Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_kairos]

Rosebud, can you explain what that means in real terms? (Self insurance - other than background checks).

If a wardhouse burns down, the Mormon church uses its deep pockets to build a new one. This is less expensive than the church paying for an outside insurance provider. If an abuse victim sues the church, the church pays the full settlement rather than using a third-party insurance company to cover settlement costs. This is less expensive than the church paying for liability insurance. Smaller religious groups can't get liability insurance that covers child abuse lawsuits unless they meet the specific child safety standards required by the insurance providers.

In the 90s and early 00s, for example, the Mormon church refused to spend the money to put windows on all classroom doors even though by that time, doing so was a standard child abuse prevention requirement of most insurance carriers. Getting windows up took a long time in Mormonism. The church was way behind.

In other words, the church has "insured" itself but may not be "insurable." Its child abuse prevention policies protect it from the kind of suits that are easiest to for victims to win (person x was reported to the bishop as a potential pedophile and the bishop allowed person x to continue to have contact with children and then person x abused my child -- has similarities to the systemic problem in the Catholic church) and were even initially ahead of the game in church legal self-protection but have consistently been behind the game in true child protection based on information from child protection and abuse prevention experts.



If someone could put together:

1. A compilation of what child abuse prevention measures the church wasn't taking that would have been necessary if the church had an outside insurance carrier year-by-year (compare each year's Mormon policy over the last 3 decades to the minimum and maximum insurance standards of the same calendar years in major countries like the US and the U.K.)

2. Proof that the church knew it wasn't taking these actions and that they would be helpful in preventing child abuse based specifically on the information the church had each year about how perpetrators take advantage of Mormon congregations (could use the Pace report and other letters/complaints about insufficient policy protections/legal cases against the church where abuse detailing when and how the abuse occurred if the abuse would have been prevented if the safety standards required by major insurance carriers had been in place -- Pace report is confusing and very difficult to believe, so multiple document would be necessary to demonstrate church negligence)

3. Several stories from credible victims (not their fathers or ex-spouses) that accentuate that the way the abuse occurred was related to lack of adequate prevention policies in comparison to the church's knowledge about how to prevent abuse based on documentation in number 2

4. Proof that someone at the top was even acting abusively and protecting perpetrators' ability to act against children

Then there would be a case against the church that might demonstrate systemwide predator protection and be similar to the work done by the Spotlight group, but tweaked for Mormonism. Without number 4, a case could still be made for money being more important to the church than child safety. With number 4, one could prove a systemwide coverup.



I would like someone to gather funds and project leaders and take this project on.



Edits: I tend to use less clear language when I post from my phone. I decided to come back and clean this post up a bit because I think it's important.

I, not a member, have been personally involved in a group called voice of the faithful ,VOTF formed in light of the Boston investigation of sexual abuse among clergy there. We formed regional groups -I am in the Washington DC region. We began looking into sex abuse by priests in our area by finding victims to come out and tell their stories- we sat and listened for months twice a week at St Columba episcopal church in DC listening to stories and comforting victims-we called them survivors. They themselves formed a nationwide group called SNAP-survivors network of those abused by priests. We them wrote letters to and met with Bishop Loverde of the Arlington VA diocese and Cardinal Mccarrick? now Wuerl of Washington DC- we were listened to, but it took years to get the dioceses to release information they had on abuser priests- look! , if they have information ,giving it up to us or victim lawyers was like shooting them selves in the foot. Not until criminal and or civil suits were filed like in Boston were abuser files forthcoming. Each catholic diocese played the game just like the Mormon church. When a suit is filed the lawyers for the church will file motion after motion to stall release of any information that would do harm to their case. Then when push was coming to shove and the date for a trial was set, the church, Mormon and catholic would settle. In Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony stalled for almost 10 years, never going to court- his LA diocese paid out about 1.5 billion dollars, the most of any diocese. In the Mormon church in the 70-90's, a parent would tell the bishop that brother x is molesting her son- typically the bishop would tell her to not go to the police, that the church would handle the matter and not to worry brother x would get taken care of. In many Mormon cases the bishop would find out brother x was a problem and remove him from his calling and possibily bring him to a disciplinary court and brother x might be excommed. Hardly ever would a bishop call the police in or even tell ward members that brother x could be a danger to their kids. Brother x could then go through repentance and be rebaptized.
In my thread "The Mormon church wins" I try to describe how the church handled a case of pedophilia by brother Curtis over a 30 year period base on the book by Lisa Davis,
"The Sins of Brother Curtis".

Current policies in the Mormon church and in the RC church look really good on paper -airtight they are!
But still sex abusers are out there and it is now the bishops other leaders responsibility to report alleged sex abuse to the police- probably after they use the hotline to SLC which does not go to counselors but to church lawyers first.

Definitely things are better now in terms of reporting, offering counseling etc. but Mormon church lawyers continue to be like pit bulls in their efforts to protect the lds church.

k

[_Mary]

Kairos, that's really interesting.

I know of two cases in the UK where the ward exec was told not to contact the police and he would be reprimanded if he did.
The SP had been told by the European helpline that it was church policy to never tell police and leave it to the perpetrator to come forward.

In one case , where the police were contacted, the priesthood leaders were told they were not to give evidence.

One case 2008, and another 2013.

[_kairos]

Kairos, that's really interesting.

I know of two cases in the UK where the ward exec was told not to contact the police and he would be reprimanded if he did.
The SP had been told by the European helpline that it was church policy to never tell police and leave it to the perpetrator to come forward.

In one case , where the police were contacted, the priesthood leaders were told they were not to give evidence.

In most cases Mormon lawyers will claim clergy-penitent privilege very broadly. in the case of the rc confessional- a man comes in and tells the priest - forgive me father I sexually abused my 4 year old nephew. the priest can try to get more information and tell the perp to get help, turn himself in but I do not think the priest must by canon/church law report this to police and cannot divulge the information if under oath in a courtroom- not sure what Mormon rules are via the church handbook and clergy-penitent privilege.
k

[_Mary]

I listened to Matt Long's interview on this subject with John Dehlin. As I recall, the clergy can claim client/penitent privilege but they are protected legally if they do come forward.

As I understand the above cases I mentioned, they didn't come to light within the context of confession but from the victims.

[_Rosebud]

If a wardhouse burns down, the Mormon church uses its deep pockets to build a new one. This is less expensive than the church paying for an outside insurance provider. If an abuse victim sues the church, the church pays the full settlement rather than using a third-party insurance company to cover settlement costs. This is less expensive than the church paying for liability insurance. Smaller religious groups can't get liability insurance that covers child abuse lawsuits unless they meet the specific child safety standards required by the insurance providers.

In the 90s and early 00s, for example, the Mormon church refused to spend the money to put windows on all classroom doors even though by that time, doing so was a standard child abuse prevention requirement of most insurance carriers. Getting windows up took a long time in Mormonism. The church was way behind.

In other words, the church has "insured" itself but may not be "insurable." Its child abuse prevention policies protect it from the kind of suits that are easiest to for victims to win (person x was reported to the bishop as a potential pedophile and the bishop allowed person x to continue to have contact with children and then person x abused my child -- has similarities to the systemic problem in the Catholic church) and were even initially ahead of the game in church legal self-protection but have consistently been behind the game in true child protection based on information from child protection and abuse prevention experts.



If someone could put together:

1. A compilation of what child abuse prevention measures the church wasn't taking that would have been necessary if the church had an outside insurance carrier year-by-year (compare each year's Mormon policy over the last 3 decades to the minimum and maximum insurance standards of the same calendar years in major countries like the US and the U.K.)

2. Proof that the church knew it wasn't taking these actions and that they would be helpful in preventing child abuse based specifically on the information the church had each year about how perpetrators take advantage of Mormon congregations (could use the Pace report and other letters/complaints about insufficient policy protections/legal cases against the church where abuse detailing when and how the abuse occurred if the abuse would have been prevented if the safety standards required by major insurance carriers had been in place -- Pace report is confusing and very difficult to believe, so multiple document would be necessary to demonstrate church negligence)

3. Several stories from credible victims (not their fathers or ex-spouses) that accentuate that the way the abuse occurred was related to lack of adequate prevention policies in comparison to the church's knowledge about how to prevent abuse based on documentation in number 2

4. Proof that someone at the top was even acting abusively and protecting perpetrators' ability to act against children

Then there would be a case against the church that might demonstrate systemwide predator protection and be similar to the work done by the Spotlight group, but tweaked for Mormonism. Without number 4, a case could still be made for money being more important to the church than child safety. With number 4, one could prove a systemwide coverup.



I would like someone to gather funds and project leaders and take this project on.



Edits: I tend to use less clear language when I post from my phone. I decided to come back and clean this post up a bit because I think it's important.

I, not a member, have been personally involved in a group called voice of the faithful ,VOTF formed in light of the Boston investigation of sexual abuse among clergy there. We formed regional groups -I am in the Washington DC region. We began looking into sex abuse by priests in our area by finding victims to come out and tell their stories- we sat and listened for months twice a week at St Columba episcopal church in DC listening to stories and comforting victims-we called them survivors. They themselves formed a nationwide group called SNAP-survivors network of those abused by priests. We them wrote letters to and met with Bishop Loverde of the Arlington VA diocese and Cardinal Mccarrick? now Wuerl of Washington DC- we were listened to, but it took years to get the dioceses to release information they had on abuser priests- look! , if they have information ,giving it up to us or victim lawyers was like shooting them selves in the foot. Not until criminal and or civil suits were filed like in Boston were abuser files forthcoming. Each catholic diocese played the game just like the Mormon church. When a suit is filed the lawyers for the church will file motion after motion to stall release of any information that would do harm to their case. Then when push was coming to shove and the date for a trial was set, the church, Mormon and catholic would settle. In Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony stalled for almost 10 years, never going to court- his LA diocese paid out about 1.5 billion dollars, the most of any diocese. In the Mormon church in the 70-90's, a parent would tell the bishop that brother x is molesting her son- typically the bishop would tell her to not go to the police, that the church would handle the matter and not to worry brother x would get taken care of. In many Mormon cases the bishop would find out brother x was a problem and remove him from his calling and possibily bring him to a disciplinary court and brother x might be excommed. Hardly ever would a bishop call the police in or even tell ward members that brother x could be a danger to their kids. Brother x could then go through repentance and be rebaptized.
In my thread "The Mormon church wins" I try to describe how the church handled a case of pedophilia by brother Curtis over a 30 year period base on the book by Lisa Davis,
"The Sins of Brother Curtis".

Current policies in the Mormon church and in the RC church look really good on paper -airtight they are!
But still sex abusers are out there and it is now the bishops other leaders responsibility to report alleged sex abuse to the police- probably after they use the hotline to Salt Lake City which does not go to counselors but to church lawyers first.

Definitely things are better now in terms of reporting, offering counseling etc. but Mormon church lawyers continue to be like pit bulls in their efforts to protect the lds church.

k

Kairos,

Do you think the VOTF would be in a position to help take testimony from Mormon victims?

One concern in Mormonism is the level of violence and retaliation that occurs within families as opposed to abuse that comes from sources outside family systems. There is a lot of fear of retaliation among mental health professionals who try to help victims stuck in abusive Mormon families. Fear of retaliation has shut down victim support groups, for example. Do you think there's any chance the VOTF network would have the wherewithal to provide support and take victim testimony even if no Mormon victim organization like SNAP was ever formed?

Could VOTF help train a similar Mormon network?

[_Rosebud]

Kairos, that's really interesting.

I know of two cases in the UK where the ward exec was told not to contact the police and he would be reprimanded if he did.
The SP had been told by the European helpline that it was church policy to never tell police and leave it to the perpetrator to come forward.

In one case , where the police were contacted, the priesthood leaders were told they were not to give evidence.

One case 2008, and another 2013.

The hotline is clever legally because it ensures that official advice given to Mormon priesthood authorities remains verbal. It would be helpful if someone collected testimony from people who say they received this kind of hotline advice.

[_Mary]

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/profi ... e=activity

For me, this is the most important post yet. K clearly details abuse even under a legal definition. The grandfather was touching the inside and outside of her thighs whilst becoming sexually aroused. Kylee would slide down his lap and he would pull her up again because he was *tickling* her. The phone call asking that K not sit on grandpa's lap is clearly acknowledged.

The case is marked as closed because it isn't sexual molestation. What the damn flipping hell.

Ron's telling the truth people.

[_Rosebud]

Mr. Karren,

That is of course sexual abuse and it is of course a crime.

Here's my problem: I have listened to hundreds (more?) stories of child sexual abuse. I don't recall ever hearing of a predator who did just that. Lots of them play lap games, but usually that's the beginning of the crime. The question isn't whether or not this is a crime, but whether or not it's likely that events happened in the way your daughter describes in the report.

I see a few possibilities:

1. This crime happened in the way your daughter describes in the recording and no other crimes were committed against her or your other children by their grandfather.

2. This crime happened in the way your daughter describes in the recording and many other crimes were committed against her and your other children by their grandfather.

3. The crime didn't happen and your daughter was reporting what she believed based on information she had heard during the divorce conflict.


My opinion is that number 1 is very unlikely in comparison to numbers 2 and 3. I would guess that the professionals asked to evaluate the case would have had similar thoughts based on their knowledge of child sexual abuse and the susceptibility of children to parental suggestion during divorce conflicts.

It may be that the professionals ruled out number 1 because in addition to it being unlikely, the extreme divorce conflict and the fact that you had accused the grandfather in writing of child sexual abuse before this testimony was taken gave them reason to believe number 3. They may also have considered the fact that as no more information was provided than this report, they didn't have good cause to believe number 2. The professional questioning your daughter gave her an opportunity to say more and she did not. They may have assumed 3 because it is more reasonable and likely than 1. Predators rarely just play lap games.

Also, as far as I know, no criminal charge was made. Is that true or false? The question at hand isn't whether or not this would be a crime if it were true. Of course it is a crime. I'm just unsure if a criminal charge was ever made or what happened or didn't happen in the criminal case if there was indeed a criminal case. I am unsure why you're accentuating that what you are reporting is a crime when that seems obvious. Is that because you don't want someone who has committed this kind of crime to be a GA? Is it his calling that is in question rather than whether or not this is a crime?

This is what I need in order to evaluate your report:

The order and dates of the accusations made after the initial divorce filing. Who filed accusations first? What did your accusations say? If you don't want to release all 60 pages of affidavits that you say were written against you, that is fine. I am less interested in what they said about you than the date they said it. I am especially interested in everything you said about them and the date you said it. In one of your previous reports I believe you said that you made the accusations immediately after you received the notice of your wife's desire to leave you. True or false?

It would also be very helpful if you would provide a summary list of dates and filings so that I can understand the sequence of things.

[_AmyJo]

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/profiles/blogs/mickelsen-case-cover-up-by-the-professionals-part-3-lds-church?xg_source=activity

For me, this is the most important post yet. K clearly details abuse even under a legal definition. The grandfather was touching the inside and outside of her thighs whilst becoming sexually aroused. Kylee would slide down his lap and he would pull her up again because he was *tickling* her. The phone call asking that K not sit on grandpa's lap is clearly acknowledged.

The case is marked as closed because it isn't sexual molestation. What the damn flipping hell.

Ron's telling the truth people.

Thanks Mary, for the update.

I believe him too.

The best defense is a good offense, and I'd say he's giving this one hell of a good offense even if it never sees the light of a courtroom. The church is on public trial, and it's about time.

The coverup goes all the way up the ladder, and is swept under the rug by the local law enforcement agencies who turn a blind eye to apostles and other LDS, while conveniently explaining away the elephant in the room.

[_Res Ipsa]

So, I have started reading these submissions by reading the attachments first, so that I don't get distracted by Ron's arguments. Over the course of 30 years, I've read hundreds and hundreds of recorded statements, taken hundreds of depositions and statements under oath. The interview of Mickelsen by the detective is one of the worst, if not the worst, recorded interview that I've read. Full stop.

I'd be curious to read the transcript of Ron's interview. I'd die of shock if he didn't talk about the phone call in that interview. If he described it to the detective the way he describes it today, there is no excuse for not re-interviewing Mickelsen and asking him about the phone call. None.

The daughter deserved far better treatment from the police department than she was given. Sadly, Ron is her own worst enemy in making her case. All it takes to show that his daughter's claims were not treated properly would be to recount his recollection of Jean's description of the 2002 phone call, the therapist's report, the transcribed interview of the daughter, and the transcribed interview of the detective with Mickelsen. That's a compelling story that might get attention. Instead, Ron has loaded it up with tons of irrelevant crap that contradicts the evidence at the time.

Stuff that I would want to know if I were the DA:

1. What was Mickelsen's understanding of the sexual abuse allegations?
2. What was Mickelsen's understanding of what the daughter was saying?
3. When did he become aware of the allegations?
4. Who did he talk to about the allegations?
5. When did he first learn that Ron was making any kind of sexual abuse allegations against Mickelsen?
6. How did he learn that?
7. Did he tell anyone about those allegations?
8. Did he and his wife ever phone their daughter and ask her not to let the daughter sit on the grandfather's lap anymore?
9. Get all the details possible about his recollection of the call?
10. Get a detailed recitation of events that led to making the call.
11. Ask if the word "promiscuous" was used in the call
12. Ask if there was any reference made to the cousin in the call.
13. Interview Mrs. Mickelsen and ask all the same questions about the call.
14. Interview Jean about the call.
15. When was Mickelsen transferred to Mexico. Why? What is the general practice with respect to changing Q70 assignments?
16. Was Mickelsen transferred back to the U.S. When?
17. Did Mickelsen ever discuss sexual abuse allegations with a member of the quorum of the 12?
18. What was discussed.
19. Same questions with respect to the first presidency.
20. Did Mickelsen rub his children's knees or legs when they sat on his lap?
21. Have him demonstrate?
22. Did he rub their legs in the area shown by the granddaughter?

There is some information from the divorce that I think is relevant, but that Ron hasn't given us. First, he filed a motion that involved claims of sexual abuse early in the case that ended up with the Commissioner chewing him out. What did he say in that motion? Did he describe the phone call? Is the description the same as when he describes it today? Did Jean ever file any affidavit in response (or otherwise) that describes the phone call? If so, what did she say? Did Ron describe the phone call in his interview with the detective? If so, how did he describe it? The earliest version of Ron's story about the phone call I can find is from the 2012 complaint against Stringham.

Turning to the question of whether, in fact, a crime was committed. Here is another example where Ron is his daughter's worst enemy. When you want to know whether a crime has been committed, you have to look at the actual law. I suspect Ron knows that. But does he quote from the law? No -- he quotes from stuff that isn't the law. The Utah statute on child sex abuse has been amended many times over the years, but I think this is the correct language that was in effect between 1999 and 2002 (when the daughter says the conduct occurred).

A person commits sexual abuse of a child if, under circumstances not amounting to rape of a child, object rape of a child, sodomy on a child, or an attempt to commit any of these offenses, the actor touches the anus, buttocks, or genitalia of any child, the breast of a female child, or otherwise takes indecent liberties with a child, or causes a child to take indecent liberties with the actor or another with intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person regardless of the sex of any participant.

Utah Statutes 75-5-404.1

Now, the people in charge of determining whether there is a case to be prosecuted are those in the DA's office -- specifically, the Assistant DA assigned to the case. We don't know anything about this person's analysis of the case. I suspect that the ADA concluded, based on the daughter's recorded interview, that there wasn't any touching of the listed body parts. So, the case would come down to this:

1. Is there probable cause to conclude that grandfather either took "indecent liberties" with the child or caused the child to take "indecent liberties" with him?

2. Is there probable cause to conclude that the grandfather intended to arouse or gratify his sexual desires?

But what does "indecent liberties" mean? The statute doesn't define it. So, maybe the case law does...

Well, no. It doesn't. The courts treat it as a catch all for conduct that is as serious as the listed items of conduct but not the same as the items described in the list. Clear as mud. If you want to read the decisions, google "Utah cases 'indecent liberties.'"

Touching a child with the intent to cause sexual self-gratification is not a crime in Utah. It's gross. It's creepy. It's disgusting. It's not healthy. But it's not a crime. The touching has to be to specified areas of the body or be something that is as (I think the word is "grave") as touching those areas. (By the way, whether there is skin to skin contact was held in 1990 by the court of appeals to be relevant, but not determinative, so I suspect that's why the detective asked the daughter that question.)

I don't know anything about the ADA or what was said at the meeting. I don't know what the experience had been with the DA's office in terms of getting jury convictions based on different types of allegations. If the daughter and MIckelsen's statement were all the fact there were, I could understand coming to the conclusion that the facts they had didn't meet the vague definition of "indecent liberties" or that there was insufficient evidence of intent. But I think the detectives should have been told to perform a proper and thorough investigation. The daughter deserved that -- especially given the powerful position the grandfather held in the church.