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

[Billylee]

He also initialed and check marked:

CUSTODY/PARENTING TIME MATTER PENDING: A child/ren custody, parenting time, guardianship, or juvenile dependency has been commenced in Multnomah County, OR divorce proceeding.


Thus, it remains to be decided by a judge.

 

[believe09]

Yup it remains in the hands of the judge. FWIW, I think one of the x's was a mistake. JMO.

 

[BeanE]

Thanks Bean-but I was referring to the statement Kaine made to obtain the restraining order:
Describe the Incident of Abuse:
"I believe the respondent is responsible for the disappearance of my son who has been missing since June 4th 2010. I also recently learned that the respondent attempted to hire someone to murder me. The police have provided me with probable cause to believe the above two statement to be true."

Regarding the parenting time requested in the RO: KH both x's and initials no parenting time.

ETA: So if she did not contest the RO, I would think she is conceding to this statement as a statement of fact.

I don't think so. Again, this is a civil action, not a criminal case in which Terri has been charged with any crimes.

In a criminal action, one can plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest.

- If you plead guilty, you're admitting guilt - even if you are factually innocent. I mention this because some people misunderstand and think that when one accepts a plea deal, and pleads guilty via it, that one is not admitting guilt.

- If you plead not guilty, well, you're going to trial.

- If you plead no contest, then you may or may not be sentenced, and you have not admitted guilt. You are simply saying, in essence, "think what you want, everybody".


So, if we apply these same concepts, which I've articulated poorly because IANAL, then, in this civil action, we can see how it is likely the same - that Terri has, by not contesting the RO, Terri has not admitted guilt, but instead, in the legal way, said "think what you want, everybody".

If I misunderstand this, and not contesting is the same as pleading guilty, then I would have been off the fence the day it was published that she didn't contest the RO.

Hopefully one of attorneys can clarify this, and I can attain some relief for my sore fence-sitting butt.

 

[germaine]

Yup it remains in the hands of the judge. FWIW, I think one of the x's was a mistake. JMO.

I think he was just looking for a rubber-stamp of the no-contact part of the R/O in the family court matter which was also pending at the time. jmoo

 

[believe09]

Germaine, I am not understanding...but I can be dumb as a rock.

BeanE, no contest is saying that you are likely to be convicted of what you are being accused of but you are not pleading guilty.

I dont know why it would be different in a civil court. Like others have mentioned, it is sort of the equivilent of initiating a civil suit and the opposing party not showing up to contest it. It will be found in your favor.

She didnt show up with in the 30 days to say this is a pack of lies and I will testify to that under oath. Like Kaine did when he filled out the RO-it is under penalty of perjury, right?

 

[germaine]

Germaine, I am not understanding...but I can be dumb as a rock.

BeanE, no contest is saying that you are likely to be convicted of what you are being accused of but you are not pleading guilty.

I dont know why it would be different in a civil court. Like others have mentioned, it is sort of the equivilent of initiating a civil suit and the opposing party not showing up to contest it. It will be found in your favor.

She didnt show up with in the 30 days to say this is a pack of lies and I will testify to that under oath. Like Kaine did when he filled out the RO-it is under penalty of perjury, right?

bbm~

And I can be clear as mud and dead wrong lol I think Kaine checked that box because he was also looking for a no-contact ruling in the pending family court matter. Except in family court it would be in the form of a custody order rather than in the form of an R/O. An R/O expires after a time on its own unless it is renewed, while a custody order can only be modified for good cause, I think. So it would make sense to me for him to want a custody order, even though he already had the R/O. Imo, he would have checked that box because he did still intend to get an order regarding parenting time (an order of ZERO parenting time) in the pending family court matter, which would supercede the R/O. jmoo

 

[BeanE]

I went through the restraining order with a fine tooth comb, and wanted to note my observation that nowhere in the document does Kaine state that Terri ever physically abused, emotionally abused, or neglected the baby. Even in the section that asks the applicant to detail any acts of abuse prior to the instant six month time period. Not one single incident. Nothing.

So, in addition to Kaine's statements in interviews, we have this legal document, in which he listed not a single instance in which Terri abused or neglected the baby. He doesn't even say Terri looked crooked at the baby.

It is of interest to me also that whereas Kaine stated that he believes Terri is involved in Kyron's disappearance, he did not note a single act of physical abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect by Terri towards Kyron in this legal document. Not in the instant 6 month period, not ever in Kyron's life.

And filling out this application for a restraining order is the exact time when you want to document every single act of abuse and neglect for the judge's consideration, to let the judge know exactly how dangerous they are, to keep someone away from your children - the exact purpose of a restraining order.

If we find out that Terri indeed did attempt to hire someone to murder Kaine, or that she was involved in Kyron's disappearance, certainly either of those would give cause, in and of themselves, alone, to have grave concerns for the safety of the baby. I just found it interesting that Kaine did not have a single instance of potential or perceived physical abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect, toward either child, to note on this document for the judge's consideration.

 

[BeanE]

Germaine, I am not understanding...but I can be dumb as a rock.

BeanE, no contest is saying that you are likely to be convicted of what you are being accused of but you are not pleading guilty.

I dont know why it would be different in a civil court. Like others have mentioned, it is sort of the equivilent of initiating a civil suit and the opposing party not showing up to contest it. It will be found in your favor.

She didnt show up with in the 30 days to say this is a pack of lies and I will testify to that under oath. Like Kaine did when he filled out the RO-it is under penalty of perjury, right?

BBM. I agree that may be what the person or their attorney thinks, and the reason they plead no contest.

Bottom line, not contesting is not an admission or acknowledgement of any guilt, and it is not saying the claims against you are true. There are so many references for this on the net from highly credible sources, I hardly know where to begin linking, but if you'd like some info you can read on it, please let me know.

 

[pufnstuf]

Per the article:

Bunch said that Kaine Horman has refused, despite repeated requests, to let Terri Horman see her daughter under any circumstances.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/terri_moulton_horman_seeks_reg_1.html


There were obviously requests made and denied. This has not played out in the public eye/press, thus it happened behind the scenes.

The key words: "Bunch says."

 

[pufnstuf]

Nolo Contendere - Latin - No contest. I do not wish to contend. I will not contest it.

A plea in a criminal case by which the defendant answers the charges made in the indictment by declining to dispute or admit the fact of his or her guilt.

The defendant who pleads nolo contendere submits for a judgment fixing a fine or sentence the same as if he or she had pleaded guilty. The difference is that a plea of nolo contendere cannot later be used to prove wrongdoing in a civil suit for monetary damages, but a plea of guilty can. Nolo contendere is especially popular in antitrust actions, such as price-fixing cases, where it is very likely that civil actions for treble damages will be started after the defendant has been successfully prosecuted.

A plea of nolo contendere may be entered only with the permission of the court, and the court should accept it only after weighing its effect on the parties, the public, and the administration of justice.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nolo-contendere

 

[pufnstuf]

I believe you're mistaken, believe09. IANAL, but here is my understanding:

- The sexting with Cook, and the personal relationship concerns and sexual overtures with the landscaper, were part of the contempt motion, not the restraining order.

Here's the contempt motion document: http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/b/2/c/b2c0c26c-4221-4fde-a923-fa5788b1ad69/Horman.pdf

Here's the restraining order document: http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/e/1/2/e12f2287-ce0b-48e0-8d85-e3955216ae1b/FULLORDER.pdf

- The reason that's important to note is because it was the restraining order that Terri did not contest.

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

- Terri did not decline to contest the contempt motion, but in fact, there was a hearing scheduled for it. Kaine, however, dropped the contempt motion, and that is why that hearing did not take place - not because of any action on Terri's part.

http://www.kgw.com/news/kyron-horman/Kaine-tells-KGW-We-need-to-get-this-wrapped-up-102674464.html

- Be sure to note the dates on the various actions - at the time Terri declined to contest the restraining order, she was going forward with the hearing on the contempt motion. In fact, it stood that way for some time - until Kaine dropped the contempt motion.

- Additionally, there is a difference between not contesting a restraining order - a civil action - and a criminal case in which one has actually been charged with a crime, and has the options of pleading guilty, or pleading no contest.

Further, even pleading no contest in a criminal matter in which one has actually been charged, is not an admission of guilt. That's why there is pleading guilty in which one admits guilt and, separately, pleading no contest in which one does not admit guilt.

But... we don't have a criminal case here. No trial, no charges, no arrests - LE has not even named a suspect or POI. Indeed, we have no criminal matters here yet. We're in civil court, dealing with civil matters, at this time.

When has Terri pleaded nolo contendere in recent matters in court? Can you point me to a link?

 

[pufnstuf]

I don't think so. Again, this is a civil action, not a criminal case in which Terri has been charged with any crimes.

In a criminal action, one can plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest.

- If you plead guilty, you're admitting guilt - even if you are factually innocent. I mention this because some people misunderstand and think that when one accepts a plea deal, and pleads guilty via it, that one is not admitting guilt.

- If you plead not guilty, well, you're going to trial.

- If you plead no contest, then you may or may not be sentenced, and you have not admitted guilt. You are simply saying, in essence, "think what you want, everybody".


So, if we apply these same concepts, which I've articulated poorly because IANAL, then, in this civil action, we can see how it is likely the same - that Terri has, by not contesting the RO, Terri has not admitted guilt, but instead, in the legal way, said "think what you want, everybody".

If I misunderstand this, and not contesting is the same as pleading guilty, then I would have been off the fence the day it was published that she didn't contest the RO.

Hopefully one of attorneys can clarify this, and I can attain some relief for my sore fence-sitting butt.

You can't call no response in a civil action the same as nolo contendere in a criminal action. There's no comparison.

Apples and oranges.

 

[NancyA]

The key words: "Bunch says."

Wouldn't Kaine or his lawyer refute what he said if it weren't true?

 

[pufnstuf]

Wouldn't Kaine or his lawyer refute what he said if it weren't true?

If we're using that standard, wouldn't Terri and Houze refute accusations made against her?

 

[BeanE]

When has Terri pleaded nolo contendere in recent matters in court? Can you point me to a link?

:waitasec: I didn't say she had.

In fact, I made sure to distinguish between a nolo contendere plea in a criminal case, and not contesting a RO in a civil matter.

 

[germaine]

When has Terri pleaded nolo contendere in recent matters in court? Can you point me to a link?

afaik, the entire concept doesn't even apply in a civil court setting.

 

[pufnstuf]

Again, comparing nolo contendre in a criminal proceeding to not even showing up for a civil proceeding is apples and oranges.

You can't plead no contest if you don't even show up for court.

There's just no comparison in the two. And nolo contendere certainly doesn't mean "think what you want, everybody."

In the vast majority of nolo contendere pleas, the defendant is well aware that the state has made its case and fighting would be futile. That's hardly "think what you want, everybody."

It's for that reason that a plea of nolo contendere carries the same penalty as pleading guilty.

 

[Calliope]

The key words: "Bunch says."

Very unlikely that an attorney is going to risk his license and professional reputation for the sake of a RO and divorce case.

I don't believe he lied to the Court. Why do you think so?

 

[mmmagique]

Pleading nolo contendere, a defendant neither denies or admits guilt. So it is a "think what you want" plea.

It means literally "I do not wish to contest." It does not mean "think what you want."

I suppose you could say it means, they (the state, or whomever is prosecuting you) are accusing me of something. If we went to court, they would win. I do not wish to contest this.

So even though they neither admit nor deny guilt, they are considered guilty. Attorneys are very thorough and clear with their clients before allowing them to take this plea, because of the automatic assumption of guilt that comes with it.

 

[NancyA]

If we're using that standard, wouldn't Terri and Houze refute accusations made against her?

I'm not using any 'standard' I'm just asking why in your opinion TH's lawyer would lie to make a claim that would be very easy for KH and his lawyers to refute.

In answer to your question: at a guess, TH's lawyers will attempt to refute any and all accusations against her at the appropriate time - as to whether they will do so successfully only time will tell and as for when that will be your guess is as good as mine.