Fiancé of the year

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Fiancé of the year

WEST NANTICOKE – Heather Brennan thought her fiancé, Travis Nickel, was a perfect match – until she learned he fed her rats, was engaged to another woman and had a child from a prior relationship, she alleges in a federal lawsuit.

Her 10-month love affair with Nickel, a member of the U.S. Coast Guard, ended after he left her in July, two weeks before their wedding, she said. Broken-hearted and broke, the jilted bride is seeking $125,000 to recoup cancelled wedding costs and other debts, as well as compensation for the “humiliation and mental anguish” she endured.

The lawsuit, which Brennan prepared and filed herself in federal court in Scranton, accuses Nickel of a host of other misdeeds, including giving her the engagement ring that belonged to a different woman.

428 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 428 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: C-R-A-Z-Y!!! This b!tch is nuts. She is seeking revenge by trying to make this guy's life hell. She seriously needs to move on. I hear she is STILL YET filing law suits right and left. What a freak! She even tried to fake a pregnancy to get him back. Guys beware!; Saturday, May 27, 2006 9:36:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Check out the latest. He was right. She was wrong when she said the judgement would survive the bankruptcy. The judge put a stay on the writ of execution. Wrong again MsL.; Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:32:00 PM
Anonymous said...: How funny that she commented so much on the other website that they turned the comments off LOL. At least I'm not the only one sick of hearing her.

"I think the plaintiff showed me pictures of the defendant when he were younger. He was really nothing to look at so for anyone to date him then they would have had to be desperate. I never understood what the Plaintiff ever saw in this individual." -Karen
When he were younger? lol, that says it all. If I only had a brain. Me desperate when I was 21? Yea right. I agree he went through an ugly duckling stage but when I DATED, yes dated him, he looked just as he does now only with lots more hair. It was when he came back home to visit last fall that I was floored by his looks. He'd gained so much weight. Since then, he's lost around 45 lbs. It is amusing to me that she'd make fun of how he looked when we dated years ago when she dated him at his worst. Who was desperate?

"I just read the blog about you building a home. hehehe. That one really makes me laugh. You say a bankruptcy is pending and you live with a man who claims to make no money and claims no income but you are building a home. Where is the IRS looking into this or where is the bankruptcy court. What did you use the plainitff's social again? Maybe she now owns this make believe home." -Karen
As far as my house, yes it is true. I'd be flattered if you'd have the IRS to look into my finances. I have nothing to hide.

"I hear the new girlfriend works in a group home but likes to give herself official titles. Didn't know group homes paid that well. On the subject of jobs, how does anyone work with challenged people when they were in a diversion program?????"
It is none of Karen's business how much I make nor do I work in a "group home" I have a friend who's father owns a group home and some people there make plenty of money. I have had 2 background checks done in the last yr and 1/2 and I am employed. What's that tell ya? She seems to be floored that I'd be allowed around "challenged people" Just her terminology used to describe my clients cracks me up. I do have an "official title" Don't all people that hold jobs? I will not comment on my job due to respect for my client's privacy. However, it does sound like someone is jealous that I am doing well.

"These statements coming from the person who thinks it is perfectly ok to sleep with someone after a brief encounter and then lie about the father. You go girl! " -Karen
You go girl? Karen you are too much. He and I were friends long before we ever dated or slept together so no, it was not a "brief encounter". I did not lie about the father. The truth was uncovered later. Not that I owe you an explanation but since you feel the need to continuously comment on my life I will defend myself; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:52:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Nichelle, please refrain from putting my name in your blogs. Future use of my name or imitation of me will be construed as harassment. I have no comment on this matter until it is resolved. Karen; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:13:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You made the comments, I responded to them. You are the one harrassing. Do you see me analyzing your life or financial situation? No, I could care less. Any further postings BY YOU about be will be construed as harrassment. Laws apply to everyone, even you.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:07:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You have a common name unlike N's. She could be referring to any Karen. Your comments about her and to her are unmistakably directed at her. Therefore, the fact that you are harrassing her and only her shouldn't be too hard to prove.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Rats aren't poisonous unless they've been poisoned or so I read.

http://bertc.com/cooking_rats.htm; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:14:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Ok, here's more on the salmonella "like" diagnosis. Several Dr. friends of mine (tg they are willing to testify about their findings) are researching the topic.
"It is most likely just a plain case of salmonella poisoning." Rats frequent sewers, rotting garbage, cesspools, and similar sites where Salmonella bacteria thrive. The bacteria also thrive in the intestinal tracts of rats. If infected rats travel to stored food, or dishes and silverware, or food preparation surfaces, their droppings can transmit Salmonella food poisoning to humans. Salmonella can come from other sources. It'd be hard to pin this one on being fed an actual rat.
"Maybe she is claiming Leptospirosis or Weil's disease."
Human cases of this disease are seldom fatal. The disease organisms are spread from rat urine into water or food, and enter humans through mucous membranes or minute cuts and abrasions of the skin.
Lastly is trichinosis which results from a nematode, or tiny roundworm, that invades intestines and muscle tissue. Both people and rats get the disease from eating raw or undercooked pork infected with the nematode. Rats help spread trichinosis when hogs eat food or garbage contaminated with infested rat droppings.
Medical test could conclusively prove any of these three illnesses but not their exact point of origin. Makes me think this claim will definently be thrown out.
Interesting huh?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:21:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Doesn't the health department close restaurants if rats are found in food? Couldn't the exact point of origin be determined since the man accused wrote an email stating it? It appears this woman has a genuine claim.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:28:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Didn't the man in this case give an interview in Kentucky and revealed a pet store rat? Isn't it true that is in another blog that the woman never said where the rat was purchased? Isn't it true that in another blog that on the same day the rat email was written there is a purchase from a pet store?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:30:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Who does she think she is to ask N not to refer her name but in the same post she uses N's name? If she's asking that of someone, shouldn't she give the same in respect?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:32:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it also posted somewhere that this woman accused him of trying to make her sick and nothing fatal? Isn't it posted elsewhere that she has 3 medical experts that all arrived at the same conclusion without consulting each other?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:34:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe you shouldn't put people's names when you don't know who you are arguing with! You made it quite clear who you are.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:35:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it true that the pet store that this couple frequented was contacted and made a statement that is inconsistent with her claim? I don't recall any interview in which a pet store rat was referred to. Site your source please. ???
An email will not hold up in court due to the plaintiff also having access to the referred to account during that time period. The email can debatably be interpreted as an admission of guilt or a humorous statement. That will be a hard one to prove. What this woman has is a genuine lie.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:37:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Why would he want to make her sick? What would the point in that be? It seems you are admitting that he actually did make her sick. How many days of work did she miss? How many times did she visit the Dr? There'd have to be some severe illness in order for it to end up a federal lawsuit. Also, making someone ill seems like a criminal matter to me. If this is all true, why wasn't the poisoning coupled with the physical abuse in a criminal case?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:42:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it true the pet store confirmed it and the actual receipt? The article:
South Shore man denies rat-feeding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By KENNETH HART - The Independent Posted: 12/20/05 - 11:31:01 pm EST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH SHORE A South Shore man being sued in federal court in Pennsylvania by his ex-fiancee on Tuesday emphatically denied most of the claims in her lawsuit, including the most bizarre and sensational one - that he put cooked, ground-up rats in her food.

Travis Nickel also said that a U.S. Coast Guard investigator had checked out many of Heather Marie Brennan's allegations - including the one involving the rats - and found them to be baseless.

He said he had spoken to an attorney and planned to vigorously defend himself in the suit, which Brennan prepared herself and filed Dec. 12 in U.S. District Court in Scranton, Pa.

“All I have to say to her is that paybacks are a bitch, and she will pay,” he said.

Brennan, of West Nanticoke, Pa., and Nickel met in the fall of 2004 and were engaged shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit. The two split up this past July - two weeks before they were to have been married - after Nickel learned that he had a 6-year-old son from a previous relationship.

In her lawsuit, Brennan accuses Nickel of numerous misdeeds and seeks $125,000 in damages for the cost of the canceled wedding and other expenses she claims she incurred during her 10-month relationship with Nickel.

Nickel, a former Coast Guard member now working as a plumber, accused Brennan of filing the lawsuit as a means of harassing him because she was upset over their breakup and said his former fiancee's allegations had greatly upset him and his family.

“It's tearing them apart,” he said.

In the suit, Brennan, 21, claims that Nickel “blended up dead rats and placed the rats into her food” on several occasions while the couple was living in Arkansas. She says that his doing so made her ill and forced her to seek medical attention for gastrointestinal problems.

Later, Brennan said she found an e-mail message from Nickel to an organization known as “Spread the Sickness” that detailed “blending a rat and feeding it to people,” the lawsuit states.

Brennan maintains that her former fiancé was trying to make her sick so he could get his hands on money that her mother had sent her.

But Nickel said the allegation came about as the result of his involvement with a radio program in Arkansas that did a takeoff on the popular TV show “Fear Factor,” where contestants eat unusual and stomach-churning items, including live spiders, cockroaches and other insects.

“They did what they called a ‘Fear Factor Friday,' and we had a guy who was going to eat a rat live on the air,” he said. “We were trying to find out if they were poisonous.”

That, Nickel said, was why there was an e-mail on the computer that he and Brennan shared that dealt with the consumption of rats.

Nickel also said that even if he had fed Brennan rats he obtained from a pet store - which is where he said that Brennan claims he got the animals - it's doubtful that eating them would have caused his former fiancee to become ill, and that he had contacted an expert witness who was prepared to testify to that effect.

He acknowledged that Brennan had seen a doctor for treatment of gastrointestinal distress, but he said it was his understanding her symptoms were caused by a stomach virus.

Nickel also said the Coast Guard investigator also had found no merit to Brennan's claims that he had misused her personal information for various reasons.

He also denied Brennan's claim that he had intentionally withheld from her the fact that he had a son, saying he did not know he was a father until the child's mother, who lives in Scioto County, Ohio, contacted him and he took a DNA test that confirmed his paternity.

Nickel said he had not yet been served with Brennan's civil suit, but that he intended to file a response to it when he is.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:45:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Rat for Lunch by Jack Prelutsky

Rat for lunch! Rat for lunch!
Yum! Delicious! Munch munch munch!
One by one or by the bunch-
Rat, oh rat, oh rat for lunch!

Scrambled slug in salty slime
Is our choice at breakfast time,
But for lunch, we say to you,
Nothing but a rat will do.

Rat for lunch! Rat for lunch!
Yum! Delicious! Munch munch munch!
One by one or by the bunch-
Rat, oh rat, oh rat for lunch!

For our snack each afternoon ,
We chew bits of baked baboon
Curried squirrel, buttered bat,
But for lunch it must be a rat.

Rat for lunch! Rat for lunch!
Yum! Delicious! Munch munch munch!
One by one or by the bunch-
Rat, oh rat, oh rat for lunch!

In the evening we may dine
On fillet of porcupine,
Buzzard gizzard. lizard chops,
But for lunch a rat is tops.

Rat for lunch! Rat for lunch!
Yum! Delicious! Munch munch munch!
One by one or by the bunch-
Rat, oh rat, oh rat for lunch!

Rat, we love you steamed or stewed,
Blackened, boiled, or barbecued.
Pickled, poached, or fried in fat,
There is nothing like a rat.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:47:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it written that the mother of the child went through something similar except in this case both parties moved out of the state and wouldn't this be a misdemeanor domestic violence? Don't think authorities would travel across several for a misdemeanor.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:48:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Wasn't this suit filed under diversity of citizenship?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:49:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry, can't comment on that. It'll be said in the courtroom.
I think a friend may have told him that she alledged they were from a pet store so he probably checked it out. I do know that there is no receipt and no collaborating story from the pet store as you claim.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:53:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I believe the plaintiff has several receipts (originals). Guess she didn't go through her receipts until he spoke out.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:03:00 PM
Anonymous said...: If it is serious enough to be in a federal lawsuit, it is serious enough for authorities to go after someone for criminal charges. Harming someone with intent is punishable by law. Moving out of state doesn't excuse that. If that were true, why didn't the mother just move out of state to escape charges?
They haven't been filed b/c no one takes them seriously. You've tried like hell but no one in AR would do anything about it. That is the truth that you are trying to manipulate.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:05:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Do your receipts actually say rat because the pet store could not confirm your story. Maybe they are fake. Do you have a statement from the store? Looks like if both parties have statements, it'd be one's word against another's.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:07:00 PM
Anonymous said...: This is a matter for the jury. You can say whatever your beliefs are and who the jury believes, that is the one telling the truth. The plaintiff did not ask for criminal charges. She wants this behind her.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:18:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Filing criminal charges would make it just as much behind her as it is now. Seems if he is a dangerous person, she'd want him labeled as such and punished. That'd be justice.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:26:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree. What if this guy is habitual with this behavior and is doing the same thing to his new family? You could've done something to prevent it.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:37:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like she is hitting him where it hurts more, the pocket. A misdemeanor that he would not appear for would mean nothing. Now he has to pay for his misgivings. Don't think the plaintiff cares about the new family. That is her problem. She obviously has been posting here so she is well aware of the situation.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:13:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it written everywhere that this man does have habitual problems such as bad debts, misusing socials, getting engaged to every person he meets, etc. Do I need to go on? This time it looks like he was stopped dead in his tracks.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:15:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it also true that criminal charges do not have to be brought up immediately? Isn't it true that there is a 2 year statute? One should never count their chickens before they are hatched.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:18:00 PM
Anonymous said...: How can you hit someone's pocket that doesn't pay debts and has no money? It'd make more sense to have a criminal conviction, unless of course you motivated by greed.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:19:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The new girlfriend's family is wealthy. Do you think he'll try to kill her off to get money? Maybe if she is ill, she will be less likely to fight it as this girl was. Hey, wait a minute. Why would you have to make someone sick to get money if you have a joint account?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:22:00 PM
Anonymous said...: All of the answers you seek will be answered in court. Can't give away everything. Since someone is claiming the new girlfriend's family is wealthy then that explains why he is still there. He hasn't spent it yet. If they were smart they wouldn't loan any to him.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:56:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it written somewhere that this poor guy had to pay this girl's attorney's fees. Sounds like her own family wouldn't help her pay attorney fees in a custody case.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:57:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't is also written somewhere that this man is wealthy and can afford 4 attorneys. What's up with filing bankruptcy? Oh never mind, I forgot, it was already posted that he filed bankruptcy to get out of the court hearing.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:00:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Once again, please stop commenting about me K. No where is it written that he paid my attorney fees. Please list where it is written if so. That is hilarious.
One attorney was a friend of the family and charged me nothing. I don't ask my family for anything but FYI, yes they have helped with attorney fees for the custody case.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:03:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Wrong person again but I am sure that person will be pleased to see you referring to her.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:05:00 PM
Anonymous said...: He is wealthy? That's a new one. He has an attorney in PA, KY, and one in OH. That makes 3. Four if you are counting the one that previously represented him in OH. Oh, and don't forget the expense of his son's attorney.
I believe he filed because of attorney expense and being unable to pay a judgement. Get out of a hearing? He will still have to go to the hearing regardless.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:06:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Pleased? I'd imagine so since she likes attention.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:07:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I was right. I didn't think you'd be able to say where it is written that he paid my attorney fees. More lies.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You are the only who likes attention. Isn't that very clear? You just can't stand it that someone can prove you wrong each and every time. I have the blog but don't think it is appropriate to copy and paste it here. I believe it is from a myspace blog of the man.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:16:00 PM
Anonymous said...: How long will it be before you get thrown off this site?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:17:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I won't go on the bankruptcy subject but I can say that you can't file bankruptcy to get out of paying someone who is suing you.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:19:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd like to stay and chat but I have to find another damsel in distress to help. And I think you crossed the line AGAIN when you assumed I was someone else.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:23:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The myspace blog that you set up in his name? How convenient.
I was never thrown off of any site. I am the one who contacts them when you start to comment on people who aren't involved and who aren't posting but you insist they are. Your lie about who you are because you know the statements you make are lies. If they were true, you wouldn't pretend to be someone else.
All I can say about crossing the line is bring it on. You think you got something, act on it.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:36:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I think that is the biggest lie of all. The only one that sets up accounts are you. As for you getting thrown off, the plaintiff has the proof. I actually hope they file something on you ASAP. Every account you had opened in the plaintiff's name have been traced back to you. Funny, huh? All fingers point right back to you. She even has the proof.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:40:00 PM
Anonymous said...: As for emails being admissible, they are. The email in question has been traced and the IP address obtained and even whom was logged onto the computer.
"With email now admissible as evidence in court, email archiving has become integral to email management."; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:48:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Bring it!; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:48:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree that they are admissable. What was said is that the email account you refer to that contained the rat email was being used by two people from the same computer. That makes it impossible to prove who actually wrote/sent the email.
Don't you have a damsel to rescue? lol; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:52:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I even got you a part of the response from the webmaster from the other sites.
"Comments have been stopped for this post. Thank you for clarifying the situation. I am sorry that it took so long but I had to verify your identity. The IP address you have emailed me from do not match any on record. The IP addresses recorded at the time of the blogs are as follows:" "If I can be of any other assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me."; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:53:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The email trace clearly indicates who was logged onto the computer in question. The plaintiff was at her job in another city. It has been proven who wrote the email. To further authenticate that, the defendant already admitted to writing the email.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:55:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The email in questin has been traced back to the computer and the user logged in with the exact time. Time cards show the plaintiff was not even in the same town. Besides, the defendant already admitted to writing the email in several of his interviews.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:56:00 PM
Anonymous said...: He admitted to joking around about a contest months before even dating her. The radio station was contacted and said that you contacted them also and you are crazy. They said it wasn't even a real rat. It was all a joke. Your overactive imagination will be what takes you down.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:58:00 PM
Anonymous said...: His words, no one else's. “They did what they called a ‘Fear Factor Friday,' and we had a guy who was going to eat a rat live on the air,” he said. “We were trying to find out if they were poisonous.”

That, Nickel said, was why there was an e-mail on the computer that he and Brennan shared that dealt with the consumption of rats.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:58:00 PM
Anonymous said...: It doesn't matter if the radio station used a fake one, this guy took it serious. No imagination, doctor's reports support the plaintiff's accusation. Hasn't that already been gone over? Didn't you basically admit to it in the blog above? Trying to say it wouldn't kill her but make her sick? You people change your story so many times and yet the plaintiff's story has remained the same.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:05:00 PM
Anonymous said...: According to the DJ, they led everyone to believe the rat was real and disclosed after the fact that it was not. It was made from Spam. So yes, that was why. You have made something out of nothing and the people at the station agree.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:05:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Again, it doesn't matter what the radio station did. They realized what the consequences could have been if they had someone eat a rat. This guy obviously didn't realize that.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:07:00 PM
Anonymous said...: No one has blamed the radio station. They had nothing to do with the plaintiff.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't believe I saw the radio station as a defendant.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:09:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Are there anymore changes to your story now?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:09:00 PM
Anonymous said...: First you say the email can't be traced to him and now you acknowledge it. So which is it?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: That was not my blog but I think it refers your claim that it was to make her sick. I myself haven't changed anything. The very day that the fake rat eating took place, the station announced it was all a joke. How could he have taken it seriously. And please tell me how any medical test can be that conclusive and specific that it can tell EXACTLY what the patient was fed. No other medical professionals seem to agree.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Since you are asking for my opinion, I feel that anyone could have written that email. I'll wait to see if you actually have the proof you claim to have.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:11:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Try asking the three experts at the trial that question. I would say that there is a rat purchase from a pet store that the plaintiff did not frequent, then the receipt and bank documents that support that, then the email and then the illness. I am told it happened more than once. If it worked once, why not try it again? The three experts all agree it came from eating a rat.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:13:00 PM
Anonymous said...: No defendant's have been named yet. I heard that they (the radio station)have been contacted for a statement. No one blamed them.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:14:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The proof is in black and white. It isn't difficult to see that once a person starts changing his story and admits then denies the email, that person is lying. Any person can see that.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:14:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Well then sounds as if you have a good case. If so why would you be on here arguing it instead of waiting for court?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:16:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The radio station isn't to blame for someone getting an idea from them. How can a radio station predict that some person who is supposed to be an adult will try it? The email was sent to them from the defendant (the only defendant) and that has been proven. The radio station is of no further use to the plaintiff.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:17:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Keep in mind, there are more than 2 people posting on this site. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That doesn't mean that one party is changing their story as much as you'd like to make it look that way.
Sounds as if you have a good case. If so why would you be on here arguing it instead of waiting for court?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:18:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You seem to want to post lie after lie so let's clarify these lies. Should I go back and count how many times your story has changed? It's not my case so let's clarify that too. Not even related to the plaintiff but I know her and have discussed all of this.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:18:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Why don't you save your comments for court? You started every blog. I have checked after I read that statement. Still trying to convince yourself this can't be the person that may be the father of your child?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:20:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I am not related either. You got a hot temper lady. I won't be in court because I am not party to this case. Last I checked I do have the right to comment and voice my opinion. I have no child so save your comments for the one who asked you several times above to stop commenting on her.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:23:00 PM
Anonymous said...: May be the father? Hasn't DNA been confirmed twice? Last year?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:24:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Last time I checked I was male and no hot temper.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:25:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You discussed it all with the plaintiff? Doesn't she have anything better to talk about? And why does this all always come back to the new girlfriend. Seems you think she is an easy target or there is some serious jealousy there. Why not just ignore her? Surely she'd get bored and go away.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:26:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Can't comment on DNA. Wouldn't know that, now would I?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:27:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Mr you seem to be taking things awfully personally, almost the way a mother would. Especially if you only "discussed" these things. You act as if you were there, an expert on the case.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:28:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't think she spends all her time talking about you. You are not important to her. If someone asks, she tells. When things are posted, she disproves you with proof. Don't think anyone has seen all the evidence.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:29:00 PM
Anonymous said...: If you can't comment on DNA then don't comment at all that situation. Like you said, you wouldn't know.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:30:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Not the mother and I see the comments where someone says you are quick to assume things. It is true.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:30:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Who is not important to her? Anyone who challenges her "proof"? Someone must be important or someone else wouldn't be on here commenting.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:32:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't assume. I know you are her. Everyone does. But it's ok, we'll play along.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:33:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Everyone knows you are commenting and trying to spread lies. She does have friends. And again, not the mother.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:35:00 PM
Anonymous said...: LOL. Yea right. I guess you have "proof" that she has friends too. Too too funny.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:36:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You say he is proven to be the father. Has the court agreed? I believe the theory you two set this whole thing up all along. You can't tell me he didn't know he was a father and you accidently named the wrong father.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:36:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Wasn't it you that said anyone can comment on anything? I am expressing my opinion. This was a set up that backfired.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:37:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Just like you, I wouldn't know. As with the federal court case, these things take time. How can a court ignore 2 DNA tests? From what I can see that has not been the issue. I read on another site where the mother was more than patient explaining this situation to you which has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU and you were extremely rude in return. You are the only one questioning her story and you aren't even involved. What does that tell you??; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:40:00 PM
Anonymous said...: It tells me you have too much time on your hands to be online explaining yourself and pposting lies about the plaintiff.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:42:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, the mom was the one that asked and the new girlfriend was trying to be nice and answered. Has nothing to do with me. I know I have no life. Admittedly or else I wouldn't be commenting. But I am single with no children so I can do wth I want.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:45:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I did not hear the trap, dear rat
I did not hear it close
But when I woke the other morn
It had clapsed you on your nose.
I do not feel guilt, dear rat
Nor do I feel shame
I will not write your family
I did not seek your name.

It's not your fault you had to die
My roommate - such a slouch
She leaves his dishes in the sink
Her crumbs surround my couch

I've never lived with such a pest
(meaning you and she)
If I could afford the rent alone
You certainly still would be.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:46:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe you should get a life. I can see why you are single.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:47:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Part of your poem is true. He couldn't afford the rent. He used this girl to pay his rent. Glad to see you admitted it. Finally.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:48:00 PM
Anonymous said...: That is why he lives with the rich girlfriend so she can pay his bills. Wonder if his new cell is inher name too?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:49:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The rat came from a pet store according to the defendant. (not a trap); Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:50:00 PM
Anonymous said...: There was a dishwasher, no dishes in the sink.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:51:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I thought she only made 7,000 a yr? They must've had really cheap rent.
If I were him, I'd put everything in someone else's name so you couldn't track him down. But I guess you'd find a way anyhow.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:52:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I see your comments are going back to your nonsense. It seems you do that whenever you are caught lying.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:52:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You take everything so literally. The poem is a reprint. No author listed. Just thought it was humorous. You don't have to analyze each and every line lol.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:53:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I think the story is that he took a lot from the parents. That plus the 7000. Had a nice life for six months. Didn't he have his truck taken back since after he left this girl?; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:54:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Poor guy, the rich girlfriend didn't save his truck. Or should I say the girlfriends rich family.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:54:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I was sent the link to the bankruptcy. Think you lied again. Not just a judgment or attorney fees. Don't see attorney fees even listed.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:56:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't know about the truck business. I know he drives something much nicer now so he doesn't seem to be suffering. I do know that since his ex left him he has had a lot of court related expense.
The new girlfriend hated that truck so I seriously doubt her or her family would've put up a penny for it. I do have proof though that at the time he got rid of it, it wasn't behind on payments because his family member had been paying them. Believe what ya want.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:59:00 PM
Anonymous said...: From what I understand, he didn't file ON attorney fees. He had to file because all of his money went to pay them.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:00:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You sure are an angry person. Always accusing people of lying. You really should be careful harboring all that anger.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:02:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Rat Jelly
by Michael Ondaatje

See the rat in the jelly
dirty steaming hair
frozen, bring it out on a glass tray
split the pie four ways and eat
I took great care cooking this treat for you
and tho it looks good
and tho it smells of the Westinghouse still
and tastes of exotic fish or
maybe the expensive arse of a cow
I want you to know it’s rat
steaming dirty hair and still alive

(caught him last Sunday,
thinking of the fridge, thinking of you.); Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:04:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like another lie. The bankruptcy shows a repossessed truck.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:05:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Keep posting your lies.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:06:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Lady, all I'm saying is that I know someone had paid it up. Maybe it was too late by the time the payment reached them but I'm sure he was happy to see it go. I've not heard anyone crying over it.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:07:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You'll see. The lawyer has all the documentation. He also has copies of all your posts to show that you fighting the bankruptcy is an act of vindication. Wasn't too hard to prove that one.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:09:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Ahhhh. Peace and quiet. The ol' bat has gone to bed.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:23:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Sweet Revenge
Watch out... I feel the strain
Arms in the air, pointing at me
No doubt... am I to blame
I swear it's the truth, my life's not a game

Against the wall...
Waiting for someone to come, and crucify me
I'll take it all...
If humiliation is worse, than all the pain

Sweet revenge is all they seek
Never smile, they never speak
But pretend to be your friend
Then strike you down

Sweet revenge, hatred deep
Say a prayer, then watch you weep
Strong, the mighty, one and all
Each one will fall

Too late, the chase has begun
My every move, they're right behind me
It's never fate, when damage is done
To the bitter sweet end
'Til the battle is won

I'm standing tall...
Freedom and justice have gone, they stripped it from me
I'll take 'em all...
The courage to fight everyone
'Til truth prevails; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:26:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Nice one. Thought you'd gone to bed. I guess you are a poet and a part time lawyer wanna-be.; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:28:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's one for you-
The Eagles "Get Over It"
I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat
Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it
You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing
Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it
It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak
You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass
Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it
Get over it
Get over it
It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
Get over it, get over it; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:38:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Everyone is over it except you. You find new places to post lies when one gets shut down. Looks like the posts can work against you. Don't think the plaintiff filed anything against the bankruptcy yet.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:50:00 AM
Anonymous said...: She didn't file anything? Whatever. Maybe not the right thing but the investigation has already started because you are once again claiming identity theft and fraud. Looks like your posts work against you. Can't work against me. I'm not going to court.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:35:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Lady, you are gonna try to say you are over it when you are on here posting before it's even 8AM? Get real.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:37:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Investigation????? Nobody has ever said anything but since it is coming from you it must be true.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:04:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Could it be that you two spend way too much time on here posting? I think it would be safe to say that is why an investigation is underway if there really is one. How about this previous post by you two.
"Mr. N should file bankruptcy. That way there is no "21 years" it'll stay with him as you say and he won't have to pay this crazy girl the judgement. That'd be hilarious!" That could explain an investigation.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:08:00 AM
Anonymous said...: All your accusations turned out to be bogus. You'll get your notification I'm sure.
Thanks for the credit for the post but that is not mine. I am only one. Sounds like that is someone merely expressing their opinion. Something you think only you are entitled to do.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:45:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Nothing bogus. The investigation may be since look who it came from. Isn't it written somewhere that this defendant admitted in an email to the id theft?????; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:02:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You go from- "Don't think the plaintiff filed anything against the bankruptcy yet."
to this-"Since you claim a bankruptcy may be pending I will have my daughter fill out these papers today and overnight them to the court. Thank you again for allowing her to get a jumpstart on this." Posted by MrsL.
Now who changes their story???; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:03:00 PM
Anonymous said...: How strange is it that you claim an investigation started and now has ended????? What, the investigation lasted an hour????; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:03:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You keep saying "written somewhere" What matters is what is said on the witness stand. Anyone can get on any of these sites and write anything. That is not convincing.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:04:00 PM
Anonymous said...: How long do you think court was on the 12th? You don't have a clue. Just stop commenting because obviously you are clueless. I'm not telling you anything. You'll find out soon enough.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:06:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's another attmept at intimidation-
"Bankruptcies have to be approved by a judge. Not too late, I can assure you that." Posted by Ms. L; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:07:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Thank you for taking his advice and shutting the $#%*@ up! You really are clueless. Let your daughter fight her own battles.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:14:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Bankruptcies do have to be approved. Doesn't sound like intimidation. Sounds like an opinion. Can't comment on any hearing since I don't of any. Don't know why you would want the world to know. From your statements about the reason for filing a bankruptcy, then I would say someone should look into it.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:16:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The only reason you two are on here is to try to intimidate the plaintiff. By posting lies, you think she will drop everything. I believe she will see this through to the end. As for intimidating her, it hasn't worked yet.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:17:00 PM
Anonymous said...: It looks like the frist person who brought up the bankruptcy is you 2. Maybe you should have kept it quiet. So it is intimidation when someone responds to your post. You brought it up and someone commented.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:19:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh great, she's still runnin it.
You say it's public information and your daughter gets notifications so unless you can't read, there's no reason you wouldn't have known about a hearing.
That wasn't my statement that you keep referring to. I'm sure it has been looked into. Like I said, you'll know soon enough.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:20:00 PM
Anonymous said...: If you are still trying to address the other person, wrong person AGAIN. Isn't it true the daughter filed the lawsuit? Don't believe there is any other name on it to my knowledge. Looks like she is fighting her own battle but it appears it takes 2 of you. And one obviously knows nothing.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:21:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't think anyone gets any notifications, especially not me. I did see the bankruptcy online and the posts about it have not been true. Why not admit what is on there?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:22:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it true that there is only one defendant? I know for a fact he has only posted a few times. Seems he fights his own battle also. It's the plaintiff who takes orders and has someone else speak (lie) for her.
Intimidation? Not once has anyone's motive been to stop her. She's too dumb and stubborn to know when to stop.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:25:00 PM
Anonymous said...: She seems pretty smart to me. You don't see her jeopardizing her case by being on here. The defendant is the one blogging lies whenever you start them. Everyone knows that it is you 2 all the time. I hear you even pretend to be others.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:27:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it written somewhere that the plaintiff has chronic halitosis?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:27:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Wasn't it you who posted the federal case would go nowhere? Wasn't it you that posted it was being dismissed? Didn't happen, did it?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:28:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Never saw that one but another attempt by you to intimidate her.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:29:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Could you site your source?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:29:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The only one pretending to be other is the mother. She has to, they have no friends to comment on this. There are people who believe in the defendant and voice their opinions. He doesn't have to. He has other things to do and doesn't even read these things. He was advised not to so don't flatter yourself by thinking you actually get to argue with him.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:31:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Strange, didn't already admit he has posted. Lies again. At least keep your story straight. Not the mother but it is amusing you think I am.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:33:00 PM
Anonymous said...: So you are saying you are trying to flatter yourself that you are arguing with this girl's mother???; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:34:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I've only heard it said that a hearing can happen but you may not be able to collect if for some insane reason you won.
Site my source for what? The halitosis? LOL! That was a joke you freak. It's just something all the guys would joke about.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:35:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Just looked at the bankruptcy online. There was a meeting on the 12th, nothing about an investigation. More lies?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:35:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I am wondering who you are. Seems the girl's mother would know a lot more than you do.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:36:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Wasn't it you that posted it was written somewhere?? Just like to point out your lies.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:36:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Flattering? Uh no, I think she argues with anyone and everyone. Why would a person be flattered?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:37:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Well you say I am the mother and I keep telling you I am not. You keep insisting and I keep telling you I am not.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:38:00 PM
Anonymous said...: No lie. Was a joke with some truth behind it. A sense of humor is something I guess you just can't sue for huh?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:38:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Yea, a meeting. Guess you know nothing about it. Hmmm, better get to investigating. Time's a wastin'
Ms L posted on another site that her daughter does receive all the notifications. Another lie?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:40:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Wasn't it you that argued on another website with someone you thought were the same person. Seems like you are the one who makes that a habit.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:41:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't consider it a sense of humor when you specifically sayit was written.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:41:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Well you seem insisting I am 2 people and I am not them. Same story. Aggravating huh?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:42:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Does this ring a bell? Why are you following me? Why are you calling the court? I was calling to get numbers. Use 411. Does that convo sound like you arguing with someone you don't know?; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:42:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Well we've written it in emails, chat or whatever so I guess it is 100% true. Did she ever find a new dentist? A real one? I sure hope so.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:43:00 PM
Anonymous said...: IDK about the plaintiff receiving notifications. Maybe you should ask her or I will. Her attorney might but I doubt she does.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:43:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Everyone knows who the two are. Didn't you just say he didn't blog??? Lied again.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:45:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Not familiar with any of that. I do know that the courts in OH are very familiar with you. You do call in and nearly drive em nuts. Most of the lawyers in town are familiar with you to so it could've been anyone. Can't really comment.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:46:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Now you are worried about a dentist? Don't think that is relevant to this case. Trying to go off on another line since you are caught in a lie again??; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:46:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Never called anyone in OH.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:47:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I said he has blogged a few times. It's been some time ago. That doesn't mean I am him. LOL. You really are psycho.
Court said she has no attorney. You lied again.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:47:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I hear the plaintiff did when you threatened and continually harassed her.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:47:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Didn't you write above that this person should notify the authorities to protect the new family. Looks like she took your advice.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:48:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I know for a fact she does. Don't you love surprises? He was waiting on something so that may be the investigation you are talking about.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:49:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Newp,not avoiding the topic, your bs is just getting old. You may not call, fax, and write OH but her mom does and did continuously. There are plenty who will attest to that.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:49:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I hear the plaintiff has traces right back to both of you. Try to explain that one in court.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:50:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Can't comment on something I don't know. I do know the plaintiff did. She took your advice. Wasn't that sweet of her to try to protect you.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:51:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Who wrote that the new family needs protected? Not me. I will LMAO if that actually happened. Too bad people at CS already know the situation. Small town hun. Have them check out that family thoroughly. They will find nothing but a normal happy child.
He's not waiting on anything.Dunno what you are talking about.Everything is going as scheduled.
As for a lawyer, bout time she wised up. She'll need one.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:53:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I see on the other blogs there is a rental lease with a false social. Are you saying that is a lie too???; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:53:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Or wait, what is your excuse. He puts things inother people's name so he can't be tracked down. Isn't that still id theft???; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:55:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Lady, do what you gotta do. I happen to know that the mother knows plenty of people at that organization. They didn't check her out the first time you called. There are no traces b/c if she wants help, she has a mouth and would ask for it.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:56:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I've seen the lease and so has the judge. No fake social so you can stop lying about that any day now.
You posted under cal, prizewriter and others. Those aren't your names. Is that identity theft? Get real. You are nuts.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:57:00 PM
Anonymous said...: One more thing, why don't you bowl anymore? I heard it's because no one can stand you. You did nothing but stir up problems and cause fights.
Keep posting lies to yourself. I have a life to live. No wonder he doesn't even read these. Too dumb to even try to make sense of. Later lonely loser.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:01:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Bowling???? No one I know even bowls. That is the best one yet. I don't think anyone in the plaintiff's family bowls. What are you talking about??? The traces I am referring to are the email traces. The other blogs say it traced back to you. What was said about an organization??? Later to you. Better check your info.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:05:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Just checked. The mother hasn't bowled in many years. Looks like you involved some innocent people. And if they are the trouble makers you claim they are, they will love this one.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:23:00 PM
Anonymous said...: People should never put things in writing when they do not the person they are talking about. These bloggers are reckless in their words. Make sure in the future you have the right person with the right activity.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:34:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Funny lady. I am only one of many supporters that didn't even blog on another site so you need to make sure who you are talking to. I can be as wreckless as I want. I am not part of this and have the right to state my opinion.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:59:00 PM
Anonymous said...: No one said anything about an organization. But since you mentioned it, yes the people that badmouthed you said you were in a league. Not too awful long ago. Couple years I think they said. Sucks to have your past come back to bite ya.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:02:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Since when is it ok to assume this lady bowls? There are many people with the same name and you want to throw other people into this? It is reckless and I will be glad to provide your name and address to the person you have tried to defame. The bowler is an entirely different family that doesn't even reside in the same town as the plaintiff. Get your facts straight. Please by all means, bring these people to court. Won't you look stupid!!!!; Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:09:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The lease most definitely has a false social unless this defendant has more than one social.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Or the defendant provided a false one to the CG.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't want to repeat the things that were said about you form people who ACTUALLY know you. Not people that know a different person by the same name. I hear they are being called to testify. ANd what's this, you are being called to testify too.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:16:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You have people testifying that say the mother is a trouble maker and how does that reflect on the daughter? It might be relevant if these people actually knew the mother or if the mother actually bowled. But since you are so naive and believe your lies, try to incorporate that into this lawsuit that deals with rats, fraud and id theft. The mother of the little boy is relevant since isn't it she that stepped forward a week before the wedding. Isn't it written everywhere and admitted by the mother of the defendant's son admitted to her charges. That is not hearsay, that is relevant.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:46:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like their is egg on someone's face. You should apologize to the wrong person.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:39:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Silence is golden.; Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:58:00 PM
Anonymous said...: By your comments it is obvious that it either bothers you when no one argues back or you like it when you have the last word.
Who said anything about people testifying against the mother in this lawsuit? These people verified it is the right "bowler" They know names of family members and know what town she is from. You are right in saying that her behavior has little do w/the daughter but it has everything to do with her own behavior that is being questioned.
As for people testifying against the new girlfriend. For every person you have, there are 10 that will have nothing but good to say so I'm sure she's not sweating it. Her friend calling his family member before the wedding that she was unaware of really does have nothing to do with the matters at hand. You will be the one looking stupid and no one even wants an apology from you. Your words mean nothing.; Friday, July 21, 2006 10:38:00 AM
Anonymous said...: False social to the CG? LMAO. I think that when federal agents were asked by this girl's mother to investigate this guy, they would've caught on to that one. Don't insult this country's public servants. You really have gone too far.; Friday, July 21, 2006 10:44:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Since when was a 6 yr old asked to testify in the DV case? That's a new one on me. More lies from the plaintiff's mother.; Friday, July 21, 2006 10:47:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I have seen documents with more than one social. So he has more than one identity????? If you are so sure this mother bowls, then please by all means call your witnesses. We will see who has the better laugh. I don't think it matters who has the last word, it matters who is laughing last.; Friday, July 21, 2006 10:57:00 AM
Anonymous said...: You like to really twist statements. If youread the comments, it says there is a difference in socials. You say the one on the lease is right so then one would have to assume by your own statements the one the CG has is incorrect.; Friday, July 21, 2006 10:58:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Where in the world does it say anything about a child testifying in any case???? Are you dreaming???? Wipe your eyes and read again.; Friday, July 21, 2006 10:59:00 AM
Anonymous said...: What r u tlaking bout? I still bowl! R my firendz talking bout me again.; Friday, July 21, 2006 11:20:00 AM
Anonymous said...: If neither social belongs to you are your family, what do you care? A judge checked the one on the lease, investigators checked the CG paperwork so what is your point?; Friday, July 21, 2006 12:07:00 PM
Anonymous said...: So they must be the same cuz you said so. We believe you.; Friday, July 21, 2006 12:11:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You would never lie.; Friday, July 21, 2006 12:12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Yea, neither do you ha ha. You don't even know me so lay off.
Check it out. Both have been checked. Futhermore, if a person tries to commit identity theft, why would they use their same name, just a different social? That makes no sense.; Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:37:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Since you are the one making ALL of the comments that defend the plaintiff, what is this?
"Isn't it written everywhere and admitted by the mother of the defendant's son admitted to her charges. That is not hearsay, that is relevant."
That is a lie. More to add to the case against you and more that you run your mouth about that doesn't concern you. See you in court where the last laugh will be in your face.; Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:42:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Lady, why don't you just admit you are wrong about the SS theft accusations? Looks to me like your story has checked out and found to be false or this guy would be in some sort of trouble.; Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:07:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Time will tell. You are so convinced you are right so why are you arguing? So you have a case against the lady? It looks like she would have a very strong case against you if she pursues it. The statement you cut and paste refers to a case against you (the mother of the defendant's six year old son). You even posted the results of it. Didn't you post the results? You post the bankruptcy and people respond. That is blogging. You can't post lies and I guess you don't have to worry since you tell nothing but the truth.; Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:07:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I have seen all the blogs and you set out on a course to defame the plaintiff and then the plaintiff's family. Looks like they can have the last laugh.; Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't forget to bring the bowlers in as witnesses. hehe; Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:14:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Different socials is no lie. The lease has one and other papers have others. Only the person could answer why the name didn't change. But I forget, you never lie, so I must be wrong.; Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:19:00 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 428 Newer› Newest»

Vitamin C Fortified

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Fiancé of the year

428 comments:

Blog Archive

Labels

My Blog List

About Me

Followers