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

[JBean]

Was it for a criminal case, or was there the possibility of a criminal case against the recipient of your gift?

It was a criminal case.

 

[Aedrys]

Didn't TH's lawyers ask for the 911 logs earlier in the day and were stone walled - why not return the favour in the afternoon? From where I sit (in lieu of an IMO), if the LS's claims are legit, maybe the mysterious donor is too - tit for tat!

That actually threw me for a loop. Everyone following this case has seen transcripts of those. They can probably find them on one of Oregon's news websites. I don't even know why they're of any importance here. I don't think it was stonewalling as much as they were probably scratching their heads and wondering what in the heck Terri's lawyers even want those for.

 

[Calliope]

Sounds like such a mature attitude. I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer. I just don't understand doing pointless, inane things like that just because you can.

I understand attorney/client privilege.

JMO

 

[debs]

That actually threw me for a loop. Everyone following this case has seen transcripts of those. They can probably find them on one of Oregon's news websites. I don't even know why they're of any importance here. I don't think it was stonewalling as much as they were probably scratching their heads and wondering what in the heck Terri's lawyers even want those for.

I have never seen any logs of the 911 calls! Not one of them!

 

[JBean]

I believe it is relevent in the sense that both parties have to declare all their assets and liabilities at the time of the divorce so that everything is divided fairly. Parties try to hide assets from each other all the time. That is not fair. If Kaine had $500,000 hidden in a secret fund that Terri knew nothing about, would that be fair? What if he swore in a court of law that the money came from a secret admirer? Just a gift? Would that make a difference? Don't you think Terri would have the right to know for certain when/where/how those funds came into Kaine's possession? Should she simply take the word of his attorney? Of course not! She would absolutely have the right to know!

Oh I concur,but I think that is exactly what the document said. there is a time when this may have to be discussed but the time is not now. The time to discuss it is when they divide marital assets. That is how I read it.

 

[Aedrys]

Again. The lawyer stipulated that the money was NOT Terri's, but paid to her defense attorney by a third party. It was never Terri's money.

That's as far as we know from her lawyer. I have yet to see that on any legal, notarized document. Lawyers can say what they want in court. They're going to have pony up proof of that claim to the judge. We don't know where she got the money from, and it is still open for speculation, IMO.

 

[debs]

Whoa. I don't think an attorney can just get up in front of a judge and lie boldfaced! Besides, the affidavit filed today states that copies of this were given to Kaine's attorney, which says to me they are entered into the case files.

 

[Calliope]

But how could Kaine possible use that her parents gave her money against her? As far as we know, they are totally innocent of this. I can't see him wanting to destroy their lives just because they gave money to Terri's defense lawyer. They have nothing to do with what happened to Kyron.

What I am saying is, if her source is legit and has nothing whatsoever to do with Kyron, can't be tied to him, can't be used against her in any court of law, then what the frack is the harm of saying it? Heck, if is legit, that just takes some winds of Kaine's sails. It wouldn't help him in any way. I can't see why they wouldn't want to get an upper hand here if her money has no ties whatsoever to Kyron. Heck, they could take it to the media and make him look very bad for asking in the first place. But they WON'T!

The only reason not to say anything is because her money is connected to Kyron, would incriminate her, and she can't afford to do that to herself. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

bbm

Because as long as it's not a marital liability, it's none of his (Kaine's) business.

 

[Calliope]

I have never seen any logs of the 911 calls! Not one of them!

Neither have I; I've seen it discussed that she called and a general description of why she called, but no actual transcripts or audio.

 

[SacreBleu]

In my opinion, lawyers will never reveal anything they don't have to, even if it doesn't really matter. So if they don't have to say exactly who paid, at least not yet, they won't. It is just being a lawyer. I do not think there is any hidden meaning in the source of the funds; just keeping it hidden because they can.

Not entirely true. Every business has to report every cent paid to an attorney over $600 to the IRS. So, I guess we can rule out any type of legally formed entity. Therefore, an individual would have had to have made the "payment" for it to remain "hidden."

 

[JBean]

Guys this is a lively discussion and great information is being shared. please don't make it personal.
It's not about us yaknow.

 

[JBean]

Not entirely true. Every business has to report every cent paid to an attorney over $600 to the IRS. So, I guess we can rule out any type of legally formed entity. Therefore, an individual would have had to have made the "payment" for it to remain "hidden."

True but it does not have to 1099ed until next year! So we still cannot determine if it was a business entity or an individual.

 

[Calliope]

True but it does not have to 1099ed until next year! So we still cannot determine if it was a business entity or an individual.

Even then, does it have to be made public?

 

[JBean]

bbm

Because as long as it's not a marital liability, it's none of his (Kaine's) business.

I think the intriguing part of the document was who has the burden of proof on this issue. i found that part fascinating and need to re read.
Make no mistake though, there will be a time in the future when they are dividing marital assest that she will need to reveal this,imo. But for now, i don't think she really has to. but that is just my opinion of course.

 

[JBean]

Even then, does it have to be made public?

Oh I would think when they divvy up the goods it will need to be addressed.

 

[Calliope]

I think the intriguing part of the document was who has the burden of proof on this issue. i found that part fascinating and need to re read.
Make no mistake though, there will be a time in the future when they are dividing marital assest that she will need to reveal this,imo. But for now, i don't think she really has to. but that is just my opinion of course.

Agreed.

I haven't read the document, just going by your posts and the article.

Computer isn't cooperating tonight...

 

[Calliope]

Oh I would think when they divvy up the goods it will need to be addressed.

I guess what I'm trying to ask (and failing lol) is that's not really something that will be disclosed publicly, unless the people involved choose to do so.

 

[tlcya]

ITA. There would be total outrage if Kaine were hiding money from Terri, and people would be demanding that he tell her where it is. But when he asks her about her money, it's a bad thing and a fishing expedition. There is such a double standard going on here. Neither has the right to hide any money from each other. And she doesn't have the right to ask him for money but hide her assets from him.

No matter what we think of her, she doesn't have more rights to her money than Kaine has to his money. They are both accountable in this divorce for their assets. And fine, she doesn't say where it's from now, but she will have to when the judge says she has to.

BBM

It was not a bad thing to ask about where the money come from. In my opinion what makes it a fishing expedition is that the question was asked and given a reasonable answer by a person sworn before the court to be truthful in his answers regarding the money. It became a fishing expedition when Kaine (through counsel) asked for documentation, proof.

Her attorney is an officer of the court and a member of the bar in good standing. He has stated within official court pleadings signed by him that the money did not come from Terri, is not a loan, marital asset or marital debt. This is enough for most courts to accept. As an officer of the court to lie in a pleading would be illegal. By signing the document he is swearing it so. So it not on Terri's say so that the money is not relevant to Kaine or the divorce, it is on her attorney's say so, in a pleading set forth before the court. Attorneys (at least the many I know) are not in the habit of signing a document to be set before the court with outright lies.

I do not believe the judge is going to rule in Kaine's favor. The judge set the matter over until January. IMO this bought the judge time in which not to have to rule on this issue either way. Why? Because hopefully by January we will have an snwer once and for all as to what happened to Kyron and the issue become moot.

I understand your opinion of Terri and her involvement. I totally get it. I am not trying to debate that with you or frustrate you. I am simply discussing the LEGAL questions that arose in the hearing today regading the motion by Kaine and my opinion of it.

 

[SacreBleu]

True but it does not have to 1099ed until next year! So we still cannot determine if it was a business entity or an individual.

Well, January 31st is not that far away!!

 

[liz b.]

a family trust controlled by TH would still flow down to her personally so I cannot imagine any way that would be considered a 3rd party even though it is a separate entity.

No, not a family trust controlled by TH. Controlled perhaps by other family members, and she could possibly have access to the $ if she could show cause. The third party in that case would be the attorney who administers the trust. In other words, her parents could have a controlling interest in a family trust.She needs the $. I'm guessing that her parents would not allow her to control the $,so it would not "flow down to her personally ". The attorney who is handling the trust pays Houze et al, making him (or her ) a third party for the purposes of this hearing.... MOO