The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In

Sharon Easley / Fraudulent activity

1 United States Review updated:
Contact information:

Anyone in Plano, TX or Collin County can ask any family law attorney practicing law in Collin County what they think of Sharon Easley and the response itself will speak as to the character of this attorney.

Sharon likes to be combative in the court room, likes to create drama and creates and embellishes conflict between the divorcing spouses, children and opposing attorney(s). Sharon's ulterior motive is 'billable hours' and she will drain you and your estate until you can no longer defend yourself. She will let you continue to run up a legal bill and be in debt to her for $20k - $50k and then she will stop representing you, once the legal bill has eaten up the 'future potential assets' like the 401(k) and she will file suit against you to collect the debt. She will also no longer represent you in court until you do pay her or she will use this as a threat or will file a 'debt collection' lawsuit against you.

She is a very unethical and despicable attorney. She is a disgrace to the legal profession and should not have a license to practice law. She likes to stir-up and create conflict with her 'Hitler' style antics and likes to bark orders to the opposing attorney(s). Sharon is out to win and will win at all costs, even if it means committing perjury, conspiring with 'experts' to bring the other side down, making false and accusatory allegations by way of her 'experts' to Child Protective Services, subornation of perjury and filing false documents, which she knows are perjurious, with the court and creating hostility and conflict between the spouses because she orders her client to not speak to the other spouse so she can bill time for handling and controlling the case and communications for her client.

Sharon will not return evidence she subpoenas and will claim she gave the evidence back to your attorney, especially if the evidence incriminates her client.

If you are on the opposing side of this attorney, please be prepared for the following:

(1) To go to court during the initial phase of the divorce process and have Sharon try to get you to have a psychological evaluation.

(2) Be prepared to have Sharon recommend her 'experts' and push heavily for them to perform social and psychological services as they are just as corrupt as Sharon and will produce the 'results and evidence' Sharon needs for her case, even if the evidence is false or perjured testimony.

(3) Sharon will tamper with witnesses to cause them to produce the testimony she wants and needs.

(4) Check your documents extra carefully and read them over and over again as Sharon likes to insert verbiage and conditions into the orders which the court did not order.

(5) If you are winning your case and have an upper hand over Sharon's side and you have children, be prepared for an 'outcry of sexual abuse by the child' to be made if you have children. This strategy is used repeatedly by Sharon to gain control and hopefully 'win' her case. This will play out by Sharon having her client, usually the mother, secretly take the child to one of her 'experts' who will then see the child for 3 or 4 sessions and then make a report to Child Protective Services alleging sexual abuse. Sharon will then file an Ex Parte Restraining Order with the court and right to possession of the children is taken away from the father while CPS investigates the case and the parents go to court for a hearing.

(6) Sharon will lie in court and will take something minor you say and twist the words to create a story favorable to her client.

(7) Sharon will have ex-parte conversations with the judge and will completely disparage the other party with lies and deceit so the judge is already biased without even hearing the evidence and this is also a violation of the Canon of Ethics and State Bar Ethics.

(8) Sharon does not have the best interest of the children in mind when she represents and litigates but rather she uses the children as pawns to win for herself and her client.

I hope I have helped the people of Plano, Frisco and McKinney, TX to become empowered and armed to battle this greedy and unethical attorney. I am about to file a grievance against Sharon Easley with the Texas Bar Association and would also encourage anyone else that has been a victim of her fraud and deceit to do the same.

Ed
Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Mb
      8th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    I know the person who wrote this complaint. He was the husband of a client who got a very good result in court thanks to the Lawyers at Easley & Marquis.

  • Ea
      15th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    MBE, It is obvious you work for Easley & Marquis or are related to Easley. You are trying to defend her unethical practices or Easley has made you post this for her. You claim you know the person who wrote this post. You are obviously biased and have not presented any facts or evidence to support your argument and are only trying to generate some "brand recognition" for Easley and Marquis. Your statement in and of itself speaks volumes about your character, especially when you try to defend someone like Sharon Easley.

  • Ea
      15th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    MBE,

    How do you know the client got a "very good result" in court? Were you a party to the litigation and/or were you present during the hearings and/or trial(s)? There are two sides to every story, especially in a divorce. The spouse who complains, talks and blames the other spouse is usually the liar. It took two to marry and it takes two to divorce so make sure you have your facts and evidence proven before you post in this forum. You make no mention of the opposing side and only mention the Easley & Marquis name so therefore you are obviously biased, ignorant and narrow minded.

  • Sa
      16th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    Point 1 - This is very normal in Texas, to not have one shows there is something wrong and something is being hidden.

    Point 2 - This is normal, did the opposing party have psychological evaluation and going from how your writing goes you choose not to (BIG MISTAKE - espically if a divorce case goes to a 2nd court date), no need to go have a eval now as you already have to put it mildly screwed yopurself over.

    Point 3 - I am sure when your lawyer questioned your now ex he also used the same tactics all lawyers do this.

    Point 4 - Again this is normal, I am sure your now ex did the same, kind of a no brainer here.

    Point 5 - Again this is normal. As you appear not to have had a psychological evaluation YOU opened yourself up to this. Since you are putting up a stink about this there must be something on your part that is questionable.

    Point 6 - Again this is normal, I am sure your lawyer tried to do the same to your now ex.

    Point 7 - If you think your lawyer did not do this you are sadly mistaken. Most lawyers know the judges as this is part of the due process. Common knowledge rember to the TV shows such as Matlock and Law and Order, the talking on a social basis between Lawyer and Judge is not a made for TV only event.

    Point 8 - Layers on both side have the people they are representing best interest in mind. It is up to the individual Parent to have the best interest of the children in mind.

    You seem to have done some legal beagle work and hopefully you never shown this to your now ex or in this case the attorney as you will get nailed to the cross on this in the court of law by the attorney and depending how far you went judges do not look very favorable on this practice. There was a case like this over in Houston. The father was sending emails to the ex in a harrasing matter, harrasing as the emails had nothing about the children only calling of names. This father also told the kids about always having the ex arrested and telling them about the court case (for these he got nailed with 3rd degree child abuse). He ending up getting alot and is now serving time and lost his rights to the kids all because he couldn't handle the original judgement and follow it.

    Good luck as you appear to be on the same path as this person and may the judge get your outcome correct in law, not in your eyes.

  • Pv
      16th of Jun, 2017
    +1 Votes

    @SAM the old man Sharon Easley has represented me several times, not only a divorce, but other business issues. Yes she is a tough litigator. That is what I was paying her to be. I am sure the other side liked her about as much as the person that wrote this comment. As far as fees are concerned, Sharon's fees are very reasonable. A good litigator is going to make enemies. Sharon Easley is an excellent litigator and whenever I am in court, yes I want her at my table vs the opposing table.

  • Fa
      17th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    SAM the old man,

    The purpose of attorneys in family court is to protect the rights and interests of their client. But they must do so in a fair and ethical manner. When two good and ethical attorney's get together, they often will go over the facts, negotiate out a settlement, and then encourage their clients to accept a reasonable compromise. Good attorneys will help their clients get through the divorce quickly and inexpensively so that the families can get on with their lives. On the other hand, the bad and unethical attorneys, like Sharon Easley, will fuel the hostility between the divorcing couple so that they will spend every last dime (and then some) in a battle that never ends until they are bankrupt or in jail.

    I take it that you are an advocate of Sharon Easley's and you have a "personal axe" to grind with Edwin, the original poster. You are obviously not an attorney or legal profession employee. Your writing style, grammer, punctuation, sentence fragments, "legal references" and personal attacks of the original poster prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. The statements you make in your post are indicative of Sharon Easley's mentality so she must have advised you what to write. Your post is clearly a vendeta against Edwin because he spoke the truth and presented facts to the public about a very "unprofessional" licensed professional.
    I work for 5 family law attorneys and they just laughed at how ridiculous your post reads. It is clear you are affiliated with or related to the opposing side of Edwin and have real "personal" problems yourself, as reflected in your writing and sarcasm.

    The attorneys of the firm I work for thought Edwin's post was very well written and is very accurate and reflective of Sharon Easley's character. All five of the attorneys in the firm also know how unethical Sharon Easley is. I can speak from personal experience and say that Easley is not a pleasant person on the phone or to work with and will use the threat of filing a motion if you do not do what she wants. The attorneys, who employee me, have dealt with her in court and divorce proceedings and will no longer deal with her. Is a matter of fact, the attorneys in the firm will no longer take a case where Sharon Easley, Lisa Marquis or anyone from Easley & Marquis is the opposing attorney. Many other good attorneys in Collin County are starting to follow suit.

    Can you cite cases and codes to support your statements and give me the case number for the Houston case you reference in your post?

  • Ca
      17th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    I have to agree with what Sam the Old Man is saying. Obviously, whoever is posting as Edwin, easley is worthless and Familylawsis, needs to get a JOB and stop trying to be an "attorney". The courts will make their decisions based on what is best for the children and someone that doesn't work, can't provide for the kids, makes false accusations against the other parent, and tells the kids every move that goes on in the courts, not to mention sexually abuses their daughter, doesn't deserve to have any contact with their kids and should be in jail!!!

  • Mb
      17th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    You are correct that I know Sharon Easley. I have had experience with her as a lawyer who fights very hard for the best result for children. She is a zealous advocate for her client and for the best interest of children and she is gender neutral in doing this. She has represented many fathers and obtained primary custody of the children on behalf of those fathers, just as she has done for mothers she has represented. She is also a very skilled trial lawyer, who knows the rules of evidence and how to make her points to a jury. The case Edwin complains about is one in which the jury was out only 30 minutes before returning a verdict in favor of Sharon's client, the mother. Edwin appears very angry. The best thing he can do is behave himself and get the help he needs to stop using his energy to complain about Sharon and, instead, use his energy to become a better father and person.

  • Tr
      17th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    http://www.yellowbot.com/user/sharone

    This post was done back in July of 2008, by one of Sharon's clients. Previous posts, especially by MBE, who claims that her/his attorney is wonderful and has the best interest of the child, then her client in mind. I don't think the below post substantiates MBE's claims.


    Don't use Easley and Marquis!!!1”
    Easley & Marquis

    I was charged over $30, 000 for a divorce and there were a long list of things done wrong or incompletely, costing me additional sums with other attorneys. Examples are:

    1. Payment from my ex husband was not detailed as simple of compound interest in the contracts. When I asked Easley about it, she said "well, you'll just have to sue him later".
    2. The payment document was missing critical other elements, such as the length of term, causing me to retain another attorney to fix her errors.
    3. She FORCED collaborative law on me, inferring it would be cheaper, which would not have been the case and even though it was against my wishes because I had an abusive husband and did not wish to sit at tables with him regularly. I had to fight her to execute a non-collaborative law approach.
    4. Easley was patronizing to me on a daily basis. Telling me things like: "that is none of your business" when I was asking about documents in my own divorce. Was belittling to me and my Father, who attended meetings to support me.
    5. Did not supply me with all final documents. I had to pay to receive them from Collin County Courthouse directly.

    BAD ATTORNEYS... don't engage Easley and Marquis!!
    Posted on July 18, 2008

  • Tr
      17th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    http://local.yahoo.com/info-28042481-easley-marquis-attorneys-plano?tab=reviews#reviews


    by nalameyer 04/23/2009
    I hate that firm. My grandson father is in jail right now because of Lisa Marquis. The father decided to let his 4 year old son see his terminally ill great grandmother one last time and when he did Lisa Marquis filed a comtempt of court against him. Judge Rusch gave the father 30 days in jail. Which he is seating out right now. What is wrong with people now days. It's all about money! I would never vote for Judge Rusch. There's something not right with the relationship Judge Rusch has with Easley and Marquis. Stay clear of Easley and Marquis law firm or you could be the next one in jail!!!


    DaveNight - 10/05/07
    This law firm is made up of all women. And they all want your money. I hired them to take care of my case and they did nothing but send me bills after bills. Sharon Easley is on medication and needs to have her license taken. They have a few young attorneys that do nothing but give wrong advice. I would think twice and check them out before hiring them. They will steal you blind.


    planojustice - 08/25/08
    "Buyer Beware" - Sharon Easley is the most unethical attornye in Collin County. Ask any family law attorney in Collin County about Sharon Easley and see what kind of response you receive. She is greedy and only out for the money and likes to create drama and combative ""Hitler" style tactics in the courtroom and loves to "run" to court because court = billable hours. She will drain you and then leave you behind to die ojnce she has spent all your money.


    planojustice - 08/25/08
    waynecandoit - What type of medication is Sharon Easley on and how do you know that? I am only wondering because I have always thought she had something wrong "up there" or had a brain tumor because of the irrational and dramatic behavior she displays in the courtroom and to the opposing attorneys. Shed is the most unethical attorney in Collin County and I would advise anyone who has a grievance with her or is on the opposing side and has to deal with her repeated "Attorney Canon of Ethics" violations, to file a grievance with the Texas Bar Association as Sharon Easley should not have a license to practice law. She is unethical, vindictive, a liar, greedy, unprofessional and will steal all your money and then some so be prepared for a true phony who will act as though she has your best interest in mind when really she is only out to use you to pay for her plush offices and overhead and enrich herself.


    planojustice - 08/25/08
    Read my post on [redacted].com about Sharon Easley and hopefully this post will enrich and empower anyone who is thinking about using this firm or is on the opposing side of this unethical attorney. Here is the link: /URL removed/

    kamimh - 12/10/08
    Planojustice, how can I contact you?

    planojustice - 01/10/09
    kamimh, you can email me at: thegr8toutdoors@hotmail.com


    planojustice - 04/22/09
    Easley is a "serial rapist". She will rape you of your money, if you are her client, and she will rape you of your money and dignity if you are on the opposing side. She preys on vulnerable and ignorant women and hides under the "disguise" of helping them when she is really out to rob them of all their assets and money.

  • Tr
      18th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    TEXAS

    Woman Sues Attorney Who Took Ring As Legal Payment

    Jack Fink, Reporting

    11-2-07 -- (CBS 11 News) McKINNEY A North Texas mother said she had to surrender her wedding ring in the middle of a custody battle for her young son. . . . Lanna Wood claims two days before her trail, her attorney, Sharon Easley, demanded $10, 000. If she did not pay, her firm wouldn't represent her in court. Easley is a former candidate for judge in Collin County. . . . Wood said she told Easley she didn't have the money and that Easley told her to bring something of value, such as a car title or jewelry instead. . . . "When I told her all I had was my wedding ring, she said that was fine, to bring it in, and to have it there by five o'clock that day or the attorney that was representing me wouldn't be allowed to go to the trail, " said Wood. . . . In addition to giving up her ring, Wood said she had already been paying Easley $300 a month. . . . Despite the monthly payments, and the ring as collateral, Easley sued her client for $21, 000 in back payments.Wood countersued Easley. "I was completely devastated, " said Wood. "I could not believe that she would take my wedding ring after we had such an established relationship, and I was faithfully paying my bill, as I agreed to."

    Last week, a Collin County jury ruled Easley improperly kept Wood's ring and owes her $7, 000 for it.

    Wood said she is devastated her wedding ring is gone forever. "I don't have it to pass down to my children or grandchildren, " she said.

    Jurors also found Easley owes Wood another $24, 000 in damages for unconscionable conduct and for knowingly violating the deceptive trade practices act.

    But Easley denies Wood's claim that she demanded her ring as payment. "I think what's really important here is that she's lost her wedding ring, and I'm not happy about that, regardless of how it got to this office, regardless of what happened to it after it got here, " said Easley.

    According to court testimony, an attorney who worked for Easley accepted the ring from Wood. Easley only found out about the ring this year, four years after Wood turned it over to her firm.

    "I personally did not know a ring had been delivered to our office, or anyone in our office, until after we had filed the lawsuit against Ms. Wood, " Easley said.

    Easley said she will ask the judge to modify the jury's verdict.

    There are no disciplinary actions planned against Easley, according to the Texas Bar

  • Tr
      18th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    /URL removed/

    Ruined By Easley
    Plano, Texas
    U.S.A.

    Life savings gone to Easley over minutia
    My ex-wife and I decided to get divorced. It was mutual. We had no arguments about property. It was simple. Then Sharon and Casey got my ex all fired up and now we have spent our life savings fighting over minutia. Even my ex will even say Sharon is nuts. She runs to court and files motions without authorization. Yes she makes the worst possible accusation regarding fathers and daughters with no evidence. Now our daughter's college fund is gone, life insurance cashed in to pay lawyers, life savings gone - all for nothing. She should be avoided at all cost. Women with no self confidence trust her to protect them but in fact she just takes their money. I'm all for fighting vigorously if there is a cause. She just likes to fight and find ways to get rich
    . It's very sad. Actually.. despicable. She is a vulture who preys on women under the guise of protecting them. Shameful...

  • Tr
      19th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    Texas Ethics Commission vs Sharon Easley

    Please check out this website for the entire complaint.

    http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/sworncomp/2006/260252.pdf

    The Texas Ethics Commission (the commission) met on November 28, 2006 to consider sworn complaint SC-260252. A quorum of the commission was present. The commission determined that there is credible evidence of a technical or de minimis violation of sections 253.094 and 253.003(b) of the Election Code, and credible evidence of a violation of sections 254.031, 254.0611, and 254.063 of the Election Code, laws administered and enforced by the commission. To resolve and settle this complaint without further proceedings, the commission proposes this resolution to the respondent.
    II. Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the respondent accepted political contributions from corporations, failed to properly report political contributions, political expenditures, and loans, failed to disclose the principal occupation and job title of contributors and the full name of the employer or law firm of contributors, and failed to timely file semiannual campaign finance reports.
    III. Facts Supported by Credible Evidence
    Credible evidence available to the commission supports the following findings of fact:
    1. The respondent was an unsuccessful candidate for district judge.
    2. The 30-day before the election campaign finance report filed by the respondent on February 6, 2006 discloses contributions from two corporations.
    3. The respondent filed a corrected report in response to this complaint in which she removed those contributions from the report and states that the contributions were sent directly to the campaign treasurer who deposited them into the campaign account.
    4. The respondent swears that she did not become aware that the checks had been written on corporate accounts until she saw a draft of the report.
    5. The respondent was unable to remember the exact date she learned that the contributions were from corporations. She was fairly certain that it was after the end of the reporting period since the report had been drafted for her review, which typically took place on the day before or on the due date of the filing. The end of the reporting period for the 30-day campaign finance report was January 26, 2006, and the report due date was February 6, 2006.
    6. The respondent’s January 2006 semiannual campaign finance report disclosed $14, 000 in unitemized loans without showing detailed information on this or any previous report.
    7. The respondent’s sworn statement explains that she misunderstood the appropriate way to report political expenditures from personal funds.
    8. The respondent filed a corrected report in response to this complaint in which she removed the loan schedule and moved 16 of the political expenditures totaling approximately $14, 600 from Schedule F to Schedule G to indicate that they were paid out of personal funds.
    9. The corrected January 2006 semiannual report discloses four expenditures totaling $2, 800 that were added to Schedule F, and $93 that was added to the total unitemized expenditures. The corrected report now discloses an additional $2, 893 in political expenditures. The total political contributions maintained were increased by $600.
    10. On the January 2006 semiannual report, the respondent omitted the occupation job title, and/or employer information was omitted on 27 of the 29 reported contributions from individuals. This information was disclosed on the corrected report filed in response to this complaint.
    11. The respondent’s sworn statement explains that she misunderstood the reporting requirements for individuals and attorneys who contributed from their personal funds rather than from their business or law firm funds.
    12. The July 2005 semiannual campaign finance report was due on July 15, 2005. The respondent filed the report on July 14, 2005. Upon request of the commission, the respondent filed this report again on August 24, 2005, due to a software issue in which the contributions maintained was not received by the Ethics Commission. This report was not considered a late report, so a late fine was not administratively assessed.
    13. The January 2006 semiannual report was due on January 17, 2006, and the respondent’s report was filed on January 19, 2006.
    14. In the affidavit submitted in response to the commission’s late letter, the respondent explained that on the filing deadline, construction work next door to her office caused the power and telephone service to be cut off and it was not restored until after the filing deadline.
    15. The data in the report was lost with the power outage, and in preparing the report the following day, the respondent was unable, on numerous attempts, to successfully transmit the report to the commission.
    16. According to the affidavit, she was apparently using the wrong program, so she contacted Texas Ethics Commission technical support and eventually succeeded in transmitting the report on January 19, 2006.

  • Sa
      19th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    familylawsis,

    FYI Edwin and planojustice on [redacted] is the same person. I am going to say that from your typing you would be the new lawyer for Edwin/planojustice but going from the writing posible interest of affection. Since your wanting the houston case that also tells anyone reading that Edwin/planojustice tells his children about the case and sends email to the ex spouse that has nothing to do with the children (yes even calling an ex an idiot in an email is harrassment or anything other verb you want to use. Nope I am not a lawyer did I say was? NOPE. For these crime Edwin/planojustice needs to go to jail as that is the LAW.

    I am no advocate of of Easley just some someone I did some research on due to this rather creepy early 40's male that comes to the collin county courthouse to file things. The person is not of sound mind and is purely on a vendictive path.

    Lets see did a little research and can come up with 3 possibly a 4 people with issues over Easley, How many clients in the past 5 years, most lawyers at min have 100 so 500 is a very law number. 4 compliants over 500 is a very minimal percentage.

    Try again Edwin/planojustice. Better get to your legal beagle ways as the judge is going to really like to see how you tell your children about a family law case.

  • Fa
      20th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    SAM the old man,

    You are definately a legend in your own mind and have to make yourself a legend at the expense of someone else. Judge Greg Brewer is resigning from the bench on September 1, 2009. Why don't you try to get his job since you know so much. Good Luck.

  • Sa
      23rd of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    familylawsis,

    Thanks for the compliment in my 53 years I've been known to be able to figure things out. Good to see that I have figured out Edwin/planojustice and what kind of person he is. No thanks on the judge. I am a child advocate and the protection of the children rights. this is the reason why I hang around the courts is to find those individuals that consistanly violate the rights of children. By Edwin/planojustice actions of informing his children of the case he is in violation of their rights, someday this will catch up to him. Going to say you are not lawyer either, your either a significant other of Edwin/planojustice or are Edwin/planojustice just using another username as you type like a male would type (the later would be my first choice).

  • Fa
      24th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    Sam the old man,

    Apparently in your "53 years of experience" you never got an education. You need to work on your grammar skills for one, let alone your lack of common sense. You mention that you are a child advocate. There is no child advocate that is going to hang out at any courthouse watching people unless they have a "problem" themselves. You mention that Edwin/planojustice person is informing his children of the case; First question to that statement is how do you come up with that theory and do you have evidence to prove it? How do you know they are even the same person? Are you a stalker? You also mentioned that someday this will catch up to him. Oh man, you are so correct on this statement. Let me know when your court date is so I can make an appearance and laugh at your ignorant ###.

    You say I type like a male. Did you ever think that maybe my statements come from males, who are attorneys I work for. This is why I quoted them because we deal with "know it all" people like you in our law practice on a daily basis? Sam the old man, the more you write and post, the more you discredit yourself and reduce your credibility. You are getting very close to having "zero credibility".

  • Sa
      27th of Jul, 2009
    -1 Votes

    Family,

    Lets see the first entry by Edwin is the same as one by planojustice on [redacted] /URL removed/ They are the same person.

    Look at your post from 9 days ago. You are wanting info from my houston remark (the 10ys ago post) in that post. It states about the case and by you wanting the info it confirms the suspicion of what he does. Is that a discredit, nope. Is the first entry a discredit, nope.

    I come up with my theory on my own accord. Lets see on my evidence, have none, it is just a haunch. With your question it shows he does.

    If you think that child advocates do not hang out in courtrooms where divorce cases are heard, well you did not perform an internet search. May want to do a search on it and check out our forums, we do hang out in court rooms.

    Like I said you type like a male so my haunch is also correct as you confirmed they are male statements.

    Sorry I am not a know it all. I am able to figure things out using a thing called common sense.

  • Lo
      27th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    Sam The Old Man,

    I 've been sitting here reading these posts between you and familylawsis and I can no longer remain silent. I just can't believe that someone who claims to be hanging out in courtrooms searching out sexual predators would remotely mention that on this board. I have never heard of such a ridiculous statement in all my life. I don't know much about the law because I am no lawyer, however I do have intelligence and common sense and know that your statement is not factual, in fact it is way off basis.

    Your statement about the "Houston Case" you mention this now on two postings. Why don't you just give the supposed " case number" to everyone, so that everyone reading these posts can form their own opinion. I know if I were you and I wanted to sound credible I would give the case number, but then again you are not a credible person, are you? You either put up or shut up.

    As always, thank for your entertaining posts.
    I look forward to the next one.

  • Sa
      28th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    Another person that can not read or should I say another Brad id. Where did I type sexual predators? (other than just now). By the way there are always people in courts on the lookout, ever seen bailiff in court? CPS in court? A Dr. in court? Police in Court? or a Judge in court?

    No Brad you will not get the case number. Use your ways of finding it, can go to a records site and pay 59.95 to get the records.

  • Lo
      28th of Jul, 2009
    0 Votes

    SAM the Old man,

    Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're dumb, perhaps a cranky old fool. I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant. You are just validating my inherent mistrust of strangers. Woot Woot!!

    LOL!! Oh my goodness!!! You must like the sound of your own words. You are such an old fool. Who the heck is Brad?

    I am glad that you are so "convinced" as to who I am because I can tell you that you have no idea who I am. I, on the other hand, have a clue as to who you are. You said that you are not an advocate for Sharon Easley. You are definitely an advocate for someone (definitely not children)? Could it be the opposing side in this divorce matter? Hmmm a family member? Son or daughter?

    You are definitely in cahoots with MBE and CANDO, perhaps the same person, perhaps related. (WOW do I sound like you now?).

    Again, there is no such “Houston Case” thus why you still haven't mentioned the case number or case name. There is no way someone can lookup specific case information just by the nature of the case itself it would be to voluminous. You need to have the plantiff or defendent's name, court name and/or case number. Even more proof that you don't know what you are talking about and are lying. You have proven 100% that you are not a credible person. I could care less what the case entails. I just want to see if you are full of hot air or not. You are full of hot air and thanks for proving that once AGAIN!


    I have attached for your "reference" the meaning of credible so that you can work on it a bit because you definitely lack credibility.

    cred·i·ble

    1. Capable of being believed; plausible. See Synonyms at plausible.

    2. Worthy of confidence; reliable.


    You are actually correct on just ONE of your "meaningless comments”. The comment "there are people in court...", you actually did get that statement correct and that is about the only correct thing you have stated so far. You in NO way represent a person that has the best interest of children in mind and if you are going to be truthful at least admit to this statement. I would bet that you are a verbally, physically and/or emotionally abusive man/woman towards your family, kids and wife/husband, if you have one. I sure as hell would hate to be married to you and could just imagine what that life would be be like since you seem to know everything, must have the last word and are in no way, a child advocate.

    Please do continue with your comments as you are just getting yourself more in a pickle and stumbling over your own words. I think you are actually believing your own lies and you can't distinguish what is or is not the truth anymore because you don't even know what you have lied about anymore because the lies have been "so numerous".

    I forgot to mention…how in the world are you able to tell, just by someones comments, that they are male or female?? WOW!!! I didn't realize that certain comments, that one writes, distinguishes between male or female…hmmm learn something new everyday!!

    You sound like a creepy, grumpy old "man" that has nothing better to do with his time but badger people to make himself appear to be a God of some sort.

    I am sure that I will hear more from you, since you like to have the last word on everything.

    Good Luck!!

Post your comment