PDA

View Full Version : Cain Accusor has had Financial problems



fettpett
11-08-2011, 11:03 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-herman-cain-accuser-1108-20111108,0,2247743,full.story


Cain accuser has history of financial troubles, legal squabbles
Her father, fiance say they stand with her

By Lisa Black, John Chase and Lolly Bowean, Chicago Tribune reporters

10:03 p.m. CST, November 7, 2011
The emerging portrait of Herman Cain's most recent accuser shows a suburban homemaker with a history of financial and legal troubles, but one who supporters say has the guts to do the right thing.

Sharon Bialek, 50, is the fourth woman — and the first publicly — to accuse the Republican presidential hopeful of sexual harassment. In a dramatic news conference Monday in New York, Bialek, a former employee of the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation, said she had sought Cain's help in finding a new job in July 1997 shortly after the organization had fired her.

...

Records show she twice has filed for personal bankruptcy, first in 1991 and then again in 2001. In the latter case, she claimed $5,700 in assets and more than $36,000 in liabilities. Among the creditors seeking payment was a management firm demanding back rent of $4,500, four credit card companies and a lawyer asking for his legal fees.

After the case was discharged, she accused a former boyfriend of harassing her for repayment of a loan, court records in the bankruptcy case show. Bialek borrowed $4,500 from William Concha, though Concha now believes she had no intention of paying him back, according to his brother, Mario.

Reached Monday night in Spain, William Concha declined comment.

At least two liens have been filed against Bialek, according to records from the Cook County recorder of deeds.

The IRS filed a tax lien against her in 2009 for nearly $5,200. In August, the Illinois Department of Revenue claimed Bialek owed the state more than $4,300, including penalties and interest, relating to income taxes from 2004, according to county records.

Court records also show creditors took legal action against her during the past decade, including at least one lawsuit filed in Cook County.

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAJ0MB0BFIICG0MD

yeah... I SOOO believe her story :rolleyes::rolleyes:

noonwitch
11-08-2011, 11:07 AM
I'll bet you believed Paula Jones, even though she used her brief time in the spotlight to pose for Playboy.

Starbuck
11-08-2011, 11:12 AM
.....yeah... I SOOO believe her story :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The problem Mrs Starbuck and I had with her story is her description of Cain's opening move. I've made my share of opening moves over the years - although not lately - and I never opened by grabbing for her genitals and pulling her head toward my lap!

I mean whatever happened to the old, "first he kept touching my arm; then he put his arm around me; then he (YUCK!) tried to kiss me!" , stuff? Nope. We're led to believe that he went from discussing whatever to going for the "Full Monte". Didn't need none of that kissing stuff, I guess.:rolleyes:

Aside from being a 50 year old flake, though, she is convincing. Be real interested in what Mr Cain has to say. He needs to say the right thing, but I don't now what that is.

Good Luck, Mr Cain! Do it right, because we sure need you here in America.

fettpett
11-08-2011, 11:13 AM
I'll bet you believed Paula Jones, even though she used her brief time in the spotlight to pose for Playboy.

only believed her story because Clinton had a PROVEN history being a womanizer going all the way back to his time as Gov of Arkansas and probably before.

Cain has a bunch of allegations that don't amount to more than a hill of beans, two of which had nothing to do with sexual harassment. Not only that but this Bialec woman doesn't act like someone who was sexually assaulted by him, she freaking hugged him at a TEA Party rally last month!

fettpett
11-08-2011, 11:15 AM
The problem Mrs Starbuck and I had with her story is her description of Cain's opening move. I've made my share of opening moves over the years - although not lately - and I never opened by grabbing for her genitals and pulling her head toward my lap!

I mean whatever happened to the old, "first he kept touching my arm; then he put his arm around me; then he (YUCK!) tried to kiss me!" , stuff? Nope. We're led to believe that he went from discussing whatever to going for the "Full Monte". Didn't need none of that kissing stuff, I guess.:rolleyes:

Aside from being a 50 year old flake, though, she is convincing. Be real interested in what Mr Cain has to say. He needs to say the right thing, but I don't now what that is.

Good Luck, Mr Cain! Do it right, because we sure need you here in America.


convincing? right...:rolleyes::rolleyes: if anything it smacks of HER making the moves, grabbing his hand and putting it between her legs and putting her head into his lap for a bj...

Novaheart
11-08-2011, 11:18 AM
The problem Mrs Starbuck and I had with her story is her description of Cain's opening move. I've made my share of opening moves over the years - although not lately - and I never opened by grabbing for her genitals and pulling her head toward my lap!

There is a difference between making an opening move and taking what you want. I'm guessing that you were raised to be, and were expected to be a gentleman. There is no reason to project that on Cain.

Novaheart
11-08-2011, 11:20 AM
only believed her story because Clinton had a PROVEN history being a womanizer going all the way back to his time as Gov of Arkansas and probably before.

Cain has a bunch of allegations that don't amount to more than a hill of beans, two of which had nothing to do with sexual harassment. Not only that but this Bialec woman doesn't act like someone who was sexually assaulted by him, she freaking hugged him at a TEA Party rally last month!

There is a huge difference between being a "womanizer" and being an aggressor. A womanizer is an heterosexual male who is always on the make. A sexual aggressor crosses the line from invitation to assault.

Arroyo_Doble
11-08-2011, 11:22 AM
I am not taking a side in this particular imbroglio (I find it all distasteful to begin with and an indication of our Media's debasement of the American political process) but I think we can see why the others did not want their names used. The feeding frenzy is awful.

Bailey
11-08-2011, 11:23 AM
only believed her story because Clinton had a PROVEN history being a womanizer going all the way back to his time as Gov of Arkansas and probably before.

Cain has a bunch of allegations that don't amount to more than a hill of beans, two of which had nothing to do with sexual harassment. Not only that but this Bialec woman doesn't act like someone who was sexually assaulted by him, she freaking hugged him at a TEA Party rally last month!

There was a credible allegation of rape against Clinton so please there is no comparison to Cain.

Odysseus
11-08-2011, 11:23 AM
I'll bet you believed Paula Jones, even though she used her brief time in the spotlight to pose for Playboy.

I might not have believed Jones either, if it weren't for Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick and Elizabeth Ward Gracen.

Jones' story was corroborated by an Arkansas State Trooper.
Kathleen Willey's story was corroborated by a witness who she told of the incident at the time, a nurse who treated her injuries and by letters asking for the meeting with Clinton (and Clinton's responses).
Gennifer Flowers had Clinton on tape.
Monica Lewinsky had DNA evidence on her blue dress.
Juanita Broaddrick stated that she had been raped by Clinton under oath.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Miss America in 1982, told a friend, Judy Stokes, that Gracen had been in tears when she said that the sex she and Clinton had was something Gracen "did not want to happen." Gracen refused to testify in the Paula Jones trial.

Starbuck
11-08-2011, 11:24 AM
I'll bet you believed Paula Jones, even though she used her brief time in the spotlight to pose for Playboy.


According to Jones' account, on May 8, 1991, Paula Jones was escorted to the room of Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, in the Excelsior[2][3][4] (now Peabody) Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he propositioned her. She claimed she kept quiet about the incident until 1994, when a David Brock story in American Spectator told a lurid account, sometimes referred to as Troopergate, about an Arkansas employee named "Paula" offering to be Clinton's girlfriend. Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton on May 6, 1994, two days prior to the 3-year statute of limitations, and sought $750,000 in damages.[5]
Jones was a flake. She got lucky and sold her bimbo status for a bundle of money. Whether anyone believed her or not I don't know.

We could talk about Monica Lewinsky, if you like, or maybe Gennifer Flowers if Monica is too painful.......Gee, why didn't you bring up those two?:confused:

fettpett
11-08-2011, 11:34 AM
There is a huge difference between being a "womanizer" and being an aggressor. A womanizer is an heterosexual male who is always on the make. A sexual aggressor crosses the line from invitation to assault.

Well you described Willy Clinton perfectly, not Cain

Adam Wood
11-08-2011, 11:36 AM
The problem Mrs Starbuck and I had with her story is her description of Cain's opening move. I've made my share of opening moves over the years - although not lately - and I never opened by grabbing for her genitals and pulling her head toward my lap!

I mean whatever happened to the old, "first he kept touching my arm; then he put his arm around me; then he (YUCK!) tried to kiss me!" , stuff? Nope. We're led to believe that he went from discussing whatever to going for the "Full Monte". Didn't need none of that kissing stuff, I guess.:rolleyes:

Aside from being a 50 year old flake, though, she is convincing. Be real interested in what Mr Cain has to say. He needs to say the right thing, but I don't now what that is.

Good Luck, Mr Cain! Do it right, because we sure need you here in America."I was out of the country for the month of July, 1997, and here are the travel records and passport stamps to prove it."

I would just LMAO at something like that.

noonwitch
11-08-2011, 11:55 AM
Jones was a flake. She got lucky and sold her bimbo status for a bundle of money. Whether anyone believed her or not I don't know.

We could talk about Monica Lewinsky, if you like, or maybe Gennifer Flowers if Monica is too painful.......Gee, why didn't you bring up those two?:confused:


I don't have a problem talking about either of those situations, but this isn't really about Bill Clinton, this is about Herman Cain. I'm not saying I believe the allegations against him, but I will say that comparing the situation to Clinton's misdeeds is not exactly the honorable way to handle the situation. So what if Clinton was a bigger womanizer than Cain? Does that mean that there is an acceptable level of womanizing that the GOP will tolerate from one of their candidates?

Again, Cain needs to defend himself from the allegations against him, and not allow the media to compare him to other politicians and/or celebrities who have been caught up in scandals, whether we are talking about Clinton or Clarence Thomas . Anything else lets the media run with the allegations totally unchecked by any facts that could clear Cain.

Starbuck
11-08-2011, 12:07 PM
I don't have a problem talking about either of those situations, but this isn't really about Bill Clinton, this is about Herman Cain.
THEN WHY IN GOD'S NAME DID YOU BRING UP CLINTON AND PAULA JONES??!!

djones520
11-08-2011, 12:09 PM
There is a difference between making an opening move and taking what you want. I'm guessing that you were raised to be, and were expected to be a gentleman. There is no reason to project that on Cain.

Ummm... have you paid any attention to what his history was? Everything I've heard gives plenty of reason to "project" that on Cain.

Odysseus
11-08-2011, 12:56 PM
THEN WHY IN GOD'S NAME DID YOU BRING UP CLINTON AND PAULA JONES??!!

Because it's about Herman Cain, not Clinton, so she brought up Bill Clinton so that we'd focus solely on Cain. I think. Or maybe not. :confused:

txradioguy
11-08-2011, 03:49 PM
Well you described Willy Clinton perfectly, not Cain

"better put some ice that"

txradioguy
11-08-2011, 03:51 PM
Jones was a flake. She got lucky and sold her bimbo status for a bundle of money. Whether anyone believed her or not I don't know.

Obviously a court of law believed her. Her case is what caused Clintons disbarment for 5 years and permanent ban from ever arguing a case before the Supreme Court.



We could talk about Monica Lewinsky, if you like, or maybe Gennifer Flowers if Monica is too painful.......Gee, why didn't you bring up those two?:confused:

How about Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey?

Novaheart
11-08-2011, 03:54 PM
I am not taking a side in this particular imbroglio (I find it all distasteful to begin with and an indication of our Media's debasement of the American political process) but I think we can see why the others did not want their names used. The feeding frenzy is awful.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NqSPS-4a6Y0/TTRyNcE86WI/AAAAAAAAIoA/QilrgpGFscA/s1600/natalie-imbruglia-20081123-473635.jpg

Arroyo_Doble
11-08-2011, 04:04 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NqSPS-4a6Y0/TTRyNcE86WI/AAAAAAAAIoA/QilrgpGFscA/s1600/natalie-imbruglia-20081123-473635.jpg

http://www.nettwerk.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/client_view_306/sites/nettwerk.com/files/client/images/Natalie_Merchant_422483s.jpg

Starbuck
11-08-2011, 04:20 PM
Obviously a court of law believed her. Her case is what caused Clintons disbarment for 5 years and permanent ban from ever arguing a case before the Supreme Court......
(We're talking Paula Jones) I thought she settled out of court, with Clinton not admitting to anything.

txradioguy
11-08-2011, 04:31 PM
(We're talking Paula Jones) I thought she settled out of court, with Clinton not admitting to anything.

The one thing I was incorrect on was that he was disbarred.


On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.[1]

The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

In the end, Independent Counsel Ray said:

"The Independent Counsel’s judgment that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton was confirmed by President Clinton’s admissions and by evidence showing that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

More specifically, the Independent Counsel concluded that President Clinton testified falsely on three counts under oath in Clinton v. Jones. However, Ray chose to decline criminal prosecution in favor of what the Principles of Federal Prosecution call "alternative sanctions". This included being impeached:

"As a consequence of his conduct in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution: (1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Starbuck
11-08-2011, 06:29 PM
....Cain Accusor has had Finacial problems....

Fett has seplling problems:D

djones520
11-08-2011, 06:32 PM
Fett has seplling problems:D

Whats a seplling problem?

Rockntractor
11-08-2011, 06:43 PM
Whats a seplling problem?

Hee saze he shpelz stuf difront.

Adam Wood
11-08-2011, 06:44 PM
Fett has seplling problems:D


Whats a seplling problem?

:lol:

ROFLAMO! Self-pwn3d!