Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Rosebud]

I don't have the stamina to listen to him anymore at this point. His written communications are too much of a mess and demonstrate a lack of comprehension of his daughter's perspective, his ex-wife's perspective and his audience's perspective.

If the above is an accurate description of his position, he needs help communicating and he needs someone who can help him discern between fact and supposition. If he's unwell or has a developmental disability and has something valid to say, he needs some help saying it.

I suppose that explanation would work for me. I have a hard time believing someone without a developmental disability or some other condition affecting executive functioning would take these actions. They're unexpected of typically developing individuals but align with the way people behave when they don't have the capacity to perspective take, can't see the way their own actions affect the situation, and can't effectively predict overall outcome of a situation. If I place him in that category of people (sorry to categorize.... blush), this seems like something that could happen. Not saying this is true, but if the church really did have a technique of silencing people that they use to cover up abuse (I feel silly making all these if statements to follow my reasoning), those techniques wouldn't work the same way on someone with a developmental disorder. This mess could follow.

As an aside, I laughed out loud when Trump said if elected, he would work a "deal" with Vladimir Putin (who some experts believe has high-functioning autism) because Trump's the expert of the "deal." Yeah right Trump..... just try negotiating with that guy the same way you'd negotiate with someone else. He's not going to respond to your techniques because he's going to miss half of them and have his own stubborn agenda. And I mean stubborn beyond rational stubbornness. Not going to work Trump. If the church tried some weird stuff on someone whose brain doesn't operate the same way as others, this mess is what they might get. But now I'm so far down into my suppositions (they're piling on top of each other just like Karren's do -- the difference being that I'm aware that my suppositions are just that: suppositions, and that accurate descriptions of reality need some basis in demonstrable fact) that it's time for me to shut up for a while and watch to see how this plays out.

I hope his daughter and ex-wife are getting the help they need.....

[_AmyJo]

All children appear to resent their mother's camp for demonizing and accusing their dad of some pretty trumped up charges which I believe he has shown to be fabrications. It got nasty from the start, (the divorce), and that nastiness began with the Micklesen camp. Big time.

Thank you Mary, for providing the links to the radio interview by Middle Grounders.

It seems more apparent the more I'm learning of what took place is that though the attempt was made to throw Ron under the bus by his wife, and the Mickelson camp, was that they sorely failed to do so.

Jean's lawyer clearly orchestrated giving back his daughter at around Thanksgiving only to make him look like he was in contempt of court two weeks later. If he had not recorded his telephone conversation like he did it would have been hearsay. Thank God he had the foresight to do what he did, because it showed the court Jean's lawyer and her conspired against him and perjured themselves on that occasion, resulting in him winning custody of his children.

He also makes clear his daughter *is not* accusing her grandfather of being promiscuous. She actually agrees that he was promiscuous with her, when she sat on his lap. Ron wants his ex-FIL to stand up and accept his responsibility for his own conduct instead of scapegoating it to K.

Jean is clearly shown to be a liar by the evidence he's provided, and her quack of an attorney. There really has been a staged coverup from the top of the Mickelson family on down.

Along with Elder Scott, who Ron clarifies married into the Mickelson family as well. He was over Mickelson in the GA, but still involved with the divorce proceedings and the coverup.

It isn't hard to glean what happened to those who're paying attention with clear eyes.

[Schreech]

If we consider Ron was visited by Micklesen just before the divorce to ask how his marriage was doing, Ron's responses are pretty damning of Micklesen.

Let me get Ron's account of that conversation. It might explain why Scott and Micklesen got involved to the extent they did.

Upon sitting down, Elder Mickelsen came right out of the gate asking, “Ron, how are things in your marriage?”  This being an absolute FIRST for Lynn to be broaching this subject, I stated straightforward and forthrightly with the following concepts:
In the last 5 months, J... has been struggling mentally, experiencing a major emotional meltdown in the preceding October
You (Lynn) were at the center of that meltdown as she continually called you a wicked man
She is upset with how you handled the drilling of her teeth in Columbia—calling you stupid for not seeing through the Columbian Stake President Dentist’s ploy
She is upset with you for not doing anything about her molestation by “the Mexican”
She is upset with you for doing nothing about Dr. Smith’s (alleged) molestation of Karen
I even went into detail about each time we visited the Idaho Falls 19th Ward, we would attend Gospel Doctrine where this doctor was the teacher, and J... would literally grit her teeth, spit his name, and scowl. 
I ask Lynn what was done about the Smith/Karen incident, and his immediate response was to turn against both J and K calling them “his two problem daughters”, stating that they are his problem and that he would provide the funds to get J counseling.  Lynn then stood up and the changed the subject, “I want to see the filming studio”, immediately suggesting that he back me with money to really get the business going.  This was absurd as my business was already going well, as evidenced in Jean’s sworn affidavit (Exhibit 03 C Item 26).  Elder Mickelsen wanted to change the subject about his daughters’ molestations, and he did it by offering me money.  After exiting the filming studio, I introduced him to my associate David Gonzalez in the Lobby. Lynn told a joke; I gave him a mercy laugh, the three of us shook hands and he left.  There was no hate or rancor: simply his brush-off of his daughters’ molestations, and his monetary offer to help me get my business going (a needless, ill-placed, and poorly-timed offer made out of desperation to avoid answering questions of his daughters’ molestations.  It was at this point I began suspecting him of molesting J..; and I began communicating these to Edward Bishop Donakey as shown in the ensuing item.)

Edited to take out my misreading.

[_Mary]

Here's Ron's account of his discussions with Donakey, his bishop.

One of the greatest pro-pedophile players in this saga of dysfunctional Mormonism is Bishop Edward Donakey.  A month or so after Elder Mickelsen’s visit to my offices, Donakey calls me into his office and states, “Ron, the Spirit has really impressed upon me lately that I need to sit you down and inquire of how you are doing.  How is your marriage?”  I didn’t hold anything back at this point, and I began openly sharing my speculation that Jean was most likely molested by her father.  In my non-professional opinion, it wasn’t as simple as the Mexican” brushing against her breast, followed by her climbing down from the tractor and running home:  There had to be much more to her deeply-seeded and deep-seated dysfunction than
“the Mexican” story: again, which Jean downplays in her recorded statement.
The interviews with Donakey were ongoing.  He continually bled me for information (in hind sight) that Mickelsen wanted, needed, yet failed to get on his own with his failed recording.  I inquired if Donakey had spoken with Elder Mickelsen to which he responded, “No.”   
As you will see, Donakey knew about the surprise divorce plot, and was part of it.  My relationship with this Mickelsen crony came to a head immediately after the divorce when he would call me into his office weekly and threatening me with, if I see one divorce document with the name Elder Mickelsen on it, I will initiate a Disciplinary Council (i.e. excommunication).  In one of these later post-divorce interviews (about July 2006) , he used a term that was unique to Elder Mickelsen.  I called him out on it and he admitted to talking to Elder Mickelsen on the phone, but when citing this conversation in a subsequent interview, he stated, “when he and Elder Mickelsen were talking on the porch”. 

So, before divorce papers have been served some key players are already aware that Ron suspects his father in law of abusing his own daughters. (J AND K) Donakey, and Micklesen.

[Schreech]

Given the 2002 phone call where Mickelsen (through his wife's phonecall to the daughter J) accuses K of being promiscuous with him, those suspicions, even if wrong, are understandable.

[_Res Ipsa]

RI, Ron clarifies in radio interview (part 1) that 60 pages of affidavits were produced at the Scott meeting in Idaho. So looks like a typo.

Thanks, Mary. That makes much more sense.

[_Rosebud]

for what it's worth, relating a narrative and providing evidence that doesn't support the narrative (as RI pointed out in Karren's information about the living arrangements, custody and contempt of court issue) aligns with a developmental disorder, too. Adults with high-functioning autism get so lost in their own perspectives that they can't recognize when the evidence they provide contradicts their own reasoning.

A more truly manipulative person (like the charismatic leader type) would hide contradictory evidence while intentionally creating new "evidence" to align with the false narrative he or she wanted to promote, knowing all along how and what to hide and how and what to create (evidence-wise) and how to emotionally woo people into believing the story. A person with high-functioning autism is pretty much only aware of his or her own thoughts and emotions and only reacts to others' emotions rather than taking actions to try to affect others emotions (possibly one of the reasons people with high-functioning autism seem to feel typically developing people are very manipulative.... it seems to them that we are constantly trying to affect their emotions somehow, but they don't really have access to the information that would help them understand how or why or what's going on).

Just a thought, for what it is and isn't worth.

[_Res Ipsa]

All children appear to resent their mother's camp for demonizing and accusing their dad of some pretty trumped up charges which I believe he has shown to be fabrications. It got nasty from the start, (the divorce), and that nastiness began with the Micklesen camp. Big time.

Were the three children on the podcast, or was it just Ron?

I disagree that Ron has shown what is in the affidavits to be "fabrications." First, we've seen a very few pages out of the 60 total. Second, while he goes into great length to give long chains of reasoning about the contents of the affidavits, he actually outright denies very few of them. He will dispute details of an incident and then argue that the differences in detail mean the person giving the affidavit is lying. Would you like to work through an example?

There's an important question here. How did the children learn about what was said in these affidavits? We don't know. We do have pretty good evidence that Ron told the children bad things about their mother and her family. He even defends doing so in his letter to the therapist.

I think it's pretty clear that Ron was offended by the affidavits and that he retaliated by telling the children bad things about the mother and family. The piece I don't know was whether the mother's family communicated the contents of the affidavits to the children or Ron did.

[_Res Ipsa]

All children appear to resent their mother's camp for demonizing and accusing their dad of some pretty trumped up charges which I believe he has shown to be fabrications. It got nasty from the start, (the divorce), and that nastiness began with the Micklesen camp. Big time.

Thank you Mary, for providing the links to the radio interview by Middle Grounders.

It seems more apparent the more I'm learning of what took place is that though the attempt was made to throw Ron under the bus by his wife, and the Mickelson camp, was that they sorely failed to do so.

Jean's lawyer clearly orchestrated giving back his daughter at around Thanksgiving only to make him look like he was in contempt of court two weeks later. If he had not recorded his telephone conversation like he did it would have been hearsay. Thank God he had the foresight to do what he did, because it showed the court Jean's lawyer and her conspired against him and perjured themselves on that occasion, resulting in him winning custody of his children.

He also makes clear his daughter *is not* accusing her grandfather of being promiscuous. She actually agrees that he was promiscuous with her, when she sat on his lap. Ron wants his ex-FIL to stand up and accept his responsibility for his own conduct instead of scapegoating it to K.

Jean is clearly shown to be a liar by the evidence he's provided, and her quack of an attorney. There really has been a staged coverup from the top of the Mickelson family on down.

Along with Elder Scott, who Ron clarifies married into the Mickelson family as well. He was over Mickelson in the GA, but still involved with the divorce proceedings and the coverup.

It isn't hard to glean what happened to those who're paying attention with clear eyes.

AmyJo, I see no evidence that you are looking at all the facts with clear eyes. In fact, I'd think it's fair to say you've been viewing the entire incident through Ron colored glasses the entire time.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the lawyer "orchestrated" the incident involving [daughter's] place of residence. Ron of 2016 is contradicted by Ron of 2008. Ron of 2008 knew what the court order he had agreed to said. Ron of 2008 had no idea whether Jean intended the daughter's stay to be permanent or temporary, so he faxed a letter to Jean's attorney asking her whether the change was permanent or a whim out of frustration. Ron of 2008 understood, after talking to Jean's lawyer, that Jean didn't even know what she wanted and agreed to "play it by ear." Ron of 2008 knew, by at least December 6, that Jean wanted daughter returned. He simply didn't return her. He had plenty of warning -- all he had to do with take the daughter back to her mother.

Ron of 2008 had ignored court orders on custody for over a year. Even when he agreed to be found in contempt, he failed to return the oldest son. The judge had to give a "pick up order" (which I believe is an order for the police to go pick up the eldest son) and return him to his mother.

Ron 2016 has rewritten the story so that he was the victim of a plot to hold him in contempt. If he paid attention to Ron 2008, he would know that simply isn't true.

As Mary would say, rubbish.

As to the whole "accusation" thing, Ron makes a nonsensical and bizarre argument about the meaning of the word "accusation." He claims that only an eyewitness to an event can make an "accusation." So, although he has been running around telling people that Mickelsen has abused his daughter and his ex-wife (no evidence there at all), he denies that he is accusing anyone. It's irrational.

[_Rosebud]

As to the whole "accusation" thing, Ron makes a nonsensical and bizarre argument about the meaning of the word "accusation." He claims that only an eyewitness to an event can make an "accusation." So, although he has been running around telling people that Mickelsen has abused his daughter and his ex-wife (no evidence there at all), he denies that he is accusing anyone. It's irrational.

You're describing autism.