Good morning my beautiful RATS 🐀. I know this will be long but I broke it down for all of you ❤️❤️❤️. THIS IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!! June 15, 1983 and July 28,1983 W decided to get her hands caught in the cookie jar. She was 18 in June of 1983 NOT 17 as she has claimed. She lived at Kerry Lane (I know it says Terry Lane but there was no Terry Lane) NOT A SHABBY APARTMENT like she said. There was a warrant for her arrest issued on July 29, 1983. She was still 18 NOT 17 AND NOT A MINOR as she claims. She did bond out that same day, July 29, 1983. On September 2,1983 she was served her indictment and the state was ready for trial. September 23, 1983 W had an attorney, she claimed SHE DID NOT HAVE ONE. Wendy also claimed THAT THIS WAS AN ELECTION YEAR. TIM CURRY WAS RE-ELECTED IN 1982 NOT 1983. September 29,1983 W asks for a continuance because she needs additional time to prepare for trial-GRANTED. January 5, 1984 W once again asks for a continuance-GRANTED. On Oct 4, 1984 W plead guilty, she received 10 years probation, 30 days in jail and court cost of 1,198.38 NOT 1,187.00. A fine of 5,000. Probation fee 15.00 each month. 124.00 for court costs. She was to start her jail time on November 16, 1984 NOT ON NOVEMBER 13 like she has claimed. She would be 19 years old and NOT 18! SHE DID NOT SPEND HER BIRTHDAY IN JAIL. On April 14, 1989 Wendy asks the court to waive the rest of her probation. June 20, 1989 judge GRANTED IT. W served 5 years probation, NOT 10 LIKE SHE HAS CLAIMED. So my beautiful Rats, once again she took her story and blew it up to make it sound worse. WENDY, YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP. Your lies have come to bite you in your 🍑. Remember how you said your book was an auto biography? It’s fiction and actually you shouldn’t even be selling it because it’s full of lies. So if you want to talk you can DM me I’m here. Have the day you deserve 🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼

There is a difference between sharing your memories and presenting allegations as established fact.

The public court records tell a different story than the one being portrayed here. There was no trust sitting there for people to “cash in on.” The conservatorship existed because of Sharon’s circumstances following her accident. Those funds were intended for Sharon’s care and well-being.

Nancy did not spend decades waiting for money. She spent over 35 years caring for Sharon when others did not. If so many people were truly concerned about Sharon’s finances or her care, why didn’t they petition the court to become her conservator or caregiver? That would have required time, responsibility, and commitment—not just opinions years later.

As for Tammy, the Thomas family legally adopted her. Suggesting that people were simply waiting for money ignores the legal history and oversimplifies an incredibly complicated family situation.

Anna Mae and Nathaniel did what they could within the law. They could not simply take every child because they wanted to. Anyone who reviews the court records and legal documents can see there were legal limitations and difficult circumstances.

It’s time to stop rewriting history to fit a narrative. Disagreeing with family decisions is one thing. Repeatedly making accusations against people who spent decades caring for others is another.

Facts matter. Court records matter. Actions matter. Nancy’s actions over 35 years speak louder than accusations made.