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

[wondering1]

Yup, a jury can, as long as it's entered as testimony from.........anyone. She says she's not guilty to any LE, that's testimony. It will be used against her if any one other person says "uh, well, I think i saw her......."

Don't think it won't happen. It has, and will. Terri cannot say one word that will not be used against her in a court of law.....that is the essence of the Miranda Rights......it isn't about what she says is true; it is about what she says that they WILL use against her.

WHERE are you getting this? NO they can't. That's what the privilege is all about. Omg, debs...wtheck.

Here, Emanuel is like the guru on this subject. He CONFIRMS that the defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a jury instruction that they ARE NOT to draw any adverse inference from the defendant's taking the fifth. Okay?????

http://books.google.com/books?id=lK...&resnum=5&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[debs]

She's asked for an abatement of everything but the dissolution.

eta: you said objecting...I said asking for an abatement. There's a distinction. She doesn't want those issues heard NOW because she doesn't want to testify or plead the 5th about them.

Right. Terri is stating that she will divorce Kaine, no problem, but she won't do that while he wants her to state she's done something to his son, and oh by the way she also signed off on a murder-for-hire.

I wouldn't agree to those terms, either. I'd ask for an abatement of that part of our marriage.........the part which seems to be a subjective, though fed-by-LE opinion that we should get divorced.

Divorce her if he will, but Kaine Horman and his attorney are attempting to try a case which hasn't been brought by the State.

Bring the case, and it is a different debate for me.

 

[wondering1]

Would ANYONE want to address those issues in a domestic, civil court? I wouldn't.

wanting to is not the issue. We are ALL subject to the law.

 

[Emma Peel]

Houze is in civil court with Terri his client.

This makes me think Terri needs a criminal attorney for this civil matter.

Which makes me think maybe Houze knows something we don't know.

Sorry, I just had to mention this observation/thought I had yesterday - no time to post it until now.

I've got a feeling Houze's presence could mean there's something underneath all of this we are not privvy to...

That's all. It's past my bedtime.

 

[debs]

WHERE are you getting this? NO they can't. That's what the privilege is all about. Omg, debs...wtheck.

Here, Emanuel is like the guru on this subject. He CONFIRMS that the defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a jury instruction that they ARE NOT to draw any adverse inference from the defendant's taking the fifth. Okay?????

http://books.google.com/books?id=lK...&resnum=5&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Got it, feel completely confident that anyone who looks at the charges, such as Terri has yet to be charged with, is a complete and frigging utter fool to say anything outside of "I want to talk to my lawyer." Period.

 

[debs]

Houze is in civil court with Terri his client.

This makes me think Terri needs a criminal attorney for this civil matter.

Which makes me think maybe Houze knows something we don't know.

Sorry, I just had to mention this observation/thought I had yesterday - no time to post it until now.

I've got a feeling Houze's presence could mean there's something underneath all of this we are not privvy to...

That's all. It's past my bedtime.

But wasn't Terri initially accused of criminal behavior which spawned the civil divorce proceedings? Shouldn't then she have representation?

Sorry, I'm just in the mood to believe that not one of us should ever be accused and then just accept the legal superslide we might be subjected to because it just ........... well, because.

 

[Sherbie]

Houze is in civil court with Terri his client.

This makes me think Terri needs a criminal attorney for this civil matter.

Which makes me think maybe Houze knows something we don't know.

Sorry, I just had to mention this observation/thought I had yesterday - no time to post it until now.

I've got a feeling Houze's presence could mean there's something underneath all of this we are not privvy to...

That's all. It's past my bedtime.

I agree. Houze needs to be there. She is subject (even if completely innocent) to incriminating herself in a potential criminal case via testimony and pleadings in the civil case. No question he needs to protect her interests in that regard.

 

[Emma Peel]

Right. Terri is stating that she will divorce Kaine, no problem, but she won't do that while he wants her to state she's done something to his son, and oh by the way she also signed off on a murder-for-hire.

I wouldn't agree to those terms, either. I'd ask for an abatement of that part of our marriage.........the part which seems to be a subjective, though fed-by-LE opinion that we should get divorced.

Divorce her if he will, but Kaine Horman and his attorney are attempting to try a case which hasn't been brought by the State.

Bring the case, and it is a different debate for me.

BBM.

Exactly.

Why is Houze at these divorce proceedings?

What don't we know?

Defense behaves as if there is no question that the MFH case is/will be brought by the state. Terri, Terri's team's responses in this divorce action, Terri's divorce attny. Even Houze, her criminal attorney.

Sometime it's not what they say, it's what they do.

The idea that we are not privvy to something here...is troubling me. IMO

 

[debs]

BBM.

Exactly.

Why is Houze at these divorce proceedings?

What don't we know?

Defense behaves as if there is no question that the MFH case is/will be brought by the state. Terri, Terri's team's responses in this divorce action, Terri's divorce attny. Even Houze, her criminal attorney.

Sometime it's not what they say, it's what they do.

The idea that we are not privvy to something here...is troubling me. IMO

Wait.........did Houze actually say anything at this proceeding today? Nope, didn't.

 

[Sherbie]

Emma, I would love to know what Terri has shared with Houze. I believe they are expecting some sort of criminal charges in the future.

Even if TH is denying to Houze every single accusation against her and even if she is completely innocent, because of the threat of charges, he still needs to be there. She's obviously a POI for LE and subject to an indictment from the Grand Jury, even.

If nothing more than a "just in case" scenario, he needs to protect her in a civil case to be sure it doesn't spill over and damage her in a potential criminal case. Not sure how a judge will see all this. If there aren't charges already on the table by the time the judge wants to hear these issues, I am thinking he/she will probably want to continue on as usual with the civil matters.

 

[Emma Peel]

But wasn't Terri initially accused of criminal behavior which spawned the civil divorce proceedings? Shouldn't then she have representation?

Sorry, I'm just in the mood to believe that not one of us should ever be accused and then just accept the legal superslide we might be subjected to because it just ........... well, because.

Yes - she should have representation, and does. Yes, Terri's been accused of MFH in a divorce filing and that's outrageous if unfounded.

I would expect that representation to be arguing that no charges against Terri have been brought ... so that those particular MFH claims in these divorce proceedings should be struck down as so much crapola - just fallout from the investigation - investigative dead ends.

But they are not arguing that.

Why?

Because it's not in their interest to argue that? Because the MFH criminal charges are already moving forward and they all know this (but we do not)?

If these MFH charges weren't actually pending, then wouldn't Team Houze say "if you have this evidence, then bring it on!" ?

I dunno - I just feel like the defense is not acting terribly defensive. They are accepting & agreeing to various things in this divorce proceeding that I'm surprised to see them acquiesce to at this point. JHMO.

As you (debs) point out ... I could be reading too much into what they are NOT saying ... It's just so weird & sticking in my craw. I probably need to sleep on it.

 

[ami]

Maybe Houze came along (pro bono!) because he had a few hours to kill. Don't high priced criminal lawyers commonly do that? For free?

 

[Emma Peel]

Emma, I would love to know what Terri has shared with Houze. I believe they are expecting some sort of criminal charges in the future.

Even if TH is denying to Houze every single accusation against her and even if she is completely innocent, because of the threat of charges, he still needs to be there. She's obviously a POI for LE and subject to an indictment from the Grand Jury, even.

If nothing more than a "just in case" scenario, he needs to protect her in a civil case to be sure it doesn't spill over and damage her in a potential criminal case. Not sure how a judge will see all this. If there aren't charges already on the table by the time the judge wants to hear these issues, I am thinking he/she will probably want to continue on as usual with the civil matters.

I don't think that anything that happens in this civil case, or any info revealed in the civil court can prejudice or influence any future criminal case. JHMO

(Can it? I'm thinking any fruits of the civil investigations/proceedings/judgements would be successfully argued out by Houze at a criminal proceeding.)

 

[wondering1]

It isn't Terri Horman's rights which are the hill I "wish to die on"........it is yours. If because we think Kaine is owed the answers, or because we "know" Terri did "it" or any other subjective emotional drive says "Terri is the one"....... we are wrong, in total. I want nothing more than to find out what happened to this little boy. But I'm not willing to tear apart those things that protect ALL of us to say Terri did it. And there's a lot of that. It isn't tearing Terri's rights as much as it is tearing OUR rights, that makes this offensive to me.

Tell you what, I wouldn't be surprised if she confessed tomorrow. But what I know as of 11:39 (Montana time) says no one has dog doo to say she's harmed this little boy. Prove it to me, or I'll continue to defend the rights of EVERYONE to not be torn apart by what we've been given so far.

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.

 

[Sherbie]

I think Houze needs to listen for himself (or have someone from his firm listen) to all that's said in the civil proceedings. He doesn't want anything he might've missed to pop up and bite him in the behind in any future criminal case.

Also, what if the judge wanted to ask TH a couple of innocuous questions? Sometimes even a simple response can be used in a way you might not want it to be used in a different setting. So even if he does nothing but sit there like a bump on a log, I think there's good reason for him to be there.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Isn't that why we have a court system? To decide on matters of law? Protecting the accused from unwarranted prosecution?

The way I see it the Court based on the Laws which protect our rights and freedoms, will make the decision what is and is not allowed under Law.

Kaine is exercising his rights to protection under the law. If he doesn't have any or all of those rights the judge will rule to exclude. If Terri acted recklessly and thus either has to testify or plead the 5th that isn't Kaine's fault. She chose her path.

You GO Gran! You spoke the truth of this matter in a direct yet polite and very much to the point way...
A great example set for all of us to follow.. Thanks for always showing that it is possible to speak your mind, give your honest opinion, yet be respectful..

 

[debs]

Yes - she should have representation, and does. Yes, Terri's been accused of MFH in a divorce filing and that's outrageous if unfounded.

I would expect that representation to be arguing that no charges against Terri have been brought ... so that those particular MFH claims in these divorce proceedings should be struck down as so much crapola - just fallout from the investigation - investigative dead ends.

But they are not arguing that.

Why?

Because it's not in their interest to argue that? Because the MFH criminal charges are already moving forward and they all know this (but we do not)?

If these MFH charges weren't actually pending, then wouldn't Team Houze say "if you have this evidence, then bring it on!" ?

I dunno - I just feel like the defense is not acting terribly defensive. They are accepting & agreeing to various things in this divorce proceeding that I'm surprised to see them acquiesce to at this point. JHMO.

As you (debs) point out ... I could be reading too much into what they are NOT saying ... It's just so weird & sticking in my craw. I probably need to sleep on it.

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.

 

[Sherbie]

I don't think that anything that happens in this civil case, or any info revealed in the civil court can prejudice or influence any future criminal case. JHMO

(Can it? I'm thinking any fruits of the civil investigations/proceedings/judgements would be successfully argued out by Houze at a criminal proceeding.)

I'm pretty sure any testimony she gives under oath anywhere, so long as it is relevant in a criminal case, would be admissible. So she's got to be careful in this civil case if they think criminal charges might be coming. Of course, she can take the 5th in the civil case, I assume. Taking the 5th could not be used against her in a criminal trial as a sign of guilt or anything. Only actual answers she gave under oath would be subject to coming in....I think.

We should ask AZLawyer...I bet she'd know for sure.

 

[JBean]

Yup, a jury can, as long as it's entered as testimony from.........anyone. She says she's not guilty to any LE, that's testimony. It will be used against her if any one other person says "uh, well, I think i saw her......."

Don't think it won't happen. It has, and will. Terri cannot say one word that will not be used against her in a court of law.....that is the essence of the Miranda Rights......it isn't about what she says is true; it is about what she says that they WILL use against her.

Need to break this down a bit.

Anything she says can be used against her in a court of law.
testimony she might give may be used to impeach earlier statements.
Testimony of others may be used to impeach her testimony or earlier staements she has made.
In a criminal trial, if she chooses not to take the stand the jury will be instructed that her choice to do so is protected and they are not to use the fact that she did not testify against her.

In civil proceedings, you may choose not to testify, but jurors can draw an inference of guilt from your silence.

 

[Emma Peel]

I think Houze needs to listen for himself (or have someone from his firm listen) to all that's said in the civil proceedings. He doesn't want anything he might've missed to pop up and bite him in the behind in any future criminal case.

Also, what if the judge wanted to ask TH a couple of innocuous questions? Sometimes even a simple response can be used in a way you might not want it to be used in a different setting. So even if he does nothing but sit there like a bump on a log, I think there's good reason for him to be there.

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.