Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Rosebud]

From memory, corrections and additions welcome:

1. Pace report comes out in 1991. Karren has immediate access to it.
2. Karren's daughter demonstrates pre-sexualized behavior with her grandfather. (Late 1990s?)

2002

3. Several years pass that give Karren enough sense of stability in his marriage that his wife's filing of divorce papers will come as a surprise.

Something happened that led Jean to go to her Bishop, a "professional", and her father about wanting a divorce about a year before she filed.

4. Karren's wife goes on a long trip with family. (2006?)

I think this was earlier.

5. Karren receives his wife's surprise divorce filing. (2006)
6. Karren immediately threatens his wife saying she will lose the kids if she divorces him.
7. Karren files accusations of child sexual abuse against Mikelsen in response to the divorce filing.

I think you have the order reversed. It looks to me like the affidavits filed by friends and family on behalf of Jean were filed before Ron introduced sexual abuse into the case

8. Karren's wife files a request for temporary relief asking for an evaluation of Karren's fitness as a parent and money to pay the bills (the "affidavits").

I think the motion was for a custodial evaluation -- not just an evaluation of Ron's fitness.

9. Karren's daughter remembers her grandfather sexually abusing her (6 months after "affidavits").

Something like 20 months after the affidavits, 8 months after Ron introduces sexual abuse allegations into the divorce.

10. Karren makes covert recording of his ex-wife and her attorney and uses the recording to leverage primary custody.

I've seen no corroborating evidence of this. I'm highly skeptical of Ron's account of what happened.

11. Family conflict continues, ten years pass.

The divorce is final in 2009. In 2012 McKay is told by his bishop he can't go on a mission unless he forgives and loves his grandfather. Ron files complaint against the therapist and sues the church for violation of the separation of religion and state.

12. Mormon media moment arises. Opportunity to address child abuse publicly and be listened to arises.
12. Karren makes public accusation against Mikelsen and says his daughter is going to publicly accuse Mikelsen as well.
14. Karren builds the stage to make the claim that his divorce was a conspiracy put together by Mikelsen and Scott using his ex-wife's motions for temporary orders (the "affidavits") and evidence that his ex-wife's father paid for the divorce to support that conspiracy. Karren brings up the 1991 Pace report during his public accusations.

Hmmm........ Seems like a composite list of dates and events would help a lot. Maybe I'll get to that if no one else does. Idk. Maybe not. The order of the filings just after the initial divorce filing makes a difference. I missed the suit against the church over McKay somewhere in the chaos of the releases. My god what a mess. Poor kids. Wow. No healthy solution like getting the kids away from Mormonism and then working to talk about other subjects so they can have a semblance of a normal life. This family has been involved in the courts and for years.

[_Jersey Girl]

Aside, to Amy Jo: As one who commented on the very first thread regarding this case and who is currently trying to review this thread from the first page (I'm on page 5) while keeping up with additional current posts, might I ask why you have made yet another "Part 2" to this story by creating another thread?

If you insist on doing this, could you please provide links in your OP to the previous threads you've started? Because, you're starting to lose me and my interest in the case.

And that's saying something. Trust me.

[_AmyJo]

Aside, to Amy Jo: As one who commented on the very first thread regarding this case and who is currently trying to review this thread from the first page (I'm on page 5) while keeping up with additional current posts, might I ask why you have made yet another "Part 2" to this story by creating another thread?

If you insist on doing this, could you please provide links in your OP to the previous threads you've started? Because, you're starting to lose me and my interest in the case.

And that's saying something. Trust me.

Part 2 is Ron Karran's addition, not mine.

He added it at 6:00 pm this evening on lifeafter Mormonism, which is where he's been posting to. He is new to the ex-Mormon posting sites, but welcomes others to share his postings.

The link is provided at bottom of my OP to the other site, though I shared his post in its entirety.

If you want to follow all of Karran's posts they are at lifeaftermormonism.net, and also on his Facebook page where he posts his blogs as they become available. I haven't shared all of them here. Only like 3-4 excerpts at most.

They have generated quite a bit of interest and discussion. It will be interesting to see what if anything comes of his whistle blowing.

[_AmyJo]

I posted his latest excerpt on a new thread because this one has plateaued out.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm going to continue to post in this thread. Having multiple threads on the same topic creates confusion.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm going to continue to post in this thread. Having multiple threads on the same topic creates confusion.

Agree.

The new thread should be merged with this one. I was up to page 7, stepped away, mistakenly clicked into the new thread when I realized it was a new thread. I'd been reading this thread from the beginning while at the same time, reading it backwards for the new replies.

I'm losing my "give a damn" about a topic that usually draws my interest, because now it feels too much like the wild goose chase.

[_Res Ipsa]

I've read the latest installment. Most of it is devoted to Ron's claim that Jean's attorney 'suborned perjury'. First, it's clear that he's given us a few selective documents out of a more substantial paper trail. (He doesn't give us the exhibits to Jean's affidavit, for example.) Second, there was no attempt to suborn perjury. His whole "case" against the attorney is based on an unreasonably strained reading of snippets of documents, while ignoring contextual language in those very same documents. It's what Ron does throughout his postings.

The taped conversation with his wife provides more evidence of how he treated her.

The section on the Guardian Ad Litem is the same old story. When someone doesn't buy what Ron is selling, he turns on them and makes them out to be the devil incarnate.

I'm tending to believe that Jean did agree that all three kids would live with him. They simply refused to live with their mother, and they were at an age where they couldn't be forced to live where they didn't want to be. It's clear that Jean could not control them. I suspect the attorney had what we call a "come to Jesus" meeting with Jean and explained to her that, as a practical matter, the kids simply weren't going to live with her.

[_Mary]

Good grief RI is that your professional opinion.

Are you even listening fo Ron and the kids? The wife drops the daughter off with bags. Arrangements are made to move K out at Jean's request. Dad needs to get bigger House. Jean then changes her mind and attempts to put him in contempt of court via the lawyer. Come on. Please.

Why not start to believe or even take seriously Ron and all three of his kids? They experienced this.

[Schreech]

You seem to have uttedly demonized Ron to a strange degree, whilst seeing J.... as some kind of victimized Saint? What do you know that I don't?

There were 2 imperfect, fiery people in the marriage, not one.

[_Mary]

Well done dad for being able to brainwash your son. Some power you got going there. (Sarcasm)