Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Rosebud]

The answer to Chap's WTF is this: The mother fought for custody for something like two and a half years. The reality was that she could not manage the children. The husband kept the oldest son with him in defiance of court orders for something like a year and a half. At some point, Ron agreed to return the son within 60 days. He didn't. The court had to order that the son be picked up and delivered to his mother. Sometime later, an altercation occurred between the oldest son and his mother that resulted in her calling the police. Ron says she called the police repeatedly. The middle son told his therapist that he acts out with his mother so that she will let him live with his father. She had no control over the daughter, who would leave the house and simply not come back.

The reality was that, for whatever reason, she could not manage those children. I think her attorney understood that, but it took her time to accept the reality of the situation.

This also gets really expensive really quick. Who knows what her family's finances were like in order to fight a protracted legal dispute.

When I fought for custody, between lawyers and guardian ad litems, I passed $20k pretty quickly. I think I spent around $30k total to get my kids back. I can't imagine adding kids who would f*** with me into the mix. I'd quit, too.

- Doc

Yup.

Feeling thankful my ex didn't have much influence over the kids' minds. He sure tried. Fortunately, there were qualified professionals involved and by speaking the truth and supporting the kids in being with their dad whenever they wanted, things worked out in their best interests. Plus, my kids are mad smart and fantastic critical thinkers (if I do say so myself). I have no idea what would have happened to them if my ex had been more powerful emotionally and intellectually than me. It takes a lot of stamina to make it through this stuff. I finally made the decision to protect my family from what remained of my ex's tactics (which I felt would have done severe, permanent and irreparable damage to myself and the kids) by letting him get away with a lot more money than a court likely would have allowed.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I barely scraped by and I tend to think (admittedly pridefully) that I have a lot of personal capacity to deal with stress and find creative solutions to problems. I wouldn't look down on myself if I had failed to have what it took to beat my ex's tactics with the children. Making it through was rough. I can't look down on Karren's ex for finally giving in after a lot of hell. Maybe she's a wreck. But maybe she's a hero for what she did and tried to do.

[_Res Ipsa]

OK, Jersey Girl, here's a pretty good example of why I don't consider Ron a reliable source of information in this matter. Here is his description of an incident in 2008.

On Monday, November 24, 2008 (3 days before Thanksgiving) at approximately 6:30am, Jean called me to tell me that it was time to have [daughter] live with me, because she could not manage her. Jean dropped her off within the hour, crying very loudly while hugging [daughter]. (Exhibit 07 B, Document 1, Page 5, Item 11). PDF Page 6.
Two days later on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 (the day before Thanksgiving), Kathleen McConkie called me, informing me that Jean cannot manage [daughter], and that Jean is going to abide by Kylee’s wishes to come and live with me. (Exhibit 07 B, Document 2). PDF Page 10.

Now, in his supporting materials, Ron includes a letter he wrote to Jean's attorney that same day. Here's how he described the incident:

Monday Morning 11/24 Jean called me at 6:30 a.m. stating "Kylee is going to come and live with you because unless she does, she is not going to school." I stated, "You're the parent, take her to school". Jean reiterated her position that "Kylee is going to come and live with you because unless she does, she is not going to school." (There was silence on the phone for 20 to 30 seconds, as I was dumbfounded by the lack of logic.) She broke the silence with, "Here's Kylee."
Kylee explained the situation ofcoming to live with me, and I agreed. Kylee hung up. Kylee called back again and asked, "When are you coming to pick me up?" Jean, in the background, corrected Kylee stating, "No! I am going to take you over there. Get packed up."
At about 7:40 a.m. Jean dropped Kylee off at my home, and has apparently left town. (?)

By way of background, the parties have signed a stipulation, entered as an order, that Jean will have custody of all three children, with Ron having statutory visitation.

Ron's letter makes clear that he doesn't know whether Jean intends this to be temporary or permanent. He explicitly asks that question:

Before coming to any kind of resolution, I obviously need to relocate to a larger living space, yet before doing so; I certainly need to know the intentions of your client's actions, and her state of mind.
Would she like this to be permanent? If it is permanent, the stipulation can be wide open for the kids to go and visit her or stay with her, or even go live with her at any time they choose-other than if they are grounded or being disciplined (of course). But as it stands, the kids know full well they can go there any time.

...

Perhaps this letter of good will is premature, and even playing into some legal strategy­ It matters not: In any case, I need to know what her intentions are. Is this permanent? Is this a whim in frustration? Is this her dad's call?

He tells the story today as if both parents understood that when Jean dropped the daughter off, it was intended to be a permanent move. But, at the time, he is crystal clear that he didn't know whether this represented a "whim" or a permanent change. He also shows a clear understanding that, if it was to be permanent, the temporary custody stipulation they were operating under would have to be changed.

Two days later, the attorney, who has been out of town at the birth of a grandchild, calls Ron in response to the letter. She has spoken very briefly with Jean. When you read the whole transcript, it's pretty clear that she doesn't know whether Jean intends this to be permanent or temporary. At one point she explicitly states that she is telling Ron that Jean didn't say this but the attorney is telling Ron what she thinks Jean will be willing to do. Toward the end of the phone call, these exchanges occur"

Kathleen [She] didn’t say that, actually. But you know – but that’s what I think. I don’t think she’s manageable. But that’s not really what Jean said. I want to be really clear, so you don’t.

Ron: “Okay, we’ll just play it by ear then. I –“

Kathleen: “Yeah, we’ll play it by ear, and whatever she decides to do she decides to do."

And, again, at the end of the call:

[quote]
Ron: : “Okay. We’ll just for – you know, we’ll just play it by ear for now. That’s great.”

So, after the phone call, Ron knows that it isn't settled how long this arrangement will be for and has said he is willing to play it by ear.

The description of the incident that Ron gives in his blog (what I quoted at the beginning of this post) is not only inaccurate, it is highly misleading. It is contradicted by the very documents that he thinks supports his description.

[_Mary]

Ri, whether the new situation was temporary or not, there was an attempt to hold Ron in contempt for having K live with him, when K had been delivered to his door with suitcases and with the need to use a truck to get the rest of her stuff.

How many days after K was dropped off was there an attempt to hold Ron in contempt for not returning K?

Whether Ron is a reliable witness or not, again, is not the core issue - the core issue is whether K was sexually abused as a minor.

What do we have
1) Phone call in 2002 from Grandma about lap incidents and Ks promiscuity.
2) Ks talk with her father at the beginning of 2008 detailing the abuse.

Do you think K would be listened to in a court of law if she were to bring charges against her grandfather. No easy task when someone refuses to admit guilt. It would be hell for her.

[_Dr Exiled]

Ri, whether the new situation was temporary or not, there was an attempt to hold Ron in contempt for having K live with him, when K had been delivered to his door with suitcases and with the need to use a truck to get the rest of her stuff.

How many days after K was dropped off was there an attempt to hold Ron in contempt for not returning K?

Whether Ron is a reliable witness or not, again, is not the core issue - the core issue is whether K was sexually abused as a minor.

What do we have
1) Phone call in 2002 from Grandma about lap incidents and Ks promiscuity.
2) Ks talk with her father at the beginning of 2008 detailing the abuse.

Do you think K would be listened to in a court of law if she were to bring charges against her grandfather. No easy task when someone refuses to admit guilt. It would be hell for her.

Isn't Mr. Karren the sole source for the above information as well as everything else? When will we get independent, non-hearsay evidence? Is your desire to believe this horrific family court tale, a tale used a lot in family court cases and a lot of times made up to gain an advantage, affecting your comments at all?

[Guest]

Ri, whether the new situation was temporary or not, there was an attempt to hold Ron in contempt for having K live with him, when K had been delivered to his door with suitcases and with the need to use a truck to get the rest of her stuff.

How many days after K was dropped off was there an attempt to hold Ron in contempt for not returning K?

Whether Ron is a reliable witness or not, again, is not the core issue - the core issue is whether K was sexually abused as a minor.

What do we have
1) Phone call in 2002 from Grandma about lap incidents and Ks promiscuity.
2) Ks talk with her father at the beginning of 2008 detailing the abuse.

Do you think K would be listened to in a court of law if she were to bring charges against her grandfather. No easy task when someone refuses to admit guilt. It would be hell for her.

Chronology:

11/24/08 Jean drops daughter off at Ron's. Ron writes letter to attorney asking if Jean intends the arrangement to be permanent or is a whim out of frustration.

11/26/08 Attorney telephones Ron. Ron agrees that they will "play it by ear."

12/1/08 Jean says she made her first request that Ron return the daughter. She says she sent several e-mails. McKay, in his affidavit four years later, says she sent several e-mails. Ron doesn't give us those e-mails.

12/6/08 Phone call between Ron and Jean recorded by Ron. Stuff Jean says: "Well, I just thought it would be nice if you'd bring [daughter] home." "I'd like her to be home." "Never said I wanted her to live there. I don't want any of them to live there, but..." "I want [daughter] to come home and you know I do." "You know what you need to do. Just waiting for you to do it" It is clear from that transcript that she wants Ron to return the daughter. She has that right because that's what the order says.

12/11/08 E-mail from Jean to Ron (the only one of several that he gives us): “Her 'stay' has been long enough. I will be by at 3:00 to pick her up from your house." Instead of returning the daughter, Ron goes to court with motions to keep [daughter] without giving any notice to Jean or her attorney. (Another thing Ron doesn't mention, but it's in the docket.)

12/12/08 Jean calls Orem City police, who go to Ron's house to see if he will give [daughter] back. The court places Ron's motion on the regular calendar and orders him to serve Jean's lawyer with the motion.

12/15/08 Jean's lawyer files and serves a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against Ron and to hold him in contempt for keeping daughter against the court order.

12/17/08 A lawyer from Kathleen's office faxes Ron a letter notifying him they will appear that morning for an emergency hearing on the TRO. Court issues a TRO against Ron.

12/22/08 Hearing on the TRO. (That's the way TRO's work -- they can be issued before there is a full hearing). Ron appears. The daughter has been returned to Jean's custody. The court reiterates the orders previously issued.

Ron knew that the current court order said that Jean had physical custody of [daughter]. He didn't know whether Jean intended the arrangement to be permanent. He knew after the call with the lawyer that Jean didn't either, and agreed to "play it by ear." He knew by at least December 6 (he hasn't given us the previous e-mails) that Jean wanted [daughter] back living with her. There was no excuse for him to not send her back that day. Instead, he waited another 5 days and tried to file motions without giving Jean or her lawyer any notice at all. There was some additional attempt by the lawyer to resolved the situation (another exhibit that Ron hasn't given us). By the time the police showed up, he knew damn well that Jean was serious. He was served with the motions on December 15, but still didn't return the daughter. It took getting a Temporary Restraining Order from the court to force him to comply with the order he was already required to follow. Regardless, of whether he felt jerked around, it was his obligation to follow court orders. He already had a history of ignoring the court's custody order with regard to the oldest son. There was no excuse for Ron's failure to comply with the court order. None. This wasn't a "trap." It wasn't "suborning perjury." This was Ron ignoring court orders, even though he'd already admitted to being in contempt once before and held in contempt another time.

In an early affidavit, Jean describes Ron as never taking responsibility for his problems -- always blaming other people for things that happen to him. That's spot on with what happened here. He ignored court orders and now blames everyone but himself for the fallout.

ETA: But the main issue is that Ron offers this as evidence that the attorney was "suborning perjury." There's no there, there.

[_Res Ipsa]

Ri, whether the new situation was temporary or not, there was an attempt to hold Ron in contempt for having K live with him, when K had been delivered to his door with suitcases and with the need to use a truck to get the rest of her stuff.

How many days after K was dropped off was there an attempt to hold Ron in contempt for not returning K?

Whether Ron is a reliable witness or not, again, is not the core issue - the core issue is whether K was sexually abused as a minor.

What do we have
1) Phone call in 2002 from Grandma about lap incidents and Ks promiscuity.
2) Ks talk with her father at the beginning of 2008 detailing the abuse.

Do you think K would be listened to in a court of law if she were to bring charges against her grandfather. No easy task when someone refuses to admit guilt. It would be hell for her.

Isn't Mr. Karren the sole source for the above information as well as everything else? When will we get independent, non-hearsay evidence? Is your desire to believe this horrific family court tale, a tale used a lot in family court cases and a lot of times made up to gain an advantage, affecting your comments at all?

Not exactly. Jean acknowledges that there was a phone call from her parents at some point in the recorded conversation between her and the eldest son. He doesn't ask her what her recollection of the call was. We have no documents that recite her recollection of the phone call. All we have is Ron's description of what Jean said about the phone call at the time in 2002.

The daughter told therapist Stringham in 2008 that her grandfather had sexually abused her when she was six (six years before) by rubbing her thighs and she could feel his weenie. That's hearsay, but I think it's pretty reliable hearsay. (Not all hearsay is inadmissible in court.)

The rest of the details are from Ron. There are only two witnesses that have direct knowledge: the daughter and the grandfather. So far, we haven't been given any witness statements or recorded interviews of them.

[_Mary]

Thanks RI.

[_Mary]

Is there evidence that Jean lied to the court?

[_Dr Exiled]

RI:

I understand that therapists can testify as to what a child tells them and that is an exception to the hearsay rule. However, isn't the source of what the therapist said still Mr. Karren? If it is, then that should be disallowed under the hearsay rules. We need to see the actual therapist report. Additionally, isn't the source of the content of the telephone call Mr. Karren? Again, that would be inadmissible hearsay.

So, again, my question to you Karren believers, do you believe him despite the family court bias that exists in these custody cases? Sure it may still be true but these alleged horrible events happened in 2002. What does the daughter say now? She should be 20 now. Does she want to speak? Has she said she doesn't want to speak about it? Why is it coming out now? What's the ax Karren wants to grind? How does his daughter feel about being the subject of all this internet chatter? Did Karren get her permission to tell this to the world?

[_Res Ipsa]

Is there evidence that Jean lied to the court?

It's hard to say. The strongest candidate would be the 2005 incident with McKay. But context is everything. Ron comes home from out of town. McKay goes out to Ron's truck and tells him his version of what happened. Ron goes and gets his tape recorder, recites a summary of what McKay told him, and then asks Jean if it's correct. There's no indication he ever asked Jean what happened before he dragged out the tape recorder. He doesn't ask McKay to describe the incident in his own words. Is she really agreeing with all the details, or is she embarrassed about what happened, knows what will happen if she argues (she'll get accused of lying), and just wants it over? It's very difficult to figure out. He's already said that he started recording their companion inventory sessions because she changes her stories. He's also clearly angry about her going to the bishop, a professional, and her father over an incident (One of McKay's affidavit refers to her claiming that Ron hit her, so maybe that's it) about a divorce.

What Ron did is not how you accurately document someone's version of an event. If you want to know, you ask, and let them describe it in a narrative. Then you can go back and filling in gaps and holes with specific questions.

Her affidavit in 2006 makes her look better than the 2005 recording. But we're missing context. It was a response to an affidavit from Ron, which he doesn't give us. What did he accuse her of that she was responding to? Did he, as he does multiple times, claim she "beat" McKay, "leaving him bloodied and bruised." That's not accurate either. In any event, you linked to the definition of perjury. I don't there is enough there to satisfy the definition. I can't conclude that what she wrote is different from what she remembered at that point.

The 2009 recording with McKay is a perfect example of how not to interview someone and get clear answers. McKay is confrontational, manipulative and a little bullying with his mother. He didn't simply ask her to describe, in detail, what happened. In fact, there isn't much that is really different between their stories as portrayed in the recording. It sounds like the injury happened quickly. He recalls that she injured him trying to force him to drink the water. She recalls that the injury happened as he struggled to get away. That's a pretty slight difference for something that happened pretty quickly over four years before.

That would be the "best" evidence, but I don't think it gets there. More importantly, there is no evidence that the attorney intentionally encouraged Jean to give false testimony. None at all.

I've said this a number of times, but I think it bears repeating. Ron is giving us a very selective slice of evidence. He has claimed that 600 pages of affidavits were filed against him. That's an unexpectedly large number. He's shown us a few pages -- ones that he thinks he can refute. What's in the rest? He harps incessantly on the 2005 incident and Jean's affidavit, but we haven't seen any example of something Ron filed in court. Where are his affidavits? I know he filed lots. I'd love to see what he filed in 2007 that pissed off the Commissioner. Or what he tried to file in 2008 on the issue of the daughter's residency without notice to Jean or her lawyer. Or the order where he agreed he was in contempt. Or the other other where he was found in contempt.

Am I missing anything on the subject of lying that you've seen?