Update 4/10/14:  Back from a trip way down South. The posts are all back and yes, if you email me, you can use these and new docs that I am getting up.  

Have had issues with a new phone, wi-fi connections, etc. that have limited my access at times to information, discussion sites, email. 

But most everything is up now, and am committed to continue to get the real story, as documented by official word, and unbiased reporting, out there. (As for the BS...that will be shown for what it is, too).

Update #3:  Spent the morning with PPD.  A couple things on record. Learned a lot. They sent me my neighborhood guy. Went over very thoroughly what to say, constitutional r

ights, what to watch for, and what a judge would be looking for.  I have his number, and support.

Thank you for continuing to bring me slander and other more egregious excerpts of case in hand as well as suggestions from past of typical behavior that is bordering or completely stalking. 

I'm especially interested in the incredible audacity of that interstate stalker from Colorado.  She may have thought she was "effective" in some way, but she was obviously regarded with a simple "Hmmm...good-bye...let's shut the door."  Seems entirely possible that at the next "stalking" their will be many neighbors saying they have had enough. With them.

(We will have a "book" soon that will help all those having to go through this simply because someone doesn't like what you believe to be true.  More later. Will try to spend a little bit of every day on this.  Will keep you informed.)

Update #2

You guys are AWESOME! My goodness how that hate flies. I could write a book about these venom-filled characters. I'm going to pursue this to the best of my ability, (although I would rather be researching and feeling free to voice my opinion)....because:

1. If TMH is not guilty, and I and you and anyone else have a constitutional right to believe and state that, she has had a very young daughter stolen from her with LE's blessing and subjected perhaps immediately to a new mommy while daddy is busy hating on her mother, publically, and exposing her to viscous vilification through his hypocritical "sext-release".

2. All women are in danger of our constitutional rights being violated ... our right to our children, our right to speak out against those in power to take them, and our right to prosecute those who defame, stalk, threaten and harass us for our views.

Thank you for the rapid, prolific, and easily "identified" evidence.  And especially giving me legal standing that is, for right now, better than flagging those pages.  

I truly thank you from my heart. You give me courage.

UPDATE:  Got a LOT of evidence, both factual and other for my case. Thanks to all who are updating me!  Filing formal complaint with Central tomorrow.  Am getting more second-hand interstate cyber-harassment, too, as assailant is attempting to destroy direct evidence of bullying/threats. But links to others are still there, I think.  Don't need them all right now for my first steps, but any references to threats (even "One shouldn't be at a court hearing IF....") will help.  And especially if you have the page owner's name. Please send me, if possible, that picture of myself when dazed/stunned (in the hall) with a specific "shared by + assailant's name" if you have it.   And any references to my given name, threats by anyone responding in FB to assailant, fake "posters" or other threats with "suggestions" to their followers to post, etc.  Owners of pages that encourage threats to a persons' life, liberty, family, position in community, and/or job can be named, too, according to a legal advisor.

Please send evidence to:  Vwoolf.luna@comcast.net

More to come.  

Well, Here we go:  

30.866¹

Action for issuance or violation of stalking protective order

• • attorney fees

(1)A person may bring a civil action in a circuit court for a courts stalking protective order or for damages, or both, against a person if:

(a)The person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that persons immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person;

(b)It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victims situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact;and

(c)The repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victims immediate family or household.

(2)At the time the petition is filed, the court, upon a finding of probable cause based on the allegations in the petition, shall enter a temporary courts stalking protective order that may include, but is not limited to, all contact listed in ORS 163.730(Definitions for ORS 30.866 and 163.730 to 163.750). The petition and the temporary order shall be served upon the respondent with an order requiring the respondent to personally appear before the court to show cause why the temporary order should not be continued for an indefinite period.

(3)(a) At the hearing, whether or not the respondent appears, the court may continue the hearing for up to 30 days or may proceed to enter a courts stalking protective order and take other action as provided in ORS 163.738 (Effect of citation).

(b)If respondent fails to appear after being served as required by subsection (2) of this section, the court may issue a warrant of arrest as provided in ORS 133.110 (Issuance) in order to ensure the appearance of the respondent in court.

(4)The plaintiff may recover:

(a)Both special and general damages, including damages for emotional distress;

(b)Punitive damages; and

(c)Reasonable attorney fees and costs.

(5)The court may enter an order under this section against a minor respondent without appointment of a guardian ad litem.

(6)An action under this section must be commenced within two years of the conduct giving rise to the claim.

(7)Proof of the claim shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.

(8)The remedy provided by this section is in addition to any other remedy, civil or criminal, provided by law for the conduct giving rise to the claim.

(9)No filing fee, service fee or hearing fee shall be charged for a proceeding under this section if a courts stalking order is the only relief sought.

(10)If the respondent was provided notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court shall also include in the order, when appropriate, terms and findings sufficient under 18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(8) and (g)(8) to affect the respondents ability to possess firearms and ammunition or engage in activities involving firearms.

(11)ORS 163.741 (Service of stalking protective order) applies to protective orders issued under this section.

(12)Except for purposes of impeachment, a statement made by the respondent at a hearing under this section may not be used as evidence in a prosecution for stalking as defined in ORS 163.732(Stalking) or for violating a courts stalking protective order as defined in ORS 163.750 (Violating a courts stalking protective order). [1993 c.626 §9; 1995 c.353 §6; 1999 c.1052 §4; 2003 c.292 §3]

Note: Definitions for 30.866 (Action for issuance or violation of stalking protective order) are found in 163.730 (Definitions for ORS 30.866 and 163.730 to 163.750).

And now the MFH CASE against Terri Horman loses STEAM? Or will it the basis for an Appellate decision?

Hearing NOTES from Maxine at the Oregonian on February 20th, 2014

Nuts and Bolts:

Terri Moulton Horman is present , seated beside her two lawyers Peter Bunch and Stephen Houze. She's brought a yellow legal pad to take notes on.

Kaine Horman is present, standing beside the table with his two lawyers Brett Engel and Laura Rackner

The two sides are awaiting Judge Henry Kantor, who is in an unrelated conference in his chambers.

Also present in the courtroom is a lawyer from Multnomah County , and chief deputy district attorney Don Rees...as well as media

Judge's clerk just announced it would be a few minutes before the hearing gets underway, because of Kantor's conference in his chambers.

The court docket has set aside 90 minutes for today's hearing.

Judge Kantor has another unrelated matter scheduled for 11 a.m. today.

Clerk said judge would be out in another minute.

Judge Kantor has arrived. Attorneys identifying themselves in court.

Attorney Brett Engel: Says he objects to debate about matters that's already been decided by the judge. (instead of standing each time to object)

Attorney Stephen Houze: Tells the judge we're not talking about some "garden variety'' issue, but something that touches upon the liberty interests of Terri Horman in a parent-child relationship.

"We're here for a very important matter,'' he said.

Houze said the record hasn't been complete before the court, and he's here to make that record.

Attorney Stephen Houze is recounting the background involving the landscaper's testimony:

Says Kaine Horman's lawyers have relied upon landscaper Rodolfo Sanchez's contentions regarding "some sort of plot'' to kill Kaine Horman to obtain a restraining order against Terri Horman.

Now, Kaine Horman's lawyers want to use Sanchez's deposition from November (notes there was an interpreter present when the deposition was taken by Kaine Horman's lawyers) to argue against any parenting time be allowed between Terri Horman and her daughter, Kiara.

Houze reiterates that the judge ruled that Terri Horman's lawyers could not cross-examine Sanchez about his last 15-minute conversation with Terri Horman, in which law enforcement was involved.

The subject matter of the Sanchez testimony is either covered by law enforcement privilege or it isn't, Houze argues.

He says Kaine Horman's lawyers have sought to submit a "very self serving'' portion of Sanchez' testimony, without allowing the court to delve into any bias, motive, and credibility of Sanchez.

"What did they do to get him to give them information - did they give him a promise of immunity?" Houze asks .

Judge Kantor: "Normally all of that would be very relevant'' in discovery.

Houze: "Not only relevant...but indispensable,'' he says. To decide anything of this magnitude, "the court must have reliable evidence.''

"This court - by the virtue of this ruling ...would be deprived of the opportunity to have the full picture,'' and be left to speculate.

Need to have this witness confronted and "be put to the test.''

Attorney Houze :

Law enforcement privilege doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional right.

"It's of critical importance,'' to further question Sanchez, because Kaine Horman says Sanchez' testimony is 'proof evidence' that Terri Horman is a danger to her own daughter.

The court shouldn't take Sanchez' testimony on "face value.''

The other side gets to test what's asserted, Houze said.

"How in the world can Rodolfo Sanchez's" testimony taken without the knowledge of law enforcement ....if what he has to say is protected by law enforcement privilege? '' Houze asks.

"How could his deposition have been taken without the knowledge, and likely approval of law enforcement?" Houze asks.

Attorney Houze: Argues that court must decide whether it gives greater weight to the 'law enforcement privilege' than to his client's constitutional rights.

The balancing test must tip toward disclosure, Houze says.

Particularly, in this case, where Kaine Horman's lawyers have decided to present Sanchez's testimony.

"They made a tactical choice'' to insert Sanchez's testimony into this case, but now seek to conceal further questioning of this witness. Houze argues that's unfair and waives 'law enforcement privilege.''

Secondly, if the court does not have ability to test the reliability of Sanchez as a witness, then the court is at a deficit.

"Why in the world did they put it forward- and are fighting so hard to conceal from the court the very info that will help the court determine Sanchez's credibility? "

Houze suggests the court can

1. Allow a regular, fair due process proceeding, and allow cross-examination of Sanchez

or

2. The court must reject the evidence from Sanchez, b/c court can't determine his credibility and reliability - and that would also violate Terri Horman's constitutional rights.

Attorney Houze: The impact of Sanchez's testimony "has already happened,'' - it's been made public.

"The court has been given a one-sided view'' of Sanchez's testimony.

"Either hear the whole story or say 'I'm not going to consider this evidence at all,'' Houze argues.

"Our legal system is amazing. It's the envy of the world, and for good reason. ...It's all about the integrity of the system. It's for people who walk down the street, who aren't lawyers, who say 'we have a fair legal system.'

Talks about how the country's legal principles of the US trumped the stature of former US President Richard Nixon.

"This case, above all perhaps, must operate in accordance with principles of fairness.,'' Houze said.

He asks the court to respectfully "think this through one more time.''

Either allow us the full access of information, and reveal to court what we believe will call into question the credibility of Mr. Sanchez, or not at all, Houze argues.

"You either put it all out for the court to consider, or you don't put any of it,'' Houze argues.

Judge Kantor asks how a professional expert evaluating each parent would find the Sanchez testimony useful.

Attorney Houze replies that he's concerned an expert witness, no matter how professional, could not ignore the Sanchez testimony.

"This court is not a passive participant in the evaluation process...to make sure the evidence that comes to the court is constitutionally permissible and reliable evidence,'' Houze says.

Judge Kantor: "Even without Sanchez, professional experts are going to be left with one side of the story on a variety of issues, noting that Terri Horman is likely not "going to answer very much, and that's ok.''

WIll experts left in the same position - not having the full side of the story - as they are with Mr. Sanchez?

Houze: "No,'' he argues.

"There's certain forbidden fruit in this case, and that's Mr. Sanchez's testimony,'' Houze argues. If all the testimony can't be had, it should be stricken, he says.

Kaine Horman's lawyer Brett Engel:

"If you agree with what they're asking, you must abate this case and I will tell you why,'' Engel says.

Engel said his client will be at a disadvantage if Terri Horman asserts the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.

If Terri Horman refuses to answer questions, Engel argues, she must bear the consequence of limited evidence.

"What people seem to forget here is that this protected Sanchez information benefits her. I don't have this information either,'' Engel said.

Says Kaine Horman would love to have the law enforcement information, but he doesn't.

Engel said he found Mr. Sanchez to depose, while Terri Horman's lawyers spent the day speaking to teachers.

Engel says the court already ruled that Sanchez can testify about alleged murder-for-hire plot.

Engel: "Who is going to bear the consequence for this court not having complete information?....The reason the court will not have full information is because she's taking the Fifth ,'' Engel says, referring to Terri Horman.

How can the court ignore the "direct safety risk'' that Mr. Sanchez speaks of? Engel's asks.

Engels: The Sanchez testimony they want to strike all came before law enforcement involvement, he argues.

Judge Kantor asks Engel if he plans to call Terri Horman as a witness.

"If I did, she would take the Fifth,'' Engel replies. Engel says he doesn't know what purpose that would serve, and hasn't decided yet.

Engel argues that he's prevented from meeting the burden of proof, if he can't use the Sanchez testimony at all.

Judge Kantor: Says he has concerns about how long this could go on, if he were to delay or abate this child custody case. The state could take 15 years to resolve this, he said.

"The more time that goes by without contact between mother or daughter,'' the more difficult it would be to repair that relationship, the judge says.

"I appreciate there's not one good answer'' on how to move forward, the judge said, but asked Engel how delaying this further would achieve anything versus doing the best job the court can do to get a resolution.

Engel argues, "There's no constitutional right to see your child.''

He says there's a right to make decisions about a child, but that visitation rights can be denied to a parent who could harm a child.

"The notion that Ms. Horman can come here (and assert) a constitutional right '' for visitation with her child and circumvent the rules of due process is absurd, Engel argues.

"The consequences on Mr. Horman's ability to present his case are very serious'' if the court excludes Mr. Sanchez's testimony, Engel argues.

Says Terri Horman has the right to due process - the right to testify, to cross-examine the witnesses within the evidentiary rules and the right to present her own evidence, the right to exercise the Fifth.

By exercising the Fifth, the court doesn't get to hear the whole story.

"It's not Mr. Horman's problem. It's her problem,'' Engel argues.

(At this point Kantor asks Rees and Carlos what they think he should do about this?  Rees cannot get anything out,  but Carlos states....)  (VW)

Mult. County attorney says law enforcement was not given the opportunity to waive Sanchez's deposition - that law enforcement was not alerted about the deposition.

Houze responds to Engel's argument that Kaine Horman can't prove his case without Sanchez's testimony, "I think tells you just about everything you need to know...Without Sanchez, they don't have a case.''

Houze says abating, or delaying this case further would not be in the best interests of Kiara, the 5-year-old girl at the heart of this custody case.

"It's now almost 4 years that Kiara has not been with her mother. To trivialize the importance of that period of time passing....

To delay this case further, would do grave harm to the child.''

Houze argues that Kaine Horman's lawyers are "perilously close to the line'' in trying to penalize his client for asserting her Fifth Amendment rights.

(VW... Kantor tells Houze he's wrong about "inferring adverse consequences on the 5th), but states:

AFTER the break:

Judge said, it's true, that he did not consider Terri Horman's constitutional arguments at prior hearing, because they were not expressed.

Said there's no basis for him to reconsider the ruling, and is not going to do so.

If he were to reconsider the ruling, I'd adhere to my initial decision. "It would not change,'' Kantor says.

Judge Kantor also says:

"I will not prohibit the evidence at this time."

I will allow Mr. Horman and Ms. Horman to provide a complete record.

It is likely that I will give zero to very little weight that (to that which) cannot be held up to cross-examination or impeachment.

So if the Sanchez testimony turns out to be the only basis to the Kaine Horman case, "perhaps a fresh look has to be in order,'' judge says.

Judge : "I am not going to abate this case.. People's lives have to move on.''

There may be appellate review of my decisions. "It's only going to get worse or more difficult,'' if there's a delay. "So we're going to go forward. There is no plan for me to delay or abate these proceedings.''

To recap:

Judge will allow Kaine Horman's lawyers to present testimony from the landscaper Rodolfo Sanchez, and won't allow cross-examination of the landscaper on any matters involving his last 15-minute conversation with Terri Horman, or his talks with law enforcement.

But judge said he will give little or no weight to evidence that's presented where cross-examination is not permitted.

After court hearing, Kaine Horman spoke to reporters in the lobby of the courthouse.

He had removed his suit jacket and blue dress shirt to reveal a white T-shirt bearing his missing son Kyron's face.

Kaine Horman said he's glad that the custody case is moving foward, but he wants the focus to remain on the search and investigation to find his missing son, and make sure the person responsible for Kyron's disappearance is held accountable.

Terri Horman left the court, with no comment.

Stalking OK by Them, shoving cameras in stranger's faces. But put a camera on them, or Call authorities - They Call Foul

Rudy's Depo highlights from Bunch's Point of View

From Motion for Emergency Hearing Regarding Discovery

History:  Bunch had asked the court for Temporary Visitation while the Vien study progressed. Engles filed a "Response..." with his version of what Rudy's deposition meant.

As Bunch states the following is a response to inform Kantor of the "tricks" that Engels was up to.  The release (on a Friday night) of Engel's Response Bunch's Temporary Parenting Time Request smacked of the "timing" of the release of the sexting tapes when TMH was fighting for Temporary parenting time in November, 2010.

Engels released only a "select" portion of the deposition.  Timed to get it to the main player media without it going to the files first.  And little could be done in terms of showing the public what the "other" side of the depo suggested. 

Since I quoted some of this depo on Olive, many have asked where I got it.  So here is the entire Motion and Bunch's excerpt...(pp. 2-3).   I found it in the file but I think it might have been linked, too.

What Bunch Wants Kantor to know

Excerpt of Depo with Rudy that Bunch used to inform Kantor in 

his "Motion for Emergency Hearing." 

Q.  Did she tell you whether [Father] abused her physically or mentally? 

A.  Both ways.

Q. She told you she was afraid for her [daughter].
A. Correct.
Q.Did she say why?

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

A. Well, she started talking to me about her husband.

Q  Okay. Do you remember what she told you?
A. Not specifically, but she told me that she was desperate because her

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

Q. Do you remember her using the words 'get rid of'?

A. No, but she implied it, not specifically.

NOTES TO KANTOR FROM BUNCH: 

1. During the questioning, Sanchez was equivocal about what Mother allegedly said to him on many occasions, and, in particular, ABOUT  THE SPECIFIC WORDS SHE USED.

2. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, HE REFERRED TO DOCUMENTS THAT THE POLICE HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION.

What's all the Drama really about? (Just for fun, till I get a couple more docs up).

Just substitute "Greek Mythology" for "This phase of this Portlandia Drama."

Note to my Readers: Am Taking A Little Time to Deal with A "Couple" of "Pages". This document below covers the issues that may become appellate, if not addressed. No worries...all the docs will be back up around spring break. And more. If you have my email, I will be checking it.

Update 3/09/14 .... Thank you, those who are keeping me abreast of continuing slander via that page. And the other page...where I asked, politely, for her to take down that  picture that looks as if someone hit me in the mouth with a blunt instrument. I showed that to PPD. Working on a couple avenues, civil and criminal. Nice to see in the "likes" two posters who are on the verge, one of whom made up that "wanted" poster.  Docs will be back nearing the end of the month. 
Peace!

What does Engels want to Strike?
What does Rees want us to Forget in relationship to the laws applicable to this case?

This document was recorded and filed. Therefore, at this point it has not been nixed by Kantor.   Kantor may be considering the legal implications of not weighing the factors presented:

A Flurry of Affidavits, Oddities and Oppositions (Part 4)

Have things gone stone cold at court? The last we heard from Max and Kyle, and the filing, Bunch had submitted an 18page memo regarding full cross of Rudy. 

Then comes this answer from Engels, to the court as it's apparent the two sides ain't talking much.

 

]]

 

I think the file is missing the "Proposed form of Order Regarding Briefs, filed (according to Bunch Below, about the middle of January?   Not sure what Engels has in mind here.

But he is certainly not going to talk to Bunch about it:

Here is the Response to the "Form of Order" ????

A Flurry of Affidavits, Oddities and Oppositions (part 3)

A Flurry of Affidavits, Oddities and Oppositions (part 3)  

Well, it's official.  It took a Motion, a Declaration in Support, and an Order from the judge.

But Jacob Houze is now properly ensconced in the Public Defender's Office:

Here's Jabob's Explanation:

A Flurry of Affidavits, Oddities and Oppositions (part 2)

The Newest Dockets

2/6/14

A Flurry of Affidavits, Oddities and Oppositions

2/04/14

Went to to Courthouse today to pay a parking ticket. Found more in the file to baffle and/or inform:

Last I had heard Bunch was weighing the factors in which to balance TMH's 14th amendment rights with LE "right" to not disclose their "impressions" and "strategies" if Rudy was deposed regarding his late-day "sting" at the Horman home.

Well, Engels is not going for it.  He has his own version.  And that includes his interpretation of what Kantor stated at the last hearing.

First, here is Kantor's words from the hearing...regarding Bunch's request for a more thorough examination of the issue of Rudy being fully crossed:

This was Exhibit 1 in Engels Opposition to Bunch.