Another Mischler sighting online

Greetings, friends!

We've recently stumbled onto another site being polluted by misinformation, omission and misdirection. You can see the latest go'rounds by visiting the Floyd County Chatter forum over at eastkyforums.

This is a really neat site, and the folks seem super nice over there. So if you decide to post, be courteous to the regulars (We want to stress this point - remember, it's not their fault they're being fed misinformation).

You can see why it's important to remain vigilant if you check out Mischler's posts here and here.

Here's a particularly interesting tidbit, posted by Mischler:

She convicted of domestic violence. And all I did was march through Pikeville with a sign. (I think in legal terms thats called retaliation which falls under 1983)

Attentive readers will note that Mischler fails to note that she forced her sick child to march in public, as well. We can only guess how humiliating that must have been for the child.

Be aware that Mischler is actively editing her posts when she's called on the carpet. For example, she originally characterized the custodial interference incident as only returning the children a "few hours" late when, as we all know, she returned them nearly twenty four hours late (and failed to notify the custodial parent as to their whereabouts).

When called to account for the longer time lapse, she resorted to the "My public defender advised me not to comment" defense ... even though she had previously commented. Go figure.

If you post there, remember to quote her original responses when you reply, so as to preserve the original comments. Otherwise, the arguments have a way of ... shifting ;)

Setting the record straight

In a recent blog post, Mischler makes some very, very interesting comments. Here is one worth clarifying (the emphasis is ours):

I am being charged with felony custodial interference for returning my children to their father a few hours late. The Judge refused to dismiss the case, or drop it down to misdeamor like the statute says to.

The truth of the matter is this: In the incident in question (unless there are others of which we are unaware), the children were returned to the father (the legal custodial parent) nearly twenty four hours late. That's considerably more than a "few," wouldn't you agree?

Let's put this in context. Imagine going to pick your own kids up at school one day, only to find out they weren't there.

You call everybody you know, but nobody knows where they are. Nobody even goes through the trouble of making a phone call to let you know where they are. They're just gone.

Gone.

Would you then clarify that as a "few hours?" We think not.

The children were returned, this is true. But by all accounts, they were returned to the father by strangers whom the children had only met that weekend. Further, they were dirty and hungry.

At the root of all this, however, is another example of Mischler dodging all personal responsibility. If she had a problem returning the children, she could have made a phone call to alert the father where they were.

Friends, we have to ask you, is that too much to ask?

Crucial Questions #2 - Parental Responsibility

Hello again, friends. It's time for another Crucial Question! If you refer to our previous post, titled 'Mischler Allegations Proven False, you'll notice the following:

Pike County resident Amy Mischler, former wife of Pikeville attorney Jonah Stevens, lobbied in front of the courthouse and the county attorney's office Friday with her son and a sign alleging that her ex-husband will not provide medical insurance for their children. Mischler, unemployed, alleged that county attorney Keith Hall was giving Stevens "special treatment" because they are friends.

Now, as you know, Mischler's entire argument was proven false. Stevens had, in fact, provided health insurance for the children. Moreover, he had provided cash to Mischler as well.

But this leads us to Crucial Question #2:

Q: Shouldn't Mischler bear at least some of the responsibility for maintaining health insurance for her own children?


It's a crucial question missed by the News-Express, and seemingly everyone else who has covered this case. What do YOU think?

Crucial Questions #1

Amy Mischler is pursuing mounds of legal action under the pretext that it's all for her children. We here at Truth is Crucial aren't quite so easily fooled, and we hope neither are you.

So here's our first installment of Crucial Questions:

Q: Of the two parties involved in Mischler's custody case, which party forced a sick child to beg for money in public on the streets of Pikeville?

Granted, this is a bit of a rhetorical question, but it seems this fact goes overlooked. We'll give you some time to think about it before we give you the answer ...

The Mischler is back

I'm sorry, friends. We had thought Mischler's fifteen minutes of fame faded along with the former iteration of Pike Politics. Sadly, that no longer seems the case, and therefore we are forced to respond.

To start with, please view the comments we've received about our first two posts. Of course, these are all anonymous comments. But can there be any doubt that Mischler is involved? The comments themselves are of such an intensely personal (as well as spiteful, hateful, nasty and outright untruthful) nature that it's clear Mischler had something to do with their posting, whether directly or by proxy.

Which brings us to one of Mischler's previous salvos, the affadavit she filed in the proceedings to impeach Greg Stumbo. If you're very angry at yourself, or feel you need to be punished for some reason, you can view the entire insane document here.

[ Side note: It's a shame the Kentucky Republican party is lapdogging it for Mischler. Kentucky Republicans have a hard enough row to hoe as it is without shacking up with the likes of Mischler ]

Back to the topic at hand - here are two of the line items in Mischler's opus:

106. Mischler is a God fearing Christian and a member in good standing at the Boldman Freewill Baptist Church located in Harold Kentucky.

114. The only thing that sustains me through this ordeal is that my Savior, Jesus Christ promised that He would never leave nor forsake me.

Now, while we applaud Mischler's apparent reverence for The Lord our God, we find it difficult to understand why these items are relevant in such a legal document. Certainly it would be among the first cases where a public official were to be impeached because the complaintant was a God-fearing Christian!

Now, try to reconcile these line items with the posts made in our comments sections. It's difficult to comprehend how one can hold oneself up as such a good Christian on the one hand yet throw such deceitful stones on the other. If previous Mischler online behavior is any indication of future behavior, doubtless we'll soon receive more comments of similar quality. Stay tuned!