Kyron Horman, 7 years old PORTLAND, OR #33 10/07/10 - 10/17/10

[seemeatthebeach]

So if prosecution tries to show Terri’s motive to be involved in Kyron’s abduction was to hurt Kaine, they won’t be able to use the alleged mfh plot in court. I really think without that they are going to have a tough time with motive.

Why wouldn't the prosecution be able to use the MFH plot in court because Terri's motive for making Kyron disappear was to hurt Kaine?

That makes no sense to me.......Am I missing something??

It's possible, Terri at some point decided having Kaine killed wasn't hurtful enough.....and knew getting rid of his son, Kyron, would be the ultimate revenge.
IMO

I'm trying to grasp the above post brought over from Blinks but I don't understand.  Le will be picking from the poisonous tree on the mfh issue as far as Terri is concerned.    what does that mean?

Let ME know if you figure it out NoRose.

I don't like cryptic......

[fatcatlurker]

Puzzler I'm embarrassed to say that all I could think about was Adam and Eve, I really need to stop reading over here  Thank-you for that definition, I never heard of that before.

NRCG thank you for that ha ha ha - You innocent you!!!  LMAO!

[seemeatthebeach]

What do you all think about this comment of Blink's snipped from post #363:

I spoke to one witness early that was looking out the window while he and his staff were working on her lawn. He testified before the GJ, I would offer it is common practice NOT to subpoena folks who may something you don’t want them to.


To me is sounds like the witness testified before the GJ and said something that the DA didn't know about or would not have called this witness if the DA knew what was going to be said...
in other words - a surprise of some sort.

The last statement is missing at least one word......difficult for me to interpret the full and accurate meaning. 

"He testified before the GJ, I would offer it is common practice NOT to subpoena folks who may something you don’t want them to"

[fatcatlurker]

KOIN link to suit money doc.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/c/0/9/c09a8c35-dbaa-4b10-860f-4487d00f3637/Memo_suitmoney.pdf

So basically she gets her 350K that is Not a Gift and Not a Marriage Asset and now she is asking him to pay all court costs for the divorce as well?  hmmmm Tricky Tricky.

Her attorneys said $350K number is "exaggerated".  So I don't think she got $350K.  I think she was messing around with Michael Cook on the text message.  She didn't say she paid $350K.  I believe her parents refinanced their home and paid a retainer fee to Houze.  I believe that's why we heard Terr's dad was at the court house the other day, ready to testify in the second hearing (the one about the $350K).  But, since the Judge ruled on abatement until January, then the $350K hearing could not be heard at that time...it's abated until January.

I also think that we'll find out eventually that Terri's parents paid the retainer "directly" to Houze; therefore, Terri never received the money herself.

No actually per the copy of the text on Cranky's site she says he costs 350K

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Kyron%20Horman%20%20-OR-/?action=view&current=Terri-houzetext.jpg

And if charges are brought against her for Kyron that will just be a drop in the bucket. 

[fatcatlurker]

Where does Cranky get all the stuff she has??? 

I'm hoping they do search this weekend sometime...atleast eleminate SI and move on. 

I really don't care about all this divorce chess crap.  Let's find Kyron and go from there.  JMO.

[Puzzler]

KOIN link to suit money doc.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/c/0/9/c09a8c35-dbaa-4b10-860f-4487d00f3637/Memo_suitmoney.pdf

So basically she gets her 350K that is Not a Gift and Not a Marriage Asset and now she is asking him to pay all court costs for the divorce as well?  hmmmm Tricky Tricky.

Her attorneys said $350K number is "exaggerated".  So I don't think she got $350K.  I think she was messing around with Michael Cook on the text message.  She didn't say she paid $350K.  I believe her parents refinanced their home and paid a retainer fee to Houze.  I believe that's why we heard Terr's dad was at the court house the other day, ready to testify in the second hearing (the one about the $350K).  But, since the Judge ruled on abatement until January, then the $350K hearing could not be heard at that time...it's abated until January.

I also think that we'll find out eventually that Terri's parents paid the retainer "directly" to Houze; therefore, Terri never received the money herself.

No actually per the copy of the text on Cranky's site she says he costs 350K

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Kyron%20Horman%20%20-OR-/?action=view&current=Terri-houzetext.jpg

And if charges are brought against her for Kyron that will just be a drop in the bucket. 

But it doesn't say she paid $350K (unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying..if so..sorry)

[fatcatlurker]

KOIN link to suit money doc.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/c/0/9/c09a8c35-dbaa-4b10-860f-4487d00f3637/Memo_suitmoney.pdf

So basically she gets her 350K that is Not a Gift and Not a Marriage Asset and now she is asking him to pay all court costs for the divorce as well?  hmmmm Tricky Tricky.

Her attorneys said $350K number is "exaggerated".  So I don't think she got $350K.  I think she was messing around with Michael Cook on the text message.  She didn't say she paid $350K.  I believe her parents refinanced their home and paid a retainer fee to Houze.  I believe that's why we heard Terr's dad was at the court house the other day, ready to testify in the second hearing (the one about the $350K).  But, since the Judge ruled on abatement until January, then the $350K hearing could not be heard at that time...it's abated until January.

I also think that we'll find out eventually that Terri's parents paid the retainer "directly" to Houze; therefore, Terri never received the money herself.

No actually per the copy of the text on Cranky's site she says he costs 350K

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Kyron%20Horman%20%20-OR-/?action=view&current=Terri-houzetext.jpg

And if charges are brought against her for Kyron that will just be a drop in the bucket. 

But it doesn't say she paid $350K (unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying..if so..sorry)

No arguement here Puzzler.  She said he cost 350K not that she paid 350K. 

[no rose colored glasses]

So if prosecution tries to show Terri’s motive to be involved in Kyron’s abduction was to hurt Kaine, they won’t be able to use the alleged mfh plot in court. I really think without that they are going to have a tough time with motive.

Why wouldn't the prosecution be able to use the MFH plot in court because Terri's motive for making Kyron disappear was to hurt Kaine?

That makes no sense to me.......Am I missing something??

It's possible, Terri at some point decided having Kaine killed wasn't hurtful enough.....and knew getting rid of his son, Kyron, would be the ultimate revenge.
IMO

I'm trying to grasp the above post brought over from Blinks but I don't understand.  Le will be picking from the poisonous tree on the mfh issue as far as Terri is concerned.    what does that mean?

Let ME know if you figure it out NoRose.

I don't like cryptic......

On the following page, Puzzler explained what that means. I don't like cryptic, for the reason that I can't ever figure it out.

[no rose colored glasses]

Puzzler I'm embarrassed to say that all I could think about was Adam and Eve, I really need to stop reading over here  Thank-you for that definition, I never heard of that before.

NRCG thank you for that ha ha ha - You innocent you!!!  LMAO!

Honestly never knew that was something that would have a legal definition 

[no rose colored glasses]

Where does Cranky get all the stuff she has??? 

I'm hoping they do search this weekend sometime...atleast eleminate SI and move on. 

I really don't care about all this divorce chess crap.  Let's find Kyron and go from there.  JMO.

I agree, because just don't understand all this anyway. Though it is interesting to read.

[klaasend]

I don't see how this can be interpreted any other way than Terri saying that her attorney will cost $350k.  Terri could have been lying but that wouldn't look good for her either.

[cw618]

I don't see how this can be interpreted any other way than Terri saying that her attorney will cost $350k.  Terri could have been lying but that wouldn't look good for her either.

nice klaas, you got the sexting too, wanna do a mass email LOL
 

[Itaryl Moosee]

I don't see how this can be interpreted any other way than Terri saying that her attorney will cost $350k.  Terri could have been lying but that wouldn't look good for her either.

nice klaas, you got the sexting too, wanna do a mass email LOL
 
[/quote

Haha!

I don't think the sexting messages have been made public yet.

OMG! I can imagine that it would be very embarrassing for both Michael Cook and Terri Horman, if their sexting is made public.

-----

I'm going to paste a text version of the "suit money" response, since the one available is in .pdf form. If it's not okay, please delete, mods......

[Monkey King]

Just throwing this out there for a thought, since it is alleged that RS is an alias, could it be LE was working on another case, possibly another agency, and RS was an informant for them?

There's a reason why LE took RS statement, MFH plot, and acted on it. 

Where was his credibility? 

What made him so crediible? 

Who exactly is RS?

[no rose colored glasses]

Just throwing this out there for a thought, since it is alleged that RS is an alias, could it be LE was working on another case, possibly another agency, and RS was an informant for them?

There's a reason why LE took RS statement, MFH plot, and acted on it. 

Where was his credibility? 

What made him so crediible? 

Who exactly is RS?

Good thoughts, that is what I keep asking, who is this RS?

[Itaryl Moosee]

N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

In the Matter of the Marriage of:
KAINE ANDREW HORMAN
Petitioner,
and
TERRI LYNN MOULTON HORMAN,
Respondent.

Case No. 1006-66084

RESPONDENT'S HEARING MEMORANDUM REGARDING SUIT MONEY

Respondent Terri Horman (Wife) respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the request by Petitioner Kaine Horman (Husband) for suit money.

1. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Wife filed a memorandum in support of her motion to abate the above-captioned proceeding, in which she set forth relevant factual and background information. Wife incorporates that information by reference, as supplemented in this section.

Wife maintains that Husband's motion for suit money is not well grounded in law or in fact. A careful reading of the affidavit submitted in support of Husband's motion for suit money perfectly illustrates that point. First, Husband's lawyer stated, "Respondent has indicated in a written communication to a third party that she tendered payment of $350,000 to her attorney Stephen Houze for legal representation." In fact, nothing in the text exchange relied upon by Husband's lawyer supports the allegation that Wife "tendered" any amount of money to Mr. Houze, for legal representation or otherwise.
END OF PAGE 1

Next, Husband's lawyer said that "if Respondent has provided funds to her attorney(s), Respondent should be required to immediately disclose the source and amount of such funds." Wife's lawyer submitted a Declaration, under the penalty of perjury, which affirmed that Wife provided none of her own money to Mr. Houze.

Husband's lawyer also stated in her affidavit that, "if respondent has borrowed these funds and contends this is a marital liability, the funds should be considered a marital asset. These funds would then be subject to the disposition authority of the Court." Wife did not borrow money to pay for Mr. Houze's attorney fee retainer, and Husband is aware of that fact.

These facts illustrate that the suit money motion has purposes beyond the payment of Husband's attorney fees. Based on the affidavit of Husband's Layer, and the stance taken in his reply, it appears the Husband has two objectives: (1) to force Wife to either testify or to assert her Fifth Amendment rights at the hearing on this matter; and (2) to interfere with the attorney/client relationship between Wife and Mr. Houze and to continue to aid the police in their investigations. Those objectives are not consistent with a motion for suit money.

The conclusion that Husband is using his motion for suit money for purposes other than obtaining money from Wife is buttressed by comments made by Husband at various media events, in which he unequivocally states that Wife was involved in the disappearance of Kyron, and that he considers her a suspect, as well as by comments by Desiree Young, made during a press conference held by Desiree Young on October
END OF PAGE 2

1, at which she said that she wants donors to help increase the reward offered for the safe return of Kyron Horman to $350,000, stating that the current reward should not be less than "the amount of wife's legal fees."

The court should be aware that, after Husband filed his motion for suit money, Mr. Houze and Wife's divorce attorney met with Husband's lawyer. At that meeting, they represented, as officers of the court, that the amount of money allegedly paid to Mr. Houze was inaccurate, and that a third party or parties paid for Mr. Houze's attorney fees. Wife's lawyers also represented that the money was neither a gift to Wife nor a loan.

Husband refuses to accept the representations of Wife's lawyers. Instead, Husband insists that Wife must prove the amount of money paid to Mr. Houze "through testimony and documented evidence." However, under the Oregon Evidence Code (OEC), whether Wife has the ability to pay suit money is actually Husband's burden. OEC 305, 307. Husband also continues to claim that "any funds paid to Mr. Houze are presumed to be marital property, must be fullly disclosed, and are within the Court's dispositional authority." Again, that is something Husband, not Wife, must prove as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.

Further, Wife's lawyer notified Husband's lawyer, in writing, that if called to the stand in this matter, Wife must necessarily assert her Fifth Amendment rights. Despite that notice, counsel for Husband has stated in writing that she intends to call Wife to the stand to testify. This will create precisely the kinds of issues Wife raised in her motion to abate the divorce proceeding.

In this memorandum, Wife will show that the statute on which Husband relies for his motion for suit money does not provide authority for the relief he requests. That is because Wife does ot have the funds to pay suit money and because the court does
END OF PAGE 3

not have the statutory authority to order Mr. Houze to disgorge attorney fees paid to him.

Wife will then show that the money paid to Mr. Houze by a third party or parties so that Wife could have competent counsel in the criminal investigation is not a marital asset or liability, and that Husband's position on this issue is unsupported by Oregon Law.

Finally, Wife will discuss her Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and why Husband's motion seeks to vitiate that right.

2. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. ORS 107.095(1) Does Not Support Husband's Position.

ORS 107.095(1) provides, in part, authority for a court to order "a party to pay to the clerk of the court such amount of money as may be necessary to enable the other party to prosecute or defend the suit" (emphasis supplied). Husband, however, is not seeking money from Wife. That is because Husband has substantial savings and a high income, and because he is fully aware that Wife has no money. Her only income in 2010 was from unemployment benefits, which ended last June. She has no significant assets. Those facts illustrate the absurdity of Husband's motion: even were the court to order Wife to pay Husband suit money, she could not comply with the court's order.

Husband is not looking to Wife for money; he is seeking to share in money paid by a third party or parties to Mr. Houze. There is no language in ORS 107.095(1) that authorizes the court to order a person who is not a party to a divorce to pay suit money, especially when that person is a lawyer who is hired in a different matter. See Dawson and Dawson, 142 Or App 35, 38 (1996) (a dissolution court's authority is circumscribed by statute and administrative rules) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Husband
END OF PAGE 4

cannot cite to any Oregon case law or statute that authorizes the relief he is seeking because there is none.

In sum, respectfully, this court does not have the authority to order Mr. Houze to disgorge his attorney fee retainer deposit. Further, if the court so requires, Mr. Houze is prepared to represent to the court that he has earned the money deposited into his trust account as an attorney fee retainer. It is therefore his money as a matter of law. In re Balocca, 342 Or 279, 287-88 (2007) (discussing rules regarding when a lawyer is allowed to draw upon funds deposited into lawyer trust account). Under those circumstances, there is no conceivable merit to Husband's claim.

Finally, it is evident from the text and context of ORS 107.095(1) that its purpose is to help level the playing field between a spouse who has money and a spouse who does not. See PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 (1993) (setting forth methodology for statutory construction). Wife owes a substantial amount of money to her divorce lawyer. As stated above, she does not have the means to pay this debt. If the court were to grand Husband's motion, not onlyl would it impede Wife's attorney/client relationship with Mr. Houze, but it would further skew the already wife chasm between Husband's ability to pursue this divorce and Wife's ability to protect her interests.

For all these reasons, ORS 107.095(1) does not provide a legal basis for the relief Husband is seeking.

B. The Money Paid to Mr. Houze is Not a Marital Asset or Liability.

In his suit money pleadings, Husband contends with some vigor that the money paid to Mr. Houze is "presumed to be marital property." As the court is aware, ORS 107.105(1)(f) creates two distinct classes of property subject to division by the court: marital property and marital assets. Marital assets are the real or personal property acquired by either party during the marriage. There is a rebuttable presumption of
END OF PAGE 5

[Jadelyn]

Hi Monkey's Posting for a friend in the hopes whomever is responsible will come forward and do the right thing by Kyron                                                                                             Today is the day that the person(s) responsible for Kyron's disappearance could make the choice to do the right thing. You cannot fix what has been done but you can step forward and do the right thing by Kyron now. Its not pretty, we accept that. I would like to remind you that the first one with a deal wins (let the race be on.) You may be worried about how your families will feel, knowing what you have done, that cannot be helped anymore; what is done is done. I guarantee you that they will have an easier time accepting what happened if you come forward on your own instead of waiting for the law to come drag you out of your homes. I believe in their heart of hearts they already suspect the truth and are struggling with how to handle it themselves. There is no shame in righting a wrong to the best of your ability. Lead someone to Kyron  one way or the other, its the last thing you can do for him. Please, right at least this one wrong.

[Itaryl Moosee]

Cont...

equal contribution to assets acquired during the marriage. ORS 107.105(1)(f); Stice and Stice, 308 Or 316, 325 (1989). Marital property is the real or personal property, or both, of either or both of the parties, including premarital assets, and constitutes the entire class of property subject to disposition of the court in a divorce proceeding. ORS 107.105(1)(f); Pierson and Pierson, 294 Or 117, 121 (1982).

Based on the pleadings filed by Husband, it appears he is arguing that the money paid to Mr. Houze constitutes a marital asset, subject to the rebuttable presumption that each party equally contributed to the acquisition of that asset, not marital property, as set forth in Husband's pleadings. From that proposition, Husband contends that he is immediately entitled to one half of that asset for suit money. Again, case law nor any stature provides authority for the relief Husband is seeking. Further, the facts of this case do not warrant providing Husband with a windfall, which would hamper Wife's ability to protect her interests in the criminal investigation and in the divorce proceeding.

In fact, the only plausible ground, which is tenuous, at best, that Husband can rely upon his motion is an argument that the payment of money to Mr. Houze by a third party or parties is somehow a "gift" to Wife. However, such a conclusion would require the court to construe the word "gift" in a manner other than its ordinary meaning, which would be contrary to the statutory methodology set forth in PGE, 317 or at 611 (in determining the meaning of the text of the stature, words of common usage that are not defined in the statute typically are to be given their plain, natural and ordinary meaning).

Even if the court were to conclude that the payment of meoney to Wife is a gift, the proper stage of the proceedings at which the court is required to address that issue is

_______________________
1. Using the dictionary commonly relied upon by the Court of Appeals, the common and ordinary meaning of the word "gift" is "something that is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary (unabridged ed 2002).
END OF PAGE 6

during its analysis of the property division, not in a motion for suit money. That is so because, if the payment of money to Mr. Houze by a third party or parties could somehow be construed to be a gift to Wife, she would be entitled to put on evidence to rebut the presumption of equal contribution.

There can be no dispute that the only stage of the divorce proceeding at which Wife is required to put on evidence rebutting the presumption is when the court is preparing to divide marital property. ORS 107.105(1)(f); see, e.g., Gardner and Gardner, 212 Or App 148, 154-155 (2007) (the wife rebutted presumption as to $400,000 gift from her mother during the marriage); Tsukamaki and Tsukamaki, 199 Or App 577,583 (2005) (the wife rebutted presumption as to multiple gifts of cash and stock during the marriage). In sum, there is simply no legal precedent in this state that supports Husband's motion.

Finally, Wife stipulates that the money paid to Mr. Houze by a third party or parties for attorney fees is not a marital liability, and will not be addressed by her in the property division.

For the reasons set forth above, it is apparent that there is no legal authority that supports Husband's position with respect to his unfounded request for suit money from Wife.

C. Wife has a Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel.

The Bill of Rights provides that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right*** to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." US Const Amend VI. This right has several components, including the indigent's right to appointed counsel and the right of all defendants to the effective assistance of counsel. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 344-45 (1979). The Sixth Amendment also

___________________
It can be assumed that Husband knows or should surmise that whoever paid Mr. Houze (which happened after the parties separated) had no intent to benefit Husband by that payment. There can be no doubt that if the court concluded the payment to Mr. Houze was actually a gift to Wife, and this matter were to even come before the court, Wife would conclusively rebut the presumption of equal contribution.
END OF PAGE 7

establishes the "right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire." Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 US 617, 624 (1989). In short, an individual has the "right to spend his own money to obtain the advice and assistance of *** counsel." Id. at 626 (internal citations omitted).

As stated above, and in the Declaration previously filed with the court, a third party or parties paid an attorney fee retainer to Mr. Houze so that Wife could be represented by competent counsel in the ongoing police investigations that are focused on her. If Husband's efforts to require Mr. Houze to disgorge the fees paid to him are successful, it would have a catastrophic effect on Wife's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of her choice. This fundamental constitutional right should be handled carefully by the court; if Husband prevails in his motion, it would certainly have implications far beyond this case for anyone who is a party to a divorce and hires a lawyer in either a parallel or unrelated criminal proceeding.

Finally, under Oregon law, Husband's request for suit money is tantamount to tortuous interference with the business relationship between Wife and Mr. Houze. See Uptown Heights Associates v. Seafirst Corp., 320 or 638, 648-49 (1995) (stating elements).

In sum, Husband's request for suit money, if granted, would vitiate Wife's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the lawyer of her choice. The court should reject Husband's motion for suit money on this ground alone, without the need for any evidence or testimony.

D. Granting Husband's Motion Would be Contrary to Public Policy.

Lawyers and lawsuits are expensive, especially when the parties must resolve some or all of their issues in a courtroom. As this court is aware, it is common for friends and relatives to assist with payment of attorney fees in divorce proceedings. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the attorney fees at issue here were paid to a
END OF PAGE 8

lawyer who is representing Wife in a parallel criminal investigation, under Husband's unique theory of the law, any time someone, whether it be a friend or family member, pays money to a lawyer for a party in a divorce, the court has the authority under ORS 107.095(1) to order that lawyer to disgorge all or part of the money, even though it is held in trust for the client's legal fees.

That is not the law of this state. Rather, if one party receives help with attorney fees during a case, that fact is taken into account in the ultimate disposition of the case. ORS 107.105(1)(j); Haguewood and Haguewood, 292 Or 197, 212-14 (1981). Were this court to adopt Husband's view of the law, such a decision would have ramifications far beyond this case. It would effectively restrict the access of parties to hire attorneys of their choice when friends or relatives are able to help pay the attorney's retainer. That is not an outcome that should be embraced by the court.

E. The Court Should Award Wife her Reasonable Attorney Fees.

Under all of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is now and has been apparent that the motion for suit money is being used to advance the criminal investigations and to further prejudice Wife in a calculated media campaign. The motion for suit money has nothing to do with Husband's ability to retain counsel of his choice and to pay for his own attorney fees. The motion is not well grounded in fact or in law. In view of representations made by Wife's lawyers that the amount of attorney fees paid to Mr. Houze are substantially less than Husband's lawyer inferred from the text messages she relied upon in Husband's pleadings, that the fees were paid by a third party or parties, and that the funds were not intended as a gift or loan, Husband's insistence on moving forward with  his motion is troubling.

Finally, as set forth above, Wife owes her divorce lawyer a substantial amount of money, due in part to the work necessary to defend against Husband's frivolous motion that has an agenda that is far different than a request for suit money. There has to be
END OF PAGE 9

some accountability for these kinds of tactics. Accordingly, Wife respectfully requests specific findings in support of award of attorney fees to her pursuant to OR 10.105(1) on in the alternative, pursuant to ORS 107.445.

3. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the court should categorically deny Husband's motion for suit money, and should award Wife her reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with defending the motion for suit money.

Dated on October 6, 2010.

THE LAW FIRM OF PETER BUNCH, LLC

_________________________
Peter Bunch, OSB No. 942210
Attorney for Respondent
Trial Attorney: Peter Bunch
END OF PAGE 10

PAGE 11 Signature page

[Itaryl Moosee]

Sorry for the testament... there were 10 pages and the back signature page.

I can do the custody one if nobody objects, cause it's like 6 pages more than the "suit money".

I counted only a few spelling errors on this one.

[Rob]

I agree in totality with the respondent's memorandum. Thanks for posting that. Not sure the court will agree, but it seems to me that Kaine via LE has placed Terri in a suspect situation, and now would like to take away her right to an attorney, and if they can't do that, they wish to take away her right to not self incriminate herself.

And somewhere along the line Kaine's attorney got the thought it was legal to question the attorney for the defense. 

I know someone will say - Terri placed herself in this situation, but that's just an opinion, as we have little facts.

One last point - if Terri is a suspect - let the police charge her and not bring a pseudo criminal case up in a divorce / civil court.

Like I said - Oregon's a strange lil world.