Sorry to start a new thread on this, but it seemed important enough to do so.

This just came in from someone I respect in the exmo community. I am just passing it on:

========
I know an attorney(who is a very straight shooter, and whose practice is primarily divorce and child custody) in Utah who smelled a rat when she saw all this recent info posted around the internet. Below are three different blocks of info she posted to a women's list I'm on:

When someone asked why they weren't calling the police, she posted:

"Because its a hoax. I looked up the divorce case to verify if what he said about the divorce was true. All of it false. First, he lied about having won custody of the children. (He says this early in the tape.) Not only did he never win custody, he was placed on supervised visitation after psychologists evaluated the case, and he was held in contempt of court more than once for various violations of court orders. His wife's attorney was Kathleen McConkie who does divorces all the time--little to nothing to do with the church. Several McConkies practice family law.

Any allegation of child abuse in a divorce case is required by law to be reported to child protection services and the police. No question they were reported and investigated and found to be unsupported especially when the record shows a full child custody evaluation was conducted and two petitions he filed for protective orders were denied. They must be investigated to be denied. Psychologists/child custody evaluators/child protection all would have interviewed the children before the court ordered his visitation be supervised. He sounds insane to me.
And yesterday these posts:

"Here's an example from the docket when he was refusing to sit for a psychological evaluation that was ordered on both parents:

Regarding the psychological evaluation, the court finds that it was ordered on 12/4/08. The court cites
Evans vs. Evans, English Reports 1790. The court orders that the
father's visitation will be supervised at ACAFS and he will be
responsible for the cost. ACAFS is authorized to give pre and post
interviews to the children. The court will not reconsider
the visitation until the psychological evaluation is submitted.
New request for contempt that have been noticed by the mother and
father are reserved for the trial judge. Attorney's fees are reserved. Mr. Karren is found in contempt."
"By the way, the court case is:
4TH DISTRICT COURT - PROVO
UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
JEAN MICKELSEN KARREN vs. RONALD MELDON KARREN
CASE NUMBER 064401244 Divorce"

"Here's another example of wacko's nuttiness. He represented himself and filed all kinds of stupid motions.

He filed for an injunction against anyone subject to LDS Oaths from having any involvement in his divorce and any case involving him. An injunction against all LDS people--witnesses, commissioner, judges, whoever. DENIED."

The attorney who posted these is Maria Santana. The sad thing about this is that info has come from many sources that there is an overload of sexual molestation cases in Utah.

My info added to the manure pile is that once while I lived in Arizona, I went to an all-day Conference for those working with neglected or abused children, and one of the speakers was the District Attorney for Maricopa County (Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert). I had a chance to talk to him in the hallway for some time after his talk cause I wanted to tap his experience to see what he thought about the involvement of Mormon men were in regards to the abuse statistics (sexual abuse). He was Mormon himself. He let out a little whoop, and shook his head as he told me that it was SO bad that the joke in the precincts when another man was being brought through the doors for questioning was to ask "I wonder what ward HE goes to!" This was 25 years ago. I doubt very seriously that anything has changed! And, I know for a fact that the Mormons always "rode to the rescue", stuffing the judge's mailbox with testimony about "what a good man he really was", etc., and showing up in droves to testify about how he shouldn't be taken away from his family,etc. I knew people who did it. One more thing --, it was egregious cases in AZ wherein pedophiles moved from ward to ward, or from out of state (where the new bishops was never warned about serious past offenses) that caused the legislature to finally pass mandatory reporting laws in that highly Mormon state!

This is good to know. Thanks.

Thanks for this. Just because someone posts it on the internet doesn't mean it's true!

I'm really glad you posted this. I was very upset about it yesterday and was tempted to talk to my TBM husband about it. I decided to wait and see how it pans out and I'm very glad I did.

I have read on other exmo sites that this guy has been posting this tape to any and every exmo site he can get it on. Some are not letting him do that because after a bit of research they've determined that this guy is a wacko.

n/t

This guy did not pass the smell test for me when I watched his video and checked out his FB page.

Thanks for posting this additional info.

Thanks for posting this, Richard.

This story would be very big, of course, if its true. However, as has been noted, Karren offers no corroboration for any of his claims of molestation committed against these children. And if Karren told any lies in the video (which your source suggests), I would be inclined to completely dismiss the rest of his claims.

I'll be curious to see if there is any public reaction from either the church or Mickelsen. They may figure that for now *no response* is the best response.

I hope verilyverily reads this.

wine country girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope verilyverily reads this.


Yes.

Me three. Skepticism,proof and waiting for an actual investigation before condemning someone is always good.

I wonder if there is going to be another tape? ...the one hinted at, at the end of the first video, when we see the teenage girl being miked up, and we hear an off camera voice cuing her.

One would suppose that if there was sufficient ammunition, she would have been part of the first video, as substantiation.

There is a saying in the law: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client." It's often credited to Abraham Lincoln, but I bet it was old when he said it.

There's usually no pressing reason to make an immediate decision about the veracity of a one-sided argument. But I can see how Micklesen's talk that was cited was a perfect fit for the accusations made by Karren.

Also, I have a problem with 'prissy' humans...

That's right, EOD.

No need to reach any conclusions about Mickelson yet--at least regarding the abuse accusations.

But whether he is innocent or guilty, I don't want him around my kids or grandkids. There are elements in that speech that reflect an unbalanced character. Can you imagine that guy interviewing 12-year-olds, questioning them about gossiping and other "carnal" activities; or counseling a young couple, telling them never to divulge "family mistakes or sins?"

I can see him causing a lot of problems regardless of the veracity of Kerran's claims.

Regarding Karren's motion, that all LDS individuals be precluded from dealing with his case, which was denied by the trial judge, he appealed it in 2012, to a Court of Appeals. They shot him down also.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-court-of-appeals/1619048.html

They appear to have done so for purely procedural reasons: "Husband's motion was not accompanied by the required affidavit containing alleged facts sufficient to show bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest by any judicial officer who participated in this case. “A litigant may move for a judge's recusal upon presentation of an affidavit stating facts sufficient to show bias, prejudice or conflict of interest, but an allegation that is based on religious affiliation alone ․ is not sufficient.” Treff v. Hinckley, 2001 UT 50, ¶ 10, 26 P.3d 212 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Husband's essential allegation that any judge or judicial officer is subject to disqualification based solely upon religious affiliation, without any allegation of specific facts demonstrating bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest lacks merit."

Further support for a finding of Non Corpus Mentis Wackdoodleynis is found in a footnote: "On the same date that he filed a notice of appeal from the district court's July 27, 2012 ruling, Husband filed a purported complaint seeking to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a party. This filing is not properly before us in this appeal, and we express no opinion on whether it was proceduraliy appropriate or has any substantive merit."


If you have the heart for it, go back to the end of his video and weigh the look on his (presumptive) daughter's face. Maybe she's not afraid of having to talk about her childhood, maybe she's afraid of her dad?

I'm sure any of you vested in the accusations being true will let us know if her video gets uploaded. But if Karren is monitoring the internet for how his video is being received, any joy he was feeling that first couple of days is probably evaporating.

Truth, in the sense of how different people viewed the same event, can be pretty tricky. Truth v. Perception... Who here hasn't been burned when perception triumphed.

This is from Ronald Meldon Karran's Facebook page for this profile, dated February 16:

Thanks for the interest, views, shares, comments; and yes, even the skepticism. I never expected anyone to take my word for this at point blank, nor did I ask for or start this fight. Many are calling for evidences, and THAT is all we (my kids and I) wanted from Day One: for a judge, a church leader, a neutral psychiatrist, or an unbias detective to look at the evidences. The evidence will show that these venues not only dismissed our evidences without even looking at them, but shut them down. We are arranging the release of these evidences, documents, and correlating explanations in the ensuing days, followed by a radio interview (at which point I hope to step out of the spot light and let my kids take over, lending their efforts to a new support-group-with-teeth). I will update this post within the next 24 to 48 hours regarding that data download.
Again, thank you sincerely for the dialogue (pro and con), it has brought some tremendous people to the table (even in the past 24 hours) who are putting into place practical solutions, legal protections for victims and whistle-blowers, etc. Most importantly, it has brought victims forward who are ready to tell their stories. For the past 48 hours, I relived the last 5 minutes of the movie Spotlight: the phones ringing with victims who now have the courage to come forward. With the leadership dialogue started today, they will have more support to do so...Thank you Matt, Mark, DeAnn, Cate, Lauren and your various organizations/efforts.
On this you have my word: I will never settle for hush money (but then again it's too late for that, isn't it). My kids and I have been firm on that from the beginning. Please copy/paste/share this message. Ronald Meldon Karren.

He then followed up with this post with another one from three hours ago by asking Richard Packham and Maria Santana to contact him privately to exchange information as he's being accused of being insane and this is a hoax by Mr. Packham and Maria Santana:

"Update: We have been working with various sites to release an explanation of the video, along with the evidences and documentary supports in what is quickly becoming a trial in the court of public opinion: The releases should begin by day’s end tomorrow.

I have made it a point to not publicly thank or address people’s comments, because I welcome both sides. Pro and Con are both NECESSARY to flush out the truth.

There are two particular personal attacks that Samuel has brought to my attention within the previous post. I have no intention of removing that post or those attacks. I want those " words against me to stand as the manure gets washed away and the truth rises to the surface.

I would invite Maria Santana and a Richard Packham to privately exchange their personal and professional contact information with me; as I would like you to stand by your words and position as this process unfolds. You have my word, I will not engage in any “I told you so” when the truth reaches the surface.

Let’s let the people judge between me and you two on both private and professional levels, as the evidences are released.
Can the 50,000+ people following this story get the invitation extended to these two individuals...
Thank You ALL."

From feedback to him by a Samuel on his Facebook profile since RPackham's post here on RfM, Samuel states: "I was just sent the following link, regarding what the highly respected (in the EXMO community) Richard Packham has to say about your claims, who apparently was given info about your case, by an EX-Mormon attorney (Maria Santana) he respects. Just wondering what your response is to him? You're being called a liar, insane and it's stated that this whole thing is a "hoax?"

I just thought it was important and only fair that you have a chance to respond, before these claims become fact, whether true or not. We don't know who his source is or anything about them.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1770837";


https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001608752300

Calling someone "insane" and accusing them of a hoax when coming forward against a General Authority (now former GA as Mickelson was given Emeritus Status in 2009 - one year after the Karran's divorce was finalized,) is rather serious allegations by both Packham and Maria Santana. In all fairness to Mr. Karran and his daughter, and in lieu of this being an "ex" Mormon community not a "pro" LDS community it might be fair indeed for others to not be accusing him of either a hoax or insanity being as he doesn't appear to be either - other than being broadsided by labels and defamatory attempts by a personal attack coming out of Utah. Which could be purely orchestrated as a PR attempt by SLC Public Relations Department, which would not be the first time it has engaged in such tactics. Just ask our own Steve Benson on this.

Child molestation charges are serious, and he doesn't seem like the kind of person who would make this up for some kind of publicity stunt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2016 05:40PM by Susan I/S.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Child molestation charges are serious, and he (Mr. Karren)
> doesn't seem like the kind of person who would
> make this up for some kind of publicity stunt.
>

You've seen him on tape and read his FB page... Anything else that adds to your thought that "...he doesn't seem like the kind of person who would make this up..."?

I still don't know what's up with him, but I did reach some conclusions about him when I learned that he'd represented himself and that he'd asked (basically) that all temple attending LDS be banned from involvement in his case. While there is some sense to this, he seems to have failed to follow the rules of the court in that he did not attach an affidavit to his request explaining why he sought the exclusion. How hard would it have been to write about the craziness of the temple oaths?

And then he wanted to make the LDS Church a party to the divorce case! I'm interested in his theory about why that should be allowed and what he expected to gain from it. Would I enjoy seeing Tommy Monson shuffle into court to be questioned by Mr. Karren? You bet!

And it's pretty damn crucial: Did the divorce action, filed by his wife, result in a finding that Mr. Karren only be allowed supervised visitation, as reported to RPackham by Ms. Santana, or did he, Mr. Karren, receive full custody, as he alleged in his video?

The documents have to be available...

Is RPackham perfect? Maybe. I would be very, very careful before I bet against him. Could Ms. Santana lead him down the primrose lane?

Things are getting amusing!

I am puzzled by the disparaging rhetoric employed by the attorney with the obvious intent to ridicule and condemn Karren.
His character may yet prove suspect, but there appears a clear determination to defame and insult him.
Who is being abused here?

It is has been characteristic of Utah PR employees of the church to employ such tactics against any type of high profile media cases to reach the public.

Sonia Johnson is one case in point. Sandra and Jerrald Tanner another. Steve Benson another. Valeen Tippetts Avery who co-wrote Emma Hale Smith: Mormon Enigma was another put on trial by the negative PR department of the church to defame and lampoon ANYONE who would dare go up against the church in a real critique of ANY KIND.

. . . doesn't mean you are not. Remember that poor Nick the White Mormon at Temple Square? Church effectively said he was round-the-bend; church was basically correct. So we can't rule out the possibility that Karren is limited in certain regards. Besides, I don't think Richard Packham is carrying the church's water.

What do we know?

1) Mickelsen is one creepy dude as evidenced by a speech that seemed to call for the concealment of "sins" committed within the family.

2) Karren has made some accusations that are alarming but not yet supported by much evidence.

3) Karren published a poorly edited and somewhat manipulative video.

4) Karren is calling out Richard Packham and other critics; he is personalizing this in a way that is not impressive. If he wants to put stuff up on the internet, he must be thick-skinned enough to tolerate questions and criticism.

5) There is a critical question about custody/visitation whose answer will tell us a lot about Karren's credibility. This strikes me as the fastest, most dependable way to get a sense of his reliability.

I am not yet ready to consign Karren to the loony bin. Years of struggle against the church and its representatives and allies would leave almost anyone angry and irritable. Moreover, maybe Karren is not sophisticated enough to know that he chose the wrong production "company" and approach. And I can understand trying to highlight the church's role in both the judicial system and in his family's troubles. It could be that Karren is doing some of the legal work himself or is using suboptimal (read: inexpensive) lawyers, in which case you could expect some amateur mistakes.

So I am going to sit back and reserve judgment until Karren produces evidence. Meanwhile, I really want to know how that custody/visitation thing worked out. Karren made strong, and falsifiable statements about that. Did he get full custody or not? That will tell us a lot.

The church PR department are masters at effective videos where music, background, camera angles, etc. help to cause atmosphere and accentuate the message.
I think Karren is using the same tactics, because it is more effectual at attracting the attention required.
I also feel that attacking the church in a much more aggressive manner whether through dialogue or production techniques, etc., is also more effective in garnering the attention of interested parties.
Hopefully he has more weapons in his armoury.

+1000

Why, Mr. Zidane, you've never posted on this site before. What about this case would bring you suddenly to our forum?

Hey, I do not have a dog in this fight.

I did not express my personal views about the credibility of Mr. Karren or of Ms. Santana.

I MERELY PASSED ON COMMENTS from Ms. Santana, just as the original poster passed on the link to Karren's video.

I am withholding judgment (as I have from the moment I first watched his video) until there is much more evidence.

I have no intention of entering into a private correspondence with either Karren or Santana. Whatever they may have to say to me should be no different from what is posted on public forums.

That is exactly how you came across. Neutral, unbiased, withholding judgment.

You offered relevant evidence. There is no reason for Karren to drag you into a personal discourse.

You handled it perfectly.

Exactly. What is looks like is a standoff of crazies ready to show down at the Golden Corral.

I wouldn't pick sides in this battle. I just hope Karren's children don't suffer too much collateral damage especially if their grandfather is the creep he seems to be.

Right on.

To me, it seems like a corning off of multiple crazies.

I appreciated you passing the information to us. It really helped

me calm down and wait and see what happens. There really are 2

sides to every story and I think the truth will come out.

I cringe at a persons reputation being made by what happens in family court. Family court is corrupt and becoming increasingly so. Family court is a 50 billion dollar industry, and none of that is from people who have or want to spend money on enriching their families. Every penny of that has some slime bag attorney selling an idea on why their own individual version of manipulation out to be purchase, and for whatever urgency. Having supervised visitations for a period of time, only suggests that the other party asked it, and presented a compelling argument.

It doesn't mean anything other than that. In fact if you want to completely erode a person's credibility, hire and attorney, and come up with a reason for supervised visitations.

There are so many financial sharks in the family court arena, that it is not hard to find someone who will say something, and has some kind of credential the judge will listen to.

I think that is is disgusting that we do not allow or we automatically buy into the idea that we need representation. ESPECIALLY when we do not have fair access to this, when it comes to FAMILIES. Why do we need representation and why is it then not readily available? And how might that be a breeding ground for corruption?

Why wouldn't a child's parents be best to plead and advocate the case for the child they love. Why is it that family law is so complicated this is nearly impossible? When the reality of the decision made in family court are fairly simple, around schedules, health, and finances.
The Mormon church I would say, was so negligent in their precautions against sexual abuse that they encouraged sexual abuse in my family. They didn't report when they should have, and they didn't protect any of the victims of the abuse they new was ongoing. Instead any of the emotional issues any of the victims have had, have been almost used as justification for the abuse. I know were I to come forward with the reality of what went on in my experience and those of my family, there would be a significant disruption. I think this is why I left when I was 17 and never went back. So this part of what this guy is saying I hear. The thing about sexual abuse is, that it happens, and it happens a lot in the Mormon church, probably more than leadership knows. But even then the leadership covers up a lot.... I went to my bishop recently, as a hostile recovering person who wasn't afraid to not be nice, and I spoke my mind exactly about the cover up and the harm its done. When I asked for help for a family member, I was really honestly shocked to get the bishops patronizing welfare guilt offer of help. Where I sweep the floors, so I could get access to the resources my father give to the church,and funnel to the children he abused. Where this logic seems fair and reasonable to me.I was surprised and totally furious that the leadership of the church would try to express to me the guilt needed to be allowed access to support network the church has. I was shocked when they were going on about how generous people were and that bishops had to be very cautious about how funds were allocated, and they couldn't just be used to right their wrongs. When I openly scoffed at those financial decisions, I mean decisions. and the lack of real charitable support to right what the church had actually encouraged, I was treated in a similar fashion. There is emotional response innate, where a person seeking to be understood can easily be controlled by those intentionally avoiding this and if he claims the church response is abusive, his behavior would also match that. This manipulation is so often used by attorneys, in such a matter of fact way, that I think it fair for him to ask neutral assessments.

I personal have lost my shit on missionaries in my own home who have spoken out against children sitting on their lap for this reason. At which point I told them they needed to masterbate and not feel guilyt that if something that was basic and nurturing to a child was sexually arousing to them they needed to seriously look at their own sexual education and meet their sexual needs in healthy ways.

I then have greet the missionaries for several years when they ask if they can do anything for me- I tell them masterbate and don't feel guilty and leave me alone.

So that's my rant on this guy--- I don't care if he's real of if he's not. I just don't. But I hate family court and all the people that make money from that, while we still have homeless and hungry people, we have people pitting parents against each other and profiting at what might be requests for help for their children. Its so so gross to me.

Fascinating!

At 8:00 pm (MST) Ronald Karren posted a response to the Santana version, and gave an overview of how he intends to proceed.

Regarding the Supervised Visitation v. Full Custody, he explained that due to his second attorney failing to meet time lines, there was a period when his contact with his children was restricted to Supervised Visitation, but then later, when he had no choice but to act as his own attorney, he got lucky and caught Kathleen McConkie trying to subporn perjury and he ended up getting Primary Custody, with his wife showing no interest in getting visitation. So I was right about both orders being issued and the order in which they were issued ends up favoring him.

It's a lengthy read, but interesting. He's certainly motivated. He mentions that initially he wanted to get a movie made about how all this has evolved. And he is not easing up on the GA one bit.

http://www.lifeafter*mormonism.net/profiles/blogs/mickelsen-case-lds-church-child-abuse-cover-up (take out the *)

The next release of information comes on Saturday. I'm sure he's very aware that if they (the church) can catch him in a lie, they'll go nuts with it, and all the morgbots will sigh with relief and go back to re-reading the BofM.

Thanks for posting this.

The main reason I am skeptical of Karren's overall story is that the video is ostensibly an attempt to provide not only his version of events, but also corroborating evidence to backup specific details. However, I've watch the video more than once and I can see absolutely nothing in it that confirms the intimations that his daughter was molested by Mickelsen.

However, I have been wondering if there might be more to the custody story than the Santana version. I know in these custody issues, there can be multiple rulings, so at one time a parent can temporarily lose custody and be under visitation restrictions (as per Santana's report) and then later gain sole custody (as Mickelsen claimed he had).

Curiouser and curiouser ...


[Edited for clarity]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2016 05:31AM by lurking in.

If you've read Karran's response on LifeAfter Mormonism (link provided above,) he states that there were no 'molestation charges,' per se. What happened was the scumbag grandfather called his granddaughter 'promiscuous' for sitting on his lap.

That was the sexual innuendo he was charging her with, not the other way around.

"As all experts worldwide will attest: pedophilia cases are extremely hard to prove because no one is there to witness the actual event. Unless there is a confession, it is up to law enforcement, and then most often, judges and juries to “connect the dots” because it most always comes down to hearsay, or he-said/she-said.

This case, however, is far from anything typical (or difficult). Not only is hearsay removed from this case altogether, but the dots are as close as any pedophilia-dots could ever be. My daughter never accused Lynn A. Mickelsen of molesting her. He accused her and another family member of being promiscuous with him. As per connecting these simple dots: you, the public, get to assume the position of judge and jury in this case, because the attorneys, the judge, the psychiatrists, and law-enforcement, for some reason, were completely unable to connect those dots—in a case that didn’t even require any dot-connecting whatsoever—once again, because a 65-year old man accused two six-year old girls."

And at the end of his blog on LifeAfter Mormonism he shared the custody issue (after writing of his incompetent attorneys resulting in his taking on his own case,) that the supervised visits were only a momentary blip, and that he ended up with f/t custody after he threatened his ex-wife's attorney to go public with her he did get full custody of his children.

"Immediately firing Woodyatt, I came to the conclusion that I could represent myself. Having legal representation put me way behind. Kathleen McConkie pushed numerous times for contempt of court on trumped up charges, using various low-life ploys. On her last attempt (to be detailed in the releases), and I caught her in suborning perjury with Jean Mickelsen Berger, with a covert recording. To avoid losing her license, McConkie called a meeting to settle with me. I pushed for custody. It was technically called Primary Custody, but was no different than full custody in that children resided in my home full time, did not participate in parent-sharing time, nor did their mother press to enforce it.

I subsequently filed a complaint with the Utah State Board regarding Kathleen McConkie’s corrupt protocols, and breaking the law with suborning perjury, with no results."

His next to last two paragraphs in that blog he states, "Darrell, who is not a producer (and, with no budget whatsoever) compiled it and set it to music, which has rubbed many people the wrong way.

Had I been able to afford a more elaborate production, I am confident Darrell would have stepped up to the plate. However, I was a single dad with primary, full-time custody. The kids were not spending any time with their mother, nor was she interested in enforcing parent sharing time. I was at home getting them off to school, and there at home when they returned. They will attest I fulfilled the role of both parents throughout their pre-teen, teen, and adolescent years: while simultaneously taking on the most affluent and influential organization this side of the Mississippi—without representation. There was NO budget for the production of the video."

Personally, I did not mind listening to the background music in the YouTube recording. It set the mood for what follows IMO. His cousin produced that for him on a no/low budget. This is the first time in three years since producing his video that it's been well received by the public, after publishing it several times. Wonder why all the attention now? Well, maybe it just needed a push! :)

One thing is certain, in the state of Utah, it would be virtually impossible to have a fair trial where a General Authority is involved, and I doubt we'll ever see a trial, anyway. (I don't blame Karren for trying to have certain Mormons excluded from his divorce proceedings.) As I stated in a previous post, what is really needed here is a good investigative reporter to take this case up--even if one needs to come in from out of state. Otherwise, it might end up just being a lot of back-and-forth "he said, he said, she said, they said, etc."

I'm looking forward to following this story and to seeing a vigorous pursuit of the facts, wherever they may lead!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2016 05:47AM by lurking in.