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.
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.
VW, not picking apart but you asked for clarification, so if I may interject? Bunch is in blue, Engle is in red and your overview is in green? Would you be able to use quotes for anything that is exactly taken from the court docs or maybe italicize them? I get a little lost deciphering between your thoughts and what Engle said.
ReplyDeleteAnd to add to that I'm just going to go ahead and say that both Kaine and Engle are full of shit with Rackner driving the crazy train since all they want to do is "anything they can to help LE" statement she made waaaaaaaay back in 2010.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Made some adjustments. Will put more in quotes. Sometimes get ahead of myself thinking all readers have read the docs as much as others.
ReplyDeleteRE Engels New Years Eve comments. Was he into the laced egg nog early that day? Is this his first case? Sounds like Jack Webb wrote those words. Good thing Kantor wasn't talking about red rocking chairs. (hint, hint!)
ReplyDeleteHave you considered asking for a painted, reserved in your name, parking spot in the front of the court house? You could probably do a financial analysis and prove the justification alone based on the income you generate for local government in this area. The sign could read "Unless you are our best customer, don't even think about parking here!"
Finally, are you that hawt, long haired blonde that always sits in the row immediately behind Houze and is seen walking to and from court with him? Woohoo!!