11-CA-1586

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS 11-CA-1586

AMY JERRINE MISCHLER

PETITIONER

VS.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER TO BE HEARD EN BANC, MOTION TO RECONSIDER MANDATING RECUSAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE MOTION TO RECONSIDER STRIKING FILINGS FOR LACK OF CANDOR

LARRY THOMPSON et al. PIKE FAMILY LAW JUDGE

RESPONDENT

*************

Comes now the Petitioner to ask the Court to reconsider the motions for this action to be heard En Banc and for the recusal of the Attorney Generals Office. I. No reason given for denial. The Petitioner respectfully requests the Court to give a factual finding in writing why her motions were denied in order to preserve the record for further legal action in the Kentucky Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, or in a Federal Court with diversity jurisdiction. II. Confusion concerning the facts of the case. Judge Acree states that Judge Thompson recused from this case by order entered on July 25, 2002. However, the certified record attached for Judge Acrees edification shows that no such order was entered into the record. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that through the misrepresentation by the Attorney Generals Office who has a conflict of interest in this matter; Judge Acree is confused regarding the actual facts.
Page 1 of 3

11-CA-1586

Second, Judge Acree states that [t]he case was assigned to Judge Julie Paxton, who was not made a party to these proceedings. He is half correct. Again in Exhibit 1; the certified case history shows that there is no order granting Judge Julies Paxton jurisdiction in 02-D00202-002. However, he correct about Paxton dismissing the case. Without jurisdiction or authority Julie Paxton not only held hearings, but also dismissed the action. Third, Judge Acree made another error in statement where he wrote [m]oreover, Judge Thompson recused himself from this case. The certified record attached as exhibit 1 shows that Judge Thompson did not recuse. Further, the Attorney Generals office attached an order from a different case showing that Judge Thompson recused. This is why it was proper for Judge Acree to strike the Attorney Generals motion because they were being dishonest substituting an order from another case as if it was relevant in this case. Fourth, Judge Acree repeated an error. Judge Thompson recused by written order and a special judge was appointed and presided over the case until its conclusion. Again, the certified case history shows that Judge Thompson did not recuse nor was a special judge appointed. See Exhibit 1. III. White Elephant. The proverbial white elephant in the room is that the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Kentucky Attorney Generals Office may be subject to liability if the Court of Appeals rules in the Petitioners favor. This is why the Petitioner has requested an en banc hearing in order to down play the potential for politics interfering with the administration of justice. IV. Conclusion How could Judge Acree make so many factual errors given that the certified case history shows conclusively he is correct concerning the facts? Simply because Judge Acree relied on the

Page 2 of 3

11-CA-1586

veracity of the Kentucky Attorney Generals Office; this reliance is to Judge Acrees detriment. Because clearly Judge Acree has not closely read the petition he should reconsider all motions and give written factual findings in support. Therefore it appropriate for Judge Acree to reconsider these motions and submit a written factual finding when either granting or dismissing them. Sincerely submitted,

Amy Mischler 1120 Palm Court Okeechobee Florida, 34974 Certificate of Service It is hereby certified that true copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid this ___ day of January 2012 upon the following: Brian Cumbo, PO BOX 1844, INEZ, KY 41224, Fred Hatfield, Pike County Hall of Justice, 172 Division Street, Pikeville, KY 41501, and KY Assistant Attorney General Morgan Ransdell, Capitol Building, Suite 11[8], 700 Capitol Avenue, Frankfort, KY 40601-3499 per his request of Suite 118 by motion instead of the official Court of Appeals address of Suite 116 for Morgan Ransdell with one original and four copies going to the Court of Appeals. __________________________ Amy Mischler

Page 3 of 3