Portland, Or– Following one of the largest organized search weekends on Sauvie Island since Kyron Horman, 8,was abducted from Skyline School on June 4, his step-mother and father squared off in family court. Kaine Horman, Kyron’s father, arrived with his attorney, Laura Rackner.

Kaine’s estranged wife Terri Horman, arrived with her criminal defense attorney; Stephen Houze and her family law attorney Peter Bunch.

Mr. Horman appeared in a crisp-white dress shirt and tie, and Ms. Moulton-Horman wore an eggplant hued suit with a long skirt.

Cameras were banned in the downtown Multnomah County courtroom; however, there were apparently several hidden “nests” as the tweets were flying real-time.

Peter Bunch, counsel to Terri Horman, is adamant his client is the subject of more than one criminal investigation:

“The state has the ability to obtain every single bit of information that is produced in this case and that is outside the bounds of what it could do were this proceeding not occurring,” Bunch said in court.

“It is fundamentally unfair for Kitty (Kiara) and for Miss Horman for me to be hamstrung in the divorce case for the information I have compared to what they have.” “The publicity that’s going on is not being driven by Ms. Horman, it’s being driven by Mr. Horman, when he tells national media there’s no doubt Ms. Horman is involved.” “If Mr. Horman is really interested in what‘s best for the child, then Mr. Horman wouldn’t object to any visitation by this child’s mother.” “We’ll concede, Mr. Horman can have the house, right now. Mrs. Horman is going to lose money…”

Terri Horman has not been declared a suspect in either Kyron Horman’s disappearance or the alleged murder for hire plot against Kaine Horman. She is however, seeking access to all of her 911 calls dating back to the DAY AFTER CHRISTMAS.

While this timeline coincides with accusations by Kaine Horman in his filings that Terri attempted to arrange to have him murdered, this is the first public revelation of that call. Bunch went on to say that Rackner and Kaine Horman, who are parties to case sensitive criminal investigation materials involving Terri, are at a supreme advantage to his client who should only be expected to plead her protections under the 5th amendment as a result.

After heated debate by those sides, we learned: Rudy Sanchez, the infamous landscaper/hitman for hire, has an alias, and has eluded service in the civil matter to date, although he appears to have cooperated. Bunch proclaims Sanchez is unlocatable as a result of MCSO unwillingness to share discovery of a witness in the civil case ( blink holds hands over eyes).

Michael Cook, a/k/a sexter king, waited all afternoon via subpoena by Rackner, but was only interviewed by the press. He states he cut ties with both Terri and Kaine days before he was outed for invasive scapular intrusions. No word on that healing process.

Terri Horman had her own personal black Friday this year.

She called 911 THE DAY AFTER CHRISTMAS. Regular contributors and readers of blinkoncrime.com doubt she had sale flyer questions.

Judge Keith Meisenheimer, was sensitive to Kaine and Kyron’s ‘round the clock nightmare, but feels some time may allow things to shake out. January 6, 2011 to be exact.

Following this afternoon’s legal melee, blinkoncrime.com Editor In Chief asked prominent Washington State Family Law Attorney, Lea Conner, to weigh in:

Although I preface my comments with the fact that I practice family law in Washington State and not in Oregon, I am an Oregon native that has followed this case closely.

I’m a bit perplexed by Peter Bunch’s reasoning that if the court were to abate the dissolution, he would respond by filing a motion to modify the restraining order so that Terri Horman could have visitation with the parties’ daughter. Essentially, Mr. Bunch is arguing that the abatement would prejudice his client’s ability to parent her child. My understanding of the Multnomah County local rules is that an abatement means that the entire case is halted. Neither party can bring a motion before the court, nor can the court hear argument or make any ruling on motions.

It was also interesting to hear Mr. Bunch argue that proceeding with the divorce would violate Ms. Horman’s right against self-incrimination in the disappearance of her stepson. This is the first time that Terri Horman has publicly acknowledged any self-incrimination issues. In her motion for abatement, Ms. Horman, through counsel, argued that the ongoing investigation into Kyron Horman’s disappearance had made it “virtually impossible…to proceed with divorce-related issues in an effective an[d] orderly fashion[.]” Were Mr. Bunch to bring a motion to allow visitation, Mr. Horman would no doubt argue that Ms. Horman’s actions demonstrate that Ms Horman or someone she knew was responsible for Kyron Horman’s disappearance, and that her behavior since Kyron’s disappearance shows that she is unstable and poses a threat to their daughter’s safety.

I do not believe Mr. Horman would raise Ms. Horman’s 2005 convictions for DUI and reckless endangerment, as not only later chose to have a child with Ms. Horman since that time, he also left both of his children in her care for extended periods while he was at work. Under those facts, it would be hard to conclude that Mr. Horman believed Ms. Horman posed a threat to their daughter. The judge’s comment that “[e]ventually, Terri will have to decide whether or not to plead the fifth, regardless of the timing of the proceedings,” seems to indicate that the judge may not be willing to hold the action in abatement past the January 6, 2011, hearing.

I’m also interested in Mr. Bunch’s comment that “Rudy Sanchez” is an alias. If that’s true, then what is Rudy Sanchez’ real name, and how exactly did he first come in contact with Terri Horman?

It was also strange to learn that Michael Cook was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing. I’m curious if there were others scheduled to testify as well. I cannot speak to how the Oregon court operates in practice. However, I note that each party provided written affidavits in support of their respective motions.

Is there some reason that Mr. Cook’s statement could only be presented in oral testimony?

I’m not sure I understand Mr. Bunch’s logic in saying “If this is not abated we will not get reciprocal discovery.”

The state is not a party to a dissolution action. In a dissolution action, the parties can seek discovery from each other, and depending on the court rules, from third parties as well.

I’m not sure why Mr. Bunch would have the impression that there would be reciprocal discovery with a third party in a dissolution action, especially when that third party is law enforcement.

There’s a disconnect between Mr. Bunch’s argument that Ms. Horman cannot defend herself because she would incriminate herself in the disappearance of her stepson, and his statement that “If Mr. Horman is really interested in what‘s best for the child, then Mr. Horman wouldn’t object to any visitation by this child’s mother.”

The apparent logic is that Ms. Horman admits that if she speaks, she will incriminate herself in some as-yet-to-be-named crime related to Kyron’s disappearance, yet Mr. Horman is now supposed to trust her to care for his other child, because that’s so obviously in their daughter’s best interest.

Check back to blinkoncrime.com for updates.

Madeline Tanner, contributor and copy editor, www.blinkoncrime.com

Lea Connor, Esq., legal analyst, www.blinkoncrime.com

Images By Klaasend