Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Rosebud]

Yes. And often, in bad marriages -- marriages that really need to end in divorce -- both partners usually have legitimate grievances. In most cases, I would assume. One partner's actions affect the other partner's actions and vice versa. The man who chose a young girlfriend may have an angry, controlling wife at home. Maybe they're both angry and controlling. Maybe the relationship was toxic and they had both been living alone but together for years. The wife may claim victimhood. The husband may claim victimhood. The new girlfriend may be a predator trying to take the hard earned money --- earned by both parties.

And so the partners must work together as best they can for the benefit of the children and to split the mutual assets fairly. Over time, ideally, anger dissipates and people move on. Each partner accepts what she or he did wrong.

Unless something out of the ordinary like mental health issues or abuse is going on. Often the two go together. Then you see divorces like Karren v. Karren.

Hmm.

I am afraid I do not agree with your idea that divorces are in general symmetrical affairs. In the examples I gave a wife was divorced simply for being too old to be as attractive as her husband wished. So he got a younger girlfriend and dumped her. That happens. And some hardworking and decent men get divorced because their wife feels entitled to a more exciting life than the father of her children, who paid for the house she will continue to live in, and works to support her, can offer. So she moved in her boyfriend and threw him out. That happens too. In such cases the blame borne by the dumped partner may be minimal.

I am also a little puzzled by the assurance we are seeing on this thread about what has happened in the Karren case. We have even seen quite detailed diagnoses of the precise kind of mental disorder from which one of the parties might be suffering. I don't know how people get to be so sure of what is going on, but maybe that is my problem.

Alright. You got me. Agreed.

I do think a lot of divorces are symmetrical. I don't have numbers. I therefore can't use the word "most" as I don't know if it is higher than 50% or not.

As I stated when I shared "high-functioning autism," it is of course a presumption. No arguments there. I can send you copyrighted literature about high-functioning autism and divorce via PM if you're interested, though. This is a pretty classic case. But that doesn't necessarily make it true. I can't and don't know.

[Schreech]

Then why was the divorce a surprise?

Probably because Ron wasn't aware enough of his wife's problems with him specifically, probably because they were temple married and Ron didn't see divorce as an option. I don't know..

If they let sleeping dogs lie, EDIT: and if abuse did happen, then they were both partially responsible for any abuse that happened to any of the kids after the phone call and before the divorce. The time to bring this problem up was before a custody battle.

Well, given that K... herself didn't come forward with specific details until she was 12 (after the divorce), the only thing Ron can go on is gut feeling that something strange had happened, given Mickelsen's conduct. When Micklesen, according to Ron, asks about the state of the marriage, Ron details some of the pieces he has been putting together.

Upon sitting down, Elder Mickelsen came right out of the gate asking, “Ron, how are things in your marriage?”  This being an absolute FIRST for Lynn to be broaching this subject, I stated straightforward and forthrightly with the following concepts:
In the last 5 months, J.. has been struggling mentally, experiencing a major emotional meltdown in the preceding October
You (Lynn) were at the center of that meltdown as she continually called you a wicked man
She is upset with how you handled the drilling of her teeth in Columbia—calling you stupid for not seeing through the Columbian Stake President Dentist’s ploy
She is upset with you for not doing anything about her molestation by “the Mexican”
She is upset with you for doing nothing about Dr. Smith’s (alleged) molestation of Karen

Ron tells us that it was at this point he began to suspect that the father had abused her. The manner the divorce was served and her father's control over her, led him to this in my opinion. They had had marriage counselling back in the 90s.

Does this mean Karren was on board with the abuse happening until he wasn't?

No. I think he started connecting his own dots by the way in which the divorce was conducted and given that he only had the rather oblique phonecall from the Mickelsen's to go on. Kylee hadn't yet come forward If I recall correctly.

Oh, I haven't read that. I had gotten the idea in this thread that Karren's brothers affidavit was in support of Karren's ex-wife. I'll have to go look again

The other corroborating evidence is Ron's work colleague (Gonzales) who signed a sworn affidavit that the meeting with Micklesen went ahead, as well as providing a character reference for Ron. That's in the previous release. If true, it shows Micklesen was lying about his account of the event.

[_Res Ipsa]

Karren thinks his FIL planned a surprise divorce behind his back. He thinks he's the victim of the divorce itself.

Did Karren ever raise the issue of molestation prior to his wife leaving him or divorce proceedings? Publicly? Privately? I'm a little unclear if he did or didn't.

- Doc

I think he did, doc, but it's a guess. Here's my thinking: Karren is claiming that the divorce is part of the cover up of the molestation. As far as I can tell, the only evidence is a single phone call that happened before the divorce. So, why is there a need to cover anything up? Unless someone is talking about it -- raising it as an issue -- making accusations. The daughter doesn't say anything until two years later. So why does Karren think there is a cover up?

My guess is he started raising this as an issue before the divorce. That's why Mrs. Mickelson's initial reaction to the daughter two years later is that her father has put it into his head. It's because he's been talking about it for a long time. We already have evidence that, during the divorce, he actively told the children things to try and turn them against their mother. He was held in contempt of court for violating the temporary custody order by keeping the oldest son at home and telling him that he didn't have to follow the order if he didn't want to.

[_Res Ipsa]

I am also a little puzzled by the assurance we are seeing on this thread about what has happened in the Karren case. We have even seen quite detailed diagnoses of the precise kind of mental disorder from which one of the parties might be suffering. I don't know how people get to be so sure of what is going on, but maybe that is my problem.

There is far too much stating of things that Karren says as fact when they are simply claims. There is also some misstating of what Karren actually says.

I've given my opinions on Karren based on running into similar types of men in my legal practice and on some reading about spousal abuse. They are just my opinions. Have you read all the submissions or would like some examples?

[Guest]

Then why was the divorce a surprise?

Probably because Ron wasn't aware enough of his wife's problems with him specifically, probably because they were temple married and Ron didn't see divorce as an option. I don't know..?

I think my problem is that Karren is using the fact that he thinks the divorce was a surprise as evidence that M and S planned it in his absence. He uses the fact that M funded it as further evidence of a conspiracy against him. It looks like he's going to build a case for the conspiracy against his marriage to also be evidence of a bigger child abuse cover up conspiracy. Well, that's hogwash. Wives are allowed to leave jerky husbands and even to want to leave them without their fathers telling them what to do. Karren makes his wife out to be a follower of her father rather than an agent with free will who might not want to be married him. Just the fact that he makes this argument helps me understand why his wife wouldn't want to be married to him. Karren, being unaware of his wife's perspective (a symptom of high-functioning autism, for what it's worth) provides evidence of the reason why his conspiracy theory against his marriage is false. Women tend to prefer men who understand them and how they feel and who don't view them as objects to be acted upon.

I actually believe people work hard to cover up child abuse. I believe they take extreme measures to make sure they don't get caught for crimes. I don't happen to believe that Karren's ex-wife leaving him and not wanting him is very good evidence of a conspiracy and when he tries to link it to a child abuse conspiracy, the whole thing will fall flat.

If they let sleeping dogs lie, EDIT: and if abuse did happen, then they were both partially responsible for any abuse that happened to any of the kids after the phone call and before the divorce. The time to bring this problem up was before a custody battle.

Well, given that ***** (EDIT) herself didn't come forward with specific details until she was 12 (after the divorce), the only thing Ron can go on is gut feeling that something strange had happened, given Mickelsen's conduct. When Micklesen, according to Ron, asks about the state of the marriage, Ron details some of the pieces he has been putting together.

Then, by this logic, Karren wouldn't have brought up the abuse during the divorce, right? Or, if he did bring up the abuse during the divorce, he did all of that arguing for custody over a gut feeling?

Upon sitting down, Elder Mickelsen came right out of the gate asking, “Ron, how are things in your marriage?”  This being an absolute FIRST for Lynn to be broaching this subject, I stated straightforward and forthrightly with the following concepts:
In the last 5 months, Jean has been struggling mentally, experiencing a major emotional meltdown in the preceding October
You (Lynn) were at the center of that meltdown as she continually called you a wicked man
She is upset with how you handled the drilling of her teeth in Columbia—calling you stupid for not seeing through the Columbian Stake President Dentist’s ploy
She is upset with you for not doing anything about her molestation by “the Mexican”
She is upset with you for doing nothing about Dr. Smith’s (alleged) molestation of Karen

Ron tells us that it was at this point he began to suspect that the father had abused her. The manner the divorce was served and her father's control over her, led him to this in my opinion. They had had marriage counselling back in the 90s.

The picture K wants to paint is of a woman whose father used abusive tactics to get her to divorce K. K wants the control he says M had over his ex-wife to be evidence that M abused K's ex-wife and K's daughter. Got it. But telling us all about his perceptions of his ex-wife's weaknesses and life is only providing me more evidence that K was a terrible husband and that his ex-wife had good reasons to divorce him whether or not M had to convince her into doing it. His arguments don't work.

Does this mean Karren was on board with the abuse happening until he wasn't?

No. I think he started connecting his own dots by the way in which the divorce was conducted and given that he only had the rather oblique phonecall from the Mickelsen's to go on. Kylee hadn't yet come forward If I recall correctly.

So we need to know when he started making abuse allegations against M. The timing of his allegations is important. If he made abuse allegations against M during the divorce and prior to K's daughter's report, then K is discredited. Yes? No?

If the first time the abuse allegations against M came up were when the daughter reported in the car after the divorce, then the question becomes the validity of the daughter's memory and how much the vitriol of the divorce affected her understanding of the past.

Oh, I haven't read that. I had gotten the idea in this thread that Karren's brothers affidavit was in support of Karren's ex-wife. I'll have to go look again

The other corroborating evidence is Ron's work colleague (Gonzales) who signed a sworn affidavit that the meeting with Micklesen went ahead, as well as providing a character reference for Ron. That's in the previous release. If true, it shows Micklesen was lying about his account of the event.

Okay... I'll check them out when I get a sec.

EDIT: pronouns, typos.... I'm writign too quickly

EDIT: ***** in quote

[_Chap]

They are just my opinions.

Indeed. And in a situation like this, and given our partial knowledge of what is going on, opinions are perhaps most appropriately stated under considerable reserve, especially where they involve judgements on someone's state of mental health. No professional in psychiatry would do a diagnosis on a discussion board, so the rest of us should perhaps be more cautious still. I'm not sure you have been all that cautious in telling us what you think is wrong with Kerran.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

What Ron describes is not "plea bargaining" or even the kind of "bargaining" that lawyers do. It is out and out blackmail. If the lawyer commits misconduct, the honest thing to do is make a bar complaint. It is dishonest to try and blackmail the lawyer into a settling the case.

But none of this is fact. It is just Karren's story. He hasn't backed it up with evidence. And, frankly, I don't believe it. This was his ex-wife's lawyer and the ex-wife was in control over what happened in the case. Clients typically don't agree to settle cases because the lawyer did something unethical. They fire the lawyer's ass, get a new one, and sue the old one.

We know the parents settled the custody issues because they were contained in a stipulated order. We don't know why the wife settled or what the court order says. Ron claims he was given "full custody." A lawyer who looked at the file said he wasn't. Ron responded to her with a bunch of tap dancing. He could have resolved that issue at any time by posting the divorce decree. He has it, and it would be a simple thing to do.

AmyJo is just making up crap to defend Karren. She doesn't know that the bar association turned a blind eye. She doesn't know the extent of what the bar did. She doesn't know the attorney's version of events. Her description of bar disciplinary committees is horse crap. She doesn't know that the attorney did anything unethical. She doesn't know why the parties to the divorce agreed to the custody agreement. She just keeps repeating what Karren claims as if it were established fact, making up additional facts in whatever way will make Karren look credible.

[_Res Ipsa]

They are just my opinions.

Indeed. And in a situation like this, and given our partial knowledge of what is going on, opinions are perhaps most appropriately stated under considerable reserve, especially where they involve judgements on someone's state of mental health. No professional in psychiatry would do a diagnosis on a discussion board, so the rest of us should perhaps be more cautious still. I'm not sure you have been all that cautious in telling us what you think is wrong with Kerran.

I'm clearly not a mental health professional. I've never pretended I was. And I think I've been careful to identify my opinions as such. In the legal profession, we run into lots of narcissists. Most of them are other lawyers. I was also married to one for a number of years. What I am saying is that Ron, in his voluminous writing, displays characteristics that I recognize from experience. There is much more evidence in those writings about Ron himself than there is about pedophilia in the LDS church. If you don't like my use of the term "narcissist," I'd be happy to identify the specific red flags I see for you.

Have you read all of Ron's posts?

[_Rosebud]

They are just my opinions.

Indeed. And in a situation like this, and given our partial knowledge of what is going on, opinions are perhaps most appropriately stated under considerable reserve, especially where they involve judgements on someone's state of mental health. No professional in psychiatry would do a diagnosis on a discussion board, so the rest of us should perhaps be more cautious still. I'm not sure you have been all that cautious in telling us what you think is wrong with Kerran.

I am not a professional in psychiatry. Nor am I a professional in psychology. Nor will I ever be. I have no more desire. Too many quacks in the profession. Nor am I making a diagnosis. It so happens that a lot of high-conflict divorces involve high-functioning autism and a lot of marriages in which one partner has high-functioning autism end with high-conflict divorces. That's a reality. Does that mean that K has high-functioning autism? No. Would K even be aware of his high-functioning autism if he did have it? No, lots of adults aren't because it was a fairly unknown phenomenon when they were kids and it is kids who show the more obvious symptoms. But this is a digression.

I am a fan of the socratic method and I like the discussion board format. I am also a proponent of people stating opinions and their reasons for them.

I also have respect for those who prefer the safety of silence. Lots of different approaches. This happens to be a topic that is important to me, so I say what I think and know. It is only what I think and know, no more. I no more or less information than anyone else about Karren or his Mikelsen.

[_kairos]

I would like to backtrack and have someone point to the documentation that describes the catching of the wife's attorney in some sort of lie apparently by covertly tape recording something.

I would like to know the specifics of that situation if someone would please quickly summarize or point me to where I can find that information.

thanx
k