We've taken the liberty of posting in the "I'm Innocent" comments section, and Mischler has responded. We've no doubt the comments won't last, as they continue to show Mischler in an amazingly unflattering light. And so we're reproducing the entire conversation here, with emphasis on noteworthy sections (including threats to Attorney Jonah Steven's brother's employment and the threat to deny the children access to their paternal family):
- Trustworthy said...
-
"Innocent" like OJ?
- Amy Mischler said...
-
Yes for the world to know, I am innocent as has a jury deemed OJ Simpson.
However, I was NOT originally convicted by a jury of my peers. I was convicted by a single judge who had at least three ex parte communications as demonstrated by the official court record.
And unlike OJ Simpson, the prosecuting witness has no grounds to sue me. I am going to sue him for abuse of legal process.
And for the record, Trustworthy is my ex husband.
What does Bible say? Something about there is no sleep for the wicked? I was snoozing at 2:14 in the morning.
Oh, and by the way trustworthy. I will be putting an answer to your offer to settle in the mail today. - Trustworthy said...
-
Thankfully, I am not nor will I ever be your ex-husband. But is it true that you're now attempting to criticize me for posting at a late hour? Why, I recall you having posted at late hours, too. See, some of us have lives and are forced to work for a living, so we can't always post in the middle of the day.
But nice dodge. You know you're not "innocent." May the Lord forgive you for what you're doing to those children. - Amy Mischler said...
-
You're right. There were two times at which I posted in the middle of the night. I think those were in October, around the time of my preliminary hearings. I had nightmares due to my false arrest and did some writing to try to get the nightmares out of my head.
However, those two occasions months ago during a particularly stressful time are the exception rather than the rule.
It's funny how you condemn me for allegedly being a bad mom, but you don't condemn Jonah Stevens for having me arrested. Isn't it bad for the children when a father has the mother arrested? Moreover, he intended to have me arrested in front of the children. Isn't that bad for the kids too?
Please continue to pray for me Trustworthy, because I need all the prayers I can get to fight the corruption in the Eastern Kentucky Legal system. Also, pray along with me for my ex husband Jonah Stevens.
Once he was most blessed, but he took it all for granted. He planted bad seed, and its now harvest time and Jonah is going to reap what he has sowed. - Trustworthy said...
-
Having seen what you did to your own son in the Appalachian News Express, I would say having you arrested was the best thing that could have been done for your children. It's a pity you've been able to manipulate the legal system to avoid real punishment.
You were not falsely arrested, and you know it. You are not "innocent" and you know it. What you seem incapable of understanding is the amount of suffering you are going to cause your own children. They are the ones who truly deserve prayers, and they are the ones who we're praying for over at truthiscrucial.blogspot.com - Amy Mischler said...
-
I just don't know what to say "Trustworthy". First, you speak as "we" which in itself is a little freaky.
Two, your delusional in your thinking. Kim Thompson, the attorney for Jonah Stevens had several ex parte communications with the Judge. That is manipulation of the legal system by the Petitioner. There is not one iota of evidence that I supposedly manipulated "the system" because I haven't.
Third, you claim you are not Jonah Stevens, then you must be his brother Terry Stevens. I am ruling out Trina and Chris because they are christians and wouldn't make the type of comments you have made on here.
So its like this Mr. Trustworthy; the writing is on the wall. Jonah Stevens is going to lose everything. And I am quite familiar with the rules requiring any type of visitation with extended family.
It's in the case Troxville Vs. Granville. A fit parents doesn't have to allow visitation with extended family.
You sow bad seed Trustworthy, your going to reap it. - Amy Mischler said...
-
Oh, and one other thing. It's my understanding that KET employees are non-merit and can be fired at will.
Strike two, Mischler. We don't work at KET. "We" are a group of individuals who are concerned about the children, that's all that really matters. Though we must admit it amuses us a bit that you're wracking your brain as to our identities.
It is very interesting that you have now admitted you would deny access to the extended family for your own children. I'm sure Stevens will find that useful in court, as will he find it useful that you're engaging in an obvious vendetta, hoping he's going to "lose everything."
Are your children aware of your plans? I'm sure they'd find it interesting that you intend to deny them access to their own families. Tsk tsk.
The only real writing on the wall is that you care beans about your own children and are more interested in bringing down those who you perceive have wronged you. Your actions and your words speak to that much, and it's also clear you're willing to use your own children as weapons to get what you want.
That is why we will continue to put truth to your lies. Your children deserve better.
So there you have it. We'll attempt to contact the Stevens family so they can be aware of the threats to their time with the children and to their employment - perhaps they'll want to take legal action or contact the authorities. Also please note that Mischler advises that "fit" parents don't have to permit visitation by extended family. We're left wondering whether a "fit" parent would deny their own children medicine when they had the means to provide it? Or would a "fit" parent humiliate a child by forcing him to beg for money publicly?
4 comments:
I think you have it wrong. I did not see anywhere that Ms. Mischler stated she intends to deny her children access to extended family members given the chance. She merely quoted the law. I wonder why you seem so interested in the comings and goings of Ms. Mischler if you are not her ex or a member of his family.
Then you clearly didn't read what Mischler said. Here, we'll refresh your memory:
"It's in the case Troxville Vs. Granville. A fit parents doesn't have to allow visitation with extended family.
You sow bad seed Trustworthy, your going to reap it."
This, of course, in response to her assertion that we are secretly Steven's brother. The threat is clear, and your denial is but one clue that you are, if not Mischler herself, one of her own entourage.
It doesn't take a particularly smart person to see the clear threat in her remark. Of course, it is a hollow threat, as we don't believe any reasonable individual can conclude Mischler has behaved as a "fit" parent, but it's a threat nonetheless.
I think I read fairly well. As far as the comment "You sow bad seed you are going to reap it" I thinks it means that you should expect to be treated the way you have treated others. If the Stevens family has in fact treated Amy Mischler unfairly then I would expect they would view this threat.
Why do you care so much wether or not I am part of Amy's entourage. Believe it or not I am more interested in truth ( all of the truth) and justice. So if that means I am part of Amy's entourage then thank you for the honor.
I think you either have a reading comprehension problem or else a severe case of moral relativism. It was a threat plain and simple, and we've forwarded it on to the Stevens family.
If you stand proudly in Mischler's camp, please tell us how you feel about humiliating her own child inj public in an attempt to demean his father. Do you stand proudly with that as well?
Post a Comment