Sharon Bailek Doesn’t Pass the Female Smell Test!

I watched the press conference yesterday where Sharon Bialek  describes an encounter with Herman Cain.  What she claims would be considered sexual assault not just sexually inappropriate behavior as stated by her. Bialek claimed she didn’t tell her boyfriend the details of what happenedbecause she was embarrassed.  It was at that moment I knew she was lying.  I said to myself “are you kidding me toots” the first person I would have told was my husband or boyfriend so he could beat the hell out of Herman Cain.  The secondperson I would have told would have been the police.  I defy any woman or man to challenge me on this. When the press conference was over I was so enraged by this woman that I started to do some digging on her.  Here’s what myself and others found:

In 17 years Sharon Bialekhas had 9 jobs,  2 bankruptcies, 7 financial judgments, and a failed paternity suit.  A
search of the Crook (oops, my bad) Cook County civil court records http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/?section=CASEINFOPage&CASEINFOPage=2400 yielded the following results:

Case Number Plaintiff
Defendant Date Filed

 2009-M1-158826 ILLINOS LENDING BIALEK SHARON 07/20/2009

 2007-M1-189176 MIDLAND FUNDING LL BIALEK SHARON L 09/10/2007

 2005-M1-111072 BEATOVIC MARK BIALEK SHARON 02/25/2005

 2000-M1-714398 BROADACRE MGT BIALEK SHARON 05/31/2000

 2000-M1-707461 BROADACRE MGT BIALEK SHARON 03/20/2000

 2000-M1-701522 BROADACRE MANAGEME BIALEK SHARON 01/18/2000

 1994-M1-717733 ADRIANOS BILL BIALEK JOHN 06/17/1994

A search of the Cook County Domestic Relations Division yielded the following paternity lawsuit filed by Sharon Bialek in 1999 which
she lost:

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=BJJJDAIACHD0DR

What happened to the doctor boyfriend from 1997?  A search for West Naze shows he’s not a doctor.

 The following excerpt from the Boston Herald describes her bankruptcies: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20111108mixed_portrait_emerges_of_herman_cain_accuser/
: “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.”

Given all this information it appears Sharon Bialek is looking for a big payday. She probably said to herself, hey I know this guy so I’m going to jump on the bandwagon with my he said, she said accusation  and see  I can make some money.  Despite all the facts I get back to my initial premise that this doesn’t pass the smell test.  Why? She didn’t tell the boyfriend the alleged details of her encounter with Herman Cain.  Why? Because it didn’t happen.

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “Sharon Bailek Doesn’t Pass the Female Smell Test!

  1. Andrea

    I think Sharon and her boyfriend were trying to set up Cain. When she couldn’t get him back to her room, her plan failed.

  2. Okay, a little physics and anatomy lesson here, kids. Sitting in a car, even if it’s a bench seat (and I don’t think too many luxury cars made after 1990 had bench seats), he has one hand on her thigh, under her skirt, and the other hand grabs her head and moves it towards his crotch.

    Try this at home with a loved one, and see how well it works. Assuming Cain was in the driver’s seat, if he had his right hand on her thigh, his left hand would be going for her head. Impossible to do, if there is a console in between the two seats; his right arm would be blocking her body from moving forward enough to get anywhere near his crotch.

    Second possibility, left hand on her thigh, right hand on her head. Again, the console, not to mention his torso would be twisted to such an extent that she would be unable to get anywhere near his crotch.

    And need I mention that all this is supposedly being done with a big honkin’ steering wheel in Cain’s lap? And don’t forget, the guy was FIFTY when this allegedly took place. How many 50 yr old men do YOU know that can contort like that?

    Sorry, blondie. This myth is busted.

  3. You and I are not the only ones trying to investigate this fraud. Many of this info was found by others on the freerepublic thread that happened after the news conference. If you need that thread (over 900 posts) I’d be more than happy to share 🙂
    Strange item #1: “It was also pointed out that she’s been a stay at home single mom for the past two years. What’s she living on?” Indeed.
    #2. Alread made it a point to say Bailek was a TP member & registered republican. In the state of Illinois, you do not register your party affiliation. You ask for a particular ballot on voting day.
    #3. She has MANY aliases, several discovered are:
    Sharon M Hartley
    Sharon Lee Bialek
    Sharon Biatek
    Sharon Lee Blalek
    #4. Her internet “trail” has been obviously scrubbed. I can google myself & find more info than I found on her. Luckily, not everything can be erased.
    #5. Her current BF, a Mr. Mark Harwood (in medical equipment from one bio), from the UK-is “friends” on FB with Naze West, the gentleman she filed a paternity suit against and had a lengthy court battle with. I understand an amicable relationship, but my ex isn’t friends with my current hubby-that’s just weird. There is a great deal of info on the net about Mr. West-who happens to be a big wig.
    #6. Under the name Hartley & filed for divorce in 1996 & she sued a cab company for damages in 1997. (pretty sure this is the same lady, per her list of aliases & where it was filed).
    #7. She filed paternity suit against Naze West 10/99. Naze West filed counter suit against her 11/99. From what I can tell, he suit was merged or dropped due to this one. This suit was ongoing until last activity in 2009.
    #8. This woman lost her job with the NRA-then her bf (then) suggests she go see the president of the company to get her job back or get another one? If you feel you are wrongly terminated, there are avenues for that. But she didn’t persue it like a normal person would. Wasting valuable $, which she always seems to be without, to get a hotel & try to land a new job? A quick call to HR would have solved that.
    #9. This “happens” and you ask for a ride back to your hotel?
    I am certain there is more…will do more digging during the day, along with other Cainiacs!

  4. Nothing about the story passes any smell test, female OR male. From the beginning, why would she fly to DC to meet with Cain when she merely wanted to discuss her career options going forward after being let go? Why not just have the damned conversation on the phone already? She has her boyfriend pay for a flight and a hotel room so she can have a conversation? Sounds like a) she’s lying about the whole thing or b) she and this creep she was dating were opportunists looking for a payday even back then.

    Not only is it bizarre that she never divulged the details of her assault (and what she describes is an assault, not harassment) to her boyfriend, it’s even more bizarre that she told no close female friends or relatives. Why does this woman only have male friends and, ah, “mentors”? Why is she a single mother? Why all the paternity suits? Sounds like a classic low-rent gold-digger to me. She’s the sort who had no use for women and plenty of use for men.

  5. Enoughofthisnonsense

    I think the woman is a gold digger out to get a payout from the Cain campaign. He retelling of the terrible experience was not remotely believable. Had that happened to you, would you have to read it from notes? Not hardly.

  6. I was in the military for years and took a lot of “sexual harassment” in my day — there was only one event that I DID NOT turn in to my superiors! And as a civilian, if a man put his hands on my — I would break every frickin bone in his hand and then call the police, contact a lawyer, and file a lawsuit. If she were a FORMER NRA employer, why didn’t she file a complaint with NRA (she knew the rules and processes)? But she didn’t. She didn’t call the police. She told no one. Now, if you sign a settlement or walk away from a “sexual” encounter years aga — statute of limitation has expired. She had her chance and said nothing. She lost her right to go public. The establishment partys are out to desroy Mr. Cain one accusation at a time. I’m not saying he is 100% perfect or innocent, we all come with baggage…but this is a modern day lynching if I’ve ever seen one. When the “unnamed” women would not come forward, they had to find a face to hit the issue home. Otherwise the lynching proved ineffective for them. I blame both partys who do not want a conservative in the WH. They are no friend to the Tea Party people. You know she just had to mention that she was a Tea Partier right?????? I pray to God that each of the individuals, who conspired to concock this story are punished for destroying a good Christian man.

  7. Jim

    This is similar to the Anita Hill accusation of Clarence Thomas’s alleged sexual harassment. The Democrats were calling around to Mr Thomas former contacts, asking them if there was anything in their past that might seen as sexual harassment. When she was asked, and hesitated, they jumped on the her story. If I remember right, she had never come forward after the initial event until political hacks contacted her years later. You can believe that political hacks were again trying to dig up dirt, this time on Herman Cain. I’m more angry at the liberals doing this dirty deed than the woman.

  8. We the people see through the lies, deception and evil being manufactured for one purpose and that is to defeat a true conservative. Their efforts have failed. Mr Cain’s donations are flying through the roof. Thanks for all the free publicity that exposes the corrupt evil lurking in the media, the Democrats and the Rhino’s. They are in cahoots.

  9. Barbara Murray

    I said EXACTLY the same thing when I heard her statement. I was really bummed and thought Cain might be guilty UNTIL she made the statement that she did NOT tell her boyfriend EXACTLY what Cain supposedly did to her in that car (at the time). The boyfriends affidavit said he didn’t press her to tell him the details of the assault. Yeah, right!!! It’s because there were’t any details!

  10. The laterst accusser was so TRAUMATIZED that she stood next to Mr. Cain a month ago for a picture at a Tea Party rally! As a woman, I tell you one clear fact — if a man sexually harrassed/molested me, I would not be anywhere near him, at a rally where he was a featured speaker, much less stand in line to get a photograph with him. Fired ex-NRA employee, hasn’t had a steady job in years, tons of lawsuits, tax problems, but can afford a high dollar lawyer, have a nice suit for the press conference???? Couldn’t they find an “accuser” that could have had less baggage? This just doesn’t add up in my book! I cast blame on both political partys for fueling this fire, attempting to destroy this man’s character. The American voter base should be outraged over the treatment this man is receiving! Look on Tea Party Hobbits F/B page for photo. This just doesn’t add up in mu boo,

  11. RichFromShowMe

    She’s an aging, diva, gold-digger who’s accumulated a lifetime record she and the Left Leaning lsm/msm, Democratic Party . . . . and possibly the Republican Party, cannot white-wash.

  12. With Herman Cain allegations, what we saw is as follows:

    1) For one full week, we are told about 3 anonymous women, making unspecified/unknown allegation using vague and subjective terms like ‘inappropriate’ comments/gesture. Given that a payoff was acknowledged by both NRA and Cain (albeit without admission of guilt), it gives a reason to have a serious look at what actually happened. Sexual harassment can range from subjective misunderstanding to something very serious. Cain has given his side of the story, that he is made aware of only one case, which he claims as trivial/false and gave an example of what sort of thing caused the case (leaving aside the avoidable distinction between settlement vs severance payoff/agreement, which in any case he himself agreed the payoff related to the case). Only legitimate question to ask is what the women actually reported as actually happened then. Given that there was a report filed in 1990s itself, the report has some credence and at least the political motive can be eliminated. But instead of demanding to know what was reported, some commentators in media went on a rampage accusing Cain and pronouncing him guilty (begging the question). It is therefore clear that it is not about finding truth, but political. We now know the name of one of the accused (Karen Kraushaar), but we are still not told what exactly she complained that Cain did. What can be more unfair than to pronounce someone guilty of sexual offences, without even telling what the person did? We are now told that Karen Kraushaar filed a complaint again in her next job, “demanded a settlement of thousands of dollars, a promotion on the federal pay scale, reinstated leave time and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government”, then backed off and now calls it “relatively minor” (http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/11/cain-accuser-made-a-habit-of-seeking-pay-off). The other two women, we are yet to be told who they are, or what they claimed/reported that Cain did. So, we know next to nothing to come to any conclusion with regard to claims of these three women or what Cain is alleged to have done to them. As for Cain, his story is easily falsifiable, if it is untrue. All that one has to do is to reveal the seriousness of what the woman reported or show that he is indeed aware/signed etc more than one case. No one has done that.

    2) The week following, a woman by name Sharon Bialek came and narrated a specific incident (that allegedly happened 15 years ago), she claimed that she faced (that when she met Cain for a job, he touched her legs and pushed her head to his couch). She did not report the incident when it happened. So, that adds another possible motive (instead of truth telling), which is to politically hurt a front-runner. Before the incident, she was apparently fired from NRA for false case of sexual harassment (http://patdollard.com/2011/11/bialek-deconstructed-accustations-quickly-erode-under-scrutiny/). One would expect a job seeker to go and meet the CEO, but in this story, we are told the CEO upgraded her hotel room and comes down to meet her at hotel. Why is the CEO even told which hotel, which room she is staying? Also when Bialek checked-in, she said she was surprised at the upgrade, but did not insist to know how it happened and who did it? She finds out only after the CEO tell her that he did it? The CEO then takes her to restaurant, then asks her what she came for! She tells that she is looking for a job, and the CEO says he will try. Then takes her to an NRA office, and the alleged incident incident is said to have happened. When the story was narrated, it had too many smiles, dramatization, rhetoric etc. Once again, we have a story what was unreported when it happened, narrated with too many holes, too many questions and legal battles by the accuser (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-herman-cain-accuser-1108-20111108,0,4035523.story). There may be some reason why the unusual story unfolded the way it is, but we are not told, and media is not asking. Here, Cain has rejected the story ever happened. If she is indeed so close to Cain, that as CEO, he comes down to meet her at hotel, upgrades her room, takes her around to restaurant etc (and she thinks it is all normal), that must be a close relationship which many people at NRA would know? If so, the media should be able to find out? There is one reported photo of Cain and Bialek with others, but that looks like a photo any public figure routinely gets photographed near meetings etc, with new people who want to meet and be photographed. Once again, there are too many holes to give this unreported story any credibility. Yet, instead of asking the right questions and doing investigation, some commentators are accusing Cain and pronouncing him guilty. Once again shows a political motive, than truth-seeking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s