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

[fatcatlurker]

Klaas thank you for that insight from your legal eagle penpal.  That is exactly how I see it too.  When you divorce assets on both sides of the table have to be crystal clear.

Yup it's not called a pre-nup for nothing, JMO

[nicubird]

I am curious why if the LS was involved in some kind of big crime ring as people are theorizing, he would be working at a job mowing lawns?

Certainly, crime pays better than mowing lawns.

An opportunity to clean up the money and make it look like it is the result of a legitimate enterprise?

My guess is that being here illegally, he is not paying taxes on that money . Therefore mowing lawns doesn't clean or make legitimate any criminal enterprise. That's the way I understand it.

Perhaps. But there is also the chance that he is using the social security number of one of his USA born children or a social security number that he purchased (the reason that "Rudy Sanchez" is an alias) and is paying taxes. It is a way to appear to be legal and legitimate.

[Nana29]

I received this via email from someone very familiar with the law in Oregon.  I don't personally claim to know anything about the laws in Oregon so keep that in mind if you have questions:

During a criminal investigation, the accused may have to reveal the source of funding for their defense, such as in the prosecution of Casey Anthony.  Generally, however, it's not a discoverable issue in most criminal cases.  During a dissolution of marriage case, ALL financials MUST be disclosed to the other party.  ALL of them.  Anyone who has ever divorced can attest to this simple fact.

Agreed, however the Horman case is kinda special because it involves BOTH, the criminal case and the divorce.

Bunch is citing cases and pleading for his client, but it is up to the judge to decide if he accepts the arguments or not.

Apparently the judge understood that speaking about the matters related to the divorce can violate her Fifth amendment right.

Maybe since the money was paid to the attorney on Terri's behalf, and Terri actually didn't get the money, that it may be regarded differently. We'll see what the judge decides.

I am no lawyer, but I'm speaking based on past experience (regarding divorce.)

 

Plus, you watch too much Matlock!   

[Babybear]

Hi Monks--Hope everyone had a lovely weekend.  I, too, have no emotional attachment to anyone in this case.  I do hope that Kyron will be returned home safe, but I certainly doubt it.

What I wanted to say is that I don't understand that Terri can claim to have rights and that the courts disregard Kaine's right to divorce her.  Why do her rights trump his?  He is equally entitled to retain his rights under the law to get rid of her.

[klaasend]

Hi Monks--Hope everyone had a lovely weekend.  I, too, have no emotional attachment to anyone in this case.  I do hope that Kyron will be returned home safe, but I certainly doubt it.

What I wanted to say is that I don't understand that Terri can claim to have rights and that the courts disregard Kaine's right to divorce her.  Why do her rights trump his?  He is equally entitled to retain his rights under the law to get rid of her.

I believe what is considered reasonable in Oregon is 6 months and the Judge said a January hearing would fit into the 6 month window.

[klaasend]

I was sent this question by a non member.  I don't know the answer but I'm posting here to see if anyone else does:

Does the below indicate that as long as they are married either partner can stop the other from testifying against them?  Can anyone familiar with Oregon laws clarify this?

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255


40.255¹
Rule 505. Husband-wife privilege
(1) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a) "Confidential communication" means a communication by a spouse to the other spouse and not intended to be disclosed to any other person.
(b) "Marriage" means a marital relationship between husband and wife, legally recognized under the laws of this state.
(2) In any civil or criminal action, a spouse has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent the other spouse from disclosing any confidential communication made by one spouse to the other during the marriage. The privilege created by this subsection may be claimed by either spouse. The authority of the spouse to claim the privilege and the claiming of the privilege is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(3) In any criminal proceeding, neither spouse, during the marriage, shall be examined adversely against the other as to any other matter occurring during the marriage unless the spouse called as a witness consents to testify.
(4) There is no privilege under this section:
(a) In all criminal actions in which one spouse is charged with bigamy or with an offense or attempted offense against the person or property of the other spouse or of a child of either, or with an offense against the person or property of a third person committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit an offense against the other spouse;
(b) As to matters occurring prior to the marriage; or
(c) In any civil action where the spouses are adverse parties. [1981 c.892 §34; 1983 c.433 §1]

[Itaryl Moosee]

I received this via email from someone very familiar with the law in Oregon.  I don't personally claim to know anything about the laws in Oregon so keep that in mind if you have questions:

During a criminal investigation, the accused may have to reveal the source of funding for their defense, such as in the prosecution of Casey Anthony.  Generally, however, it's not a discoverable issue in most criminal cases.  During a dissolution of marriage case, ALL financials MUST be disclosed to the other party.  ALL of them.  Anyone who has ever divorced can attest to this simple fact.

Agreed, however the Horman case is kinda special because it involves BOTH, the criminal case and the divorce.

Bunch is citing cases and pleading for his client, but it is up to the judge to decide if he accepts the arguments or not.

Apparently the judge understood that speaking about the matters related to the divorce can violate her Fifth amendment right.

Maybe since the money was paid to the attorney on Terri's behalf, and Terri actually didn't get the money, that it may be regarded differently. We'll see what the judge decides.

I am no lawyer, but I'm speaking based on past experience (regarding divorce.)

 

Plus, you watch too much Matlock!   

Yup. That adds to my credentials.

[Monkey King]

I received this via email from someone very familiar with the law in Oregon.  I don't personally claim to know anything about the laws in Oregon so keep that in mind if you have questions:

During a criminal investigation, the accused may have to reveal the source of funding for their defense, such as in the prosecution of Casey Anthony.  Generally, however, it's not a discoverable issue in most criminal cases.  During a dissolution of marriage case, ALL financials MUST be disclosed to the other party.  ALL of them.  Anyone who has ever divorced can attest to this simple fact.
 
I was not impressed with Bunch's pleading.  Anyone can cite cases; even Jose Baez has cited cases.  That doesn't mean the case cited actually stands for the point the person is trying to make.  Andrea Lyon cited cases that actually stood for the exact opposite of the point she was trying to make.  Anyone that believes that lawyers only cite cases that back up the point they're trying to make should go back and listen to the hearings in the Anthony case, particularly the hearing about taking the death penalty off the table.  Better yet, read the cases cited before assuming they're on point.
 
This is very important:  In his pleading, Bunch does not claim any case says that Terri shouldn't have to disclose the source of the funds.
 
The cases Bunch cites are about different matters, such as should Houze have to disgorge (give up) any of the monies already paid to him and defining what constitutes a marital asset.  Kaine's argument is that whatever source she used to obtain funds for Houze should fund her divorce attorney and negate her claims for suit money; and if Terri had some big windfall, the court should order her to pay his fees.  I don't think Kaine really cares about having his attorney fees paid by Terri -- he just wants to know where she got the money to pay Houze.  I can't speak to Oregon law, but in my jurisdiction, in fact I'll suggest in most jurisdictions, this would be a no-brainer.  In a dissolution case, ALL  financials MUST be disclosed.  Period. 
 
Think of it this way:  If it was reported that Kaine recently paid cash for brand new $350,000.00 car, would anyone dispute Terri's right to know where he got the money to buy it?  If a close friend of yours was getting divorced and their ex-spouse claimed to be unemployed, broke, but showed up to court in a $350,000.00 car, bragged to others they paid $350,000.00 for the car,  would you think your friend should legally be able to find out the source of funding for the new car? 
 
Or how about this:  What if Houze was on the East Coast to sell photos?  Aren't those photos marital property?  Even "her story" could be considered to be marital property because most of it happened during the marriage, so to speak.  That Mr. Bunch and Mr. Houze have unilaterally decided the source of the funds are neither a marital asset nor a gift means nothing to me and should mean nothing to the judge without hearing the other party's arguments to the contrary.  In order for Kaine and Ms. Rackner to take a position on the matter, Terri must first disclose the source of the funds.  Who knows?  Maybe they'll agree with Mr. Houze's and Mr. Bunch's assessment -- but I doubt it. 
 
Finally, getting back to the technicalities -- if the court finds that the $350,000.00 (or whatever amount) paid to Houze is a marital asset or that through this money Terri has the ability to pay suit money to Kaine, that does NOT mean that Houze would have to pay back some of the money; it does NOT mean that her right to counsel has been denied.  The court can issue an order for Terri to make monthly payments to Kaine; the court can use whatever amount it determines is due to Kaine as an offset to whatever assets it would have otherwise distributed to Terri.  There are a lot of remedies available to the court that do not include making Houze give up his retainer and causing Terri to be without the criminal attorney of her choice.  That was and is a false argument.  The source of the funding is at issue and if I were getting divorced, I wouldn't accept my ex's attorney's unilateral determination that I wasn't entitled to any part of that funding.  I'd want a judge to decide that.  Wouldn't everyone?
 
I could be wrong in my assessment of the issues -- but so could Bunch and Houze.  That's why these decisions are left to a judge, after hearing both sides of the issue.

   

  What does that mean?  Are they speaking about Oregon law or about law somewhere else? I'm confused.

[klaasend]

I believe they are speaking about how the law is in their jurisdiction and that it's likely to be very similar in Oregon.

[Itaryl Moosee]

Our crews noticed searchers focusing on small bodies of water on Sauvie Island, going over the same areas several times with different teams. Many of the ponds were adjacent to gravel roads, not main roads on the island.

"It isn't based on any new information, it's just again to be thorough in our investigation," said Lt. Mary Lindstrand with the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. "The message is, again, if someone out there has information about Kyron and his disappearance, we would like you to come forward so we can resolve this investigation and bring Kyron home."

http://www.katu.com/news/local/104675229.html

[Deenie]

Hello Monkeys,

Thinking of Kyron, again not sure if this is of Kyron's SAR but there is an update on this site.

http://www.pnwsar.org/notices/searches

10/09 Assist Multnomah County on an Open Case
Submitted by Nancy Hungerfor... on Sat, 10/09/2010 - 5:17pm



10 PNW members assisted Multnomah County on an open case.

The area assigned to the team was nearly solid blackberry brambles.  The team managed to get through them while maintaining a high probability of detection and their sense of humor.  It also rained pretty much the whole time the team was in the field.

 

You really have to think about these people who volunteer, Kudo's all around.

[Nana29]

I was sent this question by a non member.  I don't know the answer but I'm posting here to see if anyone else does:

Does the below indicate that as long as they are married either partner can stop the other from testifying against them?  Can anyone familiar with Oregon laws clarify this?

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255


40.255¹
Rule 505. Husband-wife privilege
(1) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a) "Confidential communication" means a communication by a spouse to the other spouse and not intended to be disclosed to any other person.
(b) "Marriage" means a marital relationship between husband and wife, legally recognized under the laws of this state.
(2) In any civil or criminal action, a spouse has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent the other spouse from disclosing any confidential communication made by one spouse to the other during the marriage. The privilege created by this subsection may be claimed by either spouse. The authority of the spouse to claim the privilege and the claiming of the privilege is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(3) In any criminal proceeding, neither spouse, during the marriage, shall be examined adversely against the other as to any other matter occurring during the marriage unless the spouse called as a witness consents to testify.
(4) There is no privilege under this section:
(a) In all criminal actions in which one spouse is charged with bigamy or with an offense or attempted offense against the person or property of the other spouse or of a child of either, or with an offense against the person or property of a third person committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit an offense against the other spouse;
(b) As to matters occurring prior to the marriage; or
(c) In any civil action where the spouses are adverse parties. [1981 c.892 §34; 1983 c.433 §1]

BBM
My interpretation is that as long as "the spouse called as a witness consents to testify", the other would not be able to stop them.

Particularly if you read the  (4) no privilege section...
"all criminal actions in which one spouse is charged with bigamy or with an offense or attempted offense against the person(MFH)
or property of the other spouse or of a child of either,(Kyron)
 or with an offense against the person or property of a third person committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit an offense against the other spouse"(LS)

At least, that is how I see it, and that would mean TH could not stop KH from testifying against her should he give consent to do so.
Of course, this means she could also lie, er, testify against him as well...

[klaasend]

Our crews noticed searchers focusing on small bodies of water on Sauvie Island, going over the same areas several times with different teams. Many of the ponds were adjacent to gravel roads, not main roads on the island.

"It isn't based on any new information, it's just again to be thorough in our investigation," said Lt. Mary Lindstrand with the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. "The message is, again, if someone out there has information about Kyron and his disappearance, we would like you to come forward so we can resolve this investigation and bring Kyron home."

http://www.katu.com/news/local/104675229.html

Video at the above link:

[Monkey King]

I know these investigators are convinced Kyron is on Sauvie Island.  Otherwise, I don't believe they would be putting in so many man power hours in there.

Looking back on the actions of RS, I believe they should do a thorough grid search of the Horman property.  (I've heard the property is 4 acres, don't know if that is correct or not. Anyone?)

Everything associated with case seems to reek of RS.

The failed polys- when it came to RS questions.

An alleged affair- RS.

The MFH plot-RS.

The failed sting-RS.

Kyron disappearing, dogs responding to a death scent, (HO's) dogs who stood up wind of the Horman property.  Who cares who gets the credit for finding Kyron, everyone wants him found.  If they don't want Harry to do it, then they need to get in there and check, and recheck it themselves.

With all that b/s from RS/LS, they need to grid check the Horman property because he's been there and he's obviously had a bone to pick with Terri and it looks like he was setting her up- regardless of our opinions of Terri's involvement.

[Monkey King]

I read somewhere about a slyblue container that the searchers were looking for.  Does anyoone remember, I think it was last weekend?

Also, wasn't it said, again somehwere, the Horman's had a skyblue container on their porch.

Has it been determined missing?

RS could have taken it from the property and buried Kyron in it on the Horman property.  What better way to frame/burn someone?

[klaasend]

I know these investigators are convinced Kyron is on Sauvie Island.  Otherwise, I don't believe they would be putting in so many man power hours in there.

Looking back on the actions of RS, I believe they should do a thorough grid search of the Horman property.  (I've heard the property is 4 acres, don't know if that is correct or not. Anyone?)

Everything associated with case seems to reek of RS.

The failed polys- when it came to RS questions.

An alleged affair- RS.

The MFH plot-RS.

The failed sting-RS.

Kyron disappearing, dogs responding to a death scent, (HO's) dogs who stood up wind of the Horman property.  Who cares who gets the credit for finding Kyron, everyone wants him found.  If they don't want Harry to do it, then they need to get in there and check, and recheck it themselves.

With all that b/s from RS/LS, they need to grid check the Horman property because he's been there and he's obviously had a bone to pick with Terri and it looks like he was setting her up- regardless of our opinions of Terri's involvement.

It is my understanding that the Horman property has been thoroughly searched more than once with dogs.  I don't think anyone cares about getting credit for finding Kyron, the only one making an issue about it is Harry.

[Monkey King]

I was of the understanding they only searched it once, do we know which agency conducted the k-9 searches?

[klaasend]

I read somewhere about a slyblue container that the searchers were looking for.  Does anyoone remember, I think it was last weekend?

Also, wasn't it said, again somehwere, the Horman's had a skyblue container on their porch.

Has it been determined missing?

RS could have taken it from the property and buried Kyron in it on the Horman property.  What better way to frame/burn someone?

They skyblue container reference was on a wall during the search and nobody knows who posted it.  It could be total BS:



Flyer by Private Party
Posted on doors at restrooms at Gilbert Boat Access area.** NOTE- THIS FLYER WAS PRINTED BY A "PRIVATE PARTY" I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE PRIVATE PARTY IS OR IF THE INFO IS CORRECT OR NOT, I JUST TOOK THE PHOTO.

[Brandi]

I read somewhere about a slyblue container that the searchers were looking for.  Does anyoone remember, I think it was last weekend?

Also, wasn't it said, again somehwere, the Horman's had a skyblue container on their porch.

Has it been determined missing?

RS could have taken it from the property and buried Kyron in it on the Horman property.  What better way to frame/burn someone?

I posted this yesterday I believe:



The container on the Horman property was not a drum though.

[Deenie]

Monkey King,

Has it ever been confirmed that anyone has ever done a grid search or SAR on the Horman Property?

I would think it would be of first priority -to search the Horman Property. Thinking of little Caylee, the SAR units combed 1/2 of Orange County +

They searched the areas that were able to be searched. The other areas were tagged yet not able to be gone into with SAR. Areas that were under water and would be dangerous for both volunteers and " Caylee's remains" .. Tim Miller had to draw a line somewhere. His " bottom line" was to find Caylee, yet to protect his service people " volunteers" ..

Caylee eventually to be found December 11th 2008 - less than a mile from home - Which was under water and not able to be searched by Tim Miller, at that time.  He was thrown out by the Anthony Family when he got too close to finding Caylee .. which lead him to cease his operation.   

Yet all in all, Caylee was practically in her own backyard so to speak - for over 6 mos.

Has it ever been said that LE or Other Agency has done a complete " Grid search" of the Horman property or adjacent properties?