A: More grandiose accusations. “Everything” is the father’s “fault,” yet the mother can not be bothered to specify what, exactly.
B: It is here that the mother states her thesis, so to speak, and perhaps accidentally reveals her genuine intentions. The first text block is the most naked collections of threats yet. “They” know the father’s address and have his picture. Who are “they?” Is it the police that she “did not want to get involved?” What changed? Why is she tauntingly eager to have them so involved now? Why do “they” have his address and picture? On what charge? Based on her criminally manufactured false evidence? How do “they” know that the father has “zero custody rights?” Is she aware of the Hague conventions and how dubious this claim is, regardless of her reams of falsified evidence? How exactly is the father “walking on a very thin line?” What is the purpose of all these vicious, albeit clumsy, attempts at intimidation?
Then the following text block is clearly likewise intended as a chilling threat, but at this point the mother has reached a level of almost childish incoherence. “My personal view on you you’ll see soon” is incomprehensible. More importantly, what “actions” does she plan to take? And in response to what?