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

[pufnstuf]

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.

I never said that Bunch lied. However, he is her attorney and, while he claims that Terri has tried to see the baby only to be denied by Kaine, the truth of exactly how she sought to see the baby is something that we're not privy to.

If it were her lawyer contacting his lawyer, seeking modification of the FAPA RO months after the fact, then that leaves one to wonder...

Why didn't she contest the visitation portion of the RO when she would have had very good footing to do so, within the 30 days after being served with the FAPA RO?

Why now?

It could be that she genuinely wishes to see the baby. Or it could be that this is a coordination between her criminal attorney and her civil attorney to force the state to tip its evidentiary hand.

Or it could be a combination of the two.

You said that there will be an appropriate time when Terri would refute accusations made against her. The appropriate time, in my opinion, would have been during the 30 days after she was served the FAPA RO, a time in which she had a criminal and a civil attorney, yet she did not seek to contest the allegations made against her in the FAPA RO.

I contend that the hearing on parenting time will be the appropriate time for Kaine to visit the claim made by Bunch that Terri has attempted to see the baby.

 

[Billylee]

Everyone keeps saying that Terri did not contest the RO. Well, since she has an attorney, two for that matter, and one who is apparently quite good at what he does, for which he apparently receives a substantial salary, I am sure it is her attorneys who advised her to not contest the RO within the 30 days.

Obviously, her attorney/s, and I'd assume it was Mr. Houze., felt it was not a good time to do so, knowing full well the issue could be modified later. We cannot be sure as to exactly why, other than it is his job to protect his client and make sure his client is provided her constitutional rights under the law.

We have not heard much from Mr. Houze, basically one comment
about the media fanning the flames and turning this case into a witch hunt. If Mr. Houze has reason to believe that is what is happening to Terri Horman, then I fully understand his reasoning for not lettting her talk. History shows us that witch hunts can be extremely hard to stop, even in a court of law.

 

[JBean]

Everyone keeps saying that Terri did not contest the RO. Well, since she has an attorney, two for that matter, and one who is apparently quite good at what he does, for which he apparently receives a substantial salary, I am sure it is her attorneys who advised her to not contest the RO within the 30 days.

Obviously, her attorney/s, and I'd assume it was Mr. Houze., felt it was not a good time to do so, knowing full well the issue could be modified later. We cannot be sure as to exactly why, other than it is his job to protect his client and make sure his client is provided her constitutional rights under the law.

We have not heard much from Mr. Houze, basically one comment
about the media fanning the flames and turning this case into a witch hunt. If Mr. Houze has reason to believe that is what is happening to Terri Horman, then I fully understand his reasoning for not lettting her talk. History shows us that witch hunts can be extremely hard to stop, even in a court of law.

I have no thoughts on this topic in general and have not followed it. however, the client makes all the decisions in the final analysis. If she did not contest the RO, it is because she chose not to. If it was a strategy of some sort or a calculated move on her part, so be it. But make no mistake as to who made this decision and that decision was most likely based on a series of choices laid out to her by her attorney. But there were choices and she made her own decisions based on priorities.

 

[gardeness]

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.

And...Bunch's accusation was made in court, where Kaine's attorney had opportunity to refute...

 

[Billylee]

I have no thoughts on this topic in general and have not followed it. however, the client makes all the decisions in the final analysis. If she did not contest the RO, it is because she chose not to. If it was a strategy of some sort or a calculated move on her part, so be it. But make no mistake as to who made this decision and that decision was most likely based on a series of choices laid out to her by her attorney. But there were choices and she made her own decisions based on priorities.

I didn't mean for it to sound like she disagreed with her attorney and would have done something different. I mean she is following her attorney's advice and it is his strategy. I know if I were in her shoes, I'd be following my attorney's lead, because I'd be lost.

 

[JBean]

I didn't mean for it to sound like she disagreed with her attorney and would have done something different. I mean she is following her attorney's advice and it is his strategy. I know if I were in her shoes, I'd be following my attorney's lead, because I'd be lost.

Oh I totally understand what you mean Billy! But it is really important that we all understand that actions that are taken by TH are her own and not the actions of her attorny.KWIM? It is kind of a subtle distinction but it is an important distinction.

Attorney says: if you do this, then this will happen. if that happens then this will happen. if you don't do this then that might happen and on and on. Then he says, what do you want to do? Then she makes the choice.

Hope you don't think that I am pickin' on ya. You just seem to have the most recent post everythime i stop by and you always have something interesting to say. :hug:

 

[believe09]

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.

You and I are saying the same thing, so I am confused, lol.

When I say she conceded the statement he made under penalty of perjury, I am simply stating that she did not go to court within the 30 days allowed for to contest the statement he made to get the RO.

We know this is true. You stated that this is not an admission of guilt and included information about what amounts to an Alford Plea. I simply pointed out that an Alford plea, or it's equivilent, is stating not "think what you like" but is stating that the prosecution likely has enough to convict you, however you are not pleading guilty. No contest.

 

[believe09]

See I keep coming back to what Terri had on the line when the restraining order came down. Losing your child and your husband would be the top two things that would devestate your world I would think-certainly the loss of her child. But she is in such a pickle or perceived such danger in contesting the order that she didnt bother.

What kind of situation could she be in that she would not have taken at least that step?

Granted, she would like to have contact now. And still not address the claims in the restraining order, at least at this time. That is my interpretation, but perhaps I am completely wrong. The request for parenting time is external to the issue of the RO. If I recall desquire's posts correctly.

But they are very difficult concepts for me to separate. "I will not contest a restraining order that states I mean to hire someone to murder my husband, but since no charges have been brought to date concerning that detail, may I see my daughter? Because the threat was against my husband, not my child, and he never said I wasnt a good parent. To the one child at least. Because he believes I caused his other child to disappear."

It is a quagmire to me.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I will attempt to find the link.

The point I was making was not that we all meet up with everyone face to face, but that we all make judgements every single day.

I have never met any of the presidents or presidential wannabe's I have voted (or not voted) for, but I was able to make a judgement by what was said and what was not said. In the same way Tricia was able to make a judgement call that saved her life.

If we had to meet someone face to face to have opinions and make judgements, we'd all be leading very busy lives!

BBM

The bolded statement really jumped out at me because it really highlighted for me how different "normal" is for various people.

I have voted in every election I have been qualified to vote in since I was 18 years old and I have never voted for a presidential candidate I have not met face to face at least once. I live in an early primary state and presidential candidates start prowling here at least two years before each election. There are all these small meetings two or more years before the election, usually less than 30 people, where you can meet each candidate, listen to them speak and then meet them face to face.

That just seems normal to me.

What does this have to do with Kyron's case? For me, a lot of what has come out has been without context and, lacking a context, it's impossible to judge accurately. Without the context of what constituted normal for KH and TMH's relationship, it's really impossible for me to judge with any feeling of certainty as to what one act or one statement really means.

It's seductively easy to pick out this bit and that bit and this other bit and put it all together into a picture that looks however the person assembling that picture wants it to look. But just because it's easy to do so and the picture looks realistic doesn't make the picture accurate.

 

[BeanE]

You and I are saying the same thing, so I am confused, lol.

When I say she conceded the statement he made under penalty of perjury, I am simply stating that she did not go to court within the 30 days allowed for to contest the statement he made to get the RO.

We know this is true. You stated that this is not an admission of guilt and included information about what amounts to an Alford Plea. I simply pointed out that an Alford plea, or it's equivilent, is stating not "think what you like" but is stating that the prosecution likely has enough to convict you, however you are not pleading guilty. No contest.

Thanks, believe. I don't think we're saying the same thing.

You'd said:

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.

BBM. If I understand you correctly, that you are saying that you think her not contesting the RO means that she is confirming that it is a fact that she attempted to hire someone to murder Kaine, and that she was involved in Kyron's disappearance, then we are not saying the same thing.

I don't think her not contesting means she's confirming that's a fact. I think it is only if a person is charged, criminally, and pleads guilty via a plea agreement, or is convicted at a trial, that they are legally confirming that the charges are fact or true.

I'd like to get clarity and input on this from our attorneys, because if it is so, then I am definitely right off the fence, and I can stop agonizing over many aspects of what happened to Kyron - I would have answers to some important questions I have.

 

[citigirl]

Thanks, believe. I don't think we're saying the same thing.

You'd said:



BBM. If I understand you correctly, that you are saying that you think her not contesting the RO means that she is confirming that it is a fact that she attempted to hire someone to murder Kaine, and that she was involved in Kyron's disappearance, then we are not saying the same thing.

I don't think her not contesting means she's confirming that's a fact. I think it is only if a person is charged, criminally, and pleads guilty via a plea agreement, or is convicted at a trial, that they are legally confirming that the charges are fact or true.

I'd like to get clarity and input on this from our attorneys, because if it is so, then I am definitely right off the fence, and I can stop agonizing over many aspects of what happened to Kyron - I would have answers to some important questions I have.

I do not think our attorneys agree on some of these things...particularly the meaning behind TH not contesting the restraining order or asking for visitation. I imagine different attorneys have different strategies....

 

[mmmagique]

Thanks, believe. I don't think we're saying the same thing.

You'd said:



BBM. If I understand you correctly, that you are saying that you think her not contesting the RO means that she is confirming that it is a fact that she attempted to hire someone to murder Kaine, and that she was involved in Kyron's disappearance, then we are not saying the same thing.

I don't think her not contesting means she's confirming that's a fact. I think it is only if a person is charged, criminally, and pleads guilty via a plea agreement, or is convicted at a trial, that they are legally confirming that the charges are fact or true.

I'd like to get clarity and input on this from our attorneys, because if it is so, then I am definitely right off the fence, and I can stop agonizing over many aspects of what happened to Kyron - I would have answers to some important questions I have.

Bean, if you take me to civil court for being a big meanie, (and the court accepts the charge and sets a court date) and I do not show up, you have won by default. That means that this particular (civil) court finds in your favor because I couldn't be arsed to stand up for myself. It may not hold up in a criminal trial, but it will definitely work in civil court, and *may* possibly be taken into consideration if it moves to criminal.

(which is why I have so many issues with certain types of service, but that's another argument for another time)

 

[believe09]

Perhaps better phrasing is "one way to look at her inaction is that she may be conceding the accuracy of the statement."

 

[BeanE]

Bean, if you take me to civil court for being a big meanie, (and the court accepts the charge and sets a court date) and I do not show up, you have won by default. That means that this particular (civil) court finds in your favor because I couldn't be arsed to stand up for myself. It may not hold up in a criminal trial, but it will definitely work in civil court, and *may* possibly be taken into consideration if it moves to criminal.

(which is why I have so many issues with certain types of service, but that's another argument for another time)

Yes, I understand that by not contesting a RO, the court considers the person to be a domestic abuser.

What I'm unsure of is whether the person is legally confirming that the specific allegations in the RO application are all facts or true.

 

[germaine]

Yes, I understand that by not contesting a RO, the court considers the person to be a domestic abuser.

What I'm unsure of is whether the person is legally confirming that the specific allegations in the RO application are all facts or true.

I ran this by an experienced civil trial attorney at dinner and he said that yes, the allegations and in a civil matter that are uncontested by the defendant either becuase they can't contest them or don't contest them, are "conclusively established" (his words) for purposes of any related civil proceedings. But the more I think about it, I'm not sure KH really alleged any facts that bear DIRECTLY on Terri's guilt or innocence. Iirc, he alleged only that LE gave him probable cause re the MFH and that he believed that Terri was involved Kyron's disappearance? It's not like he alleged that she DID try to have him killed, or that she did kidnap/? Kyron. So, around and around we go

eta: according to the guy I asked, if KH HAD made those more specific allegations, they would be conclusively established for civil purposes.

 

[Billylee]

I ran this by an experienced civil trial attorney at dinner and he said that yes, the allegations and in a civil matter that are uncontested by the defendant either becuase they can't contest them or don't contest them, are "conclusively established" (his words) for purposes of any related civil proceedings. But the more I think about it, I'm not sure KH really alleged any facts that bear DIRECTLY on Terri's guilt or innocence. Iirc, he alleged only that LE gave him probable cause re the MFH and that he believed that Terri was involved Kyron's disappearance? It's not like he alleged that she DID try to have him killed, or that she did kidnap/? Kyron. So, around and around we go

eta: according to the guy I asked, if KH HAD made those more specific allegations, they would be conclusively established for civil purposes.

Exactly. These are almost hearsay allegations, KH is not really saying "My wife tried to have me killed" He's saying, LE has given me probable cause to believe, etc.,etc.

So my question is..... what's all the double talk about? Either HE thinks it or not. This whole case speaks in riddles to me.


Example, if LE came to me and told me my husband had a contract out on me. (Well, first I laugh them off) But I would demand proof. Okay, so now I have real substantiated proof. What would I say in my RO?
Would I beat around the bush and say well, LE gave me some info that made me think that maybe that, blah blah blah. No I would not. I would say, My husband tried to kill me. I received this proof from LE on such and such date, and here it is attached to this RO.

Okay, maybe that's just me, but that's how I would have put it. I certainly wouldn't have laid the burden of proof back on LE if I already had the proof in my hands.

JMO and all that jazz.

 

[pufnstuf]

Exactly. These are almost hearsay allegations, KH is not really saying "My wife tried to have me killed" He's saying, LE has given me probable cause to believe, etc.,etc.

So my question is..... what's all the double talk about? Either HE thinks it or not. This whole case speaks in riddles to me.


Example, if LE came to me and told me my husband had a contract out on me. (Well, first I laugh them off) But I would demand proof. Okay, so now I have real substantiated proof. What would I say in my RO?
Would I beat around the bush and say well, LE gave me some info that made me think that maybe that, blah blah blah. No I would not. I would say, My husband tried to kill me. I received this proof from LE on such and such date, and here it is attached to this RO.

Okay, maybe that's just me, but that's how I would have put it. I certainly wouldn't have laid the burden of proof back on LE if I already had the proof in my hands.

JMO and all that jazz.

I think that Kaine was thoroughly answering the question. If he had said, "My wife tried to kill me," that wouldn't provide enough detail. For him to say that he received info that LE has probable cause to believe that his wife tried to contract murder for hire on him tells the judge exactly how he learned exactly what manner of domestic violence was committed against him.

Ok... that was a terrible run-on sentence. I hope it made sense.

 

[Calliope]

I think that Kaine was thoroughly answering the question. If he had said, "My wife tried to kill me," that wouldn't provide enough detail. For him to say that he received info that LE has probable cause to believe that his wife tried to contract murder for hire on him tells the judge exactly how he learned exactly what manner of domestic violence was committed against him.

Ok... that was a terrible run-on sentence. I hope it made sense.

Only he didn't state that LE has probable cause to believe his wife wanted to have him murdered.

 

[JBean]

Only he didn't state that LE has probable cause to believe his wife wanted to have him murdered.

True. What he said was:
"I also recently learned that my wife attempted to hire someone to murder me. The police have provided me with probable cause to believe the above 2 statements to be true"

(but I only wrote the relevant statement)

http://www.kptv.com/download/2010/0708/24187664.pdf

 

[mmmagique]

One of the things Kaine does say (in paragraph five, page four of the RO app) is "My wife attempted to hire someone to kill me."

That is the entire statement under that paragraph.

In the preceding paragraph (I believe) Kaine stated that LE has given him reason to believe his wife attempted to hire someone to murder him.

So he says it both ways.

No matter what he said or how he said it, it was enough for the judge. Now we just have to wait and see what he will do with this visitation request.