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   201 – 400 of 428   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

In response to what is this, Aren't you the one who posted you completed a diversion program and had your charges dismissed along with the website?

Anonymous said...

Looks like every blog site, the comments were started by you. If you didn't want tobe involved, you shouldn't have posted lies to attempt to defame the plaintiff. None of your claims against this plaintiff have been substantiated. I believe in one blog you even refer to it as gossip. So in essence, you spread gossip. That is still defamation of character.

Anonymous said...

To clarify another misconception, you accuse the plaintiff or plaintiff's family of opening a myspace in this man's name. I have seen the myspace, saw the exchange between the two of you, and even a picture there of the man and his alleged son. So I guess the plaintiff got his picture. hehe. Even I know halloween isn't in september, the date of the picture.

Anonymous said...

Defame? Didn't know she was famous. I myself didn't start those posts. Maybe you did so you'd have something to argue about. Not sure why you keep directing comments towards someone I am not but whatever gets your blabber blabbing.
There was an account opened in his name and the one you refer to may not be it. Which picture you mean? Maybe the date on the camera was wrong. What does that prove? You are a rocket scientist. lol
Also, your party posted cruel untruths about these people and they were removed my a website! Here is an exerpt from the email. Subject:MySpace - Content Deleted
Thank you for identifying inappropriate content on MySpace.
The content has been removed. Thank you for your support in keeping MySpace a clean and healthy community!
Thank You,
Myspace.com
So, now who's trying to defame??
As for the DV charges, ONCE AGAIN, she already explained to you that w/everything else going on, she took the quicker route of passing up the opportunity of a jury trial and having the case dismissed. Never were the charges admitted to. Even the ex tried to have them dropped...twice. Shows how much you know.
Focus on your own lawsuits!

Anonymous said...

If you are referring to the email from myspace closing the account you opened in plaintiff's name, then yes it is true. No content had ever been removed from plaintiff.

Anonymous said...

You sure do like to twist and turn things to suit you.

Anonymous said...

And yes, you started all the blogs.

Anonymous said...

These two people are constantly getting thrown off websites, having email accunts closed and reopening them in the girl's name. Everytime a new account is found to be opened in the girl's name, it is closed. This girl has never had any warnings, deletions, or reprimands from any internet site. There are copies of emails confriming when accounts in her name were set up and deleted. I am sure that if an email was sent to these other 2 people, it was informing them that the content was reported and deleted.

Anonymous said...

The only 2 people that strive for attention is these 2. They think that by putting lies up the lawsuit will be dropped. Sorry, it is here to stay and will be seen through to the end.

Anonymous said...

No, that myspace email was in reference to things that were removed from the plaintiff's myspace account at my request. Nice try but it's true.
No one on this end wants attention or the lawsuit to be dropped. After all that has been compliled against her, we are all looking forward to making her look stupid. I hope you do stick it out.

Anonymous said...

Nothing ever removed at your request. You must be on cloud nine again. Keep believing your lies and keep trying to have your friends pose as others. You are the only ones looking STUPID!!!!

Anonymous said...

Think someone has copies of all the blogs. Shall that someone post all of them again just to prove you wrong.

Anonymous said...

Passed your message along.

Anonymous said...

No one wants to pay for a lawyer, compile evidentce, prepare for a trial then hope it is dropped. The plaintiff's "blog rep" makes no sense.
Who cares about past blogs. Why not just wait until this is all in court? Sounds like you have too much time on your hands.

Anonymous said...

Pay for a lawyer? Didn't someone say he filed bankruptcy? The plaintiff never said anything about dropping. You are really confused. It is going all the way. Wasn't it you that brought up past blogs????? Can you even read or do you even know what you type???????

Anonymous said...

Talking about having too much time on their hands. That looks like you. It appears a little boy is raising himself since his parents are on here all day.

Anonymous said...

You silly people. They don't want to live their lives through their child so the child is raising himself.

Anonymous said...

Very funny but don't children need guidance?

Anonymous said...

The kid is getting typing lessons.

Anonymous said...

It is called summer school.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the child is more mature than the parents.

Anonymous said...

More like he has another parent that is unlike these two. There is hope for the child.

Anonymous said...

Look how many times you post and you accuse others of being on all day??? They spend plenty of time with their son and that is why there is plenty of hope for the child. Don't think you fool anyone faking concern for him.
By the way, Children's Services hasn't even called them. They must not have bought your story.
And once again for those of you who are slow. Paying for so many lawyers caused the financial problems. You really are as dumb as I've heard from your aquaintances.

Anonymous said...

They don't even post. When people tell them what the plaintiff's mom posts, they laugh. They don't need to read your nonsense. That is what attorneys are for.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the child being more mature than the parent. Doesn't that describe the plaintiff and her mother perfectly? Seems she is handling this the legal way while her mother resorts to inmature remarks and insults.

Anonymous said...

The insults and immature remarks are only made by these two people who call themselves parents. They just can't handle it when you respond with facts. I hear the plaintiff's family can't wait to meet the so-called acquaintances. By the way, how are your imposters doing?

Anonymous said...

I also hear the plaintiff's family has proof it is the so called parents making remarks along with some individual who does not even know the plaintiff? What's this? This person thought he was talking to the daughter and it was actually the mother? How dumb!

Anonymous said...

It is the Dumb family....dumb, dumber and dumbest!

Anonymous said...

How does one blame a bankruptcy from attorney fees that only came into existence in the past year and the debts claimed go back to 1999? Think you need a new reason.

Anonymous said...

Since when is the truth known as insults?

Anonymous said...

What makes you think anyone called Children Services? If they were called then it was someone who lives by you and knows you.

Anonymous said...

Wonder who does the cooking in that house? Have they all been tested for the rat disease?

Anonymous said...

What kind of attroney would spend all day on here posting? That is a good one. Guess you get what you pay for!

Anonymous said...

Don't worry about the child getting tested for a rat disease, the mother should be more concerned with protecting the child's social. Everyone wants to focus on the rat but that is just a minute part of this lawsuit. The faking an engagement to get money and to steal the id of this girl is the bigger issue.

Anonymous said...

Get a life. The mother of the plaintiff goes on and on and on. No one called CS and no one is claiming they have a rat disease except the mentally disturbed. If those are the bigger issues then just wait for your day in court. Posting is getting you nowhere.

Anonymous said...

You get your daughter's bad breath taken care of?

Anonymous said...

No attorney posts here, that's what friends are for.

Anonymous said...

Get what you pay for? Obviously her mom isn't familiar with the attorney she is up against. Ignorance is bliss. lol

Anonymous said...

Posting gets YOU no where. Don't think anyone is shaking in their shoes over the attorney this man hired. Need I say more. You are the biggest joke ever.

Anonymous said...

For the record, isn't it these same people who posted that this attorney was so good that this case was being dismissed? It didn't happen now did it?

Anonymous said...

I hear rats give you bad breath. You must know that by now.

Anonymous said...

Don't remember that comment about a dismissal. Everyone is actually looking forward to a big show-down where you look dumb. Didn't one court initially pass it off to another then that court only said they'd hear the case b/c you filed a complaint? I wouldn't want to be you. Sounds like you are the biggest joke. HA HA HA HA

Anonymous said...

On the bad breath...excuses, excuses, excuses.

Anonymous said...

You must be delusional. There was a different court for the judgment that was awarded. Nothing has ever been passed from one court to another. You must not understand the court system. They don't pass things off. You are the biggest joke and your stupidity is showing. The plaintiff had an option on where she wanted to file and opted for the court where it is at for several reasons. Now who is the stupid one? Or is someone filling you with lies that you choose to believe?

Anonymous said...

You made many comments on a dismissal....res judicata and can't sue for broken engagements...Some of your comments would hold up for a "normal" break up but not for one that involves fraud. Your theory didn't hold up and the case will move forward in September. The bankruptcy doesn't prevent it, just delays it.

Anonymous said...

Courts just don't hear cases because someone files them. They have to determine if the case has merit and if the plaintiff can prove their case. This case is moving forward so what does that tell you.

Anonymous said...

Do you make it a habit to comment on things you know absolutely nothing about?

Anonymous said...

Instead of commenting on here all day, take that time and do something constructive with your child. Someday he will be reading all this and seeing how much time you wasted when you could have been doing something with him.

Anonymous said...

It is a shame this person just can't move on with her life. She tries her hardest each and every day to try to prove her case. She is only trying to convince herself that the father of her child is not capable of any of this. Her comments are baseless, worthless and contain no factual allegations. She is not credible and just repeats gossip. The case involves her only minimally but she wants the maximum attention she can get. A caring mother would be taking the time to shield her child from all of this rather than trying to keep this alive in the media. Her only concern is how this whole case will impact her position in a custody battle. I do hope the custody judge and opposing attorneys read her postings and see how this child is being ignored while she sits and types all day. She likes to pretend to be other people, including the plaintiff and the plaintiff's family. I would say that is a true act of desparation in trying to make him look good. Isn't it time to grow up and move forward with your life. I can't imagine how she would let this consume so much of her life. By her posting her all day, she can ignore reality and blame everything on this lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

This case could have been settled months ago with a simple apology and promise never to use personal information of the ex ever again. The person that is posting here all day chose to get herself involved and stopped all settlements so a lawsuit was commenced. She can't deal with the fact that this man isn't what she thought he would be. She was convinced he was financially stable and capable of incurring all expenses. What an eye opener it must have been when a bankruptcy came into play. I would be willing to bet that these two aren't even a couple and only play the part online.

Anonymous said...

You are probably right. Who could stand either of them?

Anonymous said...

One would have to feel very sorry for the child. Who would want people reading this and then pointing at the child.

Anonymous said...

These are the type of parents who don't care about the psychological effects it has on their child. They are only concerned with attempting to make themselves look good. How could a woman who doesn't even know the girl, write anything? She is only posting what this man has told her. Do you think he is going to be honest?

Anonymous said...

Of course he wouldn't be honest, would you? He will make the girl prove her case. People like him can not admit when they made a mistake.

Anonymous said...

No one can the other woman has bad breath. Doesn't bleach kill all germs?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the belach incident - didn't she post that her ex tried to have charges dropped? If that were true, she should have opted for a trial. If he weren't testifying against her, the state had no case. Doesn't make sense now does it. She only posts what she wants people to believe.

Anonymous said...

What about all the engagements? What is the deal? What does this man think he'll gain by asking all these women to marry him? There is the one before the woman in this lawsuit. This woman got a used engagement ring. Then he leaves this woman and is engaged again within a matter of days. How many more women are or were engaged to this man? That would be interesting to find out. I would have to guess that if he is still engaged to the son's mother, it is a matter of time before he is engaged again. From everything I can read, he is money motivated. So if this other woman doesn't have money, he'll be gone when the next one willing to pay his way comes along.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone can figure out what he was thinking. He did marry someone after knowing her for two or three weeks a few years earlier.

Anonymous said...

Was he really married at one time?

Anonymous said...

He was or is married. That isn't the issue. That girl found out quickly exactly what he was all about.

Anonymous said...

I see. Everything will work out in the end. I just don't understand that if it were a joke that went bad, why not just say it and get it over with. Maybe there is a chance that he didn't know how sick he was making her.

Anonymous said...

No one points at the child lol. As for his mother, I've talked to her several times today. She hasn't even been online. She is out of town with her son. I post and can continue to do so. I have no children. You are the one showing your ignorance. You comment on her life yet you know nothing of it.

Anonymous said...

He will admit to nothing. No joke. Nothing. The plaintiff's mother made up the horribly unbelievable story!

Anonymous said...

It looks like someone has their tail feathers in a ruffle. Everything that this mother does and says does reflect back on that child. Everyone knows it is the mother of the child posting. It isn't hard to figure out. Be a mother for once and protect your child. Stop posting your lies and stop trying to put yourself into this situation. Focus on your child and not on other people.

Anonymous said...

The only person stupider than the man who proposes after a few weeks is the woman who accepts.

Anonymous said...

A made-up story? I haven't read that one yet. There is an email that this man wrote. It is real and he even admitted to it in several interviews. Don't think it is made-up but if that makes you feel better, please believe it. The plaintiff's mother didn't file anything so for you to blame the mother is beyond everyone who reads this. It is apparent you have a bitter attitude towards the mother but it was one person who filed this case unless I am wrong.

Anonymous said...

Like I said before. You know nothing of her life except heresay. Isn't that what your little bitchfest is about??? Her going on heresay? Take your own advice and "Stop posting your lies and stop trying to put yourself into this situation."

Anonymous said...

So are you calling yourself stupid? You were given an engagement ring within 10 days.

Anonymous said...

Again, if you look at all the blog websites, they were started by one person and this person is now upset since her little white lies have been proven wrong.

Anonymous said...

You, yourself, have posted things about your own life. Instead of taking that child into consideration, you thought you could fool the world.

Anonymous said...

She was given. I believe stated that she did not accept it. I was however calling your daughter stupid.

Anonymous said...

What kind of mother gets online and posts things about domestic violence? Someone in that situation would have ignored it instead of posting the link to the case.

Anonymous said...

I believe this person even posted how she designed her own ring. Now she wants everyone to think that she did not accept it. It is just like her postings that the man did not move right in with her after knowing him briefly. That speaks louder than words.

Anonymous said...

You base your allegations on fake emails, interviews and heresay. This should be good.

Anonymous said...

The only stupid person is the one who knows what happened and stays with the person and then tries to defend the person.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying the newspapers never interviewed him. You are really too much. He gave interviews, he admitted to the emails, and nothing is hearsay. Everything you say is gossip and therefore is hearsay.

Anonymous said...

Once again, you twist the facts. She was given a totally different ring and did not accept it. She later did design her own ring. That was posted on her myspace page. You read that? How flattering. Didn't realize you were that obsessed.

Anonymous said...

The only allegations worth a darn are the ones in the complaint against this man. You get yourself in an uproar when you were not part of his life then.

Anonymous said...

Noone reads your myspace except the parts that are emailed. Don't have to worry about that, yours was shut down.

Anonymous said...

It was the same ring so don't try to say it isn't.

Anonymous said...

The stupidest person is one who lives through her daughter and instead of keeping this in the courtroom, she posts manipulations of the truth.

Anonymous said...

You can believe your lies. The ring is included in the bankruptcy.

Anonymous said...

Newp. Sure wasn't. There are receipts. What's it matter to you anyway. We all know the truth about the rings.

Anonymous said...

No one lives their life through their children. That is your answer to everything but so far from the truth.

Anonymous said...

LMAO. That is a boldfaced lie. There is no mention of a ring in the bankruptcy. Lies, lies and more lies.

Anonymous said...

He must be fooling you over the ring. Same one and he couldn't propse until he got it from the other girl.

Anonymous said...

Check Schedule F. It is on there.

Anonymous said...

Another lie. Her myspace account was shut down at her request and as advised by law enforcement officials. She was told to change emails, webpages, and phone numbers. It is all on record. You are a horrible liar.

Anonymous said...

Dunno why you are so worried about another woman's ring. All I can say is that I was there, know that she designed it and it took quite a while to even come in. It was from a jewelry store and there are receipts. Your credibility is not looking so good.

Anonymous said...

The girl in the lawsuit got a used ring, not you. The man attempted to purchase you a ring with this girls social. Your credibility is the one being questioned. You now admit to the ring. So you did call yourself stupid. You can't even tell good lies. The used ring is listed on the bankruptcy. Why are you so afraid to look at it. It is public record and online.

Anonymous said...

So a woman who accepts a ring after knowing someone for a short time is stupid. You however, knew the background and still accepted. Now who is stupid?

Anonymous said...

The plaintiff knew nothing except the lies fed to her. You accepted a ring knowing what he is all about then get on here to post lies. The only one the person should feel sorry for is the child.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it funny how this woman again tries to put herself in the middle and how a man claiming bankruptcy can afford this pricey ring but can't pay his debts. Shows his priorities or trying to win this one over.

Anonymous said...

From everything posted, I would tell her to get everything she can right now before he uses her.

Anonymous said...

But she didn't ask for your advice now did she?

Anonymous said...

What kind of mother would be a stranger into her home with a child? At least try to get to know him first. Obviously, this woman doesn't care about her child at all.

Anonymous said...

No, she asked for the plaintiff's advice. She telephoned the plaintiff.

Anonymous said...

Where was it written that this is an engagement ring bought by the defendant? Seems someone is quick to jump to conclusions.

Anonymous said...

She has known him for years. Also has known and used to work for his family. Why are you picking apart someone you don't even know...AGAIN???

Anonymous said...

Get everything she can? That what you told your daughter as you two packed up his belongings?

Anonymous said...

Oh but you don't tell the whole story once again Ms. L. The plaintiff called her. The call may not show up because she was on 3-way calling with the defendant's ex-wife. The plaintiff gave her a telephone number and asked her to call back. Now we know why this was done. Somehow you think this one little phone call has some significance. This is a grown woman. I doubt she'd be calling a young girl asking her for advice. I don't know how you live with your disgusting lying self.

Anonymous said...

You raised a daughter (the plaintiff) who says if she'd ever gotten knocked up she would have been the type of mother to drown her kid in a bath tub because she hates children so much. You should be proud. The last place I'd expect you to be is online criticizing other parents.

Anonymous said...

I am glad you think I am who you are referring to. I have told you over and over again I am not her but since you insist I will respond anyway. You call yourself a parent? You have no time for that child but wait, you didn't even know who the father was. You are the biggest joke ever.

Anonymous said...

Do you do anything else but sit on here and type all day pretending to be other people?

Anonymous said...

The phone call was from you to the plaintiff. You can claim whatever you want but please show the proof. The plaintiff has had her own phone number since she got back from Arkansas and she would have given her phone number. You got the phone number from the defendant or when the plaintiff called the 25 pages of numbers on the last cell phone bill.

Anonymous said...

It is funny you bring up the plaintiff and children. You really don't know anything about her. Does she have to like your child? I don't think so. Think it was the defendant who insisted this was not his child. You must have talked a good talk in the secret conversations while these two were still living together. He didn't have the guts to tell her for several days while you two ran up over three hundred dollars in calls. That is a good guy, huh...

Anonymous said...

I hear he didn't even have the guts to tell his own mother.

Anonymous said...

So let's get all this straight. This guy now denies he ever wrote the email, he denies ever talking to any newspaper reporter, he denies running up a cell phone bill and doesn't pay for it. Yet, the newspaper reporters believe they spoke to him and the mother of this child. So who are you going to believe? The people who keep changing their story or the story that has remained the same.

Anonymous said...

I passed your blog along with the name. You just never learn. You are infamous for arguing with people that you have no idea who they are.

Anonymous said...

And I forgot, in one statement you say you didn't accept a ring and in the next statement, you ordered one. And you want people to accept what you say as fact?

Anonymous said...

Ok, folks...I can change my story several times but hey, I am telling the truth now.

Anonymous said...

Let's talk about criticizing parents. Where do we begin? A parent who is brought up on domestic violence charges and is so proud of it that she posts it for the world to see, should be criticized. Take that child and nurture him. People do talk and that child will be affected by everything you say and do. You should be ashamed of yourself and ashamed of your actions. Why humiliate your child? One can only believe that you have no shame and really don't care about that child.

Anonymous said...

As for the phone call....do you actually think the plaintiff would ask you to call her so you could tell her that you got a ring. Didn't that phone call occur a few days after the plaintiff's wedding was to occur? Like anyone would believe that.

Anonymous said...

There are emails from you indicating that you were concerned someone would find out the secret. One would have to believe that when two people are getting married, there should be no secrets, especially if the secret is a child. If you were any kind of person, you would have made sure he did tell his fiance instead of sneaking phone calls.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the statement above....Think he should admit he pulled a joke that went to far and that he never loved this girl, he needed her for money.

Anonymous said...

He can't admit that he was not in a financial position to take care of anyone at the time this was a secret. He still is lying. The bankruptcy tells the financial picture. Debts date back to 1999. No debts incurred while he was with this girl. Debts resume after the breakup. It is so plain and clear to see that there is no defense for the financial aspect of this case. This man plain and simple used this girl. He should apologize and move on in his life.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately these type of people do not apologize. They think everything is owed to them. This guy used many people not just this girl. He didn't count on getting caught this time. This woman should apologize. Why would she want a ring from someone when he attempted to use another's social to obtain it. What decent woman would call the ex fiance up to tell her she got a ring? These are the types of people they are. This woman thinks it is ok that this man ran up the cell phone since they were calls to her. Never mind that he didn't pay for it. That doesn't matter to her. There are two others beside this girl that can tell you how he runs up bills and then leaves. Too bad none of this was known earlier. The man knows he owes these bills and knows exactly what he did. No matter how he tries to get out of it (the bankruptcy) there is always a higher being. When you set out on a course of action to defraud people, nothing in your life will ever work out. It would be nice to hear an apology and then to move forward but since that will never happen...the lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

If any good comes out this, it is hopefully this man finally learns to admit to the truth and you don't need to get engaged to every person you meet.

Anonymous said...

Apologize? What planet are you from. Just look above, he is now denying he wrote the email or gave interviews to the newspaper. Must be an evil twin that did it.

Anonymous said...

Since this guy is now denying the email and that he talked to the newspapers, I bet he blames all the phone calls on this girl too. She randomly found this number and talked to the mother of this child before she even knew about it. How many more myths can he tell?

Anonymous said...

Newp. Lying about the phone call and yes there is proof and a witness since she was at work when your daughter called. A co-worker witnessed the entire conversation including when your daughter gave your home phone number and permission for a call back. The co-worker also witnessed the call back to your daughter. Believe me, you will be looking pretty stupid. I'm just not sure why you'd lie about the phone call? What is your point? Oh wait, you just lie to be lying.

Anonymous said...

I haven't read anything where the defendant denies the email. I read that he said the email was written before he even knew the plaintiff and it was a joke between friends referencing a contest. I also read that he had one interview and that the writer had already spoken to the plaintiff. That is the only reason he spoke-in defense. She is the one who talked to tabloids. All the other articles were reprints of the original. Your lies are really too much.

Anonymous said...

His own mother was one of the first to know about her grandson. She knew before you or your daughter.

Anonymous said...

One more thing about the phone call you keep bringing up. Your daughter and his ex-wife did ask her if he'd already proposed. She said yes but she didn't accept. Your daughter made a remark something like yea, probably with my old ring. So, when she called back, she asked your daughter the shape of her diamond. She said square, this diamond was round. Your daughter said "Eww, he KNOWS I would never wear round! That is definently NOT mine!" All of this was recorded by the co-worker so this part is not what you want to be lying about.

Anonymous said...

My comment is directed towards the person who said something about the plaintiff not liking her ex's child. How can you dislike a child? Especially one you've never met. Previous posts written by her supporter show "concern" about this very child.
Children are innocent. This child did not choose to be born nor should he be made the target of your hatred. That to me is what is sickening.

Anonymous said...

One more thing about comments directed at the child. You call this family dumb, dumber and dumbest?? Obviously you are calling the child one of the 3 names. Again...sickening.

Anonymous said...

In response to
"And I forgot, in one statement you say you didn't accept a ring and in the next statement, you ordered one. And you want people to accept what you say as fact?"
The first proposal was not accepted. The second ring was months later. She did design and order it. Nothing confusing there.

Anonymous said...

Why did the ex-boyfriend not tell the girl about the child? Gee, I wonder lol. Sounds to me he already had somewhat of a clue about how vengeful she can be. I'd hesitate to tell someone too. Especially if it was not confirmed and I was told right before my wedding. Seems to me he was trying to spare her feelings, especially if he went to his mother and her mother for advice beforehand. Also, her hating children couldn't have made telling her any easier.

Anonymous said...

My comment is to:
"There are emails from you indicating that you were concerned someone would find out the secret. One would have to believe that when two people are getting married, there should be no secrets, especially if the secret is a child. If you were any kind of person, you would have made sure he did tell his fiance instead of sneaking phone calls."
First off, this guy was preparing to tell his fiance and the mother told her first. On her way home from work to be exact. There are emails from the mother saying that her daughter would be upset but would be okay with the situation. Secondly, emails about a secret? No one can even follow your ramblings. The only apparent reason to keep it a secret would be to spare her feelings. No one wants to worry about something like this on their wedding day. I think he did the right thing.

Anonymous said...

If this lawsuit has been assigned a court date in September, why is anyone arguing about it online? Also, how is anything the mother of this child did pertinent to the lawsuit? I thought it was about the ex's actions. Am I missing something here?

Anonymous said...

You are so very confused. No lawsuit in September. You must make up all your information. Let's see, the mother of this girl was the first to know. She called her daughter and then to my understanding she called the defendant's mother. The defendant's mother was in shock. So to alleviate your concerns, it was the plaintiff's mother that knew first and the plaintiff's mother that shut off the cell phone. You telephoned him as muxh as he telephoned you. You both were hiding the son. Your excuse was lame. Two people about to be married should never hide a son. He probably did try to hide it since he wanted this girl to support his son. At the time, this man could not support himself, an apartment and a wife to be. He files bankruptcy but buys you an expensive ring. That is a joke but convince yourself of it. Whatever makes you feel good. Another lie...the email was written February 15, 2005. These two were already living together. The plaintiff had never ever spoken to any tablooid so again get your facts straight. All that info probably came from you.

Anonymous said...

You heard someone right, the dumb family...dumb, dumber and dumbest.

Anonymous said...

Glad you mentioned recorded calls. They are not admissible in court but the plaintiff has a copy of it too. The one where you were making fun of the ring this man got you.

Anonymous said...

And the rat email story changes yet again. How many versions of the email are there? The truth is, the defendant wrote it on February 15, 2005, purchased from the pet store the same exact date, and the plaintiff gets sick. Sounds convincing to me.

Anonymous said...

Speaking on the subject of the dumb family. There is another website where this mother is bragging about her son winning a talent show. The talent was the fastest rat trap setter in the world!

Anonymous said...

No silly, the father traps them and the boy skins them. Like father like son.

Anonymous said...

Who said he bought her an expensive ring? I read that a ring was bought but never is it specified that it is an engagement ring or that he bought it. He knows she didn't like the ring he got her. You think she'd confide that in your daughter and he doesn't know? These two have no secrets. FYI, yes recorded calls are admissable as long as one party is aware that it is being taped.
As for-
"He probably did try to hide it since he wanted this girl to support his son."
What makes you think anyone expected you or your daughter to support this child? She couldn't even hold a job. This child has everything and anything a kid could want. Don't flatter yourself by thinking anyone would've tried to rely on her. As far as her hiding the son??? She wasn't dating your daughter. She had no obligation to tell her or reason to hide something from someone she'd never met. Your theories make no sense. But what can you expect from someone who picks on and namecalls a 7 yr old. Just goes to show your inmaturity and ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Good! If the plaintiff recorded the tape then she also has the recording of her admission to forseeing drowning and would-be children in a bath tub. Bet that's an easy one to listen to while you're looking into your granddaughter's face.

Anonymous said...

Here's an interesting fact. Ms. L posts numerous times misleading information about when debt was accumulated. Truth is, you can look at the bankruptcy online and all that is listed are creditors names and addresses. No dates or specific items. So...every post specificying when and what was filed on is a LIE. Also, the ring your daughter had, there is nothing saying it was filed on. There is a jeweler listed as a creditor proving nothing. You are the biggest liar and con I've ever come across.

Anonymous said...

Shows your igonorance and lack of knowledge of the law. In PA, both parties have to agree to a taped phone call. In your case, the recording is inadmissible. As a matter of fact, it is a criminal offense in PA to record a conversation without the other person's knowledge. The plaintiff never introduced the tape recording since she already knew it was inadmissible. As for this other woman and the phone calls to Arkansas. You would think that she would have insisted the truth be known. Why hide it if you were so sure. He wasn't going to tell her because of a wedding? That is a lame excuse. And again, you change the story about the ring. You just can't keep your story straight. Dumb, dumber and dumbest. I don't know why you insist I am this other person. Think by now you'd realize that everyone knows this story. If I am not mistaken, the people you are referring to are away and I don't think they have computer access. You are so easy to fool.

Anonymous said...

Don't know the person making fun of children but what you are doing is wrong. What is wrong with a mother bragging on her son? Why so jealous? You then insult his intelligence but it is written you've never met him? This is a child. You are an adult? Play the part and grow up. -Jamie

Anonymous said...

It isn't illegal or inadmissable in Ohio. Bottom line is, the truth is out there so why lie about the phone call.
She did insist that your daughter be told and even offered to talk to her but was told no because your daughter is a hot-head and mentally unstable and would go off the deep end. All she could do was insist. She cannnot and does not attempt to control other's actions.
Not so easy to fool. It is a fact that it is the plaintiff's mother posting. I have proof.

Anonymous said...

So, your daughter broke the law by recording the conversation without this lady's permission. Nice.

Anonymous said...

Skank, skanky and skankiest without computer access? I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

It's the rat family. Rat, rattier, and rattest.

Anonymous said...

Still arguing with someone you don't know. I hear you make that a habit.

Anonymous said...

How much intelligence can there be with parents like these two.

Anonymous said...

Look ma, I drink bleach. No germs.

Anonymous said...

Makes a good drink after eating rat.

Anonymous said...

Not the plaintiff's mother, sorry to burst your bubble.

Anonymous said...

Why do you feel like you can say anything you please about others but it isn't ok for people to do the same. Get a grip.

Anonymous said...

Who cares what Ohio law says, the case is in Pennsylvania. Do you not know they are different states?

Anonymous said...

Talking about mentally unstable. Wasn't it the man who wanted to check himself into a hospital when you broke the news to him.

Anonymous said...

Talk about twisting and manipulating words.

Anonymous said...

They will never admit that he thought he was wanted to go to a hospital. They only know how to lie and make it suit their needs.

Anonymous said...

Hope they have proof of their accusations since that is very serious.

Anonymous said...

No lies about the phone call. You called her and there is proof. This woman never insisted that this other girl knew about the child. In her own words above, it was going to be a secret until after the wedding. The mother of the child NEVER should have tried to hide it. That is a scam. Who in the world would make/receive phone calls all hours of the day and then write emails saying who sees the emails. She was part of this plan to trick the man who she told was the father and also the fiance of this man.

Anonymous said...

The family caught in their own web of lies. The emails tell all.

Anonymous said...

Will the real father of this kid please stand up! And what do you know about 15 men stand up.

Anonymous said...

To the comment about meeting the kid, don't think anyone would want to. It's not halloween. Don't want to be scared.

Anonymous said...

While I can't condone the actions or the words of these two parents nor can I stop people from writing things about them, I urge everyone not to stoop to their level. The mother of this son has a saying "what goes around, comes around." This same mother of the son posted many statements about an infant that she knows nothing about. She can't handle it when people say anything about her son. While the normal person can read it and realize it was meant to be funny, these parents can not decipher that. Children are not part of this and can not take responsibility for their parents' actions.

Anonymous said...

If you can dish it out, be prepared to take it.

Anonymous said...

This is a free country, I can write whatever I please.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of speech.

Anonymous said...

If I were the plaintiff's mother, I'd get to know the law in Ohio. There is not lawsuit there YET.

Anonymous said...

Yes, we all do have freedom of speech. This child does not belong to me. I merely commented because I thought the comments directed at the child were sickening to say the least. I am guessing you are the same person who accused other's of making "wreckless comments" Then you try to pass them off as a joke that other's can't decipher???
Again, you are showing your ignorance by attacking a child. No wonder your daughter, the plaintiff, has the attitude of hatred towards children that she does.
I have followed this case, seen pictures of the child you call scary. The only person scary is you. I think in the end you are doing the defendant a favor by posting all these crazy "wreckless" remarks. It just goes to show how nutso you are. You are the one who doesn't know who she's arguing with. We all know who you are.

Anonymous said...

In response to:
"While the normal person can read it and realize it was meant to be funny, these parents can not decipher that."
You know normal? Meant to be funny? No one is laughing.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you say that the only reason the child's (the one you insult)parents are together is because of the custody hearing? You must not be checking with your source. The 3 of them came to an agreement months ago. It will be signed off on by the judge this week. Your theory is bogus and a lie. The mother got everything she asked for.

Anonymous said...

Yea, this is the lie the plaintiff's mother told:
"Her only concern is how this whole case will impact her position in a custody battle. I do hope the custody judge and opposing attorneys read her postings and see how this child is being ignored while she sits and types all day."
Funny how nothing works out how you think it will or want it to.

Anonymous said...

There is only one opposing attorney. The plaintiff's mother really is clueless.

Anonymous said...

Talk about clueless, it's not a custody judge, it'a a magistrate.

Anonymous said...

I bet she'll be busy today. Faxing, calling and emailing the magistrate and "opposing attorneys" lol. She'll do anything to try to hurt this child. Goes back to her original promise. "When I get through with him (the defendant) his son will have nothing!!!" Someone said it right...sickening.

Anonymous said...

My comment is to:
"Your theory didn't hold up and the case will move forward in September. The bankruptcy doesn't prevent it, just delays it."
then the plaintiff's mother writes:
"You are so very confused. No lawsuit in September. You must make up all your information."
This lady has some nerve to accuse others of changing their story. What a LIAR! Good luck to the defendant although I don't think you'll need it.

Anonymous said...

She already knows they've lost their case so she's trying to get at the other party any way she knows how. That is my interpretation.

Anonymous said...

There are laws that govern freedom of speech that this child-hater needs to familiarize herself with.
"It's a crime to publish a “defamatory libel” – writing something that is designed to insult a person or likely to injure a person's reputation by exposing him or her to hatred, contempt or ridicule."
I contacted law officials about this incident and that is word for word what I was told. To the parents-take legal action today!

Anonymous said...

Really don't think anyone cares who gets custody. Everyone can have their opinion on what they think is right but what matters is what the judge says. You are right on one thing, no suit in Ohio YET. That works two ways. No change in the story about a hearing in September. The case moves forward, that doesn't mean a court date. No one here put that child in this. You and your own words. You thought it was funny when you wrote nasty things about a child but you get upset when someone else does it. If you don't want your child involved, then keep your mouth shut. Obviously that is very difficult for you since all the lies and defamation came from you and your other.

Anonymous said...

Take your own advice:: "There are laws that govern freedom of speech that this child-hater needs to familiarize herself with.
"It's a crime to publish a “defamatory libel” – writing something that is designed to insult a person " Let's see there are numerous statements made by you and your other that were known lies yet you posted them. Then words of a mental instituion over a suicide attempt. No basis, just your defaming words. So I hope they see you in criminal court again.

Anonymous said...

And your response to those statements...making fun during a rough situation. Confirming you know that known of it is true.

Anonymous said...

Don't think you are immune from the law. Funny, you are the only one who posted names.

Anonymous said...

A stronger defamation case against you and you involved several people who have nothing to do with the case.

Anonymous said...

Research shows that;
"The adult bully is a weak, inadequate individual who is driven by jealousy and envy. The bully will pick on any child they think is unable or unwilling to fight. A key factor in the bully's choice is any child who is unwilling to resort to violence to resolve conflict - in other words, a child who has integrity and good moral codes. Given that bullies are driven by jealousy and envy, any child who is bright and popular is also likely to be targeted."
Now that fits the profile of Ms. L.

Anonymous said...

She hates it when people call her out on her actions and inexcusable behavior. She comments on the child now tries to justify it. She comments on the custody case and now acts as if she doesn't care. Why? Because she is proven wrong time after time. When will you learn? Must I keep making you look like an idiot?

Anonymous said...

Looks like the only name calling was you and your other. Picking on a child that can't even talk. When others poke fun at you you cry. Just shows how much you know about the plaintiff's family. You are a joke and so is your other. No one will ever believe the lies you tell especially when you can't even keep them straight.

Anonymous said...

The ony actions called on were the ones of you and your other. Can't stand it when you are proven wrong over and over. Keep trying to pick on children. I don't have to comment on that, others do. They see your transparency.

Anonymous said...

No one really cares on who gets custody. How does it affect anyone but yourself? You said this guy should be reported, he was and now let the courts decide. It is their decision not anyone elses.

Anonymous said...

An attorney from there called and asked a favor. Other than that, no one could care less. It is obviously of great importance to you. I guess it would have to be. The seven year lie is over.

Anonymous said...

I am only one person. No one on the defendant's side picks on children. That's left to the plaintiff's mother. Accept responsibility for what you did and stop trying to place blame on others you child-hater.

Anonymous said...

I have copies of all the blogs where you did it. So please don't try to back out of it now. You and your other have both done it. Does the child belongs in a tabloid ring a bell. Or the myspace blogs by the defendant. Calling a child ugly and he would never want anything to do with. Grow up and face the music. Got all the blogs I'll ever need. You can change them all now but copies were already made. Still think there is one on the man's profile.

Anonymous said...

Be reported? Funny. Not a concern to anyone here. If anyone believed you I'm sure they would've taken action to protect the child. Wrong again?
Looks like no one took you up on that "favor" once they figured out how quickly you'd be proven non-credible. The attorney's words, not mine.
If you don't care about the custody outcome, don't comment on it. Just another victory you mispredicted anyway.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure no one would claim a child if it meant having life-long ties to you. This child doesn't even exist. You lied. That is when your credibility really started to suffer. Don't worry, the correct actions have been taken with CS, CSEA and law enforcement. He is not "shakin' in his boots" over this one.

Anonymous said...

My other?? Sorry there may be other supporters posting but I work alone.

Anonymous said...

Shall I post all the comments. A dozen of people have read them. you and your other think it is perfectly ok to post threats but don't anyone in this world try to say anything to you. You are not above the law

Anonymous said...

A child should not be considered a prize. Victory?

Anonymous said...

You know absolutely nothing about the plaintiff's life and love all your comments. But the man's comments were all that was needed.

Anonymous said...

One party against another. One party gets all they asked for. Victory describes that. Don't play semantics with me lady.

Anonymous said...

You equate child with a prize...victory! Your words not mine.

Anonymous said...

Is this imaginary child in the lawsuit? What is your point?

Anonymous said...

To all who know him he is a special prize/gift from God. Yes, those are my words. I have nothing but good to say about children, unlike you.

Anonymous said...

It will always be imaginary to you. You try to make children the focus of the lawsuit, no one else.

Anonymous said...

I don't have any lawsuits. ??? You have made numerous comments about a child on this blog alone. You are the one insistent on making children the focus, not I.
Don't worry. No one wants to meet the imaginary child anyway. You think you have something to hold over his head but you are so wrong.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 428   Newer› Newest»
 

Followers