your question:

Yes, for example, Kaine was asked how he came to his conclusions as stated by Kaine in the RO that Terri was involved in Kyron's disappearance, and that she tried to hire someone to murder him, and he answered based on the briefings with LE and the info provided.

http://www.katu.com/home/video/98077594.html

 

[AZlawyer]

First, let me state, as I have posted a number of times, that I do not think of Kaine/Desiree/Tony as "lying". I really don't like using that word. I believe they are speaking and acting through a filter of great pain, desperation, and trauma, and that, without intention or malice, do not always say to the media information that is accurate.

Now that's out of the way. In answer to your question:

Yes, for example, Kaine was asked how he came to his conclusions as stated by Kaine in the RO that Terri was involved in Kyron's disappearance, and that she tried to hire someone to murder him, and he answered based on the briefings with LE and the info provided.

http://www.katu.com/home/video/98077594.html

I guess I don't see that anyone has to be "mistruthing" here. KH says that LE gave him information, from which HE CONCLUDED that Terri was involved. LE says the information released did not come from us, so we have no comment on it. They might mean: (1) we never told Kaine that Terri was involved (but gave him information from which he could have reached that conclusion), or (2) the information release you (the media) are asking us about did not come from us--it came from Kaine--so we are not going to comment on it.

Of course, LE might mean (3) we never gave any information to Kaine from which he could reasonably have concluded that Terri was involved and have no idea WTF he's talking about. But I think LE would be more vocal and less coy if that were the case.

 

[Jo in Calif]

I guess I don't see that anyone has to be "mistruthing" here. KH says that LE gave him information, from which HE CONCLUDED that Terri was involved. LE says the information released did not come from us, so we have no comment on it. They might mean: (1) we never told Kaine that Terri was involved (but gave him information from which he could have reached that conclusion), or (2) the information release you (the media) are asking us about did not come from us--it came from Kaine--so we are not going to comment on it.

Of course, LE might mean (3) we never gave any information to Kaine from which he could reasonably have concluded that Terri was involved and have no idea WTF he's talking about. But I think LE would be more vocal and less coy if that were the case.

Boy you gave me a good laugh on your last statement, loved it.

 

[Kimster]

Have any of our verified lawyers ever charged a $350,000 retainer fee???

 

[AZlawyer]

Have any of our verified lawyers ever charged a $350,000 retainer fee???

Nope. Not yet lol.

 

[kappy50]

az....curious..and I am sure this is an absolutely dumb question...if Mr.Houze has information about where little buddy Kyron may be, does he have to disclose this to LE.