Kyron Horman, 7 years old, Portland OR #40 1/01/11 - 1/18/11

[Shell]

Something is wrong with the thought processes of Oregon lawmakers, IMO 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_supreme_court_rules_that_simply_viewing_child_pornography_on_the_internet_isnt_illegal.html

"The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that it’s not a crime to look at child pornography while surfing the Internet if none of the images are purposefully downloaded, printed out or paid for."

Ugh.  Really???? 

Oh wait, it says "Purposefully downloaded" so to me that means, if I search for something innocent enough and child porn pops up on my screen, then I am not commiting a crime. because I did not purposefully search for it.  Did I get that right?

OT...but It seems to me something would have triggered the image. Surely there is a law about that kind of smut popping out of nowhere. So does this mean, a person can come across photos, look at them all they want and it is all fine and dandy if they didn't download? I wonder if there is/or should be a law to report such photos if you happened across them.

The latest story of the men who have been raping severely handicapped women is sickening. Someone found the images and reported to authorities.

[Tracygirl]

I hope that she can't get a thing if she is convicted.  Wouldn't that be the ultimate in a cosmic slap in the face for Kaine and Kyron.

I am curious to know what is within case law about this. I don't know what happens and want to know. I am nosing around the law sites but so far nothing.

[islandmonkey]

I think it really depends on if the court will consider the MFH due to the fact she has not been charged and the court has to view her as innocent until proved guilty per our constitution. 

Can anyone with legal experience answer this question,  Does a spouse forfit their right to property division if they are suspected of criminal behavior against the other? I would be interested what case law there is about this. I would think they still are entitled to the property division if suspected and even if charged and convicted of the crime. Any legal eagles out there that can answer the question?

No legal eagle, but did a quick google and found this......of course this is Illinois so I have no clue about Oregon:

Felony Conviction
Dear James,

If my husband had a felony conviction I was not aware of when we were married how will that play into the divorce and custody?

Answer:

A felony conviction may come into play in a trial under two different scenarios. First, as a matter of evidence, depending on how long ago the spouse received the felony conviction, the conviction may be introduced at trial to attack the credibility of the spouse as a witness. Each State may have its own Rules of Evidence, but even the Federal Rules of Evidence provide for use of felony convictions dating back to a certain period of time. The type of conviction is also relevant as felonies that relate to dishonesty (fraud, perjury, etc.) can always be admitted to challenge the credibility of the witness. Obviously, this type of evidence is detrimental to any individual as a witness, as credibility often times plays a major rule in the Judge's final decision.

Felony Conviction and Custody

Second, with respect to custody, the felony conviction might also be used against a spouse when considering what is in the best interests of the child. This is not to say that an individual with a felony conviction could never get custody of his or her children, but it certainly would be used as a factor in any custody trial. This would be particularly true if the felony conviction were for some type of violent and/or domestic crime. Convictions for other crimes such as narcotics would also be damaging evidence against the parent seeking custody.

Felony Conviction and Financial Settlement

An important thing to note, however, is that in the State of Illinois, a felony conviction would have no direct bearing on the financial settlement of a case. Section 503 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act specifically requires the Court to divide marital property "without regard to marital misconduct" in just proportions… Thus, an individual convicted of a felony, or an individual guilty of domestic violence, or even an individual who has had an adulterous affair will not be punished financially as part of a dissolution proceeding. In other words, one spouse will not receive any more money simply because the other spouse has committed bad or criminal acts.

[Tracygirl]

not sure if this exactly answers the question or not but all I can find for now.
http://research.lawyers.com/Oregon/Divorce-in-Oregon.html

Dividing the Property
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Oregon, assets and debts acquired during your marriage - called "marital property" - are divided "equitably" in a divorce. All of the property owned by you and your spouse is subject to division by the court, including any inheritance or gifts received prior or during the marriage may be divided. It doesn't matter how you hold title to the property. The law presumes you and your spouse made equal contributions in acquiring property, unless you prove otherwise.

The court doesn't consider fault when making a property division. The court does look at factors such as the cost of an asset, taxes and liens, contributions by each spouse and how the property award impacts the issue of alimony.

Be prepared with information on your property, including when you purchased it, an estimate of value, and details such as account numbers, serial numbers and so forth. You'll be ready to meet with a Oregon divorce lawyer and it can save you a lot of time and money.

[Shell]

This law talk is  We need the advice of someone with knowledge in Oregon law to know for sure.

[Tracygirl]

Thanks Island Monkey for finding that. I wonder if that rule applies to most states? I think that is how it works in California, I think it is how it works in Oregon but not exactly sure.

[Tracygirl]

This law talk is  We need the advice of someone with knowledge in Oregon law to know for sure.

I know...

[Shell]

bye...will be back later when hopefully this is figured out, although I do not know why it is so pertinent at this time.

[hellokitty]

 

There doesn't appear to be anything new to talk about on here except for some interesting topics such as would TH get anything if convicted.

There is also stuff on some other sites. 

It keeps things still alive on here.

[islandmonkey]

bye...will be back later when hopefully this is figured out, although I do not know why it is so pertinent at this time.

It isn't...just not anything else going on, but I should have learned from answering the other question tonight not to tread again LOL......I just thought facts should be stated as facts and opinion as such. Have we heard about any new searches, anywhere....I am getting incredibly discouraged.

[sebastian]

I hope that she can't get a thing if she is convicted.  Wouldn't that be the ultimate in a cosmic slap in the face for Kaine and Kyron.

Speaking of cosmic and karma and et all. What if Terri is guilty of the MFH plot but not guilty of taking Kyron? The MFH plot put her on LE's radar but some other perp swooped in on Kyron? I know, not likely. I still think Terri is guilty of something to do with Kyron's disappearance. I also think that she should have done everything to cooperate with LE if for no other reason to convince them of her innocence so that LE would leave her alone and go after the real perp. After all, she was Kyron's step-mom since he was very little and wouldn't her biggest concern be to find the real perp? She wouldn't want LE to spend all of their time and resources suspecting her if she knew it was in fact someone else would she? Shouldn't this have always been about what is good for Kyron and the search there of?

[yuknomenot]

Something is wrong with the thought processes of Oregon lawmakers, IMO 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_supreme_court_rules_that_simply_viewing_child_pornography_on_the_internet_isnt_illegal.html

"The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that it’s not a crime to look at child pornography while surfing the Internet if none of the images are purposefully downloaded, printed out or paid for."

Ugh.  Really???? 

Oh wait, it says "Purposefully downloaded" so to me that means, if I search for something innocent enough and child porn pops up on my screen, then I am not commiting a crime. because I did not purposefully search for it.  Did I get that right?

The "purposefully downloaded" part is ridiculous IMO.  Seems like all any of them would have to is claim it was found accidentally, or any other excuse really, and they're free and clear.  If they're looking at child porn, I doubt that kind of fib would be difficult for them.  How's a court to prove otherwise.  Crazy stuff coming out of the court systems these days.

[sebastian]

The allegations that Kaine made about Terri wanting to harm Kiara. Does anyone know where those allegations came from? Did he have any exhibits attached to backup that allegation?

[Shell]

I hope that she can't get a thing if she is convicted.  Wouldn't that be the ultimate in a cosmic slap in the face for Kaine and Kyron.

Speaking of cosmic and karma and et all. What if Terri is guilty of the MFH plot but not guilty of taking Kyron? The MFH plot put her on LE's radar but some other perp swooped in on Kyron? I know, not likely. I still think Terri is guilty of something to do with Kyron's disappearance. I also think that she should have done everything to cooperate with LE if for no other reason to convince them of her innocence so that LE would leave her alone and go after the real perp. After all, she was Kyron's step-mom since he was very little and wouldn't her biggest concern be to find the real perp? She wouldn't want LE to spend all of their time and resources suspecting her if she knew it was in fact someone else would she? Shouldn't this have always been about what is good for Kyron and the search there of?

Interesting thoughts Sebastian  It should have been easy to explain her actions and whereabouts that day if there was nothing to hide.

[sebastian]

Something is wrong with the thought processes of Oregon lawmakers, IMO 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_supreme_court_rules_that_simply_viewing_child_pornography_on_the_internet_isnt_illegal.html

"The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that it’s not a crime to look at child pornography while surfing the Internet if none of the images are purposefully downloaded, printed out or paid for."

Ugh.  Really???? 

Oh wait, it says "Purposefully downloaded" so to me that means, if I search for something innocent enough and child porn pops up on my screen, then I am not commiting a crime. because I did not purposefully search for it.  Did I get that right?

The "purposefully downloaded" part is ridiculous IMO.  Seems like all any of them would have to is claim it was found accidentally, or any other excuse really, and they're free and clear.  If they're looking at child porn, I doubt that kind of fib would be difficult for them.  How's a court to prove otherwise.  Crazy stuff coming out of the court systems these days.

I just heard an interesting discussion on judges yesterday on the news. Apparently judges can be impeached. I think it is about time that the public starts taking these judges to task on these rediculous liberal rulings with regards to any sort of sex offense.

[Shell]

The allegations that Kaine made about Terri wanting to harm Kiara. Does anyone know where those allegations came from? Did he have any exhibits attached to backup that allegation?

Whoa..I must have missed that.

[sebastian]

The allegations that Kaine made about Terri wanting to harm Kiara. Does anyone know where those allegations came from? Did he have any exhibits attached to backup that allegation?

Whoa..I must have missed that.

Hi Shell,
I am going to go and try to find the link.

[Tracygirl]

bye...will be back later when hopefully this is figured out, although I do not know why it is so pertinent at this time.

It isn't...just not anything else going on, but I should have learned from answering the other question tonight not to tread again LOL......I just thought facts should be stated as facts and opinion as such. Have we heard about any new searches, anywhere....I am getting incredibly discouraged.

I am just trying to figure all of this out the best way I know and that is to try to learn if my opinion holds up to what the facts and/or law is. sorry if I have upset anyone or made any monkeys yawn, lol. 

I have not read about other searches...

[neighbor]

Something is wrong with the thought processes of Oregon lawmakers, IMO 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_supreme_court_rules_that_simply_viewing_child_pornography_on_the_internet_isnt_illegal.html

"The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that it’s not a crime to look at child pornography while surfing the Internet if none of the images are purposefully downloaded, printed out or paid for."

Ugh.  Really???? 

Oh wait, it says "Purposefully downloaded" so to me that means, if I search for something innocent enough and child porn pops up on my screen, then I am not commiting a crime. because I did not purposefully search for it.  Did I get that right?

The "purposefully downloaded" part is ridiculous IMO.  Seems like all any of them would have to is claim it was found accidentally, or any other excuse really, and they're free and clear.  If they're looking at child porn, I doubt that kind of fib would be difficult for them.  How's a court to prove otherwise.  Crazy stuff coming out of the court systems these days.

As much as I disagree with the ruling, please be aware that most internet browsers do prefetching.  That means that your browser may load pages even before you click on the link to go there.  That means that LE searching your computer or sniffing your traffic my find images that you never ever saw yourself.

(If you are a Firefox user, type "about:config" in the address bar, and look for "network.prefetch-next".)

[Shell]

I do commend LE in this case, they have certainly not told anything to the public to jeopardize their case. I personally think they are sitting on a heap of evidence...and they are missing a body. I hate saying that.