Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Res Ipsa]

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

Sure. How does that back up Amyjo's statement?

[_I have a question]

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

Sure. How does that back up Amyjo's statement?

Whoa there big fella. I'm not trying to back anyone up.

[_Res Ipsa]

Amyjo, have you seen the order?

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

I'm just trying to understand the basis for her statements. Has she seen the order? Does she know the family personally and so has personal knowledge of the custody situation? She seems very sure.

[_Rosebud]

Here's what I dislike: There is an abuse problem in the Mormon church, but this case may not help the cause of victims.

If a child sits on a man's lap and the man gets an erection (not saying this happened, but "if"), that does not qualify as abuse. It would be his responsibility, I'd think, to get the child off of his lap and report what happened to the child's legal caretakers. So far, that's what it looks like Mickelsen has been accused of doing. This is not child abuse. Whether or not he did or didn't get an erection is not the same question as whether or not he sexually abused a child. To be just, the two questions have to be treated as distinct. To get an erection is not the same thing as to act on an erection or to abuse a child. (Getting an erection is strange -- yes, but not abuse -- and we don't know that the erection happened. We won't ever know. That is the kind of detail that is often added to narratives after the fact.)

To be clear, I am not saying that how he may have reported the girls' behaviors isn't offensive. It is very offensive. To describe the girls' behaviors as "promiscuity" and to blame the girls is very wrong. Frankly, it's upsetting to me that this is being framed by anyone if the girls need to defend themselves from false accusations. Of course they do not need to defend themselves because of course they are not in the wrong. It is wrong that anyone is framing it in that light. Women's value is not based solely on sexual behaviors and children are never at fault for behaving sexually. I see a lot of messed up thinking. What a sexist environment Mormons live in and perpetuate while hardly seeming to recognize the damage their own words are doing.

The fact that Micklesen may have used sexist, demeaning language against young girls and harms women in general with that language is not evidence that he took action to abuse the little girls, however. It is evidence that he's unaware and lives in a Mormon woman-blaming environment. The fact that another girl was labeled as "promiscuous" and is denigrated for getting pregnant as a teenager only acts as more evidence that this family's understanding of human behavior is sexist at worst and naïve at best. Nothing more. (Perhaps the other girl had also been pre-sexualized -- see below.)

Right now, this is what is important: Young children who have been pre-sexualized will sometimes behave sexually towards adults. Often they do so because they have received positive reinforcement (praise, candy) for sexual behaviors from perpetrators. What is problematic about this situation is that young children who have been pre-sexualized will behave sexually with many adults, not just the adults responsible for the pre-sexualization. It is possible, then, that the girls were sexually abused/pre-sexualized, but that Micklesen wasn't the perpetrator. He may just be a sexist man living in a Mormon paradigm who doesn't have the vocabulary or training to understand what is going on and who trusted his granddaughter's parents with information about what happened when their granddaughter sat on his lap.

Exhibit B is not helpful because the son practically puts words into the mother's mouth. Leading questions and an aggressive environment don't necessarily create proof.

It sounds like the girl, as an adult, may have told her father more -- after Karren had already accused her grandfather of molesting her -- and that the future releases are going to include more information about what the daughter reported to her father as an adult. The sequence of the sharing of the information inside the family is important here. If she reported more to her father as an adult, and after her father had already accused her grandfather, she may have been biased by the conflict between the two men.

It is very possible that the girl did forgot real abuse her grandfather had perpetrated (remembering that her behaving "promiscuously" on her grandfather's lap is not evidence that her grandfather abused her but that her grandfather is sexist, sees women as sexual objects and blames women and girls unjustly), because young children do forget trauma that is too much for them to understand and cope with, and that she did remember and report to her father later.

It is also possible that if she did remember more and did report to her father later, she didn't remember correctly. We don't know.

It is possible that someone else abused her, that she was pre-sexualized before she behaved sexually aggressively on Micklesen's lap (not her fault, but still a possibility), and that now, as an adult, she is putting Micklesen's face to that abuse because her father's anger at his ex-FIL and the church has led her in that direction. It is also possible Mickelsen abused her. It is possible her father abused her. It is possible a neighbor abused her. It is possible a bishop abused her. It is possible that a primary teacher abused her. It is possible a babysitter abused her. At this point the perpetrator could be anyone. As far as I can tell, all we have evidence of right now is that the daughter and another girl were possibly pre-sexualized. How are any of us supposed to really know who was responsible for the pre-sexualization at this point -- after all the mix-up and fighting that has already occurred in this family -- in and out of the courts?

Unless Karren has a smoking gun that isn't based on his daughter's recovered memories as an adult, publicizing this case could hurt the cause of victims because real perpetrators will use this Karren's mistakes and anger to cast doubt on other victims' reports. Maybe any good that comes from this will be the publicizing of many cases and the educating of the public about pre-sexualization, children forgetting traumatic memories, and the way perpetrators operate. I'm not sure Karren should be the leader of any kind of whistleblowing. He may do more harm than good, whether or not he is innocent.

[_AmyJo]

Here's what I dislike: There is an abuse problem in the Mormon church, but this case may not help the cause of victims.

If a child sits on a man's lap and the man gets an erection (not saying this happened, but "if"), that does not qualify as abuse. It would be his responsibility, I'd think, to get the child off of his lap and report what happened to the child's legal caretakers. So far, that's what it looks like Mickelsen has been accused of doing. This is not child abuse. Whether or not he did or didn't get an erection is not the same question as whether or not he sexually abused a child. To be just, the two questions have to be treated as distinct. To get an erection is not the same thing as to act on an erection or to abuse a child. (Getting an erection is strange -- yes, but not abuse -- and we don't know that the erection happened. We won't ever know. That is the kind of detail that is often added to narratives after the fact.)

To be clear, I am not saying that how he may have reported the girls' behaviors isn't offensive. It is very offensive. To describe the girls' behaviors as "promiscuity" and to blame the girls is very wrong. Frankly, it's upsetting to me that this is being framed by anyone if the girls need to defend themselves from false accusations. Of course they do not need to defend themselves because of course they are not in the wrong. It is wrong that anyone is framing it in that light. Women's value is not based solely on sexual behaviors and children are never at fault for behaving sexually. I see a lot of messed up thinking. What a sexist environment Mormons live in and perpetuate while hardly seeming to recognize the damage their own words are doing.

The fact that Micklesen may have used sexist, demeaning language against young girls and harms women in general with that language is not evidence that he took action to abuse the little girls, however. It is evidence that he's unaware and lives in a Mormon woman-blaming environment. The fact that another girl was labeled as "promiscuous" and is denigrated for getting pregnant as a teenager only acts as more evidence that this family's understanding of human behavior is sexist at worst and naïve at best. Nothing more. (Perhaps the other girl had also been pre-sexualized -- see below.)

Right now, this is what is important: Young children who have been pre-sexualized will sometimes behave sexually towards adults. Often they do so because they have received positive reinforcement (praise, candy) for sexual behaviors from perpetrators. What is problematic about this situation is that young children who have been pre-sexualized will behave sexually with many adults, not just the adults responsible for the pre-sexualization. It is possible, then, that the girls were sexually abused/pre-sexualized, but that Micklesen wasn't the perpetrator. He may just be a sexist man living in a Mormon paradigm who doesn't have the vocabulary or training to understand what is going on and who trusted his granddaughter's parents with information about what happened when their granddaughter sat on his lap.

Exhibit B is not helpful because the son practically puts words into the mother's mouth. Leading questions and an aggressive environment don't necessarily create proof.

It sounds like the girl, as an adult, may have told her father more -- after Karren had already accused her grandfather of molesting her -- and that the future releases are going to include more information about what the daughter reported to her father as an adult. The sequence of the sharing of the information inside the family is important here. If she reported more to her father as an adult, and after her father had already accused her grandfather, she may have been biased by the conflict between the two men.

It is very possible that the girl did forgot real abuse her grandfather had perpetrated (remembering that her behaving "promiscuously" on her grandfather's lap is not evidence that her grandfather abused her but that her grandfather is sexist, sees women as sexual objects and blames women and girls unjustly), because young children do forget trauma that is too much for them to understand and cope with, and that she did remember and report to her father later.

It is also possible that if she did remember more and did report to her father later, she didn't remember correctly. We don't know.

It is possible that someone else abused her, that she was pre-sexualized before she behaved sexually aggressively on Micklesen's lap (not her fault, but still a possibility), and that now, as an adult, she is putting Micklesen's face to that abuse because her father's anger at his ex-FIL and the church has led her in that direction. It is also possible Mickelsen abused her. It is possible her father abused her. It is possible a neighbor abused her. It is possible a bishop abused her. It is possible that a primary teacher abused her. It is possible a babysitter abused her. At this point the perpetrator could be anyone. As far as I can tell, all we have evidence of right now is that the daughter and another girl were possibly pre-sexualized. How are any of us supposed to really know who was responsible for the pre-sexualization at this point -- after all the mix-up and fighting that has already occurred in this family -- in and out of the courts?

Unless Karren has a smoking gun that isn't based on his daughter's recovered memories as an adult, publicizing this case could hurt the cause of victims because real perpetrators will use this Karren's mistakes and anger to cast doubt on other victims' reports. Maybe any good that comes from this will be the publicizing of many cases and the educating of the public about pre-sexualization, children forgetting traumatic memories, and the way perpetrators operate. I'm not sure Karren should be the leader of any kind of whistleblowing. He may do more harm than good, whether or not he is innocent.

I believe Mickelson charging his granddaughter with promiscuity is the child abuse Karran is alleging here.

The fact he sexualized his young grandchild in this manner is what's being explored thus far. And the fact he was a high up GA is may be what Karran is pursuing this for now to get more negative publicity for the church, as if it needed any. It is, after all, a junk religion.

If Karran is simply trying to settle a score with some family issues, that aren't helpful to his daughter or other children, then I agree the exposure he is getting from all this publicity may do more harm than good.

I hope he knows what he's doing and that his motives are for the good of his family especially his children involved in this.

[_Rosebud]

I believe Mickelson charging his granddaughter with promiscuity is the child abuse Karran is alleging here.

The fact he sexualized his young grandchild in this manner is what's being explored thus far. And the fact he was a high up GA is may be what Karran is pursuing this for now to get more negative publicity for the church, as if it needed any. It is, after all, a junk religion.

If Karran is simply trying to settle a score with some family issues, that aren't helpful to his daughter or other children, then I agree the exposure he is getting from all this publicity may do more harm than good.

I hope he knows what he's doing and that his motives are for the good of his family especially his children involved in this.

Yes, I hope his incentives are good too. I don't, so far, see much evidence that he knows what he is doing. Concerning.

Mickelsen charging his granddaughter with promiscuity (while wrong) is a lot different than Mickelsen sexually abusing his granddaughter. I do not see Karren only claiming that Micklesen's charge against is granddaughter is abusive and I don't believe it is any more abusive than the way women and girls are treated in Mormonism on a regular baisis. In Exhibit B and elsewhere, I see the Karrens saying that the fact that Mickelsen reported the sexual behaviors of the granddaughter to her parents proves that Mickelson was a sexual predator. If I were the 12, I would ignore that claim too. It is false.

The fact that his granddaugter was pre-sexualized does not mean that Mickelsen was responsible for the pre-sexualization. Any innocent man can have a pre-sexualized little girl on his lap and cope with sexual behaviors from her. It is responsible to report such incidents to parents, not to blame children, but to give the parents information in hopes that the parents might be able to figure out why the child might be behaving sexually.

At this point, the evidence we have suggests that the girl probably was sexually abused. And at this point it gives us zero information about who the predator might have been.

[_Res Ipsa]

Okay. I found the webpage of someone who viewed the case online and downloaded the docket. You can get it through this link: http://mariaolsen.me/2016/02/16/the-mic ... c-records/

Most of the materials are marked "private," and so are not accessible (at least not accessible online). The orders are not, but the person who looked didn't download any of them. Here's what it looks like to me:

The wife filed for divorce in 2006. The parties agreed that the children would temporarily reside with the mother, with the father having standard visitation. At some point, the mother filed a motion because the father was keeping one of the children with him, apparently telling the child that the child was a teenager and could decide where he/she wanted to live. (I'm guessing this is the son that taped the interview with his mom.) The court first ordered the father to comply. Then the court ordered a guardian ad litem appointed, specifically instructing the GAL to tell the child that he/she didn't get to decide and was required to comply with the previous order. The court also changed the father's visits to supervised visitation only. At some point, the child returns to the mother.

A decree is entered in 2009. I don't have a copy, and the docket doesn't tell us what the visitation rights were. McConkie withdrew after the final decree was entered. (That's not unusual.)

In 2011, Karren issues some kind of subpoena to his ex-wife. In June 2012, he files several motions, including one that appears to be for "Full Custody" (the docket doesn't print the full title). If he had been awarded full custody in 2009, he shouldn't have needed to file a motion for "full custody" three years later. The Ex hired a new attorney, who filed an objection to the motion for full custody on her behalf. It appears that the court declined to hear the motion for full custody because it was not properly presented. At any rate, no order was ever entered changing the custody arrangement contained in the original decree.

[_Tobin]

Thanks Brad. Ok AmyJo, I think it is clear that Mr. Karren is lying about having had full custody of his children. It is time to come to Jesus and for you to admit the truth to yourself as well.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks Brad. Ok AmyJo, I think it is clear that Mr. Karren is lying about having had full custody of his children. It is time to come to Jesus and for you to admit the truth to yourself as well.

Well, I wouldn't come to a final conclusion without seeing that 2009 divorce decree. Here is his story:

Kathleen McConkie pushed numerous times for contempt of court on trumped up charges, using various low-life ploys. On her last attempt (to be detailed in the releases), and I caught her in suborning perjury with Jean Mickelsen Berger, with a covert recording. To avoid losing her license, McConkie called a meeting to settle with me. I pushed for custody. It was technically called Primary Custody, but was no different than full custody in that children resided in my home full time, did not participate in parent-sharing time, nor did their mother press to enforce it.

I don't think he ever says that a judge awarded him this "full custody" in a decree. He may be saying that he got his wife to agree regardless of what any court papers said. He's not really clear on something that should be able to be stated pretty clearly. But the court docket certainly doesn't look consistent with his story.

by the way, I have to say that I am very curious as to how he obtained a "covert" recording of a conversation between his soon-to-be ex-wife and her attorney. If I tried that kind of crap, I'd lose my license.

ETA: McConkie didn't just try for contempt of court -- he was found in contempt of court.

[_Tobin]

by the way, I have to say that I am very curious as to how he obtained a "covert" recording of a conversation between his soon-to-be ex-wife and her attorney. If I tried that kind of crap, I'd lose my license.

I'm curious as well. But even if he obtained it legally "somehow", what he did with it seems criminal. He should have turned it over to the judge.