Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Has K lost his license, or has been disbarred, to practice law wherever for admitting to blackmail? Kinda wish DarthJ were here to provide clarity on the legal issues and terminology surrounding K's actions...

- Doc

[_AmyJo]

Has anyone seen the divorce decree, and would there be any sort of summary judgement against the ex-wife for absconding with the children? In other words, could custody have been awarded to K because his ex took the kids out of school, out of their neighborhood, away from their father... Basically upending their lives rather than actually having been molested?

I'm pretty certain a judge woildn't look favorably on that.

- Doc

The kids were the real losers here, big time. They lost their mom, or maybe she wasn't theirs to begin with. She covered for her father, protecting him over her own children. Her dad paid her legal fees so Ron didn't have to. Her dad had the wherewithall to help her fight for custody of the children, but after her attorney got caught with Jean lying on court documents they both fled like drowning rats.

I don't believe the molestation was an issue in the divorce proceedings per se, because it wasn't the reason/s Jean was using as to why she was divorcing her husband. She came up with all these other pharcy charges instead that may or may not have been founded and deflected all attention away from her father and any vestige of doubt as to his honor wasn't an issue or it didn't get to become an issue with the courts in the divorce.

Her dad helped instigate the divorce however, by his paying for her crooked attorney, and what followed.

[_AmyJo]

Has K lost his license, or has been disbarred, to practice law wherever for admitting to blackmail? Kinda wish DarthJ were here to provide clarity on the legal issues and terminology surrounding K's actions...

- Doc

K is not an attorney.

What he did was cut a backroom deal so the attorney for Jean Mickelson didn't face disbarment.

That wasn't blackmail per se. It's done every day in courthouses across the country. It's called plea agreeing, bargaining, etc.

It's a good old boys club like a country club with lawyers. They bandy together and when a member of the public files a complaint against one they rally to the aid. It's only the worst egregious forms of conduct that cause a lawyer to get disbarred, suspended. Unless it's done to retaliate against someone out of spite or professional jealousy - you see that sometimes in highly successful personal injury attorneys for instance. They'll go at one another because they're competing for the same clientele.

What Jean's lawyer did was despicable, but the Utah Bar Association turned a blind eye when Ron reported her misconduct. She still cut a deal with him to let him have the kids, before he filed his complaint with the Bar Association.

That's in some of what he's already released to the public.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ah. He's not a lawyer. Got it.

- Doc

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Ah. He's not a lawyer. Got it.

- Doc

Sock Puppet is an attorney. Maybe he can add his perspective here?

I have a hard time even reading about all of this. The circumstances are so sad.

[_Mary]

I should add also, that the brother's account of his meeting with Micklesen and his SP indicates that Micklesen was not above using his church office to threaten members on personal matters and to call their loyalty into question.

So, if anyone is a corrupt, vindictive, controlling a**hole here, it is Micklesen imho.

Who provided that information?

In fact, who is providing all the information?

- Doc

Doc. Haven't read the updated comments here but Karren's brother's sworn affidavit is on file and came with the latest release.

It makes for an interesting but sobering short read.

[_Rosebud]

Her daddy Warbuckles paid for her attorney, so the attorney was in daddy's pockets too.

Why didn't he/daughter find another attorney to fight tooth and nail for her children? Why?

Because it was his self-interest he was protecting. Not hers, or her children's.

Possible. If so, the ex-wife is/was the pawn in the men's fight. (And remember: based on what we know, Karren took all the money so she couldn't pay for her own attorney. Karren forced her to choose which man to cling to.)

But we don't have proof. This is speculation. Speculation is speculation, nothing more.

All we have proof of, the way I see it at this point, is that Karren was/is an abusive partner/ex-partner and that Mormons bow to authority. We already knew the latter. No news.

[_Rosebud]

Who provided that information?

In fact, who is providing all the information?

- Doc

Doc. Haven't read the updated comments here but Karren's brother's sworn affidavit is on file and came with the latest release.

It makes for an interesting but sobering short read.

Mary, Karren's brother's affidavit is part of the ex-wife's plea to help her gain temporary orders. It's not a random affidavit. Why did the ex-wife need temporary orders in the first place? Temporary orders are court orders that force the couple to behave while they work out the details of the divorce decree. Temporary orders are something women need when men take all the money and refuse to leave the home or make it possible for the woman to leave the home. Karren may have been filing his own "affidavits" against his ex-wife, accusing her of being abusive or her father of sexual abuse. We don't know. He hasn't released that and no one else is talking.

Why wasn't Karren cooperating with the divorce? He is obligated, as a father, to act in the best interests of his children. He did not own his wife. If Karren had complied with the divorce, none of this would have happened. Karren believes he was a victim of the divorce. He repeats that again and again. Well, he wasn't. Marriage is a choice. He can't be a victim of a divorce because adults don't have to stay in relationships they don't want to stay in. (I guess the victim of divorce argument works in Mormon circles sometimes. Karren is definitely showing his Mormon biases.)

If Karren was terrified for his children's safety while in the care of their mother or his ex-FIL, why didn't he act to protect them before his ex-wife filed? Instead, he says that the divorce was a surprise. His story just doesn't add up.

[Schreech]

Rosebud, not talking about the brother in law, but Ron's own brother. Ron asked for this not Jean.

Am on a mobile, will get the link later.

[_Chap]

Karren believes he was a victim of the divorce. He repeats that again and again. Well, he wasn't. Marriage is a choice. He can't be a victim of a divorce because adults don't have to stay in relationships they don't want to stay in. (I guess the victim of divorce argument works in Mormon circles sometimes. Karren is definitely showing his Mormon biases.)

You are of course quite right in that no-one is obliged, morally or legally, to remain married to someone else against their will.

One the other hand, the circumstances of the divorce and the demands made by the spouse initiating the divorce may under some circumstances lead to a reasonable sense of grievance on the part of the divorced partner. Would you not agree that the person being divorced in the following two cases might reasonably feel at least some sense of victimhood?

(a) A wife works for years to support and help her husband build up his business, of which he remains the sole owner. When they are both in their fifties, he announces that the marriage is over, and he wants to marry his new girlfriend, a nubile 22 year old. He has previously done his best to render the assets of his business difficult of access, and goes into court ready to swear that his wife's help in his business life was of the most minimal kind, with the aim of ensuring that she gets the smallest possible financial settlement.

(b) A man with young children, a stay at home wife and a job that demands long hours has managed to buy a house out of his not very large income. His wife is bored by her life, starts an affair with a new boyfriend, and then says she wants a divorce. There is not enough money for him to buy another house. The wife seeks and obtains principal custody of the children and the right to remain in the house, and her boyfriend moves in as the husband moves out. Meanwhile, the husband has to live in a rented room while paying much of his income to maintain his wife and kids, knowing that the boyfriend is in part benefiting from living in the house he worked to buy.

No doubt, of course, there are some divorces where both partners behave fairly and reasonably throughout, and neither gives the other reasonable cause for complaint. But by the nature of divorce, people who are by nature fair and reasonable tend not to be involved in the process so often as those who are, frankly not.

Without arguing the facts of the case discussed in this thread, I suggest that we cannot simply rule out as a matter of principle (which is what you seem to want to do) that one of the partners might have a sense of victimhood that might be to some extent legitimate.