Used and Abused by Bernadette Noe in her never ending quest for attention

Hey there, I was surprised to see yet another blog entry on the now infamous ex politico wife of Tom Noe, "St. Bernadette", haha, as recently as last July. Just curious how many of you out there have had the experience of having worked for or befriending this woman? How many lasted until the end of their usefulness to this mistress of narcissistic users and been outed by B. Noe. I mean those of you other than her ex?

Yes, as all of you good citizens of Toledo go to work each day, raise your families, go to church and vote your concious, this lady is living in Paradise, hanging out by her oceanside pool in her hammock with her boy toy, Daniel Gignac. Yep, this poor mother of three who stood by her man, is bedding an ex con in the same home she shares with her eighteen year old daughter. Oh, did I mention that her latest houseguest is an ex-con, half brother to an even more infamous conartist and comes complete with a track record that boasts sexual assault and fraud among other things?

Would it surprise you to learn that the pitiful, downtrodden much abused ex wife of Tom Noe chugs grand marnier straight from the bottle and hides vodka in her bedside fridge? That she claims that Tom once got her so drunk and then forced her to participate in a three way so he could watch? But of course she couldn't remember anything that happened the next day so he had to tell her all about it?

At least that's how she explained it to me. This from someone who makes a show of getting down on her knees in church choir and truly thinks she still has that long shot at sainthood. Trouble is, she stills likes to chug her liquor and flash passing boaters a not too attractive sight when she's tripping on one of her paranoias about the ex con who would be prince to her royal blue ajab! But that's a story all by itself!

Are you paying attention, rich friends of Tom Noe, this lady's been under tutelage to a very smart con-artist who she visits regularly at FCI Marianna. She's been pumping you guys for money for awhile now. It's all a bluff, so you can give it up, she's not a bad off as she wants you to believe and she certainly isn't a victim to anything Tom Noe did or could even dream up, she's the conductor.

Having seen this woman for what she really is, a cold hearted, manipulating, oh, culpa mia whiner who craves attention and is deathly afraid of the anonymity she finds herself stuck with, I just wondered how many others of you out there have had the pleasure?

Please feel free to respond, anytime.

Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (9 votes)

who cares

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Sure the talk radio station would want to forget this period. I remember the radio interview with the dynamic duo. Boy was the station on the wrong side of that story. Thank God for the daily in sorting out the truth.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

or you wouldn't have bothered commenting.

I always assumed that Bernadette was just as crooked (or worse) than her husband - she was just lucky enough not to get caught.

Somewhere along the way, it will all catch up with her. Probably via the con artists she has taken up with.

I went to college with one of the Gignac brothers. Didn't really know him personally, but it wasn't too hard to figure out that he was a slimeball.

Who in their right mind doesn't enjoy a good B Noe story?! Please give us all of the sordid details. Don't leave anything out!

this post proves that this user is an idiot. Remember you are not protected from legal liability just because you can create an anonymous account with an anonymous email especially presenting falsehoods as fact. You do have an IP address and it has been saved. We will say a prayer for you.

Wow Chris, with all the crap that gets said on here (Swampbubbles) and this is the person you choose to threaten? Worse get's said about Marcy or Ben about every day. I'm sure Noe is glad you have her back.

Perhaps Chris is implying that Noe may be more likely to strike back? Whereas perhaps Marcy or Ben would just let the anonymous ramblings roll off their backs?

I don't think Chris was saying that HE would take action against this poster - just that he has the person's IP address, in the event it is requested of him.

Prove it. There is a line and this poster crossed it.

For you to not see the line was crossed is probably as disturbing as what this poster said. I will say a prayer for you too.

BTW what is a threat in those three sentences? Advising a user they crossed the line and that their information was saved is what I do every time something like this happens that I am made aware of. But for you Sensor it is so easy to just say things without any facts because what you say sounds worse.

We will wait for your proof in the meantime.

The tone of this letter sounds awfully familiar. My bet is something is getting hot for someone and they are grasping last straws. I think you will hear some announcement locally about something soon?

Chris, it was a totally veiled threat. You are basically saying “they/we know who you are” and we’ll pray for you because “they’re coming to get you”. With all the equally liable stuff said here every day I find it interesting that you chose to remind this person that they aren’t truly anonymous.

I don’t defend the poster, but it’s just more run of the mill BS that SB has become notable as of late for. My post is about your response, not his post.

can make anyone turn over the info-note the google link. Please read since you have not done so. My privacy policy prevents me from giving it to anyone else. I even mentioned 1.5 weeks ago at the SMB this is what I do when posters cross the line. Inform and backup info.

Now we are still waiting on your proof that this occurs to Marcy and Ben and how my reaction is different this time from other cases of going over the line.

I of course won't wait for something that can't be produced but your failure to provide specifics again says a lot.

with your comments, more questions are raised than answers given.

If you feel certain lines were crossed here that are different from postings/comments about other individuals, tell us specifically what those lines are and how this case is so different. Spell it out.

I'm halfway surprised you don't accuse that 'well-known Democratic operative from Calif'.--Pinkslip--of posting the topic at hand under a different screenname.

Futher down on this thread MikeyA, perhaps in jest (but perhaps not, how do we really know?) says he thinks its Stainbrook who posted this. Maybe that's potentially slanderous as well, if proven to be untrue.

I'm sure you'll explore that possibilty with the same zeal as the original post on this thread.

SMB presentation from 1.5 weeks ago. If you won't do your part and exercise some personal responsibility, don't expect daddy to sit you on the knee and tell you what is acceptable or not. If you cannot see what is potentially a problem above, then that is not my problem. Any normal person can where they went over the line which is my warning to the user. This user also knows it because they refused to put their name on it. BTW speculating someone spilled the milk is different from those who spill it. You should educate yourself on what is acceptable and what is not.

You're asked to point out specifics and you reply with a ridiculous lecture, then laughingly maintain 'the user knows it, because they refused to put their name on it.'

Of all the members of SB, how many actually use their own name? None of those members' contributions carry any weight, because their 'actual names' are not on the comments? Is this what you mean? I've seen this herky-jerky dance from you before and its now as side-splitting as ever.

Why don't you set a new policy where unless contributors use their actual names their posts/comments will be stricken from the record? Or they can only become members if actual, verifiable names are used when signing on?

Go ahead, try that policy out, and then we'll know you walk the walk instead of whatever you're doing now.

McCaskey the Stain comment was followed by LOL. The laughing is to show it in jest.

Plus as I've stated multiple times slander requires both malice and the fact that it is a lie. Now my comment on Stain is a lie but the laughing shows that malice was not involved.

Likewise public figures fall under a realm of satire. Meaning even if I showed malice toward stain then it still doesn't matter because he chose to be a public figure and thus presents himself for the public's scrutiny and ire.

Now it may be debated about Bernadette's status as a "public figure" but in this instance it's clearly a personal aquaintance discussing private conversations. Because the poster posted it without any link to or relevance to a story or anything recent to bring Bernadette into the public eye it takes away from the public figure argument. An argument could be made for the "where are they now" argument but I don't think that would cut the legal mustard because of both the tone and content of the post.

The poster's anonymity is generally respected but that is lost in this case because the poster's few posts. That again speaks to malice and the poster's intent. If this were a regular poster making a regular post it's one thing. If it's say Gar-reee coming in under a new screenname just to attack Brian-in-Vero-FL that's another.


I suspected your reference to Stainbrook was in jest, but if at the end of the lengthy post about Bernadette Noe (and there's zero doubt she's a public figure) if the poster had typed 'LOL' would that have negated everything that preceeded it? It's not that simple now, is it?

'The poster's anonymity is generally respected but that is lost in this case because the poster's few posts'

Pinkslip, to use but a single example, has posted/commented...what....five hundred...a thousand? times and the webmaster here has continued to doubt his/her authenticity or at least call into question the value of those posts/comments because a 'real name' was not used. There are plenty others, what about mine? Yours?

As I've said, perhaps the guidelines should be officially changed and then and perhaps only then will Chris be content, and more, importantly (I suspect) to him, in complete control.

I wouldn't say zero doubt about public figure. What is she done recently? If we were discussing her as it pertains to her husbands inprisonment I would agree but this post is doubtful. I would suspect a judge would favor her in this instance.

As for the numbers of posts. This poster has come one under a monkier and made one post. Nothing since. This suggests a devious nature. Again pushing it more towards slander.

I'm just saying the poster put themselves into a legal gray area and I wouldn't be so comfortable if I were them.

I'd be very interested in knowing if the IP in question matched a current SB poster. That would be where the plot thickens.


you for a friend. And this is of interest to who?

Ok there are multiple points here.

First off, I wish Jon Stainbrook would stop posting anonymously. LOL

Secondly I only came on here because I was shocked there were 11 comments. Seriously why does anybody care about her anymore.

Thirdly, this does brush very closely to slander so chris is right to save the IP. Yes some things are said that may be worse but they are done in the public interest. This was done simply out of malice. There is a difference.


I have to give Chris credit to allow Free Speech whether from the right or left. This post is a definite attack on a private person and does warrant Chris's warning to the poster.

I think this serves all posters well when reminded of where the line is possibly crossed.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.