On May of 2006, I was convicted of domestic violence against my ex husband. What I supposedly did to hurt him was to march in public in a sign in protest against him and the County Attorney and purposely refused to give my youngest son his medicine.
Now, what's interesting here is that Mischler, yet AGAIN fails to mention that she forced her own sick child to march with her. And let's also remember, it wasn't just "marching," it was begging for money (we wonder if anybody who gave Mischler money has considered that she defrauded them?). Remember, she also "failed" to mention this fact in her low-budget horror film about Greg Stumbo on YouTube.
Since Mischler can't remember it, apparently, let's say that again, for effect.
Amy Mischler - not Greg Stumbo - paraded her own sick child around the streets of Pikeville, forcing him to carry a sign demeaning and slandering his own father.
Amy Mischler - not Julie Paxton - denied her own child medicine and instead chose to use the money given to her by her ex-husband to buy her own medicine.
Amy Mischler - not Jonah Stevens - failed to pay any part of her own children's healthcare expenses, despite having agreed to pay fifty percent as part of the original custody settlement (to our knowledge, she's never paid a dime).
Further, if you saw the News-Express story, you'll know the children in fact DID have health insurance, and Mischler admitted it herself. And yet, she chooses to leave that bit out as well.
So we're confident if you investigate this issue, you'll find that Mischler was not, in fact, found "innocent." Rather, she herself argued that what she did constituted "abuse" and not "domestic violence." Notice this passage from her statement (again, the emphasis is ours):
The new Judge appointed was Judge John David Preston. This Judge ruled that the EPO petition had "insufficient grounds . . for the issuance of a Domestic Violence Order". Then he ordered for the DVO to be vacated, which is a legal word for saying its no longer valid.
Note, the word "innocent" doesn't appear in that particular legal phrase. That's Mischler's concoction. "Insufficient grounds" does not consititute "innocent." A child was humiliated, and now Mischler's playing with words to make herself appear the victim.
So now it's time for another Crucial Question, friends, and it's a tough one, so give yourself some time to think about it. Ready? Here we go:
Q: Let's say you were a child sick with strep throat, and were paraded about in the heat on the streets of Pikeville, forced into begging for money like a trained monkey and carrying a sign slandering your own father. Would you rather call that "abuse" or "domestic violence?"
Chew on that a while, and see what you come up with. We're sure you'll be just as disgusted as we are over Mischler's claiming victory with regards to this event.
No comments:
Post a Comment