kaine horman wants terri horman to testify

8/8/2019 Kaine Horman wants Terri Horman to testify

1/10

I

34567891011

PEC"-l!ttr^-tllif;1 ;;r' ' "loiio' l:9 .Hll '33FILED

IN THE CIRCUITCOURTOF THE STATEOF OREGONFORTHE COTJNTYOFMULTNOMAH

In theMatterof:KAINEANDREWHORMAN,

Petitioner,and

: .TEB.BJYNN MO'IJI,TON OR.}'{AN,

CaseNumber:006-66086PETITIONER'SESPONSEREGAR-DINGESPONDENT'S

ti{ r;iiiiri*r,ilJvI fr?01$

l !I O

18t920

Respordent iN [qHi$[s"SHitYi"lCWPetitioner/Fatherrovideshismatedaln responseo Respondent/Mother'sotion

fo! Dismissal.Beforeaddressinghe speciftcepresentationsn theNovember

Declarationf PeterBunah n Supportof Motion to DismissMotion to Modify RestrainingOrde!'one mportantpoint needso bebrought o theCowt's attention Motier hasdismissed er requstorparenting ime pursuanto ORCP54 Thatrule requiresno suppodingdocumentationoachievehedismissal f anaction. t states:

A Voluntarydismissal; ffect hereof'A(1) By plaintiff; by stipulatioD'Subjecto theprovisionsof nde f)-O anaof uny ttutut" of this state'an actionmay bedismissed y the plaintiff without orderof court (a) by lrtlng anoticeof dismissai ith the courtandservingsuchnotice.onhedefendant ot less han five daysprior to the day oI tnal.lr no^counterclaimasbeenpleaded'or (b) by filing a strpulailon rdismissal igned y all iverse partieswho haveannear{ i1 theaction.Unlessotherwise tated n the ootice of ott*tttu:j);". ","M &EN6dLr-"*ffii-##-

Page- PETITIoNER'SESPoNSE "*'ffif,t?A6lJ*


2/10

j

678910111 1

13l4151611181920. t1

24

stipulation,he dismissals withoutprejudice''excepthati -nouceof dismissaloperates t - uffi"utitn"opon themeritswhenfrledby a plaintiff who t'^ o""Jiitt"ltt"a in any co'-rt of the UnitedStates r of any stalean aotiot againsthe saTe'lftt::^:it"-:rffiil;;,liu1s"{::im*iffni}ii!",fi';;"1*shallbe without PrejuolceunJ", ut 'uuttt i ion' hecoun hall nter judgmentt dlsmlssar'-4p)Bv-"g-"i"j#l#;,iliT,jil,xllJlj"j,il"Tf;'firi) ofthis section, nacu(|iffi;" ;;;;;l'ae'*niJ'oi'tmr "'deredv te-co^unnd;;;';h #t and onditionsas the oourtdeemsproper' r acounterclalmasbeenpleaded y a defendantrior to"T'::*]""d;{ffi;ilff "'l' ; *n:ffi il,if 'l'"tl'T,ihildefendantmay Proceeotri"ii"i" i" trt":"agment of dismissal' dismissalunder nlssubsections withoutPrejudice'

Typically, aparty simplvfitesa notigeof {ismissal f no counterclaim asbeen

pleaded.f acounterclaimasbeen leaded' norderofdismissalsrequired iongwiiiriire

notice f dismissal. party snot equred o ustify h eason eor shewishesodismiss n

action, That is notablcbecauseMother's attomeyhasattached five-page Declaration"o

whatshould avebecna simpleNoticeofDismissal One anonlyspeculatehy Motherhas

attached ucha detailedDeclarationo anotherwiseshortandsimpledocument

Father akesgreatexceptiono thestatementsontainedn theDeclarationof Mother'srthingmore han a)Mother'seffoi to le-characterizeiawyer.TirarDeclaration,rarlly' i\ nolhingmore ndn 4'r v'urr' , . _. ,

things lreadyn the ecord;b) Mother'sattempto ustifyherown itigationdecisions;nd

(c) Morher'seffort to blameFatherandhis lawer for Mother'scurrentsituation TheCourt

file is noplace or suchstatements Fatherhascontemplated motionto strike he

Declalation tom therecold. lnstead,Father,sbelievesheDeclarationof MotJrer'sawyernnsof Mother's lawyer'andby couectingsomeobviousbesthandledby rebutting heallegatio

misstatementsegardinghe law'Thepartieshavebeenmaried since2007 Theyhaveonedaughterogether'Kiara'"iT,"d#ffifl{

Page - PETITIONER'S ESPONSE


3/10

123456789101 l

I J

t4l516l71819201 1

age23months.FatheriledaDissolutionf MadagePetition' ndobtained Petitionto

Prevent buse FA?AOrder) nJune 8'2010 TheFAPAOrdergives ustody f Kiara o

Father ndprovidesor noparentingimebetween iaraandhermother'Fatherhasorlechild trom apreviousmarriage'Kyron Fathers currendy

experienoingnyparent's orstnightmareKyronhasbeenmissing ince une ' 2010'

Fatherhas eceivednformation lat leadshim to believeMother s responsibleor K1'ron's

drsappearanceOnMother'smotion,hecourthasabatedhedissolutionase ntil January ' 2011'

TheFAPA case emainsactive Motherflled a motion o modify theFAPA Orderard sought

parenting imewift Kiala Mothorneversignedanaffidavit in supportof her requestor

parenting im. Instead,sheplacedhat issuebfore hecout with a-Declaratlonlom her

attorney.ThatDeclarationmadegeneralassertions boutKiaja's need o have egularand

flequentcontactwith hermother'andKiara's best nterests Motller:smotion containednone

ofthe information,beyond egala]td 'actual onclusious'hat heCoult typically recelves

wheuconsideringhat ypeofpdenting imemayor maynotbe n a child'sbest nterests'

Instead'Motheraskedhis court o take heword ofher attomey hatparenting ime between

MotherandKiara is in Kiara'sbest nterest' Motherwrongly assumedhat this Coud can

makeaparentingimedeterminationithoutcompletenformationoncemjngMother'spast

conduct,character,amily relations,andphysical,psychological, sychiatric,andmental

health.Motherhasnotyet taken hestandandshehasnotyet invokedher Fif l Amendment

right againstself-incriminalion' lnstead'Mother's civil attomeyadvised hecourt that

Mother rret?dso invokeherprivilegeagainstself-incriminationand hatMother will not

testifi at a// in suppodofher mot1on'Mother's atlomey nformed he Court thatMotherCa[dC, Eq.lM & FNG4 Lf,P*'g#trsl3-+tr

tufkoNE For) 2!16Page3 - PETITIONER'SRESPONSE


4/10

I

61891C

would seeko quash ertaindiscoverysubpoenasn hegroundshatthe nformation s

prolecled yMother's ighlagainstelf-incrimjnalio-1Generallyspeaking,heprivilegeagainstself-incrimination rohibitscompellingany

person o disclosenfonration of a testlmonialnature hatmightdirectly or indilectly subject

thepersono acriminaliability Doev UnitedStates' 871J5201'212'08SCt2341'101

L Ed 2d 1840988). Theprivilege pplieso "incriminatirg tatements"'hichare

corrununiaationslat might fimish a link in ilre chainof evidenoen acriminalprosecuuon'

Blauv,UnitedStates,40US 159' 161".1S Ct223'gSLEd 1700950) Theresno

blar*et Fifth Amendme[tdght to rcfuse o testifi in non'criminalproceedings Terutesco'

l l lg lEgegt 144GaApp 45'240SE 2d586(19?7)Thepdvilege oes otapply

"across heboard" o preventanyard all testimonywithoutregard or thecontentor

Thebasicightof apersonnderheprivilegesnotsimply ne oavoidakinghestand'ut

rather ne obe reeromcompelledestimonialelf-incriminationegardingheoffenseor

which e son rial,aswellasothers.t providesoprotectiongainsthedisgracend

practical xcommunicationtomsocictywhichmight esult romdisclosuref matterwhich'

underhecircumsiances,ould otgrve se o criminaliability Thep vilege oes ot' protectdgainstemoteandspeculative ossibilitiql'Comm'n., 06US472,478,925 ct l6'./0'32Ll,d2d234' (1972) A witness anbe

compelledotestifu espite claimofprivilegeonly f ajudge s convincedhat t ispedectly

clear rom acarefulconsideratiolof all thecircumstancesn thecase' lat thewitnesss

mistaken,andthattleanswerscannotpossiblyhaveatendencytoincriminate.HoffmaUritedStates.341S 4'7g,486,'71St 814'95L Ed11181951)'

Theprivilegeagainstself-incnminationdoesnotestablishanabsolute ight against

beingcompelledo speakanddoesnot automaticallyprecludeself-incrimination'whether

subjeui1 I1' t

L415161118192t2I

24 6E/d6;liff*iiiNdlLP'"'*S.'lSSg;T'-ftLF@NE(tarzirt

Page4- PETITIONER RESPONSE


5/10

I,,31

6789i011

l41516t'l18192021

24

spontaneousr in responseo questions ui by govennne!$ fficials U s v Washington'

431U.S. 81,97 .Cr.1814'52LEc"2d2381977)' t does otprohibit very lemenl

whichmay nfluenceac mrnalsuspec!o make nciminating admissions;heconstitlitiolul

guarantys only that hewitnessnotbecompelled o give self-incriminating estimony'and

tlle testwhether,consideringhe olality ofthe circumstancas'hefreewill of thewitnesswas

overbome dParagraph5of Mother's ttomey's ovember Declarationtates:

lMlotherwill nolgrveupher ighl to seekl-egulutto'dJ:l'd^"itttlntt"a t""*"t tlth Kiara [Farher's]effofls to withho-lc-arrparendng me scomptetely;ntrary o Kiara'sbe$ nteresL"'ffi*"u"i *a"t af Ai circumstances'ssuesegardingarenlmgiimewill needowaituntilanothcr ay'

rk parentingimeand'/orustbdy tler he90-dayObviouslyMother ntends o seekparenung unc ruvr vw"'-r -abatement nds' Father,however,s focusedon protecting hesafetyofhis daughter,

Kiara,

and indinghisson,Kyron Father elievesMotherhas nformation onceming yron's

\'hercabouts.whileMothermaychoosenottopaficipatinarrymeaningfulwayintheseproceedings,ersilence il l notcomewithoutconsequences'

This s a civil case TheFifthAmendmentoes ot orbidadversenferencesgamsr' parties ocivil actionswhen he)' efilse o tesdry n lgsponseo probativeevidenceoffered

againstthem.Baxterv.?almigiano,425U's.308,318(1976).lnoregon,apresumptionexists hatevidencewillirlly suppressedould beadverseo tbepartysuppressing

t'

ORS40.135, fthis proceedso a rial' andMotherstill refuseso participate' atherwill ask

theCourt o coDstrueMother'ssilenceasar admissionegading Father'sfactualallegatlons

Other udsdictionshavesanctionedivil litigantswho haveattemptedo rely upon-heFifth

Amendmento preventdiscovery equests ld/or refuse o answerquestionsn oivil

proceedings.InsDarksv.sDarks.?68S.w.2d563(Mo'App.1989)thepetit ionefinan6aFdc;,TiigElf !64 L/-P"''**s'l'#g;tr"paee pr11o\ERSREsPoNcE

'"T:*;tsf 'f "


6/10

123456189t011L2

l41516

' f i '181920J 1

24

action or dissolutionof nurriage iled fbr tempomrymaiDtenancendattolney ees She

thenrefusedonself.incriminationgloundstoaoswellespondent.sinterogatoriesconcemlngherrclationship o a contuact ilier who attemptedo kill the rspondentThetdal cowt

nonetlelessgantedher rclief l heappellate ourtreversed'holdilg thattlle tdal court

abuseditsdisqetionbygranlinglelieftoconcealingpartywhiletlreconcealmentcoNnues'768S.W.2dat 567 Also, n HasenbuchHaeenbuch'30SW2d269 Mo App 1987)'

dissolutionase,hepetitionerefusedorespondo questionsn self-incriminationrounds'

The rial courtstruckhispleadingsandawardedmaintenanceupport o therespondentnher

clossPetition.rhejiaalhalMotber'sw4 ttomelhasdvisedhecourti:::::: 1:t.1-.:';,,. "plead heFifthspeaksolumes uoutwhatMothe;haso hide An attomeyn acivii ac o rsbound ytheprovisions f ORCP ?C'whichprovideshatbeforeMothr'sattorneyar

submit na.rgumentn support fapleading'hatattorneyertifieshat heposilionsbased

on easoMbleknowledge,nfomational1d elief' ormedafter hemakingof suchnquiryas

is reasonablenderhecircumslances"Onecanonly nfer hatMotherwill notspeak

becauseer estimony il! leado criminaliability forKyron'sdisappearancentil Mother' ddnieshd allegations;herecanbeno other nfcrenqes rawn'

On October 5,2010,Fatherileda Responseo Mother'smotionseeking arenting

rimewith Kiara. Fatherprovideddeta'edfactualsupport or his concernsegardbgMother's

involvementn Kyron'sdisappearance'ndhisconcernsegarding other'smental tate'

Father'smotioncontaineddocumentatroniat placedMother's credibility at issue'and

provided he Courtwith iosight nto Mother's mentalstate n the daysandweeks ollowtng

Kyron's disappearance.WhiieMothermayhave elt embarrassedy theevidencehat she

hadother hingsonhermjl1d ather Jlanhe sealchor Kyrolr' thatevidences relevaat"ir,"##sff*'#:ti,lBHf'"Page6-PETITIONER RESPONSE


7/10

3

56189l01 l1 1

t415l o

becauset is directly reiatedo the ssueof whethetMother s fit to haveanycontactwith

Kiara. Nothingin Fathel'sResponse asa surpriseo Mother' sinceMotheralreadyhadhe

text messagesn herpossessiol By seeking isitationwith thisyoungchildulder theptesent

circumstances,Motherswung heooorwideopen o rcceiveFalher'sconcemsegardingMother's fitless asaparent,hermentalstate'andcredibiLity

Motherreplied o Father'sResponsen Octobet29 '2OlO lronically' while Mothei

charactedzed ather'sOctober25 fil1ngasaneffort to "viliry Mother" and inflameand

shouldseehei darrghter".With due especto theexperienced ttomey epresentingMother'

theevidenceprovidedbyFatherinhisResponsehasewrythingtadowitlrwhetrerMotlershouldseeKiara.

MotheralsoclaimsthatFathelhasimpropellyreferredtoevidencethatMotherhasfailedtwo polygraph ests Motherstates evidencabout hesealleged ailues

is not

admissiblen any egalproceedingn tlLisstate" Mother s mistakenabout he awln

poison ublicopinion gainst other"'an"exclusive" toryappearedn TheOregontan

newspaperegarding other'sOctobor9Response' he hust of Mother's iling was hat

Frith-ers tylng to "sabotagelhe othor/childl"tt*th:P; Mothu'sReplywas emarkable'

rlot only for what it statod,butfor what t omitted Mother failedto address'n any

substantiveannera)Fathe!'s oncemsboutMother'smental tate;b) Fathet's cliefthat

Mothers involvedn $e disappearancefhis sonKyron; c) hehorific situationhatnow

exists egarding yrcn's ocation; nd d) Father's elief hatMotherposes directhreato

thesafetyandwelfareof theparties'daughter'Rather'Mother simplystated' nothingin [the

text messages]uppodsFather'sallegationshattherearenoconditionsupor whichMother

l718t920

24Fromdahl . Fromdahl,14Or496'508'840P2d683 1992)'a divorce ase'.he ourt

held

thatevidencehat hehusbandmayhave ailed apolygraph est'and hemother'sknowledge"T,I,#ffiflffPage? - PETITIONER'SRESPONSE


8/10

12345

6189-101l

14l5161 1

181920t l, 7

24

ofthoselesults,waselroneorrslyexcludedwherethemothersoughttointoducethoseresultsto show hereasonablenessfher belieftlat the fatherhadsexuallyabusedheir children'

TheNovember2DeclaEtionofMothel,sattomeyalsocontainsafullparagraphrefering o an"ORCP54OfferofCompromise'n whichshe etsorthavery easonableproposalo resolve veryssuen thedivorce roceeding"Mother laims hatFather as

untilNovember to respond,ndstateshatshedoes otbelieve atlerwill respondecause

shebelieves ather as efusedto even ntertain nykindofcompromise r settlementf

any ssue".oRcP 54E sacivil rule batallows ivil litigantso rccove! ttolney

eesandcosts

a{iera..!ial l onepalry o tiie itigahoDails o rcoovereliefin excessfthatoffeledn

settlement.TheruleProvides:Ift lreofferisnotaccepteda.ndfl iedwithinthetimepresoibed,itshallbedeemed ithdrawn, ndsnarr oli" giveo n eviden;eat trial a$dmaybefrledwith the ou't ontyut" ti"

-'ui- na' b"enaaluai"atedn themeritsI'ii"tiii':'ri 'iJ p"ttvassertingheclaimails o obtain judgmentore;;;;;i. il ih" otf"' to illow udgmentD such case'hepafiv;H;; il; .ilt shallôt recovircosts'-prvailing"tty...t:*'disbursements,ruttoêy"esni*rtd afterhediteof theoffer' buthe;il';;;il;il theciaimwasassertedhall ecoverf thepafivassertingheclaimcosts noolsbursements'ot ncluding revailing arfyf""t, to-m tft" ti-" ol theserviceof the offeHowever,his s a dissolutionase ndORCP54Edoesnotapply o dissolutionases'

Saunders. Saunders.58o! App 601,975P2d g27 |ggg). Theso!,ders courtexplained:

Dissolutionasesommoy nvolveahostof differentorrr; 9f relf-1ltomtheoartitioningrawta or "urîlJ"onal fropertv'othedet:lllT:* "filHd;",h. ";;-ul"^*. ."r "ti' "ppropriaie..parenringt:f "lll:f '*esrablishmenrf husrs.ndn" iJpoJiiln'orotligationso paychildandsoousaluppon.e' ttt"sup"tt cJtii' notea Ufu'e'ood thevarietiesfiii"ii""""'",iJ in"" tinatiit alm""uriio"te'mine:hi'b arr-vpre-vailr'n adissolutionctiol^' g2 '" "'iiz""l"-'L'"'regard't isnotsurprisingul

drestatutesonotconditionnaward f,attomey-*:' t-i T*t;::";13dissolurionroceedirgn one parry 'prevallrng ]*' -j""*"107.105(l)(h).RcP 54E, on""ulgli'i o iontutt'-requiresa determination"Ti+ffii;+;'

pase pErrrroNER'sESPoNSE *i'l?uil'iiiri;"


9/10

1z

56789

whetherpaltv"3'-*i:":"-1,.1f"T""ft"#fl:ff"'"Tils:::,':,'TI:favorableudgmenL"To embarl(on sucnd u'r"llili'11]i^-i"'ii-" "t "ttiU*""i1-r"qli,E *a"*mg rhe.extento which arious ombinalions-01custody,visitation,propefiyolsribution' andsupportawards ::tlli-i.-*"or less "favorable" tos.*t. ii ;, it brief' an intrinsicalll.]1T:"tondeterminatiotr....weoncluderri iiir6i's+

g doesnot apply o ploposedstipulateddissolutionudgments

Mother'srseofORCP54Eina dissolutionases conirsing Moreconcemings

Mother's introductionof settlement egotiationsnto acourtdocumgot Evidenaeof

settlementffels s generallynadnissibleoprove hevalidityor nvalidityofa claimOEC

404. Motherclaimsher settlement emands "reasonable" nd urtherclaims hatFatherhas

refi.rsado "entefiainanykind of comprolnise r settlement f any ssues" By introducing"sxE2tile"evidence fher senlementdemand' nd mplymg publlcly srar du

Motherhasjustwaivedany ghtto keopheactualelmsofher settlementemand

co!fidential.However, atherwill provideMotherwiththebenefit fthe doubtat his imo

andwill not reveal heactual erms hatMotherhasdemandedn settlement Fathe!will

simplystate hathedoesnotbelieve t is ust andequitableoprovidespousal uppoft o the

person ebelievessresponsibleor thedisappearcncefhis son'

l011

1314l l

161 1

181920

24

Datedhis ? daY fNovember'010'

GEARINCRACKNERANDENGEL LP

-7/< -/D v/ - -= ' .=rrLauraE. Rackner.UStl 64Jz'uBrettE.Engel,OSB952578OfAttomeYsor Petitioner

6E^d6 fiicrM avca Ll.P'"TTtrff8-%T'cwHoNE (s03) 2 en6?ase9 - PETITIONER'SRESPONSE


10/10

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

l. Brett Ensel, do hercby certify that I serveda true copy of the foregoing Response r''itii'ris:il'?tliu#;ailren'ewcH, unomevsf ecordorRespondent'sollows:

PeterBunchAttomeYat Law808SWThirdAvenueSuite570Podland,Oregon 9'1204-2428Faxr 503) 61-1559

StephenHouzeAttomeyat Law1211SWFifthAvenueSuite1240Poltland,Orcgon97204Faxt 503)299'6428

-by mairingurl,rue,ndollect"Pf,-h:i::I.'l S-:ifi:i:*iT:,lrXi'l5T'iiiltv ma''rs d ru', """ ** *.*,;;i"his/arehe astknownofficeaddress(es)

f the-nvelope,o thJaadress(eghownabov 1"-,{ nr6d^hnn rhedatenveloDeo ncauure*'"" -'"'"" ""'' si"*io'iui s"ti"" utpottland' regon n hedateperson(s),nddepositedith heUnitedse1irth below.

1 lI t

I41516

18

20, l

-[-by causingaril,*",Td::'f:I:iv"j:::T:'rni:$"lerivcred to he ersonG)tthepelson's(s')astkno\lnaclclresslste(

","*iJ":"*11?,#l:,,'::";1i1Hil;"J,1flT:"i':[;iTil-lii"i"1f'il'"il?ilt:on hedate et orthbelow.;r"*,i"g'lffifi'Jj:T;Ji*,"ffi"*1H'"H','j,"4fffi::l1t'lt1"?:"1'f;set orthbelow. The eceivingu* r*iin" *^ operatingt the imeof servicend hetransmissionas roperlyompleted'Datedhis ? daY f November,010'

GEARINGTACKNER NDENGELLLP

kBrettE.Engel,OSB952578OfAttomeysor Petitionercamc, tuc&w 6 D{6aLLP

ftEPtsde 60, 2 ei 16

kaine horman wants terri horman to testify

Documents