AmyJo wrote:Karran was ultimately granted full custody of his children from which his ex-wife did not contest.
Have you seen the actual order?
Have you? You really have serious doubts on this matter?
You seem, if I may say so, a bit more parti pris on this topic than I would have expected.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote: You seem, if I may say so, a bit more parti pris on this topic than I would have expected.
Yeah, some days I surprise myself.
The only thing I have decided is that I won't trust Karran's description of events without corroboration. Just for an example, read how Karran describe's his son's decision to have a tape recorded session with his mother and then read the transcript where the son describes his father's influence on his decision. In my opinion, Karran's behavior with his son was manipulative and his description in his post is dishonest.
We also have some evidence (in the link provided by Tobin) that the order does not say what he says it says. Any of us could go on line and snag a copy of the order, but do any one us want to spend the $50 or so it will take to get it? Or someone who lives in or near Provo could copy the order from the court file. I won't take Karran's word about what the order says unless I see it. Call me Thomas.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
I know I and others have asked, but I would really like to know what AmyJo's relationship is with Mr. Karren? As I look at other forums discussing this matter, she keeps appearing and pushing his position. I think that is rather interesting.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Because its a hoax. I looked up the divorce case to verify if what he said about the divorce was true. All of it false. First, he lied about having won custody of the children. (He says this early in the tape.) Not only did he never win custody, he was placed on supervised visitation after psychologists evaluated the case, and he was held in contempt of court more than once for various violations of court orders. His wife's attorney was Kathleen McConkie who does divorces all the time--little to nothing to do with the church. Several McConkies practice family law.
Amy Jo. I understand your willingess to jump on a bandwagon, but you need to start exercising more prudence. I'm an ex-Mo atheist and of course I want a potential pedophile put away, BUT we've learned through hard experience that evidence needs to be more than feelings and someone's verbosity.
Dig a little deeper. See if you can get us more than just his word on the matter.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Because its a hoax. I looked up the divorce case to verify if what he said about the divorce was true. All of it false. First, he lied about having won custody of the children. (He says this early in the tape.) Not only did he never win custody, he was placed on supervised visitation after psychologists evaluated the case, and he was held in contempt of court more than once for various violations of court orders. His wife's attorney was Kathleen McConkie who does divorces all the time--little to nothing to do with the church. Several McConkies practice family law.
Amy Jo. I understand your willingess to jump on a bandwagon, but you need to start exercising more prudence. I'm an ex-Mo atheist and of course I want a potential pedophile put away, BUT we've learned through hard experience that evidence needs to be more than feelings and someone's verbosity.
Dig a little deeper. See if you can get us more than just his word on the matter.
- Doc
I'd suggest checking out the source of the quote starting "Because it's a hoax..."
Karren responds to it directly, a quote of which is on the same thread as Tobins link.
He then followed up with this post with another one from three hours ago by asking Richard Packham and Maria Santana to contact him privately to exchange information as he's being accused of being insane and this is a hoax by Mr. Packham and Maria Santana:
"Update: We have been working with various sites to release an explanation of the video, along with the evidences and documentary supports in what is quickly becoming a trial in the court of public opinion: The releases should begin by day’s end tomorrow.
I have made it a point to not publicly thank or address people’s comments, because I welcome both sides. Pro and Con are both NECESSARY to flush out the truth.
There are two particular personal attacks that Samuel has brought to my attention within the previous post. I have no intention of removing that post or those attacks. I want those " words against me to stand as the manure gets washed away and the truth rises to the surface.
I would invite Maria Santana and a Richard Packham to privately exchange their personal and professional contact information with me; as I would like you to stand by your words and position as this process unfolds. You have my word, I will not engage in any “I told you so” when the truth reaches the surface.
Let’s let the people judge between me and you two on both private and professional levels, as the evidences are released. Can the 50,000+ people following this story get the invitation extended to these two individuals... Thank You ALL."
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
That's not a direct response. A direct response would have been to say "Yes I was awarded custody of the children. Attached is a copy of the court order."
in my opinion, his "response" to Ms. Santana's posting indicates deception.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:That's not a direct response. A direct response would have been to say "Yes I was awarded custody of the children. Attached is a copy of the court order."
in my opinion, his "response" to Ms. Santana's posting indicates deception.
You could well be right. Time is gonna tell on this one I think.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Res Ipsa wrote:That's not a direct response. A direct response would have been to say "Yes I was awarded custody of the children. Attached is a copy of the court order."
in my opinion, his "response" to Ms. Santana's posting indicates deception.
Exactly what I was thinking. His offer to exchange personal contact information is creepy.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Here's another response Karren made to attorney Santana:
Ms. Sanatan’s[sic] errors are as follows:
1. She has spot checked thousands of pages and arrived at her judgment, summarily dismissing the fact that most lawyering take place outside of the courtroom. To arrive at here [sic] conclusions as she did exposes her level of legal prowess.
2. I [sic] her attempts to make me appear crazy, Ms. Sanata [sic] failed to see or to comment on the insane accusations against me by the Mickelsen/Scott camp: e.g. that I accused Elder Mickelsen of having sex with my mother, resulting in my conception—making my ex-wife my sister. (I will provide the evidences and details of out-of-sequence items as they are scheduled.
3. Did Ms. Santana miss the complaint filed against McConkie with the Utah State Bar? If so, why? Is Ms. Santana interested in this “suborning perjury” by McConkie?
Response 1 completely ducks the question. Regardless of where the "lawyering" in a child custody case is done, the end result is put into a court order. If he was given full custody, he should be able to produce the order that says so. He has no trouble posting "exhibits" as part of his presentation.
Response 2 is a red herring. The question is his credibility, not what others said during his divorce proceeding.
Response 3 is the same.
None of these demonstrate "errors." Demonstrating an "error" would be posting a copy of the court order that awards him full custody.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951