Advertisement
Advertisement
A photo of Esther B. Kahut
Add photo

Esther B. Kahut 1944 - 2014

Esther Benita (Ramirez - Munoz) Kahut was born on April 1, 1944 in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon United States, and died at age 70 years old on October 22, 2014 in Portland. Family, friend, or fan, this family history biography is for you to remember Esther B. Kahut.
Esther Benita (Ramirez - Munoz) Kahut
April 1, 1944
Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, United States
October 22, 2014
Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, United States
Female
Looking for another Esther Munoz?
ADVERTISEMENT BY ANCESTRY.COM
This page exists for YOU
and everyone who remembers Esther.
Share what you know,
even ask what you wish you knew.
Invite others to do the same,
but don't worry if you can't...
Someone, somewhere will find this page,
and we'll notify you when they do.

Esther Benita (Ramirez - Munoz) Kahut's History: 1944 - 2014

Uncover new discoveries and connections today by sharing about people & moments from yesterday.
  • Introduction

    Esther Benita (Ramirez - Munoz) Kahut was born on April 1st, 1944 in Portland, Oregon to Benito A. Munoz (1914 - 1979) and Victoria Ramirez - Munoz (1926 - 2007). Her father was born in Texas and her mother was born in Minnesota. Esther had eight siblings: six brothers, including Beninito, David, John, Clyde, and Roy Munoz, and two sisters. Esther was married twice, the first time to Terrence Lee Gayken, born 1943, on April 10th, 1962. After having four children, they divorced on October 30th, 1968. Her second marriage was on July 19th, 1969 and they had five children; three sons and two daughters. Esther died on October 22nd, 2014 in Portland, Oregon at the age of 70. News reports indicate that Esther Kahut had a significant legal history suggesting involvement in criminal activity, particularly theft. To read about her criminal history see Fraud Sentencing and also see an account of her court records and appeals at Esther's Criminal Background. Another account of her appeal is at United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Esther B. Kahut, Defendant-.
  • 04/1
    1944

    Birthday

    April 1, 1944
    Birthdate
    Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon United States
    Birthplace
  • Ethnicity & Family History

    Esther's maiden surnames are of Latino heritage. Her paternal grandfather Nickles Munoz was born around 1897 in Jerez, Zacatecas and her maternal grandfather Benigno Ramirez (February 12th 1904-July 20th 1981) was born in Guadalupe New Mexico, maternal grandmother Prudencia Trujillo (1907-1930) was born in New Mexico, and her maternal great-grandfather was born in Matamoros, Mexico.
  • Nationality & Locations

    Esther is known to have lived in Clackamas County, Oregon City, Boring, and Canby, Oregon. she had also lived in Vancouver, Washington and Dublin, California.
  • Professional Career

    While Esther seems to have turned to crime in her adult life (see Esther's Criminal Background), she came from a hard-working family. Her maternal grandfather worked as a car mechanic for the railroad and her maternal grandmother cleaned cars for the railroad. He father did labor work as a contractor.
  • Personal Life & Family

    Esther Ramirez married Terence Lee Gayken on April 10th, 1962 in Vancouver, Washington. They divorced on October 30th, 1968 in Oregon. Esther and Terence had one son. Esther B. Gayken then married James J. Kahut on July 19th, 1969 in Washoe County, Nevada.
  • 10/22
    2014

    Death

    October 22, 2014
    Death date
    Unknown
    Cause of death
    Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon United States
    Death location
  • share
    Memories
    below
Advertisement
Advertisement

3 Memories, Stories & Photos about Esther

Esther's Criminal Background
Esther B Kahut was indicted for robbery in the first degree in early 1983. The district attorney agreed to drop pending theft charges against her if she would supply information leading to the prosecution of another individual. According to the response to her 1984 appeal, "Following that agreement, defendant provided police with some information. " Apparently, the information was not sufficient to satisfy her obligation under the agreement. In March, 1983, the defendant informed Goodale, her police contact, that the original suspect's brother and another man were planning to steal weapons from a National Guard Armory. The district attorney told the defendant that her obligations under the agreement would be satisfied if she provided information leading to the prosecution of them.

Court record:

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case: Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.

Wayne Mackeson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Desmond Connall, P.C., Portland.

RICHARDSON, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was indicted for robbery in the first degree. ORS 164.415. She moved to suppress admissions she had made to the police on the ground that they were involuntary. The trial court granted defendant's motion, and the state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). We reverse.

In early 1983, defendant and her then attorney entered into an agreement with the Multnomah County District Attorney's office and the Portland Police Bureau. The district attorney agreed to drop pending theft charges against defendant if she would supply information leading to the prosecution of a certain individual.

The only evidence of the terms of that original agreement is the attorney's testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress. The two persons from the district attorney's office with whom defendant made the agreement did not testify, nor did defendant. According to the attorney, defendant was to "provide information that would allow putting together a case for the prosecution of [the suspect]." He testified that at that time defendant was not offered immunity from prosecution for future crimes.

Following that agreement, defendant provided police with some information. Apparently, it was not sufficient to satisfy her obligation under the agreement. In March, 1983, defendant informed Goodale, her police contact, that the original suspect's brother and another man were planning to steal weapons from a National Guard Armory. The district attorney told defendant that her obligations under the agreement would be satisfied if she provided information leading to the prosecution of them.

At that point, defendant asked about the boundaries of acceptable conduct as an informant. According to the attorney, Goodale advised defendant that "so long as these people contact you and you are just passing along information [and] you don't actually participate in a crime, it's all right." Goodale testified that he probably told defendant that "she couldn't be directly involved in a crime" and, possibly, that she could not initiate a crime. He testified that he told her that she could tell the two men that she had found a buyer (the police) for the weapons. He also testified that he never gave defendant any basis for an impression that she was immune from prosecution for future criminal conduct. The record does not reveal what became of the planned robbery.

On April 5, 1983, defendant contacted Goodale and informed him that she was aware of a different robbery that had been committed that evening by the original suspect's brother and the other man. She met with Goodale throughout the night relating information about the robbery. During the course of those discussions she admitted that before the robbery she had made a phone call to the victim to make sure that a diamond ring advertised by the victim was still on the premises, that her car had been used in the robbery and that she had hidden one of the men in a motel after the robbery. Her discussions with Goodale took place over the phone and in Goodale's car. She was free to leave at all times. She was not advised of her Miranda rights, nor was she arrested that night. After her admissions, Goodale did not inform her that she had become a suspect in the robbery.

Defendant was subsequently indicted for her participation in the robbery. The trial court granted her motion to suppress her statements to Goodale on the ground that they were induced by an express or implied promise that the statements would not be used against her."

Esther has been involved in multiple crimes in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The January 28 1994 Statesman Journal, Salem Oregon, reported that 5 people had been charged in a conspiracy to strip and 83 year old former hockey player of his life's savings.

Esther, accused of being the ringleader, was arraigned in federal court on 22 charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and bank fraud. Other suspects arraigned were Lowell C. Smotherman, Darlene A. Armenta, and Sandra L. Bacos. The 5th suspect, Michael Lee Fox was a fugitive.

They allegedly forged documents that gave them power of attorney for Aubrey Webster, who played hockey for the Philadelphia Flyers and the Montreal Maroons. They took nearly $16,000 from his bank accounts and gained ownership of his Portland OR home and a rental property worth more than $260,000.

In September 1994, Esther was sentenced to nearly 4 years in federal prison.

In June 1995, Esther appealed the sentence but the court upheld the original decision.

- Multiple news reports and court records.
Comments
Leave a comment
The simple act of leaving a comment shows you care.
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Esther B. Kahut, Defendant-
, , ,appellant, 59 F.3d 176 (9th Cir. 1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 59 F.3d 176 (9th Cir. 1995)

Submitted June 6, 1995. *Decided June 12, 1995
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Esther B. Kahut appeals her conviction for conspiracy and mail fraud. Kahut argues the district court erred by denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea and by failing to recuse itself. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Kahut moved to withdraw her plea on the day of sentencing and after a co-defendant had been sentenced. She was afraid of what the court might to do her and wanted a chance to tell her side of the story. The district court concluded the motion was untimely and that Kahut was attempting to delay sentencing.

Before sentencing, the district court may allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea by showing a fair and just reason. United States v. Ramos, 923 F.2d 1346, 1358 (9th Cir. 1991). After a co-defendant has been sentenced, however, a defendant must show that a manifest injustice would result. Id. We review for abuse of discretion. Id. Our paramount focus is the thoroughness of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 inquiry. United States v. Cook, 487 F.2d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 1973).

We discern no error in the district court's refusal to allow Kahut to withdraw her plea. See Ramos, 923 F.3d 1346. The plea colloquoy was complete and established that Kahut's plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. See United States v. Rios-Ortiz, 830 F.2d 1067, 1070 (9th Cir. 1987); Cook, 487 F.2d at 966.1

We reject Kahut's argument that the court should have sua sponte recused itself from sentencing her after stating that Kahut constantly manipulated the system because the comment, derived from knowledge of the proceedings, did not "display a deep-seated ... antogonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994).

AFFIRMED.


*
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

Counsel for Kahut included the presentence report in the excerpt of record. The court reminds counsel that presentence reports contain confidential information and should be filed under seal as specified in Ninth Circuit Rule 30-1.7


**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3


1
At the change of plea hearing, the district court cautioned Kahut that it was not bound by the sentence recommended in her plea agreement. The court later notified Kahut that it was considering an upward departure and offered her the opportunity to withdraw her plea. After meeting with the attorneys, however, the court decided not to depart. At sentencing, the court followed the recommended sentence in the plea agreement. Cf. United States v. Kennell, 15 F.3d 134 (9th Cir. 1994) (allowing defendant to withdraw plea when district court failed to warn defendant that a type (B) plea agreement could not be withdrawn and imposed a higher sentence than recommended in plea agreement)
Comments
Leave a comment
The simple act of leaving a comment shows you care.
Fraud Sentencing
PORTLAND (AP) - A woman was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison for selling an 84-year-old man's home and triplex without his permission and taking about $16,000 from his bank and credit union accounts.

Esther B. Kahut and others forged documents to get access to Aubrey Webster's mail, drain his accounts and sell his property. They sold his home, assessed at about $100,000 for $40,000. They sold his triplex, valued at more than $160,000, for another $40,000.

-Albany Democrat-Herald (Albany, Oregon) Friday, September 9, 1994 on page 5.
Comments
Leave a comment
The simple act of leaving a comment shows you care.
Loading...one moment please loading spinner
Be the 1st to share and we'll let you know when others do the same.
ADVERTISEMENT BY ANCESTRY.COM
Advertisement

Esther Ramirez - Munoz's Family Tree & Friends

Esther Ramirez - Munoz's Family Tree

Parent
Parent
Partner
Child
Sibling
Advertisement
Advertisement
Friendships

Esther's Friends

Friends of Esther Friends can be as close as family. Add Esther's family friends, and her friends from childhood through adulthood.
Advertisement
Advertisement
1 Follower & Sources
ADVERTISEMENT BY ANCESTRY.COM
Advertisement
Other Biographies

Other Esther Munoz Biographies

Other Munoz Family Biographies

Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top