I just confronted Michelle about her lying and she said, as she always does, "You don't think you have defamed ME?!!"
She said, "You defamed ME and how is that any different? You called me 'blow job Michelle' online."
I said, "No, I didn't call YOU blow job Michelle, and is THAT your motive for lying about me and defaming me in these reports?" I said, "How come every time I bring up how you are lying about me, which affects my SON, you bring up this 'blow job Michelle' thing?"
I told her she does not have the excuse for using her position and authority in a custody matter, to get 'even' with someone on a PERSONAL level and I said, "Michelle, you should have removed yourself from this case long ago."
She said, "What I write only goes to the court, and what YOU write goes online." I said, "What YOU write, affects my son being able to be with his mother, and it involves a LEGAL matter."
So then, Michelle goes on to say "You can do whatever you want...go ahead, sue me."
Then she added, "Good luck to you. Good luck to you Cameo." I said to her,
"No, good luck to YOU, because you are almost out of a job."
So Michelle has had a motive to lie about me and defame me. She personally hates me and has been trying to "get even".
I asked her, to make sure I wasn't getting the wrong person in trouble, I said, "So who is writing these reports?" and she said the first part was written by Marie Scanlon and this other 'investigator" and the new parts which change, have always been written by HER. Then, she said, someone, a supervisor, 'checks' them for errors. I said, "What supervisor?" and she said, "Leeza Sturbeck" did the last one and the one before, and sometimes it's Jennifer Godfrey and sometimes it's Russ.
So all of these supervisors are supposed to be checking her work for "errors" and this last report was the work of Michelle and Leeza.
I also asked her whose idea it was to set me up with Marie Wilke for counseling and she acted nervous and then said it was "the department's" decision. I said, "Who in the department" and she said she didn't know, it was her and some supervisors and the AG.
She said she was good because she really "fights for her clients and advocates for them". I said, "Really? is this why she's demanding I see a psychiatrist before she will even see me?" Michelle said, "You are not the usual client" and I said, "So how would she know that? unless she is already biased against me and knows who I am?" I told her I had never heard of a counselor refusing to see someone until they saw a psychiatrist first.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This reads like the ramblings of someone who's totally insane. You jump from topic to topic without any kind of logical segueway.
Yeah that's me, "insane". So insane I 151iau+(80988-988-088-0&00, OOPS, i was saying, so insine, er, insain..wait...what was I saying? hmmm...in-sane, in-sayn, in-sayin'...anyway!
Yes, I am so insane that I am wondering, insanely, why someone so smart and sane like yourself wastes time writing to "insane" people.
By the way, "segueway" was a hot catch word of the 90s and it's passe now. Secondly, if you would like a better education about logical conversation, start reading the definitions of high context and low context cultures and how some cultures think and write in linear patterns and others use a more circular form. There is no right or wrong, it's just unfortunate that when someone breaks out of the box, they are mocked (while, sigh, you secretly envy me and wish me dead!)
Post a Comment