Vwoolf Revisions the NW: December 2013

Friday, December 27, 2013

Engel's Opposition to the Emergency Hearing Regarding Sanchez's Testimony (with "exerpts" from Moulton deposition):

Page 3 (from depo of Mrs. Moulton)

Recent orders: Judge Kantor's modifications of Motion and Order to Postpone and his Order against DA intervention (of sorts):

Note that Kantor did specifically state the DA's office could be
"heard", but could not intervene....I suspect only Kantor knows the leeway taken.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Statement analysis....thrice removed. What do they say about the third time? Part 2 12/15/13

Here is more from the DEPOSITION of Kaine Horman that is referred to in Engel's Response to TMH's Motion to show Cause

Statement #4

Bunch: "Petetioner confirmed in his deposition that neither Skyline Schoo, Respondent's physician, nor Kiara's pediatrician ever raised concerns about Respondent's parenting skills"

Engels: "The statement proves very little, if anything. From 2007 to 2010 the parties were married and living together. While it is conceivable that one spouse would complain to teachers and physicians about the other spouse, it is more likely that those professionals would be spared such details of marital discourse."

Vwoolf: First off, what happened to the earlier years? 2002-2007? Those years in which DY states are inclusive in the all the years that "she always hated Kyron". From the time Kyron was born he was spending time with Kaine (and TMH) in Kaine's new home away from home --- obviously Kaine decided then that he and DY were to live "separate lives" NOT under the same roof.

That was the the time, btw, in which the "LIE" about TMH being a friend of DY was morphed into a statement by TMH, herself. In reality it was a Kaine's sister-in-law (the perp's ex) that stated such. Of course neither DY nor KH ever corrected that "lie" that went viral.

With all of TMH's "lies" during that period….no mention of her not being a great parent to Kaine's son? Nope. Instead, she recognized he needed glasses. He became so close to James and TMH that no-one could tell they were not birth siblings. And she took over his pre-school years.

In short, no-one could state any of Engel's suggestions… of "marital discord" then, either.

Why? Because even if TMH was seething, she put her feelings aside for the sake of the family. Like her friend, Dede, her friends, and everyone else said at the time…..she put kids first.

Did Kaine? And did he support his wife when she wasn't glistening and sexy after getting up at 4am to compete in bodybuilding. Before getting kids off to pre-school and middle-school/hs and running the house, working at restaurants and attending all the school/social stuff?

Futhermore, I've never read anything that said that she liked the sport or the attention that bodybuilding/competing gave her. Did she do it for herself, or, putting herself and the kids on the burner, do it for Kaine?

"She competed in ONE contest. And that was the end of her body-building"-- ( Kaine, in LT's Bio.)

So…who's not sharing details of "marital discord" when they were NOT married'? Not Kaine, at that time, either. Although he would not marry the woman that kept it comfortable to keep his son. Nor would he put the house or car in her name, either.

Why?…..he had a live-in housekeeper, free child-care, an income to add to the pot, a sexy wife, and didn't have to invest in a real marriage.

Statement #5

Bunch: "It is Petitioner's position that Respondent should not have any parenting time with Kiara. However, in his deposition, Petitioner could point to no objective evidence that did not come from communications from law enforcement in support of his position."

Engel's: This misrepresents Petitioner's November 5, 2013 deposition testimony. Petitioner could not answer that series of questions because the passage of time has made it difficult to differentiate between what Petiitioner knows now as a result of the criminal investigation surround the disappearance of KH, and what knowledge KH has as a result of personal observations from three or four years ago. The actual exchange is set forth on pages 126-136 of the depo transcript as Exhibit 1. The transcript speaks for itself"

Vwoolf: Whoa!…. OK….really?

P. 126….Engels has Houze explain the rules the judge laid down

p. 127….Houze asks Kaine if he has any INDEPENDENT knowledge that TMH was involved in the disappearance. Kaine says….."I have been -- I've had things written in the media shared with me. There are other…" (Houze tells him to confer with Engel) …. "I'm trying to…That's---i struggle with the response, I apologize." …….p. 128 "I can kind of half answer it and I'd rather fully answer it. So can we just take just one---one quick second. Sorry. Just one." (Houze offers to go off the record….comes back and tells him he's asking for a THIRD party (not LE)a known by Kaine. ….p129 (Engels and Houze discuss semantic meaning of "independent"). Kaine finally says, "I think I understand the question. I think the observations and interactions with T around the time of his disappearance that shortly thereafter would --that would be all I can think of at this point in time." Houze asks WHAT observations lead to INDEPENDENT thinking that TMH is involved in disappearance. Kaine says it was her behavior, "her---I guess, behavior is broad…Behavior and responses to things during the timeframe after". p.130. Houze asks. "…..What observations…?"

Kaine says, "Would need a little more time to think about that one. My initial response was, at the tim of and following the disappearance, I could probably talk to that a little bit more now….I would need to think…talk to Brett….insure that the INTEGRITY of my response is per the Court's ruling…..there's a BLEND of people….difficult to distinguish between the ruling…and that…."

House says OK…..we'll come back to that…."Have you ever undertaken any formal training or classes in parenting skills?"

P 131. Parenting skills talk. ….when classes taken…."alienating spouses" talk

p. 132 Kaine doesn't remember if Kiara ever told him "mommy is dead"

p. 133 Kaine admits NOT independently making the decision to not talk to Kiara and tell her her mother wanted to see her

p. 134-136 Engels tells Kaine NOT TO GUESS when Houze presses about what the hallmarks of a good parent are.

Hmmm! So, Engels is really talking about pp. 126-130.

And Kaine is excused from NOT coming up with an independent knowledge that TMH cannot parent Kiara because of…..

p. 127…..Things were written in the MEDIA

p. 128…..Needs to cover information with Engels

p.129 …..nebulous OBSERVATIONS and INTERACTIONS with TMH

p.129-130 …..nebulous BEHAVIOR

Looks like Kantor will agree…….the "depo" speaks Loud and Clearly for itself........

Kaine can't think of ONE behavior, ONE interaction or ONE observation of TMH prior to 2010 that indicates TMH should not have parenting time with Kiara. NOT ONE!

Statement analysis....thrice removed. What do they say about the third time? Part 1 12/15/13

Below is a rendition of the 1st 2 Responses Engels makes in the RESPONSE to TMH's Motion to Show Cause and Temporary Parenting Time. He is speaking to Kantor and arguing against Bunch's statements made to support parenting time/temporary custody.

I've condensed the wording, but the spirit and context are complete. If I have made a glaring error in either, please leave a comment below. I will continue with the next two statements in the next post. I want to have my thoughts in order before I take notes tomorrow, if I go to the emergency hearing.

Bunch's Statement #1 Because of a FAPA Order obtained by Petitioner in June 2010, Respondent has not had any contact with Kiara, despite her attorney's continuing attempts over the last three years to initiate appropriate parental contact.

Engel's Response: Only thing true about that….No parenting time says the FAPA.

TMH had RIGHTS since 2010….to have a hearing to contest some or all (police probable causes)

On 10/13/1 TMH filed a motion to modify for parenting time. On 11/02/10 - she withdrew it.

It is PERFECTLY clear she gave up her right rather than participate in proceedings. Petitioner "unilaterally" suspended rights…. so this statement is FALSE. TMH is responsible for her own litigation decisions. She, alone is responsible for her choice to seek NO relief in 3 years. Kiara has NO relationship with her which is a result of her decision to exercise her rights against self-incrimination INSTEAD OF parenting rights.

My response: What's the word "unilaterally" therein? And did Engels read the intervention into the FAPA hearing in June, 2012? When Judge M. told Bunch that since Kaine states he's in contact with LE and that he 'fears for his life' that is a FACT and suggested that if LE didn't give discovery to Bunch he would still be in the same "conundrum" he was then - IF Bunch chose to pursue a contest. And since she withdrew request for parenting time in 2010 she never DID request it? I do have faith that Kantor is going to continue to look at all documents. And look at Engels statement of FACT that Kiara has no "relationship" with her birth mom.

Bunch's Statement #2

In depo, Kaine stated he and TMH were "average" parents. Said TMH cared for Kiara between 50 and 75% of time, MINIMUM.

Engel's Response: This statement supports NOTHING except the FACT TMH provided more "physical care" before the "separation" in 2010. Says NOTHING about the existence of an "EMOTIONAL bond" between Kiara and Respondent in 2010. It says NOTHING about "whether a bond currently exists." It says nothing about how "the passage of time impacted any relationship that existed in June, 2010."

My response: This statement by Bunch implies everything. It says Kaine lied/Rackner lied when stating that he was the primary parent. It says that 1-25% of caring for a child, a baby, brings more "emotional" bonding than with the primary parent who finally stood up to Kaine and said she was no longer going to work at managing restaurants AND take care of HIS child with special needs, oversee a teenager who was skipping school AND do all the housework, laundry, and yardwork. Because she wanted to be there with Kiara. (See her FB pictures and statements). What parent could possibly believe that Kiara's primary parent over 75% of the time would not foster the stronger emotional bond?

75% and Kiara NEVER mentioned her mother? What Kantor says tomorrow about this will be interesting.

Next post....next two statements. Feel free to leave a comment.

Engel's.......Statement Rebuttals

#1

Friday, December 13, 2013

IN 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. 100666084
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING REGARDING DISCOVERY

Page 1 – RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING REGARDING

DISCOVERY

K:\PB\HORMAN, TERRI\EMERGENCY HEARING MOTION.DOC
THE LAW FIRM OF PETER BUNCH, LLC
511 SE 11th Avenue, Suite 201
Portland, Oregon 97214
Telephone: 503.688.5123 Facsimile: 503.961.1559 email: peter@peterbunchlaw.com www.peterbunchlaw.com

MOTION

For the reasons set forth below, respondent Terri Horman (Mother) moves the court to schedule an emergency hearing regarding discovery issues. This motion is based on the court's prior rulings regarding the scope of discovery in the above- referenced proceeding.
Mother filed a motion for temporary parenting time with her daughter, Kiara Horman, whom Mother has not seen since June 2010. On December 3, 2013, petitioner Kaine Horman (Father) filed a response in which he paraphrased portions of the deposition of Rodolfo Sanchez in support of Father's contention that Mother "solicited the help of Mr. Rodolfo Sanchez to murder [Father]." Father's allegations about the alleged solicitation are at the core of his objections to Mother having parenting time, and he draws a connection between the disappearance of Kyron Horman and the alleged solicitation.
////

1 In taking Mr. Sanchez's deposition,1 it is evident that the line of questioning in
2 which Mr. Sanchez made certain allegations was based on information that could have
3 come only from law enforcement. Specifically, counsel for Father asked Mr. Sanchez
4 the following questions:
5 "Q. Did you ever see [Mother] someplace else besides Sheltered Nook?
6 "A. Yes.
7 "*****

8 "Q.

Do you remember the circumstances?
What do you mean 'the circumstances'?
Can you tell me if you ever saw [Mother] at a restaurant?"

9 "A.
10 "Q.
11 Counsel for Father then asked a series of questions about the conversation that
12 allegedly occurred at the restaurant, which are set forth, in part, as follows:

13 "Q.
14 happened?
15 "A.
16 "Q.
17 "A.
18 husband treated her wrong.

"** ** "Q. "A. "Q. "A. "Q.

*
Did she tell you whether [Father] abused her physically or mentally? Both ways.
She told you she was afraid for her [daughter].
Correct.
Did she say why?

Do you remember what happened next? After the waitress left, what

Well, she started talking to me about her husband.
Okay. Do you remember what she told you?
Not specifically, but she told me that she was desperate because her

DISCOVERY

The court should be aware that Sanchez had an interpreter present at his deposition to translate all questions and answers; there was some confusion throughout the deposition about the translation of certain words.

Page 2 – RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING REGARDING

"A. Because she didn't want to lose her.
"Q. Did she use those words, she didn't want to 'lose her'?
"A. What she said is she didn't want her husband to take her away from her. "Q Did you ask her what she meant by that statement?
"A. Well, that was after what she commented to me -- she told me specifically. remember, but she told me that she wanted me to help her get rid of her

1 2 3 4 5

6 I don't
7 husband. I don't know if that was the correct word, but she tried to make me
8 understand that."

9 "*****
10 "Q. Do you remember her using the words 'get rid of'?
11 "A. No, but she implied it, not specifically."
12 Counsel for Father then went through a scripted set of questions about what
13 allegedly transpired at the restaurant. During the questioning, Sanchez was equivocal
14 about what Mother allegedly said to him on many occasions, and, in particular, about
15 the specific words she used. Also, during questioning by Father's lawyer, Sanchez
16 revealed that he testified before the grand jury. On several occasions, he referred to
17 documents of his that the police had in their possession. The line of questioning
18 culminated in a discussion about the last meeting Sanchez had with Mother, which
19 occurred several months later, and after Sanchez had performed additional work at the
20 Horman home. Counsel asked whether Sanchez had a conversation with Mother, to
21 which Sanchez said he had a "meeting" that lasted 15 minutes.
22 Later in the deposition, counsel for Mother asked Sanchez whether Mother
23 planned the alleged meeting. Sanchez's lawyer instructed him not to answer. After
24 assuring counsel for Sanchez that the court's ruling about restricted areas of discovery
25 would be strictly followed, Mother's lawyer asserted that he had the right to ask about
26 ////

Page 3 – RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING REGARDING

DISCOVERY

1 the contents of the alleged conversation Sanchez had with Mother. Sanchez's lawyer
2 instructed the witness not to answer.
3 Based on what occurred in the Sanchez deposition, Mother contends that Father
4 has opened the door to further discovery by asking a series of questions the origin of
5 which can only have come from law enforcement. Further compounding the matter is
6 the instruction by Sanchez's lawyer to not answer any questions about the
7 conversations that occurred during the final 15-minute meeting, which would prove
8 Mother's innocence as to the numerous inaccurate allegations made by Sanchez and
9 Father.
10 In sum, as a result of the questioning of Sanchez about a alleged meeting that,
11 by Sanchez's representation, only Mother, Sanchez, and law enforcement knew
12 occurred, compounded by an instruction to Sanchez to not answer questions that would
13 have exposed the issues with his prior testimony, Mother is in precisely the situation she
14 predicted could happen in this case: an incomplete and inaccurate accounting of events
15 is being used as a cudgel to prevent parenting time and to further smear Mother before
16 the court and in the public record, while the court's prior ruling is being used by
17 Sanchez's lawyer and Father's lawyer as a shield to prevent the full disclosure of the
18 facts germane to difficult decisions this court must make.
19 For these reasons, Mother seeks an emergency hearing to present argument in
20 support of these contentions: (1) Mother should be allowed to depose law enforcement
21 about the final 15-minute meeting between Sanchez and Mother; (2) Sanchez should be
22 ordered to disclose the contents of the conversation that occurred in the final meeting;
23 and (3) Sanchez should be ordered to disclose who accompanied him to, observed, or
24 listened to the final meeting. In the alternative, the court should strike those portions of
25 Father's pleadings that refer to the Sanchez deposition.
26 ////

Page 4 – RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING REGARDING

DISCOVERY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Because of the timing of the upcoming hearing, and because of the improper manner in which Father seeks to use Sanchez's unreliable testimony in support of his position that Mother should not have any contact with Kiara, Mother respectfully requests the court to set this matter at the earliest possible date.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Draft: The Revolving Door Keeps Spinning

Attempted murder:

From http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/charged-attempted-murder.htm

The Action

In order to be convicted of attempted murder, a prosecutor must show that the accused took a “direct step” towards killing the targeted victim. Courts have explained the requirement for a direct step by stating that a person must go beyond merely preparing to commit the crime, and instead cross over into actually perpetrating it. Preparation is thinking about committing the crime, talking about it, or otherwise planning to do it, while perpetration is taking an action that puts the plan in motion and that would result in the intended killing. The kinds of actions that are enough to be a direct step differs from case to case, though there are a range of actions that can qualify, such as:

Stalking, tracking, or ambushing. This includes hiding out in waiting, tracking the victim down, or following the victim, hoping for an opportunity to commit the murder.
Luring. Includes trying to convince the victim to come to a specific place or take specific actions that will make it possible for the victim to be murdered.
Breaking-in. For example, unlawfully sneaking into a home, property, or other place where the victim is or thought to be.
Constructing. This might include collecting all the materials necessary for the murder, such as the parts of a bomb, and starting to put them together.
Soliciting. For instance, paying or convincing someone else to commit the murder, or even convincing an unknowing person to carry out a key part of the crime, such as unknowingly planting a bomb.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

It Just Gets More Complicated: Five copies for the last Month's Docket

Well here we are. Big difference in the last three years. On this day in 2010, Keith and Dan were leading the star players thru the warroom. Staton was sure something would play out in the coming month; Judge Messitup had postponed the Divorce Abatement question till January, searches were coming. In February Staton brought 6 Feds on board. In June the "task force" was disbanded. In June and the next June, Judge M. renewed the R/O.

Now the real divorce is underway. Kaine must show his parenting skills during this divorce. Although he only has to take an out of state online course to do that: He passed.

Multnomah Family Court Services gives the online completion of the course a head's up. Of course TMH will
have to take one too.

Kaine, et all, are now to take on Houze and Houze and Bunch:

Is the new Houze team going to be swayed with the online class? (And will they believe that, Phyllis, or whoever she is, didn't take it for him?)

Trying to figure out what is what with the four .25 filled dockets sheets I got. Pieced them together:

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

November, 2013 .... TMH asks for Immediate temporary Custody

Documents to the divorce-custody that Maxine did not link can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/188922721/Horman-Divorce-Documents-NOV-2013