Terri Horman Hates Trespassers

Terri Horman, former step parent of missing Kyron Horman, the second grader who disappeared from his school in Portland, Oregon, in June of 2010, hates it when people trespass, make threats, and use Facebook and other internet sites for stalking and passing threats to other parties. (Okay; I did not really say that with a straight face. Please try not to fall backwards out of your chair, laughing) The eye-rolley won't do here, we would need an emoticon that expresses laughing so hard one's face freezes into a permanent grin coupled with coffee all over one's keyboard!

In addition to giving the police half a dozen different stories about what happened on the morning that Kyron disappeared, Terri Horman lied during two polygraphs, and has been conspicuously absent during every search and vigil for Kyron. Until several days ago, she and her parents, with whom she resides, have never even bothered to put up a poster with Kyron's picture and contact information of law enforcement on their property. They did, however; post a "no trespassing" sign on a tree near their home some time during late November, after a vigil was held in Roseburg, and Kyron's name was written in the street in sidewalk chalk in front of their home. Last week, a picture of Kyron was added, and pictures of three other individuals, completely unconnected to the case, have also been posted.

The local media followed the case, and did several stories on the pictures in front of the Moulton/Horman home. The upshot of the confusing pictures is this: those women whose pictures are posted outside of Terri's parents' house are Facebook users who have joined the Roseburg Supports Kyron Horman page. They wanted to see if Kyron had been found, and keep up with developments in the case. This has been interpreted by Terri Horman and her parents, Carol and Larry Moulton, as a "threat", and pictures of the women whose nefarious deed of clicking "like" on a Facebook page dedicated to finding a missing child is plastered outside, in front of their house.

Trespassing in the real world is handled by local courts. Had anyone actually trespassed on the Moultons' property, law enforcement could have served them with an order to stop trespassing. This would enable an arrest in the event that the individual named on the order actually trespassed on a future date. It's quite likely that Terri Horman and her parents actually complained to police because their neighbors joined a Facebook page they didn't like, and quite likely that they tried to convince the local court to serve formal "no trespass" orders for that reason. In such an instance, the court would naturally decline, because, as earlier stated, this is the real world, not the Moultons' fantasy-land. After finding out that Oregon does not have a Facebook Police Unit, the Moultons, rather than simply sending letters to the social media users they do not personally like, put pictures of them in front of their house. Now I need an eye-rolley.

Frivolous Threats

"Hello? Clerk of the Circuit Court? I got away with a serious crime against a child several years ago. I did it at the school, where I work. All my friends covered for me, and I still have my job, but the child's mother still hates my guts and won't stop advocating for student safety in Kansas public schools and calling me names! Can I sure her?"

Does that sound totally ridicules to the reader? It seems, kinda, sorta ridicules to the writer, too. It relates to a threat that was sent anonymously to yours truly concerning the initial police reports, complaints to the school board and superintendent of the Vermillion school district of USD 380, all of the letters and correspondence to and from various organizations specializing in child safety in schools, and letters to and from the NCMEC that were drafted after a guidance counselor/cross country coach at Frankfort High School in Kansas "lost" a female freshman student during cross country practice and went home and forgot about her. Most people who read the story understand why it was very, very unsafe for a teacher to remove students from the school and transport them to a rural location with no supervision and leave them to their own devices. Most people who read about the incident are also completely shocked that a teacher would fail to alert a child's parents and law enforcement after losing a child this way. But not Frankfort, Kansas. The good, Christian frankfurters of the teeming metropolis of Frankfort think that the young girl who was abandoned by the teacher was actually at fault for the abuse she suffered, and have rallied around the abuser! Now, in the wake of the revelation that Hailey Owens was kidnapped, ironically by an athletic coach in her Missouri school district, the frankfurters are out in force to try to discourage any discussion of their own dangerously blundering guidance counselor/cross country coach. Here's a recent dumbass comment made by someone desperately in need of a cranial/rectal realignment:

"Let's be clear here, if anyone is in a position to be sued, it is you. For slander. Most of this post is a lie. Your daughter wasn't running alone. The cross country kids have always been dropped off in a group. She at least started with the other kids. She wasn't on some desolate road. Tom has always dropped the kids off in the same area, and there are TONS of houses along the way."

Slander has a very specific legal definition, and making a police report and subsequent complaint to the appropriate organizations upon finding one's self or one's child the victim of a crime does not fall within it's definition. When I first opened my mouth, I was looking for a missing child. The reason my child was missing happened to be the terrible conduct of a teacher I had falsely been led to trust. After she was found, I complained to the superintendent. Then I did research on the subject of missing children, wrote to some very educated experts, and brought the information to a school board meeting. While all this makes the frankfurter guidance counselor/cross country coach look very bad indeed, it is not slander. Somewhere during this course of events, our bumbling coach admitted default. This was related to yours truly by the superintendent, who also related that the coach was "disciplined" for his actions. This admission of default makes a case of slander very difficult for an irresponsible coach to prove. Especially when I still have every letter, document, and piece of correspondence in my possession. Since the "discipline" received by the coach did not include the loss of his job, he incurred no damages over his negligence or my discussion of the same, which brings me to the other part of slander; losses. Unless the creep in question loses something tangible as a result of my reaction to this incident, he has no case against me. I also never signed any agreement guaranteeing my silence, so it is my right to discuss this matter anywhere I choose.

What do you suppose would happen if Coach Dumbass actually tried to take me to court? Do you think I would simply say, "Yes, your honor! I talked about the good coach! I know it's wrong to warn students to be careful, but I love children, so I did it anyways! I know my daughter shouldn't matter more to me than Frankfort's silly-assed little game of politics, but I can't get over loving her as much I loved her when I lived in other places, and when she was born! I concede! I concede!" If you really think I am not going to put on a defense if someone attacks me that way, think again. Seriously. The jury would probably want to know why I am so very pissed off at the school. The court would very likely skip the formality of asking Coach Dumbass if he really did as I've alleged, because he already admitted that he has, and there are witnesses, including, but not limited to my daughter. The fact that everything happened pretty much as I have stated, except that when I initially attempted to map out where my child was abandoned and where the people she and I didn't know found her, I was fuzzy on the details because I was unfamiliar with the area. That's acceptable, and I explained it to everyone involved at the time. Everything I have stated here is true.

How would a jury, and everyone involved in court proceedings feel about hearing that a child had been lost, and Frankfort High School had no personnel willing to make appropriate efforts to find her? (Driving around in one's personal vehicle does NOT constitute appropriate efforts, either, frankfurter!) There may be people within earshot who are mandated reporters of child abuse, and this was certainly abuse. Frankfort School may be sent scrambling, once again, to hide all documents related to this incident while social workers question Coach Dumbass's fitness to be responsible for children. Yippee.

People who have never heard about the whole thing would also hear about it. We all know how important it is for frankfurters to appear wonderful in the eyes of other frankfurters. The coach would have to admit that while he hates the fact that I am pissed off at him and call him names, he has given me ample reason. And this brings me to the last point I am going to make in this post: Tom's only complaint about me is that I am pissed off at him and I call him names. He hasn't lost a damn thing because of anything I have said or done, and therefore; has no case against me. No judge is going to want to listen to a whine from someone like Coach Dumbass that boils down to a desire to make a pissed off parent stop being pissed off at him and calling him names. This would be a classic example of a...........drum roll...........frivolous lawsuit. And if you take a frivolous lawsuit to court in Kansas, you end up responsible for court costs and everyone's legal fees. Just ask Laura McNish.

I'll go ahead and post in the future about some things that should have happened after I made my initial complaints that are not, and never were, slander. I will also delve into some discussion about the claim that there are "tons of houses" in rural Northeast Kansas. Keep in mind that parents who love their children generally do not like schools that employ guidance counselors who "lose" children in unspecified places. It's considered dangerous and uncool. Definitely not the avant-garde among educational professionals.

Whistle Blowing The Old Fashioned Way

Whistle blowing. A fun, new concept that really shouldn't represent a necessity. But yet, it does. What a shame that we do not teach history well enough in our public schools to avoid that other necessity of repeating history when we fail to learn an important lesson the first time. Or the second, third, or fourth time, as the case may be.

The subject of the expectation of privacy, and respect for the same, has been in the spotlight many times in American history. We have local and federal laws protecting privacy, and our nation's Constitution addresses it, as well. Verdicts in capital murder cases have been overturned because of governmental abuses of citizens' rights to privacy. A republican president even resigned as a result of the way his administration treated the rights of others to privacy. Anyone remember Watergate? So why was it necessary for Edward Snowden to remind the general public that we still have not learned a damn thing from our own history?

Back in the day, before the internet, we got things done the old fashioned way. A very recently published book titled The Burglary describes the actions of John and Bonnie Raines, and Keith Forsythe whistleblowing without the internet. J. Edgar Hoover, the head honcho of the FBI in 1971, was already notorious for blackmailing and threatening others. Despite American law and the Constitution, he established and sanctioned government practices of blatantly ignoring the rights of American citizens. Digging up dirt and using personal information to which he had no legal right was his most typical tool of blackmail, and it was his policy to encourage all law enforcement agencies to violate the law this way. Granted, he was FBI, not state or local police departments, but we cannot forget what rolls downhill.

Bonnie Raines cased the FBI building in Media, Pennsylvania, and one night, she and her cohorts broke in and stole a bunch of classified documents which outlined directives to snoop illegally, blackmail, threaten, and bypass the rights of anyone and everyone who found themselves at cross purposes with the government, as it concerned J. Edgar Hoover. After finding pertinent bits and pieces of information in their loot, the group anonymously gave it to a journalist for the Washington Post. The attorney general serving at the time asked the Post not to publish this information, and J. Edgar Hoover was furious.......yet, the show went on. Much of the privacy and many of the rights connected to privacy enjoyed by Americans today, along with the ability to question authority from the individual standpoint owes to this anonymous action and risk, taken by these three individuals. J. Edgar Hoover sought to become more powerful than the Truth, but alas! He was unsuccessful. The burglars were never caught, and their identities never came to light until their book was published. What did come to light was the corruption that had engulfed and swallowed all branches of the government at the time.

What isn't known is whether or not J. Edgar Hoover ever stopped to consider the irony of this particular burglary taking place in a town called "Media".

Marysville Kansas Cop Was Wrong To Make Threats

Yesterday, I finally had an opportunity to speak with an attorney about this encounter, which I had on Monday, with a policeman in Marysville, Kansas. The cop had just arrested a young woman, and while she was waiting for him to do his coply duties of figuring out which crime she had probably not committed but with which he could yet charge her, she told me her children had been left alone as a result of her arrest. She asked me if I would call her mother on my cell phone and ask her to babysit, and the cop manhandled me and threatened to arrest me when I obliged. As it turns out, there is no crime in the annotated code of Kansas to be found suggesting that it is unlawful for a bystander to telephone a child's grandma to babysit while a parent gets arrested or otherwise hounded by law enforcement. I committed no crime, and any arrest would have been a false arrest. Any subsequent detention would have been false imprisonment. The police officer was making empty, stupid threats.

It was also suggested to me that such ploys are standard procedure at the Marysville Police Station whenever a woman with children is arrested. The goal is to force the mother to choose, when making her phone call, between calling a lawyer, or calling someone to care for her children. The mother will almost always choose someone to care for her children, and with no legal representation, the police are free to harass and bully her for a longer amount of time. Who ultimately pays for this? The children, of course.

Go ahead and continue your tactics, big badass cop. Have you heard of what's been dubbed the "War on Women"? Kansas officials are not looking terribly positive, of late, in any area involving women. How do you think the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center will react to documented instances of women being forced to give up legal representation while in your custody?