Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You know. A con man appeals to emotion. He never craps out proof.

There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that Mr. Kerran hasn't provided proof of his accusations. Can we agree on this one point?

- Doc

[_I have a question]

You know. A con man appeals to emotion. He never s***s out proof.

There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that Mr. Kerran hasn't provided proof of his accusations. Can we agree on this one point?

- Doc

Yep.
He is currently big on claim and accusation, low on documentation.
The only thing that strikes me as significant is that he hasn't been jumped on with a gagging order or some such libel/slander type threat from Church lawyers.

[_AmyJo]

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

Packham acknowledges he knows nothing about the charges Maria Santana lodged against Mickelson. She does not know him personally and spot checked some of his documents but did not clarify the entire case because she clearly missed that he did indeed win custody in the end. She is a half assed lawyer at best. She doesn't have a dog in this fight unless she is a paid hackey for the Salt Lake media department to defame anyone who would go up against one of its GA like Karran here.

In Karran's own words, which you have missed because you aren't following his blog he wrote, following Packham's thread on ex-Mormon in Recovery "On February 17, 2016, a Richard Packham posted a statement allegedly made by a Maria Santana filled with personal attacks, claiming that I had lied on the video (01%20Exhibit%20A.pdf). (Exhibits will be included with each release.)
Ms. Sanatan’s errors are as follows:

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 conclusions as she did exposes her level of legal prowess.
I her attempts to make me appear crazy, Ms. Sanata 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.
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?...."

Plus, upon checking Santana's credibility, the woman has a string of civil judgments brought against her as fledgling lawyer fresh out of law school in Utah, and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy following several judgments against her by her student loan lenders in addition to other civil judgments.

Not exactly someone I'd be trusting my case with or her judgment or competency.

Why is she going after Karran? She apparently spot checked his divorce and missed the main part that he did win custody of his children. As he says himself that right there shows she doesn't have a clue what she is doing as a lawyer or an investigator.

[_Res Ipsa]

You know. A con man appeals to emotion. He never s***s out proof.

There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that Mr. Kerran hasn't provided proof of his accusations. Can we agree on this one point?

- Doc

Yep.
He is currently big on claim and accusation, low on documentation.
The only thing that strikes me as significant is that he hasn't been jumped on with a gagging order or some such libel/slander type threat from Church lawyers.

I really don't see that as significant. Most folks know about the Streisand effect. If Mickelsen responds in any way, Karren will only get more attention. Better to let him do his thing. If Karren is misrepresenting the court records, that will come out and people will stop listening. Defamation suits can get expensive and time consuming, and all you end up with is money damages.

[_Res Ipsa]

Amyjo, have you seen the order?

[_AmyJo]

Yep.
He is currently big on claim and accusation, low on documentation.
The only thing that strikes me as significant is that he hasn't been jumped on with a gagging order or some such libel/slander type threat from Church lawyers.

I really don't see that as significant. Most folks know about the Streisand effect. If Mickelsen responds in any way, Karren will only get more attention. Better to let him do his thing. If Karren is misrepresenting the court records, that will come out and people will stop listening. Defamation suits can get expensive and time consuming, and all you end up with is money damages.

This is not true about the church' legal department. When it has a bone to chew it will send in the attack dogs, because historically that's been its proven track record.

[_Tobin]

Amyjo, have you seen the order?

Don't give her an out by saying, "Yes, trust me." Produce the order!

[_Res Ipsa]

This is not true about the church' legal department. When it has a bone to chew it will send in the attack dogs, because historically that's been its proven track record.

Do you have a list of cases where the church has sued people who say something bad about it or its leaders?

[_Starbuck]

I know there are laywers on this board. If you have access to the Utah court records please oh please help us out. Or maybe we set up a go fund me or the likes and get this done. https://www.utcourts.gov/xchange/

[_I have a question]

This is not true about the church' legal department. When it has a bone to chew it will send in the attack dogs, because historically that's been its proven track record.

Do you have a list of cases where the church has sued people who say something bad about it or its leaders?

There's evidence of the church settling abuse cases out of court, quickly and quietly.