Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Mary]

In his latest and last release Ron mentions being invited to chat with an underground psychiatrist. Having read Massimo Introvigne's sceptical response to the Pace Memo I tend to think a good candidate was Snow or Whitehead. (If they are still alive)

http://www.cesnur.org/2001/archive/mi_mormons.htm

[_Mary]

Here's what Ron alleges the psychiatrist told him.

Upon divulging this knowledge to the psychiatrist (we’ll call him Mr. Psy), he corrected me:  No, it wasn’t a simple case of swinging.  It was occult activity, and the Church knows this.  Mr. Psy then went on to explain his experiences that he and other psychiatrist colleagues had in treating both child and adult victims of LDS Church leaders, going as far as naming two of the apostles as perpetrators.

The psychiatrist is referring to Mickelsen's extended family.

[_Mary]

Ron told everyone at the beginning that when he referred to a document for evidence, he'd post the document. But he's referred to literally dozens of documents that he's never posted. He's discussed these 60 pages of affidavits as if Jean's lawyer filed them right off the bat in the case. But, again, in Saturday's submission, I discovered that's not true. Jean filed for divorce in June of 2006. A year later, Ron filed the brief that he wrote on his own, even though he was represented by counsel, that got him chewed out by the Commissioner. This was a couple of months after Ron wrote his first letter to the Quorum of the 12 making all kinds of allegations against Mickelsen. Ron hasn't shown us either of those two documents. But it wasn't until two months after Ron filed the brief that the affidavits were filed by the Mickelsen family. Ron has led us to believe that the Mickelsen family fired the first shot in this little battle, but he won't show us what he said in the letter or, more importantly, said in his brief.

RI can you confirm 1. when the 60 page affidavits were written and 2. when Ron found out they had been written?

Can his brief be explained as a preemptive measure with the understanding that the affidavits were milling around?
Also, I have read through Saturday's submission twice now and can't find what you are suggesting?

[_Mary]

Also factor in the fact that portions of Ron's story are complete fabrications. He told you that, after his daughter had told him about the grandfather in January of 2008, he immediately began an intensive search for a therapist to get her help. How many times has he told you in his posts that the conversation with his daughter happened in January? In Saturday's release, we have a letter from Ron written in the weeks after that conversation, and he confirms that the date was in February after his daughter (and her brothers) were already in therapy. His claim that his ex and her lawyer "set him up" in the fall of '08 is complete fiction. How many examples do you need before you stop accepting Ron's claims about a telephone call that he wasn't even a party to?

You accounted for that discrepancy up thread?

[_Res Ipsa]

It was late RI, yep Defence lawyer..I thought you would pick me up on that, but was too tired to change it. Have you seen his latest releases?

I happen to think that whether the father is credible or not that the daughter was molested by her grandfather. If it went to court, and it won't - the father is both the daughter's best friend and her worst enemy in terms of a successful outcome.

As I stated at the beginning of my participation in this thread my own interest in this case stems from my personal knowledge of having two friends, one stateside and one here in the UK experience significant childhood sexual abuse at the hands of their fathers. So I already knew how Mission Presidents, Stake Presidents and Bishops could handle these issues, which was to blame the child and then re victimise the adult for coming forward because it was in the past and all should be forgiven. I have since learned that there is good practice in the church but that it is a lottery and so practice is uneven.

I suspected that loyal royal families of the church may be working under different rules to the rest of us. Brother Curtis in Portland for instance, was excommunicated at least twice, forgiven under a theological rubric and permitted to work with children again with no warning to parents, whereas *Hank* the son in law of an apostle was never even reprimanded yet his abuse of children along with others was heart stoppingly evil. Again ecclesiastical leaders did nothing to warn others - I assume because it would damage the church reputation.

And how is your personal experience relevant to deciding whether or not the grandfather molested the daughter in this case?

[_Res Ipsa]

In his latest and last release Ron mentions being invited to chat with an underground psychiatrist. Having read Massimo Introvigne's sceptical response to the Pace Memo I tend to think a good candidate was Snow or Whitehead. (If they are still alive)

http://www.cesnur.org/2001/archive/mi_mormons.htm

Yeah, after all of the credibility problems I've found with Ron's story, now he wants me to believe this:

In mid-2009, I received a call from a psychiatrist who informed me that he had heard about my story and that he would like to meet with me “off the record”. He provided me with the location and a meeting time of 1pm. He emphasized, “1 o’clock sharp. The door will be locked. Don’t be early. Don’t be late.” Being a bit on edge with these instructions, I went in armed and wired. Upon arrival and being let it the door promptly at 1pm, the elderly gentleman walked me through the bare (unfurnished) office, to a back room with two chairs.

He also wants me to believe that there is an underground organization of psychiatrists who have massive amounts of evidence of organized sexual abuse within the LDS church and hierarchy, including apostles, that they are keeping quiet about, thus letting the abuse continue. Really? And I'm supposed to believe this based on Ron's story about what a couple of anonymous individuals told him seven years ago?

***repeatedly bangs head on desk***

[_Mary]

And how is your personal experience relevant to deciding whether or not the grandfather molested the daughter in this case?

I have already stated up thread that I am personally convinced by the same evidence you are looking at, that Micklesen abused K. Because I am convinced of that I interpret the documentation differently than you.

I am using my own experience of lds royal families and of the handling of abuse cases in the church that I am personally aware of, to guage whether Ron's account is probable and if so to what extent.

The * Hank *situation written about in Paper Dolls is interesting because it may establish a pattern for how sex abuse is dealt with when a high ranking apostle's family members are implicated.

I wasn't aware of that case, were you and what do you think of the way the church handled it?

[_Mary]

He also wants me to believe that there is an underground organization of psychiatrists who have massive amounts of evidence of organized sexual abuse within the LDS church and hierarchy, including apostles, that they are keeping quiet about, thus letting the abuse continue. Really? And I'm supposed to believe this based on Ron's story about what a couple of anonymous individuals told him seven years ago?***repeatedly bangs head on desk***

I think even he found that far fetched as he stated.

Ron has referred me to Lavinia Anderson and Janice Allred's work for the Mormon Alliance. I haven't had time to check it out as yet. Is that familiar to you?

http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/v1.htm

[_ludwigm]

I've read all of this thread. And all of other threads.
Really. I've read every word of every thread. Really.
OK, I may face of language.

This thread should be closed.
By members.

[_Res Ipsa]

Ron told everyone at the beginning that when he referred to a document for evidence, he'd post the document. But he's referred to literally dozens of documents that he's never posted. He's discussed these 60 pages of affidavits as if Jean's lawyer filed them right off the bat in the case. But, again, in Saturday's submission, I discovered that's not true. Jean filed for divorce in June of 2006. A year later, Ron filed the brief that he wrote on his own, even though he was represented by counsel, that got him chewed out by the Commissioner. This was a couple of months after Ron wrote his first letter to the Quorum of the 12 making all kinds of allegations against Mickelsen. Ron hasn't shown us either of those two documents. But it wasn't until two months after Ron filed the brief that the affidavits were filed by the Mickelsen family. Ron has led us to believe that the Mickelsen family fired the first shot in this little battle, but he won't show us what he said in the letter or, more importantly, said in his brief.

RI can you confirm 1. when the 60 page affidavits were written and 2. when Ron found out they had been written?

Can his brief be explained as a preemptive measure with the understanding that the affidavits were milling around?
Also, I have read through Saturday's submission twice now and can't find what you are suggesting?

I went back through everything. There is a typo in my timeline. In the Saturday release, Ron said the affidavits were filed in 2006, not 2007. My mistake.