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

[cluciano63]

It is pretty funny/strange to me that Kaine doesn't seem to believe anything Terri says except about this money. Why choose this one thing to believe? If she is such a liar. I don't think she gave her attorney even close to this amount of money when she has not even been charged in a criminal case yet.

 

[ami]

I agree "IF" Terri is some how making money off of this it's wrong. But the biggest problem I have with it, as my Grams used to say, "It ain't our biddness." If it turns out she is and she's guilty...then it would be our "biddness". But that's just MOOOOO.

I agree.!

I mean half of us are saying that it's ridiculous for the media to keep this in Jerry Springer Show land - I just feel that as sleuthers, starting our own speculation that feeds into that (aside from that which we believe contributes to the criminal investigation of Kyron's abduction) makes matters worse.

I personally believe that money mysteriously coming to someone unofficially suspected of either abduction or kidnapping of a child (ie TMH) feeds directly into the criminal case - it speaks to possible motive or profit for illegal deeds. Whether Kaine was paid to appear on some news show? Unless we suspect him of taking Kyron, I don't see how it feeds into an abduction/murder investigation.

 

[Wrinkles]

But if they have other proof then Bunch lied to the court.

Hello Jaxson,

Nice to meet you Interesting what you wrote... Let's see...

In the suit (p. 6) -- the wording is:

>>Respondent has indicated in a written communication to a third party that she tendered payment of $350,000 to her attorney Stephen Houze for legal representation.<<

In the motion (p. 6) -- the wording is:

>>As an example, Petitioner recently filed a request for suit money. In the request, Petitioner grossly misstated the amount of money paid to Stephen Houze.<<

I believe that Bunch had a more accurate choice of wording. PERHAPS THIS would have been more accurate (just kidding but...):

>>As an example, Petitioner recently filed a request for suit money. In the request, Petitioner mentioned an amount of money that Respondent (our client Terri Horman) allegedly wrote in a communication to a third party e.g. that that she tendered payment of $350,000 (i.e. that she actually paid) to her attorney Stephen Houze for legal representation. Had Respondent's attorney (that's us) conferred with Petitioner's attorney (that's KH's attorney) to discuss the possible proof that Respondent (our client) actually wrote in such a communication, we could be really clear about saying that the Petitioner (that's KH) "grossly misstated" what Respondent (our client) wrote in her communication to a third party, BUT we did not make an effort to communicate with Petitioner's attorney, so we will just go on record as saying that we feel sure that whatever $ number the Petitioner saw in Respondent's communication with a third party was obviously grossly misstated. Got that?<<

I don't envy the judge handling these matters. I do hope that the judge sees clean past Bunch's "Had petitioner's lawyer conferred with Wife's counsel." Yeah, so if the petitioner's (KH's) lawyer didn't do that, was there a reason you didn't communicate with the petitioner's attorney (Husband's counsel) to make sure about this "gross misstatement?"

 

[cj1132]

I work for a CPA firm and asked our gift tax expert about the whole gifting thing. I'm on lunch so I'll make this quick.

I'm going to use $350,000 as the amount as this is what's been tossed around. An individual has a lifetime tax free gift tax exclusion of $1 million. They can use this amount at one time or spread it out over his or her lifetime. There is an annual gift tax exclusion of $13,000. For instance, TH got $350,000 from her dad in 2010. He is allowed an annual exclusion of $13,000. $350,000 - $13,000 = $337,000. So $1 million - $337,000 = $663,000. At the end of 2010, her dad would still have $663,000 to give away tax free over his lifetime. However, if he had already gifted prior to this, that $663,000 lifetime tax free limit would be reduced by prior gifts. He would have to file a gift tax return for 2010 showing the $350,000 on it and would pay no taxes on that amount. TH would owe no taxes on this gift and would not list it on her personal income tax return. However, if her attorney gave her documentation stating that part of this $350,000 was for tax planning, she might be able to use that portion as an itemized deduction on her return. No deduction for criminal activities, divorce, etc.

ETA: $13,000 exclusion is per donee. Example: 1 donor - 10 donees - Exclusion would be $13,000 x 10 = $130,000 tax free exclusion per year.
Hope this explains it.

 

[STEADFAST]

For a comparison, here's what had, apparently, been spent on Casey Anthony's defense as of March of this year.

Baez testified Thursday that the defense received and spent about $275,000 over the past year and a half. Of that, $5,000 came from an anonymous donor; $70,000 came from a former defense attorney, Todd Macaluso; and $200,000 came from ABC through a "deal" with Anthony. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/19/casey.anthony.indigency/index.html

 

[Donjeta]

It is pretty funny/strange to me that Kaine doesn't seem to believe anything Terri says except about this money. Why choose this one thing to believe? If she is such a liar. I don't think she gave her attorney even close to this amount of money when she has not even been charged in a criminal case yet.

IMO it is not clear that he believes this based on the court document his lawyer wrote. It says that Terri has indicated to a third party that she tendered payment, and goes on to start the very next sentence "IF Respondent has provided funds to her attorney(s)" (the emphasis on IF mine, not the atty's)

IMO it leaves the possibility that Terri misrepresented this transaction very much open.

 

[1Chump]

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/kyrons_stepmom_wont_contest_he.html

According to Kaine's attorney Michael Cook told LE that Terri asked him to lie about her being at his house. I believe it is also in the motion for contempt.

So Kaine's attorney said that Kaine said that LE said that Michael Cook said that TH said "Lie for me." Or is it Kaine's attorney said that LE said that Michael Cook said that Terry said.

IMO, you really have to add in the "said" to see how far removed those statements are from the alledged original statement.

 

[1Chump]

Well true. But when Michael Cook was interviewed he admitted to the sexting, he admitted to using his cell phone to take pictures of the sealed restraining order and he admitted to sharing such with 2 other people. He also admitted to googling Kaine's new address. All statements which were made in the same sworn motion by Kaine's attorney.

No he hasn't said it but it is in the motion all together filed all at the same time and because his communications had been gathered by LE.

The only thing Michael Cook denied was sleeping with Terri.

IMO, I'm questioning if MC took pictures of TH's copies of the documents. TH is not the only person with copies. TH"s copies NEVER should have had KH's address on them. Who files for a RO with an allegation of MFH and lists their current address instead of their attorney's address? In most RO cases, you use your attorney's or a family members address not where you are living. So how did MC get KH's address to google it?

IMO, I am hoping that LE verifies that any texts/emails between MC and TH came from TH herself and not someone with access to her emails and/or texts and/or cell phone accounts.

 

[gitana1]

Well, the attorney would have been the one to say "here are our options and why I think ___ is what you should do". I doubt Terri would have had the legal finesse to know what to ask for without her lawyers' guidance.

True, her attorney is going to make suggestions but he is also going to explain the ramifications of every possible plan, in great detail. This move effectively prevents her from contact with her child for the foreseeable future. he will have explained that to her. So, she would have to be in total agreement with this move and that it is in her best interest. This is not just some thing her attorney did on his own, with TH along for the ride. This is something she wanted because she recognized that her attorney's advice was correct.

 

[Emma Peel]

coping: doping, groping, smoking, toking, joking, moping.
to each his own. :toast:


(can you guess which I'm prone to?)

 

[1Chump]

If the contempt hearing goes forward in September then the info will come out with regards to what Michael has stated.

I believe what Michael has stated with regards to the pictures, texting, goggling etc., my point is that LE has never publically addressed this with the public.

IMO, if the contempt hearing goes forward, nothing will come out regarding MC's sexting/texting/googling. The Order for Contempt is strictly limited to TH alledgedly showing the "sealed" documents to MC and allowing him to take pictures.

IMO, all the rest of the allegations in those papers about other things unrelated specifically to TH showing sealed documents to MC had absolutely NOTHING to do with the alledged contempt. There was no legal reason to include all the frivilous allegations unrelated to that specific act of contempt.

 

[believe09]

IMO, I'm questioning if MC took pictures of TH's copies of the documents. TH is not the only person with copies. TH"s copies NEVER should have had KH's address on them. Who files for a RO with an allegation of MFH and lists their current address instead of their attorney's address? In most RO cases, you use your attorney's or a family members address not where you are living. So how did MC get KH's address to google it?

IMO, I am hoping that LE verifies that any texts/emails between MC and TH came from TH herself and not someone with access to her emails and/or texts and/or cell phone accounts.

What other sealed documents would MC have had access to? :waitasec:

 

[gitana1]

I bolded and snipped some...sorry, I just wanted to be concise. You stated that the attorney is only the mouthpiece for the client. If that is true, then yes, KH has stated that he cannot support himself and the baby (for whatever reason; court cost ect.). TH has not (to my knowledge) asked KH to pay any of her legal fees...so why would he suggest that he couldn't pay them? No one has asked him to, from what I gather...he wants to know where she got the money to pay her attorney (for whatever reason) and that that money can be used for his attorney-which he suggests he cannot afford. At least that is how I have read it.

People keep repeating this but it simply is not true. Kaine has never said that he cannot support himself and the baby. Kaine said he does not have sufficient income to pay for these legal services (in context that means a disso case with complex legal and safety issues) AND meet his other financial obligations for his children and himself. What does that mean? Well, I have plenty of clients who just cannot afford to have me do what they want me to do, or prove, etc., in their case. So, we either revamp our strategy or I do work for free/reduced price. Kaine's is the kind of case I would do free work on.
But, if I find that the opposing party has unlimited funds or access to much more than my client does, then I will investigate to see whether there is any marital interest in those funds or whether there is another factor that would warrant a payment by the other side of my fees. That's what Kaine is doing. Neither I nor Kaine's attorney should have to work for free when the law provides that in the event that one party is in need and the other has the ability to pay, the other party should pay the first party's attorney's fees.
Kaine's attorneys are not toning down their legal strategy, so he is either not paying them what they normally charge, is on a payment plan, is getting help with fees and/or with the support of himself and his family, or he may be defaulting on credit card payments or other installment payments in order to fund his legal maneuvering. None of those possibilities indicate he cannot support himself or his children. I'm sorry, but I have yet to see a person who pays legal fees instead of paying for the necessities of life.
Regarding the statement that TH has not asked him to pay her fees, we have a whole thread on that. She apparently stated, through her attorney, that she would move if given some money from Kaine. I think she gave up on that later on. In any event, attorney's fees are always an issue and the payment or repayment of fees by either party is always an issue and/or possibility in a divorce, so Kaine is entitled to information regarding how much TH has paid her attorneys and where the funds come from. This abatement motion indicates that TH does not want to answer those questions or any others.

 

[gwenabob]

Scott Peterson's defense cost over $1 million, and they still ran out of money! Geragos was ordered to continue anyway.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127674&page=1

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84572,00.html
"Nov. 4: The defense suggests police planted evidence in Scott Peterson's home, truck and boat. His friends and relatives tell Fox News he had several affairs, which Laci was aware of. Fox News also learns Peterson's parents have raised $1 million to pay Geragos' legal fees."

So no, I don't think it is unreasonable for Houze to ask for $350,000 up front. If he doesn't use it, she will get it back.

 

[grandmaj]

So Kaine's attorney said that Kaine said that LE said that Michael Cook said that TH said "Lie for me." Or is it Kaine's attorney said that LE said that Michael Cook said that Terry said.

IMO, you really have to add in the "said" to see how far removed those statements are from the alledged original statement.

M. Cook would be the person to answer whether it happened in a contempt hearing in court or not. He has admitted to everything else alleged except denied actually sleeping with Terri. We know what was reported and we can choose to believe it or not.

Terri's lawyer of course doesn't want his client anywhere near a courtroom to dispute these facts or even claim rights to visitation with her daughter. One of those things that make me go hmmmmm.

 

[1Chump]

I am not great at reading case law but the case law quoted in that filing had nothing to do with divorce or contempt charges. I'm wondering if there is precedent to stop a contempt charge especially since there has been no arrest.

According to the papers:

"Multnomah County Supplemental Rule (SLR) 7.005(7) provides the court to abate any case for "good cause shown"."

The rule does not specify what is considered "good cause." Therefore, he cited current case law to support what is considered "good cause." Most likely there was no case law specific to abatement of divorce that defined "good cause" and/or that particular case is the current precedent on how to determine "good cause."

MOO.

 

[grandmaj]

According to the papers:

"Multnomah County Supplemental Rule (SLR) 7.005(7) provides the court to abate any case for "good cause shown"."

The rule does not specify what is considered "good cause." Therefore, he cited current case law to support what is considered "good cause." Most likely there was no case law specific to abatement of divorce that defined "good cause" and/or that particular case is the current precedent on how to determine "good cause."

MOO.

I know although someone posted an article last night and I don't have the link handy. In it it said a judge and two court officers stated this is not an unusual request to hold off the divorce when a criminal trial is pending.

My thought is this. No criminal charges have been brought. And, can a contempt charge on an RO be put off? An RO is to protect people. How can that be put off indefinately. Wonder what the precident is for that.

 

[1Chump]

Well even if it is a gross misrepresentation, if LE has provided a text in which Terri says this, I can't blame Kaine for filing this motion. And what in God's Green Earth is she doing texting this stuff to begin with? Man they need to take all electronics away from this woman. Houze was hired on June 30 I believe. The texting or sexting happened beginning around the 28th. Don't know exactly when it stopped but the motion on the texting was July 12. Now this most recent motion this week about the 350K .......when was it sent /received. Do not even tell me this texting is still ongoing now. Tell me the motion was only filed this week because that is when Kaine learned of it.

Because if you tell me it happened after they were already exposed in mid-July I think I may have to lose what is left of my mind.

IMO, it is a frivilous motion. Kaine's attorney should know that any debt acquired after the date of separation is not a marital debt. As TH did not hire her attorney until after KH filed for an RO/divorce, it would not be a marital debt. KH's attorney should know that a gift is not a marital asset.

IMO, KH should know if they had assets that would make it possible for TH to obtain that absurd amount. Yet nowhere in the motion does it claim that TH converted assets to obtain the money.

IMO, it was a frivilous motion for public speculation with no legal basis.

 

[Donjeta]

I know although someone posted an article last night and I don't have the link handy. In it it said a judge and two court officers stated this is not an unusual request to hold off the divorce when a criminal trial is pending.

My though is this. No criminal charges have been brought. And, can a contempt charge on an RO be put off? An RO is to protect people. How can that be put off indefinately. Wonder what the precident is for that.

BBM. So can we conclude that Terri's divorce attorney feels it is a near certainty that she'll be charged in a criminal matter and there is a pending criminal trial in the works for her?

 

[Donjeta]

IMO, I'm questioning if MC took pictures of TH's copies of the documents. TH is not the only person with copies. TH"s copies NEVER should have had KH's address on them. Who files for a RO with an allegation of MFH and lists their current address instead of their attorney's address? In most RO cases, you use your attorney's or a family members address not where you are living. So how did MC get KH's address to google it?

IMO, I am hoping that LE verifies that any texts/emails between MC and TH came from TH herself and not someone with access to her emails and/or texts and/or cell phone accounts.

What are you thinking happened instead? Do you suppose Kaine or someone at the court with access showed their copy to MC and let him photocopy it to frame Terri for contempt of court? How did they get access to her email and cell phone, or was it someone else to do the sexting in Terri's name? Why? It's not illegal to sext, it's just somewhat embarrassing in the circumstances. If someone's out to frame her for something why not frame her for something that really gets her into trouble and not petty stuff?