Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Starbuck]

I imagine that the wheels are probably turning at Kirton McKonkie. If this is first time Karren has put this in "writing" for the whole world to see it should be only a matter of time before he gets hit with a lawsuit for libel. Maybe that is what Kerran is hoping for, so he can put some people under oath and get some real answers.

But maybe the lawyers are thinking this is what he wants to happen and by doing nothing it gives no credence to his claims.

Until the accusation by Mikelsen is verified I don't see this going anywhere. It looks to me that there is just too much bad blood involved, and the courts, detectives, and anyone else involved are not able to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

Maybe the side story that we are overlooking is the possibility that Oaks and Mikelsen were involved with getting a bunch of false affidavits created.

[_Rosebud]

From his ex-wife's filing (because I pointed out the likelihood that Mikelsen helped fund the divorce because Karren refused to pay for it before):

"29. Since filing for divorce in June, 2006, respondent only gives me $2000 worth of assistance to meet our mutual financial obligations which exceed $6000 per month. He has not deposited any additional funds into the mutual bank account and he has not independently paid for any of out marital debts. The monies in the joint account are now depleted. I have had to borrow money from our children's savings accounts and from relatives to pay our marital expenses for July and I do not know where the money will come from for August's expenses."

She also states that he was making $19,000 a month and that before she filed, Karren regularly deposited money into the joint account so she could pay for all the family expenses.

So:

This is why Mikelsen had to help his daughter pay her attorney retainer. It's pretty clear that she needed legal representation under the circumstances. Without her father's help, she wouldn't have been able to proceed with the divorce and would have been forced to go back to Karren in order to get the financial support she needed for her children.

In other words, Karren was using money to control his wife. The right to divorce is fundamental. No one should be forced to remain married against his or her will. People generally don't get divorced for trivial reasons.

For all we know, Mikelsen was paying for groceries. That was Karren's responsibility.

The fact that Mikelsen helped fund the divorce and gave his daughter financial assistance is not evidence against the church or Mikelsen. Any attempts to paint it that way are deceitful unless the above assertion about money is false.

Rather than defending against this assertion about money, however, Karren focuses on a false accusation made against his character. I therefore assume this information about him keeping money from his wife so she had to go to her father if she wanted to proceed with the divorce is true. He does have a right to be angry about the false character assassination and his ex-wife has acknowledged its falsehood and stated that her attorney wrote it in dishonestly and that she signed it. This is pretty common stuff in messy divorces. The fact that an attorney behaved dishonestly and his wife signed the dishonest account against his character is not evidence against the church or proof that Mikelsen abused his granddaughter. It is superfluous information that demonstrates that Karren is very focused on defending his character publicly seemingly without comprehending that he is providing evidence against his own assertions that Mikelsen was wrong to fund the divorce as well as indicating that he used his control over money to try to prevent his wife from having the legal representation she needed to get away from him and still take care of her obligations to her children.

[_AmyJo]

From his ex-wife's filing (because I pointed out the likelihood that Mikelsen helped fund the divorce because Karren refused to pay for it before):

"29. Since filing for divorce in June, 2006, respondent only gives me $2000 worth of assistance to meet our mutual financial obligations which exceed $6000 per month. He has not deposited any additional funds into the mutual bank account and he has not independently paid for any of out marital debts. The monies in the joint account are now depleted. I have had to borrow money from our children's savings accounts and from relatives to pay our marital expenses for July and I do not know where the money will come from for August's expenses."

She also states that he was making $19,000 a month and that before she filed, Karren regularly deposited money into the joint account so she could pay for all the family expenses.

So:

This is why Mikelsen had to help his daughter pay her attorney retainer. It's pretty clear that she needed legal representation under the circumstances. Without her father's help, she wouldn't have been able to proceed with the divorce and would have been forced to go back to Karren in order to get the financial support she needed for her children.

In other words, Karren was using money to control his wife. The right to divorce is fundamental. No one should be forced to remain married against his or her will. People generally don't get divorced for trivial reasons.

For all we know, Mikelsen was paying for groceries. That was Karren's responsibility.

The fact that Mikelsen helped fund the divorce and gave his daughter financial assistance is not evidence against the church or Mikelsen. Any attempts to paint it that way are deceitful unless the above assertion about money is false.

Rather than defending against this assertion about money, however, Karren focuses on a false accusation made against his character. I therefore assume this information about him keeping money from his wife so she had to go to her father if she wanted to proceed with the divorce is true. He does have a right to be angry about the false character assassination and his ex-wife has acknowledged its falsehood and stated that her attorney wrote it in dishonestly and that she signed it. This is pretty common stuff in messy divorces. The fact that an attorney behaved dishonestly and his wife signed the dishonest account against his character is not evidence against the church or proof that Mikelsen abused his granddaughter. It is superfluous information that demonstrates that Karren is very focused on defending his character publicly seemingly without comprehending that he is providing evidence against his own assertions that Mikelsen was wrong to fund the divorce as well as indicating that he used his control over money to try to prevent his wife from having the legal representation she needed to get away from him and still take care of her obligations to her children.

Her divorcing him was sprung on him by surprise. There was no prior discussion of her going for a divorce, until he was served after waking up to a normal familial routine in his household and going to work.

The divorce came about according to him as result of her standing behind her father on the molestation charges against their daughter, and not defending her daughter's innocence.

Regardless, it's also quite possible that it was she herself who depleted their joint accounts. Since she sprung the divorce on him without forewarning, she also had time to go clean out their mutual accounts before he would find out.

His paying her $2,000 a month voluntarily while a divorce is pending while may not have been what she was used to, most marital disputes are settled by a court order of alimony &/or child support to the defendant. What he was paying leading up to that was voluntary. Saying he was earning $19,000 a month does not address whether he was self-employed. Facts are he was self-employed during that time according to his account. And income fluctuates for financial planners.

It's sketchy at best the information you've given of Mickelson finances. The whole story is strange. I don't understand why he needs to air his divorce now, as it isn't the issue is it? It's his daughter wanting to make her voice heard, according to him, and he is assisting her with getting her story out. I can appreciate that a person's earnings as a self-employed are not liquid assets either. You'd have to know how much of his earnings were fluid. Taxes are a big chunk of a self-employed's business, and so is overhead.

A surprise divorce, and he manages to shell out $2,000 a month while may not be what she was used to. But she is the one who wanted out and didn't give him any advance notice until on the day he was served. What exactly were his duties to her at that time? The courts are the ones to decide who gets what and how much.

She is now married to a president of a credit union and moved back to Idaho to be closer to her parents. Her father/mother live in Idaho Falls, where she grew up. She lives within an arms reach of them. She is not hurting for money. Her father always took care of her, even during their marriage, according to the record. He was always quick to hand out money to keep his daughter happy. And he also tried to buy Ron's secrecy with money.

Yes, money the fix it all when you're a General Authority, and want the status pro quo to stay the same - he tried to silence his son-in-law by offering him moolah.

If the Karran's were so well off, I doubt the money would've even been offered as a bribe.

[_Rosebud]

From his ex-wife's filing (because I pointed out the likelihood that Mikelsen helped fund the divorce because Karren refused to pay for it before):

"29. Since filing for divorce in June, 2006, respondent only gives me $2000 worth of assistance to meet our mutual financial obligations which exceed $6000 per month. He has not deposited any additional funds into the mutual bank account and he has not independently paid for any of out marital debts. The monies in the joint account are now depleted. I have had to borrow money from our children's savings accounts and from relatives to pay our marital expenses for July and I do not know where the money will come from for August's expenses."

She also states that he was making $19,000 a month and that before she filed, Karren regularly deposited money into the joint account so she could pay for all the family expenses.

So:

This is why Mikelsen had to help his daughter pay her attorney retainer. It's pretty clear that she needed legal representation under the circumstances. Without her father's help, she wouldn't have been able to proceed with the divorce and would have been forced to go back to Karren in order to get the financial support she needed for her children.

In other words, Karren was using money to control his wife. The right to divorce is fundamental. No one should be forced to remain married against his or her will. People generally don't get divorced for trivial reasons.

For all we know, Mikelsen was paying for groceries. That was Karren's responsibility.

The fact that Mikelsen helped fund the divorce and gave his daughter financial assistance is not evidence against the church or Mikelsen. Any attempts to paint it that way are deceitful unless the above assertion about money is false.

Rather than defending against this assertion about money, however, Karren focuses on a false accusation made against his character. I therefore assume this information about him keeping money from his wife so she had to go to her father if she wanted to proceed with the divorce is true. He does have a right to be angry about the false character assassination and his ex-wife has acknowledged its falsehood and stated that her attorney wrote it in dishonestly and that she signed it. This is pretty common stuff in messy divorces. The fact that an attorney behaved dishonestly and his wife signed the dishonest account against his character is not evidence against the church or proof that Mikelsen abused his granddaughter. It is superfluous information that demonstrates that Karren is very focused on defending his character publicly seemingly without comprehending that he is providing evidence against his own assertions that Mikelsen was wrong to fund the divorce as well as indicating that he used his control over money to try to prevent his wife from having the legal representation she needed to get away from him and still take care of her obligations to her children.

Her divorcing him was sprung on him by surprise. There was no prior discussion of her going for a divorce, until he was served after waking up to a normal familial routine in his household and going to work.

The divorce came about according to him as result of her standing behind her father on the molestation charges against their daughter, and not defending her daughter's innocence.

Regardless, it's also quite possible that it was she herself who depleted their joint accounts. Since she sprung the divorce on him without forewarning, she also had time to go clean out their mutual accounts before he would find out.

His paying her $2,000 a month voluntarily while a divorce is pending while may not have been what she was used to, most marital disputes are settled by a court order of alimony &/or child support to the defendant. What he was paying leading up to that was voluntary. Saying he was earning $19,000 a month does not address whether he was self-employed. Facts are he was self-employed during that time according to his account. And income fluctuates for financial planners.

It's sketchy at best the information you've given of Mickelson finances. The whole story is strange. I don't understand why he needs to air his divorce now, as it isn't the issue is it? It's his daughter wanting to make her voice heard, according to him, and he is assisting her with getting her story out. I can appreciate that a person's earnings as a self-employed are not liquid assets either. You'd have to know how much of his earnings were fluid. Taxes are a big chunk of a self-employed's business, and so is overhead.

A surprise divorce, and he manages to shell out $2,000 a month while may not be what she was used to. But she is the one who wanted out and didn't give him any advance notice until on the day he was served. What exactly were his duties to her at that time? The courts are the ones to decide who gets what and how much.

She is now married to a president of a credit union and moved back to Idaho to be closer to her parents. Her father/mother live in Idaho Falls, where she grew up. She lives within an arms reach of them. She is not hurting for money. Her father always took care of her, even during their marriage, according to the record. He was always quick to hand out money to keep his daughter happy. And he also tried to buy Ron's secrecy with money.

Yes, money the fix it all when you're a General Authority, and want the status pro quo to stay the same - he tried to silence his son-in-law by offering him moolah.

If the Karran's were so well off, I doubt the money would've even been offered as a bribe.

I don't know anything about a bribe? Did Karren say something about a bribe. I might have missed it.

Below is what his wife said about the marriage. If she is lying, she sprung the divorce on him without notice. If she is not lying, everything was not as peachy as he says it was and the claim that she sprung it on him without notice is a false statement of victimhood and acts as evidence of number 12.

12. Respondent has blamed all of our marital problems and arguments on me
personally or on some other third party, such as my father or our church leaders.

13. For a long time I felt that ifljust loved Respondent enough, afld went along with
his demands, he would change and his uncontrollable rage would go away and we could have a
happy marriage.

14. I have tried countless times to "keep the peace" in the home to prevent meltdowns
of rage froin the Respondent, frequently agreeing to his demands simply to avoid an
arguinent, or to stop him from yelling at me or at the children.

15. I now realize that Respondent has been extremely manipulative and controlling
throughout our marriage. He has told me on more than one occasion to die, and hasJepeated~
informed me of his wish to hurt, kill or otherwise "plmish" me for angering or opposing him.
Respondent has even gone so far as to strike me and has physically pushed me several times.

16. When Respondent was not physically or verbally raging at me, he emotionally
isolated me. Respondent refused to speak or interact with me, in any fashion, for as long as 30
days at a time, as a form of "punishment".

17. In addition, Respondent frequently withheld sex, and other forms of marital
affection, for as long as 8 to 10 months at a tinle, when I opposed him in anyway.

This is the description of an abusive relationship. It is also common for abusive partners to withhold money in an attempt to trap and isolate their spouses. I do not know who is lying. I was not there.


Regarding money, she says:

27 Traditionally I have been responsible for ensuring that all of our monthly
obligations are met. Respondent has deposited money into our joint checking account from
which I could access funds to pay our marital expenses. Frequently our expenses have exceeded
our available income and we have had to resort to using credit to pay our debts.

28. During the time period between January and June, 2006, Respondent deposited
close to $59,000.00 in our joint account to cover our expenses.

A SAHM works just as hard as a working father. The money belongs to both of them equally, not just the person who brings in the paycheck. It is not unreasonable to assume that $6000 in family expenses is accurate for a family with an annual income of $228,000. If she is not lying, the $2000 he allowed her after she filed for divorce was not adequate and her claim that she might need to go to family for help is reasonable.

It is discriminatory to believe it is okay for a breadwinner to withhold money from a primary caretaker. Inside Mormonism, it is also sexist.

She was not obligated to stay in the marriage. She didn't belong to him. From my perspective, he talks about the divorce as if he was greatly wronged. He did not own her. Marriage is a choice.

[_Rosebud]

Here's a link to her request for temporary orders in case you're wondering where I'm getting her side:

http://api.ning.com/files/0smQHvjc5TetA ... bit03C.pdf

[_AmyJo]

I find it incredulous that she would stay in a marriage where her husband was withholding sex from her for up to a year. That sounds preposterous for anyone to tolerate. Why didn't she leave him if things were that bad, much much sooner?

She was the one willing to lie with her attorney to "suborn perjury" and was why they capitulated to his demands for the children.

It may be some truth to her statements. On the other hand, this may be the leaked material that was part of the lies she and her attorney were making up as part of their malicious suit against him.

From the way she describes their marriage, she should've left long before she did, for the sake of hers and her children's welfare. And yet he was the one who ended up with the children. An abusive person does not tend to win custody especially against the mother of the children in a divorce proceeding without ample cause. And yet he did.

I smell a rat from her side too. How on earth were you able to find her testimony online? I tried going to Utah law documents, and could find nothing at all on their divorce. Is she posting it online herself, or is someone doing that for her?

Most interesting watching this play out. It's like a fricking soap opera from one day to the next.

[_Rosebud]

I find it incredulous that she would stay in a marriage where her husband was withholding sex from her for up to a year. That sounds preposterous for anyone to tolerate. Why didn't she leave him if things were that bad, much much sooner?

She was the one willing to lie with her attorney to "suborn perjury" and was why they capitulated to his demands for the children.

It may be some truth to her statements. On the other hand, this may be the leaked material that was part of the lies she and her attorney were making up as part of their malicious suit against him.

From the way she describes their marriage, she should've left long before she did, for the sake of hers and her children's welfare. And yet he was the one who ended up with the children. An abusive person does not tend to win custody especially against the mother of the children in a divorce proceeding without ample cause. And yet he did.

I smell a rat from her side too. How on earth were you able to find her testimony online? I tried going to Utah law documents, and could find nothing at all on their divorce. Is she posting it online herself, or is someone doing that for her?

Most interesting watching this play out. It's like a fricking soap opera from one day to the next.

Yep. We just don't know.

Karren released this himself to provide evidence of the one false claim she made (and admitted that she made). I got it from him. He doesn't seem to quite comprehend the way he is providing evidence that he was abusive because not only does she make these claims, but his current actions (these releases, etc.) align with them.

A lot of people stay in abusive relationships for a long time for a lot of reasons. Two big reasons are money and children. So that part at least makes sense. Escaping from relationships when the other party is using all sorts of techniques to force one to stay can be very difficult. It sounds to me like it's a very good thing for everyone involved that the relationship ended in divorce. At least the marriage part is over now. It's too bad the family can't move on now that this is all public. Moving on would have served them better.

As far as winning custody bringing him credibility as a parent, he didn't win it by being recommended as the best parent, but through making a secret tape recording, right? (Am I remembering correctly?) One possibility is that he outsmarted her legally and took her children from her too. I have a lot of compassion for this woman. A Mormon woman is asked to sacrifice everything for her children and, possibly, I her efforts to escape this guy, he managed to take her children from her.

I'm also frustrated that he doesn't have a smoking gun. Why put everybody in the family through this public hell? Why harm his ex-wife further if you've got so little evidence. If his accusations against M are true (not saying they are, but "if"), then M probably abused his own daughter too. Karren's ex-wife seems to have had an awful life and now her ex-husband shames her publicly too. Men can be pretty disgusting to the women they say they love. Not a very kind man.

[_AmyJo]

I find it incredulous that she would stay in a marriage where her husband was withholding sex from her for up to a year. That sounds preposterous for anyone to tolerate. Why didn't she leave him if things were that bad, much much sooner?

She was the one willing to lie with her attorney to "suborn perjury" and was why they capitulated to his demands for the children.

It may be some truth to her statements. On the other hand, this may be the leaked material that was part of the lies she and her attorney were making up as part of their malicious suit against him.

From the way she describes their marriage, she should've left long before she did, for the sake of hers and her children's welfare. And yet he was the one who ended up with the children. An abusive person does not tend to win custody especially against the mother of the children in a divorce proceeding without ample cause. And yet he did.

I smell a rat from her side too. How on earth were you able to find her testimony online? I tried going to Utah law documents, and could find nothing at all on their divorce. Is she posting it online herself, or is someone doing that for her?

Most interesting watching this play out. It's like a fricking soap opera from one day to the next.

Yep. We just don't know.

Karren released this himself to provide evidence of the one false claim she made (and admitted that she made). I got it from him. He doesn't seem to quite comprehend the way he is providing evidence that he was abusive because not only does she make these claims, but his current actions (these releases, etc.) align with them.

A lot of people stay in abusive relationships for a long time for a lot of reasons. Two big reasons are money and children. So that part at least makes sense. Escaping from relationships when the other party is using all sorts of techniques to force one to stay can be very difficult. It sounds to me like it's a very good thing for everyone involved that the relationship ended in divorce. At least the marriage part is over now. It's too bad the family can't move on now that this is all public. Moving on would have served them better.

As far as winning custody bringing him credibility as a parent, he didn't win it by being recommended as the best parent, but through making a secret tape recording, right? (Am I remembering correctly?) One possibility is that he outsmarted her legally and took her children from her too. I have a lot of compassion for this woman. A Mormon woman is asked to sacrifice everything for her children and, possibly, I her efforts to escape this guy, he managed to take her children from her.

I'm also frustrated that he doesn't have a smoking gun. Why put everybody in the family through this public hell? Why harm his ex-wife further if you've got so little evidence. If his accusations against M are true (not saying they are, but "if"), then M probably abused his own daughter too. Karren's ex-wife seems to have had an awful life and now her ex-husband shames her publicly too. Men can be pretty disgusting to the women they say they love. Not a very kind man.

I'm more concerned for his daughter's health and welfare too at this point. We haven't heard anything from her, and she's 20 something already.

It sounds like she would benefit from a really good licensed therapist, and perhaps family therapy for her dad and her siblings if they haven't already.

He has a lady friend as his 'significant other' on his Facebook page. His ex-wife is remarried. If it's Mickelson the ex-FIL he wants to go after in the court of public opinion, then it would be cavalier of him to keep his ex-wife and daughter out of it as much as humanly possible.

I've caught myself wondering whether he may still be in love with his ex-wife after all this time? She has moved on by remarrying another. Maybe for him it's that absolution that that phase of his life is irrevocably over.

Still, the charges she levels against him sound fabricated to me. Any sane person wouldn't stay in that kind of marriage for that long a time. I'm still tending to believe that the release of the papers are the same ones she was willing to perjure herself for in order to fight for her children's custody, until it backfired on her.

He's used this and other reports to establish as his record she wasn't being truthful. Why would he publish this if it hurts him more than it helps him, except that he's being honest in his disclosures? Is this the smoking gun that caused her attorney to give him full custody without a contest?

She was the one committing a violation that might've resulted in her being disbarred or have her law license suspended. Karran just used that to his tactical advantage, but he himself was not at fault for the women's lack of ethics as a licensed attorney. Or his wife's for playing along to gain a dishonest advantage.

Their divorce is over though. What that has to do with his daughter now is not really helping her get over what grandpa did when she was little. He needs to let that go if he really wants to help his daughter move past the pain and the heartache. He is reliving his divorce from what I can tell, not really dealing with his daughter through most of what he's been publishing.

However, that being said, Karran is a book author - and I can see him developing this into a published book eventually. He's just piecing it together now to generate interest and publicity perhaps. He may do a tell all about his life married to a GA 70's daughter, and the child molestation will be an important aspect of his tell all, in addition to his chapters on his nasty divorce.

The guy is testing the waters maybe, by his disclosures a piece at a time, to see what kind of interest &/or feedback he receives. He's getting both positive and negative reviews depending on whether people find him credible or just trying to retaliate against his ex-spouse.

I wish him well. He raised three kids alone after their divorce. His life can't have been an easy one either. But still, it's the children who suffer the most and certainly his daughter in this case. He really needs to protect her more than anything in my opinion, rather than exposing a side of her childhood that may be best dealt with privately because she may not be ready for this level of scrutiny even if he is.

[_Rosebud]

The charges leveled against him don't sound fabricated to me. They sound common. I've spent the last couple of years interacting with woman after woman saying about the same thing. I've watched several divorces that look just like this and I wish I could do more to help the women escape, but the only way out is fighting through the legal hell. That's one of the reasons why I see it from this vantage point.

I'm not also saying that only men cause problems in divorce. Sometimes it's the women who are causing the problems and sometimes the women are the ones who are abusive although very rarely do men have the added disadvantage of not having an income or a resume. At least the males who are the victims can generally afford to pay their own retainers without asking their parents for help. I am saying that in this case it looks to me like Karren was the abusive party in the marriage because of what he is doing right now and because of how similar what he is doing now is to other cases I've seen. That of course doesn't also mean that he is the one who presexualized the daughter. No way to know who was involved in the child sexual abuse at this point. And that's kind of the point. He's no hero to drag his family through this regardless of his stated incentives.

Some people do divorce well. This is not one of those times. Unless a child is in current danger, he needs to move on. It seems to me he's intent on being miserable and is going to continue to drag the rest of his family along with him.

[_AmyJo]

The charges leveled against him don't sound fabricated to me. They sound common. I've spent the last couple of years interacting with woman after woman saying about the same thing. I've watched several divorces that look just like this and I wish I could do more to help the women escape, but the only way out is fighting through the legal hell. That's one of the reasons why I see it from this vantage point.

I'm not also saying that only men cause problems in divorce. Sometimes it's the women who are causing the problems and sometimes the women are the ones who are abusive although very rarely do men have the added disadvantage of not having an income or a resume. At least the males who are the victims can generally afford to pay their own retainers without asking their parents for help. I am saying that in this case it looks to me like Karren was the abusive party in the marriage because of what he is doing right now and because of how similar what he is doing now is to other cases I've seen. That of course doesn't also mean that he is the one who presexualized the daughter. No way to know who was involved in the child sexual abuse at this point. And that's kind of the point. He's no hero to drag his family through this regardless of his stated incentives.

Some people do divorce well. This is not one of those times. Unless a child is in current danger, he needs to move on. It seems to me he's intent on being miserable and is going to continue to drag the rest of his family along with him.

That may be. It certainly does give cause to wonder what his underlying motive/s are for airing this after all that time had passed? As an author it may be his way of dealing with all of that. There is no one right way to grieve the loss of a relationship, and the loss of a marriage one must pass through the same grieving phases as any other loss. Like the anger, denial, grief, bargaining, and finally at some stage comes the acceptance.

There is no right or wrong way of working through the phases of the grief. He may be stuck in the anger phase right now, and/or denial. He's moved past the bargaining phase. That ended with his divorce, and her remarriage to another. He hasn't quite reconciled his past with the present, so until he does he isn't going to find the resignation of just letting it go. Getting help for his daughter so she can move on, and for himself and those other now grown children may be the best thing he can do for them. Showing them that life is about moving forward, you deal with the past, learn from it, and move on.

I hope he finds absolution for himself and his children. His wife has moved on, from the looks of things. Maybe it also has something to do with the permanent damage and scars the divorce has left the children with. Are they even on speaking terms with their mother today? It's hard to tell from what's been presented thus far. The divorce ripped their family apart. So.very.sad. for all concerned.