Today’s post is in regards to You-Know-Who’s Response to my petition for full custody. When I first read his response, I simply sat in shock. My stomach was in knots, and I felt near ready to vomit. Literally 10 pages of nonsense and finger pointing. It doesn’t matter who he talks to, it’s the same spiel. When he petitioned to the courts in 2012, when he responded to the reporter’s questions, during The Hague trial, and even now, he brings up every imagined wrong starting in 2009.
You-Know-Who is a perpetrator of international kidnapping, but in his mind, none of that matters because of everything else except for that key detail.
I don’t want to go into too many details for the simple reason that this issue hasn’t been litigated yet, and my refuting evidence has yet to see a day in the American court systems. I just wanted to take this opportunity to bring up more interesting pointers on narcissists.
I want to point out a couple of discrepancies in his response. I’ve noticed that it’s getting easier to handle the accusations and blaming. In the beginning, I simply ignored it, wrongly assuming that my life would remain the same. But ever since the blatant kidnapping of my son, I’ve found the strength to meet these accusations head on. It’s getting easier.
#6 states “I do not agree to any references to a violation of the PKPA as stated in Petitioner’s page 3 part (g)”
Here is page 3 part (g):
My lawyer breaks down the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and further explains that my son’s home state is and has been Ohio, except for the time in which the minor child was being held in violation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C. 1738.
: a Federal law enacted in 1980 in an attempt to reduce interstate conflicts over jurisdiction and discourage “forum shopping” by parents who are dissatisfied with an existing or pending custody order made pursuant to the laws of their child’s “home state”.
Not only did You-Know-Who violate the PKPA, he also violated the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act 1993 (IPKCA).
: a United States federal law. This law makes it a federal crime to remove a child from the United States or retain a child outside of the United States with the intent to obstruct a parent’s custodial rights, or attempt to do so (18 U.S.C. 1204).
This is a small sample of the word play that You-Know-Who uses to paint me in a negative light and continue to victimize himself. Most of what was said in the Response floored me, but this one really tops the cake. Or maybe it’s simply because I’m used to the other same old arguments…
I am being accused that because of my decision to homeschool, my son was “self-learning through YouTube”. And that I apparently told You-Know-Who this as well. I knew this was false immediately, but I have to cover my tracks. Therefore, I searched in my gmail account to see if any such conversation took place. My first search results came up like this….
Okay, so maybe the word “self-learning” wasn’t used. So I then searched using the word “YouTube”. There have been so many emails between the two of us that even I lose count of what exact conversations we’ve had.
But this one was GOLDEN.You-Know-Who is the one who introduced Zander to YouTube. I already knew this, and I do remember being quite irritated with that fact. Once Zander is exposed to something he enjoys, he becomes obsessed. But by his own words, You-Know-Who is the one who used YouTube for “educational things”.
Why would I spend $900 on a Sonlight Curriculum just to go to YouTube? Click on Sonlight Curriculum to view the package that I purchased. It’s currently far cheaper now than then. I will admit that I recently resorted to YouTube to teach myself how to help Zander do his Common Core math homework because I was personally lost. In fact, one of my friends who happens to be an elementary school teacher recommended I view videos on YouTube if I need homework help.
Pointing out these TWO discrepancies leads me to what I wanted to discuss.
PROJECTION: the act or thought of accusing someone else of misbehavior similar to that of which you are guilty or are (perhaps subconsciously) contemplating.
DEFLECTION: the act of referring to the similar, prior factual or imputed misdeeds of others as a defense of your own misdeeds.
FALSE ATTRIBUTION: designating someone else as the perpetrator of an actual misdeed of which you are guilty.
It’s so obvious that it’s frightening. This is exactly what I am up against. The narcissist is in self denial that they themselves exhibit the behavior they’re blaming on someone else, so the behavior is said to be projected onto the other person.
All I can do is pray and have faith that this new judge will see right through it. I’m doing my best to legally point out the fallacies in You-Know-Who’s argument.
That’s all I can do.