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

[Jo in Calif]

Which gets us right back to the core issue: KH and DY have repeatedly said that TH is guilty. However, no one, either LE or the DA has yet provided proof for their allegations.

It's the herd of elephants in the room.

As soon as LE and the DA say Terri is guilty, I'm sure they are going to be more than happy to show their proof in court.

 

[BeanE]

But Terri selling her story would be a way to pay for her defense. And Kaine has a right to know if the "focus" of the investigation into his son disappearing is paying for her defense with book or movie proceeds.

Selling story rights or pictures or something along those lines seems to me to be a contender too.

And if Kaine doesn't have a legal right to know about that (he may - I don't know), I think he has a moral/ethical right.

 

[BeanE]

Oh maybe it's Vivid Entertainment and Terri promised to do a !! :banghead:

If people get $350k simply for promising to do a , then I definitely took up the wrong career.

 

[Jade2010]

When was Houze hired and was the story far along at that time for book people to smell money?

 

[Kat010]

Selling story rights or pictures or something along those lines seems to me to be a contender too.

And if Kaine doesn't have a legal right to know about that (he may - I don't know), I think he has a moral/ethical right.

But....but........isn't there a law that says that a criminal can't profit from their crime, as in books and articles? So, therefore, if TH is guilty, and is found to be guilty, then any $ for story rights, etc. would be off-limits, right? And if Houze had agreed to accept payment from that source, and his client is guilty, then by his actions she has profited from a crime in having him as her lawyer. So he really couldn't accept $ that could be seen as profiting from a crime, if she's proven guilty, right?

I think that whole thing went in a circle. Help! Lawyer alert! Guidance needed!

 

[BeanE]

Judge delays divorce hearing for Terri, Kaine Horman
Attorneys worry that media scrutiny could hurt stepmother's rights
The Portland Tribune, Oct 7, 2010

“Every statement she produces is going to be funneled either to media or police or both,” Bunch said.

Houze argued that while investigators have not named any suspects in the missing boy’s case, Kaine and his former wife, Desiree Young, Kyron’s mother, have gone on national television programs and pointed to Terri Horman as a primary suspect in the case.

Also, Houze argued, anything Terri Horman says could be used against her in a criminal investigation. For example, taking a deposition has “far broader” rules in a civil investigation than a criminal one.

“That is an attempt to circumvent the rules of criminal proceedings,” he said. “My client is a putative suspect.”

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=128648892311734600

pu·ta·tive   [pyoo-tuh-tiv]
–adjective
commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/putative

 

[miabellamoure]

Desiree stated in a letter she read to Terri, with Kaine at her side, that Terri "will go to jail." Kaine throughout the interview and release of that statement nodded and allowed Desiree to go on.

I very respectfully will disagree. Stating what is obvious...if you do not tell the truth or cooperate with LE...will lead you to jail is again NOT bullying.

 

[grandmaj]

Why? I'm not being argumentative, I am truly curious. Why would Kaine have the right to know this if Terri did not have anything to do with Kyron's disappearance? Terri has a story to sell, and until she is charged, tried, and convicted, it is not illegal to sell that story, if that's what she chooses to do.

Will all do respect what if she is guilty?

Community assets. If Kaine has to tell what his wages, 401K, retirement, etc., is Terri has to be held to the same standard. Where did you get the money?

Saying it is not a community asset is not proving it is not a community asset.

 

[BeanE]

But....but........isn't there a law that says that a criminal can't profit from their crime, as in books and articles? So, therefore, if TH is guilty, and is found to be guilty, then any $ for story rights, etc. would be off-limits, right? And if Houze had agreed to accept payment from that source, and his client is guilty, then by his actions she has profited from a crime in having him as her lawyer. So he really couldn't accept $ that could be seen as profiting from a crime, if she's proven guilty, right?

I think that whole thing went in a circle. Help! Lawyer alert! Guidance needed!

Son of Sam law. Only after convicted.

 

[Adrienne37]

I think all of this is going to be a moot point because Terri will be down for the count way before January rolls around. It will all come out way before then about what she did to Kyron and how she obtained the money to pay for her high-priced lawyer. JMO.

 

[gitana1]

The argument is that Kaine wants to know if it is marital assets. It has been asserted it is not, and a third party has provided the funds. Kaine got his answer. He doesn't deserve anything more than that he is released from any burden to pay for the attorney, and that Terri was not required to steal any of his money in order to pay.

Question answered, effectively.... in my opinion!!!

In a divorce, both parties are entitled to complete information about the other spouse's sources of income, assets and debts, how they paid their lawyers and whether they had or have access to other monies whether via gift, loan or payment by a third party of any kind of expenses. That information must come from subpoena or via discovery responses under oath. A statement from an attorney does not suffice.
Also, the info about these attorney's fees, in this case, is not only important as it pertains to whether the funds came from undisclosed assets that may be at least partially marital property, or whether they came from TH encumbering marital property, the first which KH would not be able to determine without valid discovery responses. It is also important as it may pertain to issues such as whether one party should pay the other's attorney's fees, and support issues. Bottom line is that KH is entitled to the information requested, via answers that are under oath.

I would like to throw this out there. I still think there is a possibility that Houze is doing this pro bono. Would it be legal to refer to himself/firm as a "third party?"

If he was doing this pro bono, he would, IMO be furthering his client's position by admitting so. It would show that he feels strongly enough about TH's innocence that he agreed to waive the fee.

Well since Terri is going to be asking for support from Kaine, and division of marital assets, isn't it Kaine's business to know if Terri has been working outside the house, had somehow amassed this large sum of money by some means, or has a wealthy benefactor or bank account he never knew about?

I think he has a right to know.

Right.

<respectfully snipped>

Oh man, Gitana1!!! When you post a statement like that it makes me crazy with impatience! :crazy: I want to know and I want to know NOW! LOL

I know what you mean! But I did not mean to cause mystery. To me, this is clear: The family judge believes that LE has probable cause as KH alleged. I feel he believes TH is likely involved. The judge wants to balance not compromising the investigation, and possibly hindering the ability to find Kyron, or to find out what happened to him, as well as KH's struggle to use the civil process to get those answers, with the constitutional rights of TH who has not been named a suspect or POI by LE, who has not been arrested and for whom not one criminal charge is pending. What a balance.

Kaine's attorney had every opportunity to rebut this statement. She did not.

KH's attorney does not have the burden of rebutting the statement.

 

[debs]

Will all do respect what if she is guilty?

Community assets. If Kaine has to tell what his wages, 401K, retirement, etc., is Terri has to be held to the same standard. Where did you get the money?

Saying it is not a community asset is not proving it is not a community asset.

If she is guilty, they should charge her. All this would be moot then. They're refusing to charge her for their profitable reasons (more time to gather evidence and hey if we can force her to testify in a court, we'll use whatever she says against her too. I won't even get into the poisoning of any potential jury pool should she ever be taken to trial!). But they're not charging her, and so the presumption is innocent, UNTIL proven guilty. Not even just charged, but PROVEN.

 

[loves2bmom]

I think all of this is going to be a mute point because Terri will be down for the count way before January rolls around. It will all come out way before then about what she did to Kyron and how she obtained the money to pay for her high-priced lawyer. JMO.

I would love to take a gander at your crystal ball you're viewing!

 

[Kat010]

bbm

I didn't read of any bullying by Kaine going on...nor did I hear Kaine ever state, you better tell me where you got the money from or you'll never see baby K**** again...that to me would be an example of bullying.

I should have made myself clearer, I reckon. Here's the entire paragraph:

"Yep. And basically, Kaine's demand to "tell me where you go the money!' is simply bullying via legal means, IMHO. It's a way to try and degrade, if not deny, attorney-client privilege. And, it's also a way to try and open the door to get hands on records to see if there's any little kernel--not necessarily related to money--that can be served up to LE or the media. IMHO"

The red is by you, the italics are by me. What my statement said was that by using his lawyers and the court, KH was using legal means to try and impose his will and degrade the normal protections and court assurances afforded all of us. I didn't say that he was throwing rocks, shouting; I said his actions were "via legal means."

 

[krowdkat]

I think whoever brings forward the allegations has to prove them, but I don't know for sure, because IANAL.

BeanE, FWIW, in my child custody/divorce case which lasted for 18 years, I was the defendent. My husband filed first. With that said, there were so many crazy lies told about me (by my exes lawyer) in front of the judge it was sickening. I.E., that I was homeless and living under a bridge with two guys. I'm being serious here. I had never been unemployed or homeless. In fact, I was working two jobs and going to college.

When I asked my attorney if I could sue them for liable or anything for so blatantly lying to the judge inre to me, my attorney said, "No!"

Attorneys are protected by the court because there is no real way for a judge to know if an attorney has been lied to by their client. Attorneys are exempt and/or protected to some extent (once behind the closed door of the court room).

Me, as the DEFENDENT, in my divorce/custody case had to bring evidence forth to disprove the false allegations against me by the plaintiff (my ex).

 

[liz b.]

When was Houze hired and was the story far along at that time for book people to smell money?

Isn't it illegal to profit via books and /or movies from a crime ? So, the book angle would only hold up if she was a) found to be innocent by virtue of someone else,unconnected to her at all, being arrested,tried and convicted or b) she was arrested,tried and aquitted in a court of law....

My spouse was a federal prosecutor for several years.He tried cases against many people from Colombia. I know that they would sell their stories to the local tabloids in Bogota for mucho $$$, but surely we haven't come to that here ? MOO

All JMO

 

[Kimster]

Son of Sam law. Only after convicted.

"Son of Sam" Laws

Although "Son of Sam" laws across the country are fairly similar, the wording of such laws varies from state to state. In most states, the victim must sue the offender in civil court and obtain a judgment for damages before being eligible to make a claim against the offender's profits. In others, claims are made through the established state victim compensation program. The laws generally apply to convicted offenders, including those who plead guilty, as well as those who are acquitted on the grounds of insanity. A few states include persons accused of a crime, provided there has been an indictment or some other preliminary determination that the defendant may have committed the crime." <snipped>

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32469

Couldn't find how or if the law applies to Oregon. :waitasec:

 

[Kat010]

"Son of Sam" Laws

Although "Son of Sam" laws across the country are fairly similar, the wording of such laws varies from state to state. In most states, the victim must sue the offender in civil court and obtain a judgment for damages before being eligible to make a claim against the offender's profits. In others, claims are made through the established state victim compensation program. The laws generally apply to convicted offenders, including those who plead guilty, as well as those who are acquitted on the grounds of insanity. A few states include persons accused of a crime, provided there has been an indictment or some other preliminary determination that the defendant may have committed the crime." <snipped>

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32469

Couldn't find how or if the law applies to Oregon. :waitasec:

Didn't the Goldmans use some version of this, along with their civil judgment, to take OJ's book and publish it for their benefit? Help, I can't remember all that right now!

 

[cluciano63]

Could the lawyers have named the third party to the judge, for his satisfaction but not released it to the public?

I seriously doubt very much that her attorney would allow the defense to be funded based upon the outcome of the case, i.e. her story for a movie, etc. as she could only keep the money/pay him if acquitted. And I doubt it is from any illegal source. It is likely very mundane, as in someone else is paying directly to him, so techically they can say it is not a gift. And I'm very doubtful that the amount is anything close to $350,000 at this point.

 

[gitana1]

p.s., Houze has not yet addressed the court as Terri's attorney for criminal charges, since well, no one has charged her for anything. Since so far he's sitting on the sidelines, would it be a conflict of interest for a third party to have paid his asking fee, if he hasn't yet really acted legally on her behalf?

No, that's okay. She obviously needs a criminal attorney now.