Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Rosebud]

Ron may be a narcissist, an asshole, a bad tempered, arrogant, domineering husband. An angry man. A terrible, selfish husband and awful father...but his kids...as adults...appear to love and respect him. Conversely, as adults, now with minds of their own, they have little time for their mother, sadly. If they were kids, I might believe all the above about Ron, but I trust the kids and they appear to support their dad. They don't need to, but they are the ones who lived through all this with him. That tells me a lot.

I don't have a legal background at all, but I did spend pretty much 3 months as a juror on a horrendous sex abuse case, and these cases are messy.

I'll stand corrected if I am wrong.

If it's possible that Mikelsen has control over his daughter's mind to the extent that he has convinced her to do everything he says including divorce her husband at his will, then it's possible that Karren has control over his kids' minds to the extent they do whatever he says including accusing their grandfather of sexual abuse. I'm not saying any of this is true. I am saying that one can't say K's ex-wife is involved in a conspiracy with her father that causes her to divorce her husband at her father's will and that it's impossible that K is involved in a conspiracy with his kids that causes them to accuse their grandfather.

To claim one is possible and the other impossible is to contradict the self.

[_AmyJo]

There is nothing. If K had a recording he would've posted as proof by now, I'm sure.

This guy is making s***, and people like Amy Jo are just gobbling it up because they hate the Mormon church.

If I'm eventually proven wrong (and I doubt it), I'll cuddle naked with Yahoo Bot while watching Frozen.

- Doc

This has nothing to do with hating the Mormon church and everything to do with how leaders tackle pedophilia and pedophiles.

Mary, spoken like the true genteel woman that you are. Covering for moronic liars and pervs is not yours or my forté. The moronic morons in the church who use it as a front to peddle their perversions while calling it something else deserve neither our sympathy or respect.

I've seen it before in the Mormon church. Like the Catholic. The extent the GA and the media dept of SLC go to coverup sh*t like pedophilia knows no bounds. They'll railroad anyone who gets in their way, like Ron Karran and others.

Including those that have exposed actual history like Valeen Tippetts Avery as one example, who co-wrote Mormon Enigma: The life of Emma Hale Smith. She was railroaded all the way from SLC down to the ward and stake she lived in. For nothing more than being a historian and reporting the facts.

The Mormon church has not only more than its share of coverups. It is full of cowardice for not standing up for what really matters and perverting truth and distorting facts.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Amy Jo reading Karren's blog:



- Doc

[Schreech]

”  The kids knew (and know) their mother very well, and to what extent she has lied to them throughout their lives (Exhibit 03 A, Page 12, Line 10).  They were adamant at this point in time that they were not going to live with her. And every chance they had to tell their stories of abuse and their witness of their mother’s behaviors [i.e. to one psychologist, one psychiatrist, various DCFS workers, LDS ecclesiasts, and “their” Guardian Ad Litem (attorney)]; they were shut down, EVERY time.  (I will present the evidences of the cover-up by the Professionals, Civil Authorities, and the Ecclesiasts in the ensuing Release)

I am assuming these assertions are backed up by evidence from the children.

.Doc, I am puzzled by your response. All abuse claims should be taken seriously. What kind of proof would satisfy you?

In a jury you can have a 1000 pages of psychiatrist reports, Dr's reports, police statements, photographs, witness testimony, multiple victims and you will still get a juror saying it's not enough.

Rosebud if you had a two week old baby son would you leave them with the husband for three weeks to go on a visit with your parents?? No way in heaven or hell that I would.

[_Res Ipsa]

So we need to know when he started making abuse allegations against M. The timing of his allegations is important. If he made abuse allegations against M during the divorce and prior to K's daughter's report, then K is discredited. Yes? No?

If the first time the abuse allegations against M came up were when the daughter reported in the car after the divorce, then the question becomes the validity of the daughter's memory and how much the vitriol of the divorce affected her understanding of the past.

Ron's first mention of making the abuse allegations during the divorce:

Having had a surprise divorce on the morning of June 6, 2006, I sought out an attorney (Rose Blakelock). Though Rose is a very good lawyer, she was overcoming cancer. Briefly, she asked me to write the rough draft for crucial brief/or motion which timing was crucial to introduce the child abuse. Upon doing so, I turned it over to her, and she said it was great, and instructed me to go to the courthouse and file it. I did. The motion contained material and style that the judge found reprehensible, and I was berated for “going around my attorney” and acting on my own. Apparently, in the judge’s chambers (often held before the hearing), Rose stated as much (that I went around behind her back to file it); the evidence of this is that while I was being berated by Commissioner Patton, Rose told me to keep quiet. I politely released her as my attorney, and to her credit, she refunded my money.

(emphasis added)

That motion was heard on 7/11/07. It looks like the brief was filed 6/22/07 in a response to a motion to show cause why Karren should not be held in contempt of court. One thing in the court file that doesn't seem consistent with Karren's story. He says he discharged attorney Blakelock after the hearing on 7/11/07. But it looks like she filed a notice of withdrawal on 6/25/07 -- around two weeks before the hearing. According to Ron, his daughter first mentioned the abuse in January of 2008.

One of the things I'd like to see from the file -- in addition to the original divorce decree -- is the brief that Karren wrote and filed. I'd be interested to see what he was claiming six month before his daughter said anything.

[_Res Ipsa]

In her initial filing, she provided a picture of her thigh with a bruise on it, claiming I hit her. When I met with the children for the first time in late June 2006 (after being taken to Idaho), the kids naturally inquired as to why we were getting divorced.  I mentioned this picture of the bruise on Jean’s thigh, that I supposedly hit her.  Kylee spoke up and said, “She did that on the exercise cycle, last year.  I saw it bathing with her and she told me about it.”  The kids knew (and know) their mother very well, and to what extent she has lied to them throughout their lives (Exhibit 03 A, Page 12, Line 10).  They were adamant at this point in time that they were not going to live with her. And every chance they had to tell their stories of abuse and their witness of their mother’s behaviors [i.e. to one psychologist, one psychiatrist, various DCFS workers, LDS ecclesiasts, and “their” Guardian Ad Litem (attorney)]; they were shut down, EVERY time.  (I will present the evidences of the cover-up by the Professionals, Civil Authorities, and the Ecclesiasts in the ensuing Release)

I am assuming these assertions are backed up by evidence from the children.

.Doc, I am puzzled by your response. All abuse claims should be taken seriously. What kind of proof would satisfy you?

In a jury you can have a 1000 pages of psychiatrist reports, Dr's reports, police statements, photographs, witness testimony, multiple victims and you will still get a juror saying it's not enough.

Rosebud if you had a two week old baby son would you leave them with the husband for three weeks to go on a visit with your parents?? No way in heaven or hell that I would.

Why do you assume the children back up these claims? Even more curious, how does Ron know that the mental health evaluators "shut down" the children every time?

If all abuse claims should be taken seriously, why aren't you taking the ex-wife's claims of abuse from Karren seriously?

[_RockSlider]

I don't know. This is a total s*** show, and it's awesome. I hope the truth comes out eventually.

two promiscuous six year olds! Who comes up with this, and who would buy into it for a second?

I'm with the doctor, awesome is written all over this story, can't wait for following "episodes"

[Schreech]

RI. I am taking child sex abuse claims seriously. The core issue for me is K...s statement which backs up Mickelsen's *possible* phonecall when she was 6. I understand the desire to destroy Ron's credibility, but for me, this isn't about him. It's about K... and other possible victims.

I linked to this on my Facebook page when it first came out. The ensuing discussions and pm's from people who had experienced European leaders attempt to shut down child abuse cases, and to not report to the police was troubling.

Doc asked what the church could do. Actually, a lot. It's not the gold standard it purports to be on child abuse. Leaders are not trained, practice is messy. As a teacher I had a legal responsibility to the child, as my first concern, to report if I had any suspicion of child abuse or neglect, I also acted in loco parentis.

As I understand it, the church provides activities for children, whilst disavowing itself of any legal responsibility for a child's welfare. When a child, parent, friend, -- goes to a bishop with their concerns, privilege can be claimed rather than mandatory reporting.

In Karren' case, even if he is not a credible witness, the ecclesiastical leaders should be dispassionate (Donakey) not cow tow to a 70 or apostle. The child comes first.

What can the church do? Change it's policy on child abuse for a start. Mandatory reporting, better advise from the hotlines which are about protection for the church, not the children. One honourable thing GP Lee did, which lost him a supportive wife, was to actually admit to child abuse (touching the child's breast was about as far as he could go). He felt the weight of the law, served his time and eventually registered on a sex offenders list. As an apostate, no problem believing the two children in that case. We'll see.

All of this may be a fiasco, and Ron, I suppose could have fabricated the telephone call from Mickelsen to Ron's wife, could have persuaded K... that she was abused by grandpa. Maybe. I doubt it, but maybe.

I found an excellent article from a lawyer operating Stateside about what the LDS church could do before it's forced by litigation costs. I'll dig it out. It was the best I had seen from someone dealing with victims from various faith persuasions and from the Boy Scouts If I recall correctly.

[Schreech]

Clark, Kelly (2009) "Institutional Child Sexual Abuse—Not Just a Catholic Thing," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 36: Iss. 1, Article 7.

http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol36/iss1/7/
That's the link.

Within all these organizations, as in the Catholic Church, there is a prevalent attitude that they are unique, that their mission is so important, their work so righteous, that those kinds of problems could never happen there, and if they do, well then, they must first of all protect their good work and good name, even if that means they interpret, ignore, and sometimes violate the rules applicable to the rest of society.

institutions of trust where child abuse thrives, believe, in a very real and concrete way, that the ordinary rules of life and law do not apply to them, or do not apply to them in the same way as they do to others who do not share their lofty work, or who do not understand it or sufficiently appreciate it. It is fundamental to understand this dynamic if one wants to make sense of the abuse scandals in the churches and secular institutions of goodwill.

A.Organisations have argued that the ordinary rules of society should not apply to them.
B.That their charitable status should give them immunity.
C.That they should not be responsible for their agents.

See Latter-Day Saints Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Agency at 1–3, D.I. v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 0603-03429 (Or. Cir. Ct., Multnomah County, Apr. 25, 2007) (arguing that LDS has no right to control the actions of a “home teacher”

D. They have a right to withold discovery
E. They have a first amendment right to client/clergy privilege
F. They have a God given theological right to *lie for the lord* (JWs cited)

The article then details steps institutions can take to solve the problem.

In my mind, the problem of childhood sexual abuse is compounded in male led or patriarchal systems. Any system (religious or not) led and controlled primarily by men. But that's another issue.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc, I am puzzled by your response. All abuse claims should be taken seriously. What kind of proof would satisfy you?

I don't know. Simple stuff really.

You suspect your 6 year-old is being sexually molested? Call child protective services. Get outside agencies involved to ensure the children are legally protected. File a restraining order at the time. Never, ever, ever let them alone with the suspected abusers. There are a million reasonable actions an 'intelligent' man like Karren could've taken to protect his children, BUT... He does nothing.

And now? All we have is his word on how the events unfolded, who said what, and he, a proven turd monster (through his own actions), expects us to swallow everything he's putting out as the gospel truth.

Yeah. No thanks.

Me? If I had been diddled by grandpappy I'd sue his ass, and I'd probably sue the Church, too. If things, people, places, and event are so certain and happened the way Karren says they happened I'd take everyone to court. I'd find a lawyer who has had experience in child molestation class action suits against the Church and I'd sue them for emotional distress and institutional shenanigans.

Or I'd just let Dad run his mouth on YouTube. You know. Justice and all.

- Doc

eta: Quite frankly, the only parent that has acted like they were protecting their kids from the other parent's abuse is the wife. She's the one that took the kids and got the Hell out of that house. She's the one that acted like she was protecting them from something. In fact, its Karren who is the one that looks like he's overacting to compensate for something or to misdirect attention. If I were, say, a human intelligence interrogator looking to ferret out the truth of the matter right now my attention would start to shift to him because his story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, his character is crap, and he's acting just like someone would act who thinks the more they shout the less they'll be suspected of the very accusations he's making.